D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[MechaPilot]

But I do, insofar as I hate the idea of a class called 'warlord'. I do care that the game never incorporates that formulation of word and mechanic again. What I don't care about is the incorporation of the mechanic itself.

If what you care about is the name and not whether a warlord by another name is introduced, I would think that would mean voting "don't care," but clarifying that if the class is introduced that you don't want it to have the warlord name. But that's just how I see it and I have no intention of influencing you to alter your vote.

 

[Minigiant]

I really can't vote.

I want a "warlord" but not the "warlord" many others want. I prefer the "tac-lord", "bravura warlord", "insightful warlord" over the "inspiration warlord". Don't need the healing. All about the tactics.

Basically a bard with no magic, double the inspiration dice, martial weapons, medium armor and prepare-able tactics which can be 'unleashed". Fits 5e better to me. Subclasses give maneuvers, rage, or spells.

There's no "Yes, but not the commonly called for type." option.

 

[Ranes]

If what you care about is the name and not whether a warlord by another name is introduced, I would think that would mean voting "don't care," but clarifying that if the class is introduced that you don't want it to have the warlord name. But that's just how I see it and I have no intention of influencing you to alter your vote.

Well, I would be as slightly dissatisfied with that route as I am with the one I actually took. Six of one, and so on. But hey, we're all clear now.

 

[Jester David]

It doesn't matter what the people argue, everyone only has one vote, so the numbers won't lie.

Except...
People who want the warlord will definitely come and vote. And people who have strong anti-feelings will come and vote. But people without strong feelings might ignore or skip past the thread, and so won't weigh in on one side or the other. So it's not representative.
Oh, and it's pretty easy to register an alt (or two or three) for these forums, so people don't have just one vote.
And it still assumes these forums are even remotely a representative sampling.

I really can't vote.


I want a "warlord" but not the "warlord" many others want. I prefer the "tac-lord", "bravura warlord", "insightful warlord" over the "inspiration warlord". Don't need the healing. All about the tactics.


Basically a bard with no magic, double the inspiration dice, martial weapons, medium armor and prepare-able tactics which can be 'unleashed". Fits 5e better to me. Subclasses give maneuvers, rage, or spells.


There's no "Yes, but not the commonly called for type." option.

That's the other issue. "Warlord fans" are not a singular group.

 

[Aldarc]

That's the other issue. "Warlord fans" are not a singular group.

Like most classes in that regard, really.

 

[mellored]

Call it a 'spell-less bard' and i think you undercut alot of the objections.

 

[Minigiant]

That's the other issue. "Warlord fans" are not a singular group.

It's a big one too.

The 3e marshal and the 4e warlord were very different and if directly translated to 5e would look almost nothing alike.

The 4e warlord had 6 different builds (tactial, inspiring, bravura, resourceful, insightful, and skirmishing). Each had a different focus (positioning, healing, risk for reward, jack of all trades, attack and defense buffs, and archery combos).

So the "Yes" and "No" are applied to possibly seven completely different warlord classes or subclasses.

Call it a 'spell-less bard' and i think you undercut alot of the objections.

That's the easiest and sneakiest way to do it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Single-choice voting is always misleading, even (especially?) when there are only two options.

This poll would have been more illuminating with more options and "check all that apply."

 

[MarkB]

I really can't vote.

I want a "warlord" but not the "warlord" many others want. I prefer the "tac-lord", "bravura warlord", "insightful warlord" over the "inspiration warlord". Don't need the healing. All about the tactics.

Basically a bard with no magic, double the inspiration dice, martial weapons, medium armor and prepare-able tactics which can be 'unleashed". Fits 5e better to me.

So basically College of Valour bard with tactical maneuvers taking the place of spells, then? Sounds reasonably doable.

 

[Minigiant]

So basically College of Valour bard with tactical maneuvers taking the place of spells, then? Sounds reasonably doable.

Kinda. That's the gist. Valour Bard with the class features renamed to warlordy things.

Not regular maneuvers though. Since you are replacing full 9 levels of spellcasting with it, battlemaster maneuvers will not cut it.

The way, I'd see it is the warlord would turn other characters into fake member of other classes. Like the bavura warlord get the ranger pumped and he'd get a fake rage effect. The tactical warlord would make an adjacent monk into a psuedo-champion via teamwork. The insightful warlord could point out the dragon's breath's arc and everyone nearby gains evasion to it.

But "class feature stealer" is not what many see as an option for the 5e warlord/marshal.