D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Aldarc]

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

Nah. I would say that it is not just about the "warlord" name or what the "warlord" does as a concept but also about the aesthetic. At any given point where you are talking about using 'cleric' or 'bard' to express what the "warlord" does, then you have frolicked into foreign fields far beyond that of the warlord's non-magical martial aesthetic. This was a big part of the appeal of the warlord in 4e for enthusiasts of the general class concept: it wasn't a bard or a cleric; but, instead, the warlord expanded the team support, tactical play, and battlefield control options for non-magical martial characters. This aesthetic is of critical importance for the basic warlord chassis.

 

[Imaro]

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"

I think there will be an official warlord of some sort in the future as well... my stance isn't that their shouldn't be one... it's that there are a ton of other things (on the player and DM side) especially at this point in D&D 5e's lifecycle, I'd personally rather see addressed first, many of which are (at least if UA is anything to go by) being looked at and worked on by the developers. I think there are some posters who tend to oversimplify the opposition to or indifference to the warlord. They are the type that totally gloss over the fact that resources, page count, etc are all limited and that in order for the warlord to have resources devoted to him... something else won't.

Instead the narrative becomes that others just want to stop their fun... which IMO is just a silly way of dismissing what they choose not to address. I am not trying to stop you from playing what you want at your table, but if I have no interest on what you want and it will cost me... say extra feats, expansion of subclasses for the classes I actually use, new classes I want, new rules modules or something else I want and would use more... I'm pretty meh on you getting your fun over mine. In other words we are both advocating for what we want in future 5e supplements but for some reason you advocating for what you want is inherently better then me advocating for what I want... nope, not buying it.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Do I get to homebrew my own caster and play it? Are there third party options for casters I can play in this hypothetical scenario?

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I know exactly how that feels. I'm a child of the 80s, and my favorite class is the ninja. Loved 1e's OA and the ninja class in it. A ninja is a stronger archetype than a warlord, and has a much greater history in the game than the warlord. But we still don't have that. Yes, the shadow monk and the assassin rogue offer things that can make that work, just like the purple dragon knight, valor bard, and battlemaster fighter offer things that are like the warlord. And yeah, just like the PDK, the subclass they did put out for the ninja was extremely lacking for what I wanted in my personal opinion.

So yeah, I know what it feels like but you don't see me constantly complaining about how I don't get what I want.

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.

I've asked you once already to stop with this sort of hyperbole, because all it does is tell me you're either looking for a fight or have a tremendous victim complex. No one has told you to shut up. One or two people commenting about how there are a lot of warlord threads isn't even close to telling people they aren't allowed to talk about the warlord period and they must shut up.

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.

Again, more hyperbole that isn't rooted in any sort of truth, and a glaring false equivalency fallacy. The difference between a full caster and half caster, and an option that omits just a couple of the old warlord class features is pretty vast.

So I'll say this again, and I sincerely do not mean it to be attacking you or to be a jerk, but am serious: if you cannot make your point without resorting to severe hyperbole, then it tells me that your point isn't that strong to begin with, because if it was, then you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics. (this is true of everyone and every topic).

 

[Aldarc]

I think there will be an official warlord of some sort in the future as well... my stance isn't that their shouldn't be one... it's that there are a ton of other things (on the player and DM side) especially at this point in D&D 5e's lifecycle, I'd personally rather see addressed first, many of which are (at least if UA is anything to go by) being looked at and worked on by the developers. I think there are some posters who tend to oversimplify the opposition to or indifference to the warlord. They are the type that totally gloss over the fact that resources, page count, etc are all limited and that in order for the warlord to have resources devoted to him... something else won't.

I don't think that Warlord fans are glossing over that fact at all, Imaro. Just as there are people who don't see "mass combat" as a high priority there are those who do and want it included. The same is true or just about anything really. It's kinda understood as a given - a reality of publishing - so mentioning this as an issue comes across as insulting our intelligence, among other things. But we don't know what would or would not get cut by advocating for the Warlord. They rarely tell us what gets cut, and publishers would never frame the discussion in terms of "we wanted to include X, but we didn't because we included Y instead," but will, rather, simply say "we wanted to include X but we couldn't due to page count" without any sense or reference to any priority hierarchy. As such, suggesting that the unseen contents of Mystery Box X will get cut if the Warlord is included is something of an empty statement to make. The point is not about the unknown of what could potentially be cut but about the sincere desire for something to be included at all. Throwing out the "but if Warlord then not X" issue comes across as trying to kick the warlord-can down the line. "Oh no! If we advocate for the Warlord class, then our other favorite things that we want [whatever they may be] won't be included! Golly gee willikers, we better stop advocating for the Warlord."

So how many pages would you estimate the Warlord would require? How would this compare, for example, for yet another supplement providing wizards and arcane casters with more spells to the expense of martial characters? Are casters that starved for spells? Catalogues upon catalogues of spells were lovingly poured upon casters in supplements of yore. I guess martial characters got more feat options, but then again, so did casters.

I know exactly how that feels. I'm a child of the 80s, and my favorite class is the ninja. Loved 1e's OA and the ninja class in it. A ninja is a stronger archetype than a warlord, and has a much greater history in the game than the warlord. But we still don't have that. Yes, the shadow monk and the assassin rogue offer things that can make that work, just like the purple dragon knight, valor bard, and battlemaster fighter offer things that are like the warlord. And yeah, just like the PDK, the subclass they did put out for the ninja was extremely lacking for what I wanted in my personal opinion.

So yeah, I know what it feels like but you don't see me constantly complaining about how I don't get what I want.

What do you mean by "stronger archetype"? I would agree that the name "ninja" is more evocative than the "warlord" in the popular imagination outside of D&Dism, but the same could be said for a lot of classes (e.g. sorcerer, warlock, cleric, etc.). It seems to me, though perhaps you have a different take that you are willing to offer, that there would be greater disagreement about what constitutes a ninja than what constitutes a warlord, at least in terms of mechanics. Do you go with the more "mystical," the "Hollywood," or the "historical" version of the ninja? Perhaps importantly, is this something that you genuinely want and are arguing for in good faith?

 

[Sacrosanct]

What do you mean by "stronger archetype"? I would agree that the name "ninja" is more evocative than the "warlord" in the popular imagination outside of D&Dism, but the same could be said for a lot of classes (e.g. sorcerer, warlock, cleric, etc.). It seems to me, though perhaps you have a different take that you are willing to offer, that there would be greater disagreement about what constitutes a ninja than what constitutes a warlord, at least in terms of mechanics. Do you go with the more "mystical," the "Hollywood," or the "historical" version of the ninja? Perhaps importantly, is this something that you genuinely want and are arguing for in good faith?

I mean that in D&D's history, and the fantasy game genre in general, the ninja archetype is more popular, been around longer, stronger roots in it's history and inspiration from real life, more recognizable, and more common than the warlord. The ninja archetype is considered a core class in many systems, from tabletop RPGs to video games. The classic ninja archetype that is in most rpgs (D&D included) is pretty well established, so I don't think there would be much disagreement over what abilities it would have like you suggest. Those have been established in D&D for almost 40 years now.

And yes, I'm arguing in good faith. I find it pretty disingenuous that it seems any time anyone disagrees with Hussar or you, or points out a counter example, they are either personally attacking you (in Hussar's case), or must be arguing in bad faith (in your case). How about stop with the assumptions that anyone not agreeing with you is a bad person and is engaging in bad behavior?

 

[Manbearcat]

I know exactly how that feels. I'm a child of the 80s, and my favorite class is the ninja. Loved 1e's OA and the ninja class in it. A ninja is a stronger archetype than a warlord, and has a much greater history in the game than the warlord. But we still don't have that. Yes, the shadow monk and the assassin rogue offer things that can make that work, just like the purple dragon knight, valor bard, and battlemaster fighter offer things that are like the warlord. And yeah, just like the PDK, the subclass they did put out for the ninja was extremely lacking for what I wanted in my personal opinion.

So yeah, I know what it feels like but you don't see me constantly complaining about how I don't get what I want.

No skin in this fight whatsoever, but this isn't like to like at all. I don't know if you have a very nuanced view of the ninja trope in general, but the 5e Way of the Shadow Monk accomplishes pretty much all of the classic Ninja tropes (and it says its a Ninja on the tin as I know that matters to some folks). If you couple that with Rogue Sneak Attack/Expertise/Uncanny Dodge and the Assassination subclass (as you mention) you have pretty much all of the 1e OA Ninja (except sub spending ki for phasing through walls for darkness/silence/pass w/o trace as well as the base Monk stuff + at-will shadow jump + outright invisibility later) and 2e AD&D Ninja except a supercharged version with profoundly more (thematic) offense, (thematic) passive and activatable defense, (thematic) mystical utility, relative competency against obstacles faced. Altogether, you have significantly more agency in imposing your ninja archetype upon play.

And from a first principles perspective, you start with a coherent mechanical and thematic chassis with no wasted build components.

The Warlord, on the hand, is a martial support character. Coherently carving that out of the Bard chassis (arcane support character with tons of magical utility) or the Fighter chassis (martial multi-attacker) is rife with thematic or mechanical incoherency and wasted build components.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean that in D&D's history, and the fantasy game genre in general, the ninja archetype is more popular, been around longer, stronger roots in it's history and inspiration from real life, more recognizable, and more common than the warlord. The ninja archetype is considered a core class in many systems, from tabletop RPGs to video games. The classic ninja archetype that is in most rpgs (D&D included) is pretty well established, so I don't think there would be much disagreement over what abilities it would have like you suggest. Those have been established in D&D for almost 40 years now.

And yes, I'm arguing in good faith.

Okay then. I'm not sure that I agree that there would not be disagreement about what abilities it would have, because there is a fairly significant gap between what ninjas can do across media, including video and tabletop games. But that line of discussion I can shelve for now, since discussing that point of contention does little to further the conversation. And I am more interested in your vision for a ninja class.

How would you include a ninja? What would your ninja class look like? How would it compare with the pre-existing options: e.g. classes and subclasses? And I have to admit that I am not sure what you are talking about when you mention a ninja subclass. In which UA or supplement did this appear?

I find it pretty disingenuous that it seems any time anyone disagrees with Hussar or you, or points out a counter example, they are either personally attacking you (in Hussar's case), or must be arguing in bad faith (in your case).

Two wrongs don't make a right, and I would advise against making disingenuous assertions of your own about me, and I would prefer if you left personal attacks out of this entirely. There was no "must be arguing in bad faith." It was, rather, a "could be arguing in faith." I was curious as to whether you had a ulterior rhetorical aim or if you had a genuine desire for the inclusion of a ninja class. You do. Now I know.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think that Warlord fans are glossing over that fact at all, Imaro. Just as there are people who don't see "mass combat" as a high priority there are those who do and want it included. The same is true or just about anything really. It's kinda understood as a given - a reality of publishing - so mentioning this as an issue comes across as insulting our intelligence, among other things.

So do you think it's equally insulting to frame those who don't care for or want (not necessarily against but not looking for one either) a warlord as just wanting to step on warlord fans fun? That's a simplification I've seen thrown out by quite a few warlord fans that makes me think they don't understand there is a cost for what they want and tat some would rather have other things besides a warlord class.

But we don't know what would or would not get cut by advocating for the Warlord. They rarely tell us what gets cut, and publishers would never frame the discussion in terms of "we wanted to include X, but we didn't because we included Y instead," but will, rather, simply say "we wanted to include X but we couldn't due to page count" without any sense or reference to any priority hierarchy. As such, suggesting that the unseen contents of Mystery Box X will get cut if the Warlord is included is something of an empty statement to make. The point is not about the unknown of what could potentially be cut but about the sincere desire for something to be included at all. Throwing out the "but if Warlord then not X" issue comes across as trying to kick the warlord-can down the line. "Oh no! If we advocate for the Warlord class, then our other favorite things that we want [whatever they may be] won't be included! Golly gee willikers, we better stop advocating for the Warlord."

See for me, not having a desire for the class whatsoever and not having a single one of my players pick the class during our time playing 4e... it's not an empty statement at all. I literally have zero use for a warlord class. I may have zero use for whatever new thing they give me or I may not but I know for sure my group won't use a full warlord class. So no it's not an empty statement it's telling me I'm going to loose something that I could potentially get use from for something I have no use for.

So how many pages would you estimate the Warlord would require? How would this compare, for example, for yet another supplement providing wizards and arcane casters with more spells to the expense of martial characters? Are casters that starved for spells? Catalogues upon catalogues of spells were lovingly poured upon casters in supplements of yore. I guess martial characters got more feat options, but then again, so did casters.

I and my players use casters... we will not use a warlord. For me it's a no-brainer. But stepping away from hypotheticals for a minute...so far that's not really what I'm seeing come out of UA. Has WotC published a spells only supplement?

 

[Aldarc]

So do you think it's equally insulting to frame those who don't care for or want (not necessarily against but not looking for one either) a warlord as just wanting to step on warlord fans fun? That's a simplification I've seen thrown out by quite a few warlord fans that makes me think they don't understand there is a cost for what they want and tat some would rather have other things besides a warlord class.

That accusation certainly applies to a few people, but certainly not all or even most. The indifference to the warlord polled in this thread is likely similar to some people's indifference to the monk, artificer, or psion/mystic. It's just something of a "different strokes for different folks" scenario. But that hardly calls for insulting the intelligence of others.

See for me, not having a desire for the class whatsoever and not having a single one of my players pick the class during our time playing 4e... it's not an empty statement at all. I literally have zero use for a warlord class. I may have zero use for whatever new thing they give me or I may not but I know for sure my group won't use a full warlord class. So no it's not an empty statement it's telling me I'm going to loose something that I could potentially get use from for something I have no use for.

I and my players use casters... we will not use a warlord. For me it's a no-brainer.

Okay. See for me, I did and I do. And I will admit that I am someone who has no use for rules on mass combat, but I'm not going to go around making empty statements suggesting that if WotC includes mass combat rules then other rules will be cut. And that certainly doesn't somehow erase the emptiness of your assertion.

But stepping away from hypotheticals for a minute...so far that's not really want I'm seeing come out of UA. Has WotC published a spells only supplement?

My statement there was more of a reference to past preferred treatment of caster options, particularly in the 3E era. So I have grown wary, if not downright cynical, when it comes to books brandied as providing new character options, when those tend to favor casters via new spells.