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

[Guest 6801328]

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'?

I really have to run so this is my last response for now, but maybe this will illustrate the difference: I would be TOTALLY 100% FINE with a class who was the "best at leading" vis a vis NPCs. Somebody who could gather a bunch of henchman and incite them to do wondrous things. Cool. You be the inspiring demagogue, I'll be the brute with the axe.

It's when those abilities affect me (or my character) that a line has been crossed.

 

[Aldarc]

I really have to run so this is my last response for now, but maybe this will illustrate the difference: I would be TOTALLY 100% FINE with a class who was the "best at leading" vis a vis NPCs. Somebody who could gather a bunch of henchman and incite them to do wondrous things. Cool. You be the inspiring demagogue, I'll be the brute with the axe.

It's when those abilities affect me (or my character) that a line has been crossed.

Yes, but you also admit elsewhere that you don't mind when the line has been crossed. You just concede that it becomes 'okay' when it's 'magic' that crosses the line as opposed to the stirring words of a 'warlord.' That's where I find the stance to be somewhat hypocritical and arbitrary. The 'warlord' does not somehow remove your character's agency if they provide you with a combat (dis)advantage, resistance, an extra (re)action, or whatever, since it's still in your agency to do with it what you like; they merely empower your ability to act upon an opportunity that they assisted in providing.

 

[mellored]

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

I'm not sure i'm in it.

I'm a fan of warlord mechanics more then of warlord fluff. I heavily refluff everything anyways.

Mainly, at-will version of the bard. Rather then casting 1 buff, then piddly cantrips. I want to make turn by turn decisions of where bonuses go, pick and choose who and how i'm helping every round, not simply put a buff no the fighter and watch him run off with it.

You talk about agency, but once a cleric blesses or a bard give an inspiration die, it's entirely out of your hands on how it's used. Give someone HP, and it's upto him how it's lost.

I want agency for support.

 

[Remathilis]

Nod. It adds flexibility to the whole party at the cost of resources.

Flexibility is potent. More potent than raw power. Right now, the hypothetical warlord isn't costing the group any meaningful resource. Not yet. Unless you consider his one (or two) attacks per round a resource. Right now, the sacrifice is an attack by the warlord.

OTOH, a second wizard could have done the same thing, and instead of having one wizard down two third-level slots, you'd have two wizards each down only one slot. Same result, far more spell resources available to do it again.

Sure. Assuming the second wizard has fireball prepped, he could. For THIS fight, the warlord is a second wizard.

You're assuming a feat that has known issues, there, but really not a huge deal.

And for THIS fight, he's a warrior with the archery style and Sharpshooter. (And as an aside, WotC has yet to nerf this feat, so it MUST be taken into account. If the prerequisite for a warlord class is "ban feats", you're already at a losing proposition).

Replace the Warlord with any DPR class and you get that 24/7.

And in this fight, he's a DPR class. Screw it, this ROUND he's a DPR class. Next round, he's a healer double casting lesser restoration on the two blinded PCs. The round after that, he's a paladin smiting twice per round against a lich. The round after that...

There's nothing broken about action grants as such. You could build a 4e Warlord to be not that great with his own actions, and action-granting will be optimal much of the time, and might seem powerful in contrast, but, then, the character was designed that way. You could also build a lead-from-the-front style Warlord with very worthwhile actions, and action-granting would seem a much less attractive option for him.

Lazy warlords are basically a mimic class: Its primary ability is "do your best thing again". In niche situations (such as the fire-vulnerable dragon or the flying foe) the best thing is clearly superior to anything the warlord can do on his own (unless he himself has fire attacks or the proper feat). Effectively, the character is stealing the other PCs best abilities for himself, but couching it in "you do it for me."

Oh, there was always a limiter: either using an encounter or daily power, or being limited in the sort of action granted, or what the Warlord could do while granting it. The at-will action-grants were strictly basic attacks, for instance. In 4e, a basic attack could do pretty good damage, but that was about it, you'd need a more limited exploit to let an ally use other attack options.

Ok, so now we get to the limiting factor. How shall we curb the warlords "grant an action" ability?

The obvious one is limited uses per day. Well, right now the battlemaster has a pool of 4-7 uses per rest which some is saying isn't enough. One per round seems too much. Not sure the magic number.

So next we move to limited action. Lets make it only attack action (no spells, no special actions). Well, that makes the caster classes useless for this, but its still allowing fighters with multiple attacks, anyone with extra damage riders (from feats or SA) to way output what a warlord alone is able to do. (Thus still unequal). So we could limit it to one attack, or carefully word the attack to remove the riders ("The warlord shouts an order. You make one attack roll with the weapon you have in hand. If you hit, you do the weapon's damage dice plus the warlord's Intelligence modifier in damage.)

Of course, we could put the balance factor on the PC granted the action, such as disadvantage on his next roll, grant advantage to his foes' attack rolls, or some form of exhaustion for taking two actions in a round. Or we can metagame it: he can't benefit from an extra action more than x times per rest. (Why? Reasons.) It still can work out where the PC doesn't feel the effet (an invisible wizard doesn't care as much for granting advantage, and a character going to heal his allies doesn't mind disadvantage to his next action when he's casting cure wounds).

And since we're doing a strict action-for-action trade (so that the warlord doesn't grant additional actions, merely swaps his for another PCs) we'll say he can move and use a bonus action, and that's all.

So, do we want 4-7 uses per rest, some penalty for the user, or one single non-rider weapon attack per round?

In 5e, most actions that are decidedly potent are also limited-use, themselves (like spells). Letting a Wizard cast an extra spell each round burns through his spells twice as fast, for instance, a very high price - simply having a second wizard would net the part far more power. Anything that's spammable is presumably designed with that in mind.

There are times that "going nova" is optimal. If the dragon is your main foe (and dragons are usually solos and typically bosses that you want dead quickly) then Instant-Second Wizard is well worth two 3rd level spell slots for that round. Your mitigating casualties by exploiting its weakness twice as fast. Sure, the wizard runs out of spells quicker, but it might be worth it to kill it before its breath weapon recharges. (And he's probably looking at a long rest after the dragon fight anyway).

And as said before, its not POWER that's the issue, its that the warlord is too versatile without very strict caps on its power. He's effectively throwing a fireball one round, sneak attacking the next, healing someone the third, and that's all from his hammock. In 4e, where everything was spelled out in very strict powers, it could work to grant a bonus attack with limiters. In 5e, that seems to go against the design.

It CAN be done (battlemaster is proof) but I think giving a warlord any ability to grant actions more powerful or versatile than Commander's Strike is game breaking.

 

[Remathilis]

You know, between the fact the three major elements of the warlord is to A.) Break Bounded Accuracy, B.) Break the Action Economy and C.) Potentially break Verisimilitude for some via Martial/Inspirational Healing, I think I get why they didn't make the Player's Handbook...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes, but you also admit elsewhere that you don't mind when the line has been crossed. You just concede that it becomes 'okay' when it's 'magic' that crosses the line as opposed to the stirring words of a 'warlord.' That's where I find the stance to be somewhat hypocritical and arbitrary. The 'warlord' does not somehow remove your character's agency if they provide you with a combat (dis)advantage, resistance, an extra (re)action, or whatever, since it's still in your agency to do with it what you like; they merely empower your ability to act upon an opportunity that they assisted in providing.

I'll ignore the accusations of hypocrisy and arbitrariness and respond to the above: in my view the inner mental state of my character is entirely under my control. I can't control if orc swords pierce my body, or if my senses perceive things, or what knowledge my character has. But I and only I can think thoughts, feel emotions, choose motivations, and decide courses of action for my character.

Magic can override that because it's, you know, "magic". I don't mind losing a saving throw against a Geas spell (is that still in the game?) because it's not really my character deciding to pursue that course of action, it's the magic.

But if somebody uses a non-magical ability to persuade me to take a course of action, and I the player am not instigating it, then somebody else is controlling my thoughts/actions/emotions.

Look, I'm not inventing this because I'm looking for an excuse to invalidate Warlords. I'm explaining it to help those who are interested to understand why at least one person is opposed to some of the proposed class design. Am I going to being contradictory? Probably. I'm human. There may be other cases of this sort of loss of agency that I haven't really noticed before, for reasons I haven't thought through yet.

Instead of trying to prove that I'm a hypocrite or tell me why I'm wrong, I'd love to hear another way of understanding this problem, or hear a proposal for a different sort of fluff that maybe wouldn't be offensive.

Whatcha got?

 

[Wuzzard]

But that's the thing. A second wizard will be a second wizard for every encounter. Even ones where a second wizard is not as advantageous as having something else. But the warlord makes sure the next encounter has a second "whatever is best", instead, in the moment.

That's the problem.

Yes, that probably makes the team overall better at combat. Still, it is a kind of awkward ability, since it requires the player to give up his action. I can't image most players thinking that was a fun way to play, even if it means the team wins more often.

On the flip side, can you imagine how awful it would be if all players showed up for the first session all toting warlords, each hoping to add that extra synergy to the team. A whole team of warlords! "You go." "No, you go." "No, really, you go." "You've got a great shot there, why don't you take it." "But you've got even a better shot, so go ahead." "I'm just going to be over here distracting the orc, so you can clobber it again." The orc shakes his head and walks away.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

But it's sadly necessary when it's the case that they are laboring under misapprehensions.

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.

I'm sorry if some snark slipped through, there. I do tend to slip humor in, and it doesn't always work well in the medium.

3) I think I've come a lot more than 1/4 of the way.

Half way would have seen the Warlord in the PH. So maybe more than a 1/4, maybe not. The point is, as compromises go, leaving the Warlord out of the Standard Game was a huge one.

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.

Leader was the role, and it wasn't literal, but jargon describing a support role. A literal leader is something you could do well with a Warlord, since it includes abilities that model leadership benefits mechanically, but the actual decisions-making party-leader or negotiating party-spokesman could be any character, whether a warlord is present or not.

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?"

I can't see any reason you couldn't. The idea of the power is one thing, but any all-affecting power really should work with the ally's consent. The idea behind most Warlord powers center around teamwork - inspiration, planning, leadership, coordination, &c - if a character concept was enough of a 'lone wolf' I could see the player deciding he's in essence 'not willing.' I could see the same sort of thing coming up with an irreligious or opposed-religion character and support from a cleric, a tone deaf one & a bard (humor again), or a superstitous/religious one and a Warlock.

It's the kind of question of intra-party RP that comes up with some groups and not others, and can be an problem, or even interesting to explore, at times.

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.

I wish there was something I could do to re-assure you. But, ultimately, just like I wouldn't ask you to go parachuting if you were afraid of heights, I wouldn't ask you to play a warlord, nor play opposite one, if it were that phobic about the concept. By the same token, just as the existence of acrophobes doesn't ground every plane on earth, your fear of the very concept of the warlord class doesn't justify my never being allowed to play one.

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

The 'Great & Powerful Oz' ruled a land, because he was a Wizard, and he wasn't even a real one. Warlords just command men, Wizards command reality.

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.

Not a straw man at all, you were very pointedly comparing the relative inconvenience we would each face from the 'just house rule' it alternative. We're talking tens of thousands of times a greater burden on me than on you. While I don't doubt that fans of the Warlord aren't a majority (in spite of this poll running 2:1 in favor of the Warlord), I doubt very much it's dectractors out number them by that kind of factor.

Even if it were the case, such utilitarianist calculations are no way to design an /inclusive/ game.

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.

It's a possibility, sure. For instance, they might see one season as a playtest, or be available the season they appear in a new product. If they were popular enough, they might even be let in going forward. I think fans of Psionics, for instance, should reasonably be allowed to hope for just that. I'm not a fan of psionics, myself, I think they're too sci-fi for my D&D preferences, but I'm OK with them being in the pipeline, would have no trouble running for one in an AL even where they were an official option, and hope they see print in a form their supporters want, even if I likely would never play one, or might ban or tweak them (making them definitively 'magic' for instance) in a home campaign I ran.

(The fact that UA "beta classes" are not included is not evidence to the contrary.)

It's evidence that if the Warlord appeared in UA and got a beta version, it likely wouldn't be allowed in AL.

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.

That seems like a profound over-reaction. Rather than bear any risk or demonstrate any tolerance for what your fellow 5e fans want from the game, you would block the class entirely?

You think that's coming more than 1/4 of the way towards a middle ground? That's staking out the most extreme position and not budging!

Here, allow me to stake out an equivalent, contrary position: Every table you play at from now on must include a Warlord. Not only must it be part of a standard game, it must be so optimal that no party would ever play without one.

That's how reasonable you just sounded to me. That's how far you are from the middle ground.

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.

Yep, it's like psionics is magic vs psionics is different. As long as all the functionality is there, the fluff can be left open, or go one way but be re-fluffed the other. No problem there.

And wouldn't you rather have a class fluffed such that there isn't vehemently vocal opposition to it?

The problem here is that there's plenty of opponents of the Warlord who pick one little thing about the class and demand it be cut to save their sensibilities. If we went with 'em all, there'd be nothing left. Death of thousand cuts.

If the Warlord were going into the Standard Game, yes, I think avoiding all fluff that implied obedience or dependence on the part of allies, and playing up the teamwork angle instead, along with many other compromises to save the feelings of players who will never play the class and DMs who might well ban it anyway, would all be tolerable.

Outside the Standard Game, though, objections like that carry much less weight. No one who has an objection to some aspect of the Warlord class or concept is likely to be exposed to it unless they opt into it somehow. IF a DM does, they have the option to cut the objectionable material if it's a personal objection, or otherwise deal with it if one of their players does.

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.

I could see it being pushed to require removing a lot of necessary functionality like action-granting, inspiring word, and so forth in the process, so, yeah, it'd be a tooth-and-nail thing trying to preserve abilities without reference to their most obvious fluff, or a whole group of concepts the class is meant to model.

And, again, meeting half way is back there a fair bit, with the Warlord in the Standard Game. Just conceding it to a purely optional status is meeting you a good three-quarters, as I've said.

It's like, I left San Jose, and I'm waiting for you in Chicago, but you're staying in Boston and still asking me to 'meet you half way.' Get in the car already.

But, as a counter-off, how 'bout we meet 13/16th of the way, and we can stipulate that the Warlord cannot ever be allowed in AL without special DM permission and unanimous agreement of all players at the table? You want another steenth? How bout just no Warlord in AL, ever. Just an double-optional class in some future optional supplement, but actually a worthy, complete version, not one sliced to pieces by the combined whittling of a thousand trivial emotional objections?

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.

NP. I drifted away from it in mid-2e, and came back for 3rd. We all have our unique relationships with the game we love.

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.)

So you conceived your prejudice upon seeing some of the ire that had been building up for years of edition warring? I'm sorry you had to be introduced to the idea that way.

Please, try not to let it skew your perceptions, though. Or, as I suppose it's too late for that, at least make allowances...

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.

In the very narrow sense of 'leading' that I guess you must be referring to, it'd be rather like letting Diplomacy rolls or Reaction Adjustments dictate how players RP, yes. Not what the Warlord was ever about nor ever did, though. An easy mistake to make based on the label of the "Leader" role and the concepts the Warlord could cover, especially if first encountered in post-Edition war diatribes, with all the misrepresentation of the class that comes up every time it's debated.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

If a figter is the specialist of individual combat, and the warlord the maser of group/unit combat.

What kind of manuvers/ tactis are there that require more then one person ?
Flanking and makinf a shield wal are 2 things that come to mind.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, that probably makes the team overall better at combat. Still, it is a kind of awkward ability, since it requires the player to give up his action. I can't image most players thinking that was a fun way to play, even if it means the team wins more often.

The players who loved the 'lazy' Warlord builds were distinctly in the minority, yes.