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

[ChrisCarlson]

I'd point out that the Battlemaster can do all of those things you just listed RIGHT NOW. And the game is balanced. Heck, I could get that raging half-orc to attack four extra times in a single round, with a battlemaster.

Demonstrate.

Also, battlemaster maneuver dice are a limited resource. This is the same flawed argument complaining that paladins are broken cuz smite.

Your balance arguments don't follow when the game already has exactly what you're complaining about.

Is out-of-context the only way you know how to take things? Those were to different responses to two different topics.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really buy the "warlord doesn't fit thematically in 5e" idea either. It may not 'fit thematically' in some people's ideas of what D&D should be who froze their concept of D&D in 1980 (I almost said 1880) but its quite thematically appropriate IMHO. A warlord would have been a perfectly fine addition to D&D in the 1e PHB (might have been a stronger entry that ranger actually) and certainly would have been a better choice than monk. I think the actual class mix we have is mostly sheer happenstance. They're whichever classes EGG happened to take a fancy to, perhaps for the most trivial of reasons. If you look through the material he lists as inspiration for 1e there certainly are quite a few characters that could be warlords in there, including many from classic tales like Le Mort d'Artur, REH, etc.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't really buy the "warlord doesn't fit thematically in 5e" idea either. It may not 'fit thematically' in some people's ideas of what D&D should be who froze their concept of D&D in 1980 (I almost said 1880) but its quite thematically appropriate IMHO. A warlord would have been a perfectly fine addition to D&D in the 1e PHB (might have been a stronger entry that ranger actually) and certainly would have been a better choice than monk. I think the actual class mix we have is mostly sheer happenstance. They're whichever classes EGG happened to take a fancy to, perhaps for the most trivial of reasons.

If I disagree with virtually everything you just said, does that mean our votes cancel each other out?

If you look through the material he lists as inspiration for 1e there certainly are quite a few characters that could be warlords in there, including many from classic tales like Le Mort d'Artur, REH, etc.

I do not see any of the characters you cite as warlords. So does this mean our votes cancel here as well?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If I disagree with virtually everything you just said, does that mean our votes cancel each other out?


I do not see any of the characters you cite as warlords. So does this mean our votes cancel here as well?

Woah, buddy! There's nothing wrong with loving the Warlord. But if you want to go back to the 1980s, you're better off arguing that the Warlord throws fireballs at his his three buddies and defends a castle, if you know what I mean.

If you want to have a good conversation about the inclusion of the different classes from the Blackmoor genesis to 1e, that's fine. But I don't see anything in your assertion that I would agree with- whether or not the Warlord is a "good" or "bad" class is a matter of opinion and taste, and whether or not it would fit in well mechanically with 5e is open to debate (I happen to think it shouldn't be a core class, but if they put it in some supplement, that's fine by me). But I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your assertions regarding the Warlord and 1e- perhaps I am misunderstanding?

And sure enough this is exactly the predictable reaction. I could name ANY existing post 1e class, or invent one of my own, and I'd get exactly the same answer. Its just pure reflex, it wasn't there in 1980, so its bad, inappropriate, doesn't fit in D&D, there's no such character in fiction, etc etc etc.

Well, that last one is ridonkulous. While the 1e Ranger is clearly modeled on Aragorn to a pretty high degree, a 'warlord' version would probably fit the character much better, as his primary attribute was actually as a leader. Conan would make an excellent warlord as well, depending on which stories you're reading. I could go on and on, Dorian Hawkmoon, springs almost instantly to mind. Certainly many characters from classical sources would be well modelled as some form of warlord.

And why wouldn't this kind of class fit perfectly well into the schema of lets say 1e D&D? It certainly fits MUCH better than the monk, a class that lacks any clear function in the game and is thematically quite out of place.

I think some people need to actually open up their skulls and air out their brains. Something got stale in there around 1980.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think some people need to actually open up their skulls and air out their brains. Something got stale in there around 1980.

Mature.

I started writing a thoughtful response, but decided I'm done. Y'all lost this one. There's never going to be an official Warlord in 5e and you know it. All that stuff about "being inclusive for fans of all editions"? Pure marketing smokescreen. So sorry.

Not sure why I've been trying to find a middle ground with a group of fanatics that won't accept any form of compromise, and think that anybody who holds a different opinion is dumb, selfish, malicious, or all three.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Conan would make an excellent warlord as well, depending on which stories you're reading.

Elaborate. In what way? Perhaps citing some examples would help?

I could go on and on, Dorian Hawkmoon, springs almost instantly to mind.

I've never read him. Provide some examples here as well so I can better understand your perspective.

Certainly many characters from classical sources would be well modelled as some form of warlord.

Lists have been touted in this, and other, threads. In every case, without exception, they were shown to be uninspired (pardon the pun). I've yet to see a single literary example, that fits a playable RPG character model, that points to being only a warlord and nothing else. Every single character can be very well represented using what we already have.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mellored]

I've yet to see a single literary example, that fits a playable RPG character model, that points to being only a warlord and nothing else. Every single character can be very well represented using what we already have.

I have yet to see a single literary example of a wizard/paladin/barbarian/druid/rogue that fits a playable RPG character model.

I have seen plenty of those archetypes. But it takes some serious mutilation to make them fit.

Seriously, Gandalf would not work in D&D.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*