D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Garthanos]

Vampire == experimental class as narrow as a subclass....

Note as a narrow class it could still multi-class and hybrid fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Any generalizations will be inaccurate in part, but how inaccurate is it?

I recall in, what, 2016 (?) that the same few people posted so many threads about the Warlord on enworld that it had to be moved to its own, separate, forum. Not because of an overwhelming amount of interest, but because the threads tended to generate more heat than light, got nowhere, and were quickly supplanted by additional Warlord threads.

Many people, such as myself, tend to view this is kind of a "meh" issue now, mostly suitable for joking. But, to be serious, it is a fundamentally unsolvable issue (IMO) because it's not really about the Warlord. Which I've explained several times. But here goes again:

1. As is obvious, Warlord Fans ("WF") don't just want a Warlord class. If WoTC released a class, tomorrow, called the Warlord that didn't have the same capabilities as this mythical 4e Warlord, it wouldn't satisfy WF.

2. But WF also doesn't want a class that approximates Warlord abilities. There are numerous 3PP and homebrew solutions to the issue of the Warlord, and that doesn't seem to satisfy most WF.

So, what is this ongoing issue really about. Again, IMO.

Any thread that goes on about Warlords long enough eventually devolves into variations of edition warring, with the salient points being that, in no particular order:

1. 5e doesn't have the right/optimum/enough martial/tactical complexity.

2. People never understood what the Warlord really did.

3. The Warlord is the only 4e base class (from the PHB1, I gather) that didn't make it to 5e. This is an assertion that every edition's "base class" made it to 5e.

So, the issue about the Warlord isn't about the Warlord qua Warlord; instead, the Warlord is a synechdoche for 4e; more specifically, the Warlord is a symbol of two things:

A. The lack of martial complexity and options; and

B. The idea that fans who supported D&D and WoTC during the tough times (aka, 4e) are not being recognized and supported now.

So that's why the Warlord will never go away; because it's not really about the Warlord. Again, IMO. Because if it was as simple an issue as a constellation of abilities and a name, then it wouldn't keep popping up with vitriol.

The vitriol keeps happening because the “it shouldn’t be part of 5e” comments keep happening.

And most “WF” I know either are happy to use a 3pp class, or would be happy to use an official version that is just like any given 3pp version. But, that doesn’t mean we don’t want to see it in a dnd book.

A lot of folks don’t want to use 3pp at all, btw. Even as an avid home-brewer, I am very picky about 3pp material.

 

[Azzy]

I'd like a warlord class, and I didn't like 4e.

Same here. I skipped 4e and the whole edition war by not even being present on ENWorld or the WotC boards during 4e's run. The only thing I know about the Warlord is what's been described to me by 4e fans, and I thought it sounded fun (I'm especially taken with the Lazylord concept—which to me seems like the perfect DMPC when one is needed, as you can't keep the attention and action focused on the PCs). So, I was already down with the idea of bringing the Warlord back to 5e.

Then I read a few Warlord threads, each inevitably threadcrapped by edition warriors shouting down Warlord fans with the sort of vitriol and skewed "rationale" that is commonplace in US politics. That cemented it for me. I may have been someone that happily ignored 4e, but now I'm a dyed in the wool supporter of the Warlord and bringing the class to 5e in an official capacity. Now, no 3rd party attempt at the class is good enough—I want an official class just to spite the naysayers for continuously being obnoxious pudenda.

 

[cbwjm]

Same here. I skipped 4e and the whole edition war by not even being present on ENWorld or the WotC boards during 4e's run. The only thing I know about the Warlord is what's been described to me by 4e fans, and I thought it sounded fun (I'm especially taken with the Lazylord concept—which to me seems like the perfect DMPC when one is needed, as you can't keep the attention and action focused on the PCs). So, I was already down with the idea of bringing the Warlord back to 5e.

Then I read a few Warlord threads, each inevitably threadcrapped by edition warriors shouting down Warlord fans with the sort of vitriol and skewed "rationale" that is commonplace in US politics. That cemented it for me. I may have been someone that happily ignored 4e, but now I'm a dyed in the wool supporter of the Warlord and bringing the class to 5e in an official capacity. Now, no 3rd party attempt at the class is good enough—I want an official class just to spite the naysayers for continuously being obnoxious pudenda.

That's funny, I feel the same way about the 4e fans that constantly bring up edition warring and more often that not it seems they are the ones that bring up the edition war (much like you, I completely missed it so had no idea what people were talking about when I came back to ENworld with 5e), they like to just drop in little jabs like calling people h4ters because they have an opinion about warlords or big tents that run contrary to he 4e fan's opinion. I even liked 4e, but the 4e fans I find to be somewhat toxic.

 

[Azzy]

That's funny, I feel the same way about the 4e fans that constantly bring up edition warring and more often that not it seems they are the ones that bring up the edition war (much like you, I completely missed it so had no idea what people were talking about when I came back to ENworld with 5e), they like to just drop in little jabs like calling people h4ters because they have an opinion about warlords or big tents that run contrary to he 4e fan's opinion. I even liked 4e, but the 4e fans I find to be somewhat toxic.

Oh, there are some Toxic 4vengers (that Troma would be wary of) that just need to let it go, but for every one of them there are 6 H4ters are are louder and much more obnoxious IME.

 

[Bigsta]

Attaching a subclass to a fighter and calling it a warlord is like bringing a sex doll into the bedroom and calling it a threesome. It works out mechanically but it just doesn't feel the same, and it certainly isn't official.

 

[Anoth]

Attaching a subclass to a fighter and calling it a warlord is like bringing a sex doll into the bedroom and calling it a threesome. It works out mechanically but it just doesn't feel the same, and it certainly isn't official.

Eh. Inappropriate. But I have no comprehension why warlord can not be a fighter archetype. Thematically and mechanically it fits well.

 

[Don Durito]

Eh. Inappropriate. But I have no comprehension why warlord can not be a fighter archetype. Thematically and mechanically it fits well.

See post 62.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I like Rob Schwalb (Shadow of the Demon Lord is one of my favorite games), but not a big fan of his Warlord attempt. It's OK, but didn't quite hit the nail on the head.

Yeah, it’s a good shot, but...just didn’t do it for me.

Ironically, post-Essentials "Heroes of Shadow" made most of the Shadow source classes* into :drumroll: sub-classes of existing classes.
MM has an MO, it seems.
* IIRC: Assassin and, of all things, Vampire, got classes while Binder, 'Nethermancer,' Necromancer, and Blackguard were sub-classes.

Those are mostly subclasses by name, to be fair.

Eh. Inappropriate. But I have no comprehension why warlord can not be a fighter archetype. Thematically and mechanically it fits well.

Because very little of the characters mechanical ability will be related to the actual concept of a Captain.

 

[Manchurian]

I cannot, there ain't no established rules for psionics yet.

Also besides that, ... no. Hahaha

You can use the psionics table from second....couple Tweeks it will coincide