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

[airwalkrr]

I see no need for a 5e warlord. I considered the class superfluous in 4e personally. A war domain cleric, bard of valor, paladin of any stripe, or some combination of one of those classes multiclassed with fighter fits the concept well in my mind. I would much rather the powers that be focus their attentions on concepts that are not as redundant, such as 5e psionics, oriental adventures, or another classic and popular idea that has yet to be developed in 5e.

 

[mellored]

In the absence of 4E's explicit power sources, though, what need is there for a warlord? If you want a 'martial leader', you can make a cleric with the War domain, or a bard with enough levels of battlemaster fighter to add in the martial traits you want.

That's not really a "martial leader'. All of them are very spell based.

There's no real design reason for a warlord core class, and a warlord sub-class would intrude on the battlemaster fighter for design space.

Again, not a martial leader.

It's martial striker, with leader sub-class.

 

[steeldragons]

It may be easier to understand/see past if we drop the 4e "role" labels. Stop thinking like that. Stop believing them to be some kind of "underlying truth" of D&D. They aren't.

This is not 4e. This is 5e. Whatever 4e had/labeled/defined things DO. NOT. APPLY. HERE. AND. NOW. "But we don't have a marital leader. Where's my martial leader?" means NADA in the context of 5e.

The fighter is not a "striker". The battlemaster subclass is not a "controller" or "leader." These terms have NO MEANING in 5e.

Once people can drop/let those go/leave them to the edition for which they were created...they might better be able to see the possibilities to have/make/"build" any kind of "warlord" anyone could want with what we already have to work with in 5e.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It may be easier to understand/see past if we drop the 4e "role" labels. Stop thinking like that. Stop believing them to be some kind of "underlying truth" of D&D. They aren't.

This is not 4e. This is 5e. Whatever 4e had/labeled/defined things DO. NOT. APPLY. HERE. AND. NOW. "But we don't have a marital leader. Where's my martial leader?" means NADA in the context of 5e.

The fighter is not a "striker". The battlemaster subclass is not a "controller" or "leader." These terms have NO MEANING in 5e.

Once people can drop/let those go/leave them to the edition for which they were created...they might better be able to see the possibilities to have/make/"build" any kind of "warlord" anyone could want with what we already have to work with in 5e.

I could only give XP for this one, so this kuddos post will have to suffice for the second.

 

[mellored]

These terms have NO MEANING in 5e.

If you want it in different words...

There's are no "non-magical/non-daily/at-will" "support/healer/buffer" options in 5e.
But that's just semantics. A leader by any other name, should grant bonuses just as sweet.

Once people can drop/let those go/leave them to the edition for which they were created...they might better be able to see the possibilities to have/make/"build" any kind of "warlord" anyone could want with what we already have to work with in 5e.

I can't have/make/build the kind of "warlord" i want in 5e.

There are parts of it. A battle master 3/bard 5/war cleric 6 with inspiring leader and defensive fighting style, but i run out. Both of things to take, and of in-game dice. The majority of my character power are in spell slots that i don't want, leaving me under powered unless i cast something.

Not to mention very messy.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Then rephrasing it as a mundane bonus giver class.

edit: honestly, multiclassing often builds classes that often don't work as well for the desired function (ex. fighter/mage).

The 4e sword mage showed how well the concept works when built from the ground up, and it's why the eldrich knight works as a subclass in 5e.

 

[mellored]

Then rephrasing it as a mundane bonus giver class.

Sure. If people are afraid of the word "leader" we can go with that. Whatever doesn't get people to reject it outright without thought.

Semantics don't interest me. The ideas behind them do.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm starting to agree with those who find the idea that a class makes a PC a leader to be dodgy. Then backing that up with mechanics gives me pause."

"Sure the Warguy gives us all these bonuses but we always seem to follow the plans and rally behind the fighter, who for some reason can't do that. Plus the Warguy is obnoxious and when he bring stuff up its usually stupid..." As someone who skipped 4e and has only read the class I'm not totally sure but I can't say I feel the game is lacking such a character type. How does that compare with the inspiring song of a bard? But the bard isn't being setup as the tactical genius leader type by the rules. I can see the philosophical reasons one would like or dislike the class.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

There's are no "non-magical/non-daily/at-will" "support/healer/buffer" options in 5e.

Where are the magical at-will support/healer/buffer options?

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Where are the magical at-will support/healer/buffer options?

they're called spells and they work differently.