D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[GMforPowergamers]

anyone who calls putting a new class out a money grab has lost the moral high ground for claiming maturity...

there are people who like the warlord and people who don't, but dismissing the fans of something is a great way to get peoples ire up. I can not for the life of me imagine why someone would argue against the inclusion of something that a significant (if not majority) % of fans want.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was thinking the warlock would be the best chassis for a new warlord class. Means the warlord would have a couple of major abilities per short rest (like the warlock's spells) and a list of maneuvers/tactics known (like the warlock's invocations). It would mean finding level equivalent tactics for the warlock's invocations, but that's fine. I'd add medium armor to the warlord, however.

I agree something like that would work, I imagine the bard fighter warlock blend would do best... and of course I feel it needs it's own class not just sub class...

 

[Sacrosanct]

anyone who calls putting a new class out a money grab has lost the moral high ground for claiming maturity...

Man what? Morality? Companies do things to increase profit. TSR/WoTC isn't any different. What do you think the original Unearthed Arcana was all about (and the classes therin)? What's odd is someone pointing out a very common tactic and you (and others) taking it as some sort of personal slight against you or your favorite edition. He made a claim that is true of every edition, including 4e. Sorry if you think that's automatically edition warring and immature. There is a site (I won't name) out there where 4e is protected against any sort of criticism and every other edition is fair game. Maybe you're used that sort of standard. But IME, this site isn't like that.

there are people who like the warlord and people who don't, but dismissing the fans of something is a great way to get peoples ire up. I can not for the life of me imagine why someone would argue against the inclusion of something that a significant (if not majority) % of fans want.

I think you're significantly overrating the number of people who want a warlord class. Are there some? Of course. But you need to understand that fans of the 4e warlord don't make up the majority of all the D&D players. Don't be silly. You don't even have to believe me. If the warlord had that many fans, it would have been part of the core classes. There's no way the D&D team sat there and said, "Here's a class that the majority of all D&D players want, so let's just ignore it and piss them off." I'm pretty sure the survey results are pretty clear that the warlord has some die hard fans, but certainly not the majority of D&D players.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is a site (I won't name) out there where 4e is protected against any sort of criticism and every other edition is fair game. Maybe you're used that sort of standard. But IME, this site isn't like that.

I would like a site that everyone talks and no one accuses people of crazy things... in the mean time I would love to know a site I could go to and discuse things I like in 4e without it starting a fight.

I think you're significantly overrating the number of people who want a warlord class.

citation please... remember I said significant (if not majority) I'm not sure what you think you know, but I'm sure you can be no more precise then I was...

Are there some? Of course. But you need to understand that fans of the 4e warlord don't make up the majority of all the D&D players.

and is it a significant amount? oh right you only can go by your gut reaction... and you would like to dismiss fans of things you are not a fan of.

Don't be silly.

water guns and pies in the face are silly, talking like an adult is not...

You don't even have to believe me.

good, I don't...

If the warlord had that many fans, it would have been part of the core classes.

citation needed...

There's no way the D&D team sat there and said, "Here's a class that the majority of all D&D players want, so let's just ignore it and piss them off."

but they could have said "Hey there are a lot of vocal people for and against, lets see if we can make both happy with a sub class" then put out survays to see what people want, and as you see here some people not only voted warlord, but it was as a write in...

I'm pretty sure the survey results are pretty clear that the warlord has some die hard fans, but certainly not the majority of D&D players.

now please link to those survey results...

 

[Gimul]

Man what? Morality? Companies do things to increase profit. TSR/WoTC isn't any different. What do you think the original Unearthed Arcana was all about (and the classes therin)? What's odd is someone pointing out a very common tactic and you (and others) taking it as some sort of personal slight against you or your favorite edition. He made a claim that is true of every edition, including 4e. Sorry if you think that's automatically edition warring and immature. There is a site (I won't name) out there where 4e is protected against any sort of criticism and every other edition is fair game. Maybe you're used that sort of standard. But IME, this site isn't like that.



I think you're significantly overrating the number of people who want a warlord class. Are there some? Of course. But you need to understand that fans of the 4e warlord don't make up the majority of all the D&D players. Don't be silly. You don't even have to believe me. If the warlord had that many fans, it would have been part of the core classes. There's no way the D&D team sat there and said, "Here's a class that the majority of all D&D players want, so let's just ignore it and piss them off." I'm pretty sure the survey results are pretty clear that the warlord has some die hard fans, but certainly not the majority of D&D players.

There are solid grounds to state the D&D team did worse than merely ignore demand for a 5e warlord. Mearls explicitly stated there would be 5e support for the 4e style warlord builds; then proceeded to backtrack over a period of months; before eventually refusing to comment further on the matter. I believe that is why these warlord threads/discussions tend draw such heat. It would have better to have been upfront about the lack of support.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There are solid grounds to state the D&D team did worse than merely ignore demand for a 5e warlord. Mearls explicitly stated there would be 5e support for the 4e style warlord builds; then proceeded to backtrack over a period of months; before eventually refusing to comment further on the matter. I believe that is why these warlord threads/discussions tend draw such heat. It would have better to have been upfront about the lack of support.

remember when they promised every major class from a PHB1 would be in the PHB... yea, but Warlord didn't even get a sub class... its "Well if you multi this with that and reflavor then by level 8"

 

[Sacrosanct]

There are solid grounds to state the D&D team did worse than merely ignore demand for a 5e warlord. Mearls explicitly stated there would be 5e support for the 4e style warlord builds; then proceeded to backtrack over a period of months; before eventually refusing to comment further on the matter. I believe that is why these warlord threads/discussions tend draw such heat. It would have better to have been upfront about the lack of support.

What is the Battlemaster fighter, if not a nod to 4e? What it seems what people want is an exact copy of the 4e warlord. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was never promised. Not only that, but it would be a broken class because as mentioned in the other thread we had about this six months ago, it would be WAY too OP compared to all the others with the features that people wanted in it.

 

[Obryn]

What is the Battlemaster fighter, if not a nod to 4e? What it seems what people want is an exact copy of the 4e warlord. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was never promised. Not only that, but it would be a broken class because as mentioned in the other thread we had about this six months ago, it would be WAY too OP compared to all the others with the features that people wanted in it.

This entire thread is how the Battlemaster falls short. Nod or not, it's a poor substitute.

As for the rest, it's just a matter of finding the right balance and method. You can't preemptively claim it's broken.

 

[Gimul]

What is the Battlemaster fighter, if not a nod to 4e? What it seems what people want is an exact copy of the 4e warlord. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was never promised. Not only that, but it would be a broken class because as mentioned in the other thread we had about this six months ago, it would be WAY too OP compared to all the others with the features that people wanted in it.

The battlemaster fighter is indeed a "nod" to one of the 3 builds. What (some) people want is not an exact copy; it is merely more than a mere "nod" and for all three builds.

They want this because they have existing characters and campaigns they want to port from 4e to 5e. They want this to be possible without completely redefining who those characters are and what they are about.

They want to do this without being forced to change the tone and feel of the campaign (by tuning it to lack of available healing) or introducing supplemental healbot npcs.

Feel free to deep dive into Mearls' official twitter feed; but he did, indeed, explicitly state that the concerns listed in the previous two paragraphs would be addressed. Then failed to deliver.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Would that mean that we might make the Warlord a Rogue subclass? It's crazy enough that it just might work. Skill monkey, light armour, high mobility, and giving orders. I think that would work quite nicely.

I've thought for a long while that a Rogue subclass was the best way to do the so called "lazylord" (I'd probably call it the Mastermind). It would be especially nice if it provided a way to get advantage through an Investigation roll.