Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[mlund]

The current "leader" role is the "support" variant of a bunch of different themes. Leaders provided healing, saving throws, and bonuses - be they movement, attacks, temp HP, or vanilla +1 and +2 boosts to hit or damage.

If the Fighter is the Super-class, the Warlord is the Leader-role sub-class, in contrast to the Striker-role sub-class (Slayer), or the Defender-role sub-class (knight).

The knight is supposed to be a giant tin-can, heavy infantry that's the toughest nut to crack on the battle line. The Warlord is really the officer's role - inspiration, tactics, and leadership as primary sphere with the personal combat aspects (hitting enemies, getting hit by enemies) being less emphasized compared to the other types of Fighter builds.

- Marty Lund

 

[Incenjucar]

The beauty of the warlord is the lazy lord build. Having a mechanical way to represent a near-non-combatant while being just as useful as the wizard is fantastic.

 

[FireLance]

My favorite 4e character was an eladrin tactical warlord.

That said, I'm going to practise a bit of what I preach and separate out the traits that make the 4e warlord class appealing to me.

What I liked most about the class was being the character that provided tactical advice and/or inspirational encouragement to help my allies fight better and harder.

Hit point recovery is a subset of that, but not an essential one. I would be just as happy with granting temporary hit points, triggering second winds, or whatever else is accepted as the limit of non-magical influence on hit points.

I could accept it being a sub-class of fighter, or, if themes are used more prominently in defining character abilities, having a Inspiring or Motivational theme. Fighter + Inspiring theme = 4e warlord. Rogue + Inspiring theme = martial bard. Wizard + Inspiring theme = mystical bard. Cleric + Inspiring theme = the kind of preacher that creates religious fanatics.

 

[Li Shenron]

...

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?

I'm not.

First: I want the game to keep working without a Cleric (and also without a Fighter, without a Rogue, without a Wizard... I don't want the game to rely on the presence of any class). I don't want a game that without a Cleric requires a Warlord. As a matter of fact, the game does work without a healer, unless you want to be fighting every single day.

Second: I absolutely loath the idea of having a class to represent a leader! Anyone should possibly be the party leader, no matter the class, and we have plenty of examples in classic literature and D&D settings.

Third: the name Warlord is so inappropriate to border the miseducational. Check what it means in the dictionary or wikipedia... it's not even someone who fights, it's someone who controls from a seat of power. To call that class Warlord is just as wrong as to call the Cleric class "Bishop" or the Rogue class "Crime Boss".

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not.

First: I want the game to keep working without a Cleric (and also without a Fighter, without a Rogue, without a Wizard... I don't want the game to rely on the presence of any class). I don't want a game that without a Cleric requires a Warlord. As a matter of fact, the game does work without a healer, unless you want to be fighting every single day.

Second: I absolutely loath the idea of having a class to represent a leader! Anyone should possibly be the party leader, no matter the class, and we have plenty of examples in classic literature and D&D settings.

Third: the name Warlord is so inappropriate to border the miseducational. Check what it means in the dictionary or wikipedia... it's not even someone who fights, it's someone who controls from a seat of power. To call that class Warlord is just as wrong as to call the Cleric class "Bishop" or the Rogue class "Crime Boss".

(edit)

So for me the best is to butcher the Warlord class down into its basic abilities, and make some of them Feats (or whatever) available for everyone, and some others exclusive but optional class features of the Bard.

 

[Nivenus]

I figure warlords will make the transfer over to 4e. They're, to a certain extent, the 4e class, though not a single one of my players has a warlord character rolled up (well, there is one gnome who's a paladin-warlord hybrid). I think the idea of non-cleric healers is a good idea as well, though the warlord, I think, could use some reflavoring to increase the believability of its abilities.

Of course, my personal strategy would be to combine a lot of the 4e D&D classes into sub-classes of more traditional ones, though I doubt that's where 5e is headed (though who knows?). I'd probably stick warlord under the fighter class in that case, as others have suggested.

On another note, one thing I don't quite get is why people prefer warlords over clerics. They're both "the healer" aren't they?

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not.

First: I want the game to keep working without a Cleric (and also without a Fighter, without a Rogue, without a Wizard... I don't want the game to rely on the presence of any class). I don't want a game that without a Cleric requires a Warlord. As a matter of fact, the game does work without a healer, unless you want to be fighting every single day.

Hopefully you read the bottom portion of the linked article:

The reduction of a need for a cleric is one of the things I enjoy most about 4th Edition, not because I don't like clerics (actually, I love clerics) but rather because it gives the party a lot more flexibility in building their characters. The advent of the leader role allowed players to fulfill the function of the healer without requiring them to adhere to the story elements that come with being a cleric. Furthermore, when working on Dark Sun the advantages became even clearer, as we could cut out the divine power source without worrying about creating a bad play experience. As a designer, that's very liberating; as a player, a large amount of social and game pressure falls away when no one class is "required" for success.

That said, it raises some interesting questions about the concept of healers, and roles in general. Should the game even ask you to have a leader or healer? For that matter, a defender? A controller? Should any role be necessary, given how liberating the step from cleric to leader felt?

I don't think "requiring someone to be a healer" is a sacred cow, but having healers in the game is. I wouldn't want to see D&D do away with healing, but I don't think there's anything keeping us from exploring a version of D&D where players can simply play anything they want, ignoring concepts like role and function when putting together their party. To do so, we would need to take a serious look at the way player resources are allocated in D&D, and make some adjustments to the assumptions behind the design of everything from adventures to encounters to monsters.

Second: I absolutely loath the idea of having a class to represent a leader! Anyone should possibly be the party leader, no matter the class, and we have plenty of examples in classic literature and D&D settings.

It's just a name. Critics of 4e take the 'leader' name far too literally than intended. It's just a nice way of saying 'support' that does not have the connotations of 'playing second fiddle.'

Third: the name Warlord is so inappropriate to border the miseducational. Check what it means in the dictionary or wikipedia... it's not even someone who fights, it's someone who controls from a seat of power. To call that class Warlord is just as wrong as to call the Cleric class "Bishop" or the Rogue class "Crime Boss".

Have you cross-checked the denotative and historical meaning of most class names? 'Warlord' is far from the most egregious offender of inappropriate names.

(edit)

So for me the best is to butcher the Warlord class down into its basic abilities, and make some of them Feats (or whatever) available for everyone, and some others exclusive but optional class features of the Bard.

If there's room for fighter/clerics (i.e. paladins) and sorcerer/rogues (i.e. bards), then I do not see why there is not room at the class table for warlords/marshals.

On another note, one thing I don't quite get is why people prefer warlords over clerics. They're both "the healer" aren't they?

1) No religious baggage attached, and 2) cleric still has a reputation as a healer and walking party band-aid.

 

[Hussar]

I could live with War Leader, but then I'm a huge Steven Erikson fan.

Honestly, I think you could rebuild the Warlord (which, despite the real world connotations, just sounds freaking cool) to grant tons of Temp Hp and that would resolve 99% of the problems people have with the class. The warlord wouldn't be able to make you stand up after you fall down, but, he'd be constantly granting temp hp to make sure you don't fall down in the first place.

Fits with the flavour of the character quite well I think.

 

[igniz13]

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.

Read the class description of the Warlord and powers and you'll get a clear indication of how he's doing anything. If you're still unhappy that your Warlord can do anything more than hit things, just add psychic to his power descriptions and pretend. Case Closed.

The class isn't brought about from the "perceived need for healing", he's a Martial Leader and he serves in that role. There's no "purely mechanical rationale" as the archetype is quite clear in terms of what it's meant to represent and how it achieves things. It gives people who want to play a general or leader in combat, abilities which reflect that ambition. This is absolutely no different to how all classes for D&D have been designed since the game's inception.

 

[LurkAway]

It's just a name. Critics of 4e take the 'leader' name far too literally than intended. It's just a nice way of saying 'support' that does not have the connotations of 'playing second fiddle.'

I think he meant that any class (and/or any high cha PC) should be able to say 'Get up damn you, get up and fight!' and being effective.

Warlord powers ignore, I think, a vital point. The Warlord is only good at triggering internal reserves of willpower, he can't give you anything you don't have. The potential is in the individual. If you're crippled and exhausted through and through, the Warlord can scream his head off and it won't do any good, he can only inspire whatever reserves are left in you. And Warlords shouldn't have a monopoly on that ability.

In fantasy/sci-fi/action genre, there is no Warlord. There may be a commander who goes around inspiring people all day, or they may be a colonel who does that, or a mere sergeant who does that, or some combination of all of them are inspiring others at any one time, and none of them can be classified as Warlords. "Warlording" is a skill subset, not a single role as implied by the class structure.

Warlording also ignores the chemistry between personalities. Bob may not be inspired by Jane at all. Or Bob may only be inspired by Jean after she earns his trust and respect after days or weeks in the field.

Now bards could gift you with a second wind with a magical song and dance, but Warlords aren't Bards and that's the problem.

I can totally get immersed in what the fighter or wizard is doing. But if I can't dig too deeply into what the Warlord is doing. I try not to think about how everyone hears and understands exactly what the Warlord is saying and reacting accordingly, amidst the noise and pandemonium and fog of battle. I try not to visualize a fatal bleeding wound and then retcon it when the Warlord favors my PC with a hug and smile. I think that people who love Warlords don't think or care about these questions, and that's exactly the point.

For those reasons, I dislike Warlords as being a mostly gamist construct IMO (and ya, the naming annoys me too, sorry!) that doesn't help to toggle the immersive experience and the kind of stories I want from a traditional fantasy game.

I suspect the difference between those who hate Warlords and those who love them mirrors the split between those who play 1st person perspective vs those who play 3rd person/bird's eye perspective. YMMV of course, but I'm speculating generally speaking (there will always be exceptions).