D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Tony Vargas]

So what's the test for what gets included simply because "some number of people want it"?

Doesn't matter. The Warlord should already have qualified simply as a full class appearing in a prior ed PH1. Especially as the only new-to-4e class under consideration, if only to avoid the appearance that edition-war bias might be dictating 5e decisions.

Obviously, compounding that appearance wouldn't do 5e's 'inclusive,' 'D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D' bonefides any good, either.

Again (and again and again) I'd be totally ok with a class that was fluffed as support, not as leader/commander/officer. That's really my only objection.

Since you're not also clamoring to have the Noble background removed from the game, nor have the Soldier background scrubbed of rank, it can't be all that terrible a prospect.

The Warlord was a support class throughout it's run, and a good one, the case was made more than once that it was the 'best' at that role. It played as a support class. Fluff notwithstanding. Sure, the name of the 'Leader' role caused some confusion, in spite of it being explained clearly and early on that neither required nor conferred party leadership. It was just cooler than saying Healer or band-aid all the time - and the Role was broader than the traditional Cleric-as-healer, anyway.

The range of builds and concepts the Warlord could cover, even in 4e, locked into the Source/Role matrix, included more than military commanders barking orders. Bravuras tended to just lead by example, for instance. So you're really only worrying about the fluff of one sort of build, the more formal-military-rank 'Marshal' or 'Commander' or 'Battle Captain' type. Even they, though, in play, didn't require (nor even encourage) the player to actually boss other players around. The Warlord player would use an exploit on his turn, and the player would receive a free action immediately or, more often, a specific bonus on his turn.

That's only true if you're the DM.

Not at all. Players choose who they play with. You need never even look at the Warlord class, and never play at a table where one might be. Especially if you play games at public events, since...

especially if you try to run games at your FLGS, which leaves you in the position of either folding or being perceived as a jerk.

AL uses the Standard Game. Both as player and DM, you can participate in AL without danger of being traumatized by contact by someone playing a Warlord.

I suppose ,at the outside, they might, upon release of whatever hypothetical supplement the Warlord might appear in, allow it for that season, to push said supplement. That'd be the greatest risk the Warlord-phobe would face.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you to hazzard that risk. For the good of the game we both love, risk possibly seeing someone play a class you have some theoretical objection to for one season of Encounters, maybe. I think compared to waiting 14 months and counting for the Warlord to even enter the design pipeline as psoinics have done, that's not asking you to meet me even half way.

And even then you get players clamoring for "optional" stuff,

That's part of being a DM, especially an Empowered one. It'll happen, and with things a lot more objectionable in the Warlord, eventually - assuming an OGL ever comes out and 3pps react with the enthusiasm and quality they did with 3.x, that is.

Depriving other DMs of the option of including things in their game, just so you can avoid the possibility that you might have an uncomfortable moment denying a player the chance to play a cool class is hardly reasonable. Especially if you feel interest in that class is so slight.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I was more thinking MM-style NPC's.

So you could have an Acolyte, a Bandit, a Commoner, a Cultist, a Guard, a Noble, or a Tribal Warrior.

Which would at least let you do an Ishmael/Quequeg thing for the forthcoming Moby Dick-inspired adventure.

...and it does make it rather explicit about you being somebody's boss without having to jump into another player's agency-space.

Ah. You don't need a subclass for that then--it's weak enough that it's already built into the Knight background (variant on Noble). Three retainers, one of whom is a combat-capable squire and the other two are grooms/whatever.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Doesn't matter. The Warlord should already have qualified simply as a full class appearing in a prior ed PH1. Especially as the only new-to-4e class under consideration, if only to avoid the appearance that edition-war bias might be dictating 5e decisions.

Here's the puzzling thing about people clamoring for retroactive changes to 5E:

1.) 5E is the kitbasher's edition. You can homebrew your warlord and post it on Enworld and use it in whatever games you want.
2.) But for some people, that's not good enough. They appreciate homebrewed stuff but want access to 5E's designer's expertise, which means they want Mearls et al. to do some designing/playtesting and give them a class they can buy.
3.) But then they turn right around and second-guess the design decisions made by that expert team and want to substitute their own judgment for WotC's. Here, it is WotC's design that the 4E Warlord should not be included in the 5E PHB.

If you don't trust WotC's designers and you don't want to force your preferences on others via Adventurer's League play or similar, just what is it that you want and who do you want it from? If you want to homebrew your own Warlord/Caddy/whatever, nobody will gainsay you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Doesn't matter. The Warlord should already have qualified simply as a full class appearing in a prior ed PH1. Especially as the only new-to-4e class under consideration, if only to avoid the appearance that edition-war bias might be dictating 5e decisions.

Obviously, compounding that appearance wouldn't do 5e's 'inclusive,' 'D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D' bonefides any good, either.

Since you're not also clamoring to have the Noble background removed from the game, nor have the Soldier background scrubbed of rank, it can't be all that terrible a prospect.

The Warlord was a support class throughout it's run, and a good one, the case was made more than once that it was the 'best' at that role. It played as a support class. Fluff notwithstanding. Sure, the name of the 'Leader' role caused some confusion, in spite of it being explained clearly and early on that neither required nor conferred party leadership. It was just cooler than saying Healer or band-aid all the time - and the Role was broader than the traditional Cleric-as-healer, anyway.

The range of builds and concepts the Warlord could cover, even in 4e, locked into the Source/Role matrix, included more than military commanders barking orders. Bravuras tended to just lead by example, for instance. So you're really only worrying about the fluff of one sort of build, the more formal-military-rank 'Marshal' or 'Commander' or 'Battle Captain' type. Even they, though, in play, didn't require (nor even encourage) the player to actually boss other players around. The Warlord player would use an exploit on his turn, and the player would receive a free action immediately or, more often, a specific bonus on his turn.


Not at all. Players choose who they play with. You need never even look at the Warlord class, and never play at a table where one might be. Especially if you play games at public events, since...

AL uses the Standard Game. Both as player and DM, you can participate in AL without danger of being traumatized by contact by someone playing a Warlord.

I suppose ,at the outside, they might, upon release of whatever hypothetical supplement the Warlord might appear in, allow it for that season, to push said supplement. That'd be the greatest risk the Warlord-phobe would face.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you to hazzard that risk. For the good of the game we both love, risk possibly seeing someone play a class you have some theoretical objection to for one season of Encounters, maybe. I think compared to waiting 14 months and counting for the Warlord to even enter the design pipeline as psoinics have done, that's not asking you to meet me even half way.

That's part of being a DM, especially an Empowered one. It'll happen, and with things a lot more objectionable in the Warlord, eventually - assuming an OGL ever comes out and 3pps react with the enthusiasm and quality they did with 3.x, that is.

Depriving other DMs of the option of including things in their game, just so you can avoid the possibility that you might have an uncomfortable moment denying a player the chance to play a cool class is hardly reasonable. Especially if you feel interest in that class is so slight.

Then feel free to use a homebrew. Just about every single argument used above can be applied: you're the DM so do whatever you want, you don't have to play in games or accept players who don't like it, and it's almost certain it wouldn't be in AL anyway, so no problem there.

Not a very satisfying answer, is it? Yeah, we agree on something.

As for the Noble/Soldier argument, I'm not sure what wasn't understandable in my last answer. Maybe if you cared enough to try to parse it you'd understand my (and other's, I suspect) objections to Warlord, and some middle ground could be found.

Trying to get the kid to bed, but I'll do a longer post later. Looking for middle ground.

 

[Hussar]

Not even remotely. Even putting aside the difference that Class is more core the character than Background is, there is nothing in the Noble or Soldier background descriptions or mechanics that suggest they have any authority over other players.

Now, if the Noble came with an ability such as "Demand Service" that let the character give other character's a second saving throw versus charms, fluffed as "Your natural authority allows you to override charm spells by invoking others' ingrained habit of following your instructions..." then I would have a big problem with it. You're not the boss of me!

I wouldn't have a problem with a Warlord background either ("You were a mighty leader of a Mongol horde") as long as it didn't come with mechanics that implied authority over other players. In fact, Warlord almost makes more sense to me as a background. If the Fighter/Paladin/Whatever with the Warlord background wants to roleplay an autodidact megalomaniac, all the more fun. Just as long as when he tries to give orders the mechanics don't suggest the rest of us hop to it.

Wait. Granting a second saving throw means I'm your boss now? Where are you getting this? This appears nowhere in the warlord class. Not in the fluff or mechanics.

And, do you have the same problem with the Paladin granting you bonuses to your saving throw?

Do you have the same problem with the Battlemaster granting you extra attacks?

Do you have the same problem with the Battlemaster granting you extra movement?

Do you have the same problem with the Battlemaster granting you extra hit points?

Thing is, the Battlemaster gets you about 60% of the way to a warlord. And that's right in the PHB. If you don't have a problem with the Battlemaster, what's the issue with the warlord doing exactly the same thing, just doing it a bit better?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Wait. Granting a second saving throw means I'm your boss now? Where are you getting this? This appears nowhere in the warlord class. Not in the fluff or mechanics.

What Warlord class? There's no such thing in 5e.

But if somebody wants to post a homebrew that excises all the "I'm the officer" stuff, including the silly class name, I'd be happy to look at it and tell you what I think.

And, do you have the same problem with the Paladin granting you bonuses to your saving throw?

Do you have the same problem with the Battlemaster granting you extra attacks?

Do you have the same problem with the Battlemaster granting you extra movement?

Do you have the same problem with the Battlemaster granting you extra hit points?

Thing is, the Battlemaster gets you about 60% of the way to a warlord. And that's right in the PHB. If you don't have a problem with the Battlemaster, what's the issue with the warlord doing exactly the same thing, just doing it a bit better?

Honestly, I hate the "Battle Master" class name, and "Champion" too, for that matter. All those sound like titles that are earned, not professions. "Warlord" is by far the worst offender, though.

1st level Rogues are not called "Godfathers". 1st level Wizards are not called "Archmages."

But this issue with the name is only half of my objection about the name, which in turn is one of only three objections. Those objections are:
1) "Warlord" is both an honorific, not a profession, and it specifically connotes commanding others who, in an RPG, should be peers not followers.
2) The names and descriptions of the abilities I usually see proposed reinforce this idea that the class is commanding the rest of the party. (To answer the question above, which I thought I've done multiple times, the description for Paladin's "Aura of Protection" doesn't say, for example, that it works by telling others where to stand or how to shield their minds, etc. It's not "Serpentine, Serpentine!")
3) I do like the concept of the leader, of the Odysseus archetype, but I don't think it's a class you choose at 1st level. You should be able to build that concept as a wizard, as a rogue, as a cleric, etc. (This is why I like the Feats solution.)


Can somebody tell me what you don't like about creating a set of Feats...maybe 3 or 4...that recreate much of the class you want? Everybody keeps saying "the warlord can fight, but he's not the best at it." Well, perfect: start with a Fighter, take "tactical leader" feats instead of ABIs, and because you haven't increased your stats you'll be sub-optimal at fighting but you'll have all your tactical stuff.

Then somebody else who wants a warlord wizard can do the same thing. He won't be the best at spellcasting, because he can't raise his Int, either.

Especially combined with either Soldier or Noble background, I would think this gives people everything they want.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah. You don't need a subclass for that then--it's weak enough that it's already built into the Knight background (variant on Noble). Three retainers, one of whom is a combat-capable squire and the other two are grooms/whatever.

Bah, that's just some noncombat followers. What I'm talking about is a pet subclass - "you go fight for me, Larry, I'll be over here looking snooty."

It's interesting to think about this as part and parcel of the beastmater's problems - players who like dictating others' actions aren't served that well by the current stuff.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, I finally got around to checking out the "Warlording the Fighter" thread (I'm a WotC Community Refugee) and this is from the very first post in the thread (emphasis added):

Personally, one player in my home game has a battlemaster fighter with the Parry, Commander's Strike, and Rally (heal ally--I might be misrecalling the name). He also has the mobility feat and does a more than adequate job bossing the rest of the party around while roaming around the outskirts of the battle getting his licks in.

And...

"Get Back In There!" -- You can give your Action Surge to an ally who can hear or see you, unless they already used Action Surge in this battle. The ally can take the bonus action on your turn.

That's just the first post; similar stuff is found throughout the thread, and I don't see any proponents saying, "Hey, guys, it's not about giving orders, it's about support."

Makes it hard to take seriously the claims in this thread that it's not about being bossy.

 

[Rygar]

No. The Cleric says, "I represent the team assist leader" as per the basketball analogy that was originally in play. There is no "Holy Warrior" or "Militant Priest" archetype in basketball. Analogy fail on your part. You're right though. The "team assist leader" is not a fantasy archetype. But the warlord, the general, the commander, the king, the war marshal, the leader, the "heart" are fantasy archetypes. There are characters who are neither bards nor clerics who are "party optimizers" who operate as the tacticians, strategists, and 'hearts' of teams. Warlords are as much fighters with feats as barbarians are fighters with feats or even rogues being lightly armored fighters who stealth. What's the difference between a 'barbarian' and a 'fighter' who takes the 'outlander' background and 'appropriate feats'? Is it... dun dun dun... tradition? Because that's what it sounds like.

This is another point I have to comment on.

The Warlord is none of the things you've listed. He's not a commander, king, war marshal, or leader. The "Leader" of the party is chosen not by the character class, but by some agreement at the table.

He is also not the tactician, strategist, or heart of the team. First because what we're talking about is a group of 4-6 people who are engaged in very small scale combat. Further, each other character is either a master of combat, master of stealth, or extremely intelligent. If they can't figure out "Tactics" in a fight that is generally no more complex than "fighters stand in front, spellcasters/archers behind them" then we're talking about a group with a collective intelligence lower than a 3. Second, strategies are decided by discussion amongst the Players, being the "Warlord" doesn't give the player the right to dictate strategy and tactics to everyone else, so the Warlord pretty much has nothing to do with strategy and tactics.

I haven't yet understood why people keep assigning all of these qualities to the Warlord class and his abilities which bear little relation to what it is and what it's abilities do. The Warlord class is nothing more than a support class that is meant to buff the Fighters and heal, he's a non-magical buff mage. I honestly don't understand why anyone would even want to play one, he's strictly worse than every other option you could take based on what you want to do with it. If you want to be pushing things around the battlefield and buffing fighters than being a Wizard will always be better than being a Warlord. If you want to be healing and buffing fighters then being a Cleric will always be better than being a Warlord. Dual classing Cleric/Wizard would be substantially better than being a Warlord.

 

[Aldarc]

Ah. You don't need a subclass for that then--it's weak enough that it's already built into the Knight background (variant on Noble). Three retainers, one of whom is a combat-capable squire and the other two are grooms/whatever.

In as much as the barbarian is already built into the Outlander background.

This is another point I have to comment on.

The Warlord is none of the things you've listed. He's not a commander, king, war marshal, or leader. The "Leader" of the party is chosen not by the character class, but by some agreement at the table.

He is also not the tactician, strategist, or heart of the team. First because what we're talking about is a group of 4-6 people who are engaged in very small scale combat. Further, each other character is either a master of combat, master of stealth, or extremely intelligent. If they can't figure out "Tactics" in a fight that is generally no more complex than "fighters stand in front, spellcasters/archers behind them" then we're talking about a group with a collective intelligence lower than a 3. Second, strategies are decided by discussion amongst the Players, being the "Warlord" doesn't give the player the right to dictate strategy and tactics to everyone else, so the Warlord pretty much has nothing to do with strategy and tactics.

I haven't yet understood why people keep assigning all of these qualities to the Warlord class and his abilities which bear little relation to what it is and what it's abilities do. The Warlord class is nothing more than a support class that is meant to buff the Fighters and heal, he's a non-magical buff mage. I honestly don't understand why anyone would even want to play one, he's strictly worse than every other option you could take based on what you want to do with it. If you want to be pushing things around the battlefield and buffing fighters than being a Wizard will always be better than being a Warlord. If you want to be healing and buffing fighters then being a Cleric will always be better than being a Warlord. Dual classing Cleric/Wizard would be substantially better than being a Warlord.

If this is the metric you want to use for determining the worth of an archetype for class consideration, you would likely find yourself without many classes. I know I would if I followed your reasoning or, rather, emotional intuition.