Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7876603" data-attributes="member: 996">That'd be a 4e Inspiring Warlord, in narrow terms, sure. A 5e Warlord would have to be more than just that, yes.5e classes are more focused on underlying concepts, and less on balance or consistent contributions than in 4e.  So they tend to be narrower in some ways, and broader in others.The 5e class design paradigm seems to be very open to cross-pollenating classes by sub-class - I suppose since Multi-Classing is optional, it covers some obvious concepts that might otherwise require it. But, the fact it's readily plausible, in 5e design, to have a sub-class of Fighter that's a little bit Wizard (Eldritch Knight) in no way implies you've covered the Wizard class.  Little-bit-wizard sub-classes have kinda made the rounds.  There's Arcana Clerics, Lore Bards, Eldritch Knights, and Arcane Tricksters - and I may have missed some.  So, could you have warlord-ish sub-classes of other classes?  Sure, you could also have Warlord sub-classes that dipped into another class's schtick.  5e's ...profligate... that way.In 4e, classes were defined by Source (Martial, Arcane, Divine, etc) and focused by Role.  The Warlord was a support class - in prior editions often called a 'healer,' and rather derided as reactive & boring, in a vain attempt to rehabilitate support contributions, 4e called the role 'Leader,' and, even though it immediately made it clear that did not mean 'party leader' and 'boss other players around' there's a tremendous amount of hand-wringing about that possibility.  In 5e, support-contribution classes include the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and, now, Artificer.  The Bard, Cleric and Druid can also easily make contributions that would have made them very capable Controllers in 4e.  The Druid and Paladin can also make the kinds of contributions a 4e 'Defender' would have.  The 5e Paladin can also make with the DPR in the way 4e Striker would have - specific spells can let the others rival that, as well, at times.5e tends to pile a lot on top of support contributions, perhaps because they're not greatly valued.  At the same time, the actions and resources you need to contribute support often take away from other alternatives in 5e, while in 4e, potent Support would be bundled with lesser control or dpr or durability.  So support classes in 5e tend to do other things, and do them pretty well, even to be able to focus on said other things nearly to the exclusion of support (the Paladin, for instance, is pretty nearly alone in having a healing resource 'siloed' from his spell slots).Categorically, Robin Hood was not a standard-issue D&D Ranger.  He didn't go around casting spells.  He was far too skillful to be a Fighter, far to capable in combat (he had been a crusader) to be a traditional Rogue.  In classic, TSR era eds, he'd've been some illegal multi-classes human. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Saying an example of a Warlord is 'also a fighter' is like saying an example of a Bard, Artificer, Sorcerer, or Warlock is 'also a Wizard' because he casts arcane spells.  Warlords were a martial class, just as many (OK, technically, all) classes in 5e cast spells like wizards, four classes in 4e relied on martial ability, like fighters.  5e has a dearth of such classes, and a glut of casters.  The few 'martial' classes 5e does have are pretty limited in expression.  The fighter is all tanky DPR; the Rogue is sneaky, SA-based DPR; the Berserker, rage-based DPR.    There's a tremendous amount of untouched design space around martial characters in 5e.  The Warlord could make use of quite a bit of it.The only candidates for doing so are the Champion or Battlemaster Fighter, or, maybe, a Rogue or Berserker Barbarian.  RL sources of inspiration for those classes, and especially for the Fighter, tend to be better-handled by a class like Warlord, that does more than just hit things.  Just being a great warrior in your own right was OK at the dawn of history, the warrior-king would stand at the front of his (actually pretty small) army and stab people just like everyone else. But beyond Gilgamesh and the like, the great warriors remembered by legend and history have been leaders, captains, generals, revolutionaries - more like 4e Warlords than D&D fighters, in both concept, and in abilities modeled.It was not alone, even in 4e, which was constrained by the concept of Role, and it definitely shouldn't be in 5e.   For instance, in 4e there were some powers where, through tactics or haranguing, the Warlord would affect enemies as well as allies, very few, because it tended to encroach on the Controller Role.  In 5e, there's no need to worry about that, because most support classes in 5e are full-bore 'controllers,' as well.</blockquote>

Verification