D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[hastur_nz]

Late in 3.5, the Marshal was released, and for the most part it was lame (except for a few dips in some CharOp builds).

In 4e, the idea was updated and the "Warlord" was born. One of my players created one, and really enjoyed it as a very different type of character (work via others, as much as yourself), compared to the years of 3.x characters we were all used to (individualists). But when that PC died, he moved on to a new character type for the bulk of that campaign.

In our years of playing (started in the alpha and beta-test group), no-one has complained that 5e is missing something similar to either of these concepts - a Fighter (and probably some other classes / multiclass options) can get close to the "feel" of either, i.e. team-work, but to be honest building a whole class around that idea seems unnecessary to me - the core classes of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue are the foundation, and even other classes like Barbarian, Ranger, Sorcerer etc are, IMO, not really all the different to be genuinely strong "core classes", so IMO we certainly don't need even more classes in the game.

 

[Vulf]

Valor Bard + Battlemaster Fighter already does everything a 4E Warlord did, and more.

I think the best you could get without multiclassing would be to start with Bard

Level 1 - Replace Bardic Inspiration with Combat Superiority
gain proficiency in medium armor, martial weapons
Hit die changes to a d10, may not choose a Bard college at level 3.

Number of Superiority Die = to Charisma Modifier
Maneuver DC equals 8 + Proficiency + Charisma modifier
Level 1 - maneuvers use a d6 die, 2 Maneuvers known. Advancements at the levels when Bardic Inspiration would gain a larger die.

 

[discosoc]

Valor Bard + Battlemaster Fighter already does everything a 4E Warlord did, and more.

I think these people are just attached to the name "warlord."

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think these people are just attached to the name "warlord."

I don't think that's it. I think it's more that while those things may do "more" than what a Warlord (by any name) could do, the things they do more are things that are unlike what people want from a Warlord (by any name) and they do NOT do "everything a Warlord can do" far or less MORE things that a Warlord (by any name) could do that are actually like a Warlord.

By any name.

But, again, I am not a Warlord proponent, although sometimes O feel like I am because I don't understand people who don't like it when others get the toys that they ask for.

If any of any of that makes any sense.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[mellored]

I think these people are just attached to the name "warlord."

Nah. Nearly everyone agrees "warlord" is a crappy name (though not really any worse than barbarian or druid), and wouldn't mind seeing it go. Though there's little agreement as to the new name.
What we want, is a full class of battlemaster, purple dragon knight, or a valor bard without spells. All the pieces are there, but just too disjointed to get together.

It's like wanting to eat raisins, but they only exists inside cookie or cake.

 

[The Old Crow]

I think these people are just attached to the name "warlord."

Nope. Never played 4e, and Warlord is an awful name for a class. Cool class concept, though, and I love seeing martial options expanded.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I will say, I voted don't care because I am neither for nor against. In my mind, that is more a vote "For" than "Against", since "For" hurts only those who don't want it, and I lean towards the most people possible being happy. I am not a warlord fanatic or anything, but I think specifically shutting down options that some people want is kind of a dick move. Like refusing to buy vegetarian food for your vegetarian guests because "They should be happy with the tomato that we put on our burgers."

I see where you're coming from. I've just kind of "had it" with seeing so many Warlord threads that all ask/say the same thing. I said in another Warlord thread...: "With the amount of time that has been spent complaining/asking/whatevering about a Warlord class, we could have had a dozen Warlord classes or arch-types done up".

That is why I get..."ruffled"... when I see yet another Warlord thread. I was initially in the "I don't care one way or the other" camp. But now...I'm firmly against anything of a Warlord CLASS becoming "5e Core PHB" in the next printing. I don't want ANY more full-blown Classes. Arch-types are what distinguishes a character more than the Class. The Class is just the foundation. The bedrock. The skeleton. The Arch-type is what gives it fluff, flavour, and flash.

In short: We don't NEED another full-blown CLASS! *frownyface*

I'd be all for a few different takes on a warlord arch-type; one under fighter, maybe someone puts it under cleric, yet another goes for barbarian. I can see different CLASSES making each warlord arch-type unique from others and, frankly, cool. I like the idea of a "Cleric (warlord)" who follows a god of 'Warfare and Tactics'... or a "Barbarian (Hoard General)" that commands an army of unwashed, hairsuit, axe-wielding, fur-clad warriors in to battle against the evil Sorcerer, hold up in his tower. If this was done as a "Class", we then have to have multiple arch-types to fill these gaps...and then those who use MC'ing in their game will have to deal with the city-born thief who takes a few "level dips into Warlord" so he can force his opponent into a position that gives the thief Advantage (Backstab). Not because it fit a cool character concept...but because it upped the rogues DPS and "kewlness" factor for the player (which, typically, is inversely proportional to how annoyed other rogue PC's and the DM are).

Anyway, I'm sorry for the mini-rant. I've just had it with Warlord threads. I'm leaving them alone from now on...until I see a thread confirming a new Warlord CLASS from WotC. Then....oooohhh boooyyyy! I'll jump in with both feet and both fists a flyin'!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zardnaar]

So 42 pages and counting boils down to "Not much".

 

[Lanliss]

Hiya!



I see where you're coming from. I've just kind of "had it" with seeing so many Warlord threads that all ask/say the same thing. I said in another Warlord thread...: "With the amount of time that has been spent complaining/asking/whatevering about a Warlord class, we could have had a dozen Warlord classes or arch-types done up".

That is why I get..."ruffled"... when I see yet another Warlord thread. I was initially in the "I don't care one way or the other" camp. But now...I'm firmly against anything of a Warlord CLASS becoming "5e Core PHB" in the next printing. I don't want ANY more full-blown Classes. Arch-types are what distinguishes a character more than the Class. The Class is just the foundation. The bedrock. The skeleton. The Arch-type is what gives it fluff, flavour, and flash.

In short: We don't NEED another full-blown CLASS! *frownyface*

I'd be all for a few different takes on a warlord arch-type; one under fighter, maybe someone puts it under cleric, yet another goes for barbarian. I can see different CLASSES making each warlord arch-type unique from others and, frankly, cool. I like the idea of a "Cleric (warlord)" who follows a god of 'Warfare and Tactics'... or a "Barbarian (Hoard General)" that commands an army of unwashed, hairsuit, axe-wielding, fur-clad warriors in to battle against the evil Sorcerer, hold up in his tower. If this was done as a "Class", we then have to have multiple arch-types to fill these gaps...and then those who use MC'ing in their game will have to deal with the city-born thief who takes a few "level dips into Warlord" so he can force his opponent into a position that gives the thief Advantage (Backstab). Not because it fit a cool character concept...but because it upped the rogues DPS and "kewlness" factor for the player (which, typically, is inversely proportional to how annoyed other rogue PC's and the DM are).

Anyway, I'm sorry for the mini-rant. I've just had it with Warlord threads. I'm leaving them alone from now on...until I see a thread confirming a new Warlord CLASS from WotC. Then....oooohhh boooyyyy! I'll jump in with both feet and both fists a flyin'!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I certainly agree with you on the homebrew front, but that doesn't seem to satisfy the ones wanting the warlord, because apparently "Official" is important. I expect there will be a warlord coming up soon, otherwise we might have heard word about it. It is an odd phenomenon, but as a general rule when people really want something, and the person they are asking for it remains silent, they are probably getting it. Like a kid going on and on about how they want the newest game for their birthday, and all they get in return is a knowing smile. The main reason I expect it to happen is that it really will not hurt anyone, at all. Sure, it will anger a set of people who, for some reason*, don't want the warlord to exist at all, but I would be willing to risk that ire in the interest of more positive emotions.

*By "Some reason" I do not mean I don't know the reason, I mean that there are multiple sets of people, falling into various overlapping venn diagrams of different reasons. Pointing to one would just result in someone from a different umbrella saying "No, it's this reason that we shouldn't have a warlord"

 

[Hussar]

If home-brew was going to satisfy people, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There's a dozen or more home-brew warlords out there.

But, as to why that's not acceptable, think about it this way. Take a class you want to play. Remove it from the PHB. It no longer exists. Every time you ask that WotC bring back that class, you get told that you should be satisfied with the options in the PHB or go make your own. Not because there are any real mechanical arguments against what you want (after all, pretty much all the warlord mechanics exist in the game) but solely because someone who doesn't know you and will likely never play at your table doesn't want it in the game.

And that's what it boils down to. We're being told to sit down and shut up ("there's too many warlord threads!") not for any real mechanical reason. Not even for flavor reasons (it's not like the archetype doesn't fit in the game). No, we're being told that we should be satisfied with a Valor Bard, or someone's home-brew simply because some people don't want it in the game.

And you wonder why warlord fans get a bit... hot under the collar?

Try this. The next time you want to play a caster, you can't. You are not allowed to. You can only play a half caster. After all, an Eldritch Knight or a Ranger should be good enough right? You get to cast spells. Full casters are just the munchkin option anyway. Only power gamers choose to play full casters. Real role players certainly don't.

Sucks wouldn't it? Being told that over and over and over again every time you even mention the idea of playing what you want to play? Never minding that you're being told this by people whose only real objection is that they don't want what you want and will do everything in their power to deny you the opportunity.