D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Tony Vargas]

And yet you have been consistent in taking such a stance.

I have not. It's a straw man that opponents of the warlord resort to frequently.

5e's warlord options aren't good enough because it doesn't do all the things the 4e one did. Or, in other words, 'mimic'. Because until it looks a lot like a 4e warlord, its a failure in your, and certain others', eyes.

First of all, there simply is no Warlord option in 5e, yet. There are some sub-classes that have a little bit of functionality that's suggestive of what a 5e Warlord might be like, were one ever implemented, and that's encouraging, certainly. But the PDK & Mastermind from SCAG, for instance, are no more 'Warlord options' than the EK and AT are 'Wizard options.' Which is not to say they aren't nice options to have.
And, no, there's no reason the Warlord should mechanically mimic the 4e version. It needn't have encounter powers instead of short-rest-recharge CS dice & maneuvers, for instance. It needn't be limited by the design constraints of the Leader Role in 4e, for another.

Dancing? Okay, fine. Lets get specific then, shall we? It is your opinion that the 5e fighter does not do an adequate job of representing the iconic archetype? Yes or no.

If you take the 'iconic archetype' as the 2e and earlier fighter, sure, an excellent job. The Champion captures the high-damage potential of certain 2e fighter specialist builds, the BM does the kinds of things one might have with C&T, and the EK is a modest approximation of an AD&D fighter/magic-user.
But it wasn't the goal of 5e merely to mimic the TSR era, or it could have just been a 2e reprint.

 

[mellored]

It needn't have encounter powers instead of short-rest-recharge maneuvers, for instance.

Honestly, I think some "encounter powers" could be fitting.


Novel Tactic: You pull a clever maneuver that can trick most people once. Creatures who's intelligence is higher than yours are immune to this trick. Creatures with intelligence less than half of your intelligence will fall for it every time. All other creatures will not fall for this trick for 1 week after they have seen it used.

Battle Planing: On the first turn of combat, you and your team can....



It's the daily things that make no narrative sense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, I think some "encounter powers" could be fitting.


Novel Tactic: You pull a clever maneuver that can trick most people once. ...creatures will not fall for this trick for 1 week after they have seen it used.

That's a whole 'nuther sense of 'encounter,' sure.

It's the daily things that make no narrative sense.

Depends on the narrative the DM is going for with his campaign. Any given class or mechanic might be appropriate for some and inappropriate for others.

 

[Corwin]

I have not. It's a straw man that opponents of the warlord resort to frequently.

If you say so. I think the evidence is clear enough for most readers, following along for any length of time.

I'll just add that, in the very post of yours that tipped off this conversation, you said:

"So, yes, additional martial classes like the Warlord are the only way to go to open up 5e to the full range of characters you could do with past editions (even if we limit ourselves to past edition 'core' or player handbooks)."

When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

First of all, there simply is no Warlord option in 5e.

I see plenty. Maybe you aren't looking the right way?

There are some sub-classes that have a little bit of functionality that's suggestive of what a 5e Warlord might be like, were one ever implemented.

That's weighted and biased towards, again, previous editions rather than the current. More begging the question fallacy.

But having the PDK and Mastermind from SCAG, for instance, are no more 'Warlord options' than the EK and AT are Wizard options.

Another favorite go-to. Neither class even deigns to be, so that's an invalid comparison. The EK and AT make no efforts to emulate the wizard. Where as, there *are* plenty of 5e elements that *do* try to emulate warlords.

And, no, there's no reason the Warlord should mechanically mimic the 4e version.

I wish there was an easy way to earmark or tag a post for future use...

It needn't have encounter powers instead of short-rest-recharge CS dice & maneuvers, for instance.

And a rhino needn't have beetle wings, for instance. What's the point of making such an irrelevant non-demand? Its nonsensical.

It needn't be limited by the design constraints of the Leader Role in 4e, for another.

If only you spoke for more than just your demands, amIright?

If you take the 'iconic archetype' as the 2e and earlier fighter, sure, an excellent job. The Champion captures the high-damage potential of certain 2e fighter specialist builds, the BM does at least as much as on might with C&T, and the EK is a modest approximation of an AD&D fighter/magic-user.
But it wasn't the goal of 5e merely to mimic the TSR era, or it could have just been a 2e reprint.

Missed the point complete. Not what I asked. I never asked about comparing it to previous editions. I will rephrase slightly. Does the 5e fighter do an adequate job of emulating the archetype it is designed to represent? You've thus far alluded to it failing to do so. But I'd appreciate more than you dancing around it. I'd just like a straight answer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Missed the point complete. Not what I asked. I never asked about comparing it to previous editions.

What 'iconic' archetype did you mean, if not the iconic fighter of classic D&D?

I will rephrase slightly. Does the 5e fighter do an adequate job of emulating the archetype it is designed to represent?

Have we been given a clear idea what that design intent was? I don't believe we have. Mike Mearls has even said something about the fighter, as he designed it, lacking a clear identity. Perhaps it would be fairer to say they haven't done an adequate job in choosing what archetypes they want the fighter to emulate.

You've thus far alluded to it failing to do so. But I'd appreciate more than you dancing around it. I'd just like a straight answer.

The fighter, as I have said, does an admiral job evoking the 2e fighter*, a less complete job of handling the range of builds possible with the 3e fighter, and doesn't have the tactical depth & interest of the 4e fighter (nor, unsurprisingly, the 'Role Support' for a defender, 5e lacking formal Roles). And, of course, it doesn't more than hint at the Warlord with a few BM maneuvers.

That's only a 'failure' if it was aiming to do /all/ that, which seems a bit over-ambitious, even for a class as traditionally stretched thin as the fighter.


















* OK, I do have one issue with the 5e (and 3e & 4e) fighter relative to the 2e-and-earlier version: saving throws. The TSR era fighter's saves improved substantially and across the board as it leveled, ever since 3.0, it's had deplorable to poor saves outside of "FORT" save bonus ('defense' in 4e) or STR/CON saves in 5e.

 

[mellored]

Depends on the narrative the DM is going for with his campaign. Any given class or mechanic might be appropriate for some and inappropriate for others.

Can you think of a narrative where a warlord ability could be used once per day?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can you think of a narrative where a warlord ability could be used once per day?

Sure. A particularly potent rally or incite-heroic-effort type ability, for instance, that could not be used on the same allies again until they've had a long rest.

But, once that recharges at sunrise? Not so much.

 

[Hussar]

Oh look. Just shy of 400 votes in, and 30% still want to see an actual warlord in the game.

I wonder if that's considered sufficient interest.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

...and we have yet another "Do you want a Warlord?" threads. *sigh*

Ok, I would have voted, but you don't have an option for "I'm a DM/Player and don't want a Warlord class". That's the one I would vote for.

You know what this whole "Warlord" repeating-thread/poll thing reminds me of? The EU, well, specifically, Britain. The government will want to do "X". They suspect that the population is perfectly happy with "Y", or actually opposed to"X". So they will call for a Referendum. Then they get a result that goes against what they want to do...re; "X". So they'll say..."Well, we made some mistakes. Lets take a Ref again". So they do. And then still get opposition to X. So they think "Ok, how about we word it differently. Lets take a Ref again with this wording". So they do. And then they still get an opposition to "X". So they think "Hmmm...that didn't work like we want. Lets reword it again. Ok, another Ref". So they do. And they still get opposition to "X". ...rinse/repeat.

Asking the same question "Wanna Warlock?" five different ways isn't likely to get you a different answer. From all the posts, threads and other polls about this, it all boils down to "some do, some don't care, some don't"...all about the same we've seen in other posts. About 30 to 40 percent want one, everyone else is more along the line of either " *shrug* ...whatever...don't care", or maybe "Naaa. I'm good".

Just saying...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lanliss]

Hiya!

...and we have yet another "Do you want a Warlord?" threads. *sigh*

Ok, I would have voted, but you don't have an option for "I'm a DM/Player and don't want a Warlord class". That's the one I would vote for.

You know what this whole "Warlord" repeating-thread/poll thing reminds me of? The EU, well, specifically, Britain. The government will want to do "X". They suspect that the population is perfectly happy with "Y", or actually opposed to"X". So they will call for a Referendum. Then they get a result that goes against what they want to do...re; "X". So they'll say..."Well, we made some mistakes. Lets take a Ref again". So they do. And then still get opposition to X. So they think "Ok, how about we word it differently. Lets take a Ref again with this wording". So they do. And then they still get an opposition to "X". So they think "Hmmm...that didn't work like we want. Lets reword it again. Ok, another Ref". So they do. And they still get opposition to "X". ...rinse/repeat.

Asking the same question "Wanna Warlock?" five different ways isn't likely to get you a different answer. From all the posts, threads and other polls about this, it all boils down to "some do, some don't care, some don't"...all about the same we've seen in other posts. About 30 to 40 percent want one, everyone else is more along the line of either " *shrug* ...whatever...don't care", or maybe "Naaa. I'm good".

Just saying...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I will say, I voted don't care because I am neither for nor against. In my mind, that is more a vote "For" than "Against", since "For" hurts only those who don't want it, and I lean towards the most people possible being happy. I am not a warlord fanatic or anything, but I think specifically shutting down options that some people want is kind of a dick move. Like refusing to buy vegetarian food for your vegetarian guests because "They should be happy with the tomato that we put on our burgers."