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

[Tony Vargas]

I agree with all of this. I've long been a proponent of the Fighter and Rogue killing each other, taking each others's stuff, then being reincarnated as a Hero or Adventurer class.

Not going to happen, obviously, but unless/until it does, both classes will continue to struggle for relevance. Actually, there's a lot more than just that keeping them down. There's the 'gatekeeping' you mentioned, the 'everyone should have it' phenom that afflicts any non-supernatural class feature, and the deeply entrenched double-standard that's endemic to the community. I doubt that's even exhaustive.

I also agree that all of the archetypes in paragraph 3 are difficult to formulate mechanically and the tropes are often difficult to pull off in play (player-side). However, the 4e Warlord's suite of resources pulls all of those off in spades and the resolution mechanics certainly help eager, capable players who are up to the challenge.

Haven't yet seen anything help with the 'reluctant' hero, but the others, yeah, to varying degrees. Between re-skinning and some of the other innovations (I want to say 'mechanical innovations,' but really, fully exploring what the mechanics already implied is closer to the truth), you could pull off a surprising range things with the ruleset. The warlord, and giving more credit to/trying honestly to balance/whatever the martial source in general, seemed to be a big part of that, because it required re-thinking some things.

What's more, as you note in your final paragraph, the build is an enormous boon for GMs. I've used dozens of Princess/Lazy 'Lord archetypes as NPCs, Minions to be protected, or as Companion Characters (Heralds, Squires and the like) for players' mains. The prep is utterly minimal, the ease of use is a cinch, and the payoff is $$$

Nod. Of course, having done that in 4e it's easy enough to do with NPCs, by DM fiat, in 5e. For players, an actual class with solid mechanic is needed, and, really, DMs who aren't familiar with 4e could benefit from seeing a 5e Warlord in print (or better yet, in action, obviously) when it comes to designing or improvising such NPCs.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sounds like you have a "1st world problem" with the Warlord: you've been getting everything you want from 5e, before everyone else, and may realize, but not have internalized, that that's not true of everyone.

Or it could be that not every game should try to be all things to all people.

 

[Lanefan]

Without quoting from a bunch of posts above, a few random thoughts:

It's very unlikely you'll ever see a true Noble (as in, the local Duke or some other higher-up that custom would dictate following their orders) in an actual adventuring party other than as an NPC you might be escorting for a while (or rescuing). It's happened occasionally, that someone's brought in (by random roll, you can't choose this stuff) a high noble - I once DMed a party in which one of the PCs was the reigning monarch of the area - and that just gets roleplayed out: the noble might try to give orders, the rest of the party tell her to sod off, and that's about the end of it. My very first character was (by sheer random luck) a full prince, first in line to a throne; on meeting the party he tried giving orders and treating them like they were his servants (where he was from, his word was almost the law) and you can imagine how long that lasted! Within a few weeks (in part due to some other unfortunate incidents) the party executed him and left him in a shallow grave; and in hindsight I can't altogether say I blame them.

That said, as this was early 1e the difference was of course there was no mechanical advantage to doing what he said, where with the modern warlord idea there is.
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - thanks for the defense upthread.

Again for Tony, perhaps for new DMs WotC could first design a henchman class - a full-on support class that might have a few aid-giving warlord-ish abilities to it - so the concept becomes familiar. Then eventually WotC (or home kitbashers) could use that as a starting point for the full class (or sub-class) later.

Lan-"that execution was merely the start of a side-story that - on and off - went on for over 15 years"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Or it could be that not every game should try to be all things to all people.

Certainly true: not every game should be all things, to all people. However, 5e explicitly intends to bring together fans of all editions and try to be 'for' everyone who's ever loved D&D.
Neither every game, nor /all/ people was meant to be implied.
Just 5e and fans of prior editions.

It's very unlikely you'll ever see a true Noble (as in, the local Duke or some other higher-up that custom would dictate following their orders) in an actual adventuring party other than as an NPC you might be escorting for a while (or rescuing).

Noble is a 5e Background. Basic Rules pdf, p40.

perhaps for new DMs WotC could first design a henchman class - a full-on support class that might have a few aid-giving warlord-ish abilities to it - so the concept becomes familiar. Then eventually WotC (or home kitbashers) could use that as a starting point for the full class (or sub-class) later.

The 'for new DM stuff' - the Standard, and, particularly, Basic Game has been out there for over a year now.
The Warlord would have be an optional, Advanced Game, class in a future supplement. Any benefits to DMs unfamiliar with 4e that ManBearCat & I were speculating about would have wait until then, I suppose.

 

[Mistwell]

the official fluff can be offensive and story-killing to other players at the table regardless of how the class is played.

If someone is actually "offended" by warlord fluff that implies a class is a party leader, then I think they might have bigger issues. It's a game with friends - save getting offended for serious life issues.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Certainly true: not every game should be all things, to all people. However, 5e explicitly intends to bring together fans of all editions and try to be 'for' everyone who's ever loved D&D.
Neither every game, nor /all/ people was meant to be implied.
Just 5e and fans of prior editions.

I'm hoping (and will assume) you knew my use of the phrase "all things to all people" was idiomatic and not literal.

The goal "appeal to fans of all editions" is not synonymous with "include all features of all editions that at least one fan liked", and attempts to do so would probably collide with other design goals.

Otherwise I want psionics ability as a percentile roll back.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The goal "appeal to fans of all editions" is not synonymous with "include all features of all editions that at least one fan liked."

I hope you're not suggesting that I'm alone in liking the Warlord. Obviously that's not the case. And it's not just some random game element, but a full class from the PH1, further developed in later supplements, including support in Dragon for an unexpected oddball fan build.

It's a great class, entirely deserving of a well-done 5e incarnation. That said incarnation would, at this point, necessarily be a non-Core 'Advanced Game' option, should also make it a lot less objectionable to anyone who still has lingering issues with it, since they will never have to deal with it, personally.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I hope you're not suggesting that I'm alone in liking the Warlord. Obviously that's not the case. And it's not just some random game element, but a full class from the PH1, further developed in later supplements, including support in Dragon for an unexpected oddball fan build.

No, of course not. But nor do I know how many fans are clamoring for Warlord...a few dozen consistently do so on unrepresentative forums is all I know for sure. So what's the test for what gets included simply because "some number of people want it"?

It's a great class, entirely deserving of a well-done 5e incarnation. That said incarnation would, at this point, necessarily be a non-Core 'Advanced Game' option, should also make it a lot less objectionable to anyone who still has lingering issues with it, since they will never have to deal with it, personally.

That's only true if you're the DM. And even then you get players clamoring for "optional" stuff, especially if you try to run games at your FLGS, which leaves you in the position of either folding or being perceived as a jerk.

Again (and again and again) I'd be totally ok with a class that was fluffed as support, not as leader/commander/officer. That's really my only objection.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'll take a low-level Diviner sidekick, please.

Unless I can have a recursive chain of Beastmaster-esque Fighter subclass minions, each with his own minion, like Russian dolls. Then I'll take that instead.

I was more thinking MM-style NPC's.

So you could have an Acolyte, a Bandit, a Commoner, a Cultist, a Guard, a Noble, or a Tribal Warrior.

Which would at least let you do an Ishmael/Quequeg thing for the forthcoming Moby Dick-inspired adventure.

...and it does make it rather explicit about you being somebody's boss without having to jump into another player's agency-space.

 

[MechaPilot]

That's only true if you're the DM. And even then you get players clamoring for "optional" stuff, especially if you try to run games at your FLGS, which leaves you in the position of either folding or being perceived as a jerk.

I recently (about a month ago) started running a 5e game for a group I wasn't friends with. One of them is a coworker that I get along with, but the others are people that came into the game through my coworker's roommate. I have things that I allow and things that I do not allow, and I have what I consider to be very rational reasons for disallowing the things I disallow. I really don't care if they think I'm a jerk because I don't allow something that they ask for, whether that item is an option from supplemental material, or one of the races or classes presented in the 5e PHB.

As long as a DM has rational reasons for disallowing something, and she's willing to explain those reasons to a player who asks about a disallowed option, she really shouldn't care what the player thinks of her. If she has rational reasons and actually explains them (instead of, for example, just telling the player, "I said no, so get over it"), the player is the jerk if he continues to make a stink about it.