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

[ChrisCarlson]

Your negative attitude and open hostility towards the pro-warlord crowd extends well beyond that one post, and mimicry neither explains nor excuses that behavior. If you think that I am engaging in passive-aggressive and hostile behavior, then report it. There is a little button below my post that allows you to do so.

I hope everyone else just saw the epic-level irony in this like I just did.

 

[Eric V]

Even if there were a "majority" (whatever the hell that means in this case) that didn't want a warlord class, what's for them to worry if WotC releases one via UA?

They just don't allow it at their table. Simple as that. There: No warlord. See?

Arguing against its inclusion in the game as an option for those who might enjoy it just fulfills the worst stereotypes of our people (in this case, D&D gamers) possible, it really does.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you think that I am engaging in passive-aggressive and hostile behavior, then report it. There is a little button below my post that allows you to do so.

Actually, I would leave off the "passive" part. Your responses to my questions and comments have felt pretty hostile.

I don't see the need for a Warlord, but I'm interested in design challenges and if there were a class that would meet everybody's needs I'd love to figure out what it is. But from some posters all I hear is, "No, all your ideas are wrong. We've already got the class designed and it's perfect and immutable. Your unwillingness to realize that makes you the enemy."

Seriously, that's what it feels like. Literally no willingness to compromise on any front, and I don't just mean on specific mechanics but even on some of the concept. I've yet to hear a single proponent acknowledge (not just in this thread but in the old Next playtest ones), "Ok, I can see how a Leader class that gives orders to other PCs could be perceived as usurping some aspects of roleplaying." It's just, "No, you're wrong. It doesn't. And you're a hypocrite if you don't feel the same way about ability X from class Y."

 

[Shades of Eternity]

The thing is the base (a martial bonus giver) covers a wide variety of concepts:

1. Let's go for the classic example: Julius Caesar. A 43 year old politician turned warrior that laid the foundation of the Roman Empire.
He sure as hell wasn't a fighter.
2. A Rescued Princess/Prince that gives bonuses to their party while getting into peril.
3. A Kobold mascot, whose dapper attitude makes him/her adored by all.
4. An singular Ōendan with a set of flags that cheerleads the rest of the team to victory.
5. and of course, the classic

Yes you could make the argument that his super soldier serum makes him a fighter, but in a world where you have hulk and thor on the team, his biggest advantage has always been his charisma and his leadership skills.

all of these concepts can be done with the warlord, and even if you prefer a title like captain or cheerleader instead, it doesn't change the base conceptual model of the class.

One of the great things about the warlord class in 4e as it created a real agony of choice with the cleric.

If you took a cleric, you had greater healing abilities.
If you took a warlord, you might be able to shave a round or two off your fight, saving more hp then the cleric could heal.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The thing is the base (a martial bonus giver) covers a wide variety of concepts:

1. Let's go for the classic example: Julius Caesar. A 43 year old politician turned warrior that laid the foundation of the Roman Empire.
He sure as ---- wasn't a fighter. *snip*

Apologies for zeroing in on only one idea from your post, but this one interests me: Julius Caesar is not widely-renowned for his leadership in small unit tactics. You don't need any class levels at all, of any kind, to be a good general in 5E or a good politician. High Intelligence and Charisma will help, but only if the player (or DM, if NPC) is capable of roleplaying high intelligence, charisma, and ruthless ambition.

You could build Julius Caesar on top of literally any chassis from wizard to Champion Fighter and the chassis would have almost no impact on his effectiveness as a politican. Even Conan the King was a retired barbarian by the time he became a king. If not for the fact that someone tried to stage a coup he would never even had a use for his mad barbarian skillz from his younger days.

 

[Aldarc]

Actually, I would leave off the "passive" part. Your responses to my questions and comments have felt pretty hostile.

As have a number of your replies to me, to be honest. I hope that we are at least moving towards a more amicable direction.

I don't see the need for a Warlord, but I'm interested in design challenges and if there were a class that would meet everybody's needs I'd love to figure out what it is. But from some posters all I hear is, "No, all your ideas are wrong. We've already got the class designed and it's perfect and immutable. Your unwillingness to realize that makes you the enemy."

Seriously, that's what it feels like. Literally no willingness to compromise on any front, and I don't just mean on specific mechanics but even on some of the concept. I've yet to hear a single proponent acknowledge (not just in this thread but in the old Next playtest ones), "Ok, I can see how a Leader class that gives orders to other PCs could be perceived as usurping some aspects of roleplaying." It's just, "No, you're wrong. It doesn't. And you're a hypocrite if you don't feel the same way about ability X from class Y."

The feeling is mutual, but from the other side of the fence. It's just "No warlord at my table!" "Be happy with the battlemaster and these mismatched feats!" "A warlord should never heal or provide non-temporary HP!" What's so weird about this is that many of the people making the demand for what a 5E warlord should look like or how terrible the warlord is have little to no experience with the 4E warlord, while still demanding concession after concession from pro-warlord proponents.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You don't need any class levels at all, of any kind, to be a good general in 5E or a good politician. High Intelligence and Charisma will help, but only if the player (or DM, if NPC) is capable of roleplaying high intelligence, charisma, and ruthless ambition.

5e /does/ have skills and the proficiency bonus, so it's not quite as character-independent as all that.

Didn't say it was of the whole D&D population. But it is irrefutable that the majority of people that have come here [and voted in the poll], for the past 18 days & 71 pages of thread, straight through...the whole time. If we assume WotC has some survey/marketing/whozits info of their own, and it would be foolish to not think so...it's not that huge a stretch to think,hmm, maybe that majority who doesn't want one/doesn't care isn't "imagined", but actually this poll is a snapshot of the larger general community.

The poll isn't meaningful. But, that's not what the number show. The numbers show that 2/3rds of respondents want the warlord, 1/3rd don't, and 3/4rs go for click bait.

2:1 in favor of the Warlord.

/Now/ can we agree that self-selecting polls with non-sequitur click bait answers aren't that meaningful?

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Apologies for zeroing in on only one idea from your post, but this one interests me: Julius Caesar is not widely-renowned for his leadership in small unit tactics. You don't need any class levels at all, of any kind, to be a good general in 5E or a good politician. High Intelligence and Charisma will help, but only if the player (or DM, if NPC) is capable of roleplaying high intelligence, charisma, and ruthless ambition.

You could build Julius Caesar on top of literally any chassis from wizard to Champion Fighter and the chassis would have almost no impact on his effectiveness as a politican. Even Conan the King was a retired barbarian by the time he became a king. If not for the fact that someone tried to stage a coup he would never even had a use for his mad barbarian skillz from his younger days.

The thing is caesar didn't have one shred of magical ability, but he's up there with alexander the great because of his skills.

There is currently no class in 5e that can do what he did, and building him as a fighter feels wrong.

It's why we need a warlord class. To get the option of a high int/wis/cha martial expert that doesn't feel suboptimal.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's my point: you don't need any class of any kind to replicate Julius Caesar. He could be a 0th level NPC and would work just fine.

Actually, Caesar works worse as a high-level fighter than a 0th level NPC because if he's a high-level fighter he can just tank all the Senators and Brutus combined, tiny daggers notwithstanding, kill them all and rule Rome as a tyrant.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Even if there were a "majority" (whatever the hell that means in this case) that didn't want a warlord class, what's for them to worry if WotC releases one via UA?

They just don't allow it at their table. Simple as that. There: No warlord. See?

Arguing against its inclusion in the game as an option for those who might enjoy it just fulfills the worst stereotypes of our people (in this case, D&D gamers) possible, it really does.

Sorry but I just don't agree with that analysis, and the constant repeating of it doesn't make it true. If content becomes official it's non-trivial to play without it, especially if the only time you get to be a player instead of a DM is Adventurer's League. I may...in fact probably would...end up choosing between playing a table with a character that taints my experience (as much as Drow currently do, or firearms would) and not playing that night. Or most nights. Who knows?

Or what about Feats? I happen to like Feats, but if I really hated their effect on the game I would still have to deal with their impact when playing with strangers at AL games. (Come to think of it, that already sort of happens: I'm sick of crossbow expert fighters, polearm master vengeance paladins, and 2-dipped Warlocks. But those rules are "optional" so they shouldn't bother me, right?)

The counterargument is that if table rules are allowed, you can just use a homebrew Warlord. (That way you even get to choose from among more versions and pick your favorite!) But of course I understand why that's not a great answer: if I were you I would want the content to be official. I would want to be able to play my favorite class at AL tables.

We both want the official game to be the version of the game we like. Stop acting like you're taking the high road. The official inclusion of content can adversely affect enjoyment just as much as the inverse does.