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

[Yunru]

I don't like lemon.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

I don't like lemon.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469423-How-many-fans-want-Lemon-Curry

Then see my poll.

 

[pemerton]

Take a barbarian and a fighter. Give them both weapons and armor, and they look very similar in terms of combat. Then, both of them find something that really pisses them off (insert trigger here). The barbarian taps into the primal fury locked deep within, touching some element and suddenly, he hits harder, shrugs off blows, can attack with reckless abandon, etc. The fighter, uh, is really, really mad when he makes his d20 roll. There is a mechanical reason the barbarian is getting rage bonuses right now (rage class feature) and the fighter isn't, but there is also a story purpose; barbarians touch the primal forces of nature and draw on their power to fuel their rage while a fighter does not have that power; he can't simply draw on rage because he's angry, no matter how well Role-played it is.

Warlords need a "pool of primal fury"-like power source if they are going to do amazing things.

<snip>

It (obviously) not impossible to run with "special training" as a handwave, but I think it would go far to smooth out some bumps to give a 5e warlord some supernatural force aiding in doing its more extraordinary actions...

Why not just "special charisma"? Much as the special charisma of a cleric or paladin makes the gods respond to their prayers differently from how they respond to the prayers of others.

There is nothing in the 4e battle-master that implies he's not good with weapons or as good as a fighter with them. (Going on my memory of PHB1, a fighter got a measly +1 to hit to show it was a better combatant than any other class, with the majority of its powers being focused on defense/retaliation and occasional large hits. The warlord got a little less hp, and his powers rarely buffed himself, creating the illusion of being less effective. A fighter and warlord using a longsword, chainmail and shield had the same AC, to hit, and base damage (before powers) and the warlord had slightly less hp.

The 4e fighter gets better armour than a warlord. More importantly, saying two classes are the same before powers is a bit like saying that a thief and a MU are the same before spells and backstab. In 4e, a class is mostly defined by its powers!

If they put out something that makes the game more 4e'ish then do they have to support both in published materials?

in 4E, the warlord had a point. There were roles (leader, defender, striker, controller) and there were power sources (martial, divine, arcane, etc.). In 4E, the cleric was the divine leader, while the bard was the arcane leader, leaving a hole where the 'martial leader' should be. Ergo, the warlord.

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. 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.

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.

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.

These repeated claims that the warlord is both redundant in 5e (due to battlemasters, bards, clerics and paladins) and impossible in 5e (due to different design parameters) are bizarre to me.

The existence of the paladin doesn't make the war cleric redundant; so why should the existence of the bard or cleric make the warlord redundant?

As for design space, 5e already contains non-magical hp recovery (second wind, hit dice), already contains forced movement (both non-magical and magical) and even allows AoE at will forced movement plus damage (18th level wizard using Thunderwave). How does a game with all this in it not have design space for a warlord?

The cleric is choosing bless (or whatever) over other spells, many of which might be as good or better for a given situation.

But if the warlord is choosing between buffing a character who hits harder than he does, or giving an extra action to a character who hits harder than he does, versus taking his own attack? That's not meaningful. That's almost always going to be the better option.

I've never seen a single cleric player who wanted to do that, though. Most of them prefer the option to cast a variety of spells in a variety of situations. They'll use bless or the like at times, but it's not remotely the default assumption.

Maybe that's part of why some people are having trouble getting their mind around the warlord? (Again, just theorizing.) Clerics and bards can be played as primarily support characters, but they don't have to be. So what else does the warlord do besides just support?

Claiming that a PC can expend all of their limited resources to spam something more often, its still not "at-will." It's "at opportunity cost." If the cleric is casting bless constantly (the example he gave), to maintain it for as many encounters as possible in a day, they are not casting other spells. Other spells that are also part of the character's niche.

So is the warlord notionally overpowered or notionally underpowered?

It's not as if giving the cleric the choice of spamming Bless, or casting some other spell instead, makes the cleric weaker than it otherwise would be.

Even within the domain of at-will abilities there is scope for meaningful choice and opportunity costs, because of the action economy - eg a fighter must choose to attack for damage, or instead to grapple, etc.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Also, i feel like we could skip some issues if we used the name "spell-less bard".
For some reason no one seems to care that a bard inspires you for +1 to hit, or can inspire you to regain HP.

Maybe it's not an issue because we view the bard as using magic. If someone wanted to refluff the bard as being non-magical, it might be more of an issue, but the PHB bard is pretty clearly all about using the inherent magic of voice. You can sidestep a lot of issues with the Caddy/Tactician/Warlord if you similarly fluff it as being magic--I think someone earlier floated the idea of it being the magic of royal blood.

 

[pemerton]

the roles were DESCRIPTIVE; they described how the character was USUALLY played. Now, it was certainly possible to break the molds (something every edition but 4e did right; allow out of the box thinking) but the fact that they could be broken does not deny that a lot of people DID view the guy with low AC and high HP as the one to get beat up in combat or that the moment you find yourself with half the party in single digit hp or dying, the "gee, maybe someone should have played a character with cure light wounds" didn't happen.

4e got it wrong when it said roles were PRESCRIPTIVE: they defined the class more than described it. Why does a fighter tank? Because he's a defender and that's what defenders do. Why does an artificer heal? Because he's a leader and that's what leaders do.

This doesn't really make sense to me.

Why is an AD&D fighter usually played as a "tank"? Because it has high AC and hit points, and at least in AD&D 1st ed melee combat is inherently sticky and the fighter has the AC and hit points to survive in melee.

Why is a 4e fighter usually played as a "tank"? Because it has high AC and hit points, plus class features that make melee sticky, and its high AC and hit points give it the ability to survive in melee.

The design details are different - in AD&D melee stickiness is a function of the core combat rules, whereas 4e follows 3E in making melee basically non-sticky then gives the fighter special class features to change that default - but I don't see any contrast between DESCRIPTION and PRESCRIPTION/DEFINITION.

they were still not in the books or explicitly defined anywhere.

The 1st ed AD&D books has quite a bit of text describing character class roles.

From the PHB, p 18:

Character class refers to the profession of the player character. The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class). Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armor and weapons effectively. Druids are a sub-class of cleric who operate much as do other clerics, but they are less able in combat and more effective in wilderness situations. Fighters generally seek to engage in hand-to-hand combat, for they have more hit points and better weaponry in general than do other classes. Paladins are fighters who are lawful good (see ALIGNMENT). At higher levels they gain limited clerical powers as well. Rangers are another sub-class of fighter. They are quite powerful in combat, and at upper levels gain druidic and magic spell usage of a limited sort. Magic-users cannot expect to do well in hand-to-hand combat, but they have a great number of magic spells of offensive, defensive, and informational nature. They use magic almost exclusively to solve problems posed by the game. Illusionists are a sub-class of magic-user, and they are different primarily because of the kinds of spells they use. Thieves use cunning, nimbleness, and stealth. Assassins, a sub-class of thief, are quiet killers of evil nature. Monks are aesthetic disciples of bodily training and combat with bare hands.​

Some of this is reinforced in the individual class descriptions (eg p20: "A study of the spells usable by clerics . . . will convey the main purpose of the cleric. That is, the cleric serves to fortify, protect, and revitalize. The cleric also has a limited number of attack spells . . .").

And from the DMG, p 86:

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? . . .

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.​

The consequence of a POOR rating is an increased cost (in time and gp) to go up a level.

Anyway, here we clearly see a pre-4e edition of the game referring to the approach a player wishes to take to the game, and also how a player believes s/he can most successfully meet the challenges the game poses, and stating that this is something dictated by character class. We also see use of the word role and various synonyms (purpose, natural function, expectation of doing well, etc).

The main difference from 4e is that, in 1st ed AD&D, alignment is also considered a very important element of a PC's role (a player is expected to play in accordance with professed alignment, as part of the challenge of the game - dungeoneering is harder when you are LG, but you get generally better NPC reactions).

 

[TrippyHippy]

Permeton, when looking for a passage to define the 'roles' described in previous editions, as pertaining to those used in 4E, it may be useful to check whether any of the passages quoted actually uses the term 'roles' along with those of 'Defender', 'Striker' or whathaveyou.

These passages you have chosen merely describe the Classes in question and simply describe what they are good at - rather than there predesignated jobs in a playing party. I could argue against the use of Classes in a RPG too - indeed several game designers did throughout the period and ended up designing new games like RuneQuest. However, you are now simply conflating two separate ideas as if they are the same. As stated before, several times, the use of 'Roles' were exclusive to 4E and this is not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

[Yunru]

Yeah but look at how thin your argument is: I'm going to replace one word, one.

"These roles you have chosen merely describe the Classes in question and simply describe what they're good at - rather than their predesignated jobs in a playing party."

 

[TrippyHippy]

Yeah but look at how thin your argument is: I'm going to replace one word, one.

"These roles you have chosen merely describe the Classes in question and simply describe what they're good at - rather than their predesignated jobs in a playing party."

Well, I don't appreciate being misquoted for effect, and no, your argument makes zero sense because of it. The 'Roles' as used in 4E were not used in any other edition and rewriting history is pointless.

 

[Yunru]

Well, I don't appreciate being misquoted for effect, and no, your argument makes zero sense because of it. The 'Roles' as used in 4E were not used in any other edition and rewriting history is pointless.

If you don't like it, don't post it on a public forum.

My argument makes perfect sense. Those passages, by your own statement, do exactly the same thing as roles do. Therefore they are equivalent. Just because they weren't called roles doesn't mean they're not roles.

 

[TrippyHippy]

If you don't like it, don't post it on a public forum.

My argument makes perfect sense. Those passages, by your own statement, do exactly the same thing as roles do. Therefore they are equivalent. Just because they weren't called roles doesn't mean they're not roles.

So if I post on a public forum, then it's OK to misquote me to support a mendacious argument?!!

And they don't mean the same thing. They are simply descriptions of Classes and what they are good at, not predesignated jobs they have to do in game. They do not operate in the same way as 4E Roles, and were not described as such. If this is the best people can do, then it is no wonder that things like Warlords and Roles are long gone in the game, and won't be returning any time soon.

Your argument holds no credibility.