D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Xeviat]

Open question here; I've heard some good examples of character people would call warlords (Captain America, Robin Hood, Odysseus), but I'd argue those people could just as easily be called Battlemasters.

They were all definitely skilled warriors in their own rights. Captain America, for one, is one of the most skilled warriors in the Marvel universe, and is only really bested because the rest of his powers are basically just having 18-20 in all his stats (peak human) alongside characters with more ridiculous powers. On his own, without allies to direct, Captain America is still going to kick butt, and that feels like a fighter (He also fits my model of "fighters fight with technique", while other classes fight with instinct or trickery or supernatural power).

I do not understand the insistence of some for historical example. D&D in many areas over it's history has been self referential. Most example lead to calls that figure would be a fighter. As I said earlier that the fighter swallows almost everything that does not use magic but mechanically speaking on pays lip service.

This is actually really important to me. All of the D&D classes are based off of something, BUT some of them are based off a really small thing. The Bard, Paladin, and Ranger aren't concepts that are everywhere, but D&D made them nearly ubiquitous. They are definitely self referential. So, it is an important question to ask, but not the most important. At best, asking it helps to gather ideas for what the class can do.

3.5 had the Soul Knife as a whole class, and that wasn't based on a whole lot. Thus, many of us want to see it as a subclass.

And that's really the discussion here: class vs. subclass. I think putting the Warlord into other classes would make those other classes broader and better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do not understand the insistence of some for historical example. D&D in many areas over it's history has been self referential.

Its funny, because the warlord has many more historical examples than the fighter - because history tends to remember leaders. You'll find more fighters in legend, where extraordinary feats of strength and skill at arms - and heroic deaths - get more emphasis.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

If we're using "Typical party size" as an excuse to de-include things now, well, we may as well go and ditch every class.

You've got the examples, just not in small scale parties. If we're having that as a requirement, well, then please find me an example of a historical druid of a typical party size of 3-6 people. Or warlock. Or, heck, wizard even

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. I mean from popular fiction, not history. I literally used Captain America as an example, and I can easily find a character that matches every class and works in D&D parties.

Ranger: Robin Hood
Fighter: Boromir
Paladin: Geralt of Rivea
Rogue: Arya
Barbarian: Conan
Wizard: Merlin
Druid: Radagast
Warlock: Melisandre

 

[Mecheon]

I can easily find a character that matches every class and works in D&D parties.

Y' said typical party size though. If that's gonna be the sticking point, then we'd kick out half of those suggestions you've just said as well

 

[Xeviat]

Its funny, because the warlord has many more historical examples than the fighter - because history tends to remember leaders. You'll find more fighters in legend, where extraordinary feats of strength and skill at arms - and heroic deaths - get more emphasis.

And that's why they should be the same. hides

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The warlord will not be created for dungeon crawling but for the battlefield. It isn't only a fighter with buffer traits to help allies. The warlord will be like a pokemon trainer or digimon tamer, but whose "monster pet" is a troop. I would bet the plans for warlord is for a new miniature skimirshes wargame as Mordheim or Necromunda (by Games Workshop). Maybe the name of this game will be "Chainmail" again.

* Is John Snow (Game of Thrones) an example of warlord?

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that's why they should be the same. hides

No need to hide, it's just a very different "should" - in the context of 5e, the abilities of a genre hero are incompletely modeled, and what's there is divided between the fighter and rogue arbitrarily, so whats missing needs a class.
In a different design, a single class might easily handle all heroic martial characters from genre.

 

[Eubani]

I don't see how having the Warlord as a class is so terrible a threat that people have to fight to keep it out of the game rather than not use it if it ever appeared in a book? It appears that many want to fight anything obviously from 4e, then there are others who fear any form of advancement in the game and finally those who go full froth when a martial character does anything more than an attack roll for hp damage or a ability check to accomplish a basic task.

What is so wrong about a non magical support character or a martial character that does more than attack? What evil are these people supposedly stopping from ruining the game? I fail to see why so much effort is put into stopping martial characters with agency in and out of combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y' said typical party size though. If that's gonna be the sticking point, then we'd kick out half of those suggestions you've just said as well

Theres very little of D&D sized parties in genre. You get lone heroes, maybe with a sidekick or even a rival, and the rest of the supporting cast - love interests, old friends, exposition sources, helpers, followers, family, etc - come in and out of the stories like NPCs and/or wouldn't be viable fully-contributing PCs if transliterated into traditional D&D.

The example is, of course, the Fellowship, one mage, an elf, a dwarf, two men, and four hobbits.
8 characters, one caster, no cleric... they're lucky they weren't D&D characters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. I mean from popular fiction, not history. I literally used Captain America as an example, and I can easily find a character that matches every class and works in D&D parties.

Ranger: Robin Hood
Fighter: Boromir
Paladin: Geralt of Rivea
Rogue: Arya
Barbarian: Conan
Wizard: Merlin
Druid: Radagast
Warlock: Melisandre

Ranger: Robin Hood!? LOL How?

Not every person who can live in the woods is a ranger. He isn’t known for his amazing tracking, he isn’t especially good with animals, he isn’t connected to the land in any remotely mystical way, he’s a thief and a bandit with altruistic goals and a level or three of Fighter for Archery Fighting Style and maybe some BM maneuvers for trick shots. Unless, that is, a warlord class comes out that has 3 or more skills, expertise, and fighting styles. With any warlord class out he could be a warlord/rogue of some kind, but I’d always include rogue unless there is a bandit captain/rabble rouser sort of subclass.

Also,

Warlord: Aragorn, Cap, Glimmer (new She-Ra), many anime characters according to ppl in this thread.