D&D 5E Warlord as prestige class?

[El Mahdi]

@Aldarc

You've accused me of pedantry, prattling, condescension, and purposeful insults - and accused anyone who has a different preference than you of actively trying to sabotage a potential Warlord class - and I'm the one harassing you?!?!

Yeah, conversation over.

When you're ready to have a civil discussion, look me up. Until then, Goodbye.

 

[Aldarc]

@Aldarc

You've accused me of pedantry, prattling, condescension, and purposeful insults - and accused anyone who has a different preference than you of actively trying to sabotage a potential Warlord class - and I'm the one harassing you?!?!

Yeah, conversation over.

When you're ready to have a civil discussion, look me up. Until then, Goodbye.

I have tried to have a civil conversation, but you have badgered me with a walls of quote text and accusations that often feels completely disconnected from the actual content of my posts. You repeatedly fail to listen to what I am saying and ignore contexts. I have repeatedly tried recommending that you re-read my posts from the beginning so that you will have a clearer understanding, but to little avail thus far. I'm not sure what I can say to you that will get my point across. My patience is not unlimited. Others seem to get what I am saying just fine. We can try starting the conversation over from a common point.

What is your thesis? What is your main point or bottomline that you would like to communicate to me?

Mine, by the way, which started all this mess was that one can, in fact, have the rank of 'sergeant' or 'general' at first level via the Soldier background. That was it.

My position on the PrC: I am open to other people exploring a Warlord PrC, and have not indicated otherwise, but I would greatly prefer the Warlord expressed as a full class in the official rules rather than a prestige class.

In regards to leadership: I recognize that there is a difference between leadership and authority, but I also recognize that this is a distinction that did not always exist in history. My initial post regarding the term 'leader' having no place for the Warlord in 5e was tongue-in-cheek ribbing of those who constantly harp on the name 'leader' for 4e roles. I still would like some aspects of the authoritative command side of leadership to be minimized for the Warlord due to that blurred distinction that others may commonly have regarding leadership and authority. You are right that leadership is separate from authority, but it still rubs some people the wrong way, including those who may otherwise be warlord fans.

 

[Jester David]

Really?

While going through all of these threads, post by post, collating the scattered feedback and opinions concerning a Warlord, there's one thing that has really stood out to me...there are far more than a half-dozen ardent fans.

I'm not even half-way through all of the threads and posts, and I already have significant feedback from over 200 unique posters about this topic, with the majority of those making multiple posts on the subject.

Are you keeping statistics?
I'd love to see a breakdown of for/against, see if anyone shifts position, see if support changes, etc.

Still... 200 seems like a lot for the entire forum. That's feels like a lot of traffic. Unless it's spread out over multiple years with people coming and going.

Also, while this may be a 4E/5E thing for some, it's incredibly misrepresentative to try and paint everybody that wants the Warlord with the same brush.

I in no way said or meant to imply that all warlord fans or even all pro-warlord posters were edition warriors. Simply that some are using this as a proxy edition war. This group is a small minority among warlord fans.

Case in point, I have been a very vocal proponent for the Warlord, and I am absolutely not a 4E fan. Never was, never will be.

Out of curiosity then, what is your stance on giving it a new name? Or other variations/changes for the class like removing healing or replacing with other damage mitigation?

Not to mention that your statement above is in itself some not so subtle edition warring...

Not even close.
It's not edition warring to be critical of edition warriors. I also reject the idea that being critical of an edition is edition warring. You have to be able to point out problems and flaws with a game system. Similarly, just because an argument was used by an edition warrior does not automatically make it wrong, or make its use edition warring.

I'm not sure where I'd draw the line between edition warring and just criticism. There's a thin line that is easy to cross, but there is a line. Likely when you start ignoring good things and become emotional. Or start arguing with someone else's points rather and claiming they're untrue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

There were enough things to cover 30 levels in it's only other incarnation.

Most classes have only a few things that are entirely unique to them. Casters share many spells with other classes, multiple classes get Extra Attacks, and so forth. Class like the Warlock and Sorcerer hang their 'uniqueness' on a different spell-casting mechanic.

We're talking in this thread about Warlord as a prestige class.

If you were trying to model the warlord concept with /just/ a prestige class, spells would be out of the question, as they're antithetical to the class concept.

OTOH, PrCs that might be taken by a character with some levels in a Warlord full-class, and some levels in a caster, or that might be taken by a somewhat militant caster like a Valor Bard, Paladin, or War Cleric, might very reasonably have caster levels.

Because there is not enough room in the rules for both to exist. Each potentially makes the other redundant. Quite simply, "There can be only one."

I have to disagree, sorta. The last thing we need is another inadequate, bordering on insulting, third-measures bowdlerized farce like that one battlemaster build /instead of/ a full Warlord class.

But, once the Warlord is in, there is still plenty of room for sub-classes and PrCs that riff off it or lift a feature or two from it. Just as the Wizard was in Next from the very beginning, and that didn't prevent the EK or AT from existing, the presence of the Warlord won't stop warlord-lite sub-classes or Warlord-adjacent PrCs from being added (either later or at the same time).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree. 4E did not "explicitly" state that it doesn't give you the ability to lead, it said you weren't necessarily the group leader; which is a different thing entirely.

It's an important distinction. The "Leader" role was very much the role established by the Cleric in the classic game, minus Turn Undead, and with the emphasis on healing lessened and/or the 'healing burden' lightened, depending on how you looked at it. While 'leader' sounded better than 'band-aid' or whatever, the explanation was explicit that it did not make you the 'party leader.'

The Warlord was a martial character skilled in 'leadership' in the sense of inspiration, tactics, and so forth, but those were qualities of the character, not the player, and didn't imply making decisions for the party.

That is actually a pretty good representation of what real-life Leadership is. Leadership is not about telling people what to do. That would be Authority.

If that's how you want to phrase it, then mellored & Aldarc were clearly talking about that distinction, between the leader role (and what you're calling leadership) and the position of party leader (what you're calling Authority).

It's a common misconception of those that don't understand what Leadership is. What I think would best alleviate that confusion, would be for those so against an expression of Leadership in the class to first gain an understanding of what Leadership actually is, then look at how it's actually being applied.

Common usage, even if it's a misconception, conflates leadership (the qualities of a good leader) with authority (being in the position to tell others what to do, be it legitimate or otherwise). I'm not sure that educating people about that distinction is the best way to get across the idea that choosing a Warlord shouldn't be taken as making the character the 'party leader,' nor giving the player any pretext to boss around other players.

The mechanical representation of Leadership is expressed through a group bonus. The Warlord's display of Leadership enables a group to function more synergistically. That's all.

Practicing Leadership does not necessarily require one to be in charge. Exhibiting Leadership is not defined by telling others what to do. One does not need to be the Leader of a Group in order to be a Leader or possess Leadership.

You know that guy at work that just always seems to be "with it"? You know that girl at your job that everybody always goes to for advice when they have a work problem? You know that coworker that always seems to see beyond the noise and usually has the best idea for how to get something done?

Those are Leaders. They aren't telling anybody what to do. They aren't necessarily in charge. But they most definitely display Leadership and function as Leaders.

That is a Warlord. (...and Yes, it absolutely does need a better name!!!)

Those are fine examples, albeit in a very different context. (But, no, 'Warlord' fits the genre in a way that 'facilitator' or some other modern management theory label wouldn't.)

 

[Blue]

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.

There were enough things to cover 30 levels in it's only other incarnation.

Most classes have only a few things that are entirely unique to them. Casters share many spells with other classes, multiple classes get Extra Attacks, and so forth. Class like the Warlock and Sorcerer hang their 'uniqueness' on a different spell-casting mechanic.

True, but orthogonal to the question. Yes, similar core 20 level class do have a lot of overlap. Many of the current core classes, if they weren't archetypal building blocks, could probably be covered in 5 levels of prestige class plus 15 levels in a generic building block class. Some of them arguably should be.

So, assuming that you have 15 levels worth of other classes already existing to fill in that overlap, why wouldn't warlord fit into an prestige class? I'm not saying it couldn't make a good 20th level class, this isn't an either-or.

What are the salient points of a warlord in 5e - I think having some sort of idea what we need to fit in would be needed. Spell-less buffing, in-combat mitigation/healing, out-of-combat healing. What else do we need mechanically to represent a workable warlord?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, assuming that you have 15 levels worth of other classes already existing to fill in that overlap, why wouldn't warlord fit into an prestige class?

That's quite an assumption. I'd be stretching to credit that there are even 5 such levels.

And, Prestige classes are just very narrow, conceptually. Borderlands Marshal might be a PrC, for instance, with a requirement that you hold a keep on er, the borderlands... Just an example.

So, could you do the Warlord with a 'Warlord' PrC? No, not even close.
With a dozen or so 5- or 10- or 15- level PrC's? Maybe, but most of what you could cover that way would be covered as well, and more efficiently, with a full-class Warlord, the odd new Background, & MCing. And the full-class Warlord could cover a lot more, besides, including being able to play the character you want from 1st level, and enabling styles of play that require a non-magical support class, again, from level 1 (and, really, 1st level is probably the time you need a support character the most critically).

I'm not saying it couldn't make a good 20th level class, this isn't an either-or.

I think that there are Warlord concepts that could be done with the full class, but work even better if there were specific PrCs for them in addition to it. As long as it's in the context of a full class, warlord-focused PrCs are a great idea. Ideally suited for concepts that eventually demand high rank (like General or Marshal) in a military hierarchy, or political authority in a region, or the like.

What are the salient points of a warlord in 5e - I think having some sort of idea what we need to fit in would be needed.

I believe there are a couple of threads already going into that. There's past concepts and builds it needs to cover, there's being adequate as the party's primary or sole source of support contributions (thus enabling low-/no- magic campaigns & all-martial parties and generally adding a unique support choice to broaden the potential appeal of that critical function), there's being a worthy successor to the original (to avoid the appearance of excluding it's fans, if nothing else), there's aspects of the concept compromised in the previous version for the sake of design-philosophy boundaries that can now be crossed in 5e...

 

[Blue]

The paladin, bard, and ranger would all work nicely as Prestige Classes. And the warlord too.
That way you could have a warlord who was a fighter or bard or cleric or even ranger. Any characters can specialize in being a leader.

It'd work as a 10-15 level prestige class easily.

I like this. Bard I'm a little iffy on but that that's a quibble.

It's an interesting thought exercise to say "if we have a base of fighter and cleric to the player's liking, what do they need to be a paladin" and then put that into a PrC. And then have fun with non-default base classes.

 

[Blue]

Warlord as prestige class

So, assuming that you have 15 levels worth of other classes already existing to fill in that overlap, why wouldn't warlord fit into an prestige class?

That's quite an assumption. I'd be stretching to credit that there are even 5 such levels.

After you said that most classes are full of overlap, with all of he existing core classes you can't find 15 levels of "general" martial powers to go with the 5 levels of warlord prestige class? Perhaps something granting armor and eventually an extra attack?

Sir, you have good ideas in other threads so I can't believe you're incapable of it. I'm hoping you're not being purposefully obstructionist.

At this point, I think you have a concept for a core Warlord that will not fit into a Prestige Class. A worthy goal, I wish you luck. I'd like in this thread to stay on target and evaluate the warlord as a prestige class. If you have ideas towards that please post them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like this. Bard I'm a little iffy on but that that's a quibble.

In a way, the Bard was the prototypical PrC, it was in an appendix of the 1e PH, and required you take levels in fighter & thief before gaining your first level in Bard.

After you said that most classes are full of overlap, with all of he existing core classes you can't find 15 levels of "general" martial powers to go with the 5 levels of warlord prestige class?

15 levels of pre-existing Warlord-ness, such that a mere 5 levels of PrC would give you a fully-fledged Warlord, is what I thought you were assuming.

Sure, you could take 15 levels of Champion and 5 of some PrC. You'd be all-martial, but won't be anything like a Warlord.

At this point, I think you have a concept for a core Warlord that will not fit into a Prestige Class.

You are correct, nothing remotely like the Warlord could be squeezed into a 5-level PrC. Even if you limit yourself to just minimally modeling one PH1 build there's just too much to it. Just about anything you might accomplish by combining other classes with a PrC like that, you could probably do just by MCing Warlord.

But, PrCs a Warlord might take that could, like most PrCs, also be taken by other classes could have all sorts of potential...

I'd like in this thread to stay on target and evaluate the warlord as a prestige class.

"It's both impossible and undesireable to do that" is an honest evaluation of the idea. However, there are specific warlord concepts that some folks find problematic that could work very well as PrCs. High rank in a military hierarchy, requiring lots of literal experience (ie higher level), for instance, is right up the PrC mechanic's alley.

It's an interesting thought exercise to say "if we have a base of fighter and cleric to the player's liking, what do they need to be a paladin" and then put that into a PrC. And then have fun with non-default base classes.

That is a very different sort of question. Part of the problem with applying that exercise to get a Warlord PrC is that the Warlord isn't some sort of gish class that's part Fighter, part something else.