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

[Hussar]

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!

Lan-"this sort of class may or may not ever make it into the game, and that's fine; but I'd refuse to play in a party that had one"-efan

Upthread a bit. That's not quite true though. You don't get a penalty for not doing what she says, you just don't get the bonus. Seems pretty fair.

 

[Hussar]

You're right; it's a language issue.

I skipped 4e so didn't even know what a Warlord was until I started reading about it on the "Next" forums. And from the way people described it, and the imagery that was evoke, I knew I didn't want to play with that class. There were definitely some exceptions (I honestly can't remember now who they were) but the vast majority used the "officer" "giving orders" kind of language. HUGE turn-off.

I really don't mind the mechanics (I'm fine with the bard giving Inspiration); it's purely the fluff that bothers me. And to each person who says, "So change the fluff" my response is "No, you."

You may very well be an exception, but my strong sense is that most proponents don't want to play Jeeves, they want to play Genghis Khan.

Umm, what's wrong with wanting to play Genghis Khan?

Do people play fighters to be "Nameless Redshirt 52" or to be Conan or a Three Musketeer? Do people play rangers to be some nameless poacher or to be Robin Hood?

How many people play a character deliberately to be a sidekick? And, even if they do, what's the problem? It's their character, not yours. Why do you care how or why someone plays their character?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Umm, what's wrong with wanting to play Genghis Khan?

It's a little on the nose, how 'bout Shiwan Khan, instead?

 

[MoonSong]

How many people play a character deliberately to be a sidekick?

mmm I do, sorry.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough Moonsong. That's cool. Do you resent those who don't though? Do you imply that those who want to play the protagonist and not the sidekick are doing something wrong?

I, personally, couldn't give a rats petoot why someone else wants to play their character. If the want to be the greatest swords person then great. If they want to be Sam Gamgee that's great too.

 

[Campbell]

A Packers fan in Jersey and a Lions fan in Florida? What is this world coming to?!

And yes, the concept of "marking" is every bit as much a "thing" in physical exchanges between multiple participants (team sports, combat) as martial forced movement is (your example is a good one TwoSix). I've said it many times before, but 4e's combat engine is more "immersive" to me (in terms of inhabiting the actual OODA loop of participants in the combat/skirmish etc) then any other combat engine I've ever participated in. Melee control, dynamic mobility, and the reaction economy are the primary reasons for that.

Lions fan in Colorado here. We actually have a weekly Meetup.

Here's where I stand: Warlords and Fighters were my favorite classes in 4e because they embodied the emotional component of battle as much as the physical. 5e (outside the bard) takes a piss on viewing characters as living breathing human beings that ruled by their hearts as much as their heads. I'd like to see more of a focus on emotional immersion. What can I say? I'm obviously more of a heart than a head guy. After all, I'm a Lions fan!

 

[steeldragons]

And...again, it can't just be a Fighter subclass why?

2 features at 3rd level, 1 at 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th. Do you really need more than that to get the job done?

 

[MoonSong]

Fair enough Moonsong. That's cool. Do you resent those who don't though? Do you imply that those who want to play the protagonist and not the sidekick are doing something wrong?

I wouldn't have any protagonist to play with if everybody did that.

And...again, it can't just be a Fighter subclass why?

2 features at 3rd level, 1 at 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th. Do you really need more than that to get the job done?

It is kinda too long, I would hope a warlord to come online at third level, not at 18th level

 

[pemerton]

Wanting something doesn't make you right.

<snip>

You seem awfully entitled. Are you sure that's warranted?

Absolutely it's warranted. When it comes to choosing how to spend my leisure time engaging in a leisure pursuit, wanting something pretty much does make it right. For instance, if I want to play a fantasy RPG which includes the trope of the heroic leader, then I am entitled to do so. It's then incumbent on me to find (or invent) a system that can support that trope - happily, for those who both want such a trope in their game and like 5e, there is nothing about the 5e system that precludes it from supporting the trope in question.

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.

what most pro-warlorders are looking for is more than just martial healing.

Even if one just confines attention to inspirational healing, currently that is not found in 5e, and there is no reason why 5e couldn't handle it. 5e has internally-driven "martial" healing (second wind, hit dice, recovery by resting/sleeping). There is nothing about the game that would preclude it also having externally-driven (ie inspirational) "martial" healing.

And if one looks beyond inspirational healing to other warlord features, like die-roll buffs, forced movement, facilitating allies' movement and granting bonus attacks, all these things are present in 5e.

5e also contains non-magical abilities that are not at-will (eg Action Surge, Second Wind, barbarian Rage, etc).

I don't think being able to use the maneuvers at-will (even without the bonus damage) would ever be balanced.

An 18th level mage can do AoE damage plus forced movement at will (Thunderwave). So I don't see why at-will warlord manoeuvres couldn't ever be balanced.

The question of how to balance non-magical abilities analogous to Thunderwave, and non-self-only abilities analogous to Action Surge and Second Wind, is a technical question in 5e design, but it raises no issues of deep principle. The game already contains all the necessary mechanical systems to support the underlying fiction.

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

There is no equivalence, in 5e, between being a warrior and being a fighter.

Here are examples of 5e non-fighter warriors: barbarians, some bards, some clerics, some druids, most monks, paladins, most rangers, some rogues, some warlocks.

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

None of the other warriors in 5e have second wind, action surge, or all the extra attacks that a fighter gets.

Which just further underlines the point that being a warrior, in 5e, has nothing in particular to do with being a fighter.

I believe that the warlord is a legitimate fantasy archetype. It's as distinct from the fighter as the barbarian or paladin.

<snip>

the warlord, the general, the commander, the king, the war marshal, the leader, the "heart" are fantasy archetypes.

Agreed, both on the point about archetypes, and the point about class design. For most of its history, D&D has had classes that represent the same archetype but are mechanically distinct (eg in AD&D the cleric and the paladin are the same archetype - the holy warrior who channels divinity and heals with a touch while bringing wrath upon his/her enemies - but are mechanically distinct).

It seems to be a deliberate design feature of 5e that there are multiple build pathways to the same archetype (eg some rogue and fighter builds with the appropriate background will overlap, archetypically, with some ranger builds; some fighter/wizard multi-class builds will overlap, archetypically, with some eldritch knight builds; etc). So it's certainly not inconsistent with 5e design principles to have a warlord class that permits overlap, to some extent, with some fighter builds.

On fantasy archetypes - another, very D&D, literary example of a warlord is Tanis Half-Elven. The reference to the "heart" of the team is what made me think of him.

 

[Hussar]

And...again, it can't just be a Fighter subclass why?

2 features at 3rd level, 1 at 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th. Do you really need more than that to get the job done?

For me, I have no problems with warlord as a fighter subclass. Although, since the 4 attacks/round is built into the basic chassis of a fighter, that might be a bit too much for a warlord. A warlord should be more like a ranger or a paladin - less about direct damage and more about doing other stuff.

OTOH, if you use the idea of burning attacks to grant actions to other people, which the Battlemaster can kinda, sorta do now, then, it would work nicely and be a fairly easy thing to balance.