D&D 5E The Warlord [New Class]

ChameleonX · Sep 22, 2015

Yunru said:
Haven't seen the debate, but you're obviously wrong: the Warlord's cheerleader of the group, although that might be my favourtism towards lazylords showing

One of my goals was indeed to make sure the "Lazyord" was represented, specifically in the Strategist subclass. I also wanted to make sure the other archetypes were there too, though. It's specifically the diversity of the Warlord concept that makes me (and many others) want to see it as a full class.

I tried to make sure that not all of their abilities were based on "giving orders," or necessarily being the leader of the party. The different subclasses represent different styles of commad; the Marshal is a gritty hands-on leader who inspires his (or her) allies by being right there on the frontlines with them, risking the same dangers and facing the same challenges with confidence and skill.

The Strategist is a more cerebral chessmaster type, the LazyLord, who prefers to let his allies do the fighting. At best, she's the "Cheerleader" or "Team Mom" who watches over everyone and makes sure they do their best. At worst, he's a ruthless schemer who lets others do his dirty work while he stays relatively safe from the back of the line.

The General is like a mix of the two, with a bit of "Pet class" tossed in, except the pets are humanoids. This one is mostly just an experiment, honestly...

MoonSong · Sep 22, 2015

ChameleonX said:
SO ANYWAY...

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about this Warlord, specifically?

Does anything seem unbalanced or unintuitive?

Is there anything I should add, like more subclasses, etc?

Anything I could say would be biased since I did my own warlord-esque class, the Noble class from En5ider -had to pick a name that complied with the ogl and find some flavor and place in the world-. And I have gotten so little feedback on it... anyway people here love to discuss on the merits of the warlord, not so much giving feedback on fanversions of the warlord. Anyway it is nice to see I'm not that far off the mark.

Xeviat · Sep 22, 2015

ChameleonX said:
SO ANYWAY...

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about this Warlord, specifically?

Does anything seem unbalanced or unintuitive?

Is there anything I should add, like more subclasses, etc?

There's a lot going on, and I'd need to mull over it for a while and let it digest. On the surface, I'd rather see more Superiority Dice and more Maneuvers if this is supposed to be the Wizard of maneuvers; then again, I also think the Battlemaster could use less Superiority Dice, at least to start off. I also would rather it not have extra attack, except maybe one of the subclasses. But aside from the specific numbers, I do really like the way you did it. It's simple while still having a lot of options.

EzekielRaiden · Sep 22, 2015

steeldragons said:
I said NOTHING of the kind. I am not saying/did not say D&D can't have warlord characters in it (I would say that about sorcerers, but again a digression none of us want to journey down...trust me).
<snip>
Then WTF is this whole response for/about other than to be argumentative or baiting?

and...again...I said NO WHERE that "5e can't have nice [new] things."
<snip>
I'm....really not sure what you're trying to say here or how it refutes what I posted. If 5e hadn't included 3e-originating stuff...it's not enough for demanding people...? I just am not following this... and what "gate-keeping the Traditional D&D Way" is supposed to mean or apply to what I said/am trying to get across.

Seeing as I'm not the only person who got this idea from your post, perhaps there was something wrong with how you presented the argument?

Because it seemed pretty clear that you were saying "Paladin etc. are in because they have Legacy, and therefore Warlord is not justified because it has no legacy." Which, as I said, results in that catch-22.

If all you were trying to say was, "Paladin/etc. don't need any more justification than that they've been done for many years," well...your words did not communicate that that was all you were trying to say.

My further point was that "legacy" clearly cannot be a necessary condition for inclusion (Dragonborn and Warlocks don't have it, but are included); nor can it be a sufficient condition (Fochlucan Lyrist/"druidic bards" and an "acrobat" archetype have it, but are not included). Hence why I listed the variety of examples I did--some are included which lack the legacy you speak of, while others are not included despite having it. If it is neither necessary nor sufficient for inclusion, it's not a particularly great criterion of inclusion, as far as logic is concerned.

Also, just so we're clear: "facts are not opinions" is not the same as "irrefutable logic." It's absolutely a fact that Paladins/etc. have been in the game longer. That fact does not subsequently entail that they should continue to be present--it requires the further, normative statement, "Things with long legacy should be included."

Xeviat · Sep 23, 2015

Description: Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in general or as specific as the historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the historical preference is correct. Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.

Logical Form:

We have been doing X for generations.
Therefore, we should keep doing X.

Our ancestors thought X was right.
Therefore, X is right.

------------

Games change. Classes are added. The Marshall was added a while back, and some people loved it. Apparently enough loved it that the Warlord was chosen as one of 8 classes at 4E's launch. There, it could stand side by side with the Cleric. Some people still want that.