|
Greetings.
So I have been reading up on 5E some while on down time at work. Recently there has been a lot of talk about the warlord. It seems this is a well received class by 4E fans. Lots of speculation has gone on since the early days of 5E playtest about how the warlord will fit into 5E.
Then a bomb got dropped that the warlord might not be making an appearance, not as a class anyways. Seems lots of folks are really upset about that. I am kind of disappointed myself. Reason being I never got on the 4E train myself. I have been curious about aspects of it.
I was hoping to see a warlord in action but it sounds like the plan may be to make warlord a fighter archetype. Fans of the warlord do not think that will be possible to do the class justice. I can not say one way or another how this is going to impact the warlord.
My question then would be, what is the warlord and how does it play? If you dont mind giving some examples of play that would be great. I know they allow other players to shift and take actions out of turn. I also know they did a bit of non-magical healing which is a hot topic itself. So 4E fans care to fill me in on the warlord?
|
I know they allow other players to shift and take actions out of turn. I also know they did a bit of non-magical healing which is a hot topic itself. So 4E fans care to fill me in on the warlord?
Those abilities right there are why I like the idea of a Warlord. And the non-magical healing makes complete sense when you realise Hit Points aren't a measure of how much damage you can take, they are a measure of how much crap you can take (be it damage, psychological trauma, loss of morale etc) and still stay on your feet and fight.
So when your commanding officer shouts for you to get your miserable arse up and back in the fight because he doesn't tolerate lilly-livered cowards who let their fellow soldiers die while they cower, then you may well get back up despite your wounds and get back into the fight.
I love the bravura warlord, which is all about "Hit me again, hit me again...gotcha, now my friends can hit you again!" Basically it rewards being a reckless swashbuckling battle captain, which is awesome.
Really though, the warlord is emblematic of 4e's whole "You don't need a cleric to heal, or magic to have tactical fun" attitude, and its intentional design of combat roles. So despite the goofy name, the warlord embodies several of 4e's major innovations which is why it gets so much love.
So much love that they didn't support the class much since the Essentials :-(
Or did I miss something?
|
|
The class I played the longest and the one that got me interested in 4e. I tried a Wizard, but it felt so foreign that I put 4e in the cupboard for about 8 months vowing never to open the books again. Then a friend really wanted to try 4e, so out they came and I made a 'non-core class', meaning the Warlord. Was a blast. Still not sold on the miniatures required approach to the rules and liking 5e's style better.
If you are new to 4e but an old D&D hand, I can recommend not playing any of the classes you remember from 1e/2e (even 3e) as you may end up wrongly disliking the whole of 4e.
The Warlord really highlights 4E's power system. In a version of D&D designed from the ground up to play well on a battle grid the Warlord shows, better then almost any other class what that can really mean. The ultimate in a tacticians class the Warlord can be designed (and usually is for those that gravitate toward it) so that one is always moving ones friends around to better advantage, granting them healing and free saves and such.
In D&D terms the warlord is really a different take on the cleric, pretty much battle commander as cleric. This may well be one reason it is so popular. In a game where some one has to be a cleric and chances are that is often the same one or two people in the group here is a cleric that plays very differently from what has come before.
It'd not surprise me if the class did not make much of a splash in 5E. In a game without a grid and one that is demphasizing the idea of 'interrupts' the Warlord looses its schtick.
|
|
Yeah I can see things being tough on the warlord in 5E. It seems like they are trying to get combat to be as fast and furious as possible. Doesn't leave you much time for setting up tactics and strategy.
Anyone care to run a typical fight in 4E with a warlord by me here in the thread? Would be nice to see an example in action.
Actually I think that warlord could have a set of powers that could work without any map. 13th Age is going to try just that in their expansion 13 True Ways (if I recall the name correctly).
For example you could have a set of maneuvers that the other PCs can execute on your mark, from which you could pick some that you think you'll need in next battle (representing a planning phase and coordination of a prepared organised group) a few times a day you could call for certain maneuver without preparation perhaps. Powers could involve ralying and position changes, for example putting a party member to melee with target foe with flanking bonus, or replacing someone in melee with your tank. You could amplify flanking bonuses to push the advantage, or coordinating fire to pierce damage resistance. You get the idea...
Anyone care to run a typical fight in 4E with a warlord by me here in the thread? Would be nice to see an example in action.
Sure!
I'm currently playing an Air Genasi Warlord in our Realms campaign and I have to say, it's a lot of fun.
One of the most important things I can do is make sure that people are in the best position to utilize their potential. Our Shadar-Kai Berserker needs to be around as many enemies as possible because she's a great warrior and can hold off the more battle worthy enemies. So in this regard, if I can give her a boost to her Initiative OR (when the opportunity presents itself) swap my Initiative score for hers, it's always better.
I have the advantage of mobility (becaus I can fly, albiet limitedly) and I'm not bad in a 1-on-1 fighter myself. I have a maneuver that, if successfully hit, forces my target to say put and if he tries to move (perhaps to a more defensless ally) I can create an opening for an adjacent ally to make a free attack on him.
And of course there is Commander's Strike, which allows me to sacrifice my attack and allow our much strong and greatly feared Berserker make an additional attack this turn against a close foe. This attack even gets some additional damage on it. Were I to have a Rogue or Ranger in the group, I'd be instructing them as well to make attack because they can dish out the pain much better.
Then there's the healing aspect. I ran into some trouble with running out of healing early in our adventures so I took more healing inspiration where I sought it was needed. And because I'm a tactical mastermind I also studied some Wizardry from Waterdeep. This lend me some magical aid in times when a single target proved to be a more difficult foe (Color Orb) or if the mob of monsters seemed too great I thrust them all back with a psychic attack (Beguiling Strands) which I just reflavor as a sort of Wind attack due to my heritage.
Basically I can help position my allies to attack better, give them buffs when they do attack, give them static bonuses to things like Initiative and provide a buff to damage rolls when they spend an Action Point. And when allies start to fall, lose their senses I can pull them back with a word of inspiration (or a string of threats :-D ) .
If you want actual play-by-play, I'm not sure I can provide that but I will say that when Combat starts I assist the situation and help direct allies where they can be their best. The rogue and Fighter will flank and I'll have a maneuver that shoves or pushes a target into flanking position. I can
The Warlord was a fine class but its main problem was that it was designed for 4th ed. In D&DN.
No leader role, martial healing is going bye bye.
No minor/move/standard action
No powers.
Those mechanical changes right there more or less gut the Warlord. The class would need to be rebuilt form the ground up and it would in effect be a new class with the warlord name tagged onto it.
So much love that they didn't support the class much since the Essentials :-(
Or did I miss something?
Warlord was one of the few classes that hardly anyone had any complaints about, and it worked well with the standard 4E power mechanics -- so there was no real reason to redo it. On the other hand, it was not a traditional class from prior editions of the game, which is what most of the Essentials classes were. So there was no real reason to make a new version of the Warlord in the Essentials books.
My first 4E character (which also happened to be my first character in WotC's Living Forgotten Realms organized play campaign) is a warlord; I've played him up to 15th level. He's an "Inspiring Warlord", which was one of the two variations in the initial Player's Handbook, which means Charisma is his secondary ability score.
Things he does in combat:
- Gives everyone in his group a bonus to Initiative rolls
- Gives bonuses to attack and / or damage rolls to his allies as "riders" on many of his attack powers
- Uses his own attack actions to give his allies attacks
- Heals / grants temporary hit points (I've spent a feat, and a couple of magic items, in this area, and he begins to approach the effectiveness of a cleric on healing)
- Grants saving throws
- Debuffs enemies (not a lot of this)
His "paragon path" is Captain of Fortune; one of his attack powers (part of that paragon path) allows my allies to make two d20 rolls on attacks for a turn, and pick the better roll. That power, alone, makes him very popular.
One weakness of warlords (or, at least, of trying to make a warlord who's good in melee) is that they don't get proficiency in the heavier armors and shields. I spent three feats on my warlord to get him into plate armor, and a heavy shield, just for a bit more survivability in combat.
There's a 4E saying: "A barbarian hits his enemies with his axe. A warlord hits his enemies with his barbarian." Taking this idea to the extreme, there's an entire sub-type of Warlord build which focuses on the "grant my allies attacks" -- this is called a Lazylord. Lazylords rarely, if ever, make attacks themselves, and nearly all of their attack powers are of the "an ally makes an attack" variety.
I enjoy playing Leaders in 4E, quite a lot, and I used to really enjoy playing my warlord. However, one of my other Leaders (a Bard of Valor) has proven to be a lot more fun for me to play...about the only thing that a warlord does, that my bard doesn't do well, is granting attacks to allies, but the bard seems to have a lot more options for buffs and debuffs. Might be a function of it being a somewhat newer class, might be a function of it getting more continued support (new powers, new feats), I don't know.
The Warlord was a fine class but its main problem was that it was designed for 4th ed. In D&DN.
No leader role, martial healing is going bye bye.
Martial healing is as justified in Next as it would be in any edition of D&D, since hit points have never represented purely physical things. And frankly interpreting them as purely physical is far more silly than any complaint about "shouting hands back on" that Mearls might choose to make and then back away from. What, does he think you can sleep them back on?
No minor/move/standard actionI'm prepared to bet that will change. They're already writing in exceptions. Might as well systematise them.
No powers.Although apparently they don't need powers to give classes things to do that aren't just rolling to hit. That the ones they currently have are pretty pathetic doesn't mean they have to stay that way.
Those mechanical changes right there more or less gut the Warlord. The class would need to be rebuilt form the ground up and it would in effect be a new class with the warlord name tagged onto it.You mean, like they've created entirely new mechanical systems for the Fighter, the Barbarian, the Monk, the Wizard, the Cleric, and the Rogue? Well I guess they can't do possibly rebuild the Warlord that way.
Yeah sure things can change and they may as well bring back 4th eds round structure or a tweaked version of 3.5s round structure as like you said they are already writing in exceptions.
Diffan what level is your warlord? That seems like an awful lot of options! I can see a 3E character coming close to what you describe but they would have to be high level.
Garen-kai is 8th level. Keep in mind that most of my gimmicks are only 1/encounter. As such, it's not more (or less) options than most standard 4E characters at that level.
From my Warlord class:
• 2 At-will powers: Commander's Strike, Viper's Strike
• 3 Encounter powers: Warlord's Favor, Devestating Offensive, Tacticain's Favor (plus Inspiring Word 2/encounter to heal people: Class feature)
• 2 Daily powers: Lead the Attack, A Rock and a Hard Place
• 2 Utility powers: Aid the Injured, Rousing Words
From my Race:
• 1 encounter: Windwalker (fly 8 squares)
From my Multiclass Wizard Feat:
• 1 encounter: Beguiling Strands (reflavored as a Wind Push)
From my Theme: Wizard's Apprentice:
• 1 encounter: Color Orb (1d6 + Intelligence modifier plus daze for 1 round).
So, as you can see other choices outside my class give me more options but most of them are 1-trick ponies that can only be used once a battle. Things like Beguiling Strands and Color Orb are more for flavor that really offensive firepower. I like dazing big hulking targets and Beguiling Strands can be fun when used to push enemies into brazers of fire or into area effects or off cliffs.
Warlord was the original poster child of 4E, and for good reason. It was the symbol of what 4E was all about (in my mind at least).
Warlord was the original poster child of 4E, and for good reason. It was the symbol of what 4E was all about (in my mind at least).
Well it was based somewhat from the 3E's Marhsal character but it dealt a LOT more with action granting than anything else. Many of the Warlord exploits allowed them to attack a foe and grant someone else the ability to attack again. This made tactics and group synergy a long stronger concept than in the past.
A lot of people seem to think the warlord is overpowered. Not 100% sure about that but the PHB classes in 4E seemed to be better than most of the follow ups due to the amount of support they got.
Players like power, power is popular.
A lot of people seem to think the warlord is overpowered. Not 100% sure about that but the PHB classes in 4E seemed to be better than most of the follow ups due to the amount of support they got.
Players like power, power is popular.
I have a hard time thinking how. Its such a support class that you really just use your allies for attacks. Thing is you really can only use certain kinds of allies, ones with really good at wills and basic attacks pretty much as giving them another attack on your turn is pretty worthless if its not a fairly good attack.
Truth of the matter pretty much one really wants a Barbarian as the partner because of the big hit basic attacks and good big hit at wills.
That said no matter what the story is the real weakness behind the Warlord is the fact that if the DM Dazes or otherwise manages to indisposed of the Barbarian he has practically taken the Warlord out of the fight as well. Its the big Achilles heal of the Lazylord.
Now there are other builds of Warlords but few that I can think of that get anything close to the kind of attention that the Lazylord concept gets. Lazy Lord has a big upside after all.
Otherwise you could build the Warlord as a kind of stripped down combatant with a lot of powers to move allies and grant them saves and such but I have a hard time seeing how that would be overpowered.
I suppose there is something I've yet to see in terms of Warlord Builds but the truth is I've got a min-maxer player who really likes Warlords and he has been endlessly frustrated by the fact that they really don't live up to the potential he thought they had even when one slavishly follows the character optimization forums. They are just too vulnerable to DM counter screw - DM deals with the Warlord's buddy and he effectively takes out both the Warlord and whoever that buddy is becuase without the buddy the Wasrlord can't do his schtik.
Your right that the older classes tend to be somewhat better because of longer support though I think really that applies strongly only to the really late classes like the Vampire class where there was almost no support after the initial roll out and the class is pretty much limited to just what it had in the original roll out book.
I think the best part about the Warlord is that anyone, no matter what class you were, could multiclass into it and see the benefits of the class and use its exploits to some extent. For example my Warlord MC wizard was a LOT of fun because it utilized Intelligence for a lot of stuff, which meshed well with wizard spells (and vice versa). A Charisma-based character coukd get its uses out of it too as could.classes that utilize Strength and Wisdom as primary stats. The fact that so many characters could opt-in to a support role fairly easy and be good at it with the Warlord is why a lot think its one of the best classes in the game.