Warlord in 5E

I run older editions while as a player play in one 4E game. One of the things I loved about 4e was the Warlord.

I love the concept of a non-magical healer support class in general and the Warlord became my favored class of any edition.

I know it has some that don't like it,and for sure it didn't appear in any real form till 4E(the 3.5 one was not the same).


While I am willing to let the warlord fade away for the over all good of the game(not sure if I could ever make the Warlord fit in any other edition and so not sure at all 5E could fit them in).

I would love for a Warlord class included in core. I think I am all alone in that regards though and more than willing to conceed the field and the Warlord if it must be done.


What do you guys think? Also what are some of your class choices for 5E? Will you be willing to see them not included as well? What do you think should be core?
Really? I'm the only huge warlord fan?
Really? I'm the only huge warlord fan?



I'm not a huge 4e person, but I love this idea too.  I'd like to see the class make the cut from the 4e material.
I think that the Warlord is ridiculous as a core class.

A warlord is simply someone who has experience leading others in battle. So, why should my 1st-level teenage character just starting out already be a "lord" of anytihng? It makes no sense whatsoever. Being a warlord implies having experience in war above anything else, and thus it makes zero sense as a class available to early-level characters. Make the warlord a PrC or some type of advanced build/template, but it has absolutely no business being a base class in 5E.

We already have the perfect set of 10 or 11 base classes from 3E, and there is no logical justification whatsoever for adding or subtracting from that set.

If it ain't broke...
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Umm Dude,Warlord is the name of the class. Kinda like Warlock...I mean come on why would a mage have a stupid name like that? what do they know about War?


See how err challenged that statment looks?  Or wait a Wizard? Come on now.

So you only arguement that has reason behind it is....Because it wasn't in 3E it has no place in 5E?


By the way 3E was just as broke as 4E. Thats why it got left behind. Now I actually mean that it indeed is not broke.Either is 4E.

Either was 2E or 1E or Classic.


Now if you had said something like. It shouldn't be a base class because it would make a third healer class and core doesn't need three. or if you had said that it shouldn't be core because as a new class it shouldn't replace any of the class's that have been standard for many editions.

Anything like that I could perhaps buy into your opinion.

as it stands though it seems like you only want to recreate 3E...and that isn't gonna happen.                
Umm Dude,Warlord is the name of the class. Kinda like Warlock...I mean come on why would a mage have a stupid name like that? what do they know about War?



Firstly, you just touched on the fact that the Warlock is also unnecessary... it's just a type of mage, and we already had two base classes of those: an INT-based one and a CHA-based one.  There is absolutely no need for another.  A PrC would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

Secondly, the 'war-' part of the word 'warlord' has everything to do with war in the English language, whereas the 'war-' part of the word 'warlock' doesn't have anything whatseover to do with war.  It came from the Old English term 'waerloga', which meant "oath-breaker".  See the difference?  A warlock is just a type of witch or wizard.

So you only arguement that has reason behind it is....Because it wasn't in 3E it has no place in 5E?



No, not at all.  My argument is that for edition-after-edition there was never any need for a 'warlord' as a base class, and there isn't one now.  It's extraneous and it makes no sense as a base class.  I don't even like 3E very much, and I no longer play it, so that's not the point.  It's just that it's the last decent D&D game released (well, 3.5E, to be exact), and so it makes the most sense for reference.

By the way 3E was just as broke as 4E. Thats why it got left behind. Now I actually mean that it indeed is not broke.Either is 4E.

Either was 2E or 1E or Classic.



Uh... what?

Again, the warlord makes no sense as a base class because it implies having experience leading others in war, and you simply can't have that kind of experience as a low-level character.  On the other hand, it does make sense to be a 1st-level Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, or Rogue.  They aren't lords or leaders of anything yet.

Heck, even the 4E core rulebook itself defines warlords as "accomplished and competent battle leaders".  How in the world does that make sense for an inexperienced low-level character?  It simply doesn't make sense in any way, shape, or form.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
 edition-after-edition there was never any need for a 'warlord' as a base class


This is your opinion. I for one think diferantly. For instance in my games not one player wants to play a cleric,druid,bard or any sort of healer other than warlord.

 Warlord obviously fills a need in our games that isn't covered by any other class. 



Again, the warlord makes no sense as a base class because it implies having experience leading others in war, and you simply can't have that kind of experience as a low-level character

Really? You can buy Elves with pointy ears and people casting fireballs,10 ton dragons breathing fire and giant eyeballs zapping people with eyestalks zappers,People coming back from the dead and ships that fly in the sky but a young man trained in how to get fighting men to act as a team and in general tactics is just too much for your imagination eh? 

The fact that a out of game label named Warlord is too far of a stretch for you right? I mean its not like in game people are walking around saying"that guy there is a level 2 Warlord and that guy is a level 1 Fighter,I am a level 3 Wizard"


Warlord is just a label.


Ok we get it. Your imagination is so limited.Cool.


I think you Bias  is showing.            

Also the next time you feel the need to lecture language,don't. You just come off looking snarky. 


I on the other hand am actually wanting to talk about the class itself and how it should or shouldn't be included in 5e based on people knowledge of the class and how it works and how 5E will work.

Let's see here now ...

First, the name of the class is utterly irrelevant.  Characters are not aware of their class.  He can call himself whatever he wants.  The fact that you make such a snit about it adds credence to the idea that 5e needs to get rid of classes because people get hung up on stupid details like the name.

Two, nothing says your 1st level character has to be some wet-behind-the-ears teenager.  He can be 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 years old if you want.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I like the Warlord but I don't like that he heals.  I know it can be looked at as inspiring and such, but it still irks me.

I would love the Warlord to have a mechanic that allows him to grant others the ability to avoid damage at the cost of a healing surge rather then replenish it with encouraging words.  Maybe an aura that others can make use of once per encounter or some such limitation.

In any case.  It is a good clas concept that I hope makes the cut.
This is your opinion. I for one think diferantly. For instance in my games not one player wants to play a cleric,druid,bard or any sort of healer other than warlord.

 Warlord obviously fills a need in our games that isn't covered by any other class.  



The ridiculous fact that the warlord is somehow also a healer in 4E only strengthens my argument.  It makes no sense whatseover in the context of D&D.  Maybe it makes sense in WoW or some other game setting, but I have never heard of such a thing in all my life, and I've been playing D&D since I was a little kid in the 80's.

This kind of thing is precisely what alienated so many D&D fans and cost WotC so much money with the 4E debacle to begin with.  The new players care nothing about the D&D world that has existed for decades, and upon which much of the customer base has been built over the years.  If the previous mythos is not restored, then 5E is already doomed.

And just exactly how does the cleric class not serve as an acceptable healer in your campaign?  The cool thing about clerics is that because they can worship so many different gods, they can vary a great deal with regard to their style.  If you want a battle-oriented healer, then there are specialty priests of war gods that would fit nicely.  On the other hand, if you want a sneaky cleric, there are specialty priests of gods of stealth and subterfuge that would do, and so on.  The possibilities are numerous, and awesome, and they are what D&D is all about.

I mean come on, how can your players not love specialty priests?  

Really? You can buy Elves with pointy ears and people casting fireballs,10 ton dragons breathing fire and giant eyeballs zapping people with eyestalks zappers,People coming back from the dead and ships that fly in the sky but a young man trained in how to get fighting men to act as a team and in general tactics is just too much for your imagination eh?



This is about the canonical concepts of the world that the game is set within, and those other things you mentioned have always been a part of that world.  This Warlord stuff, on the other hand, has nothing whatsoever to do with that world.  It is a new concept (along with the Warlock) that simply makes no sense in D&D (at least not as a base class), and it is completely unnecessary anyway.

Also the next time you feel the need to lecture language,don't. You just come off looking snarky.



You made the erroneous suggestion that the the 'war-' part of each word meant the same thing, and I simply proved that it doesn't.  Call me snarky if you want, but I was exactly right.

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Let's see here now ...

First, the name of the class is utterly irrelevant.  Characters are not aware of their class.  He can call himself whatever he wants.  The fact that you make such a snit about it adds credence to the idea that 5e needs to get rid of classes because people get hung up on stupid details like the name.



So you think that getting rid of even more of the central concepts that have shaped our D&D universe for almost 30 years is actually a good idea?  Sort of a 4E-on-steroids approach?

Really?

The prospect of a successful 5E is getting dimmer by the minute...

Two, nothing says your 1st level character has to be some wet-behind-the-ears teenager.  He can be 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 years old if you want.



Yeah, so?

If he is still 1st level, then he is by definition inexperienced, regardless of how old he is.  That's just how the game works.  My point stands that the concept is nonsensical as a base class, not to mention utterly and completely unnecessary.

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Well. no classes are really necessary.  I don't think I like that as a reason to get rid of it. 

I can, however, see the Warlord being roled into the Fighter as a build that specializes in tactics.
The warlord class kind of implied that saying "grr! Get up! Keep fighting!!" was equivalent to being healed by the magic powers of a benevolent god. Always kind of bugged me. Warlords can shout at you and your flesh will stitch up?
The warlord class kind of implied that saying "grr! Get up! Keep fighting!!" was equivalent to being healed by the magic powers of a benevolent god. Always kind of bugged me. Warlords can shout at you and your flesh will stitch up?


That imagery implies that taking damage reflects receiving actual wounds. My favorite example is when people ask if an axe to the face should be able to be healed by non-magical means. My response is that an axe to the face isn't just damage; it's lethal.

HP clearly doesn't represent more than the most minor physical wounds: scratches, grazing blows, and bruises. A cleric will heal those to remove the pain. A warlord will encourage his allies to IGNORE their pain and press on regardless.

Plus, warlords are ten times cooler than clerics, anyways. 

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

The warlord class kind of implied that saying "grr! Get up! Keep fighting!!" was equivalent to being healed by the magic powers of a benevolent god. Always kind of bugged me. Warlords can shout at you and your flesh will stitch up?


That imagery implies that taking damage reflects receiving actual wounds. My favorite example is when people ask if an axe to the face should be able to be healed by non-magical means. My response is that an axe to the face isn't just damage; it's lethal.

HP clearly doesn't represent more than the most minor physical wounds: scratches, grazing blows, and bruises. A cleric will heal those to remove the pain. A warlord will encourage his allies to IGNORE their pain and press on regardless.

Plus, warlords are ten times cooler than clerics, anyways. 

Novacat nails it....
The games language needs to better show that losing hit points != wounds and recovering them != auto stitching

There should be many references to losing hit points instead of damage 

I like the Warlord but I don't like that he heals.  I know it can be looked at as inspiring and such, but it still irks me. 



The word referring to aiding the recovery of hit points via inspiration in the mechanics across the board needs to be changed to invigorate or the like.

There needs to be an actual but optional wound mechanic that can normally be attended to and which normally only kicks in after the fight. It can have a Heal Wound ritual to go with it.


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

The games language needs to better show that losing hit points != wounds and recovering them != auto stitching


I agree with this.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

The warlord class kind of implied that saying "grr! Get up! Keep fighting!!" was equivalent to being healed by the magic powers of a benevolent god. Always kind of bugged me. Warlords can shout at you and your flesh will stitch up?


That imagery implies that taking damage reflects receiving actual wounds. My favorite example is when people ask if an axe to the face should be able to be healed by non-magical means. My response is that an axe to the face isn't just damage; it's lethal.

HP clearly doesn't represent more than the most minor physical wounds: scratches, grazing blows, and bruises. A cleric will heal those to remove the pain. A warlord will encourage his allies to IGNORE their pain and press on regardless.

Plus, warlords are ten times cooler than clerics, anyways. 


 
I would argue the cleric is also encouraging allies to to the same and its even more fatigue and luck... (gygax mentions luck big time in the description of hit points..... people just put there fingers in there ears).
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

The fact that 4e had an alternative to the cleric was one of its strong suits.  So, IMO, they really need to keep the warlord around in some form. It would be very irritating to have to go back to the days of deciding which player was going to be the cleric, whether he wanted to play one or not.  

Oh and as for 'Warlord' implying someone with a lot of combat experience and thus its silly for an inexperienced first level character to be one, this is true.  But its a good thing that's not what the CHARACTER necessarily repreents.  An inexperienced youth with natural leadership and/or tactical ability is a perfectly fine archetype for fantasy and to explain how your beardless youth is a 'Warlord'.  It simply boils down to being more concerned with what the class is meant to represent than the specific meaning of the word used to tag that class.  Otherwise, Paladins should only be allowed in games featuring Charlemagne. 
Well. no classes are really necessary.  I don't think I like that as a reason to get rid of it. 

I can, however, see the Warlord being roled into the Fighter as a build that specializes in tactics.

I'd also like to see it rolled into the fighter as a build (or two), or maybe just a collection of powers that the fighter can access.  I can see one obvious collection of powers for tactics, and another for motivation.

I'd be very impressed if the way in which warlords did their healing trick changed.  Maybe they allow all nearby allies to use their second wind as a free action, or make a single ally recover their second wind.  Or grant temporary hp.  But they couldn't "heal" the unconscious (or the ability would be reduced... like how they say speaking to someone in a coma makes a difference).

But the idea of a tactician or a motivating warrior is one of the ideas that I really loved about 4e, and I'd really like to see the concept carried over.


I would really like to see the warlord in 5e. It was a cool concept that I had a lot of fun playing. In every 3e game I played one person had to play a cleric in order for others to play whatever they wanted because the healing output was just better than the Druid or paladin or bard or anyone with UMD and healing items.

4e did a great job giving every class less reliance on others by allowing a lot of classes dip into roles that their class can't originally cover. Also it allowed the game to rely on having the cleric as part of every party by having other classes choose to fill the role of the leader.

I have been reding the legends and lore compilation and found some cool ideas in it that I hope 5e covers. It talks of healing powers as being a mechanical way of removing bad luck from the party. Which in it's most general sense mechanically it does. I think the next warlord should be able to prevent people from getting hurt by bad dice luck.

Where the cleric should be able to heal you after taking a tumble in a lit trap or getting hit with a critical from a flesh golem, the warlord should be able to train you to be prepared from these situations. With a gesture and a shout he can inspire the party to become something greater than themselves and when a trap spring the warlord can give a warning and give the party a bonus to saving throws or what not.

Mainly I am trying to say is that warlord can still lead like clerics but should be different mechanically and visually. Having both of them in the game but having different rules but manage the same roll to the party will only strengthen 5e while keeping the same streamlined roles of 4e.
Holy cow sorry for the errors I am on my phone. I will try to fix them when I get home.
I can, however, see the Warlord being roled into the Fighter as a build that specializes in tactics.



Considering that I strongly feel that the number of base classes in the game should be reduced, I'm all for this. Fighters should be the kings of the battlefield, and there should be ways to customize the class to be a knight, swashbuckler, tactical warrior, etc.

The games language needs to better show that losing hit points != wounds and recovering them != auto stitching



My cynicism says that it could be put in big neon, flashing letters and people would still miss it.

As for non-cleric healing... Why not just use the Heal skill to accomplish this?
The ridiculous fact that the warlord is somehow also a healer in 4E only strengthens my argument.  It makes no sense whatseover in the context of D&D.  Maybe it makes sense in WoW or some other game setting, but I have never heard of such a thing in all my life, and I've been playing D&D since I was a little kid in the 80's.


  
(Apparently, Cat already covered this point on Page 2.  My bad for not reading through the whole thread before I replied.)

... You do realize that hit points are an abstraction, right?  It's a measure of how long your character can keep going, despite the odds.  When your characters get hit by a longsword, they aren't necessarily being skewered through the gut; when your characters get caught flat-footed, and take a hit from a Lurker's dagger, they aren't necessarily having their throats slashed; when your characters get caught in the blast of a fireball, they aren't necessarily cooked alive in their armour.  If you've got 150 hit points, and an enemy's sword does around 10 per swing, then every time he scores a hit, he's just chipping away at your stamina.  Every time your HP gets drained, your reactions get a little bit slower, until eventually you reach 0 (or below), and the enemy scores a critical strike that puts you down.

So, when a Warlord heals you, he's motivating you to go on.  Have you ever been to the gym, or involved in a sports team?  Training can be really rough, but if you've got a friend spotting you, and he's telling you that you're doing good, and that you just need to push out one last rep, it makes a huge difference.  The Warlord, like your workout buddy, is there to inspire you and fill you with the confidence you need to keep going when you otherwise wouldn't be able to.  His Inspiring Word power doesn't necessarily magically knit-up your wounds, or clear away your bruises -- he's simply inspiring you to stand up and take another shot.

I've said this a lot, lately, but try not to blame 4E for your inability to think outside the box.
First of all, Warlords are awesome. One of the coolest things about 4e IMO.

And I do like that HP have always been partly luck, and now we have a way to reflect that in settings with no divine characters.

The tactician is an archetype that D&D had really been lacking up until 4th edition. I can increase the effectiveness of everyone else just by being around.
You do realize that hit points are an abstraction, right?  It's a measure of how long your character can keep going, despite the odds.


Of course, and we've always seen it that way. You do nice job of explaining the abstract nature of hit points with the rest of your post, but you are preaching to the choir, as that's how we already see it (we play SAGA, after all).

But that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I've said this a lot, lately, but try not to blame 4E for your inability to think outside the box.


I am well outside of the little 4E box, thank you very much. Obviously you have completely missed the point of what I was saying. We simply don't need an entirely new base class that has no canonical precedent just to fill such a narrow, prescribed role. There are much easier (and more logical) ways to do it.

 I'd also like to see it rolled into the fighter as a build (or two), or maybe just a collection of powers that the fighter can access.  I can see one obvious collection of powers for tactics, and another for motivation.


I agree with you guys, as that sounds like the most reasonable solution by far. Fighters could have access to certain kinds of talent trees in order to do those things, and that would solve the problem of having too many extraneous base classes.

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
 I certainly don't think the Warlord's unnecessary; he does a great job of highlighting a lot of the new options we have in 4E.  It's easily one of my favorite Leader classes (I prefer Martial character roles, personally), and probably one of my favorite classes presented in 4E.  Having said that, who knows how 5E will pan out?  I'd ideally like to see Wizards reduce the total number of classes, and allow players to build upon really basic concepts.

Instead of having dozens of classses to choose from, it'd be nice if we had, say, 4 core concepts: something like Warrior, Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric.  These are fairly broad concepts; broad enough to expand upon in pretty much any direction.  A player who chooses the Warrior archetype would choose from a huge list of Warrior powers, and might end up building his character in any number of ways.  Maybe my Warrior would be focused on speed and heavy weapons (something like a Barbarian), while another was more focused on tactical-positioning and battlefield control (something like a Fighter), while another still might be focused on leadership and support (there's your Warlord), etc.

I think that'd be great.  It'll be really interesting to see how it pans out. 

I like the idea of a warlord pretty much.
One thing of 4e that I found refreshing was the possibility to have themed groups, such as groups that are based on one singular power source. Want a world without magic? - Use an all-martial group. Want a primitive, spiritual setting? - go all primal. Want to play in Netheril? Yay, all-arcane.

I do not find the idea of having older characters ridiculous. Using that as an argument you'd have to erase the whole Deva race. The warlord represents a tactical genius, the one who is trained in inspiring people and letting them control the battlefield. Think about characters like Cesare Borgia or Shikamaru, they are your young warlords.

What we need in 5e is both a revamp of older "classic" concepts like the canonical fighter or cleric and an addition of newer stuff that had a lot of fans. And by that I do not mean "we're catering to flashy concepts so we might attract the kids". I'm looking at you, Tiefling, Warlock and Dragonborn... ( I loved the 3e DB so I might be biased here^^)