D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[doctorbadwolf]

I would be perfectly happy with representing Cleric and Warlock and Wizard as the three subclasses of Magic User, alongside the Barbarian and Ranger and Warlord as subclasses of Fighter. Spellcasters are over-differentiated, and they have been at least since 3E decided that the Druid was a completely different class from a Nature Cleric.

I was being a dingus, and I apologize. Edited to be less of a dingus.

The idea of magic users and people who hit things all being just two classes is fine in a game like SWSE, where each class is just a very, very, very basic frame onto which talents fit, with differentiating features living in those talents.

In a game where each class and subclass has set abilities? Nope. Without redesigning how classes are built, on the most fundemental level, in 5e, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, etc do not fit in one class. In order for that to work, the "class" would literally be nothing more than your hit die, when you get ASIs, and when each subclass gives a type of ability. And then you couldn't make a Barbarian/Paladin, without building what amounts to a new class.

At that point, the sub-classes are classes, and you've just wasted everyone's time for no benefit.

As the game exists right now, the warlord, or in fact the barbarian or ranger, simply are not fighters.

 

[Benji]

Spellcasters are over-differentiated, and they have been at least since 3E decided that the Druid was a completely different class from a Nature Cleric.

Didn't 1st edition introduce the druid, in like the AD&D handbook as a standard class? BY creating it as a class back then, surely they were saying it was different.

 

[Sacrosanct]

1. Water walking. Nope. Level 9 Unarmored Movement.

Ah, but remember that in order to get all the other things the make a ninja a ninja (like sneak attack, poison, and disguise expertise), you'd have to multi class into an assassin rogue, so really, you don't get that water walking until around level 18 or so, assuming you're splitting evenly. So in practical effect, you're not getting it. Or your giving up other core ninja abilities to do so. FWIW, I know this also applies to the warlord too (multiclassing from valor bard to battlemaster fighter).

2. Change Tracks: lets break it down
2.a. Making it impossible to read your tracks. Level 3, pass without a trace.
2.b. Tricking someone into thinking you went a different direction. Minor Illusion and skills. With MI, you do it better than others, but others can also do it. As it should be. 1e didn't even properly have skills, so it should be no surprise that skills cover some of what a class did in 1e. If there were a tactics skill in 5e, warlord fans would expect some of the warlord's shtick to live there, and warlords to have feature that synergies well with it.
2c. I'll give that this one could easily have been added to the Shadow Monk without beefing up the subclass. 1 ki to extend and expand minor Illusion for a few specific purposes, including changing tracks.

3. Walking through walls. This one I kinda grant, although you do get 60ft teleport at level 6. I only kinda grant it because you can't teleport if you can't see the destination. It should include the option to instead gain a phasing movement of 30ft for a turn, as a bonus action. *

4. Holding breath. I agree. This should be part of the Monk. Monks should be better at holding their breath.

5. Create illusions. Lvl 3, Shadow arts.

It doesn't even just imply strongly that it is a ninja, but literally says that it is a ninja. It's missing two things, at most. One of which it replaces with something that is along the same theme, but arguably stronger. .

See, you're doing the exact same thing that you disagree with re: the warlord in previous discussions. People telling you, "Well, it's not exactly like the class, but you can do things similar by replace them with X, Y, and Z.

You can't really have it both ways on this, applying one standard to your preferred class, while holding a different one to a class you're not as passionate about. Also, there are more than just two things missing to replicate how I envision a ninja, as explained a bit earlier. Context matters, and in this case, context is the sacrifice you make while multiclassing, specifically around delayed ability acquirement (and again, I fully know that the suggestions about multiclassing to get a warlord suffers the same problem).

This next part isn't directed at you specifically, but more in general. This thread (and similar discussions) has gone like this:

Warlord Fan: The game doesn't have a warlord
Person B: No, but you can get really close by doing X, Y, and Z combinations
WF: That still doesn't cover what I want from a warlord class, because I'm missing some things, and shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get weird combination to get what I want
Ninja Fan: I totally know how the warlord fan feels. I feel the same way about the lack of ninja.
WF: No, but you can get really close by doing X, Y, and Z combinations.

:/


The bottom line is this. For the warlord, and ninja, and I'm sure a few other archetypes, we have a choice. We can accept the extra work to get 90% close to what we want now, or we can stick with an edition where we do get what we want. Maybe down the road we get what we want, but until then, those are our choices.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Didn't 1st edition introduce the druid, in like the AD&D handbook as a standard class? BY creating it as a class back then, surely they were saying it was different.

AD&D didn't have groups of classes. They were all separate. The assassin was separate from the rogue, the druid was separate from the cleric, and the illusionist was separate from the magic user.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Nope. And way to miss the point. Sigh.

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.

First off, what would a ninja class get that a Way of the Shadow monk doesn't? I'm honestly curious.

Secondly, why not ask for what you want? If you actually can't play what you want in the game, why not ask for it?

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.

So, what do you think "there are too many warlord threads" means? What do you think "Just play a Valor Bard" means?

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).

To you, it's a glaring false equivalency. To me, it's spot on. An Eldritch Knight can cast spells and has access to arcane magic. Rangers get druid(ish) spells and Paladins get cleric(ish) ones. So, what's the problem. You want to play a wizard, you get to play an Eldritch Knight.

Oh, does that come with flavor you don't like? It doesn't do what you want it to do? Too bad. Suck it up. You have no choice.

Because, to me, that's EXACTLY what warlord fans are being told.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Didn't 1st edition introduce the druid, in like the AD&D handbook as a standard class? BY creating it as a class back then, surely they were saying it was different.

I didn't play 1E. The druid was present in 2E as a variant priest, introduced as an example of how you could make a priest who wasn't just the pseudo-medieval-christian crusader type, which was the only other flavor of priest available in the core book. The idea was supposed to be that any variation on the typical cleric would be written up as a variant priest, like the druid was, with its own spell lists and special abilities like shapeshifting or whatever.

But then 3E came out, and it used domains to differentiate between all of the variations of cleric, but also included druid as its own unique thing. That's where they went wrong. They should have either just said that a cleric with the nature domain was known as a druid, or made the cleric class only cover the traditional mace-and-healing concept so that the druid would be justified as its own class, but they didn't do that and now our spellcasters are over-differentiated.

 

[Imaro]

Nope. And way to miss the point. Sigh.

Oh... did I, I thought you were trying to make some type of equivalency comparison with the warlord... if so third party and homebrew seems perfectly valid, and if not what was the point then?

 

[Hussar]

Oh... did I, I thought you were trying to make some type of equivalency comparison with the warlord... if so third party and homebrew seems perfectly valid, and if not what was the point then?

Sorry, not going to play the shifting goalposts game with you. Instead of trying to change the scenario, why not simply answer the question. If you were forced to play half casters instead of full casters, would you be content? After all, "You can just home-brew it" is a facile response that ignores the question. It's just another way to shut people up. Oh, you want X in the game? Too bad, just home-brew it and shut up. You want a specific ninja class in the game? Just home-brew it and shut up. You want psionics in the game? Why not just home brew it and shut up? You want magic item economies in the game? Just home brew it and shut up.

It's the same for pretty much anything. It's an easy, facile answer that doesn't actually have to engage in the issue in order to shut down conversation.

 

[Hussar]

AD&D didn't have groups of classes. They were all separate. The assassin was separate from the rogue, the druid was separate from the cleric, and the illusionist was separate from the magic user.

That's not true. The classes in AD&D were presented as sub-classes, right from day 1. For example:

So, no, the classes were not quite as separate as you might think.

Warlord Fan: The game doesn't have a warlord
Person B: No, but you can get really close by doing X, Y, and Z combinations
WF: That still doesn't cover what I want from a warlord class, because I'm missing some things, and shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get weird combination to get what I want
Ninja Fan: I totally know how the warlord fan feels. I feel the same way about the lack of ninja.
WF: No, but you can get really close by doing X, Y, and Z combinations.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?528592-5e-Warlord-Demand-Poll/page48#ixzz4cfvRhb2h

But, you're missing a line in your example above. The line where the ninja fan is trying to tell warlord fans that they should be like him and just accept what's in the game already and not make any noise about it. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] hit the nail straight on the head. You're trying to say, or it certainly looks this way, "Hey, I get what you're saying. I want a Ninja class. But, you don't see me complaining."

So, at the end of the day, why aren't you complaining? Why not ask for a ninja class?

 

[Mistwell]

I wouldn't even play a game you designed. The idea that Druids are just Nature Clerics is, IMO, complete nonsense.

The idea of magic users and people who hit things all being just two classes is fine in a game like SWSE, where each class is just a very, very, very basic frame onto which talents fit, with differentiating features living in those talents.

In a game where each class and subclass has set abilities? Nope. Without redesigning how classes are built, on the most fundemental level, in 5e, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, etc do not fit in one class. In order for that to work, the "class" would literally be nothing more than your hit die, when you get ASIs, and when each subclass gives a type of ability. And then you couldn't make a Barbarian/Paladin, without building what amounts to a new class.

At that point, the sub-classes are classes, and you've just wasted everyone's time for no benefit.

As the game exists right now, the warlord, or in fact the barbarian or ranger, simply are not fighters.

OD&D had three classes: Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric. Are you saying you wouldn't play it because it has too few classes, even with a great DM?