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

[ChrisCarlson]

they're called spells and they work differently.

So the desire is for a better caster than a caster, by couching it as "non-magical"? To have something not even magic can achieve? Why?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Bards are nothing new, and just about every bard I have run with in a party (3e, 4e, Pathfinder, and now 5e) seems to think that they are the "leader" by virtue of their class mechanics and skills.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

So the desire is for a better caster than a caster, by couching it as "non-magical"? To have something not even magic can achieve? Why?

You could make that an argument for every single class in the game and it would be valid. It's called niche protection. .

I want a mechanical benefit that is nonmagical in nature. Whether it's times per day, or tactical points, I'm not picky.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Bards are nothing new, and just about every bard I have run with in a party (3e, 4e, Pathfinder, and now 5e) seems to think that they are the "leader" by virtue of their class mechanics and skills.

I played the first ever bard at any table I've ever been at and nobody thinks Quentin is the leader, they think he's an overbearing jackass with delusions of grandeur. Granted they may be right but still...

 

[mellored]

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.

The same arguments can be made against the bard and cleric.

"what do you mean i'm inspired by his singing? How does him singing help me hit?"
"what do you mean i'm blessed by his god? i don't follow his god, why would that help me?"

 

[mellored]

I played the first ever bard at any table I've ever been at and nobody thinks Quentin is the leader, they think he's an overbearing jackass with delusions of grandeur. Granted they may be right but still...

Why would they be "inspired" by an overbearing delusional jackass?.

 

[steeldragons]

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.

My question here, then, becomes, "Is this lack of finding 'the warlord you want' a fault of the 5e system/options, i.e. the lack of the "full class", or is it really just that you expect 5e to give you a 'warlord' that does the same as you could do in 4e?"

If it's the latter, again, this is not the same game. You want to play it that way? Fine. That's personal preference and everyone is entitled to enjoy the game the way they enjoy it. That is not in dispute. Play how you want. The game system is not obligated to do that for you. You can not cry "foul" of one game [5e] and say it must do xyz because this other game [4e] does/lets you.

It's like complaining that 3e isn't 1e or BECM isn't Call of Cthulu. The only answer to that is, "No, it isn't." Expecting or insisting on the same thing from both just...defies reason. They're not the same game with the same conceits/expectations. That's not "something wrong" with the game that the designers have to change/fix. That's solely in the onus/perspective of the person/player to adjust their expectations to match the game in front of them.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Why would they be "inspired" by an overbearing delusional jackass?.

Cause man he can sing and play. Its like the pop song that I should hate but damn I can't get it out of my head. And some will say there is magic in the bard's music. I was always resistant to that but since the bard is a full caster, and since not every "bard" is bard, maybe they are right.

 

[mellored]

So the desire is for a better caster than a caster, by couching it as "non-magical"? To have something not even magic can achieve? Why?

The idea is to be equal-but-different.

i.e. if the magic bonus giver can heal 100 HP per day.
the mundane bonus giver should prevent 10 damage per round.

If the magic bonus giver can give out +1d4 to hit, to 3 people for 2 battles a day.
The mundane bonus giver should give out +1d4 to hit to 1 person each round.

(*exact numbers subject to change, just quick examples).

 

[Mouseferatu]

To build/expand upon what's been said...

Neither the cleric nor the bard can buff "at will." They have limited spells, limited inspiration dice, etc. Those limits may--especially at high levels--be pretty broad, but they're still limited.

To remain balanced--and 5E does have a balance, even if it's not as rigid as some past editions--a warlord (or any martial support class) must have similar limits. Not identical, sure, but similar.

Now, a lot of people asking for a 5E warlord sound like they'd be fine with that. But some don't. The first group may eventually get what they want. The latter group simply won't. (Or at least, if they do, they'll find that the buffs/options given the character are so minor as to be hardly worth using.)

Having kept up with this thread despite not really having a preference one way or the other on whether there's ever a 5E warlord, I feel fairly confident in saying that this is a part (and I cannot strongly enough stress the word part) of why there's such a pushback against the idea: It's because it really does feel like some (same emphasis on some) of the pro-warlord camp are pushing for something that would, whether they intend it or not, be better that the existing options.