D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Seerow]

LV would be Lesser Vigor. Editing in response to the rest in a minute.



Edit: Okay, the thing about the warlord is the warlord's schtick isn't just healing. He's just capable of doing that well. Which is good, because having a guy around who can make you get better is good. And yes, having a different class for someone to be able to heal without having to be religious is a good idea. I mean in 3.5 there were work arounds (frequent refluffings of Clerics/Favored Souls/Crusaders at low level, and just packing wands and someone having UMD at high levels), but not needing to refluff is nice.

What's more, the Warlord fills a niche beyond just healing. He is the martial commander. Your tactical strike leader. The guy who may not be as personally badass as everyone else, but that's okay because he can direct everyone else to be that much better. Think Captain America in the Avengers, he's not the most powerful character in the group by a long shot, but he earns his keep by being the leader, providing direction and helping others be more effective. That is the role that the Warlord fills.

I can hear the argument for that having significant overlap with the Fighter (and indeed, with my list I took out the Fighter and dispersed him between the Warlord and the Barbarian), but because of overlap with the Cleric? No.




Honestly though, judging by how many classes you specified you would remove, it seems you fall closer to the "only 3 classes with lots of specializations" from the beginning of my class rambling post. So maybe this whole point is moot. However it is important to note in a system where you have so few classes, each class needs to be able to represent a large variety of archtypes and roles, which means if you have Fighter/Cleric/Wizard, then you can't say "Only clerics can heal", you should be able to get an approximation of the Warlord through use of options of the Fighter class.