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

[mellored]

Wha...? Bards use magic.

Not for inspiration dice.

"You can inspire others through stirring words or music".
Not magic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I invite you to come that 1/4 or less of the way that's left of the middle-ground Warlord fans have already crossed, and not only stop opposing the idear. It's not like there's a lot of momentum, given Mr. Mearls past comments about the class, and current occupation with psionics and the ranger. If anything, it'd be reasonable of you and anyone else who genuinely is a fan of 5e, not a fan of some other edition putting up with it only so long as his favored edition is perceived over-represented and set above others in 5th, to support the addition of a worthy Warlord class, in the reasonable-compromise form of a optional addition to the advanced game in some future non-core supplement. We have more than enough people who want the Warlord asking for it, what we need is the support of people open-minded enough to say "we may not be too interested in the Warlord, but we want our favorite game to be open and complete enough to include those who are."

Let's get some more boots on the High Road, people!

Too long of a post to quote the whole thing, but I'll give you my impressions:

1) You wrapped mostly reasonable-sounding language around essentially telling me that my impressions and thoughts are wrong. Every single response was effectively, "Here is why you are incorrect." That's not usually an effective way to win somebody over in a debate.

2) You also slipped in some rather insulting, snarky characterizations (e.g. of my roleplaying needs) in there, and then concluded with a comment about taking the high road. Again, makes me wonder if it's worth discussing this more, or if I should just conclude that the Warlord proponents are interested only in persuading, not in understanding.

3) I think I've come a lot more than 1/4 of the way. I'm fine with a class that specializes in tactics. I'm fine with martial healing. I'm fine with pretty much all of the mechanics. I just don't like having agency taken away (more on that in a sec), or having "Leader" be a class.

4) I don't think you were understanding my comment about agency. It's not that I fear it's going to get so carried away that somebody is literally going to start playing my character, it's that when the DM says, "Ok, you feel a surge of inspiration from his words..." my reaction is, "Wait a second...says who? Don't I get to describe what I'm thinking and doing?" In the same way that if we were debating which door to open and the other player rolled a 20 on a Persuade check, if the DM said, "Ok, he convinces you..." I'd be all "Oh no he didn't!" So "the fear you expressed was never realized" is false: the very description of the abilities is what I fear.

5) If you seriously think "Wizard" carries the same connotations of supremacy as "Warlord" then we probably shouldn't debate that particular point.

6) Comparing the time to leave out an option with the time to create a homebrew is a strawman because not every DM would have to create their own homebrew. Just check out the threads in this forum, for example.

7) On the other hand, there is always a possibility (a high possibility) that there will eventually be new official classes, and that they will be allowed in Adventurer's League. (The fact that UA "beta classes" are not included is not evidence to the contrary.) Therefore anybody who plays AL (me) who doesn't want to play alongside a Leader class has a vested interest in making sure it doesn't become official.

8) If it's easy for me to fluff away the Leadership and agency-depriving stuff I don't like, then it's easy for you to fluff it in. And wouldn't you rather have a class fluffed such that there isn't vehemently vocal opposition to it? So let's meet halfway and figure out how to fluff the class such that there's no ordering, commanding, etc. It's really not very hard.

9) Despite the insinuations (yes, yes, plausible deniability because of the pronouns you used, I know) I didn't avoid 4e because of biases. I drifted away from D&D after 3rd Edition came out. So literally NO impressions of the Warlord until I started reading the long, angry posts during Next playtest. (To which my first reaction was, "oh god these people are annoying, PLEASE don't give them anything at all resembling this 'Warlord' aberration." I've since tempered that to "Ok, I can see how a tactician class could be a lot of fun." So yes I've come more than 1/4 of the way.)

10) Being "the best at" fighting or casting or sneaking is categorically different from being "the best at Leading" when applied not to NPCs but to other party members. If you truly don't see that then I will work on clear language to express it better. But it does seem fairly obvious to me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Not for inspiration dice.

"You can inspire others through stirring words or music".
Not magic.

Doesn't explicitly say it's not magic.

Here's the description for a Paladin's "Divine Sense":

The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears.

Does that mean that literally the Paladin just has very sensitive olfactory and aural awareness? Or is it magic?

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

If it bothers you that singing making people better at fighting somehow implies they aren't really as good at fighting as their classes' marketing brochures promised, in spite of full BAB, STR scores north of 20, feats & the like, then, yeah, it'd be a problem. I'm not saying there's no similarity between that and some objections that have been raised to the Warlord, but it seems tenuous to me.

I see the fighter at sombody who is a master at personal combat.
The warlord is more focused on fighting as a unit or group.

A 5th edition might habe difrent powers then the 4th edition warlord did.
One thing that comes to my mind is that flanking is not something that is standard in 5th edition (there is a optional rule in the DMG), but maybe the warlord would grant some bonus when flanking as he is trained in fighting in a unit and opeing opertunities for others.

There are also other combat manuvers that would require more then one person

 

[Guest 6801328]

I apologize, since I believe you have been discussing in good faith. I have, however, been finding a lot of the discussion surrounding the warlord irritating as of late, since I don't think all of it has been and the irritation can cumulate.

A 'morale bonus' was simply another category of bonus that you could add to your rolls. So a player could use a character ability to provide you (or herself) with a bonus +X morale bonus to your attack roll or skill check, etc. It is something that seems like it would inherently roleplay your character's presumed morale level. But we see it in 3E and Pathfinder without any issue or complaint.

Well, I haven't seen many (any?) people express my particular concern about agency this way, either, so I'm not surprised nobody complains about that aspect of 3e/Pathfinder. (I suspect it's part of what bothers many people about the Warlord but they haven't put their finger on it; it took me 2 years to figure out this part of what was nagging at me.)

The strange thing is that the only difference for me might be the fluff describing it. If you're talking about basically the Help action, but with the name "Morale bonus" then it probably wouldn't bother me. Much. But if it's described as "You help an ally whose confidence is flagging by giving them a boost of encouragement" then I'd start to not like it.

 

[mellored]

Doesn't explicitly say it's not magic.

It says "stirring words or music".
Nothing else.

Oh... in the bard description.

"In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own."
But, following that, all warlord command's are magical as well.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nothing like action-grants, the most contentious sorts of 'command'-fluffed Warlord exploits in that sense. They were just another named bonus. 3e had a /lot/ of named bonuses that you could stack up if they were different. 'Morale' was one of them. Some spells gave morale bonuses, but it was the lowly Bard who was most notrious for 'em, with his ability to sing all combat long and thereby give everyone a morale bonus to their attacks.

If it bothers you that singing making people better at fighting somehow implies they aren't really as good at fighting as their classes' marketing brochures promised, in spite of full BAB, STR scores north of 20, feats & the like, then, yeah, it'd be a problem. I'm not saying there's no similarity between that and some objections that have been raised to the Warlord, but it seems tenuous to me.

I think the reason Bards don't bother me is that I assume it's magical, and music is just the mechanism for casting.

It's ironic, isn't it? The one non-negotiable of Warlord..."non-magical, non-supernatural"...in turn makes most of the abilities unacceptable to me. (EDIT: to clarify, that's because the mechanism ends up being psychological manipulation instead of 'magic', which imo is the domain of the character's player and nobody else.)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Nuh-uh...

From the bard in the PHB:

"In the worlds of D&D, words and music are
not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with
power all their own. The bard is a master of song,
speech, and the magic they contain."

 

[Guest 6801328]

But, following that, all warlord command's are magical as well.

You're gonna get yourself kicked out of the Warlord Fan Club with that kind of loose talk.

 

[Aldarc]

4) I don't think you were understanding my comment about agency. It's not that I fear it's going to get so carried away that somebody is literally going to start playing my character, it's that when the DM says, "Ok, you feel a surge of inspiration from his words..." my reaction is, "Wait a second...says who? Don't I get to describe what I'm thinking and doing?" In the same way that if we were debating which door to open and the other player rolled a 20 on a Persuade check, if the DM said, "Ok, he convinces you..." I'd be all "Oh no he didn't!" So "the fear you expressed was never realized" is false: the very description of the abilities is what I fear.

So what do you say when the DM says, "Okay, the orc hits you for X amount of damage"? Is it also "Wait a second... says who? Oh no he didn't! Don't I get to describe what I'm doing?" (I am also amused at how the inverse would play out if the DM insisted that you failed to do anything to the NPCs on an appeal to their agency.) More seriously, I am puzzled as to what the difference is. A certain degree of your agency will always be surrendered in this game. You don't have complete control over your character and their actions. Sometimes you fail rolls to do things, whether they involve spotting or detecting lies.

7) On the other hand, there is always a possibility (a high possibility) that there will eventually be new official classes, and that they will be allowed in Adventurer's League. (The fact that UA "beta classes" are not included is not evidence to the contrary.) Therefore anybody who plays AL (me) who doesn't want to play alongside a Leader class has a vested interest in making sure it doesn't become official.

It's not just leader classes you won't be playing alongside of either. There may be players who would otherwise want to play that class who are also being effectively told that they are not welcome at your table. Your statement here, for example, would not make me feel invited or welcome should I ever game alongside you.

10) Being "the best at" fighting or casting or sneaking is categorically different from being "the best at Leading" when applied not to NPCs but to other party members. If you truly don't see that then I will work on clear language to express it better. But it does seem fairly obvious to me.

Are they the best at "leading" or do you not think that the warlord is operating in some other capacity here, such as 'tactical support'?