D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[El Mahdi]

This makes me wonder if skilled receivers have a "marking" ability, in that they force all the defenders in their area to pay at least some attention to them, leaving other receivers less able to be covered.

Now that you mention it, your post and Manbearcat's examples are making me rethink Marking.

I've shied away from using or incorporating the concept, but I might explore it a little now.

 

[TwoSix]

XP for using the Lions!!!

Even better that the route example is Megatron! However, Johnson's not the Warlord; Matty is. Stafford is using Johnson to affect the movement of the defense; just like a D&D Warlord.

I wish I could give extra XP!

Heh, as a Packers fan, I was hoping to give Manbearcat some demerits for his choice.

 

[TwoSix]

Now that you mention it, your post and Manbearcat's examples are making me rethink Marking.

I've shied away from using or incorporating the concept, but I might explore it a little now.

I liked marking as a concept; it's weighed down slightly by early 4e's overzealousness in making so many class features a condition to be attached to the enemy. I personally preferred the Defender Aura of the Essentials Knight.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As far as being "completely honest" about not playing D&D 5E ever again if WotC released an optional rule in an optional rulebook... if you truly believe that, then good for you. You can debate other posters who spout that kind of opinionated hyperbole all you want. I'm not going to do it though, because no... I don't believe them. Quite frankly because I don't believe anyone is that ridiculous that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face over the introduction of something to the game that they do not and will not have to use.

Straw man. He never said that. He said he didn't want it "forced" into his game. I have said before and repeat that if you're saying that you don't expect "forcing" to occur, then you could be right. Maybe it will never be in the PHB; maybe it will never be part of AL play; maybe TrippyHippy plays only home games and never AL; etc. Doesn't matter, because your opinion that what TrippyHippy is objecting to will not happen does not make TrippyHippy's statement dishonest the way you claim it does. It's just your opinion that he's worrying about nothing.

Well, I've said what I had to say on that subject and won't beat the dead horse any more. I hope you get the optional materials you're hoping for, at a level of quality that you are happy with.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think there is something subtle, but important, being overlooked in this thread by all the warlord fans who are fervently "going after" those who disagree on the need for this class...

Nobody is going after you for disagreeing. However, some have taken issue with how you have disagreed. Perhaps taking a more informed and civil mode of disagreement might result in a better experience here for both you and the rest of the community.

This isn't a warlord fanboi thread. It's a poll asking who wants one and who doesn't...

No it isn't. This is a poll asking only "How many fans want a 5E Warlord?" It does not ask for who doesn't want one.

As the person who made the poll, I'm certain I'm the expert on that.

There is a very specific reason why I didn't ask for those who don't want a Warlord: The existence of 5E fans not wanting a Warlord is not a valid reason for it to not be included in the game.

The poll is multiple choice. That means those choosing Lemmon Curry are a mix of those who do and don't want a Warlord.

In other words, it's an option that means absolutely nothing, but gives those who don't want a Warlord something to click on; those that absolutely feel they need to voice their displeasure about someone else wanting something they themselves do not.

I set up the poll that way on purpose.

I've avoided the Warlording the Fighter thread, in spite of being asked to go there more than once, precisely for that reason. That's not my thing. I'm here to have my voice heard on a question that does pertain to me. One asked of me. You don't like dissent? Cool. Go to town in that thread. I won't bother you there.

If you don't want a Warlord, how is this thread pertinent to you?

The thread did not ask "Who doesn't want a Warlord?" By your own attestation, the question does not pertain to you.

And how is it you keep making claims or expressing opinions about a proposed class, when you haven't even read the proposal?


How can you have an informed opinion on the subject when you pointedly choose to remain uninformed?


Or is your chosen purpose here simply to be the fly in the ointment?

That it is somehow wrong to not want a 4e port over of the warlord is interesting to me.

It's not wrong to have that opinion. It's only wrong to use that as a reason to deny those that do. That's what you have very clearly done throughout: trying to present reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. Others have tried that too.

They've tried showing how the Warlord concept is illogical. They have failed.

They've tried showing that the Warlord isn't consistent with the rules and conceits of the game. That has also failed.

So now you are trying to say that because more people don't want it than do, it shouldn't be allowed in the game. That reason also fails. Even if there are massively more people that don't want it than do, it still isn't a valid reason to deny inclusion.

Yet you persist in trying to tell people why they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't be allowed to have it.

Why is that?

The elephant in the room, however, is that the devs have given us what they deem to be a viable, workable 5e warlord. They've said as much. I know you recall because we've had this very same debate before over on the WotC forums.

The devs also thought they had a viable, workable Ranger; until they received feedback from fans.

Do Warlord fans somehow have less allowance to do the same?

 

[mellored]

Let's not forget...
1. Rally Maneuver: grant temp hit points
2. Distracting Strike: buff ally with advantage/and you still get to attack
3. Goading Attack: de-buff enemy with disadvantage against allies
4. Maneuvering Attack: Help allies maneuver/grant free movement
5. Menacing Attack: de-buff enemy with frightened condition

Feats
1. Martial Adept: If you want more maneuvers and dice

What from a mechanical standpoint is missing?

An eldrich knight can get burning hands, magic missile, shield, and haste... what from a mechanical standpoint is missing from a wizard? He can also use his feats to take magic initiate and boost Int.

Because it's still primarily a fighter. With the majority of it's power budget into fighter like things (4 attacks, fighting style, extra HP).


A battlemaster might be good for fighter 15 / caddy 5.
We might be able to add some feats like "helper" to let people push it to fighter 10 / butler 10.
But there's no option for coach 20.

 

[El Mahdi]

So as the fighter or wizard, or whomever, I can choose to invalidate the warlord's action by not doing as "ordered". Who's the jerk there? Now I'm blocking. And that's not fun for anyone.

You complain that a Warlord telling another character what to do is unfair, despite the fact that isn't how it works.

Then you complain that a character who doesn't do what a Warlord tells them is penalizing the Warlord.


And you wonder why there are questions about your intentions here in this thread...


I like the idea of losing the actions if an ally chooses not to follow them. I like that the group loses the synergy bonuses they get for the presence of a Warlord if hey choose not to listen to them. It's a realistic representation of the benefits provided by leadership, and the results of ignoring that leadership. I purposely wrote those attributes in.

It models an old, but very true maxim about Leadership:

What's a Leader with no Followers?

Just a guy taking a walk.


If a Leader can't convince their allies to trust them, that following their guidance is to their advantage, then their leadership is ineffective.


The concept also puts a check and balance in the hands of the DM, much like an oath does for the Paladin.

The benefits provided by the presence of a Warlord should not be used as a blank check, it should be linked to at least a metagame representation of leadership, if not an actual roleplaying representation of leadership.


But again, if your stance is that a Warlord should not be allowed in any shape or form, why do you care about the form of the Warlord we are proposing?

 

[El Mahdi]

Here's one I've used before on the WotC forum when this same debate reared its ugly head...

Ahh...so you find the very debate ugly.

Again, why are you here?

 

[Imaro]

An eldrich knight can get burning hands, magic missile, shield, and haste... what from a mechanical standpoint is missing from a wizard? He can also use his feats to take magic initiate and boost Int.

Because it's still primarily a fighter. With the majority of it's power budget into fighter like things (4 attacks, fighting style, extra HP).


A battlemaster might be good for fighter 15 / caddy 5.
We might be able to add some feats like "helper" to let people push it to fighter 10 / butler 10.
But there's no option for coach 20.

But posters like @pemerton are stating that the Warlord is a type of warrior so why is the fighter chasis a no-no? Especially if he's using his bonus feats and class pics to take warlord type abilities? Or is this a case of the class name has to match up?

Edit (2) : Even the warlord in 4e wasn't just a buff/debuffer... he was able to competently attack & do damage...

Edit: And to answer your EK question... the biggest thing is free access to spells outside the evocation school...

I'm asking what actual abilities in a properly built/spec'd warlord are missing that are necessary for him to be a warlord... and you're giving me vagueness. So I'll ask again, what can't the Battlemaster do that the 5e warlord should be able to do?

 

[El Mahdi]

But posters like @pemerton are stating that the Warlord is a type of warrior so why is the fighter chasis a no-no?

Some have expressed that having the extra stuff that a Fighter has - specifically Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge - feels inconsistent with the concept to them.

I disagree to an extent, but I'm exploring multiple approaches in the concept we're fleshing out in the Warlording the Fighter thread. I'm developing an individual class first, then moving on to tweaking the Battlemaster (informed by the ideas developed for the individual class), and then also exploring just making Warlord aspects into Feats that anyone can take.

Then we'll compare them side-by-side and see how they stack up.

Another point as to why some don't want to use a Fighter chassis, is they feel the concept shouldn't be linked to only Warrior Leaders.

With an individual Warlord class, any class can dip in through multiclassing to make a true Bardic Leader, Rogue Leader, Paladin Leader, etc. - without actually having to have the background conceit of being a Warrior.

I agree to a certain extent on this point.

A good example comes from Patrick Rothfuss's recent book, The Wise Man's Fear, and his character of Kvothe (pronounced Quoth, for those who haven't read it). He's essentially a Bard that's put in charge of a group by a powerful Noble, tasked with tracking down bandits that have been harrying the Noble's tax collectors. He's of course, a newbie to the role of Leader; but you see the character grow as if he was multiclassing into a Warlord class.