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

Brilliant. So it is your opinion that you aren't being disruptive, nor taking advantage of my good will, by sitting down next to me at the table and telling me that my barbarian defacto looks up to, and respects, your warlord? And, furthermore, that he needs your character's expert advice on how to better swing his axe?

What an utterly dishonest set of comments.

As usual.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Warlord, in dnd, means "tactical inspiration guy".
It meant "tactical inspiration guy". In one past edition of the game. In 3e, "marshal" meant the same thing. I skipped most of the Kit books for 2nd Edition (and missed Skills & Powers) but don't see a warlord or marshal in Wikipedial's lists of kits. So that archetype likely had a third name back then. Myrmidon? Noble warrior? Soldier? Diplomat?

If they can change the psion to the mystic...

And Hiccup and Toothless absolutely, 100%, are 1st level in the first half of the first movie, and probably hit 3 by the end of it. And hitting 3 is supposed to be super fast, so that is fine.

I'd be fine with a dragon rider class. Your dragon is adolescent, just old enough to carry you in flight at lvl 1, and gets more powerful, and you more skilled at directing it, as you level.

I'd prefer the class be a little less specific, with subclasses for riding different creatures, but then again, at some point dragon and griffon just aren't equals.

An apprentice tier character doesn't need to actually be an apprentice, either. It's just the name of a group of levels. "Apprentice rogues" are highly expert in multiple skills, way beyond what I would expect from an apprentice.
Right, and they're not doing a lot of actual dragon riding at the beginning. At 1st level. Some character concepts just take more time to fully become viable.

I'd probably work "beast riding" into a subclass, and just have the dragon be a semi-cooperative pet until 3rd level.
 

What an utterly dishonest set of comments.

As usual.
And yet, as the great philosopher, Louis C.K., would teach us: “When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don’t get to decide that you didn’t.”

Work that out with your claims and get back to us. I mean, you did state matter-of-factly, that you don't allow people in your home, nor at your table, to disruptively try to take advantage of others' good will. What do you think is happening when you sit down and decide for me that my character has to look up to, respect, and be inspired by yours? Just because your character sheet says so? That seams like a textbook violation of your beliefs. I sense some cognitive dissonance afoot.
 

That isn't a thing. The warlord, even if directly ported with the same fluff as in 4e, is not "the hero", does not make your character the sidekick, or less equal, or secondary, or force your character to look up to them, or any of that.

That is, and I mean this with absolutely no malice, entirely a thing which exists in your arguments, and nowhere else. It isn't an actual part of the game, or the class, or the concept.
Says the person who prefers the class name: Captain.

Awesome.

I'll bet you even expect the other characters to call you that IC, amIright?
 
Last edited:

Certainly "strictly non-magical," but that's so fundamental that it shouldn't even be in the poll at all, because it's not even a question: Without that feature, the result would not be the Warlord class that people have been asking for; and the player should just as well play a bard instead.
I think adding something like "Their tactical insight seem almost supernatural" would be fine.

Obviously nothing like a spell slot, but add a vague hint or 2 and let the table decide.
 

Brilliant. So it is your opinion that you aren't being disruptive, nor taking advantage of my good will, by sitting down next to me at the table and telling me that my barbarian defacto looks up to, and respects, your warlord? And, furthermore, that he needs your character's expert advice on how to better swing his axe?

What an utterly dishonest set of comments.

As usual.

Knock it off, both of you.
 

Okay, reading through recent posts, this thread is getting pretty aggressive and hostile. So I'm also bailing on the discussion now while I'm still in a good mood...

Later peeps!
 


And yet, as the great philosopher, Louis C.K., would teach us: “When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don’t get to decide that you didn’t.”

Work that out with your claims and get back to us. I mean, you did state matter-of-factly, that you don't allow people in your home, nor at your table, to disruptively try to take advantage of others' good will. What do you think is happening when you sit down and decide for me that my character has to look up to, respect, and be inspired by yours? Just because your character sheet says so? That seams like a textbook violation of your beliefs. I sense some cognitive dissonance afoot.

The class doesn't do any of that.
 


Remove ads

Top