Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6045862" data-attributes="member: 94389"><p>I played a warlord from 4E release to level 16. I liked the class. But it wasn't what I envision a warlord to be. With multiclassing and hybrid rules I tried to recast him, but never stuck with it (DM allowed a retcon when new rules came along, and you could play for 3 sessions max with a full refund...I always took the refund)</p><p></p><p>The problem, IMO, with the 4E warlord is that "tactical" is a player function...its the strength of 4E in general, but to push the tactical into a class feature means the player tactical "genius" is diminished. It rewards certain tactics and either ignores or in some (albeit corner) cases punishes others. Commanders strike is almost always better when used on an ally with high basic attack damage output, not necessarily the ally with the best tactical position, e.g.</p><p></p><p>Mechanically, 4E warlords are a numbers multiplier....a buff bot by other means.</p><p></p><p>While I know 4E reactions are a love/hate thing for most, If they were dialed back on most classes BUT the warlord, I think the warlord would do better. IMO, warlords should be the ultimate Immediate Reaction class: reacting to the round by round situation of the battlefield. In other words, commanders strike shouldn't be what a warlord does on his turn, but rather an extra attack he grants a PC on THEIR turn (Barbarian almost kills the orc...no free charge to BBEG. But Wait! Warlord uses Commanders Strike, Barbarian hits and easily kills the wounded orc. Free Charge! Thanks Warlord!)</p><p></p><p>That's a hard sell for 5E, but If we keep reactions a unique warlord schtick, warlord might fit better into the fighter archetype. Reactive Maneuvers might "cost" an extra ED (or more) but with the warlord build that is removed. Thus fighters/rogues could pick up those maneuvers, but the cost is heavy. Warlords would use them liberally.</p><p></p><p>To bring this ramble back to the OP. Good start, but I think warlords need their class of maneuvers to make it work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jrowland, post: 6045862, member: 94389"] I played a warlord from 4E release to level 16. I liked the class. But it wasn't what I envision a warlord to be. With multiclassing and hybrid rules I tried to recast him, but never stuck with it (DM allowed a retcon when new rules came along, and you could play for 3 sessions max with a full refund...I always took the refund) The problem, IMO, with the 4E warlord is that "tactical" is a player function...its the strength of 4E in general, but to push the tactical into a class feature means the player tactical "genius" is diminished. It rewards certain tactics and either ignores or in some (albeit corner) cases punishes others. Commanders strike is almost always better when used on an ally with high basic attack damage output, not necessarily the ally with the best tactical position, e.g. Mechanically, 4E warlords are a numbers multiplier....a buff bot by other means. While I know 4E reactions are a love/hate thing for most, If they were dialed back on most classes BUT the warlord, I think the warlord would do better. IMO, warlords should be the ultimate Immediate Reaction class: reacting to the round by round situation of the battlefield. In other words, commanders strike shouldn't be what a warlord does on his turn, but rather an extra attack he grants a PC on THEIR turn (Barbarian almost kills the orc...no free charge to BBEG. But Wait! Warlord uses Commanders Strike, Barbarian hits and easily kills the wounded orc. Free Charge! Thanks Warlord!) That's a hard sell for 5E, but If we keep reactions a unique warlord schtick, warlord might fit better into the fighter archetype. Reactive Maneuvers might "cost" an extra ED (or more) but with the warlord build that is removed. Thus fighters/rogues could pick up those maneuvers, but the cost is heavy. Warlords would use them liberally. To bring this ramble back to the OP. Good start, but I think warlords need their class of maneuvers to make it work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top