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

[Aldarc]

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...

The warlord is explicitly labeled a "leader" as is the cleric, bard, shaman, artificer, etc. in 4th edition. This label has no place in 5e. Support, IMHO, is the primary role of the Warlord as opposed to notions of 'leadership.'

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...

Because I had hoped to avoid quoting a giant wall of text that was completely beside the point of the Soldier background in question.

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.

This is facepalm levels of pedantry here - almost insulting - and one that completely misses the point. I did not imply that the "Soldier background automatically meant Sergeant or General." I said one could obtain those ranks via the Soldier background. It is automatic in so far as one can obtain any military rank at level 1 via the background. It is not automatic in so far as these ranks (i.e. sergeant, general) are not explicitly mentioned - not that they need to be - but they are, however, within the explicit purviews of the background: you and the DM decide the rank you obtained and you then have it along with the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities that it confers. That rank may include 'sergeant' or 'general.' That rank may include 'leadership.' So indeed, you can take the Soldier background and "congratulations, you are now an 'apprentice general or level 1 sergeant,'" borrowing the flippant words of the person I originally quoted. This was all so obvious that I never thought that I would need to write a paragraph entry that's longer than the Soldier background entry to explain the contents therein.

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.

That is bullocks since the beginning of D&D. First level characters are not newly borns. They are not even necessarily young pups. Some may go their entire lives being level 1 with an assortment of experiences before adventuring or "leveling up." Eberron, for example, had all sorts of low level NPCs with character classes in positions of authority, leadership, and command.

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

More facepalm-inducing pedantry. The chart does not list "sergeant," but you could choose "sergeant" as your rank, but have your specialty be infantry. "Officer" is not a rank, but "general" is.

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.

That's great. All I am saying is that the rules do permit you to be a sergeant or general at 1st level with a feature that imparts history, organization, rank, and authority.

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...)

I'm sure that's true but it's also completely irrelevant to discussing the Warlord or the benefits of the 5e Soldier background.

 

[El Mahdi]

The warlord is explicitly labeled a "leader" as is the cleric, bard, shaman, artificer, etc. in 4th edition. This label has no place in 5e. Support, IMHO, is the primary role of the Warlord as opposed to notions of 'leadership.'

It was labeled as a leader because that was part of its concept.

As to your opinion (as opposed to your earlier objective declarations), I'd say "Cool!" I don't agree with your opinion, but your opinion is as good as anybody else's.

Because I had hoped to avoid quoting a giant wall of text that was completely beside the point of the Soldier background in question.

What does that have to do with addressing the point? You stated that you didn't quote it because you thought real-life aspects were irrelevant. All I asked was, "Why are they irrelevant?"

This is facepalm levels of pedantry here - almost insulting - and one that completely misses the point.

It's only insulting if one wants to take it that way. It was not intended as insulting. If you read it that way, that is your choice.

I did not imply that the "Soldier background automatically meant Sergeant or General."

That was the implication I got from it. If you say that wasn't what you were trying to communicate, then I take you at your word.

The misunderstanding was mine.

However, you still haven't addressed where the Soldier background includes a narrative or mechanical representation of Leadership. I said it doesn't, you say it does.

I can't prove a negative, therefore the burden of proving it is present is yours...

That is bullocks since the beginning of D&D. First level characters are not newly borns. They are not even necessarily young pups. Some may go their entire lives being level 1 with an assortment of experiences before adventuring or "leveling up." Eberron, for example, had all sorts of low level NPCs with character classes in positions of authority, leadership, and command.

First, in 5E, levels 1 through 4 are explicitly described as "apprentice" levels...

PHB, pg. 15
In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers.

Second, are you suggesting that a military general, someone who's likely had at least a couple of decades of military experience (the only realistic way they would be a General), would have only garnered the skills and bonuses of a first level character during the course of their military career...?

You honestly don't think that would be an inconsistent narrative?

More facepalm-inducing pedantry.

You should really stop hitting yourself in the face. Self-injury can be a serious problem.

The chart does not list "sergeant," but you could choose "sergeant" as your rank, but have your specialty be infantry. "Officer" is not a rank, but "general" is.

This is correct, though your point eludes me.

That's great. All I am saying is that the rules do permit you to be a sergeant or general at 1st level with a feature that imparts history, organization, rank, and authority.

I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that in my post. Again, your point eludes me.

I'm sure that's true but it's also completely irrelevant to discussing the Warlord or the benefits of the 5e Soldier background.

I was under the misguided impression that this was a friendly conversation, though some contention seemed to be creeping in. I thought a little levity might keep it nudge back towards friendly.

Apparently I was wrong.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Leader was in no way a term created by 4e its just a term I'm using that just happens to overlap?

Soldier gives you a rank, but it doesn't necessarily give you a *high* rank. After all, you literally have zero experience. That's like claiming the noble background entitkes you to be a crown prince.
And what about warlords who don't have the soldier background? What does a warlord with the outlander or hermit background look like? Or the guild merchant?

Paladin is a bit prestigious as well. I'd love to see an optional PrC paladin and ranger and bard (and say so in the PrC thread). But having been around for 40 years they get grandfathered in, in a way the assassin and warlord don't.

 

[Aldarc]

Leader was in no way a term created by 4e its just a term I'm using that just happens to overlap?

I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek there.

Soldier gives you a rank, but it doesn't necessarily give you a *high* rank. After all, you literally have zero experience. That's like claiming the noble background entitkes you to be a crown prince.

No, but the background does not preclude a high rank either. Furthermore, 'sergeant' is not a high rank in the slightest. The idea that you have "zero experience" is not true in the narrative sense, only in gamist terms of XP. Plus, you may not have "zero experience," but your starting point may be little experience in that role.

And what about warlords who don't have the soldier background? What does a warlord with the outlander or hermit background look like? Or the guild merchant?

Like a barbarian with the guide merchant or sage background, I suppose. It's no secret that some backgrounds work better than others for certain classes. I don't see a problem with a warlord who takes to banditry following a failed business venture as a guild merchant. The outlander background says that you may be a "marauder," which is precisely what an outlander warlord could be. The hermit could be a combat veteran in exile. But even if we ignore the 'oddballs,' are there other backgrounds besides the Soldier that do work? I would say so: acolyte, criminal, folk hero, noble, sage, sailor, urchin.

Paladin is a bit prestigious as well. I'd love to see an optional PrC paladin and ranger and bard (and say so in the PrC thread). But having been around for 40 years they get grandfathered in, in a way the assassin and warlord don't.

Then perhaps the warlord should be given that benefit or at least an opportunity to gain that sort of traction.

@El_Mahdi To be honest, your entire point of argument eludes me as well. The more I look back at your replies to what I have said in this thread, the more unsure I am of what you are actually responding to or arguing for. It seems incredibly muddled and disconnected for a wall-of-text. I would suggest that you go back to whichever of my posts triggered you, and probably read a few posts before that still for context, and read from there again.

First, in 5E, levels 1 through 4 are explicitly described as "apprentice" levels...

PHB, pg. 15
In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers.

Second, are you suggesting that a military general, someone who's likely had at least a couple of decades of military experience (the only realistic way they would be a General), would have only garnered the skills and bonuses of a first level character during the course of their military career...?

Apprentice adventurers not necessarily apprentices without life experiences. I would say that it honestly depends on how that character acquired that military position. Were they the only officer left on the field resulting in some sort of super promotion? Did they steal the insignia and accouterments of a general (perhaps an incompetent one) to lead the battle effectively in their stead? Or maybe they did so to gain the benefits of an officer by their captors and enemy combatants? Or maybe this military position was merely paid for by commission? Or maybe they were a court official appointed by the king to this position for whatever reason? Whatever the case may be, this 1st level warlord character found that they had a knack for tactical insight, something that they begin to hone following the start of their adventures.

You honestly don't think that would be an inconsistent narrative?

Only if you let it be.

 

[El Mahdi]

To be honest, your entire point of argument eludes me as well. The more I look back at your replies to what I have said in this thread, the more unsure I am of what you are actually responding to or arguing for. It seems incredibly muddled and disconnected for a wall-of-text. I would suggest that you go back to whichever of my posts triggered you, and probably read a few posts before that still for context, and read from there again.

Fair enough. I will refocus on this:

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

Leadership, however, comes from the player/character and not the class.

A Warlord is a Leader - someone who has cultivated the skill of Leadership and exercises that skill. I'm not sure what issue you have with Leaders, but it's obvious you want any mention or representation of this expunged from a potential 5E Warlord.

Sorry, but No.

It is part of the concept, whether you like it or not. Eliminating the Leadership aspect of the concept, just to make those that take issue with people exhibiting Leadership, is just as bad as eliminating Inspirational Recovery because of those that take issue with that.

If one eliminates everything from the Warlord that is an issue for people, there is no Warlord; so, No.

A Warlord is a Leader, a Supporter, a Mentor/Coach, an Inspirer, and a Tactician/Strategist.

The inclusion of those aspects, IMO, is not open for debate. How they are presented or modeled is another story. But eliminating any or all entirely? No.

If one has a problem with those aspects, then one has a problem with Warlords; in which case, Warlords are probably not for them.


Not to mention that I find it ironic that you attempted to mandate that I not argue against a dedicated class, while you're doing exactly that as to a Prestige Class - and doing it in a thread of which the topic is actually Warlord as a Prestige Class...

Yes, I take issue with that.

Apprentice adventurers not necessarily apprentices without life experiences. I would say that it honestly depends on how that character acquired that military position. Were they the only officer left on the field resulting in some sort of super promotion? Did they steal the insignia and accouterments of a general (perhaps an incompetent one) to lead the battle effectively in their stead? Or maybe they did so to gain the benefits of an officer by their captors and enemy combatants? Or maybe this military position was merely paid for by commission? Or maybe they were a court official appointed by the king to this position for whatever reason? Whatever the case may be, this 1st level warlord character found that they had a knack for tactical insight, something that they begin to hone following the start of their adventures.

You're right, that is a consistent narrative. It's also, IMO, a very sucky narrative, one that I'd never play nor ever impose upon one of my players (I'd never treat a player that ignobly).

But it is consistent nonetheless.

I concede the point.

 

[Aldarc]

A Warlord is a Leader - someone who has cultivated the skill of Leadership and exercises that skill. I'm not sure what issue you have with Leaders, but it's obvious you want any mention or representation of this expunged from a potential 5E Warlord.

My issue is with 4e terminology that we should avoid or minimize. Leadership may be a part of the Warlord concept, but it is something that I think should be somewhat minimized. A tactician/strategist is not necessarily a leader. Sometimes they are simply the people with a good idea. I would also minimize the 'leadership' aspect in favor of maximizing the teamwork and coordination aspects. It may seem like splitting hairs or 'leadership in all but name,' but for me it is a matter of emphasis. I don't see the warlord, by the way, as a mentor/coach. If we are talking sports positions, then I see them more as 'point guards.' Point guards are often team leaders, coordinators, and play makers, but in basketball, there is a greater emphasis on the team effort. Point guards often do not have the same offensive weight as say the quarterback, though still often being team leaders. (Mind you, the heart or actual 'team leader' may very well be someone in another position: e.g. small forward [Jordan, James] or shooting guard [Bryant], etc.)

Not to mention that I find it ironic that you attempted to mandate that I not argue against a dedicated class, while you're doing exactly that as to a Prestige Class - and doing it in a thread of which the topic is actually Warlord as a Prestige Class...

Yes, I take issue with that.

I suppose so, but the warlord as PrC comes across as a stab in the back of any potential warlord class, seeking to design its death knell.

You're right, that is a consistent narrative. It's also, IMO, a very sucky narrative, one that I'd never play nor ever impose upon one of my players (I'd never treat a player that ignobly).

Not sure if I would go as far as to say a "sucky narrative" or something that inherently treats players "ignobly." As a player, I could see those as story hooks for my character's background.

 

[Jester David]

Then perhaps the warlord should be given that benefit or at least an opportunity to gain that sort of traction.

Why?
Heck, you can say that WotC should have given that benefit or opportunity to a dozen classes in each edition?

Yeah, the warlord was in a PHB. So what?
The assassin was in the 1e PHB, the 3e corebooks, and was two classes in 4e. Couldn't the exact same be said about it? The avenger seemed popular in 4e. There were a lot of Beguiler and hexblade in 3e. The cavalier has seen a couple editions and was in the cartoon, as was the acrobast. Shouldn't the acrobat be given a chance to gain traction? An appearance in the cartoon should at least carry as much weight as an outdated rulebook.

Apprentice adventurers not necessarily apprentices without life experiences.

True, but the background of a character is what they did *before* they became a hero, before they started adventuring. Almost nothing in your background should be more interesting than your first few adventures.
Given you might spend your first adventuring struggling against goblins and bandits.

The name doesn't help. It's not "Marshal" or "Commander" but warlord. It doesn't convey someone who might have "led" a watch of three dudes . "I was the best mall copy in my small Nebraska town, so now I call myself a warlord!"

 

[El Mahdi]

My issue is with 4e terminology that we should avoid or minimize. Leadership may be a part of the Warlord concept, but it is something that I think should be somewhat minimized. A tactician/strategist is not necessarily a leader. Sometimes they are simply the people with a good idea. I would also minimize the 'leadership' aspect in favor of maximizing the teamwork and coordination aspects. It may seem like splitting hairs or 'leadership in all but name,' but for me it is a matter of emphasis.

I agree completely that a tactician/strategist is not necessarily a leader, but getting others to buy-into your tactical/strategic expertise does require Leadership. Therefore, since a Warlord is not just a tactician/strategist, they need Leadership in order to convince others they're worth listening to.

So, why do you want Leadership minimized?

(Which by the way, is not what you said before. Saying it should not be part of the class at all but only expressed in how someone plays it, is not minimizing, it's removing...)

Do you have an issue with Leadership itself? Maybe if I understood your concept of Leadership I'd understand your reservations. What is your concept of Leadership?

Without a reason, it's just another opinion based on preference, devoid of an objective reason. Taken another way, saying Leadership should be removed without a reason is useless as feedback. Leadership is a significant aspect of the concept. As such, I think there should be a pretty good reason to remove it. Personal preference of one or even a few lone voices is not a good reason...



Also, why should 4E terminology be avoided? 5E has 4E terminology in it, and it's been adopted just fine...

If your answer is that some might not like it, then as I've said before: No - Just No.

I will not avoid terminology just because some insist upon giving in to unreasonable biases or reacting with Pavlovian predictability at certain terms. Just not going to happen.

Those people are solidly not Warlord fans anyways. The class is not designed for them. Nothing is going to change their minds. Removing 4E terms is not going to suddenly convince them to accept a Warlord class...

I don't see the warlord, by the way, as a mentor/coach. If we are talking sports positions, then I see them more as 'point guards.' Point guards are often team leaders, coordinators, and play makers, but in basketball, there is a greater emphasis on the team effort. Point guards often do not have the same offensive weight as say the quarterback, though still often being team leaders. (Mind you, the heart or actual 'team leader' may very well be someone in another position: e.g. small forward [Jordan, James] or shooting guard [Bryant], etc.)

That's fine, but that's only one way to see a Warlord. A Warlord class, whether dedicated, prestige or other, needs to be able to fulfill multiple builds; the active "in the mix" Leader - the "lead from the front" leader - the "lead by example" leader - and of course, the "lead from the rear" leader (lazy lord).

The goal isn't to design Aldarc's Warlord Class - it's to design "The Fans of the Warlord" Warlord Class.

I suppose so, but the warlord as PrC comes across as a stab in the back of any potential warlord class, seeking to design its death knell.

Oh good grief. Have you looked at the past postings of those who brought up the idea and those who are considering it? They are not anti-Warlord. I'm seriously leaning towards a prestige class. Do you think I'm anti-Warlord? Have you seen how many posts I've made defending the Warlord - especially inspirational hit point recovery? I started the "How many fans want a 5E Warlord?" thread. I solicited feedback and have begun a Warlord project in the Warlording the Fighter thread. I've even been accused by moderation of attempting to silence dissent against a Warlord! here Tony Vargas is probably the biggest, most outspoken advocate of the Warlord on these forums, and even he said it was worthy of exploration. Do you think he's part of designing the death knell of the Warlord?

This is not some Machiavellian conspiracy to rob you or anyone else of a Warlord.

Come On, Man.

 

[Aldarc]

Why?
Heck, you can say that WotC should have given that benefit or opportunity to a dozen classes in each edition?

Yeah, the warlord was in a PHB. So what?
The assassin was in the 1e PHB, the 3e corebooks, and was two classes in 4e. Couldn't the exact same be said about it? The avenger seemed popular in 4e. There were a lot of Beguiler and hexblade in 3e. The cavalier has seen a couple editions and was in the cartoon, as was the acrobast. Shouldn't the acrobat be given a chance to gain traction? An appearance in the cartoon should at least carry as much weight as an outdated rulebook.

Probably because there is a demand for the warlord. Assassin fans are satisfied with the 5e assassin. Many avenger fans are satisfied with the 5e paladin path of vengeance. Illusionist fans are satisfied with the 5e wizard illusionist. The level of interest regarding the beguiler, hexblade, or acrobat does not approach that of the warlord. Also, the warlord ranked better than about three of the 5e PHB classes in popularity in the D&D Next playtesting polls for favorite class. You may not put much weight in those polls, but it's still relevant data. And it's also clear that a number of warlord fans are not satisfied with either the battle master fighter or valor bard as "warlord surrogates."

* Also, the Cavalier probably would make a good sub-class of the "Warlord."

The name doesn't help. It's not "Marshal" or "Commander" but warlord. It doesn't convey someone who might have "led" a watch of three dudes . "I was the best mall copy in my small Nebraska town, so now I call myself a warlord!"

Then give it a name that better conveys its archetypal identity. The magic-user became the wizard. The thief became the rogue. Clearly the possibility exists for the warlord to receive another name. Legionary? Centurion? Tactician? Whatever. It could even be as dull of a name as the "fighter" already is.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree completely that a tactician/strategist is not necessarily a leader, but getting others to buy-into your tactical/strategic expertise does require Leadership. Therefore, since a Warlord is not just a tactician/strategist, they need Leadership in order to convince others they're worth listening to.

So, why do you want Leadership minimized?

(Which by the way, is not what you said before. Saying it should not be part of the class at all but only expressed in how someone plays it, is not minimizing, it's removing...)

Do you have an issue with Leadership itself? Maybe if I understood your concept of Leadership I'd understand your reservations. What is your concept of Leadership?

Without a reason, it's just another opinion based on preference, devoid of an objective reason. Taken another way, saying Leadership should be removed without a reason is useless as feedback. Leadership is a significant aspect of the concept. As such, I think there should be a pretty good reason to remove it. Personal preference of one or even a few lone voices is not a good reason...

Also, why should 4E terminology be avoided? 5E has 4E terminology in it, and it's been adopted just fine...

If your answer is that some might not like it, then as I've said before: No - Just No.

I will not avoid terminology just because some insist upon giving in to unreasonable biases or reacting with Pavlovian predictability at certain terms. Just not going to happen.

Those people are solidly not Warlord fans anyways. The class is not designed for them. Nothing is going to change their minds. Removing 4E terms is not going to suddenly convince them to accept a Warlord class...

It seems that you have forgotten your first reply to me:

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.

Perhaps you don't then? This is why I also feel that you are forgetful and recommended that you go back to the beginning.

That's fine, but that's only one way to see a Warlord. A Warlord class, whether dedicated, prestige or other, needs to be able to fulfill multiple builds; the active "in the mix" Leader - the "lead from the front" leader - the "lead by example" leader - and of course, the "lead from the rear" leader (lazy lord).

The goal isn't to design Aldarc's Warlord Class - it's to design "The Fans of the Warlord" Warlord Class.

I'm aware. But my warlord would be designed for "fans of the warlord." I'm currently working on a homebrew with that in mind, so it is a bit irritating to receive such condescension.

Oh good grief. Have you looked at the past postings of those who brought up the idea and those who are considering it? They are not anti-Warlord. I'm seriously leaning towards a prestige class. Do you think I'm anti-Warlord? Have you seen how many posts I've made defending the Warlord - especially inspirational hit point recovery? I started the "How many fans want a 5E Warlord?" thread. I solicited feedback and have begun a Warlord project in the Warlording the Fighter thread. I've even been accused by moderation of attempting to silence dissent against a Warlord! here Tony Vargas is probably the biggest, most outspoken advocate of the Warlord on these forums, and even he said it was worthy of exploration. Do you think he's part of designing the death knell of the Warlord?

This is not some Machiavellian conspiracy to rob you or anyone else of a Warlord.

Come On, Man.

A Warlord PrC seriously impedes, if not destroys, any hope of a Warlord class, particularly for "'fans of the warlord' warlord class." It's simply another way of saying that the warlord class is dead, and I am an advocate for a warlord class.