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

[El Mahdi]

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

Well that's the nature of game design as well as life.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”


However, it's not just the Battlemaster that seems to have fallen short. WotC said that their polling showed some issues with all of the Fighter archetypes among fans.


We're trying to get as much feedback and consensus among ENWorld's Warlord fans as possible in the Warlording the Fighter thread.

It's still a work in progress...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Yes...

A fighter with commander's strike, inspiring leader, healer, and shield master does in many ways represent a warlord.

But it's still missing some aspects. It's unsatisfactory, like the beastmaster.

Glad we found at least some common ground.

No class is needed. All of them can be turned into feats.

Barbarian? Why not a simply have a rage and unarmored defense as a feat? Take that and Tough and durable.
Rogue? Why not cunning action and sneak attack as feat? Take that and the Skill feat.
Monk? Why not ki and stunning strike as a feat? Take that and the Mobility feat.
Fighter? Why not a multi-attack feat? Take that and the Armor / weapon feat.
Wizard? Why not just let you take magical imitate multiple times for increasing spell levels?

Then you only need 1 class that get 1 a feat every level....


I agree it would be a bit more difficult to change course at this point. At that maybe the best to be hoped for is a fighter sub-class.

Slippery sloping the discussion doesn't help your cause any. And if, "but it's missing some aspects," means it doesn't extend beyond 5e's core design principles and what it's system action economy standards allow for, I'm cool with that. The amount of warlord to be found in 5e now is about as much warlord as 5e can handle, IMO. And the devs concur. Lest we'd have more.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Then please don't insult warlords fans by saying they've got the flavor.

Of course the Warlord would work whole-cloth. You just need to open up 5E to martial healing (etc).

Like a ranger with a useful combat pet; this isn't for everyone. So don't make it for everybody: tell DMs explicitly the rule that follows is optional and that a DM is well within his rights to not allow it in his home campaign.

But what makes nobody happy is watered-down pale copies of concepts.

This is all misguided thinking, IMHO. Nothing should be a direct copy of anything from any previous edition. It should all pass through a 5e filter first. Everything. There is no "watered down", there is only 5e-ified.

And what most pro-warlorders are looking for is more than just martial healing. I hope you know that.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Considering it's been a 4 year wait for book 3, it doesn't feel all that recent!

The Warlord is a Charisma fighter. That presents a simple problem: How do you get that d12 bonus to apply to other people, and have a high charisma matter? Clearly, a variant class is needed to combine positive battle conditions based on a Charisma bonus. It's almost possible with the Bard, but then they get that massive spell list. What you need is the Battlemaster type d8-d12 system to replace the spell casting, and then operate as a Charisma fighter. But if we keep composing classes this way, it will never end. We eventually need a class building kit like they had in Spells & Magic.

Just to be overly specific, a lot of us 4e Warlord fans liked the concept of the Intelligence-based Warlord, not just the Charisma one.

 

[El Mahdi]

The amount of warlord to be found in 5e now is about as much warlord as 5e can handle, IMO. And the devs concur. Lest we'd have more.

Your ability to read other peoples minds is truly astounding.

You have no idea if the devs are satisfied with the Battlemaster or not. If anything, since they said their polling has revealed fan issues with all of the Fighter archetypes, the evidence indicates the exact opposite.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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

Because it's asking the community if they want one. I answered, 'no'.

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

Do you find pedantry and semantics often serve you well?

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

I just went back and re-read your OP. It makes no reference to only seeking advice as to your proposed houseruled warlord or the thread in which it is posted. It merely mentions them and offers bonus XP for mentioning them. Which would lead any competent reader to understand this thread does not solely focus on your homebrew. But on warlords in general.

Also, here is a line from your OP:

If you don't want a 5E Warlord, feel free to post also - it will help keep the thread bumped so people will see it.

Perhaps you should not have said that if you didn't want dissent, or if you only wanted people who are slavering over your awesome warlord homebrew and want it to be published by WotC as much as you do.

 

[mellored]

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

Not that competently. A warlord, by himself, was pretty weak. Basically he only had cantrip level damage.

Sure, some people played the warlord like a battlemaster, focusing dealing damage, toughness, with a side of buffs. But it's much more that he was buffing with a side of damage.

They are closer to a valor bard then a fighter.


And the lazylord is similar to a pacifist cleric. All the images of a cleric show them waving a mace around, or burning people with fire. It has all sorts of offensive spells. Yet some people choose to avoid them and only take defensive spells. Eventually support came along for that kind of cleric, and it got it's own class in 3e (healer). You can readily make a pacifist life cleric in 5e, with only 1 small feature being "wasted".

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

They can take magic initiate and get any spell. Which is the same type of argument you give.

Eeven if you could take other spells, it would still be primarily a fighter, with only some wizard.

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?

Would should a fighter do that a war cleric cannot do?

He has heavy armor, martial weapons, and a few times per day he can multi-attack.

The answer, again, is that it's still primarily cleric with only some fighter.

 

[El Mahdi]

Considering it's been a 4 year wait for book 3, it doesn't feel all that recent!

Well, I just read it.

And the older I get, my perception of time seems to change. I swear, 4 years ago can feel like yesterday.

 

[Imaro]

They can take magic initiate and get any spell. Which is the same type of argument you give.

You still haven't answered the question I asked... oh and for the record the above is wrong... there are level limits around the spells Magic Intiiate allows so it's not the same as having access to all schools in any way.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Here's more from that long post of yours...

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.

Wanting something doesn't make you right. Nor does giving you want you want necessarily help the game. I'm sure someone out there wishes there was a mindflayer PC race for their 1st-level sorcerer.

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.

Opinions. I've seen tons of valid arguments in both cases.

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

They do have one. There is nothing wrong with the ranger in play. Have you played one? I have.

And also, pretending that just because a majority wants something, it has to be right is, to pull one of your favorite terms, fallacious.

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

You seem awfully entitled. Are you sure that's warranted? One should not drink too much of their own kool-aide.