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

[MoonSong]

I played 4e when the designers brought it to a convention in long island, then again in a game shop a few miles from Stony brook. When I was told I could stand on square A, and square B, but square C was diagonal and not really there, despite a ledge being illustrated, I quit playing 4e. I never really learned what a Warlord was, or how it played out, but in AD&D, the fighter of 9th level got a small army almost automatically when building a fortress. Then in Dark Sun, the fighter got massive armies. The Unearthed Arcana gave us Barbarian Hordes. Necromancers used to have whole cemeteries worth of undead armies, not just a few that expired like they do today.

Massive battles were pretty solid rules, and having someone in charge was pretty much it's own benefit. I think you got a kickback of 10% or something of the total experience points, so a thousand goblins at 7xp each would be 7000 x 10% = 700xp, for example. I used to have a fighter named Garus with an army, a completely broken weapon, and a Rod of Lordly Might. My DM eventually pitted Garus against an Anti Paladin with an unholy sword named Sioned, who was so hawt Garus almost cried, after he chopped off her head with his oversized Vorpal Axe of Hurling. Good Times.

Massive battles and snowflake leadership seemed to be balanced with systems like Birthright, where everybody was a leader and holder of a castle unless you decided your character was purposely going to be ordinary.

So my question is, with so many massive battle rules going back to the 70s, why did the 21st century feel it necessary to introduce the Warlord?

Well, a lot of the same could be said of the sorcerer, both classes started as mechanics filling a niche in the 21st century, but untapped a kind of character that wasn't seen before because it didn't properly exist. A lot of the same ideas and arguments have come from detractors from both classes. some kind of "former edition myopia" that makes it hard to explain. At least that is what I feel...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

People are going to be upset when 5e, that was touted as the edition to "unite the editions" by many people, leaves out favorites from the core of their favorite previous edition. It's almost like those people really didn't mean to unite the editions, but rather just the non-4e editions. It's like some populist revolution seizes power and then their supporters spend all their time condemning their political enemies and trying to root them out where ever they can.

If one cannot see strong influences of 4e in 5e, they are not trying to look. And the fact that some are claiming some kind of design failure, because a particular, singular aspect of a person's favorite edition (in this case, a warlord class that grants actions and martial healing in battle as their focus) did not make it into the new edition the way they wanted it (because it is there, like it or not), is not a fault of the devs, or the system. It rests on that person.

And the whole "what ever happened to uniting all the editions" thing has been so misused, twisted and re-purposed, I doubt anyone even realizes when they are misquoting or misusing the intent originally established during the playtest and development periods of 5e. So it's understandable.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The developers learn more about their system all the time. Compared to now they barely knew anything about their own system. These are the same developers, who after a massive playtest, let the Ranger, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Crossbow Expert through and then many months later realized that they dun goofed and either tried or are trying to fix it. Compared to a year or two from now these same developers still no relatively little about the system and what it can or can't handle because the mechanics are organic.

Nothing you just said aligns with my perception or experiences. Now what?

 

[El Mahdi]

So my question is, with so many massive battle rules going back to the 70s, why did the 21st century feel it necessary to introduce the Warlord?

I think for the same reason Misters Gygax and Arneson made D&D in the first place.

Just as RPG's developed from the desire of Wargamers to run individual characters rather than whole armies, a Warlord is a leader character focused on interacting with a small group rather than a large army. However, interaction with mass-battle rules seems consistent with the Warlord also, and something being explored with the Warlord we're developing in the Warlording the Fighter thread.

 

[El Mahdi]

And the fact that some are claiming some kind of design failure, because a particular, singular aspect of a person's favorite edition...did not make it into the new edition the way they wanted it

Please quote where anyone claimed a design failure in the Battlemaster because it doesn't perfectly match 4E?

We'll wait...

 

[Imaro]

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.

Ok, let me get clarification... fans want a 4e style warlord, right? Well he was based on being a warrior. The 4e PHB states he should be able to stand on the lines with fighters and paladins... and in 5e both are prett bad mofos in combat, I think Fighting Style (which all warriors get), Second Wind, and Action Surge are the least he needs to stand on the front lines with the martial classes...

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.

But the concept (at least in 4e) very much is.

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.

So some fans don't really want a 4e-esque warlord... they want something else... but then what is this thing? Even 4e paired it with something besides just inspiring people, mainly martial abilty.

 

[Imaro]

Well, a lot of the same could be said of the sorcerer, both classes started as mechanics filling a niche in the 21st century, but untapped a kind of character that wasn't seen before because it didn't properly exist. A lot of the same ideas and arguments have come from detractors from both classes. some kind of "former edition myopia" that makes it hard to explain. At least that is what I feel...

I think the sorcerer is different though, and this goes back to what I was saying earlier about "inspiring and leading people" being a general "hero" ability... I think what [MENTION=6801220]shintashi[/MENTION] is getting at is that the ability to lead and command used to be a give once you became a "hero" (high enough level) in D&D with any class, until it was phased out of the game. There was never a point where any class could declare spontaneous casting once they reached a certain level.

 

[El Mahdi]

Ok, let me get clarification... fans want a 4e style warlord, right?

No.

Even the 4E fans that have been involved in the conversation (of which I am not a 4E fan), and especially in the Warlording the Fighter thread, have all said there were issues with the 4E version, and that an exact port of the 4E version to 5E is unfeasible and undesired.

What all Warlord fans have said they want is a 5E character class that fulfills the concept of the Warlord: whether the 3.5E Marshal, the 4E Warlord, the fictional trope, historical examples, or real-life representations.

The Battlemaster does not fully fulfill that concept.

Not all Warlords stand on the front lines. Some do, others don't. All of them can fight, but it's not necessary for them to be the best at fighting.

Some focus on tactics and strategy. Some do not; but all have some skill with this.

Some manipulate the actions of their enemies. Some do not.

All are primarily Leaders.

So some fans don't really want a 4e-esque warlord... they want something else... but then what is this thing? Even 4e paired it with something besides just inspiring people, mainly martial abilty.

The answer to that question is in the Warlording the Fighter thread...

 

[El Mahdi]

well i have nothing against massive battles, but I'm wondering, didn't they already publish some kind of massive tactics system? Is there currently no way of making a Charisma fighter? I'm guessing that must be the case - Paladins, Bards, and Warlocks are all spell casters, that's probably the root issue.

A Charisma based warrior class with no spells does not exist. Therefore, something like the Warlord is necessary.

That's certainly part of it.

And yes, they did already print a mass battle system - or at least a playtestable version - on UA.

I haven't delved into it very deeply, but I intend to explore how a Warlord can interact with those rules as a class feature.

 

[Imaro]

No.

Even the 4E fans that have been involved in the conversation (of which I am not), and especially in the Warlording the Fighter thread, have all said there were issues with the 4E version, and that an exact port of the 4E version to 5E is unfeasible and undesired.

What all Warlord fans have said they want is a 5E character class that fulfills the concept of the Warlord: whether the 3.5E Marshal, the 4E Warlord, the fictional trope, historical examples, or real-life representations.

The Battlemaster does not fully fulfill that concept.

Not all Warlords stand on the front lines. Some do, others don't. All of them can fight, but it's not necessary for them to be the best at fighting.

Some focus on tactics and strategy. Some do not; but all have some skill with this.

Some manipulate the actions of their enemies. Some do not.

All are primarily Leaders.




The answer to that question is in the Warlording the Fighter thread...

Honestly this post makes me think WotC could never make a "Warlord" that was going to satisfy everyone who wants one...