D&D 5E Warlords of Krynn and the 4e class name in it...

[GMforPowergamers]

Okay, so I know alot of vocal people don't like the class warlord. I do wonder though (and having WAY less DL experience then some here) is there a reason to include the class in that setting?

I read the original and the time of the twins novels in HS (many many years ago) I know Divine magic was off the table for years. Having a non spell caster heal/buff class could work to run in that period (I think). On the other hand I may be reading too much into a name.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If it is not by WotC then it will be by a 3PP. My opinion is Warlord as class is better for skirmishes and massbattles for players who enjoy starting with a little squad, and this becomes a powerful army. We shouldn't be too surprised if the warlord appears as class in a D&D strategy videogame. Other point is to can use "troops" (a special monster subtype, close to swarn) as "monster companions".

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Okay, so I know alot of vocal people don't like the class warlord. I do wonder though (and having WAY less DL experience then some here) is there a reason to include the class in that setting?

I read the original and the time of the twins novels in HS (many many years ago) I know Divine magic was off the table for years. Having a non spell caster heal/buff class could work to run in that period (I think). On the other hand I may be reading too much into a name.

Warlords cover battlefield commanders. Generally they're written to command squads (eg adventuring parties) but in setting terms really should be commanding larger armies.

A martial Dragon High Lord should be a warlord. They didn't get their job just because they can personally kick ass. Lauranna should be a warlord (though the class concept didn't really exist back then). Tanis sometimes takes a leadership role, so he's often seen as a warlord.

The controversy over the 4e warlord wasn't the leadership abilities, but the healing abilities. I don't recall Lauranna or Tanis ever healing someone, martially or otherwise. The 5e warlord equivalent doesn't have any in-combat healing that I'm aware of, so if someone is hating that concept you could just change the name to "captain" or something.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Warlords cover battlefield commanders. Generally they're written to command squads (eg adventuring parties) but in setting terms really should be commanding larger armies.

yeah, I think that the name makes it look like large armies, but it was always meant to be small squads... or ranks of

A martial Dragon High Lord should be a warlord. They didn't get their job just because they can personally kick ass. Lauranna should be a warlord (though the class concept didn't really exist back then). Tanis sometimes takes a leadership role, so he's often seen as a warlord.

yeah I can see that

The controversy over the 4e warlord wasn't the leadership abilities, but the healing abilities.

and that only matters if you ignore HP as moral and stamina... I DO understand that IF you house rule HP to all be physical meat damage why it doesn't work but that has not been the rule of D&D abstract HP since 2e atleast.

I don't recall Lauranna or Tanis ever healing someone, martially or otherwise.

again I'm not an expert on the setting and haven't read any of the books is 24 years, but did they never give encouragement?

The 5e warlord equivalent doesn't have any in-combat healing that I'm aware of, so if someone is hating that concept you could just change the name to "captain" or something.

there is no 5e warlord yet... although maybe with this there will be

 

[Lyxen]

The controversy over the 4e warlord wasn't the leadership abilities, but the healing abilities.

Indeed.

and that only matters if you ignore HP as moral and stamina... I DO understand that IF you house rule HP to all be physical meat damage why it doesn't work but that has not been the rule of D&D abstract HP since 2e atleast.

It has never been the case, HOWEVER, morale and stamina are hardly mentioned. It's more like:

• AD&D: skill, luck, and/or magical factors
• 3e: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one
• 4e: character’s skill, luck, and resolve

So I'm still lost as to how shouting at someone will be able to restore their skill, luck and magical factors....

I don't recall Lauranna or Tanis ever healing someone, martially or otherwise. The 5e warlord equivalent doesn't have any in-combat healing that I'm aware of, so if someone is hating that concept you could just change the name to "captain" or something.

The thing is that Warlord should really not be an adventurer class, since you have a pitiful squad of 4-5 people, none of which obey you.

My Avernus PCs, who have commanded legions of various entities are much more warlords than any adventurer class warlords that we've played in 4e, although I admit that I liked the principle of the class (except the healing, which made little sense).

 

[Urriak Uruk]

A warlord could work in Dragonlance. But its almost certainly not happening; a new class is something that would go through at least one round of UA, and there hasn't been a whiff of it. I doubt we will ever get a new class for vanilla 5E again, except maybe a psion in Dark Sun.

 

[Gadget]

The crux of the issue is the old D&D chestnut: 'Hit Points as meat, yes or no?' Even though as far back as 1e, hit points have been things other than physical wounds, the term 'healing' is used when recovering hit points. I've always thought the Warlord archetype fit a lot of fantasy archetypes in the genre, with the 'healing' mainly being moral, inspiration and such.

So there are issues with some players having martial 'healing.' Thus there are disparaging phrases like "shouting someone's arm back on/wounds closed" in regaurd to the Warlord. Some think it should be temporary hp rather than true hp. Others think hp 'healing' should not be used at all. Certainly popping someone up from zero is probably more of an issue for many as well, even if general HP recovery is not as much of a concern.

 

[Lyxen]

The crux of the issue is the old D&D chestnut: 'Hit Points as meat, yes or no?' Even though as far back as 1e, hit points have been things other than physical wounds, the term 'healing' is used when recovering hit points. I've always thought the Warlord archetype fit a lot of fantasy archetypes in the genre, with the 'healing' mainly being moral, inspiration and such.

Once more, the problem is not that "Warlords" don't fit Fantasy archetypes, but they should not fit "healing" ones, because although yyes, Hit points have never been meat only (but there is still meat at the core), the other concepts covered are NOT morale, inspiration or even stamina. They have always been luck, divine favor and magical things, and while it's explainable that magical "healing" covers this, 4e's mistake was assigning that to a power realm that is explicitly not magical.

So there are issues with some players having martial 'healing.' Thus there are disparaging phrases like "shouting someone's arm back on/wounds closed" in regaurd to the Warlord. Some think it should be temporary hp rather than true hp. Others think hp 'healing' should not be used at all. Certainly popping someone up from zero is probably more of an issue for many as well, even if general HP recovery is not as much of a concern.

I would absolutely welcome a Warlord that commands on the battlefield, that inspires, that directs, even one that protects, but there is no need for one to cover healing as well, it was just lazy design.

 

[Weiley31]

The last time they did a miniature game, it did come with four classes that could be swapped into your regular 3.0/3.5 games with their own progressions. There was the Healer, the Favored Soul, War Mage, and last, but not least, the Marshal, which was the charismatic battle leader.

Then we had 4E, which gave us the Warlord, who was the new kid on the block, class wise, in DND at the time of that edition. It would be interesting if we somehow got the Marshal/Warlord back in 5E via the Warlords of Krynn Battle Game. Both or the archetype for it would fit in perfectly for it. Would it be a legit class progression? A background that offers a bonus feat/feat chain ala the Dragonlance UA? Or something else altogether? You can apparently take your PCs from 5E and "transfer" them over to the new miniatures game. I wonder if it would be possible to take stuff from Warlords of Krynn and swap em into 5E.

Although it would be funny if a reworked version of the Purple Knight Dragon/Banneret from the SCAG book made an appearance in Warlords somehow.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Schwalb Entertaiment published the warlord class in the SRD.

I imagine the warlord as a martial adept class specialized in the school of the White Raven. Then her "healer class feature" really would be ki/chi canalitation.

The handicap is the class is to play in a battlefield, not exploring underground dungeons with little space, even with "minion troops" with lower pool of hit-points and more vulnerable to traps.

* Other point is tabletop wargames using mobile apps and tablets as AIs in tabletop battles if rules may become too complex (if unit has just moved, pool of hit points, special effect, buffs or penalties..).

* Taladas's lore is almost untouched. This could allow a reason of an "age of warlords", with mercenaries to be hired for "proxy wars" of other powers.