D&D 5E A WOTC 5e Warlord That Would Be Acceptable To Skeptics

[I'm A Banana]

I could probably fairly be described as a warlord skeptic. Though I'm fond of much of 4e (still probably the most flexible e's), I was skeptical of a lot of elements, and the warlord was definitely one of 'em. Though I do think that a warlord class would be a fine addition to 5e, as well (what, I can't have layers? )

I think I'd start my analysis with what warlord fans loved about the warlord, though. One should basically never start off trying to please the haters.

And being non-magical and healing hp is something that warlord fans often cite as key to the class (and, as an aside, why the battlemaster doesn't quite do the job). Non-magical "Inspirational" healing fits the mode of what a LOT of tables represent hit points as - without necessarily having any real connection to actual physical injury or damage. They are plot armor, they are luck, they are skill, they are morale, they are not really physical.

So a warlord that was magical by default would probably be a non-starter.

You could introduce a warlord as a class or a subclass if you wanted, and folks who didn't like the inspirational healing and the narrative view of hit points they presume could just ban or not take the class, but that can be a lot of design work for little reward. Still, if psions and artificers warrant their own class, why not, right?

Another method might be to build in some explicit "morale-based HP" rules option that would more directly address the HP issue, possibly combined with a more "Inspirational Leader" subclass that captures the fictional vibe of the warlord better than the current battlemaster does. Personally, I think the Purple Dragon Knight coming down the pipe is likely to *be* that subclass, though I don't know if it'll have inspirational healing (I'd bet no, but WotC might surprise me!). Still, if it favors CHA/INT and buffs and action-granting, then the inspirational healing bit of it might be acceptable as something a campaign opts into, rather than something everyone at the table needs to accept just because Jeff wants to play a particular subclass.

 

[mellored]

i personally would be happy with fluffless classes, but i imagine i'm the minority

 

[Tony Vargas]

Another thing to consider is that one-sided 'compromises' like this were more appropriate when the Warlord was (not really) being considered for inclusion in the PH. As part of the Standard Game, there'd've been a real need to bowdlerize the class and make it inoffensive even to it's harshest critics. The Standard Game is done, though, so any Warlord would be an optional, 'Advanced Game,' class. It'd only be available in campaigns where the DM chose to use it, so could be as true to the original as possible, since those who remain unalterably prejudiced against it need never even lay eyes on it.

 

[cmad1977]

I'm sure it's fine.

 

[aramis erak]

I could probably fairly be described as a warlord skeptic. Though I'm fond of much of 4e (still probably the most flexible e's), I was skeptical of a lot of elements, and the warlord was definitely one of 'em. Though I do think that a warlord class would be a fine addition to 5e, as well (what, I can't have layers? )

I think I'd start my analysis with what warlord fans loved about the warlord, though. One should basically never start off trying to please the haters.

And being non-magical and healing hp is something that warlord fans often cite as key to the class (and, as an aside, why the battlemaster doesn't quite do the job). Non-magical "Inspirational" healing fits the mode of what a LOT of tables represent hit points as - without necessarily having any real connection to actual physical injury or damage. They are plot armor, they are luck, they are skill, they are morale, they are not really physical.

So a warlord that was magical by default would probably be a non-starter.

You could introduce a warlord as a class or a subclass if you wanted, and folks who didn't like the inspirational healing and the narrative view of hit points they presume could just ban or not take the class, but that can be a lot of design work for little reward. Still, if psions and artificers warrant their own class, why not, right?

Another method might be to build in some explicit "morale-based HP" rules option that would more directly address the HP issue, possibly combined with a more "Inspirational Leader" subclass that captures the fictional vibe of the warlord better than the current battlemaster does. Personally, I think the Purple Dragon Knight coming down the pipe is likely to *be* that subclass, though I don't know if it'll have inspirational healing (I'd bet no, but WotC might surprise me!). Still, if it favors CHA/INT and buffs and action-granting, then the inspirational healing bit of it might be acceptable as something a campaign opts into, rather than something everyone at the table needs to accept just because Jeff wants to play a particular subclass.

The magical version is the valor bard.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The magical version is the valor bard.

My minotaur valor bard never got past level 4, and while he was a good buffer, he wasn't able to grant actions like a 4e warlord.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Y'all know you're just feeding the troll, right?

I didn't mean to it come off that way if that is the way it sounded. I had been following the Warlord poll thread for a couple of days here and hadn't really even considered it viable for 5e previously but it did get me to crack open the 4e PHB and actually read the class and the powers. I saw vaguely how it might work in 5e so I thought the objection was the martial flavor from the skeptic's side. It does seem to break along power source lines much more strongly on the proponents side than I thought it would. That is understandable a lot of what makes 5e classes appealing for me is that kind of flavor rather than straight mechanics.

Personally, I think the Purple Dragon Knight coming down the pipe is likely to *be* that subclass, though I don't know if it'll have inspirational healing (I'd bet no, but WotC might surprise me!). Still, if it favors CHA/INT and buffs and action-granting, then the inspirational healing bit of it might be acceptable as something a campaign opts into, rather than something everyone at the table needs to accept just because Jeff wants to play a particular subclass.

I suppose you could limit a Warlord inspirational healing to a subclass. DMs or players who like the Warlord but found inspirational healing to be a dealbreaker could have it in the game without the healing component. Although I have kind of come around to the idea of martial self-healing with Second Wind and I am not sure what your other subclasses might entail... probably at least one for more intelligence-based tactical maneuvers. I never really checked out Warlord development in 4e beyond the PHB so I am only really familiar with the idea of more inspirational and more tactical builds out of the box. Later supplements may have opened up other obvious archetypes that aren't coming to me right now. I did see "lazy warlords" mentioned in the big thread who were all about not attacking but granting actions and team leading which sounds appealing to me, but seems to be contentious, maybe that is another possibility though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'all know you're just feeding the troll, right?

You have two choices if you believe a post is a troll. First, you can ignore it. Second, you can report it (button at the bottom of every post). What doesn't help anything is public accusations of trollery. Ignore it or report it, and move on.

 

[Forged Fury]

What about going back to 3.5 and the Marshal class? The warlord may just not work with 5e, but the Marshal might.

 

[Umbran]

Proponents want a non-magical, non-supernatural class.

Yes, but that's not sufficient description of the sweetmeat. I've watched several arguments between warlord proponents over what is an acceptable warlord, largely based on what "non-magical, non-supernatural" really means.

For example, there's, "Not magical or supernatural, in that things like anti-magic shell or dispel magic don't effect it, but really I'm okay with them being pretty spectacular and unexplainable". Then there's, "not magical or supernatural, in that it is limited to effects that I personally imagine happening in my own *mundane* real world".