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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

I didn't say its inappropriate or it couldn't work in any form. I said I can see why they probably dropped it from the class list and I doubt they are going to put it back in.

 

[mellored]

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'm going to agree with this.
Though, i'm sure not everyone will be happy, it's probably the best solution.

Maybe we can jump in to the whole King Arthur thing and "king magic" or "divine right"?
I mean, if sorcerer's can be magic dragon blood, why can't you have magic royal blood?
Possibly even Excalibur as a feature.


Holy Sword: Somehow this sword (it may be hammer for dwarfs, bow for elves, or other appropriate weapon) finds it's way into your possession. It is rusted and old, but it resonates with you and seems made to fit in your hands. It becomes a symbol of your divine right. While you are in possession of it you find people more wiling to join your cause and follow you. Allies +X benifit.
If it is lost, or stolen, it manages to find it's way back to you within 1d12 days (or 2d12 if it's on another plane). As you gain kingship levels it's rust fades and it begins to shine (or absorb light if you are evil), turning into a +X weapon at level Y, but only while in your hands. If you die, the sword slowly becomes rusted losing it's bonus and eventually becomes lost."


You still want this to be low-key magic though. Nothing obvious.

 

[steeldragons]

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

Yeah. And yet, no other class...or very few, get the blowback of the warlord. So, like I said/inferred, the warlord is doing this more than is acceptable for a lot of folks in a class-based rpg like D&D.

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?

You don't....and you certainly can, respectively. It won't do anything, mechanically, but you can certainly roleplay that.

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.

Praying is RP. Nobody's stopping you form having your character be religious/spiritual in the game world.

Now, if you expect that praying to close bleeding wounds without bandages, hold extradimensional beings at bay, make everyone in the area "hit better"...in other words, if you want to alter reality/physical laws through the exercising of your will...that's not roleplaying. That's what magic is. There's mechanics that handle that. To have access to those mechanics, you need to be a cleric (druid/paladin/bard) or the Magic Initiate feat or some other mechanical way to adjudicate the magic. We all accept that. That is not stepping on roleplaying the character or demanding a certain roleplay of the magic-wielding class as xyz.

Why do i need to be a rogue in order to sneak and stab someone in the back?

You don't.

Why can't i have a wizard paladin who's stealthy and takes advantage of an enemy being distracted to stab him?

You can. You're just not getting the mechanical bonus of a sneak attack for that. Weapon + Str. mod from a paladin, I would think, should do just fine...possibly even with extra attacks, stab him more than once!

Sneak attack should be RP not mechanics.

That...that just doesn't make sense. Again, RPing someone taking stealthy actions (which anyone can be in 5e, just make a decent Dex. roll) does not grant the mechanic benefit that is defined as a Sneak Attack. You want your stealthy stabs to do that, be a thief...sorry, "rogue." The Sneak Attack mechanic does not detract from the ability of the player to RP a thief.

That is not the case for "what a warlord class is supposed to be." That's what I'm proposing the source of a lot of conflict is herein. Whether other classes do it to lesser extents is immaterial and reductio ad absurdum doesn't change that.

Why do i need to be a wizard in order to learn magic?

According to 5e, particularly, you don't. Any 3 y.o., apparently, interested in any area of life has a magic oozing out of their butt!

I should just be able to RP studying spell books, not have mechanics telling me how many spells i know.

You can Roleplay studying spellbooks til the cows come home. Have a great time. If you want all of the knowledge to translate into actually doing something with that knowledge/making it "work"...see above.

ect... ect...

This is neither here nor there as far as warlords are concerned, just as a completely unrelated side note: The abbreviation of "et cetera", to say "and so forth" or "and other things"...is "ETC" or [I've only recently found out] "&c." I don't know where this "ect"...um..."stuff" began or who is teaching it. But I see it over and over by tons of posters...and almost always native-english speakers. It's incorrect. According to multiple dictionaries, including Oxford English. "ECT", apparently, is an abbreviation for "Electro-Convulsive Thearpy." I know typos happen. I know dyslexia exists. Since it is duplicated here, I can safely assume it is neither of those. Please, people, I'm beggin' ya, stop typing "ect." Ok. Carry on. /pet peeve..like HUGE pet peeve.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

If it was early in the thread? Yes. I haven't specifically proposed that, though I did point out that the lazylord was a nice feature of the 4e warlord class. Nice, but it wasn't even what it was intended for, it was a build that was developed post-hoc. I'd like to see the possibility exist in a 5e warlord, but frankly I've about given up all hope on WotC D&D for the present from what I can see, so anything would exceed my expectations.

And I could certainly come up with a slew of characters that would be good lazy lord candidates. I doubt ANY of them would work in 5e as it exists today. Make me a 'princess', a character that never attacks anyone directly, is relatively 'helpless', and defeats all of her opponents by trickery, psychology, or appealing to an ally for help. Its a bit of a niche thing, and I am not saying it has to exist, but warlord would serve it well if done right.

 

[mellored]

You can. You're just not getting the mechanical bonus..

And likewise, anyone can RP being an inspiring leader. Nothing stops a wizard from shouting "CHARGE!", or "watch out!".

But, you need a class to give those things a mechanical bonuses.

is "ETC"

I'll concede that point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.

I'm sorry, but this is not a slippery slope argument. Nor are all slippery slopes fallacious.

Its an argument of consistency which is opposed to your argument of consistency, which is to say you argue we don't need classes which do things we can already do, but you fail to accept that the consistent consequence of this is that classes like ranger are redundant and have no more basis to exist than warlord.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Battles, yes, in which he is a leader of large bodies of men in war. Nor do we have to exclude any personal prowess from consideration, any D&D character of any level at all will be relatively a great warrior, and the warlord class is still a 'martial' character who can fight on his own. He's just Arthur, leader of men, not Launcelot, invincible warrior.

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...

Again though, a very significant aspect of the character is leadership and inspiration, not brute force. He's an accomplished warrior, like what you'd expect any level 20 character to be considered. There's far less emphasis on his martial prowess than there is for Corum or Elric in his stories though.

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

True, he's a hard character to categorize because he doesn't stick to a single paradigm in all of REH's stories. Barbarian/Fighter doesn't EXACTLY work for him either.

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

He drove it off temporarily after it had already wounded Frodo and then regrouped with its fellows to track them and attack again. He didn't actually fight and defeat it. In fact I'd almost say his main accomplishment was bolstering his allies morale and disheartening his opponent.

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

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...

I think you need to play a 4e warlord and see it. I thought the same thing in 2008, and then I played, and my opinion was utterly changed. No other class introduced since the druid IMHO has such a strong case for it in actual play.

 

[steeldragons]

And likewise, anyone can RP being an inspiring leader. Nothing stops a wizard from shouting "CHARGE!", or "watch out!".

YES! Exactly!

But, you need a class to give those things a mechanical bonuses.

Oo. So close...What the "don't care and/or con-Warlord" folks are saying and the "pro-warlord" folks can't answer is...."Why?"

I'll concede that point.

Thank you. Just had to get that out. I feel much better now.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm sorry, but this is not a slippery slope argument. Nor are all slippery slopes fallacious.

Its an argument of consistency which is opposed to your argument of consistency, which is to say you argue we don't need classes which do things we can already do, but you fail to accept that the consistent consequence of this is that classes like ranger are redundant and have no more basis to exist than warlord.

Hmmm. You may be right. I suppose your argument may be closer to reductio ad absurdum perhaps? Anyone better at pointing these things out got a better answer?

I mean, saying warlord has to exist lest the other classes' existence become less valid just smacks of fallacy. Some kind or t'other.

Several years of open playtest and professional molding has given us an edition with the 12 broadly accepted classes that span the bulk of archetypes. For a reason. I trust them (and us) to have given us what makes sense for the system as presented. Will there be other stuff down the road? Or course. Might a warlord be one of them? Perhaps. But I'd recommend you quit trying to discredit what we have as some means of validating your own aesthetic preferences.

 

[mellored]

which is to say you argue we don't need classes which do things we can already do, but you fail to accept that the consistent consequence of this is that classes like ranger are redundant and have no more basis to exist than warlord.

I think a stronger point is that no one can do what the warlord can do.

Unlike a ranger or paladin, which is a mix of several aspects blended together. It's addition. (1/2 fighter + 1/2 cleric = paladin).

Warlord is separating out and refining an aspect, rather then mixing.