Why we need Warlords in D&DN

Aldarc

Legend
Which is why 'Marshal' for me works better. However, they both have the same problem: how can a young pup, greener than an Elven fruit salad, be called a 'marshal' or a 'warlord' with a straight face? 'What're you, Aubric?' 'Me? I'm a Marshal in the Order of St. Denys the Dastardly!' 'Oh...so you're the band leader, right? The guide arm?' 'No! I'm the Marshal!'

Silence...

'Right...'
How about simply a 'knight' then? The warlord's Int and Cha suggest potential education and charismatic personality. But the 'knight,' who may lead his troops may not be as properly trained as a more focused 'fighter.'
 

log in or register to remove this ad

GameOgre

Adventurer
Love the Warlord and consider it hands down the best class in D&D. Anyone who can't imagine a Warlord healer is severely misunderstanding hit Points in any edition.

Hit Points are not physical health. Sure that is a small part of it but a MUCH larger part is luck,skill at deflecting blows and near miss's and blocks and parry.

You can't imagine someone saying "Duck!" and negating the hit points lost from a sword stroke to the helm? or someone pulling the enemy out of line so that your attack hits harder and on its weak side?

In my neck of the woods nobody EVER played a healer till the Warlord came along. Either they made do with potions ect or I had to run a npc healer in the party or they just all died.

Not only did they have no fun playing a healer but they sucked at it. Then came along the Warlord and everything worked great!

Personally I would rather see the cleric go as a class before Warlord. It would have much less of a effect on my game than if warlord wasn't in 5E.

Now saying that I realize that for many this isn't the case. I understand where you guys are coming from as i can imagine if my players had a cleric player in the party the warlord might not have ever even gotten play time at our table.

that just not how it worked out.
 

Herschel

Adventurer
If the warlord is in 5e at all, I hope it is optional and nowhere near the core book. A class that non-magically talks people out of their injuries completely breaks any sense of immersion for me. I also hate the name. No longer can I say that a fighter or barbarian villain is a "warlord" without causing confusion.


If you don't like it, don't play one but it's an EXTREMELY popular class in 3E and 4E.
 

How about simply a 'knight' then? The warlord's Int and Cha suggest potential education and charismatic personality. But the 'knight,' who may lead his troops may not be as properly trained as a more focused 'fighter.'

'Knight' would work for me. Funny, but a couple of years ago I was thinking about alternate names for classes and I thought 'knight' would work as an alternate name for 'paladin'. But it works just as well for 'warlord' too. Completely eliminates the impression that the character is older, more experienced than he/she actually is.
 

Wormwood

Adventurer
How about simply a 'knight' then? The warlord's Int and Cha suggest potential education and charismatic personality. But the 'knight,' who may lead his troops may not be as properly trained as a more focused 'fighter.'

Knight would be a perfect choice---in fact, while I love the Essentials Knight, I always thought the name was ill-fitted.

But Knight as battlefield leader? Inspiring.
 

Vayden

First Post
'Knight' would work for me. Funny, but a couple of years ago I was thinking about alternate names for classes and I thought 'knight' would work as an alternate name for 'paladin'. But it works just as well for 'warlord' too. Completely eliminates the impression that the character is older, more experienced than he/she actually is.

As someone who's played and loved a Warlord, I want that name to remain. Warlord was one of the most important and significant advances of 4e, and I think it's important to acknowledge that they've earned their right to "Core" status if you're going to get 4e players into 5e. I could accept losing Warlord if we're doing a return to the base 4 classes and nothing else, but if Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerors, or Bards show up, the Warlord had better be there to keep them company. The Knight and Marshall have been class names that have never really taken off - the Warlords have earned the right to join the core under their own name, not having to steal a name from a lesser class. :)
 

Dausuul

Legend
I also would like to see the warlord make the cut, either as a base class or as some kind of fighter variant. There are ways to tackle the "non-magical healing" problem. The simplest is for warlords to grant temporary hit points that go away at the end of combat.

More than that, however, I like the warlord as a non-magical combatant who specializes in tactical support, a "controller fighter" with a bag of tricks to distract enemies, anticipate threats, and inspire allies... Roy Greenhilt, basically, with a little more support from the mechanics. That archetype got precious little love before 4E came along, and it would be a shame to see it neglected in 5E.
 

As someone who's played and loved a Warlord, I want that name to remain. Warlord was one of the most important and significant advances of 4e, and I think it's important to acknowledge that they've earned their right to "Core" status if you're going to get 4e players into 5e. I could accept losing Warlord if we're doing a return to the base 4 classes and nothing else, but if Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerors, or Bards show up, the Warlord had better be there to keep them company. The Knight and Marshall have been class names that have never really taken off - the Warlords have earned the right to join the core under their own name, not having to steal a name from a lesser class. :)

I'm not saying the class itself shouldn't be in there--I'm all for it--it's just that the name strikes me as being referential to a person your usual first level character isn't: older, more experienced. Just a bit of semantics. Nothing more.
 

Vayden

First Post
I'm not saying the class itself shouldn't be in there--I'm all for it--it's just that the name strikes me as being referential to a person your usual first level character isn't: older, more experienced. Just a bit of semantics. Nothing more.

It's got issues, no argument. But it's got history now and I think it's important to recognize that.
 

Redshirt

First Post
Any class that let's my critter's pound on a player all night and the party think they pulled something over on me is a must have for 5e. The healing aspect of the class is just a fraction of the awesomeness that is the Warlord.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top