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

[Urriak Uruk]

But, for archetypes of warlord:

1. Cutter from Cook's Black Company series. Absolutely freaking perfect warlord and actually fits rather well as a lazy lord archetype as well.
2. Multiple characters from the Malazan Fallen series, particularly many of the marine characters.
3. Sam Vimes from Pratchett's Guards Guards series. Again, excellent example of a warlord in action.
4. Miles Vorkosigan from Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series. Another very excellent example of a lazy lord archetype.

I haven't read any of these series (though Guards I need to), but I'll believe you. I know enough about Guards to understand that the Same Vimes example is a good one.

 

[cbwjm]

Considering how dirty a fighter Sam Vimes is, I'd probably consider him a rogue.

 

[Hussar]

Criminal background perhaps in 5e terms.

But, a better question is, is it impossible that warlord could express Sam Vimes?

Because that’s what it comes down to. Virtually any character can be expressed in a number of ways. None of them are “right”. They are simply means to expressing a character.

Is Conan a barbarian or a fighter/thief? Well both methods have good and bad points.

You will never, ever get a 1:1 representation of a character in fiction to a class in DnD outside of actual DnD fiction and even then likely not.

 

[Prakriti]

1. Cutter from Cook's Black Company series. Absolutely freaking perfect warlord and actually fits rather well as a lazy lord archetype as well.
2. Multiple characters from the Malazan Fallen series, particularly many of the marine characters.
3. Sam Vimes from Pratchett's Guards Guards series. Again, excellent example of a warlord in action.
4. Miles Vorkosigan from Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series. Another very excellent example of a lazy lord archetype.

I've read 1, 3, and 4, and... I don't know if I agree with this.

I know one thing for certain, though: "warlord" is absolutely the wrong name for whatever this archetype is supposed to be. "Warlord" makes me think of Genghis Khan (and as far as I'm concerned, he and his ilk aren't separate archetypes: they're just charismatic Fighters or Barbarians). You would never describe Vimes as a "warlord," or Miles for that matter (unless you were talking about Admiral Naismith, who doesn't really exist). No, if you're going to create an archetype around these characters, then you need a much better name than "warlord," which doesn't accurately describe them at all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've read 1, 3, and 4, and... I don't know if I agree with this.

I know one thing for certain, though: "warlord" is absolutely the wrong name for whatever this archetype is supposed to be. "Warlord" makes me think of Genghis Khan (and as far as I'm concerned, he and his ilk aren't separate archetypes: they're just charismatic Fighters or Barbarians). You would never describe Vimes as a "warlord," or Miles for that matter (unless you were talking about Admiral Naismith, who doesn't really exist). No, if you're going to create an archetype around these characters, then you need a much better name than "warlord," which doesn't accurately describe them at all.

Psst...

They’re all “captains”.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I've read 1, 3, and 4, and... I don't know if I agree with this.

I know one thing for certain, though: "warlord" is absolutely the wrong name for whatever this archetype is supposed to be. "Warlord" makes me think of Genghis Khan (and as far as I'm concerned, he and his ilk aren't separate archetypes: they're just charismatic Fighters or Barbarians). You would never describe Vimes as a "warlord," or Miles for that matter (unless you were talking about Admiral Naismith, who doesn't really exist). No, if you're going to create an archetype around these characters, then you need a much better name than "warlord," which doesn't accurately describe them at all.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[Eubani]

I have said it before and I will say it again, the name is the last refuge. Call it Goldilocks for all I care just make it and put it in a damn book.

 

[Hussar]

I've read 1, 3, and 4, and... I don't know if I agree with this.

I know one thing for certain, though: "warlord" is absolutely the wrong name for whatever this archetype is supposed to be. "Warlord" makes me think of Genghis Khan (and as far as I'm concerned, he and his ilk aren't separate archetypes: they're just charismatic Fighters or Barbarians). You would never describe Vimes as a "warlord," or Miles for that matter (unless you were talking about Admiral Naismith, who doesn't really exist). No, if you're going to create an archetype around these characters, then you need a much better name than "warlord," which doesn't accurately describe them at all.

Yeah, as others have said, that's about the thinnest argument to make. I mean, you'd never describe Robin Hood as a Ranger - what, he's a special forces member of the US Army? You'd never describe King Arthur or any of the knights of the round table as Paladins, but, guess what, that's what D&D calls them.

Never minding you'd never call anything a bloody cleric.

@Sacrosanct - THIS is what others were railing against earlier. No matter what is put forward. No matter what the evidence is. No matter what the argument is, the goal posts just keep shifting further and further down the line until "oh, we're being perfectly reasonable, it's the other side that can't be reasoned with." It's incredibly frustrating.

And around and around and around the circle goes. .

 

[Eubani]

For those who think Warlord does not fit 5e mechanics Robert Scwalb did a Warlord for 5e that covers all that should go into a Warlord (no Lazylord for those clutching at those pearls) and it works fine, is well balanced and uses 5e mechanics. So it can be made and it can work, it's mainly the issue that since the playtesting that as soon as a Grognard cried about something new or that it was too 4e the designers folded like wet cardboard. Due to this we are now at a point 5 years with near static development and next to no system experimentation. The Psion and the Warlord would be great platforms to test the boundries of what the 5e system can do.

 

[Prakriti]

Yeah, as others have said, that's about the thinnest argument to make.

But not the only argument. In any case, my main objection is to the idea that Sam Vimes, Miles Vorkosigan, and Kendo Cutter represent a single archetype or that they can be reduced to a common set of skills, abilities, or attributes that translate into tabletop mechanics. To my mind, they can't be. They don't have any signature abilities in the way that a rogue, wizard, or fighter does. They don't "do" anything that can't be expressed through roleplay and maybe a decent charisma score. The one thing they have in common -- being leaders -- is purely circumstantial. Put any D&D class in charge of troops, and they are all "warlords" as much as any of those literary examples.

I mean, you'd never describe Robin Hood as a Ranger - what, he's a special forces member of the US Army? You'd never describe King Arthur or any of the knights of the round table as Paladins, but, guess what, that's what D&D calls them.

And 5E calls the warlord a "Banneret" or "Purple Dragon Knight." Like it or not, the warlord is already part of 5E, and WotC probably isn't going to release a revised version any time soon (if they do, it'll probably come after the Revised Ranger, which they've apparently given up on).