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

[Hussar]

And still not a single one needs a warlord class, over what is already present in the 5e PHB, to emulate.

But, as has been repeatedly stated, this is an impossible criteria for a class. You can make virtually anyone with just cleric, fighter, thief, wizard if you squint hard enough. There's absolutely no reason to have the other classes in the books, if "you can already make it with existing classes" is the criteria for a new class. 2e shows that quite clearly with the Kits that they had. Minor tweaks to existing classes to shape them into new archetypes.

The idea that I can take a fictional character as evidence that it can ONLY be presented as a single class, as justification for the existence of that class, is far too high a bar. Conan can be presented as a simple fighter - which he would be in Basic/Expert D&D. Or he could be a Fighter/thief if we use AD&D. Or arguably a bunch of other classes (you could make a decent argument for monk if you liked) could model Conan. Is Aragorn a ranger or a fighter? Well, depends on who you ask and which system we're using. In 5e? I'd likely go more with BM fighter to be honest. He's not an archer or a two weapon fighter, so ranger is largely out, nor does he cast spells or have an animal companion. Does that mean we should eject Rangers? No, of course not.

The bar for the inclusion of a new class, whether it's a Warlord or a Psionicist or whatever, is, "Does this class fill a niche that is largely unexplored by other classes?" You can make a pretty decent Psion with a Sorcerer or Warlock. It gets about 60% there. Yet, we're seeing a new Psionic class coming out because Psion fans want that other 40%. You can make a pretty decent Artificer with a wizard subclass, but, again, it's only about 60% there and fans would like to see a full class. You can make a pretty decent warlord with a Battlemaster or a Bard (or possibly a mix of both) but, fans want a new class for that other 40%.

The fact that you can get some of the way there using existing classes doesn't mean that there isn't room for that extra bit to make a new class. The fact that you can model fictional characters numerous ways does not preclude creating a new class.

What rather baffles me about all this is we had push back with other classes - the Psionic ones for example, but, never to this degree. What is it about the Warlord that is so objectionable? Is it the healing? The buffing? What? What is needed for a Warlord class is a slightly different chassis than the Battlemaster (different HD, no 3rd and 4th attack, less armor for instance) but using the BM's mechanics expand on what the BM can do in the game right now. The BM can already grant extra attacks, so, that isn't unbalanced. The BM can already grant some Temp HP, so, that's not unbalanced. The BM can already grant extra movement, again, so, that's not unbalanced. Granting some more of the same things will not necessarily unbalance the system, particularly if the one granting the bonuses isn't directly doing damage.

 

[Ohillion]

Doesn't seem that relevant a question, the Warlord isn't a base class. Though, WotC does seem to be seriously considering doing just that to the poor Ranger.

I think it is relevant and it looks like you swayed a bit in that direction too. The 5e PHB clearly makes a distinction between the base class (Fighter for instance) and a deviation from the base into a more specialized type of fighter. A supplemental compendium could do the same. WotC has plenty of time to fill in the classes that people would love to play. If they're scouring forums since they've given up their own, it seems as though they're going to see the demand.

So, let's say, we define what classes are core. Work from there. Third level is the beginning of the deviation from the core already. I think the same could be done for making a warlord path. It could be done for the Barbarian class as well. The class could easily offer more than just Berserker and Animal Totem path (that's really only two for the poor Barbarian). A Barbarian could get a Gladiator path (which is why i'd multiclass as fighter, but really, should I have to?). And look at the Cleric; SEVEN paths! ZOMG! This practically cries out for a supplement for all the other core classes. Druids only get two Circles. Monks get three Ways. While I recognize these are ways of defining the greater core of the class, they are also ways of creating a flavor that a core alone wouldn't give you. I'd certainly advocate for a supplement that would give players greater variety. And, at the same time, WotC gets to maintain a set of rules that are left to the masses to come up with themselves. To what gain would that be? I'm sure there are many AL players that would love to pull in classes and archetypes that they would like to play but are unable to at this time.

(I lied, that (obviously) was not my last post on this thread.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it is relevant and it looks like you swayed a bit in that direction too. The 5e PHB clearly makes a distinction between the base class (Fighter for instance) and a deviation from the base into a more specialized type of fighter.

I even typed 'base' but I was thinking you meant 'Core' as in standard-game, opt-out if you don't like it, the whole time. Yes, the Warlord needs to a be a 'full' class, not a sub-class of some existing or hypothetical class.

WotC has plenty of time to fill in the classes that people would love to play. If they're scouring forums since they've given up their own, it seems as though they're going to see the demand.

So, let's say, we define what classes are core. Work from there. Third level is the beginning of the deviation from the core already.

Yeah, we're using core differently. Sub-classes or archetypes are one thing, classes another. Whether a class and/or sub-class is Basic Game (free on-line - the Champion, Evoker, Life Cleric, and Theif sub-classes), Standard (all the classes & their sub-class in the PH, optional only in the sense you can ban them like anything else), or 'Advanced Game'/'modular'/whatever (optional in the sense the DM needing to opt-in for the class to be available to a player).

IMHO, the Warlord should be a Class, with multiple archetypes or sub-classes of it's own, and should have been in the Standard Game (the PH, or added to Core & AL-legal). I'm quite willing to relent on the latter and accept it as solely Advanced-Game opt-in content.

So, let's say, we define what classes are core. Work from there. Third level is the beginning of the deviation from the core already. ...look at the Cleric; SEVEN paths! ZOMG! This practically cries out for a supplement for all the other core classes. Druids only get two Circles. Monks get three Ways.

I agree that a Big Book of Sub-Classes would be a cool thing, and yes, the Cleric & Wizard are way ahead in that regard, at 15 between them vs 23 for everyone else put together.

(I lied, that (obviously) was not my last post on this thread.)

Lol.

 

[Remathilis]

Silly me. My mistake. Memory is the first thing to go with old age. Nevertheless, we do see the roots of the 4E warlord in the 3E marshal (as well as later supplements like Tome of Battle and Heroes of Battle). It does its legacy an injustice to simply say that the warlord exists simply as a 4E creation to fill a grid when it does have legacy.

The connection is weak, but its there. That said, if we only focused on the "legacy" elements of the warlord, they class would grant bonuses to various rolls and a few dash-actions. Most of the things people want from the class appear are exclusive to the 4e version, and more than a few of them came from the fact the Warlord was pegged as a "leader" and had to match what the cleric could do, but in a non-magical way using the same mechanics.

4e was pretty good at keeping mechanics that accomplished similar things in different 'fluff' ways, consistent, yes. That made it a little clearer, and, gave it a shallower learning curve. All to the good, but not really relevant. It /could/ have made the class designed tighter and simpler to create if it had actually re-cycled whole powers, but it didn't. Each class got it's own distinctive list. Set the bar for new-class creation pretty high.

A lot of this is the backbone of the "sameiness" criticism of 4e, of course. The fact the warlord, cleric, bard, artificer, shaman, etc all shared a very similar "X Word" power is a great example. 5e went the harder route to avoid such sameiness, which makes it infinitely harder to balance.

Thank you for that. My remark was about "h4ters" in the past, though, not directed at any current participant in the thread. Your idea that 4e failed to deliver capable martial classes, when it so clearly did, just reminded me of it because of the subject, I didn't mean to imply that it was an /example/ of it.

Not that it didn't deliver, but that some of that was a quirk of 4e's unique design elements: ADEU, roles determining mechanics, powers granting similar effects regardless of power-source, emphasis of tactical/grid combat, etc. Under those rules, a lot of classes make sense as unique archetypes that 5e finds redundant now (example A: cleric/invoker).

I'd think the Warlord mostly address the social side of that imbalance, but, yes, there's so much 'design space' left on the martial side that it'd take multiple classes - full classes, not mere sub-classes of the high-DPR-specialized Fighter & Rogue - to really open up player options (we have 5 non-caster options, all dedicated to high-DPR, there's /lots/ of room to grow). But I disagree that the Warlord isn't a necessary part of that in a practical sense, not unless there's some other viable concept that can take up it's practical functions. Not that such an alternative would be grounds to deny fans of the class.

I'm a fan of base-classes myself, but I don't see /enough/ daylight between warlord and fighter. Every class has high DPR potential (via magic, class abilities, or multiple attacks) so I don't see a particular need to have a class that isn't (and to be honest, if we're aiming for a non-combat class, warlord is probably the worst archetype for it). I think a fighter with a subclass thas has some group-buffs (rather than self-buffs) could do that well. To me, the problem is that the battle-master isn't focused enough to be a good support class, but a dedicated support-subclass could.

So, I think there is probably room for some fighter subclass that can grant something akin to bardic inspiration, something like Commander's strike, a temp-hp granting ability and the ability to trigger HD recovery outside short rests and call it a warlord (or something else). I don't necessarily see a new 20 level class with subclasses, but that might be a failure of imagination on my part.

Either way, I don't expect it anytime before year's end, even in a UA.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

...obviously...

Obviously.

 

[Aldarc]

The connection is weak, but its there. That said, if we only focused on the "legacy" elements of the warlord, they class would grant bonuses to various rolls and a few dash-actions. Most of the things people want from the class appear are exclusive to the 4e version, and more than a few of them came from the fact the Warlord was pegged as a "leader" and had to match what the cleric could do, but in a non-magical way using the same mechanics.

Of course. But that's something that all multi-generational classes experience: they pick up and carry the 'baggage' of prior iterations. The warlock highly reflects its 4E pacts as well - the infernal, the fey, and the far realms - which were not present as part of the warlock's 3E representation. Does the druid of 5E even look like its first or second iteration or does it also reflect changes accrued by its iterative reinterpretations through prior editions? The fact that the Warlord that its fans want represented in 5E is mostly tied to its 4E interpretation seems like a flimsy reason to disregard its legacy or future as a class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A lot of this is the backbone of the "sameiness" criticism of 4e, of course.

The 5e Warlord will not be in 4e, it will not use 4e mechanics, it will use 5e mechanics and design paradigms, which are much /more/ open. A 5e Warlord could do everything the 4e Warlord did, but be broader, more capable, and more interesting to play. There's just more possibilities, not fewer. It might be harder for a DM to balance, too, but then so are most 5e classes.

5e went the harder route to avoid such sameiness, which makes it infinitely harder to balance.

5e doesn't put the premium on balance that 4e did, nor did it make such baroque attempts as it as 1e, but it /can/ be balanced by a DM willing to embrace the Empowerment it offers him, and the addition of a Warlord would not change that in the least. In fact, it makes designing a Warlord class easier. A 'Tactician' archetype won't have to worry about stepping on the toes of 'controllers,' for instance.

Not that it didn't deliver, but that some of that was a quirk of 4e's unique design elements: ADEU, roles determining mechanics, powers granting similar effects regardless of power-source, emphasis of tactical/grid combat, etc. Under those rules, a lot of classes make sense as unique archetypes that 5e finds redundant now (example A: cleric/invoker).

The Invoker wasn't in the running, as far as I know. 5e already provides multiple paths to various archetypes. A wilderness Warrior could be a Fighter/Druid, an Outlander Barbarian, or a Ranger. A Holy Warrior could be a Cleric or a Paladin, or a Fighter with an Acolyte background. There's full-class, sub-class, feat & Multi-class options that could be used alone or in combination to model existing archetypes from a variety of directions and to a variety of degrees. An Acolyte Fighter is a holy warrior, but doesn't fill the shoes of the Clerics of past editions.

I'm a fan of base-classes myself, but I don't see /enough/ daylight between warlord and fighter.

You must be checking for it at night.

Every class has high DPR potential (via magic, class abilities, or multiple attacks) so I don't see a particular need to have a class that isn't

That's writing off the Fighter. Seriously. Sure, other classes can approach it situationally and be expending resources. I don't doubt that a good Warlord would be able to use buffing and action grants to indirectly make similar DPR contributions - being able to do that /while/ dishing out fighter DPR would be tough to justify even under 5e's loose standards of balance, though.

To me, the problem is that the battle-master isn't focused enough to be a good support class, but a dedicated support-subclass could.

If you stuck to the archetype pattern, no.

If you re-wrote it to the extent that it'd be essentially a new class, perhaps. Even then, you'd be up against the fact that the Warlord would need several archetypes of it's own.

Either way, I don't expect it anytime before year's end, even in a UA.

No disagreement here. Don't ever let it be said I'm impatient - or optimistic. ;P

 

[pemerton]

D&D has always sucked for emulating Non-magical, non-supernatural gaming.

<snip>

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

If by "non-magical, non-supernatural" you mean "historically realistic" then I agree. D&D is a fantasy gaming system.

But if you mean "non-magical protagonists", then I don't think D&D has always sucked at that. I think 4e, in particular, could handle it pretty well, especially if confined to Heroic and perhaps the lower half of Paragon tier.

And 4e certainly supports non-supernatural warlord hit point restoration.

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 agree completely. I think the best point is that 5e just has slightly different assumptions, so that there is no need for the Warlord as a core class.

5e has forced movement eg the Thunderwave spell. It has forced movement combined with damage (the same spell). And it has forced movement combined with damage at will (the same spell in the hands of an 18th level wizard).

5e has non-magical hit point restoration (second wind, hit dice).

5e has a PC build that involves spending actions to grant actions to tohers (the battlemaster).

In other words, 5e has all the elements that the 4e warlord is built around. It just doesn't have them put together in the particular mode of the warlord (especially inspiration healing).

I simply don't see what the "different assumptions" are that 5e makes (either about genre, or gameplay) that make a warlord inappropriate.

Has your position moved from "there should be no unnecessary complexity" to "there should be no corner cases" then? Because I think you'll find that equally untenable.

<snip>

Your view doesn't line up with the way D&D is played by countless tables that are quite content with abstract wounds. You can advocate for not considering those other views when designing a warlord-style mechanic, but such disregard is unnecessary and, in light of the last few years of warlord threads, probably not a great idea.

<snip>

I'm asking you to accept it in others', and to consider it when thinking about what the game might include and what an inspiring leader might look like in those games.

<snip>

You find these alternatives unacceptable, but your rationale for dubbing them so seems vague and shifting, perhaps a matter of aesthetics more than of function.

Appeals to compromise can't do any work here, as they cut both ways. Why am I expected to compromise with those who dislike inspirational healing - and thereby get what I regard as a poor warlord - when they could compromise with me (eg by just ignoring a class that is clearly not designed for them)?

As to my "vague and shifting" rationales for disliking temp hp: they're a mechanic that in my view adds nothing to the game and generate irritating corner cases.

For those who think of hp as meat, what are temp hp? An extra layer of meat sandwhiched on?

Conversely, if being pepped up can make your meat somehow tougher before the event, why can't it do so after the event?

In other words, I don't understand how non-magical temp hp fit with a hit-point-loss-and-gain-corresponds-to-biological-processes outlook in a way that non-magical hp recovery doesn't.

I also don't see how the psychic damage type fits into this model in a way that non-magical hp restoration doesn't, but that's probably a separate point.

I don't think you'll find any objection to the class in a UA or a supplement (I hope not)- I just don't think people want another core class.

I think that at least three posters in this thread - [MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson[/MENTION], [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - are objecting to the warlord existing in UA or some other 5e supplement.

why not <snippage> Design your desired class (homebrew) and play it in your campaign? See how it works! Playtest it. If it's a good concept, distribute it. Get grass roots support. Maybe something similar will be in a supplement.

I think that's one of the points of this thread, and the Warlording the Fighter thread.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that the world you describe sounds arid, but it's a stretch to say it depends on relationship mechanics.

Are you saying that every D&D game you've played in without Warlords or Bards has been arid and dry? That sounds like a bummer.

An alternative to inspirational mechanics, and relationship mechanics, is "trying harder" mechanics.

Pre-4e D&D generally lacks such mechanics. That's one reason why, for about 20 years (1990-2008 inclusive) I used a non-D&D system to run my heroic fantasy games (with most of the campaign and adventure material being converted from D&D). Rolemaster does have mechanics for trying harder, which permit players to express their PCs' degree of commitment.

(The lack of such mechanics in RQ is also a reason why it's not one of my favourite games, even though it is undoubtedly a thing of austere beauty.)

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

A hundred pages in, and still the same sort of bickering?

Sometimes we get a thread that becomes more trouble than it is worth - it supports arguing, but little insight. Days and days of butting heads doesn't really do anything useful for anyone. If it starts looking like nobody can let go, that need to *win* the argument is the point, it is time to let the thread go.

But, we also often give the worst head-butters a vacation from the boards first, to see if maybe that alleviates the problem.

So, you probably want to ask yourself if your next post is going to be insightful and constructive, of if the mods are going to see it as argumentative. Are you saying something that hasn't already been said in the last 100 pages? Are you just trying to get someone else to back down? Think carefully before you hit "Post".