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

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

None, because that is not how 5e works. However casting Haste (at higher level) achieves the same effect in terms of the game fiction. It enables your allies to move faster and do more than they normally would. Whether it is on their turn or your turn is purely an artefact of game mechanics, which changes between editions.

So 5e can never have a class that is identical to the 4e warlord for the very simple reason that 5e rules are not identical to 4e rules.

It does, however let you create a character that taps into exactly the same archetype.

But if you want 4e game mechanics you need to play 4e.

Case in point:

Oh, right, you think that warlord action granting must apply to spell casting... something it never, ever did.

I don't know 4e rules, but I do know 5e rules. And under 5e rules, if someone gains an extra action they can use it to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action.

Of course, in 5e rules you can't use an action if it's not your turn. The 5e equivalent is enabling someone to use their reaction to do something. Which battlemasters can do. Or giving them the ability to make an extra attack on their turn. Which the Haste spell does.

So the reason there is no 4e warlord in 5e is it is IMPOSSIBLE for a class in 5e to function identically to a class in 4e. And I suspect the reason there is no class called Warlord in 5e has nothing to do with the people who didn't care for 4e, and everything to do with the 4e fanbois who would kick up a fuss if anything didn't function identically to 4e.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

This is a non sequitor to what I wrote that supplies a few passive aggressive barbs on its own about advocates for including the Warlord. The criticism was that Warlords as a class "stand at the back telling others what to do" rather than "lead from the front," which is blatantly untrue. Regarding the rest of what you wrote, these "criticisms" have already been addressed ad nauseum in other Warlord-related threads.

 

[Blue]

Optional campaign setting specific rule is optional.

Which, if numbers say it is the more popular, only strengthens his proposition. That with all the impediments, there is a strong desire for non-specialist wizards.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is a non sequitor to what I wrote that supplies a few passive aggressive barbs on its own about advocates for including the Warlord. The criticism was that Warlords as a class "stand at the back telling others what to do" rather than "lead from the front," which is blatantly untrue. Regarding the rest of what you wrote, these "criticisms" have already been addressed ad nauseum in other Warlord-related threads.

I'm agreeing with you and Hussar that a warlord leading from the front and by example is the classic warlord.
But I'm pointing out that any class or archetype introduced as a 'Warlord or equivalent' is going to need to be able to replicate the lazylord playstyle before it is deemed acceptable as such by a significant number of those wanting a warlord.

This folds in to the larger discussion how a class, and whether there is a need or fit for it, can depend on either concept or mechanical capabilities or both, depending upon the person.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Personally I really liked the Warlord because I like tactical combat. My second 5E character was a Battle Master/Hexblade specifically so I could reposition enemies and allies with Repelling Blast, Grasp of Hadar, Manuevering Strike, etc. I'm running a Banneret now with the Martial Adept feat so I can let the Rogue get an extra sneak attack in with Commander's Strike.

Calling this kind of playstyle "objectively bad" is bizarre to me. I enjoy helping to maximize the other players' actions in a way other than healing.

 

[Hussar]

/snip:

I don't know 4e rules,

/snip

Yup that pretty much sums up the argument right there. The more things change.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which, if numbers say it is the more popular, only strengthens his proposition. That with all the impediments, there is a strong desire for non-specialist wizards.

I wasn't attempting to argue otherwise.

Bladesinger and Warmage aren't really generalist wizards in the 1st/2nd edition sense though.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

oh boy oh boy another Warlord thread yaaaay, like we haven't gone over this several nonillion times.

Would it be remiss of me to say that I don't think you want a warlord, you want your warlord?

 

[Hussar]

oh boy oh boy another Warlord thread yaaaay, like we haven't gone over this several nonillion times.

Would it be remiss of me to say that I don't think you want a warlord, you want your warlord?

Fair enough. We'll never know will we since there is virtually zero chance of getting any warlord. My warlord, someone else's warlord, any warlord is dead in the water because there is no chance that the edition warriors will let something like that pass without losing their collective minds.

Heck, even in this thread, we have people admitting they don't even know what a 4e warlord IS and they still insist it's an "objectively" bad idea.

Nice to know that my enjoyment of the hobby is predicated on keeping the loudest complainers happy.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Fair enough. We'll never know will we since there is virtually zero chance of getting any warlord. My warlord, someone else's warlord, any warlord is dead in the water because there is no chance that the edition warriors will let something like that pass without losing their collective minds.

Heck, even in this thread, we have people admitting they don't even know what a 4e warlord IS and they still insist it's an "objectively" bad idea.

Nice to know that my enjoyment of the hobby is predicated on keeping the loudest complainers happy.

I mean, I would like to be the only person catered to in D&D development, but I am pretty sure that would anger basically everyone else and probably be a kinda crappy edition.