D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[mellored]

Or the fighter. Or the barbarian. Or the paladin. Or the wizard. We can do the same thing you are doing.

Exactly.

No one gets exactly what they think a particular class needs. Because they didn't publish it. WotC did. Saying that the battlemaster isn't a real warlord is no different than saying the illusionist isn't a real illusionist because illusionist used to be a class.

If an illusions fan thinks that the illusionist class is not illusionist enough, you can fix that by adding more illusion spells. Spells are modular. You can swap fireball for major illusion without making a new class.

Since warlord fan thinks that battlemasaters aren't warlordy enough, you need a new class to fix it.
Fighter is not modular. You can't swap out action surge, second wind, multi-attack, or d10 hit dice to make room for more maneuvers or combat dice.

If they kept the fighter like they had it in the playtest, with X superiority dice a turn, then it would also be modular and easy to simply swap out damage for maneuvers. But they chose to go with fixed class features. So i can't.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

If an illusions fan thinks that the illusionist class is not illusionist enough, you can fix that by adding more illusion spells. Spells are modular. You can swap fireball for major illusion without making a new class.

Since warlord fan thinks that battlemasaters aren't warlordy enough, you need a new class to fix it.
Fighter is not modular. You can't swap out action surge, second wind, multi-attack, or d10 hit dice to make room for more maneuvers or combat dice.

If they kept the fighter like they had it in the playtest, with X superiority dice a turn, then it would also be modular and easy to simply swap out damage for maneuvers. But they chose to go with fixed class features. So i can't.

But, again, only inasmuch as that is your personal opinion of what a warlords is. Others (and arguable the devs themselves) believe a warlord should also be a solid warrior in his own right (thus keeping the fighter's core features) as well as an enabler and bolsterer of his allies (the battlemaster maneuvers geared towards warlord-y behavior). As well as the feats available to take it even further if you choose. Which, again I feel it needs pointing out, makes you less awesome as a warrior than the fighter who isn't going warlord. Where you are spending all your choices and opportunity costs on warlord stuff (the maneuvers and feats), the other fighter is making himself a scary killing machine. So he is pulling away. Just not as far as some seem to want. Which is not what others are asking for anyway.

 

[ZickZak]

But, again, only inasmuch as that is your personal opinion of what a warlords is. Others (and arguable the devs themselves) believe a warlord should also be a solid warrior in his own right (thus keeping the fighter's core features) as well as an enabler and bolsterer of his allies (the battlemaster maneuvers geared towards warlord-y behavior). As well as the feats available to take it even further if you choose. Which, again I feel it needs pointing out, makes you less awesome as a warrior than the fighter who isn't going warlord. Where you are spending all your choices and opportunity costs on warlord stuff (the maneuvers and feats), the other fighter is making himself a scary killing machine. So he is pulling away. Just not as far as some seem to want. Which is not what others are asking for anyway.

Agreed.

From what I read you can have

3 Manuevers x4
3 Channel Divinity 1/2x - from Cleric
Bardic Inspiration x5 (Bonuses or minuses to anything)
Lay on Hands
TONS of spells from Bard, Cleric, Paladin and many from elsewhere via Magical Secrets, Domain and Oath.
Inspiring Leader, Sentinel and Shield Master feats...

That is a warlord. If you wanna do this all the time and still do tons of damage at-will, you cant.

 

[mellored]

But, again, only inasmuch as that is your personal opinion of what a warlords is.

I never claimed my opinion was everyone's opinion.

My opinion is that the battle master is not enough of a warlord.
And your opinion is that the battle master is enough of a warlord.

Though that was obvious....

 

[mellored]

Agreed.

From what I read you can have

3 Manuevers x4
3 Channel Divinity 1/2x - from Cleric
Bardic Inspiration x5 (Bonuses or minuses to anything)
Lay on Hands
TONS of spells from Bard, Cleric, Paladin and many from elsewhere via Magical Secrets, Domain and Oath.
Inspiring Leader, Sentinel and Shield Master feats...

That is a warlord. If you wanna do this all the time and still do tons of damage at-will, you cant.

I think most people would disagree about "TONS of spells" being a warlord.

In fact, i imagine that's a major point of agreement. Warlords don't use spells (or any magic).

 

[ZickZak]

Cool. Don't then. Easy.

I thought they give out THP, heal, bonuses - but they don't use spells? You can call it and describe it whatever, it still heals and helps no matter if it is a spell or shouting "YO!".

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I never claimed my opinion was everyone's opinion.

My opinion is that the battle master is not enough of a warlord.
And your opinion is that the battle master is enough of a warlord.

Though that was obvious....

Sure. But, to be blunt, I do not believe all opinions to be equal. I have the devs (supported by 2+ years worth of playtest feedback andn their considerable design acumen and experience) agreeing with me. As evident by what was published as well as their stated opinions on the matter...

 

[mellored]

Sure. But, to be blunt, I do not believe all opinions to be equal. I have the devs (supported by 2+ years worth of playtest feedback andn their considerable design acumen and experience) agreeing with me. As evident by what was published as well as their stated opinions on the matter...

Still not sure what your point is.


The devs put out a ranger.
Some thing it's a good representation of the ranger.
Many do not.

They are trying again. (not replacing, but making a new class).



The devs put the warlord under the fighter as a battlemaster.
Some people agree that's good representation of the warlord.
Many do not.

They should try again. (not replacing, but making a new class).

 

[Umbran]

There inlies the rub. Even among avid, pro-warlord advocates, there is no consensus. As many as there are who would be okay with it, there will be those who say the class failed to represent the true essence of the warlord.

You may be entirely correct. "You can't please all the people all the time," is a pretty solid truism.

However, to take it further (and perhaps make something clear to a few folks in these discussions) this is *not* a valid argument for not trying to please many people, most of the time. It is even less an argument for getting in the way of folks trying to make something to please themselves.

We have this tendency to make perfect the enemy of good, in a way that is not so much constructive criticism as it is obstructionism.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You may be entirely correct. "You can't please all the people all the time," is a pretty solid truism.

However, to take it further (and perhaps make something clear to a few folks in these discussions) this is *not* a valid argument for not trying to please many people, most of the time. It is even less an argument for getting in the way of folks trying to make something to please themselves.

We have this tendency to make perfect the enemy of good, in a way that is not so much constructive criticism as it is obstructionism.

Fair enough. But I've been speaking more to the position (read: impression) of some here who are stating opinions as fact. That a warlord *must* have this or that to be "correct". That's not a tenable stance. Speaking to one's personal opinion as if it is a universally accepted fact is doing a disservice to the discussion because it preemptively discounts anyone who believes otherwise.