D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Corwin]

Nobody means the Marshal.

The thread is about the Warlord, there's only been one Warlord.

Well, you did say *original* class...

Not to mention how often you like to mention it whenever discussions of the Warlord's origins come around.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, you did say *original* class...

Yes, in a thread about the Warlord. The original (and so far only) Warlord class was introduced in the 4e PH1. You knew that when you replied, and I responded to your humorous allusion in kind. Between us we got one laugh.

I doubt there's a lot more to be milked from mocking the poor, narrowly-conceived, badly-implemented, underpowered, Marshal. It probably feels bad enough after receiving only one vote in Corpsetaker's poll.

Maybe we should go vote it up a bit? Just out of pity?

Narrative should dictate the mechanics. That's a goal of 5e.

I should learn to make a point so succinctly.

You can have things like "on your first turn of combat". Which is effectively 2/short rest, but makes a lot more sense narratively.

Oh, I like that.

I won't comment on a specific poster, but when 4e came out, many complained about how it made no sense that a fighter had things he could do once per day.

Or 1/encounter, for that matter. It was "XOMG! Fighters cast spells! IT'S NOT D&D!!!"

Then 5e came out.
Fighters got short-rest recharge, non-magical powers. No problem.
Fighters could actually cast spells. No problem.

Shouldn't've been a surprise, either, since even back in 3.0, the fighter could take a bonus feat that gave him an n/day ability, Stunning Fist, 1/day/4-levels, IIRC.

And when 5e started, very few 4e players cared about AEDU. Though a uniform class structure had some advantages, like hybrid classes, there weren't (m)any complaints about seeing it go.

Oh, there were plenty of complaints about seeing the common AEDU resource structure go, they were in 2010 when Essentials came out. By the 5e playtest, it was just one of those things that any remotely realistic fans realized had to be compromised.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Over 600 posts in this thread? Clearly the answer to the OP's question is it's own subforum.


...runs and hides

 

[Corwin]

Yes, in a thread about the Warlord. The original (and so far only) Warlord class was introduced in the 4e PH1.

Were you hoping people would see your post and believe you haven't repeatedly brought up the Marshal class in Warlord discussions?

Also, it seems like you're swinging over into the, "We will never have a warlord class until they give us one named: Warlord," camp. Which seems like a new position for you. I never considered you to be one who got hung up on names of things.

 

[mellored]

I'm OK with that. I'm more interested in figuring out how to balance a theoretical action granting class, personally. There's more than enough "close enough" third party warlords already.

as a balance baseline, you can cast haste each combat by 11.

Perhaps...

You can expend your action, bonus action, and reaction to grant an attack.
At level 5, you no longer need to use your reaction.
At level 11, you only need to use your bonus action.
At level 17, your ally no longer needs to use their reaction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

it seems like you're swinging over into the, "We will never have a warlord class until they give us one named: Warlord," camp. Which seems like a new position for you.

I am, and it is new for me, and I'm not entirely sanguine about it.

Like I said yesterday, if a 'Marshal' had appeared in the 5e PH as a full class, no more or less optional than any other non-Big-4 class, that was otherwise a decent (not even good) take on the Warlord, I'd've put it down to a necessary compromise, counted my blessings and only gently mocked it with the occasional Matt Dillon reference.

But, the longer it takes to finally get a Warlord, the greater the compromises it's fans have already conceded (over and above the concession of it being necessarily opt-in optional, which seems to be very important psychologically, vs the de-facto opt-out optional of a PH class), and the higher the bar rises, IMHO.
Call it 'impatience,' though I suppose that's relative (Essentials was 'too little too late' for critics only 2 years after 4e came out; going on 3 years in and not even a playtest Warlord, and I'm /starting/ to feel just a bit impatient).
The longer we wait, the more it takes for it to be worth that wait.

 

[tuxgeo]

It could be skinned as the tactical opportunity not presenting itself again, and at higher levels you are simply better at catching the little tics that give the opportunity for a particular maneuver.

That sounds like it would happen randomly, such as on a die roll.

i.e. when an enemy rolls a 1, you take advantage of his fumble. At level 5, you see them roll a 1 or 2. At level 11 it's 1-3, and at level 17 it's 1-4.

Which seems like it would be fun.

Maybe use a "recharge" mechanic instead?
That way, it would depend on a die roll; but it would be the player's die roll, not the DM's, so a successful recharge would be cause for congratulations to the player, not mockery to the DM.

 

[Corwin]

But, the longer it takes to finally get a Warlord, the greater the compromises it's fans have already conceded (over and above the concession of it being necessarily opt-in optional, which seems to be very important psychologically, vs the de-facto opt-out optional of a PH class), and the higher the bar rises, IMHO.
Call it 'impatience,' though I suppose that's relative (Essentials was 'too little too late' for critics only 2 years after 4e came out; going on 3 years in and not even a playtest Warlord, and I'm /starting/ to feel just a bit impatient).
The longer we wait, the more it takes for it to be worth that wait.

This is all rather hyperbolic, IMO. I mean, your second paragraph (not quoted here) concedes that these so called "compromises" would likely have been written off and accepted if you got your "Warlord" (or Marshal, or whatever) out of the gate. Even *if*, in your own words, it "was otherwise a decent (not even good)" take. Well, you did. You got that. You can pretend all you like to the contrary, but you did. The devs even told you they gave it to you. But it was *not* in fact good enough for you to count your blessings. I contend nothing ever will. At this point not even a full class called Warlord will sate you, and those like you. Because the truth is likely something unspoken. And this whole "Warlord issue" is just a proxy for it. As evident by these bombastic claims and demands of yours I *did* quote here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is all rather hyperbolic, IMO.

Also relative. Compared to having nothing to complain about, sure, it's being whiny, no question.
Compared to the edition war, when putting the gnome as a sketchy optional player race in the MM, was too little, and a full version in the PH2 less than a year latter was too late - really kinda muted.

I mean, your second paragraph (not quoted here) concedes that these so called "compromises" would likely have been written off and accepted if you got your "Warlord" (or Marshal, or whatever) out of the gate. Even *if*, in your own words, it "was otherwise a decent (not even good)" take. Well, you did. You got that.

Quoting it here:

if a 'Marshal' had appeared in the 5e PH as a full class, no more or less optional than any other non-Big-4 class, that was otherwise a decent (not even good) take on the Warlord, I'd've put it down to a necessary compromise

I manifestly did not get that.

The hypothetical "necessary compromise" of accepting an only-decent, under a different name version, would have been in return for it being a full class, in the PH, at release, and not being exiled to an opt-in-only option ghetto. Since 'in the PH' and 'opt-out-optional' are off the table and non-negotiable, there's all the more reason to push for a full class, of higher quality, and, yes, even the symbolic gesture of the name 'Warlord.' (Plus, the Name used on an official class ends these rediculous "but if you squint at it and only want 3% of what the warlord did, this feat/subclass/background/off-hand-developer-comment/whatever is totally all the warlord you need," and, by the same token, to whining for the Warlord, at all - bitching about a bad design, though... well, no solution is perfect.)

That's how I feel about it.

 

[Corwin]

...edition war...

Oh look, there it is again.

I manifestly did not get that.

You got functional (by 5e standards) warlord-esque options. More than one. It wasn't what you wanted. I get that. Join the club, with those of us who didn't get everything we wanted. Everybody's in the club, so you are in good company. But please quit acting like WotC ignored warlords and their fans completely. They didn't. Can you not even admit that?