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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Huh. I though "no magic" was "no magic", ritual included. Either way, I guess its a feat-tax for a warlord as every other leader gets ritual casting for free...

Well, some people liked 'rituals only', it evokes a rather different flavor for magic, but of course there are many possible options, and what you call them is somewhat up to interpretation.

My point is that being in PH1 didn't save other classes. Elements of basic, 1e, and 2e all got dropped. You can't argue something should be there just because it was in PH1 of an edition.

No, and I don't think any one argument is a solid for any given class, they each make their case based on a whole bunch of different factors. Being in another PHB1 adds weight to the contention that a class has significant value as an archetype. It isn't a guarantee that it will be included in later editions. Assassin and Illusionist disappeared forever after 1e. That indicates they're not so much needed, but Bard became a full class in 2e and a significant class in 3e and 4e (where it still didn't appear in the PHB1, yet I doubt anyone ever considered leaving it out of 5e).

Warlord was the smash hit class of 4e, that's all. It wasn't just "eh, we included this basically new class, some people played it." People LOVED it, and played it a LOT, and it seemed to add substantially to the game. Druid OTOH didn't seem to add that much to 4e. It wasn't an unpopular class, but it was just one of many classes and was overshadowed by a lot of others. Heck, even the Avenger overshadowed the druid. I think the Avenger is a bit niche to be brought forward into 5e, but you could make a case for it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Marching formation (move overland faster).
Secure encampments (spend 10 minutes and enemies have disadvantage to sneak upto you).
... I think that's it, beyond basic skills.

But that's ok, they can be weak on that pillar.

Yeah, and 'harder to surprise/ambush' which is KIND OF a combat thing, but kind of spans both. Sounds good to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm sure early on they had all kinds of ideas popping around, things and goals then change but people take all that as a promise that was now broken. Its why I don't blame them for not announcing things they are working on until they are ready to ship.

They didn't just say "we're working on something like that, and we might include it". They said something like "be patient, we're going to include a tactical module that will meet all your needs and answer your objections." and then never produced even a playtest of such a module. I don't think they 'lied' per-se, they were just very cavalier with their promises. I would never trust any of them to do what they say they will do at this point, only a fool would. If those weren't promises, then what is?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actually, I just looked--from what I can tell, Specialty Priests were not in the 2e PHB. They were in Complete Priest's Handbook, as well as showing up in Legends and Lore, Forgotten Realms Adventures, Faiths and Avatars, and Powers and Pantheons. So they were a very common sight in 2e supplements, but unless they were in the 1e PHB (which I find incredibly unlikely, but would accept if you assert it is true as I've never read the 1e PHB) they were *not* a PHB class, and that explains their debatable absence.

They are SORT OF in the 2e PHB. The 'base class' is 'Priest', of which the Druid and the Cleric are the playable subclasses, with the Cleric being the generic 'priest', and the druid being an example of a 'Specialty Priest'. PHB doesn't go any further, it just says that other such could exist and the DM could create them, and I don't recall if it even tells you how to make them beyond a general 'sorta like the druid'. CPH goes into great detail and then includes all the specialty priests of various gods and such.

One massive problem with the whole thing was that the Cleric is just HANDS DOWN better than any of the others. If you follow the guidelines or use the CPH priests, they're all MUCH weaker than a basic cleric (which gets access to all spells, where specialty priests often only get a very limited selection). Specialists are supposed to get compensating class features, but the examples and guidelines don't come close to balancing the loss of casting ability, nor are most of them as good as Turn Undead. Oddly the Druid massively exceeds all the guidelines, making it a pretty good option. The result is that in 2e nobody wanted to play a priest, they all just wanted to play cleric. I tried banning cleric to fix that, but it went nowhere.

 

[Hussar]

No, but I would at least like to be afforded the respect that maybe I actually feel that way, and not have it be assumed that I have ulterior motives.



I agree with that, however it took me a long time to be able to clearly articulate that exception. When I came back to D&D during the Next playtest, literally with no experience of 4e other than having flipped through the books a few times in stores, I asked "What is this Warlord thing that has everybody hot under the collar?" And my first reaction was that I hated it: "What? An 'officer' in the party who my character looks up to and follows? No thank you."

It's literally only in the last few days that I've finally been able to pick apart exactly (I think) why I am so averse to that idea. So I wonder if others have the same reaction, but can't really put their finger on why they feel so strongly about the Warlord.

And I have to admit that I often wonder if some of the Warlord fans want the class so badly for the opposite reason: they want to be the boss.



Ok, but only in the sense that "Doctor" currently is. Not in the sense that "Surgeon General" is. One is a matter of being inducted into an order. The other is about rising to be one of only a handful of elites, after years of success. Come on, you've got to see the difference. Can you give me that, at least, to demonstrate good faith?

So, all of your complaints about the Warlord are based entirely on a cursory reading of the books and not on any actual play experience?

And, please, do not on one hand complain about others assigning motives to you and then in the next breath assign motives to others.

 

[Hussar]

Note, on the sidebar about "no magic". I don't think anyone said, "I want a zero magic D&D game." What I said was I wanted a lower magic D&D game. Similar to say, Conan or a lot of mainstream fantasy where magic tends to be less flashy and more "charms and chants". But, 5e went very far the other way - almost every class barring a small number, can directly cast spells and cast spells that are flashy. Good grief, paladins get a short range teleport. That's far, far more magical than I want in my D&D all the time.

Granted, I don't mind all the time. I have no problems with a wahoo D&D. But, it would be nice to have the option of scaling it down several notches and a warlord goes a long way towards that. You could have a group with a warlord, rogue, monk and fighter and not have any Michael Bayesque special effects going on. But, as soon as you add a cleric or a bard or a druid into the mix as a healer/buffer, you get all sorts of very flashy effects. And, the assumption that every town has a cleric and a wizard hanging around. That sort of thing. 3e style demographics, which leads to a very high magic level game.

We've got a system that doesn't need (many) magic items, how about adding a class that lets us not need (many) spells.

 

[Remathilis]

They are SORT OF in the 2e PHB. The 'base class' is 'Priest', of which the Druid and the Cleric are the playable subclasses, with the Cleric being the generic 'priest', and the druid being an example of a 'Specialty Priest'. PHB doesn't go any further, it just says that other such could exist and the DM could create them, and I don't recall if it even tells you how to make them beyond a general 'sorta like the druid'. CPH goes into great detail and then includes all the specialty priests of various gods and such.

One massive problem with the whole thing was that the Cleric is just HANDS DOWN better than any of the others. If you follow the guidelines or use the CPH priests, they're all MUCH weaker than a basic cleric (which gets access to all spells, where specialty priests often only get a very limited selection). Specialists are supposed to get compensating class features, but the examples and guidelines don't come close to balancing the loss of casting ability, nor are most of them as good as Turn Undead. Oddly the Druid massively exceeds all the guidelines, making it a pretty good option. The result is that in 2e nobody wanted to play a priest, they all just wanted to play cleric. I tried banning cleric to fix that, but it went nowhere.

The Complete Priests Handbook was written, iirc, by a freelancer who disliked the cleric and tended toward low magic. He even says you should "tone down" (cripple) the cleric. They never even tried to balance them until PO: Spells & Magic.

That said, good idea, poor execution.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Complete Priests Handbook was written, iirc, by a freelancer who disliked the cleric and tended toward low magic. He even says you should "tone down" (cripple) the cleric. They never even tried to balance them until PO: Spells & Magic.

That was the late Aaron Alston, yes. Very talented, did a lot of work for Hero System. I'm not surprised Alston came up with something like the CPH, that was more intentionally balanced/customizeable (like Hero), but it just didn't mesh with the rest of the game. Much like the 3.x fighter. Great on it's own, not looking so great standing next to CoDzilla.

Note, on the sidebar about "no magic". I don't think anyone said, "I want a zero magic D&D game." What I said was I wanted a lower magic D&D game.

These topics drift and it's hard to tell which what post is in response to. There was an idea popped up that D&D has 'never' done low/no magic or never done it well (and I guess therefor never should or something). 4e did low/no magic very well, thanks in no small part to adding the Warlord as a Leader (the most vital traditional role being the 'healer,' which the more formal, defined Leader Role filled in some way, the Warlord via Inspiration rather than literal healing).

Similar to say, Conan or a lot of mainstream fantasy where magic tends to be less flashy and more "charms and chants". But, 5e went very far the other way - almost every class barring a small number, can directly cast spells and cast spells that are flashy. Good grief, paladins get a short range teleport. That's far, far more magical than I want in my D&D all the time.

Well, you can always trim it. You'd have to trim it a lot. You'd be left with Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue - Monk if you didn't have the misfortune of having "Orientalism" explained to you at length a couple years ago - and maybe some sort of Ranger. Or you could radically re-tool it. One thing I roughed out but never tried with 3e was making all casters PrCs with preqs that couldn't be met until 10th level...

We've got a system that doesn't need (many) magic items, how about adding a class that lets us not need (many) spells.

More sub-classes, too. There are 5 sub-classes (though someone's made a case for even the Berserker also being supernatural) that don't use magic at all, in the PH. Out of 38. High magic is right!

I hadn't thought of it, but the attitude towards magic items when spell resources are so plentiful, and even the fighter casts spells is a little odd.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Warlord was the smash hit class of 4e, that's all. It wasn't just "eh, we included this basically new class, some people played it." People LOVED it, and played it a LOT, and it seemed to add substantially to the game.

This does not match my considerable experience. Was this perhaps a local phenomenon?

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, all of your complaints about the Warlord are based entirely on a cursory reading of the books and not on any actual play experience?

No, not at all. None of it has anything to do with a cursory reading of the books; I never even noticed the Warlord the few times I perused 4e books. I didn't know it existed before the Next playtest forums.

My opposition is based entirely on the descriptions and analogies offered in various forums, the language used in the homebrews, and the rationales offered by their proponents.

Is that a problem? Have I ever argued that the mechanics are unbalanced? My only opposition, as I've stated repeatedly, is in the fluff (including the name). Does that really require playtesting?

I don't know what your pet peeves are in D&D (other than opposition to Warlords, apparently) but if I described a class that nailed all of your hot buttons, would YOU need to playtest it to know that you think it's a bad idea?

And, please, do not on one hand complain about others assigning motives to you and then in the next breath assign motives to others.

Sure thing, I won't. Thanks for asking nicely. But I might still conjecture about the existence of certain motives.

There's a big difference between "I suspect some players believe X" and "YOU believe X."