FrogReaver said:
So can we debunk the arguments that a Warlord doesn't fit the design of 5e yet.
It's not that the Warlord
concept doesn't fit within 5E. It's that the Warlord
class doesn't (easily) fit within 5E. I can think of tons of character concepts that at least overlap with the Warlord concept. The problem is that they are not precisely defined by the Warlord concept (at least the characters that would actually be adventurers).
If I had to describe it in concrete terms, it's like you have a choice between a Block, a Paper, a Balloon, and a Red. It's easy to have a Red Block, or a Red Balloon, or a Red Paper, but having a Red by itself just leaves you asking, "Red what?"
4E gave you a Red, and a Green, and a Blue, and a Purple, and mixed those together with Blocks and Balloons and Papers. They gave you puzzle pieces, and asked you to solve the puzzle of creating the character. 5E doesn't approach character creation that way, except somewhat in how it handles subclasses. So when you ask for a Red, well, clearly that's a subclass. But you don't want it to be a subclass.
Paul Farquhar asked for character examples, and the first response was a real-life team coach. The main problem is that
the coach isn't playing the game. The
adventurers are the players on the field. In order to bring the coach in as a playable character/class, you have to figure out how to get the coach out on the field with the team. So that entire analogy kind of falls apart. This is the same as my example of the strategist in the castle. He may be a warlord, but he's not an adventurer.
I gave my own example answers, and noted that every single one of them is really a subclass of another class, or a multiclass, or something similar. Warlord as a
character concept just doesn't seem to stand on its own. Warlord as a
mechanic easily stands on its own, because mechanics are character-agnostic. The problem is that the design of a class presumes it carries enough weight to be strongly used as a character concept.
I'll go back and ask a variant on Paul's question:
What fictional (or even real) character would you try to design that fits the following criteria:
1) Is a Warlord
2) Is not a Fighter
3) Is an adventurer (ie: not just the strategist who stays in the castle while the army goes out to fight, or the old man in the bar handing out quest hooks)
Of those that qualify, which of them are not actually Rogue/Warlord, or Mage/Warlord, or Priest/Warlord, or Barbarian/Warlord?
Remember, I'm asking for a
character, not a collection of mechanics. I'm asking if you can be a new player wanting to a play a character like [XX], and find the best fit in the system to support said character is Warlord, and
only Warlord.
Not being able to separate two classes of idea is not in itself 'wrong' or 'bad'. Gishes are the personification of that, mixing the magic user with the fighter. On the other hand, there is no class called 'Gish'.
mellored said:
First Responder: Real world rescue workers, though obviously, these would need to fantasy up, all will have first aid training. I put a quick version here.
*Police: Chases criminals. Trys to disarm and arrest. Carry's a sidearm (hand-crossbow)
*Fire Brigade: Coordinates a bucket brigade. Drags victims out of burning buildings. Carries an axe.
*Paramedic (Battlefield medic?): non-magic pacifist healer.
*Guy with St. Bernard searching for avalance survivors.
*Lifeguard: ... maybe...
Closest analog of police is the city watch/city guard, which are your basic fighter/soldier types. Paramedic seems to map to alchemist/chemist/medic. A potentially non-magical supporter type, sure, but not a warlord. Rescue dog handler and lifeguard and first responders may also be non-magic supporters, but are, again, not warlords. That little 'war' part is kind of crucial.
Lelouch does work, though. Leia also sort of does, though she also sort of doesn't fit
any character class.
