D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[raleel]

Odysseus is a good choice. Odysseus was no Achilles, Ajax, or Hector. There's also Julius Caesar. Not much of a brute fighter - just a noble in a command position - but a also clever, charismatic, and strategic thinker in arms and politics. Though I'm not as well versed in the lore, I recall that there are a number of characters/figures in Romance of the Three Kingdoms who would likely qualify as "warlords" rather than fighters: e.g. Zhuge Liang.

In terms of fantasy, there is Mat Cauthon from Wheel of Time, possibly with rogue levels. (He even had the luck of the dice in his favor in warfare.) In A Song of Ice and Fire there is at least Tywin or Tyrion Lannister. Croaker from Black Company. Potentially opening a can of worms here, but arguably Aragorn with an appropriate background. (Though you could build Aragorn as a paladin, ranger, fighter, or warlord with appropriate flavor, subclass, feats, and background.)

many of these figures are quite scholarly. Zhuge Liang is almost wizardly. Definitely leveraging Skills or knowledge in these.

Amusingly, we got Mass Combat rules a couple weeks ago. However, based on Charisma. Intelligence/strategy/tactics/wisdom/perception are completely absent

 

[Guest 6801328]

What name then would evoke Odysseus for you? The "Nobody" (or Οὖτις) perhaps?

XP for that.

 

[Blue]

Related question. In some of the discussion about warlord features vs. those already existing in the game, one thing that came out in several places that the powers should be stronger because the existing powers are on classes that already offer other things.

1. Do you envision that the warlord will be using their class features for all/most of their actions in combat?
2. Is the warlord weak without allies* to use class features on? Are they like a wizard relying solely on cantrips, like an medium armored cleric using a simple melee weapon and shield, or like a fighter without a subclass?

* I know there was some talk about a Hectoring warlord who debuffed foes, let's ignore that for right now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. Do you envision that the warlord will be using their class features for all/most of their actions in combat?

I expect it'd be like most classes, that way.

2. Is the warlord weak without allies* to use class features on?

In 4e any class could put in a decent performance by itself, just by the nature of the class design philosophy. But leaders & defenders lost utility, leaders significant utility, without allies present, while controllers, if anything, could even be a trifle more effective without allies getting in their way. 5e class design isn't so symetric and balance-first, so any class will likely work much better in some circumstances than others.

Are they like a wizard relying solely on cantrips, like an medium armored cleric using a simple melee weapon and shield, or like a fighter without a subclass?

I'd expect something in the ballpark of a War cleric using a martial weapon & shield. So not nearly as lethal as the subclassless fighter (which, let's face it, would have combat style, extra attack, bonus ASIs /and/ Action Surge! - one reason the warlord can't be stuffed into a fighter sub-class like the PDK).

* I know there was some talk about a Hectoring warlord who debuffed foes, let's ignore that for right now.

Still a cool idea.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's about like trying to determine whether we are dealing with a "ranger" or "just a fighter in the woods" type of scenario.

Just as "acolyte" is available to all classes yet "cleric" and "druid" are also technically titles of rank or religious positions of authority. We just tend to ignore that point because we have been desensitized to the name in D&D over time. Some "warlords" may even pick acolyte, scholar, or noble instead of soldier.

What name then would evoke Odysseus for you? The "Nobody" (or Οὖτις) perhaps? There is the "Marshal," but some attach too strong a military title to that as opposed to taking it to mean one who marshals people (i.e. verb. But names are tough when your requirements seek to take

Odysseus is a Captain, just like Aragorn, Arthur, etc.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Odysseus is a Captain, just like Aragorn, Arthur, etc.

I gotta admit, it's that sort of claim that convinces me that anytime Wizards ask I should say "No Warlord at any price, tyvm."

EDIT: What exactly do those three have in common? They don't actually exhibit the same "mechanics". Odysseus is an archer and sneaky s.o.b. Aragorn is a mighty traveler, woodsman, and healer. Arthur is a really well-intentioned, pious guy who sucks at politics and does whatever a wizard tells him to.

Really all they have in common is birthright. I guess they all have grand visions, too.

Is that what a Warlord is? A guy with a birthright with a Big Idea?

 

[Paul Smart]

I gotta admit, it's that sort of claim that convinces me that anytime Wizards ask I should say "No Warlord at any price, tyvm.

I am curious why you think that way Elfcrusher. I have been playing D and D since 1982, over every edition. In that time I have never played a Druid. I have no interest in the class, it does not do a thing for me. That being said, I know many people really like them and if someone wants to play one in a game I am in, great, whatever makes them happy.

The warlord, or whatever it is called when it next comes back, makes many people happy. It opens up a new design space, be it playing an experienced strategist like Sun Tzu, a grizzled old drill sergeant, a sports coach or a princess / noble woman who inspires knights to greatness. I understand that you do not like it, fine, you never have to play one. You can have your druid and I can have my warlord and we can both be happy.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I am curious why you think that way Elfcrusher. I have been playing D and D since 1982, over every edition. In that time I have never played a Druid. I have no interest in the class, it does not do a thing for me. That being said, I know many people really like them and if someone wants to play one in a game I am in, great, whatever makes them happy.

The warlord, or whatever it is called when it next comes back, makes many people happy. It opens up a new design space, be it playing an experienced strategist like Sun Tzu, a grizzled old drill sergeant, a sports coach or a princess / noble woman who inspires knights to greatness. I understand that you do not like it, fine, you never have to play one. You can have your druid and I can have my warlord and we can both be happy.

Yeah, I hear that argument a lot.

I also mostly dislike the sorcerer, and a bunch of the sub-classes. And Drow. But for the most part you're right: I don't have to play one, and the times I get stuck at the table with them it's no big deal.

I'll refer you back to my post on page 8 for a detailed explanation of why I especially dislike the Warlord. It's not just that I don't want to play one; I don't want in the party a character whose whole purpose is to have influence over other player characters.

Posts like doctorbadwolf's do little to dissuade me of the belief that its appeal lies in it being the "hero" class.

If you can fluff it without implying that he tells other characters how to do their jobs, or requiring that other characters find him inspiring, I'd be more amenable. But every homebrew I read uses language like "gives the order", "your natural leadership", "follow your lead", etc.

That should be roleplayed, or at most sprinkled lightly around various classes, sub-classes, and feats (as it currently is). Building a whole class on that concept is, in my opinion, anathema.

 

[Hussar]

I gotta admit, it's that sort of claim that convinces me that anytime Wizards ask I should say "No Warlord at any price, tyvm."

EDIT: What exactly do those three have in common? They don't actually exhibit the same "mechanics". Odysseus is an archer and sneaky s.o.b. Aragorn is a mighty traveler, woodsman, and healer. Arthur is a really well-intentioned, pious guy who sucks at politics and does whatever a wizard tells him to.

Really all they have in common is birthright. I guess they all have grand visions, too.

Is that what a Warlord is? A guy with a birthright with a Big Idea?

Yet, in 5e terms, you have no problem with all three being "Fighters"? You most certainly could have all three of them be fighters and it's not like Paladin really equates to Knight of the Round table in 5e.

All three of them have the fact that they are the "face" fighter character in the story.

If you don't like the concept, don't use it. It's that simple. If you can't convince your group that they shouldn't also follow your lead and reject the class, then perhaps the issue is more simply a difference in play style?

But, why should no one ever get to play a character they want to play, just because you don't like it? Do you not hear how incredibly arrogant that sounds?

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I hear that argument a lot.

I also mostly dislike the sorcerer, and a bunch of the sub-classes. And Drow. But for the most part you're right: I don't have to play one, and the times I get stuck at the table with them it's no big deal.

I'll refer you back to my post on page 8 for a detailed explanation of why I especially dislike the Warlord. It's not just that I don't want to play one; I don't want in the party a character whose whole purpose is to have influence over other player characters.

Posts like doctorbadwolf's do little to dissuade me of the belief that its appeal lies in it being the "hero" class.

If you can fluff it without implying that he tells other characters how to do their jobs, or requiring that other characters find him inspiring, I'd be more amenable. But every homebrew I read uses language like "gives the order", "your natural leadership", "follow your lead", etc.

That should be roleplayed, or at most sprinkled lightly around various classes, sub-classes, and feats (as it currently is). Building a whole class on that concept is, in my opinion, anathema.

As a question, do you have the same issue with bards? After all, the bard is doing this to you and the rest of the group with things like Bardic Inspiration, virtually every single encounter, if not darn near every round. A bard is 100% built around the idea of being "a character whose whole purpose is to have influence over other player characters."

If you don't have the same issue with bards, why not? What's the difference?