D&D 5E The Warlord [New Class]

[discosoc]

I really don't know why there is so much focus on trying to make a Warlord that is so much like the Fighter instead of being a lot more like a Cleric that doesn't use spell-slots. The more one insists it stand in for the Fighter, the more it will fail to be an alternative choice to the Cleric.

So why have classes at all? Why not just have a system of skills, abilities, and feats, and give each a weighted value that players can increase what they feel is important? Oh that's right, it's called a skill-based system and has existed for decades. Class based systems has their own strengths and weaknesses, but when you start fleshing out over-niche classes (especially ones where people are designing them to be min/max combat gods destined to outshine everyone else), the magic is gone.

 

[Aldarc]

You know why (and I'll clarify this isn't directed at you, Hobgoblin, but any/all folks who like to bring this up as if its some kind of defense or retort...which is just far too often).

Because they have legacy. They have been in the game almost since its inception. That is the sad and so painful [seemingly, for some people] truth. That is why they're in the game and dozens of other D&D-like fantasy RPG games, and no one bats an eye about them. They have been in the D&D game a long time and they are expected to be there.

That's why we have them. That's "why we have [those classes]." Tough break for the classes that weren't around for 30+ years.

Not liking the answer isn't going to change the past/reality. That's why. We all know it.

If the warlord had been a class that caught on and been around for 30+ years and the Paladin was something that was turned into a class 5 years ago, we'd be getting treated to a dozen threads a week arguing over "What a 5e paladin looks like" and what mechanics would be "wrong" or not make "a real paladin."

They're in the game because the game is Dungeons & Dragons and they have (following OD&D or B/X), in some form or another, been in it for a very long time. The warlord hasn't. It just hasn't. That's not good, bad, indifferent. That's reality. D&D is a class based game. The paladin/ranger/bard [we could reasonably throw in barbarian] are among the classes that have been around the longest. End of story.

Saying "Why can't a warlord [be/have/do this] when these other classes [can/do/have]?" is never going to be a persuasive argument. No matter how much you love/hate/don't care about the warlord class, or anything else from...well, any edition after 1, you can't change history/travel through time and rewrite the dawn of the game.

/frustrated logician.

The sorcerer has only been around since 3E, which was the same time for both the warlock and the marshal (the spiritual predecessor of the 4E warlord). The warlord has legacy. It's time for people to admit they dislike the warlord because of its close association with 4E's legacy as opposed to the actual merits of the warlord and its legacy.

/frustrated guy who does not see what the point of claiming to be a 'frustrated logician' is meant to accomplish

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You know why (and I'll clarify this isn't directed at you, Hobgoblin, but any/all folks who like to bring this up as if its some kind of defense or retort...which is just far too often).

Because they have legacy. They have been in the game almost since its inception. That is the sad and so painful [seemingly, for some people] truth. That is why they're in the game and dozens of other D&D-like fantasy RPG games, and no one bats an eye about them. They have been in the D&D game a long time and they are expected to be there.

That's why we have them. That's "why we have [those classes]." Tough break for the classes that weren't around for 30+ years.

Not liking the answer isn't going to change the past/reality. That's why. We all know it.

If the warlord had been a class that caught on and been around for 30+ years and the Paladin was something that was turned into a class 5 years ago, we'd be getting treated to a dozen threads a week arguing over "What a 5e paladin looks like" and what mechanics would be "wrong" or not make "a real paladin."

And, of course, by ensuring that only the things that already have legacy are allowed to gain any more legacy, you can ensure that the things you don't want never get into the game. It's the "fresh member of the workforce" catch-22: you can't get a job until you have experience, and you can't get experience until you have a job.

Which is why this "logic" is a line of BS. Are you seriously saying that D&D is such a closed system, so completely immune to growing or changing, that it now cannot bring in new ideas that can germinate, change, evolve, and eventually develop their own legacy? If so, why does 5e have the Warlock (legacy only goes back to mid/late 3.5e--just like the Marshal) or the Dragonborn (debatable whether the legacy goes back to late 3e or core 4e)? Why does it have the Sorcerer, which definitely never existed before late 2e? Why isn't there a separate thief-acrobat from the baseline thief, with 1e through 3e giving those treatment equivalent to things that are subclasses in 5e (like the Eldritch Knight)? Where's the 1e Bard that later became the Fochlucan Lyrist, with its Fighter, Thief, and Druid features, which again has 1e and 3e (can't find evidence in 2e) to support it?

I don't at all question the idea that an (not the, only an) important reason we still have both Paladins and Clerics, or Bards despite the Rogue and Wizard, or Rangers despite the Druid and Rogue, is that these things have developed a legacy. But to say that new things cannot be admitted specifically because they don't have legacy strikes me as not only impossible for anything to meet, and inconsistent, considering that every edition (except, possibly, 5e--and that's with a big "yet" attached) has added its own new classes and concepts.

Heck, even the "legacy" standard doesn't, on its own, justify the existence of the Paladin. Wasn't the 1e Paladin just a Fighter variant that got some extra early features, an alignment restriction, and priest spells instead of followers at high levels? The Paladin "legacy" hasn't even been consistent about whether it's a standalone class or a modification of some other class.

 

[Bluenose]

You know why (and I'll clarify this isn't directed at you, Hobgoblin, but any/all folks who like to bring this up as if its some kind of defense or retort...which is just far too often).

Because they have legacy. They have been in the game almost since its inception. That is the sad and so painful [seemingly, for some people] truth. That is why they're in the game and dozens of other D&D-like fantasy RPG games, and no one bats an eye about them. They have been in the D&D game a long time and they are expected to be there.

That's why we have them. That's "why we have [those classes]." Tough break for the classes that weren't around for 30+ years.

If the new classes from 3e were getting lots of concern from people defending the historical status quo of D&D; if the decision to base classes like the Bard and Ranger on the 3e version rather than earlier ones wasn't obvious; if a bunch of other decisions to go with the 3e way even when that deviated from earlier versions hadn't been made; well, maybe there'd be a point in gate-keeping for the "Traditional D&D Way!"

But those aren't the choices made, and it's still not enough for the people who demand their way must be supported and that other ways must not.

 

[GreenTengu]

Compare the Warlock (not a typo) to the Wizard, then make a chassis for the Warlord (not a typo) to the Cleric as the Warlock is to the Wizard. Cantrips are replaced with Fighting Style. Spell Slots are replaced with "shouts" or something. Spells known are replaced with shouts known. Balance the shouts around spells, heck even steal some of them to save design space. Swap some features around, and then come up with something to replace mystic Arcanum.

Would that be the type of warlord you'd like?

That would be precisely it. That is exactly how I would go about making it.

 

[steeldragons]

*sigh* I should've known. Ok. Let's to it, then...

The sorcerer has only been around since 3E, which was the same time for both the warlock and the marshal (the spiritual predecessor of the 4E warlord). The warlord has legacy. It's time for people to admit they dislike the warlord because of its close association with 4E's legacy as opposed to the actual merits of the warlord and its legacy.

No. It's time for people to admit, even the 3e material, has only been around for 15 years. Anything pre-3e has 25-30...gods, all the way to the beginning is over 40 years. The point is, all the whining crying and gnashing of teeth about the 3e stuff and 4e stuff is not going to miraculously make those classes 30-40 years old. Not yet.

And don't get me started on the creation/existence of the sorcerer as a class...We'll be here the rest of our lives.

/frustrated guy who does not see what the point of claiming to be a 'frustrated logician' is meant to accomplish

The logician is frustrated because of people's outright refusal to acknowledge that no matter what you do or how much you like something, you are not going to change reality. You are not going to somehow make a 3e version or 4e creation "as important" as something that has 2 decades of legacy ON TOP OF whatever else is good about the class. The logic is frustrated because saying "But Paladin gets to be it's own class" does not equal "So Warlord deserves to be its own class." That is not logical. They are not the same. They do not carry the same weight simply because "I like this thing also or better." That's the reality and yet it is shooed away in a way that defies logic and reason. Thus, someone looking for logic...is frustrated by the repeated ignorance of the facts of history and reality as some kind of defense or justification for their argument. It doesn't work.

And, of course, by ensuring that only the things that already have legacy are allowed to gain any more legacy, you can ensure that the things you don't want never get into the game. It's the "fresh member of the workforce" catch-22: you can't get a job until you have experience, and you can't get experience until you have a job.

But I didn't say anything like that. I said, people who say "Why do we have a Paladin then" as a defense for the "need" of a Warlord KNOW THE ANSWER to that question and that answer is legacy. The paladin will ALWAYS have more legacy than the Warlord...by 35ish years. You can not change that. I can not change that. No matter how much anyone LOVES the warlord (or the system that spawned it, since that seems to be continually brought up as a distraction to what is actually said) the warlord will never have the heritage in the game that the Paladin/Ranger/Bard have. Everyone knows that. To propose and proceed as if realityis not sois illogical, at best. To equate them is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY.

Which is why this "logic" is a line of BS.

No sir. That logic is irrefutable. Facts are not a matter of opinion.

Are you seriously saying that D&D is such a closed system, so completely immune to growing or changing, that it now cannot bring in new ideas that can germinate, change, evolve, and eventually develop their own legacy?

I said NOTHING of the kind. I am not saying/did not say D&D can't have warlord characters in it (I would say that about sorcerers, but again a digression none of us want to journey down...trust me).

I said a warlord is not the same as the paladins and rangers because they have more legacy.Yes, they will ALWAYS have more legacy. That is the fact. That is reality. People don't like that. I get it. But there's nothing I nor any one of us under the sun can do about that [without developing reliable time travel]. Saying that is not discounting any other differences or saying they don't or shouldn't exist. Yet again the rousing lack of reading comprehension and [possibly deliberate?] misinterpretation/reading between non-existent lines rears its five colored dragon heads.

If so, why does 5e have the Warlock (legacy only goes back to mid/late 3.5e--just like the Marshal)

I'd say cuz this one actually has some flavorful meat on its bones, definitely more mytho-historic legs for a fantasy archetype, and interesting character possibilities than a sorcerer.

or the Dragonborn (debatable whether the legacy goes back to late 3e or core 4e)?

Because WotC likes to pat themselves on the back and force what they've "added to the game since they took it over" down our throats...and allegedly the fanbase liked them.

Why does it have the Sorcerer, which definitely never existed before late 2e?

Ya got me here. I have no friggin clue. Legacy [of what WotC has "added" to the game] there too, I suppose. They have nothing else going for them than they're older than some other arcane-based classes we coudl have used instead (an arcane-half-caster Swordmage type to complete the triad of half-casters comes to mind).

Why isn't there a separate thief-acrobat from the baseline thief, with 1e through 3e giving those treatment equivalent to things that are subclasses in 5e (like the Eldritch Knight)?

Again, got me. I have thought an Acrobat rogue subclass is a no brainer [or "archetype", rather, since 3e+ hasn't considered any class a "subclass" of any other group until now].

Where's the 1e Bard that later became the Fochlucan Lyrist, with its Fighter, Thief, and Druid features, which again has 1e and 3e (can't find evidence in 2e) to support it?

Again, don't know. It totally/always should have been in my opinion...I didn't design the game. They made a whole lot of mistakes as far as I'm concerned.

I don't at all question the idea that an (not the, only an) important reason we still have both Paladins and Clerics, or Bards despite the Rogue and Wizard, or Rangers despite the Druid and Rogue, is that these things have developed a legacy.

Then WTF is this whole response for/about other than to be argumentative or baiting?

But to say that new things cannot be admitted specifically because they don't have legacy strikes me as not only impossible for anything to meet, and inconsistent, considering that every edition (except, possibly, 5e--and that's with a big "yet" attached) has added its own new classes and concepts.

and...again...I said NO WHERE that "5e can't have nice [new] things."

Heck, even the "legacy" standard doesn't, on its own, justify the existence of the Paladin. Wasn't the 1e Paladin just a Fighter variant that got some extra early features, an alignment restriction, and priest spells instead of followers at high levels? The Paladin "legacy" hasn't even been consistent about whether it's a standalone class or a modification of some other class.

The legacy is not that they've been "the same" through the whole game. Goddess knows, none of the classes have been. But that it has been in the game longer. See above. Yes. It always will have more legacy. That is not up for debate. It is indisputable. A paladin will always be 35 years older a class in the game called D&D than a warlord. Always. Whether or not is SHOULD have been or not or whether it should be, now, a fighter subclass or not are completely DIFFERENT issues/conversations to be had.

If the new classes from 3e were getting lots of concern from people defending the historical status quo of D&D; if the decision to base classes like the Bard and Ranger on the 3e version rather than earlier ones wasn't obvious; if a bunch of other decisions to go with the 3e way even when that deviated from earlier versions hadn't been made; well, maybe there'd be a point in gate-keeping for the "Traditional D&D Way!"

But those aren't the choices made, and it's still not enough for the people who demand their way must be supported and that other ways must not.

I'm....really not sure what you're trying to say here or how it refutes what I posted. If 5e hadn't included 3e-originating stuff...it's not enough for demanding people...? I just am not following this... and what "gate-keeping the Traditional D&D Way" is supposed to mean or apply to what I said/am trying to get across.

 

[ChameleonX]

SO ANYWAY...

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about this Warlord, specifically?

Does anything seem unbalanced or unintuitive?

Is there anything I should add, like more subclasses, etc?

 

[mellored]

SO ANYWAY...

Does anyone have any comments or suggestions about this Warlord, specifically?

Does anything seem unbalanced or unintuitive?

Is there anything I should add, like more subclasses, etc?

Balance seems ok.

 

[Bluenose]

I'm....really not sure what you're trying to say here or how it refutes what I posted. If 5e hadn't included 3e-originating stuff...it's not enough for demanding people...? I just am not following this... and what "gate-keeping the Traditional D&D Way" is supposed to mean or apply to what I said/am trying to get across.

If you have so much liking for "LegacY", then there's a huge amount to complain about apart from the Warlord. So much that any sort of interest in 5e seems quite surprising.

 

[Yunru]

No likey. It's too good, IMO. And it steps on toes.

Plus, still more of the same, "he's the commander/boss of the other PCs," that has been getting a lot of debate around these here parts of late. I agree with others in that regard. It's a sour place to base a class off of.

Haven't seen the debate, but you're obviously wrong: the Warlord's cheerleader of the group, although that might be my favourtism towards lazylords showing