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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?"

Why do you need a class to be able to cast spells or make multiple attacks with a weapon, or anything else? Isn't the answer self-evident?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

You could accuse me of excluding the middle, but you'd have to show how it is that warlord is an extreme and ranger is not.

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

There's no 'fallacy' there. You can simply say "so what, it doesn't have to be logical" but then you do have to abandon logical arguments! Or you can try to describe some specific way in which warlord is 'just different' systematically from other ideas for classes.

So far the most cogent I've gotten here is that "anyone should be able to do that" and "class mechanics shouldn't impose on other player's agency", but neither of those is fully convincing as we have examples of such imposition, and EVERY classes functions could be said to be something every character should be able to do. There needs to be a specific reason why THIS ONE THING should be left commonly to all characters, while picking locks isn't.

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.

They had a page count and they iterated a design and content that filled that page count within their business constraints. I'm sure most of the questions about what went into that page count are answered by "game design considerations", but clearly there are other classes and sub-classes/options that WOULD have made sense, and even appear to be intended, but not described. There are two druid circles because that's what they had page count for, etc. I wouldn't put THAT much weight on these decisions. It could be some things are excluded for design/aesthetic reasons, others for lack of space, and others simply because of individual taste or perhaps they just didn't come up with a set of mechanics they liked well enough, etc.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

If we try looking for "leader in a skirmish group of equals" type thing though, as is more apt to be found in typical D&D games, there are a few cinematic examples that come to mind:

The recent Dwayne Johnson Hercules movie. He was the charismatic leader of a team of warriors who traveled around with him. Did he seem warlord-y? I think the opposite. The team went around making him look and act better. Maybe they were all warlords...?

The "historicalized" King Arthur movie from 2004. He and his crew of arsekickers running around being awesome and all. But was there much in the way of warlord-y behavior from him? Not sure anything stands out. Though I confess its been a few years since I've seen it.

Anyone have any other examples?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'd agree with that. You COULD say that a different aspect of the same thing is high level AD&D fighters with their retinues of followers. So in that sense a 'warlord concept' maybe has been addressed in a sense, just not in terms of a class.

I'd say its high time that aspect was pulled out and refined, but apparently 2/3 of the people voting 'yes' to that isn't enough!

 

[I'm A Banana]

My point is that D&D does non-magical poorly, and a non-magical warlord isn't going to fix that. (But that's a different topic).

I think some folks felt that the warlord class helped fix that (by not requiring magic for healing).

I think some of those people that want that out of a warlord class have missed the memo that healing itself isn't required in 5e, either, so I'm reluctant to accept the statement "5e needs a class devoted to non-magical healing and support so that you can more easily run a low/no magic party." I am sympathetic to those who want to have a leader's shout rouse someone from a near-death state as a thing, and it is a thing that 5e doesn't currently do very well. I just think healing hit points is not the way to go with that mechanic if you want to have a big tent that includes the "wound narrative" of hit points.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

They had a page count and they iterated a design and content that filled that page count within their business constraints. I'm sure most of the questions about what went into that page count are answered by "game design considerations", but clearly there are other classes and sub-classes/options that WOULD have made sense, and even appear to be intended, but not described. There are two druid circles because that's what they had page count for, etc. I wouldn't put THAT much weight on these decisions. It could be some things are excluded for design/aesthetic reasons, others for lack of space, and others simply because of individual taste or perhaps they just didn't come up with a set of mechanics they liked well enough, etc.

This does not grok when you take into consideration the transcript I posted, in my thread here, on this very subject. Of the conversation between Mearls and Thompson discussing the difficulties (and contention) with the warlord class specifically.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I play AL, as a player not a DM. If Warlord graduates from UA and becomes a "core class" I will almost certainly have to play with Warlords. Even if you want to try to think of it as "basic" versus "advanced" game. There is no way AL won't eventually encompass more official classes & races. No way.

There's really two things going on here... OK, three:

1) It's been insisted in this thread that interest in the warlord is very low and opposition to it very high. If so, there's no reason to think it'd ever be added to 'core' or allowed in AL.

2) You've kept asking for middle ground, adding the Warlord to the Advanced Game as an optional class that'll never see the light of AL is such a middle ground. Fans can use it, detractors can avoid it. I doubt Mike Mearls would have any problem relegating it to a sufficiently high-walled option-ghetto to allay any reasonable fear.

3) You've kept saying the warlord has no real concept, or an objectionable concept. If so, there'd be no chance of it being forced upon AL. If you believe it almost inevitably would see use in AL - at virtually every table, since you fear you won't be able to avoid it, doesn't that show you believe the opposite: that it's a popular and desirable concept that many players will flock to?

EDIT: "advanced" content will also appear in official adventures, which I buy and run for my table.

And, since you're running, can drop from that content, effortlessly. Insert a battlemaster, bard, or 0-level commoner or whatever, and just RP it as a tactical genius with high INT,CHA, and ruthless ambition, and you'll have the adventure's Ceasar or whatever he's supposed to be.

The peanut butter analogy is about as weak as it gets, by the way. I don't go to supermarkets for the aesthetic experience, and I don't have social cooking sessions with the other shoppers.

Not the point of the analogy, at all. People really do have severe peanut allergies, yet the rest of us are still allowed to eat peanut butter. You may dislike the idea of a warlord in D&D, that doesn't man everyone in the world must be prevented from every playing one in D&D.

Maybe the peanut butter analogy is better applied to having the Warlord appear in some other RPG available in my FLGS. Fine, I'll grant you that: I'll be happy for you if my FLGS continues to offer RPGs with Warlords in them, as long as they're not in the jar that I'll be eating with my Grognard Jelly.

That would be another case of the dismissive "5e isn't for you, because you liked 4e," argument. You're not just telling me I can't play a Warlord, but that I shouldn't play D&D /at all/.

More like all the descriptions of the Warlord focus on that one way of describing it. Just reading what I see.

Except, they /don't/. The Leader role and Warlord class both came right out and said they were not meant to imply being the party-leader or 'boss.'

God I pray so.

I'm not one to believe that most people are basically good, but they're mostly better in person than on-line. Especially if they hide behind anonymity on the internet and/or use it as a way to vent.

Sorry. Typing before thinking. My bad.

Otoh I can grant an extra attack to four different characters.

4 different assassins, for instance?

2) I don't see an issue. Healing in 5e isn't necessary to keep going - there's no need for ANY character to be devoted to healing. Healing potions don't scale, either.

Healing spells, do, and they're the main way support classes heal.

I do agree, though, that nothing stops, say, a cleric, from never prepping a healing spell, though, in 4e, Healing Word was mandatory. By the same token, just as any version of Inspiring Word should restore hps as it did in 4e, it shouldn't be mandatory as it was in 4e, but one of many possible maneuvers, tactics or whatever you want to call a given set of warlord options.

If you're not willing to appreciate that others have a different view that is worthy of taking into account, then this isn't a conversation and you're just soapboxing.

If you are willing to accept that others have a different view that's worthy of taking into account, why argue against the warlord. Or psionics Or anything else that was in a PH1 (or 2) in a past edition and which other fans are still patiently waiting to see included by 5e. Ask to see it in a balanced (to the standards of the system), playable, form, certainly, but not demand it never see the light of day.

My point is that D&D does non-magical poorly, and a non-magical warlord isn't going to fix that. (But that's a different topic).

Actually, the 4e Warlord (and a few other things) /did/ fix it. 4e could do an all-martial campaign, in a low magic world, sans magic items even, and it'd've worked fine. You wouldn't be plane-hopping, and you wouldn't be using a lot of the more overtly supernatural monsters, to fit the theme, but it would have played seamlessly. In fact, even without those other provisos, I've played in all martial parties, and they got by, even in adventures that made no allowances for the possibility.

Sometimes, I think that's the single thing that enraged edition-war-era "h4ters" more than anything else at the time. The lack of overwhelming caster supremacy in 4e.

While balance clearly isn't the prime concern in 5e it may have been in some prior editions, it'd be nice to see a little more variety and 'agency' than is currently represented by the 5 non-magic-using builds, all of which are deeply committed to DPR as their major contribution to the party's success in combat. The Warlord could certainly be one opportunity to do so. And to help show that edition-war era animosities can be put behind us.

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?"

We want a Warlord. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.

There are lots of other good reasons, but even if that were it, it'd be enough.

 

[steeldragons]

Or you can try to describe some specific way in which warlord is 'just different' systematically from other ideas for classes.

OH! Well that's simple. It is systematically "just different" from other class ideas because it was created, quite literally, to follow/fill a systematic class grid that was completely artificial and developed for a different game.

Again, to be clear, that's not 4e bashing. That is just simple fact. Exactly what it was created for. They needed a "martial" "leader" to fit into their little boxes and said..."How 'bout this guy?"

So, yes. The warlord is "just different systematically" and, thus, does not fit/work to include in a non- class "role"/power source grid organization. 5e is not such a system.

I guess we're all done here then. That was easy. Someone shoulda just asked that on page 1.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'd say its high time that aspect was pulled out and refined, but apparently 2/3 of the people voting 'yes' to that isn't enough!

Since you find meaning in meaningless numbers, how about this one?

There are a lot of differing estimates as to how many people actually play D&D at least semi-regularly. I will go with one of the more conservative numbers I've seen lately. Approximately 2 million worldwide.

So the number of people we know want a warlord is (based on the poll as it is currently at the time of this posting)... 199:2,000,000.

 

[Imaro]

Sometimes, I think that's the single thing that enraged h4ters more than anything else. The lack of overwhelming caster supremacy in 4e.

Does anyone but you still use this term? I mean seriously it's only purpose is as a sly insult to those who didn't like 4e and as thinly disguised edition war rhetoric.

EDIT: I mean seriously you don't see anyone calling fans of 4e anything but "fans of 4e"... how about you return the favor??