Why we need Warlords in D&DN

[LurkAway]

As a Dragonlance fan, the warlord is a natural archetype. They fit the world of Krynn quite well, from Tanis to the Knights of the Rose to the Dragon Highlords and beyond.

Ironically, upthread, someone else specifically said that Tanis was a leader (of the party) but not a Leader (metagame), so thus NOT a warlord. And Knights of the Rose were mechanically knight classes. Sturm Brightblade was glum and uninspiring, so not a warlord. There are no warlord IMO in standard fantasy fiction. I think the warlord concept is shoehorned in after the fact, because preceding 4E, they were never thought as such and no class powers supporting warlordness.

 

[LurkAway]

The fact that they are mundane is part of their appeal, to me (and presumably others). If it's just another type of cleric, why bother?

Another suggestion was made upthread asking if one fluffed as a noble lord would be ok, and honestly, I didn't like that treatment either. It's too much specific flavour tied into the concept. I would prefer to have these things approached with as little of that as possible, since it can vary so widely campaign to campaign.

I understand where you're coming from. I hope you likewise then understand where I'm coming from that this might mean that rules like warlords and other contentious points that aren't tweaked one way or another to be less contentious might not make the cut into a "default"/core 5E -- which I would be OK with. I would just happen to enjoy having a Lord of War in my game.

 

[Greg K]

As a Dragonlance fan, the warlord is a natural archetype. They fit the world of Krynn quite well, from Tanis to the Knights of the Rose to the Dragon Highlords and beyond. In fact, I used them to differentiate the Knights of the Rose from the other two orders in the Knights of Solamnia.)

I had wanted to list Tanis. However, I had not read the original Dragonlance trilogy in years and could not recall for sure if he and/or Sturm fit the Warlord (pushing them when they were tired and thought could not continue, giving the tactical orders in combat(i.e, buffing their attacks), etc.)

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I understand where you're coming from. I hope you likewise then understand where I'm coming from that this might mean that rules like warlords and other contentious points that aren't tweaked one way or another to be less contentious might not make the cut into a "default"/core 5E -- which I would be OK with. I would just happen to enjoy having a Lord of War in my game, feels closer to 'classic' D&D which I think/assume/hope is the goal of a core 5E.

I think that the niche the class fills should be there, but be left up to individual groups or gamers to decide the fluff on. You have already imagined a flavour in which you would find it acceptable - great. When you play one, apply it, or when you include it in your campaigns, provide that background. I just don't want the system telling me those kinds of things.

I'd be okay with that information existing in a sidebar or something, suggesting any number of ways the concept can be flavoured, much like in 2e, how each class got a blue-shaded block of text providing archetypal examples. In 5e such a block would also include examples on how to redress a class for many different campaigns and themes, with there being no set 'default' if at all possible.

 

[ferratus]

Tanis isn't a warlord. The only thing he led his party to was to the bottom of the ocean.

Laurana on the other hand, THAT's a warlord. She took squabbling elves, dwarves, and Solamnic Knights from different nations, whipped them into a cohesive army in under a month, and pushed the Dragon Highlords back into Nereka.

 

[LurkAway]

I think that the niche the class fills should be there, but be left up to individual groups or gamers to decide the fluff on. You have already imagined a flavour in which you would find it acceptable - great. When you play one, apply it, or when you include it in your campaigns, provide that background. I just don't want the system telling me those kinds of things.

See upthread. It's not about me playing the warlord. It's about another player playing a mundane warlord. Or a bard insulting skeletons to death. etc.

 

[LurkAway]

Laurana on the other hand, THAT's a warlord. She took squabbling elves, dwarves, and Solamnic Knights from different nations, whipped them into a cohesive army in under a month, and pushed the Dragon Highlords back into Nereka.

Laurana was a diplomat. She wasn't being warlordy during battle. She was concerned about her own fighting and just surviving and not getting killed. She never paid attention to her comrades in battle.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

See upthread. It's not about me playing the warlord. It's about another player playing a mundane warlord. Or a bard insulting skeletons to death. etc.

Then, like I said, when you run a game, you can decide how they are flavoured in your world.

 

[mlund]

The fluff issue is a matter of trying to tell other player they are playing the "wrong" way. There is no rule requiring a damage preventing or removing class to have a "divine" power source. Even in third edition you had Druids stretching the defintion of "divine" magic to the breaking point just to create a binary separation with arcane spells. Then there's the Bard, who was explicitly an arcane caster, who had arcane scrolls of Cure X Wounds.

So, no. Leave the power-source of the warlord alone. A pseudo-paladin that channels divine magic is not a compromise. It's specifically taking away what people like about the warlord so they are forced to play your way.

- Marty Lund

 

[ferratus]

Laurana was a diplomat. She wasn't being warlordy during battle. She was concerned about her own fighting and just surviving and not getting killed. She never paid attention to her comrades in battle.

No, she was the leader of the half of the companions that found the Dragon Orb in Icewall and killed Feal-Thas. She was the one who used the silver dragons' ice breath weapon to dam the Vingaard River and then use brass dragons to release it to flood the Vingaard Plains. It was Laurana who summoned up the will to control another Dragon Orb in the High Clerist's tower, something she was able to do because of her high mental stats.

From the sack of Tarsis onwards, Laurana was a 4e warlord and acted like one. Except when she let herself get captured by Bakaris, but I think we're getting off topic here.