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

[Mecheon]

No, they're not, which is why 4E fans complain about 5E. These are things introduced, and exclusive to, D&D 4E. It's simply untrue to suggest that they are part of any other incarnation of D&D (notwithstanding late 3.5 supplements where the formative ideas of 4E were being developed). I wouldn't play D&D if they were part of it.

And I am sick of people trying to conflate the notion of an 'archetype' which is a literary/narrative term, with a 'role' which is a mechanical function of a game. If I wanted to play a MMO version of D&D or whatever it is, I'd buy an Xbox.

They've always been in the game, 4E just explicitly drew attention to them. They don't vanish as soon as you stop.

You've still got a brawny fellow who's job it is to keep the angry things off the squishier folks. You've still got people who are focused purely on dealing damage above all else and may not necessarily do too well in a one-on-one fight. And you've still got ones who's task it is to heal the other ones to keep them going

Ever since Clerics have been in the game this is a thing. Not obvious, but when you get to the absolute core, there it is. Back to its dungeon delver days. And its still a thing in 5E. Sure, you can try to gimmick your way past bits of it, but its still there

I came into D&D via way of Neverwinter Nights and its ilk, so I come at it from looking at that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There was a lot of overlap in those classes. For 5e, they've tried to pare down the clutter. In my opinion, The Warlords shtick was separated into the Bard and Battle Master and that is a good enough solution. It's not a perfect representation of 4e's Warlord, but I don't see a good way to bring it forward to the new edition.

the problem is tnag there is no good way of recombining the warlord now that it's split.

There's still a lot of overlap among classes in 5e. Every class cast spells or uses them to model some other supernatural ability. None of those classes have a spell list with every spell unique to them. They all share some of them with some other classes.

The Paladin has abiliities it shares with the Fighter (extra attack, d10 HD) and others with the Cleric (a variety of spells). That doesn't prevent it from existing. So the Bard has inspiration dice and the Battlemaster has something called Commander's Strike that's more like Hammer & Anvil it activates with CS dice. That doesn't prevent the Warlord from having each of those mechanics (among many others), but not having the Bards casting nor the Battlemaster's multiple attacks.

Sentinel Feat.
Pushing Attack or Tripping Attack
Menacing Attack
Alert Feat.
Maybe something for mass-battle if they ever finish the BattleSystem rules.
Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack is pretty similar.
These sound like they could be handled with a good Deception Check.
Come and Get It should remain buried (under 20 feet of concrete)
Disarming Attack
These seem like Perception, Insight, or Knowledge checks
Sneak attack?

None of those were meant as examples of necessary Warlord tricks that couldn't be done, now. They were things a Warlord might do other than strict support-role functions - quite possibly in a few of the ways you describe, possibly in different ways using alternative uses/options to his support functions. That was in answer to Mouseferatu's question.

Yes, it's an /actual/ 'plot coupon,' and yes, it'd be double-dog/triple-pterodactyl, hidden in the highest-walled of Option Ghettos, quick-avert-your-eyes, whole-table unanimous approval required, you will neverevereverevereverEVER have to put up with it or even hear of it actually happening if you don't like plot coupons, OPTIONAL. But it's fun at tables that can handle it. Some of them are even D&D tables.

NOPE!

There is NO quicker way to watch a class get banned from most table and in AL then "plot coupons.

That is a DM table thing, not the basis of a core class. The hell that would unleash on the community would make shouting a ally back from unconscious look like rolling for initiative in terms of acceptability. Its a good option for a game, but a piss-poor one to build a class around.

Did you just go all OneTrueWay, and threaten to resume edition war hostilities, before you got to the bit where the idea was not only optional, but more optional than anything had ever been optional in the history of gaming? (Not just 'DM table thing,' but /whole table unanimous consent required/)

And, no, not the basis of the class, just some oddball thing it might have when all the usual tricks don't apply.

The more I look at this, the more I think the battlemaster is doing a better job at this than its given credit for...

Sure, the Warlord and BattleMaster will be able to do a lot of the same things. Just like the Wizard and the Eldritch Knight can do a lot of the same things. 5e has a lot of overlap, a lot of the exact same abilities shared among multiple classes.

One of the things people forget is that spellcasters no longer have silo'd spells. Barring rituals, they have to use their spell slots for everything.

Nothing bars rituals, and most casters do have at-will cantrips, and other abilities, in addition, including, like the Fighter, things absolutely everyone can do. So, no, they don't have to use their spell slots for everything. But, their spell slots are enormously versatile and powerful, and that both makes using them effective and flashy, and makes whether and how to use them an interesting, important decision (if they were unlimited, it'd get boring).

There's no downside there, really. Being a caster in 5e is all kinds of awesome.
If you're not sick to death of playing Vancian casters after 35 years, that is.

Which runs me into the problem I've had with this whole "martial leader" thing; he's going to suck at being a cleric replacement.

So, we have on one side, the claim that the Warlord can't possibly be good enough to be viable. And, on the other (I think it was Chris), we have the claim that it can't help but be wildly overpowered.

Both are absurd. The Warlord was balanced in 4e, and 4e set a fairly high bar for balance, for a version of D&D, anyway. 5e does not. Balance concerns aren't just premature, they're trivial. In 5e, class balance is spotlight balance, and, ultimately, it's the DM's responsibility to assure it. Adding the Warlord to the mix won't make that responsibility any tougher, compared to what we already have. The Warlord would sit between the single-function sub-classes like the Champion, and the ultra-versatility of neo-Vancian casters. If you can manage the range of classes already in the PH with eachother, you can handle Warlord along with them, in your sleep.

Therein lies the paradox; if he is equal to bard/cleric in buffing/healing, he's still a poor choice because he lacks the versatility of a caster.

Here, you're insisting the Warlord cannot exist in 5e, because there is a Cleric/Druid/Bard-filled Role that is mandatory for the game, that the Warlord can't quite fill because he can't raise the dead (the other things you listed, could probably be dealt with somehow - he may not remove blindness, but maybe he could train the blinded character to compensate for it temporarily, for instance).

Others are claiming that such roles do not exist, and, because they do not exist in 5e, the Warlord cannot exist in 5e.

This reminds me of the early days of the edition war, when h4ters were still getting their stories straight, and were accusing 4e of simultaneously being contradictory things, of being both too complicated and too simplified, for instance.

The simple fact remains that the Warlord was implemented very successfully in 4e, and that 5e gives greater freedom of design, making the successful implementation of the Warlord a shoe-in, if we could just, as a community, get past this bizarre need to dictate to eachother how we play the game, and let others have the options they want, and not be upset that others don't use the options we want.

That's not hard. Outside of the internet, we do it every time we play. It's just basic consideration for eachother.

 

[TrippyHippy]

They've always been in the game, 4E just explicitly drew attention to them. They don't vanish as soon as you stop.

You've still got a brawny fellow who's job it is to keep the angry things off the squishier folks. You've still got people who are focused purely on dealing damage above all else and may not necessarily do too well in a one-on-one fight. And you've still got ones who's task it is to heal the other ones to keep them going

Repeating the same line again and again does not make it true. People can buy the older editions and see for themselves that 'Roles' as described by you were solely in the 4E. Every other edition, including 5E, has no need for such things.

Moreover, this continued cycle of revolving arguments only goes to show why the Warlord will never return to the game - because it's merely something a select group of people obsess over, oblivious to any reasoning, while the rest of the D&D world have long since moved on from.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hippy, honest question. Did you really never hear people talking about a party needing a "tank," a "caster," a "healer"? Because I've been hearing that terminology since 2E, and it corresponds closely--not exactly, but pretty near--with 4E's roles of "defender," "controller," and "leader." It's true that 4E defined them and codified them to an extent never seen before in D&D, but at least vague outlines of the concept did exist, at least in many groups.

 

[Mecheon]

Repeating the same line again and again does not make it true. People can buy the older editions and see for themselves that 'Roles' as described by you were solely in the 4E. Every other edition, including 5E, has no need for such things.

Moreover, this continued cycle of revolving arguments only goes to show why the Warlord will never return to the game - because it's merely something a select group of people obsess over, oblivious to any reasoning, while the rest of the D&D world have long since moved on from.

But they are there?

Have you seriously never had a group pick something with healing spells to heal, something that's bulky and can take a hit, and things that deal damage and don't take hits? 4E just said "Right, we acknowledge this is how they've worked, let's go with them"

This isn't just D&D. This is something games in general have had for years. Sure, some games don't have the healer, but that might go way to more of a support based thing doing a similar role

 

[TrippyHippy]

But they are there?

Have you seriously never had a group pick something with healing spells to heal, something that's bulky and can take a hit, and things that deal damage and don't take hits? 4E just said "Right, we acknowledge this is how they've worked, let's go with them"

This isn't just D&D. This is something games in general have had for years. Sure, some games don't have the healer, but that might go way to more of a support based thing doing a similar role

Have you ever tried to play the game where you don't try to pigeonhole every players' actions into roles?

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

He probably means WPN, the RPGA was launched by TSR long ago, it eventually became part of the WPN. Then, as LFR, it was cut loose. Now we have AL. And, also, PFS.

Well there are some in shop games in the 6 shops around my area, but non play pusbloshed campaign settinga or adventures.

my area seems to have a lot of focus on creating your own worlds, some people i know Even call runing pusblished adventures DM training weels, something that only begineras use.

 

[Yunru]

Current votes: 58 for; 89 against, 156 voted both ways.
Ignoring those who voted both ways, that's roughly 40% for, 60% against.
So to all those claiming the poll shows only a small minority want's the Warlord back: No.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

All this pole shows is that you have a pole where those who voted are a non-random self-selecting sample which is possibly the worst sampling possible to get meaningful data from a pole. Possibly even worse than Convenience sampling. It's textbook nonprobability sampling. Such sampling (and the responses gained) cannot be use to infer responses from the general population. In this case, D&D players.

And you *can't* ignore those who voted both ways if you're trying to draw any sort of data from this pole, because it's a possible option being presented. You don't know if the lemon curry option is Both ways or Don't care enough to give a real vote or Hmmm, no NO! option so that must be the Lemon Curry option or... Someone trying to draw a conclusion from this pole cannot ignore such a HUGE portion of the data gathered by the very pole they are using to draw said conclusion. If they do, ALL of the data becomes meaning less.

The pole succeeds in some measure in what the OP wanted (I think. I can't read minds): a pole for people who really want a Warlord can vote YES! and others can hang their hat elsewhere. But without something to actually compare the Yes! results to and a meaningful way of collecting that data it doesn't point to whether or not a minority or majority want or don't want anything!

This pole is worthless for anything but creating a thread for people to argue about the Warlord. Which is fine. It's been fun to read.

 

[Yunru]

No, Yunru. It doesn't show such things. All it shows is that you have a pole where those who voted are a non-random self-selecting sample which is possibly the worst sampling possible to get meaningful data from a pole. Possibly even worse than Convenience sampling. It's textbook nonprobability sampling. Such sampling (and the responses gained) cannot be use to infer responses from the general population. In this case, D&D players.

This pole is worthless for anything but creating a thread for people to argue about the Warlord. Which is fine. It's been fun to read.

I never said it was an unbais poll. All I said was even taking the poll at face value it doesn't show what some have been claiming.