D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[AaronOfBarbaria]

do you have the same problem with pacafist clerics?

I had to laugh, I read that as "pack-a-fist" and my brain filled with 3 Stooges antics.

 

[ZickZak]

Isn't this like 7th Warlord thread? It's basically a paladin, especially with that nature path you have there. Roll one, MC druid or hunter if you must; Warlord as it was in 4e is done for.
Nope.exe

 

[MechaPilot]

It's basically a paladin, especially with that nature path you have there. Roll one, MC druid or hunter if you must. . .

You could really say that about other classes too. The paladin is basically just a fighter/cleric. The ranger is largely a fighter/druid or fighter/rogue/druid.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Voted "yes," for what little good it will do. I'm on record numerous times for my feelings about forum polls (utterly useless in terms of data gathering, ESPECIALLY when people can unvote) and about Warlords (feel they got short-changed in 5e--not 100% totally completely absolutely absent, but not quite there, either).

It won't.
There have been polls. It doesn't matter because regardless of the final outcome of the poll, the people who don't like warlords will argue against them, and the people who like warlords will argue for them, some participants will continue to use this as a proxy edition war, and the debates on the nature of hit points will continue.

Really, it's just another warlord thread clogging up this forum.

Speaking of discredited forum polls... How are you weeding out sockpuppet votes? How are you going to count all of those who don't care enough that they don't bother clicking on the thread at all?

I don't need help discrediting forum polls. They are always useless for anything other than finding out what a tiny contingent of forumites who frequent a tiny space on the interwebs think.

I also disagree that you are any kind of authority on what does or does not constitute "existing" and/or "enough". Or "balance" for that matter, since you seem to think you know better than the devs whether the recipient of Commander's Strike giving up their bonus action is good game design. Since I personally agree with the devs and think it is, does that mean I cancel out your vote on the matter?

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.


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

So, how come when I comment on how forum polls are useless in terms of data-gathering and serve essentially no purpose, I get dismissed as a partisan or as trying to "deny the obvious" or whatever else...but when other people do it, they get XP and general rumbles of assent?

At least I can agree that it's a bit of a mess to have SO. DAMNED. MANY. threads talking about the Warlord. Particularly when some of them have even been moved to other subfora and yet they STILL multiply. Even as a pro-Warlord guy, I think it's gotten a bit ridiculous and should be toned down. Perhaps even have the mods go through and prune 'em--close the ones that wouldn't merge well (like polls) and merge the rest. Keep the discussion confined to its appropriate place--I doubt it would even need a sticky, 'cause it'll stay near the top for as long as it's allowed to exist.

 

[Delazar]

Voted "don't care". I mean, for me the Battlemaster is already the warlord, but if WotC really wants to make a class out of it, whatever.

I guess more options is always good?

 

[Uchawi]

When I hear the term cleric, I think of modern day clergy and the negative connotations that evokes. Shrug. But seriously, the warlord has become a battle line between mundane versus magic and the preferences of players when distinguishing the differences. It brings up all the same arguments when discussing what hit points represent. Depending on your viewpoint, they should get rid of hit dice healing, healing kits, or anything else that is not magic healing.

 

[ZickZak]

You could really say that about other classes too. The paladin is basically just a fighter/cleric. The ranger is largely a fighter/druid or fighter/rogue/druid.

Exactly. We could very well have Cleric, Mage, Warrior, Rogue and then a tree of skills that would design the specific concept. However, Warlord was based on tanking, healing, +X to bonuses and giving extra actions. How do you put it to 5e? I havent checked Battlemaster but seems like it might be there.
Or do you have some specific feature that is just impossible as 5e is right now?


I play a "hunter" and I MCd rogue and monk. If I would wanna homebrew I could replace melee abilities with Natural Explorer and Fav. Enemy.

 

[Mercule]

This poll has made me realize that I'm now suffering from Warlord fatigue. A month ago, I was in the "it would be difficult, but knock yourself out" camp. At this point, I'm officially in the "warlord must die" camp.

 

[Orlax]

do you have the same problem with pacafist clerics?

The Pacifist cleric has open to them the option to use deadly force of a highly effective nature. Pacifist clerics die by choice the lazy Lord that can't survive solo dies because he has no chance. Yeah he makes the party better, well sometimes the party ain't there. Really the only way I can be okay with the lazy lord existing is that it basically has to be a pet subclass, but even then you can get separated from your cohort. Like, just to make sense the warlord has to be proficient in, at the very least, some weapons and light armor and at least some abilities that work on both himself and others.

 

[Yunru]

Lazylord is a style of playing a Warlord. They still actually have all the options of a Warlord.