D&D 5E What's a Warlord? Never heard of this class before.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Perhaps what we really need is a powerful new Ranger subclass that yields a fully functional Warlord, since Rangers get a lot more power rolled into their sub classes, Faramir can be the inspiration, it'll make everyone happy! /s

 

[Neonchameleon]

Speaking only for myself, this is more an issue for me. Not some silly fluff based magic/non-magic argument. Why are we considering a class that sets a PC above others as its core concept viable? Why must my character follow yours? Just because you chose a class that says you get to boss me around? Terrible design. Even worse implementation.

I too want to play D&D in the world of Harrison Bergeron where no one is better than anyone else at anything. And I think that everyone has exactly the same leadership capabilities as everyone else.

Oh wait. No I don't.

But the Warlord doesn't have to be the boss. One of the most popular warlord builds was what I called the "Princess Build" - i.e. the comic relief character who was always getting into scrapes and whose actual melee abilities were laughably ineffective. And who could try to boss people around - but neither "Help! Help!" nor "Duck!" really qualify.

And this is why. You are exactly right. Anyone should be able to perform as a leader.

Anyone can perform as a leader whether or not there is a Warlord in the game. Just as anyone can swing a sword whether they are a fighter or a wizard. Or anyone can play a priest without being a cleric.

By virtue of circumstance, scenario, roleplaying and table agreement. Not because your character has an "I'm the boss of you" superpower on their character sheet.

That would be the wizard. With Dominate Person.

Propose/provide an example of a warlord class that avoids requiring the other PCs to be lead by the class. Commanded. Even inspired (another troublesome issue because it involves forcing other PCs to roleplay or think a certain way regardless of circumstances).

The 4e Warlord. Accepting the use of the Warlord's abilities is entirely optional. For that matter so is a standard Warlord leading.

Now if someone wants to try to play the party leader the Warlord class is a natural way of doing it. And if they do a bad enough job the other PCs can refuse to accept the bonusses they offer. It's far more consensual than e.g. the Bard.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

None of that. Plus the following bolded part below assures me we will never see eye-to-eye on anything related to this topic.

But the Warlord doesn't have to be the boss. One of the most popular warlord builds was what I called the "Princess Build" - i.e. the comic relief character who was always getting into scrapes and whose actual melee abilities were laughably ineffective. And who could try to boss people around - but neither "Help! Help!" nor "Duck!" really qualify.

I also like how you start the paragraph pointing out that warlords don't have to boss people around, then end by describing "one of the most popular warlord builds" as trying to boss people around. Brilliant.

IMO, the type of agency-robbing character you are describing is everything that is bad about the reasons some people participate in TTRPG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

None of that. Plus the following bolded part below assures me we will never see eye-to-eye on anything related to this topic.

I also like how you start the paragraph pointing out that warlords don't have to boss people around, then end by describing "one of the most popular warlord builds" as trying to boss people around. Brilliant.

IMO, the type of agency-robbing character you are describing is everything that is bad about the reasons some people participate in TTRPG.

And IMO your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of agency and your idea that to have agency there must be no mechanical weight at all on the character's decisions is something that undermines the very idea of roleplaying as anything other than a subversive tabletop wargame/boardgame. It's cutting the roleplaying out of tabletop roleplaying.

 

[mellored]

IMO, the type of agency-robbing character you are describing is everything that is bad about the reasons some people participate in TTRPG.

Again, basically every warlord feature is already in the game. Including inspiring someone to be better, inspiring someone to gain HP, making people fearless, and telling someone when to attack.

We just want it in 1 class.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

And IMO your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of agency and your idea that to have agency there must be no mechanical weight at all on the character's decisions is something that undermines the very idea of roleplaying as anything other than a subversive tabletop wargame/boardgame. It's cutting the roleplaying out of tabletop roleplaying.

And IMO your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of agency and your idea that roleplaying requires mechanical weight and that one player should influence another player's actions or motivations via the excuse that it is their character doing it as justification undermines the very idea of roleplaying and turns it into a subversive tabletop proxy for narcissistic catharsis and/or a release from everyday societal impotence. It's cutting the roleplaying out of tabletop roleplaying and turning it into a wargame/boardgame.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Again, basically every warlord feature is already in the game.

Yet not in the way being asked for by certain people looking for "princess build" lazylordery.

Including inspiring someone to be better, inspiring someone to gain HP, making people fearless, and telling someone when to attack.

Either though magic, or by active participation. Not by barking orders while comfortable reclining in their lounge chair in the back of the room.

We just want it in 1 class.

...using a different application/method of delivery.

 

[mellored]

Either though magic, or by active participation. Not by barking orders while comfortable reclining in their lounge chair in the back of the room.

No.

Commander’s Strike. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll.

You can be sitting in the back of a room.
Or heck, you could sit at the local bar, have someone scry on you, and give them an attack.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No.
You can be sitting in the back of a room.
Or heck, you could sit at the local bar, have someone scry on you, and give them an attack.

No. You have access to only a limited number of maneuver dice. If you are set on sitting in the back of the room, it won't be for long unless you are willing to be useless. You'll need to be participating in the fight.

 

[mellored]

No.

Yes.
You can, with a level 3 battlemaster, spend 4 rounds per short rest in the back of a room barking orders at people.

You have access to only a limited number of maneuver dice. If you are set on sitting in the back of the room, it won't be for long unless you are willing to be useless.

You can do it for about 50% of the fights.

But that's why we want more warlord.

You'll need to be participating in the fight.

I don't know why you think you granting attacks is not participating....

Do you think casting bless, haste, or greater invisibility on someone not participating?