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

[Gnashtooth]

JUST HERE TO MAKE SURE THIS TOPIC STAYS ON TOPIC

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wait so are you saying what I claimed is false? That supplements are purchased and used at the same level as core books? If not... it holds more water than "just a way of discounting the meager facts we have"... it's something that needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the data and the decision to include those classes vs. a warlord class.

My assertion is there's no need to 'take it into account'. WHATEVER the reason, people want a warlord more than a sorcerer, and pleasing the customer makes sense, eh!

SO there really isn't any fact that is relevant to anything. Unless the developers have some anti-warlord agenda and want to 'fix' everyone's ideas about what they should want. Frankly I think that's not their beeswax.

 

[steeldragons]

The wrestler guy has shown up a couple of times. Who the hell is he? What's the gag?

 

[MoonSong]

The wrestler guy has shown up a couple of times. Who the hell is he? What's the gag?

I don't really know about WWE, but I think that guy was called "the warlord"?

 

[steeldragons]

Ah. That would make sense...though with the little staff thing with a "W" on it, kinda looks more like a warlock...but, sure. Makes sense (as much as anything related to the WWE can be said to "make sense").

 

[Celondon]

Warlord as a class? I think the role is covered adequately by Valor Bard, Cleric of War or Battle Master Fighter. It's not really *needed.* If such a class were to be made for 5th Ed, I suspect it would be disappointing to most folks who want it because it would perforce be weaker than a "Fighter with Support and Tactical Abilities."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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 disagree, there are CERTAINLY Martial Archetypes, Arcane Archetypes, and Divine Archetypes (and you could argue that there are also 'Primal' Archetypes). 5e classes tend to be able to do some admixture based on choice of character option, but every class has an easily identifiable core power source.

Likewise roles are NOT a construct of 4e. They are a natural outgrowth of tactical reality and arise spontaneously. 'Defender' is what armies call 'infantry' - guys that can take and hold ground, and deny it to the enemy. Strikers are heavy weapons, artillery and 'cavalry' essentially, which can bring concentration of firepower on critical areas. Leaders are support troops, the 'medical corps' and other such things. Controllers are basically artillery in its role as suppressing fire and area denial, and in some sense skirmishers or light cavalry that restrict the movement and disrupt the timing of the enemy.

And regardless of the lack of such labels you can clearly put a primary role on every 5e class. And the more a class focuses on and embodies one of these natural jobs, the more likely it is to be a coherent and satisfying design.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I find it so ironic that when it was the move from 3e to 4e the screams were all "I can't do X, Y, Z special snowflake spellthief in 4e, its CRAP!" and now the refrain is "Oh, stop bothering us about all those missing things from 4e, there's no reason why a new game should cater to your wants, its different!"

How soon they forget.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

At the expense of being able to do other things with those limited resources, you mean.

So? It only has to be comparable to other comparable builds. If I can make a cleric that can buff every round, effectively, and my warlord can also buff every round, then they're on a par, no?

Just because the cleric COULD do some other build is irrelevant.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

So? It only has to be comparable to other comparable builds. If I can make a cleric that can buff every round, effectively, and my warlord can also buff every round, then they're on a par, no?

Just because the cleric COULD do some other build is irrelevant.

Why do I get the feeling, however, that that's not the only thing this proposed warlord is doing...