Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.

Hussar · Mar 5, 2017

Heh, for all my bluster, I really don't think that WotC can do anything else. They've spent the last four or five years rebuilding all the good will with gamers that was lost during 4e. There's just no upside for them to weigh in on this. If they do nothing, then nothing really happens - people go on playing 5e and every six months or so, you get a bit of agitation for a warlord which dies down in a couple of weeks and probably gets less and less as time goes on.

If they actually DO come out with a warlord, they risk the huge amount of backlash and edition warring crap that these six month go arounds prove will happen.

There's just no upside for them. So, I can't really blame them for it.

So, hey folks, stand up and be proud. You've shown that you can nicely throw 4e players under the bus and claim edition war victory. Aren't you so proud? Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that you've protected 5e from those dirty 4e ideas? Stand up and take a bow. After all your hard work, you should be taking credit where credit is due.

Remathilis · Mar 5, 2017

Hussar said:
So, hey folks, stand up and be proud. You've shown that you can nicely throw 4e players under the bus and claim edition war victory. Aren't you so proud? Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that you've protected 5e from those dirty 4e ideas? Stand up and take a bow. After all your hard work, you should be taking credit where credit is due.

Do you have the version that lacks dragonborn, devil-tieflings, healing word, unlimited cantrips, the warlock class, hunter's quarry, commander's strike, the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos, legendary actions for monsters, eladrin and the Dawn War deities in the DMG, and a slew of other 4e-inspired ideas in it? If so, I do apologize.

Not having the warlord =/= 4e not being represented in 5e. Unless you think the only thing unique about 4e was warlords and ADEU...

Sacrosanct · Mar 5, 2017

Remathilis said:
Do you have the version that lacks dragonborn, devil-tieflings, healing word, unlimited cantrips, the warlock class, hunter's quarry, commander's strike, the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos, legendary actions for monsters, eladrin and the Dawn War deities in the DMG, and a slew of other 4e-inspired ideas in it? If so, I do apologize.

Not having the warlord =/= 4e not being represented in 5e. Unless you think the only thing unique about 4e was warlords and ADEU...

Even AEDU exists, to an extent, with abilities that are at will, recharged on short rest (essentially encounter), and recharged on long rest (daily). And then there's a ton of non magical healing (abilities, hit dice, etc) and other elements that certainly seem inspired by 4e.

Saying 5e kept out all elements of 4e is like me saying 5e didn't take any inspiration from AD&D because there's no THAC0. It's just an outright silly thing to say.

AaronOfBarbaria · Mar 5, 2017

Sacrosanct said:
Saying 5e kept out all elements of 4e is like me saying 5e didn't take any inspiration from AD&D because there's no THAC0. It's just an outright silly thing to say.

Or that they threw 3.5 fans "under the bus" by not having high ability score provide additional spell slots, or by making feats a one-and-done prospect rather than a collect-three-to-finally-feel-its-worth-it one.

Hussar · Mar 5, 2017

To be honest this is what baffles me.

You're absolutely right. Everything that makes up a warlord already exists in the game. So why the resistance to a warlord Class? I've never been able to understand that one.

cbwjm · Mar 6, 2017

jayoungr said:
I truly disagree that creating a subforum equals suppression. When the subforum existed, I actually enjoyed being able to have all of the warlord threads in one place and being easily able to see all of the "everything else" threads in another place.

P.S. I'll bet that if/when someone creates a warlord on the DM's Guild that draws widespread acclaim, that person will be tapped to write official 5E material.

I actually enjoyed the warlord forum as well, I was checking it daily to see what was coming out of it. Most of it was whining on both sides, but every now and then someone posted ideas for a 5e version of the class which was actually interesting.

cbwjm · Mar 6, 2017

Hussar said:
To be honest this is what baffles me.

You're absolutely right. Everything that makes up a warlord already exists in the game. So why the resistance to a warlord Class? I've never been able to understand that one.

A lot of people really don't want to have to play with another player whose character is like some kind of party leader that they are meant to follow. A character that can say to their own character "Do this thing" which they have to do. They don't want their character's actions to be controlled by another player and find the very idea offensive. I can see where they are coming from, but then I also really don't care about their reasoning. After DMing a player who made use of the Battlemaster's commander's strike, I think a full warlord would make an interesting addition to the game.

FrogReaver · Mar 6, 2017

cbwjm said:
A lot of people really don't want to have to play with another player whose character is like some kind of party leader that they are meant to follow. A character that can say to their own character "Do this thing" which they have to do. They don't want their character's actions to be controlled by another player and find the very idea offensive. I can see where they are coming from, but then I also really don't care about their reasoning. After DMing a player who made use of the Battlemaster's commander's strike, I think a full warlord would make an interesting addition to the game.

Except no one bats an eye at such mechanics in practice. It's only threads like these where that issue gets brought up.

Bard wants to give BARDIC INSPIRATION to a party member for an attack roll bonus they use it.
Warlock with INSPRING LEADER feat buffs the party with temp hp no one cares how.
Fighter grants the rogue an extra attack with COMMANDERS STRIKE and he gladly accepts it.
etc...

I've never seen one actual game of DND where such abilities were a problem. Have any of you?

Hussar · Mar 6, 2017

cbwjm said:
A lot of people really don't want to have to play with another player whose character is like some kind of party leader that they are meant to follow. A character that can say to their own character "Do this thing" which they have to do. They don't want their character's actions to be controlled by another player and find the very idea offensive. I can see where they are coming from, but then I also really don't care about their reasoning. After DMing a player who made use of the Battlemaster's commander's strike, I think a full warlord would make an interesting addition to the game.

And I get that. I really do. No one wants anyone else at the table to take control over their character. Fine.

But, that argument was lost as soon as the PHB came out and you had bards, battle masters and various other goodies. It's especially a specious argument when we're told over and over again that 5e already has warlords in the shape of battle masters and bards and masterminds.

You can't really have it both ways. You can't on one hand complain that you don't want mechanics that allow other players to influence your character, while on the other hand tell those that want warlords that they should be happy because the mechanics for influencing other characters is already baked into the game.

cbwjm · Mar 6, 2017

FrogReaver said:
Except no one bats an eye at such mechanics in practice. It's only threads like these where that issue gets brought up.

Bard wants to give BARDIC INSPIRATION to a party member for an attack roll bonus they use it.
Warlock with INSPRING LEADER feat buffs the party with temp hp no one cares how.
Fighter grants the rogue an extra attack with COMMANDERS STRIKE and he gladly accepts it.
etc...

I've never seen one actual game of DND where such abilities were a problem. Have any of you?

I haven't (I'm also not opposed to a warlord, thought I'd just mention that in case you didn't read my post in its entirety), these are just the concerns of others. Perhaps they can put up with what's currently in the game even though they don't like it, perhaps they explain it away as magic in the bard's case. But a player running a class which tells the rest of the party what to do might make them feel like they are getting bossed around. Who knows, maybe they did mention this back in 4e if they played it, maybe it was one of the things that turned them off 4e and saw them play old school systems, I don't know. I just know that they don't want to have someone else play a class dedicated to telling them what to do.

On a somewhat warlord-related note. I read Transformers comics by IDW. Megatron has repented, joined the autobots and now refuses to fight, but he can direct a battle like nobody's business and now makes for a classic lazylord style character.

Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.

Hussar

Legend

Remathilis

Legend

Sacrosanct

Legend

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

Hussar

Legend

cbwjm

Seb-wejem

cbwjm

Seb-wejem

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Hussar

Legend

cbwjm

Seb-wejem

Similar Threads