D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses the Wild Soul Barbarian and Path of the Astral Self Monk

[CapnZapp]

The thing is that multiple 5E archetypes are already similar to the Warlord.

There is no archetype where you can consistently, round after round, give away your action to another character.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is no archetype where you can consistently, round after round, give away your action to another character.

That's because it's a really, really, really stupid idea.

Like paying someone to play D&D on your behalf.

 

[Leatherhead]

There is no archetype where you can consistently, round after round, give away your action to another character.

Hey now, the Beastmaster may be bad, but it totally exists!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Apart from maybe the Lazylord build, that's how 4e Warlords worked.

Huh. Sam Vimes from Discworld makes a pretty darn good warlord archetype. As does Sharpe from Sharpe's Regiment. Cutter from Cook's Black Company. I'm sure I could find more, but, then again, I don't read that much fantasy. I DO read lots of military fiction though. But, then again, since you're insisting that warlords lead from the rear, it shows that you don't really know much about the warlord class. Why would you think that warlords must lead from the rear? ((Other than, well, thousands of years of military history)) Many of the warlords were front line combatants, similar in vein to a cleric.

Of the assorted demands for warlords (and quite a few of the more passive-aggressive attacks on the developers for not including them yet) that I've seen on this forum, the ability to freely grant extra attacks to allies seem to be one of the most common requirements. Second only to "doesn't make detect magic go 'Ping!' when they use their abilities" I think.

 

[Hussar]

That's because it's a really, really, really stupid idea.

Like paying someone to play D&D on your behalf.

I think psionics are a really, really stupid idea too. Does that mean that we should never have a psionic class in the game? Why do your personal tastes get to dictate what is or is not in the game.

I am telling, directly, that at least I would like a warlord class in the game. If it can be done as a subclass, so be it (I kinda wonder if a strongly variant bard might work) but, n any case, why should the fact that you don't like matter?

Why do you feel entitled to tell everyone else how to play the game?

Why does it matter to you whether or not a warlord class in in the game? How does it possibly impact you at all?

See, YOU are the reason that we cannot have what we want. Because WotC KNOWS that if they so much as whisper the idea of bringing in the Warlord, the edition warriors will come out of the woodwork and piss all over everyone. So, it's just not worth it. I just find it baffling to stand in other people's way from getting what they want when it costs me nothing. Sure, I have made it pretty clear that I have no love for Planescape, but, I certainly don't begrudge PS fans getting a book. More power to them.

So, why is it so difficult to just say, "Yup, ok, you folks want this. I'm not going to use it, but, hey, go for it"? Why does your enjoyment of the game only come with the caveat that anyone who doesn't like what you like has to be shouted down?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think psionics are a really, really stupid idea too. Does that mean that we should never have a psionic class in the game? Why do your personal tastes get to dictate what is or is not in the game.

It's not a matter of taste. The idea is OBJECTIVELY bad. Say the game has henchmen. My character could pick up a couple of warlords to use solely as "Action Batteries". Say the 20th level wizard picks up on this idea and employs an army of low level warlords. He can now cast all his spells in the first round of combat.

And then there is the fun issue. How is someone going to have fun with a class that the best thing it can do in combat is give their turn away to someone else (at least beastmasters control their pets)?! As I said, it's like paying someone else to play for you.

I am telling, directly, that at least I would like a warlord class in the game.

I have no issues with there being a class called warlord in the game. What I have issue with is giving them abilities that could only be achieved by magic and handwave "it's not magic, honest".

The truth is, the game already has warlords covered thematically: they are called bannerets and battlemasters; and mechanically: in Law clerics. The only thing missing is the name, and I have no objection to that.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's because it's a really, really, really stupid idea.

You do realize it's a bad idea to call the way others like to play stupid?

 

[CapnZapp]

Hey now, the Beastmaster may be bad, but it totally exists!

lol

 

[CapnZapp]

The truth is, the game already has warlords covered thematically: they are called bannerets and battlemasters; and mechanically: in Law clerics. The only thing missing is the name, and I have no objection to that.

Again: there are aspects of what people want from Warlords that WotC has only given out in the most miserly and restricted ways possible, falling far short of the experience those people had in 4th edition.

 

[Hussar]

It's not a matter of taste. The idea is OBJECTIVELY bad. Say the game has henchmen. My character could pick up a couple of warlords to use solely as "Action Batteries". Say the 20th level wizard picks up on this idea and employs an army of low level warlords. He can now cast all his spells in the first round of combat.

And then there is the fun issue. How is someone going to have fun with a class that the best thing it can do in combat is give their turn away to someone else (at least beastmasters control their pets)?! As I said, it's like paying someone else to play for you.



I have no issues with there being a class called warlord in the game. What I have issue with is giving them abilities that could only be achieved by magic and handwave "it's not magic, honest".

The truth is, the game already has warlords covered thematically: they are called bannerets and battlemasters; and mechanically: in Law clerics. The only thing missing is the name, and I have no objection to that.

I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this again. I was just making a bit of a joke about warlords, since I know that it's not going to happen. But, this? This is just wrong.

What's stopping your character from picking up a couple of Battlemasters to use as "action batteries"? Oh, right, you think that warlord action granting must apply to spell casting... something it never, ever did. But, that's okay, since, you've obviously spent some time actually learning what the 4e warlord could actually do before going on about how it's an "objectively" bad idea.

Of course, the thing is, I can RIGHT NOW play a class that lets me give away my turn - the Battlemaster already exists. So, it's not like the mechanic is a problem. In fact, virtually every warlord mechanic already exists in the game... just not under one class. So, it's not the mechanics that are a problem.

And, the final thing is, what warlord abilities were "magic"? Arguably healing I suppose, but, that ship has already sailed in 5e -we have non-magical healing with the fighter and full overnight healing. Other than that, nothing a warlord did was even remotely magical.

So, let me ask this, what 5e class would let me grant movement to the entire party on my turn, and allow them to make a trip attack during that movement? That's one of those "not really" magic powers that apparently warlords had.

Sure, I can get about 70% of the warlord. I just would actually like the class. No, that's not true. I'd actually like it for WotC to actually have the intestinal fortitude to pose the question to the fandom. If the fandom speaks up and says, nope, we don't want it? Then fine and dandy. I'll accept that. But, right now, it's completely swept under the rug and not even acknowledged. And that's a bit annoying to be honest. Being turned invisible because WotC is too scared of the blowback from edition warriors.