Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[Vayden]

I saw someone in the Fighter thread saying that Fighter was the class that 4e did best. I think there's a lot of validity to that - while caster implementation was divisive for people, the Martial classes from the 4e PHB all did a great job of making their classes step up and be more valuable, awesome, and plain fun to play than in previous editions. Essentials proved that a lot of that power and fun could be retained while also creating classes that were on the face of them simpler to operate (though still with depth of tactical play).

However, the true breakout success class of 4e for me was the Warlord. While they may have made for some flavor humor occasionally ("**** it Elgin, rub some dirt on it and get back up!" was my frequent "healing word" to our unconscious fighter), breaking out the ability to heal and buff the party from just the cleric was a huge step forward.

The overall concept of "not needing a cleric" is something the designers are clearly thinking about it ( Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 01/10/12) ), but in addition, I think the Warlord class itself, as the flag bearer of the evolution from "healer" to "Leader", with their diverse buffs, heals, and ability to fight on the front line beside the warriors, is worthy to stay in the "Core" set of classes. (Warlocks, however, can safely vanish to some remote splatbook.) Who's with me?

(This assumes that we have more than 4 core classes, of course - if we only get 4, stay with the originals - cleric, halfling, elf, dwarf . . . I mean cleric, thief, mafe, fighter)

 

[Wormwood]

The concept of a non-cleric healer (ahem...leader) was so appealing that the Warlord was my first class---and the only one I played until 30.

I'd hate to see it go---especially in some nod to tradition.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The warlord suffers from basic plausibility issues (how does one produce those effects without magic?), an inappropriate niche for D&D (a character class defined by his ability to affect allies?), and, on top of that, a dubious name. Marshal, while not great, was more appropriate. This is a great example of why creating a class based on a purely mechanical rationale (the perceived need for healing) is not a good idea.

The original impetus (an idea that a party needs certain roles filled and that healing and buffing is one of those roles) was not good design, and I wouldn't allow a marshal (or warlord if you like) in my game.

I would, however, like to see a warlock early on.

 

[enrious]

I, on the other hand, greatly enjoyed the Marshal in 3.5 and would like to see its successor in 5e.

 

[Wormwood]

The warlord suffers from basic plausibility issues (how does one produce those effects without magic?), an inappropriate niche for D&D (a character class defined by his ability to affect allies?), and, on top of that, a dubious name.

The cleric was originally modeled on Abraham Van Helsing, conceived to overcome a specific vampire (Von Fang, IIRC). Combat healing and disease mitigation were grafted on later.

Considering that multiple decades of D&D have defined hit points as less wounds and more fatigue/plot damage, the Warlord seems just as able to rally his allies to press onward as the friar with a bookmark in Exodus.

 

[MortonStromgal]

You could also make the 1e bard a core class (druid spells rather than arcane), of course you would have to call it something other than bard or upset the masses. But yes if you are going to have any alternate types of classes, healing should be on the list, and they should make a decent 1st level healer

 

[Viking Bastard]

Depends on the context of the 5e rule set. If it's possible for Fighters to pick up Warlordery characteristics through powers or feats or whatevertheycallit, I don't think it needs to be a class. Otherwise, yeah, I'd welcome him.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the warlord is one of those cases where we'll have to wait for the playtest document before we're able to make any real headway on their feasibility or not.

It's going to end up coming down to what "hit points" end up being, how they are lost and regained, whether there's any sort of surge mechanic etc. that will determine the warlord's place in the game. Because if a warlord's healing is equivalent to magical healing, many people will cry foul. If it grants temporary hit points rather than actual hit points, then it'll be a bit less bothersome. If character 'role' gets removed from specific classes and becomes a more general build for whatever class you are leveling, then the need for a warlord might not even need to be there anymore.

Too many variables here to begin making plans for them right now I think.

 

[Vayden]

Depends on the context of the 5e rule set. If it's possible for Fighters to pick up Warlordery characteristics through powers or feats or whatevertheycallit, I don't think it needs to be a class. Otherwise, yeah, I'd welcome him.

Yeah, that's what I was shooting for with the last line. If we're going to see a "4 classes with modules" build, then no need for anything beyond fighter/cleric/thief/wizard. If we're going with something like 3e/4e with 7-8 classes in the first PHB, then I think Warlord definitely deserves to make that initial cut.

(Not to turn this into a repeat of the "what is core" thread, but my personal 8 would be Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Rogue, Warlord, Wizard, Sorceror, Ranger).

 

[Aramax]

Dont say yes to the warlord say HELL YES!