D&D 5E Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

[FrogReaver]

As Undrave said. It's a matter of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Not really applicable to my point. My point is that doing the fun thing bs doing the effective thing is a necessary paradigm and not bad if itself.

Not at all. It means that you make the difficulty of choosing when to use it actually fun, and you make it so that you can't just spam fireball every single time.

Your example is also not applicable, because you aren't contrasting "do the fun thing" with "do the effective thing." You're contrasting "do the fun and effective thing" vs "do the dull and ineffective thing."

The fun thing = use fireball NOW. The effective thing = save fireball for later by using firebolt now.

Sounds perfectly applicable to me. And it prima facie demolishes the idea that this is something to avoid.

It's a flaw of the overall design that the fun and effective thing is brokenly overpowered when the players are allowed to control their rate of resting.

That’s a different discussion

If the fun and effective thing weren't brokenly overpowered to begin with, it wouldn't be an issue. In fact, it would be a great thing that using a not-broken fireball repeatedly brings joy to the player choosing to do that.

Fireball is not brokenly OP

One should already be striving for player options that are reasonable and fitting. Within that context, the player should not be forced to decide between the dull-but-effective stuff (like +2 to your ability scores, which is at least 95% of the time the most effective choice and completely boring) or the fun-but-ineffective stuff (the vast majority of feats.)

I’m not a fan of scaling ASIs by level so I’d agree based on that, but as long as they do allow scaling them up as you level they make for great ways to differentiate at least some characters. My barbarian/rogue that invested in con instead of str comes to mind.

I think the purpose of ASIs/feats is to differentiate characters. Nor do I find the effectiveness of +2 main stat compared to at least a half dozen feats for each character (and probably more) is large enough to worry about effectiveness differences.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ressource management isn't a bad mechanic in itself.

That’s exactly my point. Resource management is one form where you do what is efficient over what is fun and it’s not bad in itself - meaning doing what is efficient over what is fun is also not bad in itself.

 

[FrogReaver]

It would be very funny if the warlord class was asked in the future by fault of a CRPG where the main character is a "warlord" with a "harem" of "monster girls".

I imagine the D&D warlord as the leader of a warband from some skirmishes miniature game style Mordheim, Warcry or Warhammer Underworld.

* There aren't only warlord classes by 3PPs but also several homebrew versions. What are the best ideas to be got?

Part of the conceptual problem is the whole idea of self appointed leader of the party.

 

[James Gasik]

Did anyone ever actually play a Warlord as a "party leader" or say "I'm the Warlord, you have to obey me!"?

I mean, Clerics and Bards were specifically called Leaders as well, yet that didn't turn them into tin-plated dictators, did it?

Maybe my experience isn't the norm, but when I play D&D, it's a democracy. Sure, some players might be better at tactics or plans or talking to NPC's, but if they become the de-facto party leader, it's not because of their class! I've been in parties where the Fighter's player is the idea guy, and parties where it's the Cleric or the Wizard. I mean heck, 5e has a Rogue subclass called a "Mastermind" and that doesn't instantly give them a 20 Intelligence nor the ability to boss people around- they assist others at being better at what they do.

Which is exactly what the Leader role does. There was a time, yes, when some people playing Assassins or Thieves felt that meant they were entitled to murder and rob anyone they wished to, even other PC's.

I don't play with those kinds of people anymore, and neither should anyone else.

 

[FrogReaver]

Did anyone ever actually play a Warlord as a "party leader"...?

Welp, there goes the biggest conceptual need for the warlord class. If the Warlord isn't a party leader then conceptually isn't it just a Fighter that focuses on support.

I mean, Clerics and Bards were specifically called Leaders as well, yet that didn't turn them into tin-plated dictators, did it?

The Leader role isn't what people say that about the warlord.

 

[ECMO3]

Armor doesn't cost ressource every times you get into battle.

No but it weighs you down, meaning you can carry less and it costs money (or alternatively you can sell it for money).

How is Patient Defence fun?

Getting attacked and missed? Really?

Again how is wearing armor fun, and if not fun why do it.

I don't see how that is any less fun than damaging people. Tanking is a thing.

Heck Fighters and Clerics doorway dodge all the time, these characters are using and entire action to impose disadvantage and not attacking at all.

This is all your personal play style and nothing more!

 

[James Gasik]

Welp, there goes the biggest conceptual need for the warlord class. If the Warlord isn't a party leader then conceptually isn't it just a Fighter that focuses on support.

The Leader role isn't what people say that about the warlord.

The conceptual need for a Warlord was to provide force multiplication to non-magic classes. All stop.

If we want things like Bless and Inspiration Dice to be magical only mechanics, then no, we don't need a Warlord. If we'd rather see things like martial characters being tacticians and strategists, and be able to force multiply without using magic, then there is a need for a Warlord.

There is, however, no need for a "Party Boss" class, nor was the Warlord ever intended to be such.

Marketing probably found "Warlord" was a cooler name than "Marshal". Some people really identify with the name of their class.

I could, for example, remove the Ranger, and create a "Wilderness Warrior" class who is trained by Druids and excels in survival skills, and does everything the Ranger does. And you know what? There would be people crying that they can't play a Ranger!

Or they'd say "it's an ok class, but it doesn't feel like a ranger. It doesn't feel like D&D without a Ranger class!"

Now you might say, well, that's because Ranger is a legacy class, or that people want to be Rangers because Aragorn. And maybe so, but if you're trying to make a new iconic class, a name that resonates with the player is a big deal, I think.

Now sometimes, yes, there's a disconnect. A new player to the game might hear "Sorcerer" or "Warlock" and wonder why that's not the same thing as "Wizard". Or they might associate "Wizard" with something other than the standard Gandalf archetype and wonder why they have to lug a book around to use magic!

But it doesn't take long to understand that what D&D calls a Paladin isn't what a Paladin is in the real world- though thanks to cross-pollination, most fantasy Paladins do somewhat resemble the D&D Paladin!

If someone kept getting tripped up by the fact that the D&D Warlord isn't the same as a real world Warlord, I don't really know what to say. Again, that harkens back to "see? My class is Thief, I steal! It's what I do!" when not all Thieves were robbers or burglars!

 

[FrogReaver]

The conceptual need for a Warlord was to provide force multiplication to non-magic classes. All stop.

Then no Warlord is needed because there should be no force multipliers in a team based RPG. Such needs are strictly power fantasys.

If we want things like Bless and Inspiration Dice to be magical only mechanics, then no, we don't need a Warlord. If we'd rather see things like martial characters being tacticians and strategists, and be able to force multiply without using magic, then there is a need for a Warlord.

Neither Bless nor Inspiration Dice are force multipliers???

There is, however, no need for a "Party Boss" class, nor was the Warlord ever intended to be such.

That's it's conceptual space. When people justify the warlord concept all the fictional leaders get trotted out.

Marketing probably found "Warlord" was a cooler name than "Marshal". Some people really identify with the name of their class.

I think the name warlord is bad, but it's literally the last thing i care about. You'll notice this is my first substantial comment on that idea and it's directly in response to you bringing it up.

I could, for example, remove the Ranger, and create a "Wilderness Warrior" class who is trained by Druids and excels in survival skills, and does everything the Ranger does. And you know what? There would be people crying that they can't play a Ranger!

That's because there are about 10 different strong conceptions or Ranger. That design doesn't meet 9/10 of them.

If someone kept getting tripped up by the fact that the D&D Warlord isn't the same as a real world Warlord, I don't really know what to say. Again, that harkens back to "see? My class is Thief, I steal! It's what I do!" when not all Thieves were robbers or burglars!

Not sure why so much of your post was about this when nothing I said was about what it was called.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Then no Warlord is needed because there should be no force multipliers in a team based RPG. Such needs are strictly power fantasys.

I bet it's only a power fantasy if non-casters want it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I bet it's only a power fantasy if non-casters want it.

How much money do i win for you being wrong?