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

[El Mahdi]

Y'know, I've read what both of you had to say on the topic - and, AFAICT, it's about the unfortunate connotations of the 4e 'Leader' role and the Warlord's abilities including 'Leadership' on some level. Aldarc wants to steer clear of 'leader' or 'leadership' as much as possible - it seems to me, even to the point of giving up appropriate Inspiring or 'command' based abilities (please correct me if I got that wrong or improperly shaded it) - thus avoiding the misunderstanding. El Mahdi seems to me to want to take the misrepresntations of the Warlord's 'leadership' abilities head-on, by emphasizing the distinction between Authority (a position as formal leader who gives orders and can have insubordination punished) which is not part of the class and Leadership (leadership skills, like inspiring and coordinating people), which is (again, correct me if I mis-understood you).

You have accurately summed up my stance on Warlord Leadership. I believe you have accurately summed up Aldarc's opinion also, or at least that's what I got from his posts when I read them.

I think that removing any mention or implication of Leadership is an appeasement to those that don't like the connotations of authority and incorrectly see those connotations in the Warlord concept. In my opinion, designing from a philosophy of appeasement leads to poorly designed classes.

 

[Aldarc]

Y'know, I've read what both of you had to say on the topic - and, AFAICT, it's about the unfortunate connotations of the 4e 'Leader' role and the Warlord's abilities including 'Leadership' on some level. Aldarc wants to steer clear of 'leader' or 'leadership' as much as possible - it seems to me, even to the point of giving up appropriate Inspiring or 'command' based abilities (please correct me if I got that wrong or improperly shaded it) - thus avoiding the misunderstanding. El Mahdi seems to me to want to take the misrepresntations of the Warlord's 'leadership' abilities head-on, by emphasizing the distinction between Authority (a position as formal leader who gives orders and can have insubordination punished) which is not part of the class and Leadership (leadership skills, like inspiring and coordinating people), which is (again, correct me if I mis-understood you).

Yes and no. Yes, I would like to curtail and minimize the 'leadership' language of the warlord. But you take "as much as possible" far beyond either my intent or what I have communicated. I have not stated that I would like to see the removal of 'inspiring' or 'command' abilities. Although leadership is inherently a part of the 'warlord' concept, the problem arises from the fact that leadership is commonly and frequently connected to authority, not just by warlord detractors, but by many people, in general, and throughout history. 'Authority' and 'leadership' also commonly are linked in thesauruses. Distinctions certainly exist, but there are also strong links, despite what buzzword marketing strategies contemporaneous organizations have used for 'leadership' training. My preference is for 'leadership' to be deemphasized in favor of a warlord that more strongly emphasizes tactical cooperation and combat teamwork. You can certainly call that 'leadership' by any other name, but for me it's a matter of flavor that makes for a more inclusive table.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It sounds like you both want a Warlord that eschews the 'Authority' aspect - which was always the case with the Warlord, it just wasn't stated clearly enough to avoid misrepresentation by detractors - in favor of cooperation/teamwork/facilitation-skills/coordination/etc. El Mahdi would like to be able to present 'Leadership' (leadership /skills/) strongly as a way of doing that, while you'd like to minimize the use of that kind of phrasing.

I'm also on board with wanting to avoid suggestions of legitimate Authority (something even the name doesn't suggest, unlike alternatives like the Marshal), and emphasize leadership qualities rather than positions of leadership. I'd like the class to strongly emphasize the importance and role of allies, to get there.

 

[Marandahir]

I'm on board with a Warlord that is a Prestige Class. Makes sense to me. Barbarians can be warlords (Conan, He-Man), Fighters can be warlords (Théoden, Oda Nobunaga), Rangers can be warlords (Aragorn, Faramir, Indoril Nerevar), Paladins can be warlords (Joan D'Arc, King Arthur, Roland), Bards can be warlords (Fionn macCumhail, Vivec, the Dragonborn), Monks can be Warlords (Piccolo Daimyou, Ramiro II of Aragon), Sorcerers can be Warlords (the Sorcerer Kings of Athas), Warlocks can be Warlords (Witch-King of Angmar)… I could find examples for any class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

 I could find examples for any class.

And multi-classing handles it.

 

[Marandahir]

Maybe. But that would suggest that most fictional and mythic and historical characters are multi-class characters.

Honestly I'd prefer multiclassing into a Prestige class which assumes a higher-level layering rather than having a 1st-level pure-class Warlord. The question becomes, what is a pure-class warlord? All the examples I've seen have stepped on the toes of the Fighter far more than any other class steps on each others' toes. A Prestige Class is not a stand-alone, so it cannot step on the toes of another. The Rune Caster is a great example of this: we've seen Rune users from Arcane and Divine sources in past editions. Artificers, Swordmages, Runepriests, Archivists, Wizards, Druids, Warlocks… the list goes on. The idea of making a Rune Caster neutral, as a layer on top of other classes, that can be entered from various different traditions, is a really smart one. I'd argue Warlord is in a similar position. It keeps the concept neutral.

Honestly, that's probably what the Warlord-inspired feats are for, only to a lesser extent.

 

[Bluenose]

Maybe. But that would suggest that most fictional and mythic and historical characters are multi-class characters.

I don't think most fictional or historical characters can be identified by class at all - a few may come close, but most are rather more complicated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe. But that would suggest that most fictional and mythic and historical characters are multi-class characters.

Suggesting they have classes, at all, is stretching the point, to begin with. Classes are an artificial game construct, they bundle a bunch of abilities that tend to go together in a concept. Few characters in fiction, let alone real people, will fit that neatly into a class box. MCing is one way around that, PrCs are an enhancement to it.
Classless systems are another alternative that can model an individual more 'realistically' at a cost in relative complexity.

5e already uses backgrounds, feats, sub-classes and multi-classing to mix conceptual aspects of differing classes together. An EK is a fighter with a splash of Wizard. An Acolyte has a religious background regardless of class. A Soldier has rank and a Noble position, either can add an air of Authority to a character, regardless of class. Magic Initiate and Martial Adept pick up a smidgen of class ability.

PrCs will be yet another way to do that sort of thing, but they're probably better-used for the connection they can give to the setting and story to fit very specific concepts. The PDK is an example of something that could have been a good PrC, while just filing off the serial numbers and making it a Banneret makes it suitable as a sub-class.

The question becomes, what is a pure-class warlord? All the examples I've seen have stepped on the toes of the Fighter far more than any other class steps on each others' toes.

The fighter is a focused-DPR class, the Warlord was primary-support, they don't step on eachother's toes.