D&D 5E (2014) Warlord as prestige class?

[Jester David]

If we are having 15 levels, why not go the extra mile and have a fulll class?

Because as a prestige class it could be added to any characters and reflect a degree of training and experience that a level 1 character does not.
And it does not have to have the same bredth and flexibility as a full class, not requiring the same amount of subclasses.

 

[Aldarc]

Because as a prestige class it could be added to any characters and reflect a degree of training and experience that a level 1 character does not.
And it does not have to have the same bredth and flexibility as a full class, not requiring the same amount of subclasses.

As could be said for just about any full class. Again, so why not just make it a class?

 

[Jester David]

As could be said for just about any full class. Again, so why not just make it a class?

Because, so often, fictional characters are leaders on top of other skill sets. Gandalf is a wizard, Aragorn is a ranger, Captain America is a monk, Roy Greenhilt, Laurana, and Tanis Half-Elven are fighter. Being a warlord is not how they started their adventuring career.
There's no such thing as an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant. If you have the rank you have some experience.

 

[Aldarc]

Because, so often, fictional characters are leaders on top of other skill sets. Gandalf is a wizard, Aragorn is a ranger, Captain America is a monk, Roy Greenhilt, Laurana, and Tanis Half-Elven are fighter. Being a warlord is not how they started their adventuring career.
There's no such thing as an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant. If you have the rank you have some experience.

Except 'leader' is a term invented by 4e that has no place in 5e, nor can the warlord be considered one!

There are several points where I would disagree with your argument here. The first point being that in 5e there is "such thing as an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant." All you need is the Soldier background that provides a "military rank" as its feature. Congratulations, you are now "an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant." That's it.

Secondly, it strikes me as odd to say that one cannot begin their adventuring career as a warlord, yet one can begin their career as a paladin or other classes. Why does the paladin not begin their career as a fighter or a cleric instead given their level of specialization? Why does a ranger not begin as a fighter or rogue? How does one even become a barbarian? I would say that the game assumes a certain degree of prior training with every class. Unless one lives in the Potterverse, no one in D&D spontaneously becomes a wizard on their thirteenth birthday. There is training involved. Some classes provide greater flexibility in their freedom to learn or informal, intuitive learning (e.g. rogue, sorcerer) than others. There are nevertheless classes that assume some degree of a formal background training: e.g., wizard, monk, cleric, etc.. Within that set of assumptions, I would say that there is similar space for the warlord class to exist.

 

[El Mahdi]

Except 'leader' is a term invented by 4e that has no place in 5e, nor can the warlord be considered one!

I realize you were joking - to an extent - but to an extent you also weren't joking, and revealing some of the bias in your argument.

Leader archetypes have been around far longer than 4th Edition - far longer even than RPG's - far longer than recorded history itself.

And the Warlord is most definitely a Leader.

There are several points where I would disagree with your argument here. The first point being that in 5e there is "such thing as an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant." All you need is the Soldier background that provides a "military rank" as its feature. Congratulations, you are now "an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant." That's it.

Wrong. A military apprentice is by definition, a Private (or comparable rank). Sergeants and Generals are not apprentice anything.

Notice also that the Soldier background says nothing about Leadership. Sergeants and Generals become such because they have received training (or training through experience) in Leadership.

Do you somehow think that people in the military simply become Sergeants merely as a matter of time and rank?

No. They receive formal training in Leadership. In the Air Force, it's actually called Airman Leadership School. In the Army it's called the Warrior Leader Course.

Officers receive leadership training also - not just training in the knowledge officers should have (how units work, combat tactics and strategy, etc.), but actual training in how to be a Leader.

There's increasing levels of Leadership training as one progresses through the ranks - training that is a requirement prior to wearing those ranks.

Leadership is a skill. Warlords are characters that have cultivated that skill to the level of Expert.

The Soldier background does not provide either a mechanic or a narrative that expresses that.

There's no way that giving a character the rank of Sergeant or General with the Soldier background should happen with a 1st level character. While there's nothing in the PHB to say you can't, and one can certainly do anything one wants in their own games/groups, one who does this is displaying a poor understanding of how such things work or simply doesn't care about a consistent narrative. It's fine to do so in one's game, but a narrative inconsistent with a class concept or the game's conceits is hardly an argument against the concept.

Not to mention that the Soldier background shouldn't be a requirement to be a Warlord. The Leader archetype is not exclusive to the military.

Secondly, it strikes me as odd to say that one cannot begin their adventuring career as a warlord, yet one can begin their career as a paladin or other classes.

The more I contemplate making the Warlord a prestige class, the more it just fits for me.

A Paladin is "called" to be a Paladin either through faith to a supernatural entity or devotion to an existential force. That concept works for me at any level. It doesn't require cultivation of a skill or role.

And technically, the first four levels are apprentice levels.

While I can see the argument for a Warlord from 1st level, I think the Prestige Class idea just fits better. One, it allows any class to become an Expert Leader - something that a dedicated class or class archetype only does while bringing in other conceptual baggage that may be inconsistent with what one is trying to model. Two, I like the idea of those first three levels (or four) being an apprentice leader - likely with the Inspiring Leader Feat as a pre-requisite for the Prestige Class. In line with the guidelines they've laid down in the UA article, they should probably also have displayed leadership of some sort: taking the lead in something, likely at their own expense; doing the right thing (leading by example), likely at their own expense; aiding others (as a guide/mentor), again likely at their own expense. The Prestige Class could be devoid of the martial baggage that other classes - and even a dedicated class - would bring to it. A Prestige Class could focus on only the Leadership, Inspiration/Support, and Tactician/Strategist aspects without the martial baggage - allowing for a Druid Leader, Rogue Leader, or Wizard Leader as well as the more obvious Fighter Leaders and Bard Leaders.


With the Warlord being worked on in the Warlording the Fighter thread, I'm still pursuing all possible avenues - dedicated class, expanded Battle Master and Valor Bard archetypes, Feats for any character to take that model the Warlord, and even possible archetypes for other classes - but I'm definitely going to include a Prestige Class now also; and it's in the front running as my personal preference.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because, so often, fictional characters are leaders on top of other skill sets.

Leader can also be their primary skill set - and, it's most often on top of martial ability, not spellcasting. Most D&D characters, though, do have a couple of skill sets. Even the most specialized classes, like Fighters, that /just/ hit things, have more than one feature, and characters have Background, as well. That Background can be Noble or Soldier and imply leadership, and there's a feat or two that might be suitable, too. Multi-classing with a full Warlord class handles characters who heavily mix in some other skill set, so that's not a reason to go PrC-only.

Besides, being a leader in the sense of the decision-maker for a party is a very different thing from having leadership skills and related abilities as modeled by the Warlord. And, even that is different from the player actually making decisions for other players.

There's no such thing as an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant. If you have the rank you have some experience.

Soldier background already gets you a military rank at 1st level, and it's not restricted to private or corporal. So, yeah, you can totally have a 1st level sergeant - or lieutenant. Heck, the young/inexperienced officer is so commonplace in fiction that it's a cliche.

With prestige classes recently being unveiled, what's the thoughts on a Warlord as a prestige class instead of a 20 level core class?

Instead of? Terrible idea. Undercuts the playstyles that the Warlord opens up, and you'd need multiple PrCs to cover even a modest plurality of the concepts a full class might handle.

PrCs /in addition/ to the Warlord full class, OTOH, cool idea. Push the most extreme 'leader' concepts that don't work at low level to high-level PrCs. Want a battlefield military officer commanding whole armies? Marshal PrC with a Command Radius within which his auras affect every unit following his orders. Want a character who rules a region through force of arms: take the Tyrant PrC. Want a Fated ruler? Take the Legendary Monarch PrC.

One of the benefits I can see is being able to customize it how you want - THIS warlord is based on a bard of valor and plays a lot differently then THAT warlord based on a battlemaster fighter, whom are both different than ANOTHER with levels of in cleric of the god of tactics whom picked it up or the beastmaster/warlord who inspires and protects his animal companion (and occasionally his 2-legged companions as well).

That could as easily be done with multi-classing to the full Warlord class.

Where PrCs shine is in that special requirement to get in, their connection to the campaign, and tightly focused abilities, either tailored to that campaign, or to some narrow concept. A Legendary Monarch PrC, for instance, might work for a Paladin or a Warlord, or any other class or concept that somehow led to a position of rulership.

Caster or not?

Not funny.

 

[Aldarc]

I realize you were joking - to an extent - but to an extent you also weren't joking, and revealing some of the bias in your argument.

Leader archetypes have been around far longer than 4th Edition - far longer even than RPG's - far longer than recorded history itself.

And the Warlord is most definitely a Leader.

The Warlord is most definitely support. That is its primary archetypal role. Leadership, however, comes from the player/character and not the class.

Wrong. A military apprentice is by definition, a Private (or comparable rank). Sergeants and Generals are not apprentice anyhing.

Notice also that the Soldier background says nothing about Leadership. Sergeants and Generals become such because they have received training (or training through experience) in Leadership.

The Soldier background does not provide either a mechanic or a narrative that expresses that.

There's no way that giving a character the rank of Sergeant or General with the Soldier background should happen with a 1st level character. While there's nothing in the PHB to say you can't, and one can certainly do anything one wants in their own games/groups, one who does this is displaying a poor understanding of how such things work or simply doesn't care about a consistent narrative. It's fine to do so in one's game, but a narrative inconsistent with a class concept or the game's conceits is hardly an argument against the concept.

Not to mention that the Soldier background shouldn't be a requirement to be a Warlord. The Leader archetype is not exclusive to the military.

I cut some out, namely all the real life stuff that does not pertain to the Soldier background in the least. I'm not wrong at all. There are several portions of the Soldier background that are quite implicit about the fact that you can be a 1st level sergeant, general, or other commanding officer, and explicit about the fact that you do have rank and authority.

General Soldier Fluff: "When you choose this background, work with your DM to determine which military organization you were a part of, how far through its ranks you progressed, and what kind of experiences you had during your military career."

Specialty: Roll a d8. If you roll a 1, then you are - as per the chart - an officer with an official military rank. Congratulations you have received leadership training prior to level one. You can be a sergeant by level one. You can be a lieutenant by level one. You could even be a sergeant with any of the other rolls, since a 'sergeant' is not an officer, and your rank is mostly determined at level one.

Military Rank: "You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized."

The more I contemplate making the Warlord a prestige class, the more it just fits for me.

And the less it fits for me.

While I can see the argument for a Warlord from 1st level, I think the Prestige Class idea just fits better. One, it allows any class to become an Expert Leader - something that a dedicated class or class archetype only does while bringing in other conceptual baggage that may be inconsistent with what one is trying to model. Two, I like the idea of those first three levels (or four) being an apprentice leader - likely with the Inspiring Leader Feat as a pre-requisite for the Prestige Class. In line with the guidelines they've laid down in the UA article, they should probably also have displayed leadership of some sort: taking the lead in something, likely at their own expense; doing the right thing (leading by example), likely at their own expense; aiding others (as a guide/mentor), again likely at their own expense. The Prestige Class could be devoid of the martial baggage that other classes - and even a dedicated class - would bring to it. A Prestige Class could focus on only the Leadership, Inspiration/Support, and Tactician/Strategist aspects without the martial baggage - allowing for a Druid Leader, Rogue Leader, or Wizard Leader as well as the more obvious Fighter Leaders and Bard Leaders.

While still coming with all the same martial baggage, because the Fighter Warlord (NOT Fighter Leader) will be debated into the ground about the nature of any healing they may use, as many warlord advocates would still want martial healing. And you will equally find opposition to the Warlord PrC if it imposes its inspiration/will upon other players without magic.

With the Warlord being worked on in the Warlording the Fighter thread, I'm still pursuing all possible avenues - dedicated class, expanded Battle Master and Valor Bard archetypes, Feats for any character to take that model the Warlord, and even possible archetypes for other classes - but I'm definitely going to include a Prestige Class now also; and it's in the front running as my personal preference.

Jolly for you. You are free to pursue that preference so long as you do not actively attempt to sabotage or argue against the desire of those who want it expressed as a class.

 

[mellored]

the 4e definition of "leader" explicitly states that it does not give you the abiliy to lead. leading was purely a roleplaying thing. it was simply that you had powers and abilities to help your allies. like a cleric. in most games, they call that role support.

it would of been less confusing if they did.

that said, i'd be fine with a captain of the guard PrC, where you get to command NPC's around. but again, that's a seperate thing from a spell-less support.

 

[Blue]

With prestige classes recently being unveiled, what's the thoughts on a Warlord as a prestige class instead of a 20 level core class?

Instead of? Terrible idea. Undercuts the playstyles that the Warlord opens up, and you'd need multiple PrCs to cover even a modest plurality of the concepts a full class might handle.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure I see enough unique things not covered by other classes to fill 20 levels, which is one of the reasons to talk PrC.

Caster or not?

Not funny.

We're talking in this thread about Warlord as a prestige class. Please keep that in mind. With valor bard and paladin both as likely feeder classes (as well as battlemaster fighter), does a PrC of warlord need partial or full casting in order to be mechanically competitive with just staying in-class? The Rune Master PrC shows casting progression without spells, they were only used as resource management to trigger the runes powers. It just happened to play nice with casters who want to take the class.

 

[El Mahdi]

The Warlord is most definitely support. That is its primary archetypal role. Leadership, however, comes from the player/character and not the class.

Support is a part of its archetypal role. It's also very explicitly labeled a Leader.

Leadership is an explicit part of the concept, and one we've been working on modeling in the Warlording the Fighter thread with a very real mechanical effect.

Sorry if that bothers you...

I cut some out, namely all the real life stuff that does not pertain to the Soldier background in the least.

Why is that? Did understanding of and focused training in Leadership not exist until modern times?

Does real-life not inform the game?

I didn't realize that the concept of a Soldier originated in and was defined by the fantasy genre...

There are several portions of the Soldier background that are quite implicit about the fact that you can be a 1st level sergeant, general, or other commanding officer, and explicit about the fact that you do have rank and authority.

I didn't say otherwise. You however implied that the Soldier background automatically meant Sergeant or General. ("Congratulations, you are now 'an apprentice general or level 1 sergeant.'")

As I said, that is Wrong.

You are correct that rank and authority are explicit in the background; but what rank you get is not. Low rank is rank also, and Authority is not the same thing as Leadership. Conflating authority with leadership is a common mistake; a mistake that leads many to not want a Warlord class, falsely believing it would be a character predicated upon telling everybody else what to do.

Simply gaining an understanding of what Leadership is can alleviate that error in perception.

So, as I said before, there is no narrative or mechanical expression of Leadership in the Soldier background.

A 1st Level character being a Sergeant or General, or anything other than Basic Soldier/Private, would be an inconsistent narrative. There's nothing in the rules saying one can't, but the rules also don't protect one from running a game in a silly, inconsistent manner.

Imagine how silly The Empire Strikes Back would have been if Luke and Han were Generals instead of Captains a mere three years after the Battle of Yavin.

General Soldier Fluff: "When you choose this background, work with your DM to determine which military organization you were a part of, how far through its ranks you progressed, and what kind of experiences you had during your military career."

Specialty: Roll a d8. If you roll a 1, then you are - as per the chart - an officer with an official military rank. Congratulations you have received leadership training prior to level one. You can be a sergeant by level one. You can be a lieutenant by level one. You could even be a sergeant with any of the other rolls, since a 'sergeant' is not an officer, and your rank is mostly determined at level one.

Military Rank: "You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized."

The chart doesn't list sergeant, and officer is not a rank.

And again, I didn't say a DM couldn't allow you to be a Sergeant or General at 1st level. The game's rules do not protect anyone from creating a silly or inconsistent play environment.

Also, ask any 2nd Lieutenant how much authority they actually have. Most would tell you they're the OIC of Paperwork and Unit Functions (Thanksgiving/Christmas party, Ceremonies, Open Houses, VIP visits, etc...)

And the less it fits for me.

You have my sincere sympathies.

While still coming with all the same martial baggage, because the Fighter Warlord (NOT Fighter Leader) will be debated into the ground about the nature of any healing they may use, as many warlord advocates would still want martial healing. And you will equally find opposition to the Warlord PrC if it imposes its inspiration/will upon other players without magic.

Yeah, I'm not buying this argument any more.

If someone has a problem with inspirational recovery at this point, they're never going to be a fan of the Warlord. Period. Simple immutable fact.

The Warlord class is for those who do want a Warlord, not for those that don't. Therefore, inability to understand or accept inspirational recovery is not pertinent to the discussion of how to present a Warlord. I'll certainly discuss it with these people, if they're interested in discussion, and do so in an attempt to change their minds, but it will not inform for me the direction of the class design.

Frankly, being bothered by inspirational recovery because of choosing to hold a view of it as being imposed upon their characters is a specious argument. It's no more imposed on a character than magical healing by a Cleric is. If one has a problem with that aspect of Clerics, then they have a valid argument. If they don't, then no.

And inspirational recovery does not carry martial baggage, that is unless you consider the Bard a martial class... (excepting 4E...)

Jolly for you. You are free to pursue that preference so long as you do not actively attempt to sabotage or argue against the desire of those who want it expressed as a class.

No. Just No.

If you don't understand why, I suggest you ask a moderator.