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

[Hussar]

Honestly, I think the Barbarian with it's Totem mechanics actually might be a better mechanical fit than the Battlemaster with its Superiority Dice. Note, you'd need to change the chassis a bit, since I don't want a Warlord with d12 HP.

Imagine, instead of Raging, you get Stances. The stances can be limited to a certain number of times per day, or perhaps they refresh on a short rest. I'm spit balling here, but, at will stances would be too weak.

You could have an Inspiring Stance, a Bravura Stance and a Tactical Stance. At 3rd, 6th, 10th and 14th, your stance effect changes. Or, you might stick with the barbarian mechanics and have three different stances at each level, and let the player pick and choose. So, a Tactical Stance at 3rd level might let you grant a single attack or move as a bonus action. A 6th level Tactical Stance might grant movement to multiple allies. 10th level might be a bigger buff - if basic Warlords grant an initiative bonus, say, then a 10th level Tactical stance grants a bonus plus proficiency bonus to everyone within a certain range. At 14th level, maybe you can grant a full action to one character as a bonus action. Dunno, I'd have to let people who are far more mathy than me figure out the exact numbers here.

Stances could be bonus or full actions to activate, depending on how powerful you want them to be. Let the stances last for 1 minute. You can use a number of stances per day depending on your level.

Your base Warlord, like the base Barbarian would come with a handful of common abilities - ranged healing of some sort (I really do like the idea of allowing allies to spend Hit Dice in Combat with bonuses, plus maybe a bardlike bonus to all healing on short rests), a second attack per round, maybe a way to trade an attack for another character's attack or trade your move to move another character, some skill bonuses (I love the idea of granting bonuses similar to a Guidance Spell) to allies at 7th level and you're done.

I really don't see balance issues here. Sure, there could be if you're granting too many actions or too high of a bonus, but, none of this is inherently unbalanced. I'd also point out that all of this exists in other classes. Nothing is particularly new here, just combined in a new way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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)?

No one needs to be cut at all. There's no reason you can't use a warlord with inspirational healing while I use one without it. The idea is to disentangle the character type from the HP model, since we can generally agree the character type would be a nice addition but we cannot generally agree that HP should be inspirational (if the last 7 years have taught us anything). The compromise in question would allow for a class that fits the archetype of a warlord (inspirational leader that rallies allies to fight on) that is compatible with both HP models. Insisting that they be bundled together unnecessarily saddles a character concept with an mechanical barrier to acceptance it doesn't require to fulfill its goal as an inspirational leader class. It's clearly true that one can have inspirational HP without the warlord, and it should be evident now that one can have an inspirational leader without having inspirational HP.

Or perhaps to put it another way: many tables would accept an inspirational leader character. Far fewer would accept inspirational HP. This is evidenced by decades of acceptance of lords and leaders and bards and paladins and whatnot, and almost a decade of arguing about warlord healing. If we can get the former without the latter, everyone gets what they want, since a game's HP model is a different dial than if a game wants an inspirational leader character in it or not. That's not a cut against anyone - a warlord fan who is also a fan of inspirational healing gives up nothing in gameplay. It's simply a way forward such that the greatest number of potential fans can be served by the addition of an inspirational leader class.

I mean, surely you wouldn't argue that in order to use inspirational HP, you need a warlord. So why put inspirational HP as a wall between the warlord character type and all those people who would accept it, but for its use of inspirational HP?

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.

I am not convinced that this is reason enough to abandon the idea of something that works for more people than a warlord class packaged with inspirational healing. I am also a little disappointed that you see what it adds for other players (like me) and you think this is "nothing."

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

They often model a rush of adrenaline, a temporary boost of energy, an ability to fight on despite the wounds. Take a hit with temp HP and you still take it, your body just cares less, doesn't shut down as easily. In other words, pretty much what warlord healing has been said to model.

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

Maybe it could (proposed addition to Rally: "a character at 0 hp remains conscious as long as they have temporary hp from this maneuver.").

What it can't do, if it wants to remain consistent with wound-based HP, is remove your wounds, which is what healing HP represents when HP are wounds.

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 could explain it, but it seems unnecessary. If you unshackle the warlord from inspirational HP, those who enjoy inspirational HP can use it with inspirational HP, and those who enjoy wound-based HP can use it with wound-based HP, and the world shall continue on apace.

The decision whether or not to use inspirational HP does not need to be tethered to the Warlord. It is not a prerequisite for the character type, or for any of the character's purported essential mechanical effects (such as inspiring folks to fight on after they've been downed), so insisting that they be bundled together or be some violation of the archetype seems an unnecessary burden on the class's presentation when it could be otherwise and not require you to give up your HP model in the slightest.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It was at-best a serviceable patch. You still had problems with ending conditions (remove affliction), and their never was more than four options for classes. (Every other power-source got more than four, and had one per role. There never was a martial controller because even they couldn't stretch credibility enough to make a non-magical one).

Not really, you could always take ritual caster as a fighter if you had an INT 13, not exactly a high bar

We want an Illusionist. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.
We want an Assassin. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.
We want a Priest of Specific Mythos. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.
We want an Elf class. It was a full class in a PH1 of a prior ed. 5e is meant to be for everyone.

I think every one of these classes has as much chance of seeing print as a warlord these days.[/QUOTE]

Well, its kind of a silly list, illusionists and other specialist mages DO exist, explicitly, and have all the advantages of the old illusionist class in any practical sense, plus a lot.

Assassins existed in 4e too (probably 3.x as well, I dunno). While I always thought it was a bit of a weak class concept, being more of a description of an activity you do than a profession, you never know, 5e could well gain one.

Priest of Specific Mythos - why not? There are almost sure to be FR-specific priests and whatnot, and likely things like demi-human speciality priests, etc. The basis for this already exists in 5e. It merely waits to be fully fleshed-out.

Elf class, yes, haha. You made a funny Although I'm sure there are already 3rd party ones.

There are of course always some people asking for pretty much anything you can imagine, but the very fact that we have 100 page threads on Warlord in 5e tells me that its a hot topic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Cutter from the Black Company series.

Whiskeyjack from the Malazan series.

Mad Max - he's not a particularly good fighter, although he can fight. But he inspires all around him to fight better. Particularly the Beyond Thunderdome Mad Max. Not so much Fury Road.

Maximus from Gladiator.

If you're going with the Roman theme, how about the original movie version of Spartacus?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think that at least three posters in this thread - @ChrisCarlson, @Elfcrusher, and @Imaro - are objecting to the warlord existing in UA or some other 5e supplement.

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

Since I got specifically called out I thought I should probably respond. Objecting to the Warlord appearing in UA or another supplement wasn't really my intent. At least partly because I think there's zero chance of that happening, with or without me. I originally engaged to try once again to understand the appeal of the class to some people, and why certain characteristics were non-negotiable, and to find out...mostly as an exercise in game design...if there was something that would address my concerns while still being acceptable to the proponents.

I honestly do find it a curious puzzle why this one class, in one specific form, is so precious to some players. I think the analogy to Illusionists is a great example: some people liked it as its own class, and the Illusionist sub-class bears almost no resemblance to that original class, and yet you don't find 100 page vitriolic threads about Illusionists. And if the debate did arise, I would think that Illusionist fans would be so eager to have their class back that they'd be in a mood to compromise on the details. Not so with the Warlord crowd.

Somebody should write their psychology dissertation on this one.

Anyway, the discussion reverted...unfortunately but perhaps inevitably...to "why can't you just not use a class you don't like?" and "if you oppose it you must just be a mean & selfish person" and to defend myself I got sucked into a pointless side debate. Sure, if the Warlord ever becomes official I will do my best to refluff it or ignore it. My interest in this discussion isn't to make sure the Warlord doesn't happen...Mike Mearls doesn't need my help with that...but because I like game design and solving hard problems.

If this thread (or ones like it) had arrived at a point where all the participants said, "Ok, I'd sign off on that" I would have found it a rewarding use of time, even if doing so would have zero impact on official content. Props to mellored for being willing to have that discussion, but he seems to be in the minority.

 

[Hussar]

Well, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], could it possibly be that A) We have a full Illusionist class in 5e, complete with pretty much everything a 1e Illusionist could do, plus more or B) there is a larger contingent of players who want a warlord class than an illusionist class or C) both of the above?

If you want a very similar discussion to this one, surf back a few months at En World and look at the Psionicist threads. Only difference is, the Psionicist crowd GOT what they wanted - a full Psion class. Every single argument applied to Warlords equally applies to Psions. So, pretty much, the arguments against warlords hold about as much water as the ones agains Psions. IOW, none.

But, out of curiosity, what does a 1e Illusionist have that a 5e one does not? What's missing? Other than the fact that 5e uses a somewhat different casting system, what spells or abilities does an illusionist have from previous editions that is missing from 5e?

 

[MoonSong]

Since I got specifically called out I thought I should probably respond. Objecting to the Warlord appearing in UA or another supplement wasn't really my intent. At least partly because I think there's zero chance of that happening, with or without me. I originally engaged to try once again to understand the appeal of the class to some people, and why certain characteristics were non-negotiable, and to find out...mostly as an exercise in game design...if there was something that would address my concerns while still being acceptable to the proponents.

I honestly do find it a curious puzzle why this one class, in one specific form, is so precious to some players. I think the analogy to Illusionists is a great example: some people liked it as its own class, and the Illusionist sub-class bears almost no resemblance to that original class, and yet you don't find 100 page vitriolic threads about Illusionists. And if the debate did arise, I would think that Illusionist fans would be so eager to have their class back that they'd be in a mood to compromise on the details. Not so with the Warlord crowd.

Somebody should write their psychology dissertation on this one.

Anyway, the discussion reverted...unfortunately but perhaps inevitably...to "why can't you just not use a class you don't like?" and "if you oppose it you must just be a mean & selfish person" and to defend myself I got sucked into a pointless side debate. Sure, if the Warlord ever becomes official I will do my best to refluff it or ignore it. My interest in this discussion isn't to make sure the Warlord doesn't happen...Mike Mearls doesn't need my help with that...but because I like game design and solving hard problems.

If this thread (or ones like it) had arrived at a point where all the participants said, "Ok, I'd sign off on that" I would have found it a rewarding use of time, even if doing so would have zero impact on official content. Props to mellored for being willing to have that discussion, but he seems to be in the minority.

Well, I think this is twofold. First the emotional. For better or worse the Warlord has become 4e's poster child. Its apparent exclusion just sent the wrong message to 4e's fans, who felt likewise excluded from the big tent. And Mearl's (and before him Monte's) commentaries didn't help. So warlord fans want something that makes them feel included, and feel that compromise in the shape and form of the warlord is futile at this point, it is already confined to the niche-getto, so a compromised warlord at this stage would be like salt on the wound.

On the other hand, the warlord did open up a lot of campaign and character space. It solved the problem of "the pacifist", just go lazy and you can be Frodo or a non-combatant and still contribute to combat. It also allowed players to go into non-magic campaigns and was welcome into settings like Dark Sun. On top it opens up the chance to play very tactical and inspirational leaders (not to mention a non-xenaified version of Joan of Arc) On this front a compromise would remove those narrative and campaign options short of heavy refluffing -and 5e doesn't lend itself to that without clunkiness-

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think I fall more on Tony's side. The problem with a fighter subtype is that it is TOO good with weapons. Not that SOME warlords shouldn't be, but it should be possible to have a range there from 'about as good as a cleric' up to a bit shy of a leaderish battlemaster. Give it several possible major shticks, inspirational healing, commander's strike/positioning/initiative, and buff/debuff, with the ability to mix and match them a bit (IE you'd have 3 subtypes but at least one class feature would be common to all three but give a choice that fell into one of them, so that any given warlord could double down or diversify a bit).

That's how I would do it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], could it possibly be that A) We have a full Illusionist class in 5e, complete with pretty much everything a 1e Illusionist could do, plus more or B) there is a larger contingent of players who want a warlord class than an illusionist class or C) both of the above?

If you want a very similar discussion to this one, surf back a few months at En World and look at the Psionicist threads. Only difference is, the Psionicist crowd GOT what they wanted - a full Psion class. Every single argument applied to Warlords equally applies to Psions. So, pretty much, the arguments against warlords hold about as much water as the ones agains Psions. IOW, none.

I can think of lots of arguments against warlords that don't apply to psions, except nobody seems to want to hear/believe my arguments. Psions don't encroach mechanically on intra-party social dynamics, or impinge on the player's right to describe his own character's mental states. There is no language saying, "Your allies' awe for your astounding intellect causes them to..." etc.

Nor does "Psion" describe an earned title. It's a one-word description of their trademark abilities, not a role to which they aspire.

And no form of psionics currently exists in any base class, sub-class, or feat. Warlordism appears in several places.

Psionics has also been around much, much longer than Warlords. (I'm not saying that should be relevant, but you are arguing that "every argument that applies to one applies to the other".)

So, yes, there are some parallels between the history of the classes, the strong emotions they provoke on either side, etc. But the reasons for objecting to them (and supporting them) are not identical.

But, most importantly, the Psionics threads achieve nowhere near the epic status of the Warlord threads, nor are Psionics fans as intransigent in their views about what the class must include.

But, out of curiosity, what does a 1e Illusionist have that a 5e one does not? What's missing? Other than the fact that 5e uses a somewhat different casting system, what spells or abilities does an illusionist have from previous editions that is missing from 5e?

Oh, FFS, I don't know. I haven't looked at an AD&D PHB in 25 years.

 

[Aldarc]

I can think of lots of arguments against warlords that don't apply to psions, except nobody seems to want to hear/believe my arguments.

To be fair, Elfcrusher, just because you have arguments does not mean that we will find them convincing. Your intra-party social dynamic hang-ups is one of those that a lot of us pro-warlorders don't particularly find all that convincing. You're even one of the few warlord detractors who even voices this concern on a regular basis. From the time of the 4E warlord's publication up until this thread, you are the first detractor of the warlord I have heard who has raised this as an issue.

Nor does "Psion" describe an earned title. It's a one-word description of their trademark abilities, not a role to which they aspire.

Bard. Druid. Paladin. Ranger. These were all earned titles.

And no form of psionics currently exists in any base class, sub-class, or feat. Warlordism appears in several places.

Far Realms Warlock.

But, most importantly, the Psionics threads achieve nowhere near the epic status of the Warlord threads, nor are Psionics fans as intransigent in their views about what the class must include.

As a psionics fan, I can say that you're wrong.