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

[steeldragons]

What I'd really love to see, at this point, is a statement from WotC (since they're the only people that matter when it comes to being told things to certain fans), something along the lines of:

"A Warlord as [its own] class is not going to be developed for 5e. It's already there. Take the Battlemaster Fighter, buy a healer's kit, soldier background, use Inspirational Leader and other feats to fill in the rest.

If your DM is not using the feats or multiclassing options, as is their full right, they can offer this single character a dispensation (preferably with their table's assent) with the full knowledge to the player and rest of the group, that this opens up the use of these feats for the purposes of NPCs/villains as well."

...and, preferably, state flat out,

"This option will/will not (one way or the other so it's just over!) be endorsed or allowed in Adventurer's League play."

There will still be much yelling and gnashing of teeth, but the fact is, for better or worse, it would be over. The Wizards of Id will have spoken from on high and people can pout or cheer or leave or accept it as they wish.

Since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, I will AGAIN (at nearly 150 pages, here, folks) post my warlord class for people's playing pleasure...as it got next to no commentary from anyone here [Not being "official" and all.] as far as it meeting/not meeting their ever-so fragile and specific "needs" that the current system doesn't do

The original version is contained (warts and all) in the "Fiddling with Fighters" homebrew forum thread...also to be found therein, my Warlord fighter subclass, if that's what you prefer or don't object to using/is closer to what you want, and [I think I called it] "Marshal" feat for those that just want a simple "warlord-flavored add-on" for any class.

Warning, this is a 5E CLASS* (and subclasses). It is built upon and with the 5E classes/subclasses in mind and used as a barometer for comparable "power" and abilities, "balanced" (insofar as I can/seems comparable to 5e design) against existing classes so as not to "usurp" or overstep/-lap too egregiously into other similar class concepts. I have to point out, again...and will likely take heat as an "edition warrior" when a) I was completely not ever around for them, and b) this is a statement of fact and not a [completely subjective] judgement statement of "X/Ye is better/worse"...that this game we are talking about IS NOT 4e.

To whit, you CAN NOT, you DO NOT have/do/get EVERYthing you want/think you ought to from level 1...or even necessarily from level 3. You have to DEVELOP your character! You have to WORK TOWARD your goals. You GAIN POWER (and diversity of features) as you GAIN EXPERIENCE. It is what the game is built around, whether you're tracking XPs or just leveling when the DM says so. "Adventurers becoming heroes,"gaining power and ability as they go...NOT out the gate.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, that is fine and dandy. I am, similarly, not making subjective judgement statements about personal playstyle preferences! That is totally your prerogative to play how and what you like...But what is the justification for coming to a basketball game and saying, "What do you mean I don't get a penalty kick on a foul in the box?! There's something wrong with this game!"

* this and all capitalization that follows is placed for reading with/as emphasis/attention, a frustrated last ditch effort to get some perspectives to sink in. I'm not "online yelling" at anyone.

And now, I take my leave from this topic and threads about it. [no really! For good, this time!]

I will diminish...and go into the West...and remain Steeldragons.

Totally still going to vote in polls and those "survivor" silliness/fun threads though.

 

[Umbran]

The only reason why there is an abundance of threads about this topic is because the vocal fans on this thread won't take no for an answer and continue to perpetuate the debate on this forum.

That is not entirely correct.

Have you not noted that a debate requires *two* sides? Vocal fans cannot have a debate, unless they have opposition. Every time one of you steps up to say, "You don't get to have what you want," you perpetuate the debate.

But, let us be honest - it isn't a debate. It is an argument. Between those who want a thing, and those who would deny them that thing. And you know how arguments go, don't you? The more strident you get, the more one side *insists* that it is correct (or has won) the more the other side will dig in and refuse to yield.

In any case, the likelihood that Wizards - who spent the best part of two years developing D&D5E, and who lost market share during that time to do so - returning to the Player's Handbook anytime soon just to insert a divisive Class back into the game is negligible.

No, the class is not divisive. Unless you claim that people do not have free will, they cannot be divided by inanimate, insensate words on a page. If there is any dividing being done, it is being done by people.

Playstyle partisans are divisive. People who say, "This game we share can only have the things *I* want in it," are divisive. People who need to *win* arguments on the internet, and deny things to others, are divisive.

If people were inclusive in their thinking, the "debate" would be over in two lines:

"We want a Worlord!"
"Meh. Not my thing. But, at your table, I suppose you can have whatever you want. Good luck!"

And it would be done. There is only a "debate" because some folks feel a need to tell others, "I cannot allow you to pretend to be an elf in the way you'd prefer."

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That is not entirely correct.

Have you not noted that a debate requires *two* sides? Vocal fans cannot have a debate, unless they have opposition. Every time one of you steps up to say, "You don't get to have what you want," you perpetuate the debate.

But, let us be honest - it isn't a debate. It is an argument. Between those who want a thing, and those who would deny them that thing. And you know how arguments go, don't you? The more strident you get, the more one side *insists* that it is correct (or has won) the more the other side will dig in and refuse to yield.




No, the class is not divisive. Unless you claim that people do not have free will, they cannot be divided by inanimate, insensate words on a page. If there is any dividing being done, it is being done by people.

Playstyle partisans are divisive. People who say, "This game we share can only have the things *I* want in it," are divisive. People who need to *win* arguments on the internet, and deny things to others, are divisive.

If people were inclusive in their thinking, the "debate" would be over in two lines:

"We want a Worlord!"
"Meh. Not my thing. But, at your table, I suppose you can have whatever you want. Good luck!"

And it would be done. There is only a "debate" because some folks feel a need to tell others, "I cannot allow you to pretend to be an elf in the way you'd prefer."

Am I allowed to reply to this opinion piece? Or is it not allowed because you are choosing to post in "mod color"? Because several of your attempts to color (pardon the pun) opposition to your desires for a warlord class are incorrect.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

(Deleted)

 

[Lwaxy]

Am I allowed to reply to this opinion piece? Or is it not allowed because you are choosing to post in "mod color"? Because several of your attempts to color (pardon the pun) opposition to your desires for a warlord class are incorrect.

No you do not reply to a mod post.

Umbran was making a very simple point in a bit more detail than I would have. It comes down to this - don't tell others what to like and how to play. Simple enough? Thanks.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I play 5e. I'd really appreciate it if people would stop telling me I'm playing wrong because I don't have warlords in it or why I should like them...

 

[mellored]

does that mean we can get back to finding a compromise?

i.e.
Does anyone (either side) object to the warlords giving HP only via a healing kit feature (1 per creature per short rest)? Similar to the healer feat.
Along with indirect HP options like bonus AC, THP, or DR?


Would it be enough raw HP recovery for warlord fans?
And would it be acceptable to anti-warlorders if a bandage gave someone HP?

 

[MechaPilot]

I play 5e. I'd really appreciate it if people would stop telling me I'm playing wrong because I don't have warlords in it or why I should like them...

I don't believe I have seen anyone say that you are playing wrong because you don't have warlords. Each table is free to do as it pleases.

As for people telling you why you should like warlords, I'm not certain that I've seen that either. I've seen plenty of people saying why they think warlords do or do not belong in D&D, and why you shouldn't have a problem with warlords simply existing as one the available options to use or ban as one sees fit. However, I cannot recall a single post that said, "You should like warlords because . . . ."

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

does that mean we can get back to finding a compromise?

The first question would be should we comprimise ?
People who don't like the warlord concept are probebly ban it from their table no matter how many compromises are made in the class.
While the compromises might turn the warlord into something that does not fit what the warlord fans want.

 

[MechaPilot]

does that mean we can get back to finding a compromise?

I look forward to finding a compromise that works for everyone.

i.e.
Does anyone (either side) object to the warlords giving HP only via a healing kit feature (1 per creature per short rest)? Similar to the healer feat.
Along with indirect HP options like bonus AC, THP, or DR?

Would it be enough raw HP recovery for warlord fans?
And would it be acceptable to anti-warlorders if a bandage gave someone HP?

For me, inspirational healing is part of the warlord. It can be placed into a warlord subclass so it doesn't have to be part of the warlord for those who don't want it, but for a warlord to be a warlord to me inspirational healing in combat must be an available option.

What I'd really like to see is an inspirational healing ability that allows the target to spend HDs in combat, using either the target's Con modifier to the roll or the warlord's Cha modifier, whichever is higher. An ability like this would allow characters to push themselves by tapping into a reserve that's ordinarily only available during a short rest, which would therefore reduce the desire to take a short rest.