D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[Chocolategravy]

High level fighters already regenerate like trolls and low level they can lay on hands themselves. So you already have limited cheerlord non-magical obviously magical healing. Battlemaster has a lot of the lazylord stuff already letting you give rogues another sneak attack every round. What exactly would you be getting by adding a warlord class? You can multiclass a paladin or bard with fighter and get healing and auras and superiority benefits and pretty much do whatever you want already.

 

[Hussar]

High level fighters already regenerate like trolls and low level they can lay on hands themselves. So you already have limited cheerlord non-magical obviously magical healing. Battlemaster has a lot of the lazylord stuff already letting you give rogues another sneak attack every round. What exactly would you be getting by adding a warlord class? You can multiclass a paladin or bard with fighter and get healing and auras and superiority benefits and pretty much do whatever you want already.

Well, for one, you get the ability to play the character you want to play from first level, instead of having to wait several levels just to get the basic class.

Secondly, you get a class that actually functions as to what you want it to without a bunch of extraneous stuff (why is my warlord playing a lute? Why is my strategist a better swordsman than everyone else? Why is my coach lock tied to a diety and a code of ethics? Why am I casting spells?)

Everyone agrees you can get something that looks kinda like a warlord, eventually, in 5e. But, that's the problem. It's only about 70% of the way there and it comes with all sorts of baggage.

It's the same reason people wanted Psions to be their own class. And you can get a heck of a lot closer to a Psion with a Sorcerer than you can get to a Warlord with any number of multi-classes. But, people insisted they needed a Psion class, and they got what they wanted. So, yeah, I think Warlord fans absolutely should agitate for getting a warlord. Why not? Why should warlords get left out in the cold when psionic characters get support? it's not like psionics has ever been universally accepted. Lots of people dislike psionics strongly - for any number of reasons.

Actually, thinking about it, virtually all the arguments about Psions can equally be applied to warlords. Yet, Psions got a class.

Why not Warlords?

 

[El Mahdi]

Now WotC is starting to add stuff. I will encourage them to add stuff I like, and leave out stuff I don't like. Isn't that what everybody does? If it is something I really don't like, but other people really want, then "Well, put it in as optional" is a reasonable compromise. Isn't it?

No. That's not what everybody does.

Advocating for things you want is a different thing than advocating against things you don't want.

It really is advocating against other people having what they want.

And again (because I know you were already asked this, but haven't really answered it), why is it necessary to pointedly state something is optional, when everything in the game is optional...?

 

[El Mahdi]

No, I'm saying I don't want to play with that class. So it's not that I don't want anybody anywhere to pay a Warlord, I just don't want them to play one in the same group with me.

Wow. How do you not see the contradiction and irony in this statement?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well, for one, you get the ability to play the character you want to play from first level, instead of having to wait several levels just to get the basic class.

Are you aware that this is not the case for most classes until 3rd level? Just a few off the top of my head...

"I want to be a gish." - Sorry, you need to be 3rd level before you can take EK.
"I want to be an assassin." - Sorry, you need to be 3rd level before you can be one.
"I want to be a woodland hunter with a pet wolf." - Sorry, can't have the dog til 3rd level.

Everyone agrees you can get something that looks kinda like a warlord, eventually, in 5e. But, that's the problem. It's only about 70% of the way there and it comes with all sorts of baggage.

A 100%-4e-like-warlord would come with even more baggage, IMNSHO. Which leads me to ask, which class in 5e is more than 70% of its 4e equivalent?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Originally Posted by El Mahdi
And again (because I know you were already asked this, but haven't really answered it), why is it necessary to pointedly state something is optional, when everything in the game is optional...?

Why do feel it necessary to change a game most people are quite happy with, in an effort to make it into a game you would enjoy more, when you can just play a different game that better caters to your peculiarities and preferences?

 

[Lord Twig]

No. That's not what everybody does.

Advocating for things you want is a different thing than advocating against things you don't want.

It really is advocating against other people having what they want.

So you would be okay having your Warlord in a party with a gunslinger Cowboy, a magical pony, a "fantasy girl" in a chainmail bikini and a Chaotic Evil sociopath? I mean, where do you draw the line? When do you pick up your dice and go home? Because what I'm hearing is that you would be perfectly fine with this party composition because everyone should be able to play whatever they want to play and it won't effect you at all. I find that hard to believe.

By the way, if I had to pick one of the above to play with, it would be the Warlord, as that would be the least objectionable.

And again (because I know you were already asked this, but haven't really answered it), why is it necessary to pointedly state something is optional, when everything in the game is optional...?

Because there is a difference. I don't want to play with Warlords in my game. If Warlords are a strictly optional class that has to be intentionally added in, then it is an easier argument for excluding them. And yes, I do want to exclude them from my game.

You guys still aren't understanding the objection to the Warlord. For me it would be like sitting down with a character to play D&D and suddenly find I'm playing Traveler. Well, I don't want to play Traveler, I want to play D&D.

Some people might decide that their D&D doesn't have psionics in it, or no Monks, or whatever. My D&D doesn't have Warlords in it.

 

[Aldarc]

Some people might decide that their D&D doesn't have psionics in it, or no Monks, or whatever. My D&D doesn't have Warlords in it.

There is no "their D&D" or "my D&D" when it comes to these things though. D&D has psionics, monks, and warlords in it regardless of my feelings towards them. D&D has a long history of including an enormous wealth of character concepts, including warlords, while still being D&D. I may not like monks, but I don't think D&D is somehow less D&D if it includes monks. Including monks does not somehow make it less D&D. Including psionics does not make it less D&D. If anything, I would expect them, because it's part of D&D's history that exists independent of my feelings towards them. I want them for those who want them in their campaigns or character concepts. They may not be allowed at my table, but that's a separate matter then trying to unfairly "other" them (and those who like them) by claiming they are somehow "not D&D."

 

[ChrisCarlson]

D&D has a long history of... including warlords...

Really? I do not believe that to be the case at all. Perhaps it would be best if you defined "long history" first. Because, AFAIK, warlords have the shortest of histories.

 

[Aldarc]

Really? I do not believe that to be the case at all. Perhaps it would be best if you defined "long history" first. Because, AFAIK, warlords have the shortest of histories.

I would suggest not mischaracterizing what I wrote, and then reexamine my statement and its grammatical structuring. Thank you.