D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Garthanos]

But the names are not the only differences. The classes have generally been restored to their former places. No longer constrained by formal role, full-casters are more versatile than ever, especially the traditionally Tier-1 classes, now with at-will attack cantrips & neo-Vancian casting, and the few sub-classes that are all that's left of traditionally-non-casting classes. In 4e, the PH had 8 classes, half of them were Martial. In 5e, the PH has 12 classes, none of which are strictly martial, and 80 sub-classes, 5 of which are.

Things are presented differently. Its 10x harder without magic remember.... or something to that effect

 

[Tony Vargas]

Things are presented differently. Its 10x harder without magic remember.... or something to that effect

That's just a bit of honesty.

 

[Garthanos]

That's just a bit of honesty.

Is that what we have decided to call it. (I still vote revenge of the nerds edition)

 

[Hussar]

I know you've pointed out many time just how much of 4e actually did make it into 5e, and you're not wrong. Many of the things complained about most prominently and bitterly in the edition war are still in 5e, whether you look at the nature of the mechanics or the concept or the interrelation of the two dubiously called 'dissociative mechanics,' things like second wind, BM maneuvers, PDK healing, HD, overnight healing, and hp narration all are very much like the corresponding things in 4e, and to no meaningful objection.

But the names are not the only differences. The classes have generally been restored to their former places. No longer constrained by formal role, full-casters are more versatile than ever, especially the traditionally Tier-1 classes, now with at-will attack cantrips & neo-Vancian casting, and the few sub-classes that are all that's left of traditionally-non-casting classes. In 4e, the PH had 8 classes, half of them were Martial. In 5e, the PH has 12 classes, none of which are strictly martial, and 80 sub-classes, 5 of which are.

But, again, @Tony Vargas, you're ignoring a lot when you talk about versatility. The fact that those classes have spell lists that are VASTLY truncated from 3e, for one. Sure, you're not limited by the old "what did I memorize today" schtick, but, you are limited by the fact that your class has the shortest spell list since 1e. Even after 5 years, the classes still have very short spell lists.

And, frankly, the versatility argument goes out the window as soon as you include 3e. 3e granted scroll making and wand making at very early levels to casters, meaning that limits to versatility were next to non existent.

Granted, I do agree with you that 5e went too far granting casting to too many classes.

 

[Garthanos]

And, frankly, the versatility argument goes out the window as soon as you include 3e. 3e granted scroll making and wand making at very early levels to casters, meaning that limits to versatility were next to non existent.

Reminds me of free rituals...

 

[Ratskinner]

The idea of a class that is about being....what? Badass? Inspiring? Is too limiting. I spoke some times of the equivalent of that class I have for my games: its called the Companion. Its not the Ulysses, the Jon Snow, the <snippage...>

Y'know, its funny sometimes. I've had the same idea when I think about recasting D&D out of its dungeon-crawling and into a more story-oriented scheme. Some of my Old-School group like the idea. In fact, we've even played with the idea that you could have a game based on two classes: the Hero and the Companion. The hero would get more abilities and traits, but companions would be allowed to exceed the limits more. (think Chewbacca /Ookla the Mok, Dumbledore). Another idea I often think about is classes based on the Five Man Band trope or its relations (¡Three Amigos!, Power Trio, and Cast Calculus. ).

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I'm not a fan of the name warlord, but most of the suggested replacement names are worse.

I actually think that the warlord class in concept (and name) makes a lot of sense for a world like Birthright, based around politicking and larger scale battles. But the warlord name barely applies though for smaller scale fights in normal D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is that what we have decided to call it.

Well, I'll call it that. 3e and the classic games all made pretensions to the classes being equally important in some way - whether it was strictly lip-service, like 3e calling the fighter the 'natural party leader,' or heavy-handed like weapon & armor prescriptions or niche protection. 5e lays it out helpfully on page 8. It's all about magic.

And, frankly, the versatility argument goes out the window as soon as you include 3e.

Not really, but not relevant.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Vanguard could be an appropriate name. Not attached to the past nor to the modern use of term. No need for an exotic name. It evokes the idea of being leading the assault, but not leading the group.

That ain’t bad.

I want the class to be broader than the Warlord, and while Vanguard is generally a fighting thing, it is often used in other contexts.

It has the feeling more of a subclass, in some ways, but whatever, that’s fine.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If Warlord is a base class, then one would expect one of it's subclasses to be more of a front-line fighter. That could be your Vanguard.