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

[El Mahdi]

Well, not quite: if the Warlord/Caddy/Marshal herself thus burns her action instead of doing something else she's not pulling her weight.

Sure, but it's just a temporary thing, maybe one round; that is unless the player of the Warlord continues to beat their head against a wall.

I'm betting that more than likely, players will probably tell the Warlord's player up front they aren't going to follow any of their guidance, and the player of the Warlord won't even bother with them.

Even more than that, I'm betting groups will collectively think about how to use the Warlord's actions before they actually give out them out - though it still remains the choice of the Warlord player on what to do and whether to even give up their actions. The player of the Warlord doesn't have to be an expert tactician, the character is the expert. I don't see a reason why the players can't discuss the tactics instead of leaving it up to just the Warlord's player.

I can also see players purposefully roleplaying that aspect of group dynamics. That can set up things like Han resisting Leia's guidance when they first meet.

It could be fun.

 

[Uchawi]

There was a debate about adding Psionics to the game not so long ago. There was some serious disagreement about the form psionics might take, in particular the magic vs not-magic issue was one each side wanted the game to validate for them so they could be 'right.' But, even though the concept is strongly sci-fi and far less appropriate to a fantasy game than the Warlord, few (possibly no, IIRC) people approached the discussion with an adamant insistence that no one ever be allowed to play a psion in 5e, even as an obscure option.'

I agree. It all boils down to mundane ability versus anything else. And some have strict restraints on anything mundane in relation to real world physics, but are happy about hit points as plot armor, automatic damage (damage on a miss) with spells, spells not receiving the same type of modifiers as attacks, etc. I am not going to try to convince them otherwise. But I do want options to create the game world I want, and I believe that is the main fault of 5E. It did not implement a mechanic like maneuvers for martial classes. It did not make attacks versus saves consistent. It did not add modularity so you could convert to a 4E style game versus 1E. The warlord appears to be a poster child for opposing mind sets on how flexible the game could be and still eat your cake.

 

[mellored]

They'd need to be significantly weaker than spells by virtue of being non-magic. This is true both from a fluff perspective and a balance perspective, because nonmagical things work in anti-magic zones (like the slave pits in Chapter 1 of Out of the Abyss!) and cannot be Counterspelled/Dispelled.

It's not magic vs non-magic.
It's effect, cost, and availability. (and yes, anti-magic zones affect availability a bit).


Haste gives cost 1 action and concentration, gives 6 attacks, and is available 1/day.
A comparable power might take 1 action, give 1 attack, and available at-will.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's not magic vs non-magic.
It's effect, cost, and availability. (and yes, anti-magic zones affect availability a bit).

Haste gives cost 1 action and concentration, gives 6 attacks, and is available 1/day.
A comparable power might take 1 action, give 1 attack, and available at-will.

Are you counting Counterspell/Dispel Magic as "availability" or something else?

Magic is a whole subsystem of 5E with its own constraints and countermeasures (e.g. concentration, cannot be used while Raging, weaker against enemies with Magic Resistance, etc.). You just strip the "magic" tag off an ability and pretend that it hasn't changed. Magic is a real thing in 5E.

That being said, your "give up my action to grant someone else a single attack at will" sounds fine from a balance perspective. From a fluff perspective you'd want it to at least require their reaction so as not to break the 5E paradigm, but that's not a game balance consideration--if you want to compensate the Caddy for the action economy cost you could let it be a reaction attack at advantage.

 

[mellored]

Sure. Really, if we got rid of every class whose name might have a wiff of offense or inappropriateness, we'd be left with the Fighter.

I agree.

But mostly, i feel like we need a new name to clear the edition chaff, also to pull it further away from the fighter and weapons.

Something more along the lines of tactician or strategist IMO.
Warlord can be the weapon sub-class of it.

 

[MoonSong]

And in so doing you also purposely flat-out made the Warlord/Marshal/Caddy the party boss by building in mechanical disadvantages to not doing what she says! That's awful

Well, a lot of it is fluffed as "watch out!", "look an opening!"

Sorcerers - when I saw Sorcerer it was a revelation. All casters in my games now work that way (in other words, it in effect replaced the Wizard outright).

Sure. Really, if we got rid of every class whose name might have a wiff of offense or inappropriateness, we'd be left with the Fighter.

hey the name glorifies violence, bullyng and Vince McMahon

Moonsong - my gaming group still doesn't know why the Sorcerer class exists, actually. So I agree, the Warlord shouldn't exist for the same reasons the Sorcerer shouldn't exist, but both are acceptable subclasses of Warrior/Wizard. Wild Mage used to be a subclass of Wizard written in Tome of Magic. Customizing spells was something everyone could do at higher levels in the High level campaigning guide. Any special options presented could be reproduced using Spells & Magic.

Right now, 5e doesn't have a Spells & Magic, although it does have thinly veiled adaptive rules hinted at in the DMG etc. I think what most people are trying to do is pull the ambiguity of house rules out of the DMG and make them more solid. I think this is a good idea, because I've met people who won't even take DMG options into consideration, including magic items. 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.

Well, the sorcerer exists because some players want to play spellcasters but not bookworms, others hate vancian, and others want to play freaks. I love sorcerers and I don't really love wild mages, I personally feel we got duped by it being in the core in place of a more generic one.

And don't forget the Intelligence fighter too.

 

[mellored]

Are you counting Counterspell/Dispel Magic as "availability" or something else?

Yea, i would.

Magic is a whole subsystem of 5E with its own constraints and countermeasures (e.g. concentration, cannot be used while Raging, weaker against enemies with Magic Resistance, etc.). You just strip the "magic" tag off an ability and pretend that it hasn't changed. Magic is a real thing in 5E.

I agree.
But it's not a huge thing either.

That being said, your "give up my action to grant someone else a single attack at will" sounds fine from a balance perspective. From a fluff perspective you'd want it to at least require their reaction so as not to break the 5E paradigm, but that's not a game balance consideration--if you want to compensate the Caddy for the action economy cost you could let it be a reaction attack at advantage.

Sounds reasonable.

Action+reaction = attack with advantage.
Or maybe attack + int to damage.

It can be tweaked up or down to balance.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

The Barbarian and the Paladin are types of warriors so why is the fighter chasis a no-no for them too? Especially if they're using bonus feats and class pics to take Barbarian and Paladin type abilities? Or is this a case of the class name has to match up?

 

[Imaro]

The Barbarian and the Paladin are types of warriors so why is the fighter chasis a no-no for them too? Especially if they're using bonus feats and class pics to take Barbarian and Paladin type abilities? Or is this a case of the class name has to match up?

Because they are easily identifiable archetypes in fantasy (especially D&D) for the majority of people?? Does that work for you?

EDIT: Actually I'd argue the paladin is more like a type of cleric as opposed to a fighter...

Here...check it out.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThePaladin

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForestRanger

Guess what's not on there... the Warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because they are easily identifiable archetypes in fantasy (especially D&D) for the majority of people?? Does that work for you.

"Especially D&D" makes that begging the question, in essence you're just saying "because that's how it is!" Paladins are actually pretty obscure to 'most people' and 'ranger' probably doesn't suggest a spell-casting Grizzly Adams wielding paired scimitars to them, either. Barbarian could just as easily be a background, since it is just a cultural background (a point that's been made countless times ever since the class first appeared). So, no, those excuses do not work, not for me, not for anyone inclined to be reasonable for fair.

On top of that, the Warlord /is/ a recognizable archetype from history & genre. Maybe not /quite/ as readily as Barbarian, thanks to Conan, but probably more so than the Paladin and much more so than the virtually-non-existent-in-genre D&D-style Cleric.

Even, however, were none of that the case, why would a concept being a little weak in genre representation, make it unsuitable for even an optional class?

Here...check it out.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThePaladin

The article comes right out and said that D&D solidified Paladin tropes. You're just saying "It should be a class because it already is," yet again.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForestRanger

Self-referent again, the illo is even from their D&D section.

Guess what's not on there... the Warlord.

Guess what is, and without benefit of self-referencing D&D:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLeader

They've even got tropes that the Tactical, Bravura and Inspiring builds neatly model.

and, what the heck...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroicSecondWind

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousingSpeech