Does the "Warlord" archetype need to be a base class?

442 posts / 0 new
Last post
I was talking to my friend about this earlier, and, honestly, I just don't think that "Warlord" works for a base class - at least as I understand the entiriety of the class. What follows is all my opinion, and I claim no superiority whatsoever. 

First, an explanation. I like the Warlord class very much as a class. I enjoy the idea of a skilled tactian/leader who has martial prowess. I enjoy the archetype of the powerful general leading a battle cry from the front of his army before the charge. When I hear of a "Warlord" character archetype, I think of two things: 
"War", meaning that the character archetype knows and has experienced much of (mass?) combat.
"Lord", from which I infer that the player archetype is a leader, an inspiration, and has a high level of authority over a lot of people, most or all of which are inferior to the character archetype in one way or another, whether that be in terms of martial skill or just military rank.

The second half of "Lord" is what I personally have a problem with. This idea of leading a large force is something that has always been iconic in the stories of non-D&D real-world warlords. And this is something that just doesn't show up in the base class, especially at low levels. 

I understand that the "battlefield skill" and "seeing the larger battle" were, functionally, there. But it didn't feel right in terms of fluff and levels, to me, at least. Sure, a 1st level warlord "aspires to lead an army one day", but that's the point. They either haven't led one yet or just aren't at the level of in-game power to justify leading one. They are a person with potential to be a warlord (in the non-class, real-world sense), but they aren't one. 

(Again, all of this is just my opinion. You may feel differently, and I respect that completely.)

As a prestige class, however, I can very much understand and love the Warlord. I believe the designers said that they want to make prestige classes more background, in-game events oriented, rather than just having character stats prerequisites. So, rather than requiring a fighter (or whatever class) to have, say, training in Knowledge (warfare) and other such things to become a Warlord (Prestige class), the character has to lead an army, or some largish force into battle and win. In this way, things that might have otherwise been prerequisites in other editions are not necessary to start the prestige class "Warlord", but simply make it much easier to fulfill the narrative prerequisite of successfully leading an army. It also allows players to attempt to start the Prestige class early while making a player who is higher level (and thus, in terms of power level, closer to the "Warlord" archetype of Alexander the Great and William Wallace) have an easier time becoming one. 

As a DM, I might have a dying king ask a dwarf fighter to lead his army into battle in his stead. I would rule this as an extended set of skill challenges mixed with combat. If the dwarf fighter is first level, his skill die is a d4, making it difficult to meet some of the skill checks for "Knowledge (warfare)" and the such, and the combat will be more taxing on him. A 7th level dwarf fighter, however, is both more martially adept and has a higher skill die, a d8. Thus, he will have an easier time leading the dying king's army to victory. 

Now, the warlord prestige class could do things like granting extra actions, healing/hurting through charisma checks (perhaps with restrictions, like "only targets that can hear/see the warlord are affected" for some abilities and/or "Only targets above/below half-HP can be healed/hurt by the warlord", not perfect, but it's an idea), and hitting things (perhaps with abilities that activate after winning a one-on-one combat with a significant enemy combatant).

Alternatively, I like idea of the "Tactician" base class as well, even if the name is a bit dry. As I understand it, the 4e Warlord is about helping your friends while still being effective in combat. By "helping friends", I mean giving extra actions, healing, and hitting things fairly hard. If a class like this existed as a base class, it could very much do things the Warlord 4e class does, like giving extra actions (and reactions for 5e), hitting things fairly hard, and perhaps a spot of healing. 

Anyway, that is my two cents, and my two cents are worth not more or less than anyone else's two cents.

TL;DR: I think the Warlord class, while a good idea and a great concept, should be renamed to better fit what it does (and perhaps a prestige class could be made which focuses on mass combat and mass troop leadership and bears the name Warlord .
Reasons:
-innaccuracy of the name at lower levels when the PC has no actual experience leading an army.
-Lower levels of the 4e do not, imo, reflect the archetype of "warlord"
-Class names (imo) are important to tying the class to an archtype, and should accurately represent what the player does equally at every level, at every stage of power.

Thoughts?
The name is irrelevant.  A character is not aware of his class, much less that they even exist.  He's not going to wander around thinking 'Why do I not have an army if I'm a warlord?'

And if lame-os like the bard, druid, and paladin are worth making into a class, the warlord definitely deserves to exist.
The name is irrelevant.  A character is not aware of his class, much less that they even exist.  He's not going to wander around thinking 'Why do I not have an army if I'm a warlord?'
And if lame-os like the bard, druid, and paladin are worth making into a class, the warlord definitely deserves to exist.

I was going to respond, but this is pretty much everything that I was going to say in a much shorter package.

The name is totally irrelevant. Do you think that every Rogue is some social deviant? Beyond that, the concept is just as worthy of being a base class as something like a Bard or Druid or Monk or Paladin. These are also things that supposedly take time or training or experience to achieve. These arguments that you make against the Warlord as a base class are, frankly, irrelevant.

Perhaps your problem then lies in your opening statement. Maybe you simply don't understand the entirely of the class. Or maybe it's just the name that you have a problem with, which I think is a pretty silly reason to object to a class's actual concept.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Does the "Warlord" archetype need to be a base class?

Yes.

The second half of "Lord" is what I personally have a problem with. This idea of leading a large force is something that has always been iconic in the stories of non-D&D real-world warlords. And this is something that just doesn't show up in the base class, especially at low levels. 

Thoughts?

That's just the "turnip cart" objection.  It applies to prettymuch all classes and is just an example of how silly it is to think of PCs as using class names and other game jargon in character.


Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

But FireFoxInferno, why then name the class the Warlord, if they are not one archetypically (yet)? My thought is that, to me, the class name, which is important to the overall identity of a class, doesn't accurately represent the class at all levels. A Wizard is a Wizard no matter his level, but what is a Warlord without having experience leading in war? (I appreciate what you said about the characters not knowing their classes - I agree with the sentiment, btw - but I'm playing off archetypes here.) And if a character is unaware of his "class", then why not make a specialty called "tactitian" and apply it to a fighter with a relatively high INT/CHA score? The fighter can then grow into the "warlord archetype".
 
But FireFoxInferno, why then name the class the Warlord, if they are not one (yet)? My thought is that, to me, it doesn't at all accurately represent the class at all levels. A Wizard is a Wizard no matter his level, but what is a Warlord without having experience leading in war? (I appreciate what you said about the characters not know their classes - I agree with the sentiment, btw - but I'm playing off archetypes here.) And if a character is unaware of his "class", then why not make a specialty called "tactitian" and apply it to a fighter with a relatively high INT/CHA score? The fighter can then grow into the "warlord archetype".



the name is nothing more then a convent way to refering to the class, its easier to remenber "warlord" then "class 7"

some times class concepts dont have a name that is perfect for them, its not a big deal, certainly not enogh to stop the class from being made.


Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
Why then name the class the Warlord, if they are not one?

Why name the class Barbarian when there's nothing at all stopping a character of the class from being a perfectly civilized and distinguished socialite? Why name the class Ranger when the character may simply be a modest archer? Why name the class Monk when they may have no religious or philosophical association at all, merely perfecting their martial arts? You need to understand that these names don't matter all that much. You have this image of a grand WARLORD in your mind, but that's not what the class has to be if you don't like it. I think that it's stupid to have a class named "Fighter", but I'm not going to throw out the whole concept just because I disagree with the name, especially not if the name has no bearing on anything.

What is a Warlord without having experience leading in war?

Questions like these just have no relevance. I think that's what you're not getting about the Warlord as a class concept.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
It's not the best name, but neither is barbarian, fighter, or cleric.

And the "tactician" is a warlord by concept.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Warlord should exist as a high level fighter but not as a base class, as you said.

I think we should change the base class names to

Fighting
Skilled
Fighting-Casting
Casting

All characters start with 3 background skills.

Each named class should have a list of recommended skills and maneuvers on top of that.

Fighting(Archer, Brute, Berzerker)
Skilled(Assassin, Rogue, Ranger)
Fighting-Casting(Monk, [Cleric, Druid], Paladin, [Warlock, Witch])
Casting(Bard, Psion, Wizard)

kira3696.tripod.com
I suppose my thinking is that the class name is important for the identity of a class, especially if one is not familiar with the rules/the class. It is, infact, what will draw people to playing a class, and while I do not know what everyone thinks about when they hear the word "Warlord", but my 3 roommates, who do not play and therefore do not know the class rules, think that a Warlord is more of an archetyical general or a commander.

The class rules aregreat, the concept is great - I just suggest a simple name change for the base class concept so that newer players, or those who have never played the 4e "warlord" class, are not confused, and perhaps make a prestige class called teh "Warlord", which has a focus on, perhaps, mass combat and/or mass leadership of troops.
Does the Warlord need to be a base class?

NO 

It really doesn't.  You want a class that can participate in martial combat while also providing benefits to his party and some healing?  Play a Cleric.  Or maybe the Cleric isn't enough of a martial class to suit you.  Okay, play a paladin.  Oh, you want something that isn't divine, okay, play a bard.  

Ultimately, once you divorce the warlord from his source its power and really look at the role it fills, you can see pretty easily that it is not a needed class.  It doesn't provide anything that any other class couldn't provide from an archtypical perspective.  

Now, that said, could the Warlord be a class of its own and stand up?  Sure!  Does it need to be a class in Standard?  No, not really.  Then again, I don't think that the Monk or Barbarian need to be in standard either.
But FireFoxInferno, why then name the class the Warlord, if they are not one archetypically (yet)?
 



Because it sounds cool.  If it's good enough for a monster truck ...

Class names, race names, feat names, everything are just a side effect of the system having to package everything into neat little kits with peppy monikers.  Your character is not aware of what you've written on your character sheet; for that matter, if you don't like what your class is called, you can write that on your sheet.  Or completely reflavor it to your liking.

BTW, to me, 'Tactician' implies someone who doesn't know how to fight well himself.  Warlord implies both tactical knowledge and personal combat skill.
Does the Warlord need to be a base class?

NO 

It really doesn't.  You want a class that can participate in martial combat while also providing benefits to his party and some healing?  Play a Cleric.  Or maybe the Cleric isn't enough of a martial class to suit you.  Okay, play a paladin.  Oh, you want something that isn't divine, okay, play a bard.



And if you want to play something that isn't magical at all, or you're playing in a non-magical game world and none of those are available?
I just suggest a simple name change for the base class concept so that newer players, or those who have never played the 4e "warlord" class, are not confused.

I've taught a bunch of new people how to play starting with 4E, and nobody was ever confused by it. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but you gave some too, so there we go, and at least mine involves people that were actually interested in D&D. I think that your worries are unfounded.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
The barbarian does not use barbs.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I suppose my thinking is that the class name is important for the identity of a class, especially if one is not familiar with the rules/the class. It is, infact, what will draw people to playing a class,

Nod.  For me, it evokes ERB's John Carter, so that's a big plus.  ;)  It doesn't evoke a formal military hierarchy and does evoke bad-ass and  leadership, without coming down on the side of inspiration or tactics, leaving it open to both (and more).  A very good name for a very good class.  Loads more evocative and interesting than Cleric, Bard, Thief, Ranger, Paladin, & c.  Yes, it has a darker connotation, a 'warlord' could be a ruthless or downright evil leader of a rampaging force.  In that sense, it's about on par with Warlock & Sorcerer, which isn't a bad thing, at all.  In spite of their negative connotations, and their actual meanings not mapping too well to their game mechanics (a sorcerer, for intance, 'should' be talking to spirits), they're pretty good names.





Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Does the Warlord need to be a base class?

NO 

It really doesn't.  You want a class that can participate in martial combat while also providing benefits to his party and some healing?  Play a Cleric.  Or maybe the Cleric isn't enough of a martial class to suit you.  Okay, play a paladin.  Oh, you want something that isn't divine, okay, play a bard.



And if you want to play something that isn't magical at all, or you're playing in a non-magical game world and none of those are available?



Strawman.

D&D assumes a magical world, therefore any non-magical world would have to be presented as a module or heavily houseruled.    

And what if I want to play a non-magical version of a Wizard?  What if I want non-magical teleport and fireball abilities?  Should that immediately be catered to?  The issue is that if a role is already filled, then it is already filled regardless of how, and anything extra is not a necessary part of the Standard game. 

YOu can want it.  They could put it in and it wouldn't bother me.  But if the question is:  "Is this necessary?" then the answer is no.
Strawman.

That's not what a strawman is.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Does the Warlord need to be a base class?

NO 

It really doesn't.  You want a class that can participate in martial combat while also providing benefits to his party and some healing?  Play a Cleric.  Or maybe the Cleric isn't enough of a martial class to suit you.  Okay, play a paladin.  Oh, you want something that isn't divine, okay, play a bard.



And if you want to play something that isn't magical at all, or you're playing in a non-magical game world and none of those are available?



Strawman.

D&D assumes a magical world, therefore any non-magical world would have to be presented as a module or heavily houseruled.   



In 4e, you just use inherent bonuses and say 'martial classes only'.  Done.  Is that 'heavily houseruled'?

I also notice you didn't address the 'what if you want to play something that isn't magical at all' issue.  Probably because you don't have a wrong answer for that either.
Can we all be nice and not sarcastic? Please? Beside, this is getting a bit off topic - we ain't discussing low-magic settings, we're discussing the WARLORD! WAAAAAAGH!

 
Although I guess my "Warlord prestige class" idea is compatible with wizards.
Can we all be nice and not sarcastic? 



You must be new here.  Welcome to the Internet.
It may be the internet, but just because you can't see the person you are angering/hurting/affecting doesn't make taking actions that end in anger/hurt, like sarcasm, any less innappropriate. It might be a lost cause to call people out over the internet, but I'll do it anyway, because, after my own experience of beuing bullied in the real world and people just walking away, I'd rather call those people on the internet who have said hurtful stuff out than remain silent.

EDIT: Now, back to the warlord 4e class/warlord archtype discussion. Please try to be civil and to remember that everyone is a person.
And if you want to play something that isn't magical at all, or you're playing in a non-magical game world and none of those are available?

D&D assumes a magical world, therefore any non-magical world would have to be presented as a module or heavily houseruled.    

Well, it wouldn't /have/ to be.  In 4e, for instance, you'd have to ban most classes - only the Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Warlord are non-magical - but that's still a viable party, right there.  You'd also have to toss a lot of monsters, but there are plenty left, and making new ones is easy.  It would be a constricted version of D&D, but require no actual house ruling.

That's not true of any other version of D&D, all of which collapse into unplayability without abundant magical healing. 

And what if I want to play a non-magical version of a Wizard?

You're out of luck, even in 4e, as there was no purely-martial Controller.  I suppose you could play a Hunter and swap out all the primal utilities for martial ones, but that might require a bit of house-ruling, here and there.

But if the question is:  "Is this necessary?" then the answer is no.

Strictly speaking no class is "necessary:"  D&D could be as good - or likely, better - as a classless system.



Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Nope. The warlord should go the way of the theif-acrobat and the cavalier since fighters are not getting "spells" in 4E and are non-magical. Having a "martial" healer as a concept is not needed. D&D Next articles by Mike Mearls have explicitly said they are not continuing the Defender, Leader,Striker,Controller function of 4E for all power sources into D&D Next.  
Can we all be nice and not sarcastic? 



You must be new here.  Welcome to the Internet.


Internet: where meanness is justified through anonymity

I can somewhat understand someone who is not acting nice to someone he disagrees with.
But being mean to someone who is just asking people to be nice is a whole new level of mean.



........ (come to think of it, it's not exactly new: 2000 years ago some dude told us to be nice to one another: We nailed him to a cross)  
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Does the Warlord need to be a base class?

NO 

It really doesn't.  You want a class that can participate in martial combat while also providing benefits to his party and some healing?  Play a Cleric.  Or maybe the Cleric isn't enough of a martial class to suit you.  Okay, play a paladin.  Oh, you want something that isn't divine, okay, play a bard.



And if you want to play something that isn't magical at all, or you're playing in a non-magical game world and none of those are available?



Strawman.

D&D assumes a magical world, therefore any non-magical world would have to be presented as a module or heavily houseruled.   



In 4e, you just use inherent bonuses and say 'martial classes only'.  Done.  Is that 'heavily houseruled'?

I also notice you didn't address the 'what if you want to play something that isn't magical at all' issue.  Probably because you don't have a wrong answer for that either.



I did address it.  Arguing that the game needs (note the italicized text, need is a very strong word) a Martial healing class is the same as arguing that it needs an arcane healing class, or that it needs a martial equivalent to the Wizard (which was my point of comparison when addressing your point... a point of comparison you chose to delete when quoting me).  

D&D assumes magic exists and is available to the players as a default.  So the if the role of Warlord is to enhance his allies, heal them and fight alongside them... that role is already filled.. and yes it is filled with magical classes.  If it is a requirement that there be a non-magical version of that magical class, then it follows that D&D must need a non-magical equivalent to the Wizard.  But it doesn't, because the role is already filled.  Any secondary attempt to fill that same role is not pointless, but it is merely an addition made for flavor, thus you have tertiary classes that are not filling a unique role but supplanting a role already covered by the Core classes.  

Now, you may have a desire to play a martial character that can heal/enhance his allies.  Cool.  I think you shhould be able to, but I can't argue that this option needs to be a part of the Core game.  Was it okay for the Druid not to be a part of 4e's core?  Yes, because that role was already filled.  Did I still want to see the druid?  Yes!  Would it be okay if the Druid was not a part of 5e's core?  Yes, and for the same reasons.  And yet, Druid is a much more iconic and longstanding D&D class.

All that being said, I would also agree that the warlord is much better off being its own class than being sidelined as some variant option.  I think there is enough meat on the concept to build a fully functioning and unique class.  People who argue otherwise tend to look at the bare minimum expression needed.  I think that anyone who could argue that would have to argue that the barbarian ranger and monk should be fighter variants as well.  i think those concepts deserve their own class.  I can't say that any of them need to be a part of Core outside the standard fighter, but each is better as its own class.

Does the Warlord need to be a base class?

NO 

It really doesn't.  You want a class that can participate in martial combat while also providing benefits to his party and some healing?  Play a Cleric.  Or maybe the Cleric isn't enough of a martial class to suit you.  Okay, play a paladin.  Oh, you want something that isn't divine, okay, play a bard.  

Ultimately, once you divorce the warlord from his source its power and really look at the role it fills, you can see pretty easily that it is not a needed class.  It doesn't provide anything that any other class couldn't provide from an archtypical perspective.  

Now, that said, could the Warlord be a class of its own and stand up?  Sure!  Does it need to be a class in Standard?  No, not really.  Then again, I don't think that the Monk or Barbarian need to be in standard either.


Actually, of all the classes, the Paladin has the absolute least that it does that isn't the conceptual territory on another class. 
What is the difference between a Paladin and a Militant Cleric (of a Lawful Good divinity, for those who worship that sacred cow)  or a pious Fighter?

However, your attempt to force the round peg into the square hole more effectively illustrates why the Warlord should exist as a class better than most people who demand it.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Does the Warlord need to be a base class?

NO 

It really doesn't.  You want a class that can participate in martial combat while also providing benefits to his party and some healing?  Play a Cleric.  Or maybe the Cleric isn't enough of a martial class to suit you.  Okay, play a paladin.  Oh, you want something that isn't divine, okay, play a bard.  

Ultimately, once you divorce the warlord from his source its power and really look at the role it fills, you can see pretty easily that it is not a needed class.  It doesn't provide anything that any other class couldn't provide from an archtypical perspective.  

Now, that said, could the Warlord be a class of its own and stand up?  Sure!  Does it need to be a class in Standard?  No, not really.  Then again, I don't think that the Monk or Barbarian need to be in standard either.


Actually, of all the classes, the Paladin has the absolute least that it does that isn't the conceptual territory on another class. 
What is the difference between a Paladin and a Militant Cleric (of a Lawful Good divinity, for those who worship that sacred cow)  or a pious Fighter?

However, your attempt to force the round peg into the square hole more effectively illustrates why the Warlord should exist as a class better than most people who demand it.



I agree.  The only reason I used it as an example is that the Devs already made it clear that Paladin would be a class.  The Paladin really has no place in Core either.  You have the Knight (Fighter).  You have the Cleric.  Heck you can even multiclass (packet after next apparently).  What is the difference between a Paladin a Militant Cleric or a pious fighter?  Ummm... a free horse?  Seriously though... there are a few "paladin mechanics" that are... sort of unique?   I mean lay on hands isnt.  ummm... smite?  Yeah there really isn't a difference.  

To me, paladin = templar = fighter.  The militant wing of a religious organization.  Not necessarily endowed with divine power.  If you want to play one that is endowed with such power... play a cleric.  Heck, play a fighter/cleric.  

Again, I still think that it is okay to have the paladin class.  I think its okay to have almost any class.  I like classes.  The more the merrier.  But if they cut it from standard I would understand why.
And of course, that is exactly what I have been saying about the Warlord.  I like the class.  I like the ideas.  I also understand why they don't feel that it is necessary for the Standard game.  
 
Can this thread please not become a debate over the word "need"? Let's get over the petty semantics and move on.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I did address it.  Arguing that the game needs (note the italicized text, need is a very strong word) a Martial healing class is the same as arguing that it needs an arcane healing class

Well, it /has/ an arcane healing class.  4e had two.  Did it 'need' both?  Maybe not, but it didn't hurt to have both the Bard and the Artificer.  It won't hurt to have the Warlord in 5e core ('standard' game).  

D&D assumes magic exists and is available to the players as a default.

It generally has.  But, 5e is trying to be all modular and support a broader range of playstyles.  To reach that goal, it /needs/ to make fewer such assumptions...

And, 'Next' is trying to take the best of earlier eds, including 4e:  to do that, it needs the Warlord - and a full-fledged Warlord, too, not some handful of fighter manuevers.  



Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

BTW, to me, 'Tactician' implies someone who doesn't know how to fight well himself.  Warlord implies both tactical knowledge and personal combat skill.



Actually, that is sort of the problem with the "Warlord" name. It DOES kind of sound like the person who should be the best fighter on the table. It sounds like it should just beat down anyone who is a plain Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin. Afterall, they are the LORD of War.

But lots of concepts that would fall into the strategic and morale contributor to the group are concepts that one wouldn't expect to fight particularly well. That's why a name that sounds a bit more like it isn't going to be the biggest badass at the table would probably be more suitable. The class really ought to personally fight less effectively than the Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Babarian, Monk and Rogue for the sake of balance.


Anyway-- the version of the class I created made the Healer version only one choice of 5 different builds. The other builds all focused on granting some other serious boon to the party for use in parties that already have a Cleric. If people have a bug up their rear about non-magical healing, then they would be free to skip that build and instead use the ones that grant extra attacks, bonus movement, increase to armor class and saving throws and so forth.

As a typical party goes, one has a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard. But often parties have 5-6 members. So classes to fill those roles can only fill one of two archetypes:
1) A class that does everything almost as well as the specialized members (Druid, Ranger to an extent, Bard to a degree)
or
2) A class that makes everyone else better at what they do (Bard)

And, honestly, the Bard seems such a limiting and restrictive concept. Requiring a member of the party to carry around an instrument, sing a song in the middle of a battle and generally skip around acting as foppish as possible is something that might appeal to some, but its got to be equally grating to others. That is why I am certain a Tactician/Warlord SHOULD be a basic class.

The name is irrelevant.  A character is not aware of his class, much less that they even exist.  He's not going to wander around thinking 'Why do I not have an army if I'm a warlord?'

And if lame-os like the bard, druid, and paladin are worth making into a class, the warlord definitely deserves to exist.



Yeah,

Pretty much this.

Overanalysis of the names of most D&D classes only leads to sad places.

Paladin, Bard and Druid all suffer from this effect if you really peel back the layers.

Only "tradition" saves them from the same dismissive accusations. 
I did address it.  Arguing that the game needs (note the italicized text, need is a very strong word) a Martial healing class is the same as arguing that it needs an arcane healing class

Well, it /has/ an arcane healing class.  4e had two.  Did it 'need' both?  Maybe not, but it didn't hurt to have both the Bard and the Artificer.  It won't hurt to have the Warlord in 5e core ('standard' game).  

D&D assumes magic exists and is available to the players as a default.

It generally has.  But, 5e is trying to be all modular and support a broader range of playstyles.  To reach that goal, it /needs/ to make fewer such assumptions...

And, 'Next' is trying to take the best of earlier eds, including 4e:  to do that, it needs the Warlord - and a full-fledged Warlord, too, not some handful of fighter manuevers.  






Nope, it won't hurt, and I do think that a broader core is better for all parties involved.  I think the confusion about modularity on these boards, though, is that the core game will have all modular contingencies on board at release.  It can't, so we all have to reckognize that even if something gets side-lined for the core book, there will be other books.  The major sin that the devs could commit right now would be to start taking solid full-class-concept ideas like the warlord and jamming them into variants... unless they also plan to release full versions later.  The issue I would take with that approach, however, would be to argue that in such a core, there should be a very limited set of classes (eg no paladin, barbarian, ranger, monk) but that those classes should be massively modular.  Further modules would then have to deepen an already immense pool of options.  

To do that right, you would need a "divine" class that could encompass a paladin, a cleric, a priest, a druid etc.  An "arcane" class that could be a warlock, a sorcerer a hexblade and a bard.  And yes, a "Martial" class that could  be a warlord.  But the current class structure is far to rigid to accept this.  So they need to back off from variants for the most part, because you cannot create a warlord with 1 or 2 abilities bolted on to an already shallow class.  

* If you don´t like the name you can suggest other, for example Adalid.

* I would rather wait until the module about skirmish and mass battle to give my opinion.

* I imagine the mass battle module where the regiment are like monsters with subtye swarn. When a "squad" is 0 hit points really aren´t all deads but the group has desmoralized and started to flee. If a marshall/warlord/cabdillo has got "healer powers", really the group accept a extra effort of sacrifice..

Other option is the warlord isn´t really a spellcaster but he is allowed to use a magic item like a blessed banner (and a bard would be his sidesick). He could use a relic to cast healer magic without being a spellcasters. 

(Maybe the word cabdillo, from old Spanish is more politically correct that caudillo, because now it is a word linked with dictators or strongmen).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I never met a person that did not like the warlord name until I came to this board. But the class concept is what I want which has been explained with a multitude of threads. What I get out of the warlord discussions overall is fight for the classes you want in the game, versus worrying about the ones you may not play. Once you get beyond the name, there are plenty of concepts to support the class. The same applies to barbarian, ranger and paladin.

If you prefer to reduce the amount of classes to the core 4 (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard) then there are good arguments to get rid of the remaining classes, and go with archtypes, specialties, backgrounds and mulitclassing to fill in the rest.     
Once a week we get this thread. There is no good name for this class better than warlord. That does not mean warlord is a great name either.
Ok I think my only response to this thread in general is :

define "base" & define "standard"

Because I am not sure the Warlord needs to be a "base" class if by that you mean in what the Basic game would be. But I see Basic as the "Red Box" introductory set. For that I see just Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric.

Once we get to "Standard" I think it probably should be. I am not sure though. It should probably be in the first book, but I expect, or at least hope for, some "Advanced" options there.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created devide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitrol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and premptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

Good point. I want the warlord in the standard game.
D&D assumes magic exists and is available to the players as a default.  So the if the role of Warlord is to enhance his allies, heal them and fight alongside them... that role is already filled..


That's pretty much it.  Given the nature of the game, there's no particular rationale for the WarLord's existence, and at least two good arguments against it (ie, that redundancy and bloat are bad, and that the class is too game-ist).
But then you have to ruin it by going and saying...

...All that being said, I would also agree that the warlord is much better off being its own class than being sidelined as some variant option.... I think that anyone who could argue that would have to argue that the barbarian ranger and monk should be fighter variants as well.  i think those concepts deserve their own class.  I can't say that any of them need to be a part of Core outside the standard fighter, but each is better as its own class.


Why?  What is "better" about making them a separate class, rather than a prestige class, or variant build of the already extant fighter or rogue?  On the contrary, wouldn't making them extensions of those core classes reduce bloat and page count?

D&D assumes magic exists and is available to the players as a default.  So the if the role of Warlord is to enhance his allies, heal them and fight alongside them... that role is already filled..


That's pretty much it.  Given the nature of the game, there's no particular rationale for the WarLord's existence, and at least two good arguments against it (ie, that redundancy and bloat are bad, and that the class is too game-ist).
But then you have to ruin it by going and saying...

...All that being said, I would also agree that the warlord is much better off being its own class than being sidelined as some variant option.... I think that anyone who could argue that would have to argue that the barbarian ranger and monk should be fighter variants as well.  i think those concepts deserve their own class.  I can't say that any of them need to be a part of Core outside the standard fighter, but each is better as its own class.


Why?  What is "better" about making them a separate class, rather than a prestige class, or variant build of the already extant fighter or rogue?  On the contrary, wouldn't making them extensions of those core classes reduce bloat and page count?


Sorry, but "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't get to play it" doesn't qualify as a rationale.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Sorry, but "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't get to play it" doesn't qualify as a rationale.


Since that wasn't offered as a rationale, maybe you could try addressing the actual issues at hand.