Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Definitely, the Warlord is my favorite D&D 4 addition to the game in terms of classes.

The name may be debatable, but a fighter-type guy that leads the party is exactly what I always wanted as an option for the Fighter in 3E.

 

[DonTadow]

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)

I like the idea of warlord being in the original subclasses or an option to fighter or priest, but optional.

Of course, going with a small class thought pattern, i think that each class needs 3 sub classes. So, warlord (I'd like another name though, warlord sounds too regal) bottles with healer. I vaugely remember an old 3.5 class that had the same concept. Can't remember the name of it.

 

[Anguirus]

I want the warlord to stay in the game, but I don't want his healing to work the same way as the cleric. The really cool warlord was the Int-based one anyway, which tells me that the class has legs other than being the "martial cleric" as some of you imply.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I want the warlord to stay in the game, but I don't want his healing to work the same way as the cleric. The really cool warlord was the Int-based one anyway, which tells me that the class has legs other than being the "martial cleric" as some of you imply.

I think the really cool thing about the Warlord was that as a class it was eventually not concerned with ANY one stat. You could focus on almost any of them, in fact, a "Lazylord" didn't even need Strength!

This helped make the class really versatile, and readily "multiclassable" and prime for hybridizing. That may also mean that its concept would work better, or just as well, as a theme or subclass or build or whatever, rather than a standalone.

As for the healing part, I think it would have been a lot easier to swallow for a lot of folks if his healing power triggered an ally's Second Wind and/or granted temp hp, but I think that has more to do with baggage associated with the term "healing surge" than it does with how the warlord's inspiring word power works mechanically.

 

[mlund]

I think I'd rename the Warlord to "Tactician."

In general I've always looked at the Warlord as a sub-class of the Figher Super-Class archetype.

The Traditional Fighter is a Slayer (Fighter) - lots of damage, compliments his Strength with Dexterity make things stop living.

The Tank Variant is a Guardian (Fighter) - basically a mash-up of the 4E PHB Fighter and the Essentials Knight (better mechanics than Marking), where Wisdom would be a good complement to Strength, insuring you keep enemies engaged.

The Support Variant is the Tactician (Fighter) - basically the Warlord, where you can throw your Charisma or Intelligence into helping your allies on the field with everything from buffs and inspired resurgence to combination attacks and tactical movement.

- Marty Lund

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think I'd rename the Warlord to "Tactician."

In general I've always looked at the Warlord as a sub-class of the Figher Super-Class archetype.

The Traditional Fighter is a Slayer (Fighter) - lots of damage, compliments his Strength with Dexterity make things stop living.

The Tank Variant is a Guardian (Fighter) - basically a mash-up of the 4E PHB Fighter and the Essentials Knight (better mechanics than Marking), where Wisdom would be a good complement to Strength, insuring you keep enemies engaged.

The Support Variant is the Tactician (Fighter) - basically the Warlord, where you can throw your Charisma or Intelligence into helping your allies on the field with everything from buffs and inspired resurgence to combination attacks and tactical movement.

- Marty Lund

Sounds very good to me

 

[Gort]

I don't really see the point in tagging the word "fighter" onto all those classes. What's wrong with the tactician, guardian, and slayer classes?

I guess it could be a useful keyword for categories of feats or magic you could use.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think I'd rename the Warlord to "Tactician."

In general I've always looked at the Warlord as a sub-class of the Figher Super-Class archetype.

The Traditional Fighter is a Slayer (Fighter) - lots of damage, compliments his Strength with Dexterity make things stop living.

The Tank Variant is a Guardian (Fighter) - basically a mash-up of the 4E PHB Fighter and the Essentials Knight (better mechanics than Marking), where Wisdom would be a good complement to Strength, insuring you keep enemies engaged.

The Support Variant is the Tactician (Fighter) - basically the Warlord, where you can throw your Charisma or Intelligence into helping your allies on the field with everything from buffs and inspired resurgence to combination attacks and tactical movement.

- Marty Lund

I don't like the notion of subclasses, as a point of principle (Classes are Classified enough!).

However, there is a reasonable argument from 4th edition fans simply about keeping a class in the game because they like it. I do have some issues though:

- The name sucks, either as a good descriptor or as an archetype. I expect a Warlord to be a seasoned Fighter, not a first level tactician.

- 'Leadership' should be a matter of roleplaying within the group. For example, in Lord of the Rings, Gandalf acted as a pretty decent leader....but he was a Wizard. Any Class could, theoretically, be a group leader by virtue of the way they are played and how they interact with others.

- The issue of healing has always been an issue in the game - if you think that the original Cleric Class was basically a contrived Class simply for this reason in OD&D (how many fantasy Clerics in literature can you find?). The Warlord, too, is just another contrived class in this regard - although some players find it cooler than Clerics. I think that party healing should be resolved in a broader sense, and as a seperate issue to the virtues of the Warlord Class itself.

My view is that the Core game could support another inspirational Fighting type of Class - we have Paladin (a religious warrior) already, but a Knight class could be a good addition (noble, strategic warrior). I also think that more classes could develop healing powers - introduce a Witch Class (brews and potions), as well as Bards (inspirational songs of healing) and even Rangers and Barbarians (healing from herbs and survival techniques?), Wizards (why can't magic be used to heal wounds too), along with Druids and Clerics; Monks might self train themselves to heal themselves also.

In short, have a tactical class (Knight) - but not as a healer, per se - and then spread the burden of party healing among a wide range of classes so each have alternative means of healing themselves and others.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I hope I don’t get lynched here, I like the warlord ok, but I would rather it not make the transfer. IF we need 4e new classes I think the Avenger and the Warden are WAY more D&D and should be brought over first, and I am not sure I would even want them as phb1.
If they must keep the warlord, atleast change it from healing to temp hp. I don’t doubt that Ronald Lee Ermey made many men push on well past what they thought was possible, I also don’t doubt he got men on their feet when things looked bleak. I do doubt that he is as effective as a magical healer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't really see the point in tagging the word "fighter" onto all those classes. What's wrong with the tactician, guardian, and slayer classes?

I guess it could be a useful keyword for categories of feats or magic you could use.

Largely because we don't need 500 different abilities for each of those classes.

Also because "fighter" doesn't need to be a narrow archetype.

Also other reasons.

The organization is largey superfluous to the consideration of the actual mechanical effects you want, though.