Level Up (A5E) What would you call a 'Warlord' class? (+)

[jmartkdr2]

Cheers for that. So is it fair to say, it’s consistency and quantity of abilities that are the main difference between the two.

Pretty much. The battlemaster covers the Warlord concept about as well as the EK covers a wizard.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's the point, but then you're left with a 1st-level warlord, which is kind of silly.

So's a 1-st level wizard, for that matter. Or a 1st-levle samurai or cavalier or ranger (which is also a somewhat elite job description). It's implied to take a long to learn magic.

 

[Eltab]

I also would like any 'martial healing' to be temp HP, not actual healing, but thats just a personal issue.

THP that stacks with THP from other sources, and can be converted to regular HP under certain circumstances (such as 'are adjacent to the recipient and have a Healer Kit') would work for me. In essence, the Warlord tosses you an aspirin so you can ignore the worst of your injuries.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm sure there would be some who conjure that image, but I don't see it as any more problematic than assassin, barbarian, monk, warlock, or druid. The fantasy archetype is strong enough to overcome modern usage of the term. See also: witch, samurai, knight.

I fully admit that is true. Although barbarian, monk, and druid all have positive or neutral connotations, and warlocks and assassins are often assumed to be villainous from the outset. I personally have a more negative reaction to the word warlord than I do with the other words, since the word warlord conjures up images of causing lots of harm and misery to innocents either to send a message, for profit, or for fun. It's the same sort of negative visceral reaction I get with the conquest paladin.

And no, I don't know if that was the the reason for the general dislike of the warlord, but I realized that it was my reason for it.

So's a 1-st level wizard, for that matter. Or a 1st-levle samurai or cavalier or ranger (which is also a somewhat elite job description). It's implied to take a long to learn magic.

I mean more the lord aspect. Which, well, I didn't actually get to play 1st edition, but it reminds me of the "name" levels from that. And, well, it's kind of pompous. Anyone with the birthright can be a samurai; anyone with the training can be a cavalier or ranger or wizard, but not just anyone can be a lord.

Plus, someone on the LU part of the forums made a joke about a 1st-level warlord being called a warlad.

 

[Scribe]

THP that stacks with THP from other sources, and can be converted to regular HP under certain circumstances (such as 'are adjacent to the recipient and have a Healer Kit') would work for me. In essence, the Warlord tosses you an aspirin so you can ignore the worst of your injuries.

Sure, THP is THP is THP, I'm fine with that all stacking for abstraction and ease of maintenance. My internal logic simply cannot stomach 'JUST HEAL DAMN YOU' and it working for 'real HP' without that Magic Juice to go behind the subtle encouragement.

It's the same sort of negative visceral reaction I get with the conquest paladin.

Wait, that's my guy!

 

[Azzy]

Personally, I think Marshal is the best choice. Though, Warlord, Captain, Commander, or Warden all work for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Having missed the whole 4e warlord debate. Can someone summarize the difference between the warlord and the battlemaster now the new maneuvers for allies attacks and healing etc are in Tasha’s.

This isn’t a loaded question. I don’t have a dog in this fight. it’s a genuine ask for a quick summary. Obvs this would be superseded by changes Level Up makes.

Battlemaster fighter: Strength-or-Dex primary frontline combatant focused on multiple attacks, with a limited resource that allows them to perform one of several maneuvers that increase their own damage output, or in one case, allow an ally to make an extra attack.

Warlord: Charisma-primary support class with a variety of healing and buffing abilities, as well as abilities that grant allies extra attacks and/or allowed them to reposition.

Frankly, the warlord has more in common with the 5e cleric or bard than the Battlemaster fighter, if you ignore the fact that they do it with magic. The fighter fights. The warlord makes the rest of their party fight better.

 

[Scribe]

Frankly, the warlord has more in common with the 5e cleric or bard than the Battlemaster fighter. The fighter fights. The warlord makes the rest of their party fight better.

And I assume this is why a Fighter subclass is just not functional for a Warlord type design. It's too good at 'fighting' and so is busted if its also able to buff and support/heal?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Probably gonna get roasted for this...

I'd call it a "War-Speaker". I'd also allude to virtually all of the 'abilities' that let the War-Speaker force others to move or act in some way as being "magical in nature" (kind of like a Clerics Turn Undead, for example).

If presented like that, I could (as well as my players...if we ever get to meet up again and play! Stupid viruses...!) get behind the concept.

But, as it stands, the "Warlord" being a guy who "knows battle so well he can force an opponent to do something stupid...even if that opponent is thinking 'Uh, no...that would be stupid...I'm going to stay here and keep doing what I was doing' (re: forcing a Player to make his character do something they don't want him to do)...that I can't get behind. It annoys me to no end.

But...make it "magic", and now we're ok. Now I can RP the aftermath as "He was a War-Speaker! Their devilish tongue can beguile the mind into making stupid mistakes in battle!", or some other such 'not my fault' excuse.

The only way "around" that would be to allow some sort of "consequences" result; almost like a 'reverse-saving throw'. So the Warlord would use a 'power' that forces the PC to move 5' in some direction of the Warlords choosing. With the 'drawback' being that if the Player STILL chooses to stay there and NOT move the 5' in the direction the WL wanted him to...then the PC suffers some bad thing; AoO's from anyone with missile weapons, a bonus to hit and damage for the next attack from the WL or his friends/side/minions, or automatically drops initiative to the bottom of the heap, etc.

The RP'ing afterward could make sense then: "I KNEW he was trying to get me to move a bit back...but I didn't know why! I figured he might be trying to set me up for some AoE spell from his wizard or something. Huh. Turns out I probably should have just stepped back...I didn't see the spearman to my side before his spear tip was tickling my liver!".

^_^

Paul L. Mingz

 

[Zardnaar]

And I assume this is why a Fighter subclass is just not functional for a Warlord type design. It's too good at 'fighting' and so is busted if its also able to buff and support/heal?

Pretty much.

I would use the fighter chassis and strip out some of the combat wombat stuff using the half casters for guidance.

At will attack granting kinda broken in 5E as well so there's also that.