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

[Shades of Eternity]

expanding it to scifi as well.

Phule's Company by Robert Asprin

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think if a Warlord matches something in a fantasy movie or novel is very important but looking over the class it seems like its a perfect fit for 4e, a lot of buffing and abilities related to map control and tactical miniatures movement, with healing as well. I don't think they want to emphasize such things in 5e so I can see why they didn't include it. I doubt they are going to make a tactical miniatures module for 5e so I don't see the class coming back, but I could be wrong and they could redo it to make it more a fit for 5e philosophy. The vitriol on either side of the debate is pretty nuts at times I must say.

And yet 5e has characters who engage in tactics and strategy in order to achieve their goals. Why is it inappropriate in ANY edition to have a class who's focus is on that particular skill set? Nobody argues there shouldn't be a thief class or a ranger class, even though there aren't super detailed trap/lock/foraging rules.

Nor do I think 5e's combat is so vague and formless that you can't profit from rules that model tactical advantage. I'm pretty sure there have been at least 2 solid examples in this thread already.

 

[Remathilis]

Non-magical and Non-supernatural is important because it exists in so much of genre fiction. We want a class that can work as a party healer that is not tied to divine so we can play in a lower magic setting. Imagine a campaign with a Warlord, rogue, Battlemaster Fighter and a monk. The opponents are generally things like humanoids and whatnot. Nice Conan-esque campaign on the lower end of the fantasy scale. Or a Black Company style campaign where magic use is generally limited to NPC's. Or a Malazan Book of the Fallen style campaign where only one character in the group is particularly magical and he's gone a lot of the time. Or a Song of Fire and Ice style campaign.

Fantasy genre is chock a block with lower end magic campaigns. Without a non-magical healer, you can't use D&D to play them.

Got news for you: D&D has always sucked for emulating Non-magical, non-supernatural gaming. It looks like some of the components are there, but it nearly always fails.

Take 5e: there are 12 classes and nearly every one of them can cast magic with the right combo of race, class, subclass, or feats. Remove those elements, and you have champions, battlemasters, thieves, assassins, frenzied berserkers, open-hand monks, and that's it. Get rid of "supernatural" classes and your basically down to fighters and rogues. Not a good starting point to start a warlord class, since right now the best healer in this game is a rogue with the healer feat.

In reality, a fully functional warlord is going to be supernatural. He'll have to at least be at the level of barbarians to function, and won't even match a ranger in utilities without some spell- equivalent powers. I think once the idea of a warlord having some supernatural ability (even as nebulously defined as Rage, Ki, or Music) then you might be able to bring some detractors on board.

But totally non-supernatural warlord healing? That's not going to play in Peoria.

 

[mellored]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You don't want a bard class? You want a non-magical bard class?

My point is that you can use your same argument against any class.

Why do i need to be a cleric in order to pray and make a connection with the divine? Why can't i have an assassin or illusionist that who blesses others in the name of their god? I could just take the acolyte background, the healer feat, and moderatly armored. Those are options for any class. Praying should be RP, not mechanics.

Why do i need to be a rogue in order to sneak and stab someone in the back? Why can't i have a wizard paladin who's stealthy and takes advantage of an enemy being distracted to stab him? Sneak attack should be RP not mechanics.

Why do i need to be a wizard in order to learn magic? I should just be able to RP studying spell books, not have mechanics telling me how many spells i know.

ect... ect...


Edit: and yea, a warlord is basically a non-magical bard.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You don't want a bard class? You want a non-magical bard class? I should have included bard among my examples of classes that can be done other ways + roleplaying...or take away/over roleplaying agency for their player?

That's a separate thread. I'm sure if we try reeeeally hard we could have over a dozen threads spread across the forums arguing the existence [or not] and features of bards for 90 pages. Sorcerer too, for that matter ;P

But doesn't seem really necessary to do here.

I think he's arguing more or less what I was arguing, that the "it isn't necessary" argument is too strong, it forces you to exclude pretty much everything except the big 4 classes (and some might argue one of those, cleric or thief depending on your bent, might go as well).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Nor is anyone saying that these other characters have no fighting ability. I never proposed, nor has anyone else here AFAIK, a warlord that isn't a capable melee combatant.

That's not true at all. The cry for lazylord-ery has been quite clear. On multiple fronts. Heck, repeated claims that a proper warlord is actually a support character who should *not* be on the front line has been everywhere. Did you miss all that?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I think he's arguing more or less what I was arguing, that the "it isn't necessary" argument is too strong, it forces you to exclude pretty much everything except the big 4 classes (and some might argue one of those, cleric or thief depending on your bent, might go as well).

There's a reason "slippery slope" is categorized as a fallacy. Just sayin'...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Got news for you: D&D has always sucked for emulating Non-magical, non-supernatural gaming. It looks like some of the components are there, but it nearly always fails.

Take 5e: there are 12 classes and nearly every one of them can cast magic with the right combo of race, class, subclass, or feats. Remove those elements, and you have champions, battlemasters, thieves, assassins, frenzied berserkers, open-hand monks, and that's it. Get rid of "supernatural" classes and your basically down to fighters and rogues. Not a good starting point to start a warlord class, since right now the best healer in this game is a rogue with the healer feat.

In reality, a fully functional warlord is going to be supernatural. He'll have to at least be at the level of barbarians to function, and won't even match a ranger in utilities without some spell- equivalent powers. I think once the idea of a warlord having some supernatural ability (even as nebulously defined as Rage, Ki, or Music) then you might be able to bring some detractors on board.

But totally non-supernatural warlord healing? That's not going to play in Peoria.

I think part of what the appeal of the warlord class was was that it ennabled a more non-magical campaign if you wanted.

I think it's probably better to decide you want a non-magical campaign before you select your class, though.

And if you want that in D&D 5e, have someone pick up the Healer feat, and you'll be fine.

 

[Imaro]

King Arthur? Need I actually make citations for that?

So are you claiming he's not an exceptional warrior?

The first reliable reference to Arthur is in the 'Historia Brittonum' written by the Welsh monk Nennius around the year 830AD. Surprisingly he refers to Arthur as a warrior - not a king. He lists twelve battles fought by Arthur including Mount Badon and the City Of The Legion.

Nor is anyone saying that these other characters have no fighting ability. I never proposed, nor has anyone else here AFAIK, a warlord that isn't a capable melee combatant. Dorian Hawkmoon certainly wasn't the greatest warrior evar! he was a leader, with a powerful magic item etc.

He doesn't need to be the greatest warrior evar!! But he is able to hold his own as a warrior with the likes of Elric and Corum who are skilled swordsmen with magical artifacts that increase their potency...

Conan was maybe at one point a super warrior, but in a whole other cycle of stories he's a king, he can fight, but he's a leader.

But he's still more known by the public for his combat prowess and stealth than for his inspirational ability and healing skills...

Aragorn actually NEVER fights himself, except MAYBE offscreen and once in Moria (and note that he and Boromir are running away, not trying to be big heroes).

Say what now... he defeated a freakin Nazgul alone with a torch and a broken blade...

I think any of these characters could be depicted using a warlord class, and it wouldn't be any less appropriate than ranger, or barbarian. I can't think of ANY better alternatives for King Arthur or Dorian Hawkmoon. I'm sure I could come up with many other examples if I gave it even the slightest effort.

King Arthur and Dorian Hawkmoon are warriors...fighters with the appropriate backgrounds and skills...

I'm not saying you CANNOT represent these guys with some existing class, you can always ignore the rough edges, and use the big 4 as I said in my last post. If there's no argument for warlord then what is the argument for ranger? Obviously if you are a B/X fan, then perhaps this is the endpoint of this logic. Its not a bad position to take, but its very odd for someone to take the in-between position that 1e/2e/3e/4e/5e have the ultimate last-word class mix and all else should be rejected.

Claiming they are Warlords with the type of combat prowess they display creates rough edges around the characters you listed for alot of people.

I don't know what the ultimate class list is, I can only say for me and my group the warlord doesn't resonate with us... I've never looked at a fantasy character and "warlord" was the first thing that came to mind...