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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Oh please!

Apparently accepting that I am influenced by others and that there are active and tangible rewards for working with other people, and following the plans of better planners is narcissistic catharsis and a release from everyday social impotence. While playing someone who is an island, utterly uninfluenced by their companions is mysteriously and miraculously less like the sort of wargame in which the players look from the top down and move their pieces round like pawns.

D&D has always been a power fantasy involving a lack of attachment, and a hacked tabletop wargame. You seem to resent this getting intruded on?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

And when I read these recent posts of yours explaining how and why you need to have mechanical backing for your character bossing around the other PCs, I confess I get the distinct impression it's maybe the only way you can get other players do follow your lead. Do you need hard rules to get other players to agree to listen to you? Why must you force other players to do your bidding by way of lording class features over them? What ever happened to just roleplaying being a leader? I suggest getting better at roleplaying and you will find less a need for the rules to do it for you.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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 can do it for about 50% of the fights.

I recommend actually playing a BMF (or at least seeing a few in real play) before making such ridiculous assertions. Because this is flimsy even for white-room. And so far removed from actual play experience, it's not worth responding to in any depth.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And when I read these recent posts of yours explaining how and why you need to have mechanical backing for your character bossing around the other PCs, I confess I get the distinct impression it's maybe the only way you can get other players do follow your lead.

Which shows nothing more than that you know nothing about me and have missed the mark by quite a margin.

Do you need hard rules to get other players to agree to listen to you?

No.

Next question?

Why must you force other players to do your bidding by way of lording class features over them?

I don't. This is purely something out of your imagination. First the word force is out of your imagination. And second I've played and loved a Bravura Warlord due to the way it encourages extremely reckless tactics and a playstyle that in oD&D will get you dead for very good reasons. (And that character was neither the party leader nor intended to be - he was instead a reckless sixteen year old adventurer who was smart, sharp, and far too convinced of his own immortality). That is the only warlord I've actually played for more than a session. And the idea of him "lording it over people" is ridiculous.

Now I've played alongside a number of warlords who had mechanical backing for characters that wouldn't really have worked in other versions of D&D. I've seen a player who is normally mousy quiet in games and there to have a drink and vaguely socialise suddenly get into roleplaying because they had actual mechanical backing for what they were trying to do and the game told them it was OK. (And despite the fact I wasn't the warlord I was the party leader that game, while the warlord was the party face in a very different way from a bard). I've seen the sort of player you are talking about have what you consider BadWrongFun by playing the leader despite not having the charisma or the tactical ability to carry it off. And because the rules let them actually carry their weight we were happier to let them do this than we'd otherwise have been. I've seen a male damsel in distress warlord played for comedy for two sessions and leave the table in stitches - while the player didn't have to worry that they were preventing the party succeeding. (Much more and we'd all have got bored of the joke - but it was great while it lasted).

What ever happened to just roleplaying being a leader? I suggest getting better at roleplaying and you will find less a need for the rules to do it for you.

And I would point out that every single part of your post is a straw man. And that if you want to get better at roleplaying actually understanding why people like things and getting better at seeing possibilities in different types of characters would be a good start.

Edit: And I recommend playing a warlord or at least seeing one in play before making any further assertions about how they are played.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Edit: And I recommend playing a warlord or at least seeing one in play before making any further assertions about how they are played.

Welcome to the end of a long debate. I've pointed out repeatedly over the months here how much I've played an enjoyed 4e (a great deal for its entire run, and very much, respectively). And the various warlords I've played and played with. So no. Now who doesn't know whom?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Welcome to the end of a long debate. I've pointed out repeatedly over the months here how much I've played an enjoyed 4e (a great deal for its entire run, and very much, respectively). And the various warlords I've played and played with. So no. Now who doesn't know whom?

Then I find it interesting all your warlords have behaved the same way - and I've rarely seen that.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Then I find it interesting all your warlords have behaved the same way - and I've rarely seen that.

More unfamiliarity with the lengthy debate and those in it. I've repeatedly expressed a dislike for lazylording. That's a specific thing. And I'm not the only one here, and elsewhere, pointing out the anathema to RPG play that it is. I get that "princess build" is your shtick. So obviously your opinion runs counter to mine. That's life. We see it differently. There's no harm in agreeing to disagree and moving on.

 

[mellored]

I recommend actually playing a BMF (or at least seeing a few in real play) before making such ridiculous assertions. Because this is flimsy even for white-room. And so far removed from actual play experience, it's not worth responding to in any depth.

I have and i did.

I was beat down in one of the combats, so i sat in the back and used commander's strikes on the next one. Also took care of the horses.

It's harder to do at higher level, unless you have a rogue, because 1 extra attack doesn't scale well enough. But nothing a full warlord class couldn't fix.

 

[mellored]

There's no harm in agreeing to disagree and moving on.

Agreed. So feel free to ban commander's strike, haste, charm person, dominate person, bless, Purple dragon knight, bards, and all the other things in your game that take away agency.


And i can ban clerics in mine because i think people healing with the power of faith is silly.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Actually, I'll continue to enjoy the choices the devs made in putting together 5e thus far. It is here that I will point out that they have not given some of you the warlord you think you want.

On the other hand, I encourage you to feel free to homebrew the heck out of whatever warlord kitchen-sinker you want. I just recommend you don't require everyone else to like and take it with out criticisms. Especially should you decide to post it on a public forum for mass consumption.