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

[Sacrosanct]

Sigh, so you're making the same argument as always. But, if I try to make a design scope argument against a class that you like, you won't accept it. You'll never admit that the sole reason you don't want a warlord is because you don't want other people to have fun with a class they like, because it would ruin your D&D.

Let me ask you this: how would the creation of a warlord class, a necessity for AL players who like it, ruin your game? You told me to go play with homebrew materials, so I tell you to take your superiority elsewhere and stop using rulesets and splatbooks that you don't like.

The fact that you don't recognize the inherent lack of logic in your argument saddens me.

I’ve said, repeatedly, that I don’t mind if there is a warlord. So swing and a miss. And stop with the strawman already. Good lord. You can’t, and don’t, have the right to tell me and others what we really think or feel. The fact that you have to keep going back to that fallacy speaks volumes about the merit of your argument.

 

[Garthanos]

Ranger: Robin Hood!? LOL How?

Generally to be the best trick shot archer who is woodland savvy... mechanically that has been the ranger in 4e and potentially in 5e (though i would build him as a fighter in 5e) and purports to maybe so in PF or 3e. Though the 5e ranger has a volley i would identify as potentially a warrior schtick it also evokes Hiawatha - who was identified as fighter in 2e.

On his own, without allies to direct, Captain America is still going to kick butt

Sorry is your scale of kicking butt right? I mean sure compared to a lot of people but compared to Thor and Hulk... sorry you are ramming him into a fighter model he isnt THE butt kicker abilities he has in this universes paradigm are as a secondary.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

El Cid or Almanzor are two good examples of warlords, and Spanish conquerors as Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro.

The warlord will be a class to play with warbands or armies. I imagine subclasses for different type of troops (constructs, tamed monsters, mercenaries, archers, musketeers, reanimated undead, savage tribemen, religious zealots).

 

[Garthanos]

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

Another anime example that is rather fun is Yona of the Dawn she picks up a group which includes 4 magical companions and one very Martial Fighter who nevertheless holds his own among those very magical others. A good example of both a fairly lazylord character and a very fighter style one.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Nope, all wrong. Completely incorrect. This demonstrates my point.

The sole reason people oppose the warlord is because they don't like it. Their arguments against it do not hold up.

I don't care what people like, but their subjective tastes should not prevent others from getting what they want in the game, especially when it's not something egregious. It's another class, not a McDonald's crossover into the Forgotten Realms.

Just because you feel the arguments don't hold up, doesn't mean the people making them are making them solely because they don't like it. The reason I don't like it is for the reasons I've given (that an inspiring warrior falls under a different classes umbrella, and that the Lazylord doesn't match 5e's current style of play).

Just because you don't agree with that argument, doesn't mean everyone making it is making it solely because they don't like it.

I'll personally admit that I think the Warlord, both mechanically and thematically, would match a setting that has larger sized battles, and where a PC is less likely to become personally involved in a fight. I think in the current slate of what 5e is, the Lazylord doesn't really fit.

That's my argument. I'm not accusing everyone who disagrees with me of acting in bad faith, like you seem to be making to me and others who feel warlord doesn't need to be a class. So yeah, you're making a strawman.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

El Cid or Almanzor are two good examples of warlords, and Spanish conquerors as Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro.

The warlord will be a class to play with warbands or armies. I imagine subclasses for different type of troops (constructs, tamed monsters, mercenaries, archers, musketeers, reanimated undead, religious zealots).

Agreed. If 5e had an official "Strongholds and Followers" type book (I think Birthright is a perfect example of how to do it), that's the right way to add a Lazylord. Until that happens, I don't feel the Lazylord matches 5e's small skirmish type of play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agreed. If 5e had an official "Strongholds and Followers" type book (I think Birthright is a perfect example of how to do it), that's the right way to add a Lazylord. Until that happens, I don't feel the Lazylord matches 5e's small skirmish type of play.

Thing is, “lazylord” isn’t a class, it’s one build within a class.

And from direct experience, the lazylord fits dnd just fine.

 

[Garthanos]

Thing is, “lazylord” isn’t a class, it’s one build within a class.

And from direct experience, the lazylord fits dnd just fine.

Yes it does really. The explicit LazyLords in fiction I have seen both operate within the small band and with larger groups. They usually have someone who considers themselves their protector but that may swap out somewhat. So even lazylord works in a D&D context. Lazylord is an extreme case not the general Warlord though, Just like the third party noble that has the Way of the Heart as a specific non-combatant build.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Generally to be the best trick shot archer who is woodland savvy... mechanically that has been the ranger in 4e and potentially in 5e (though i would build him as a fighter in 5e) and purports to maybe so in PF or 3e. Though the 5e ranger has a volley i would identify as potentially a warrior schtick it also evokes Hiawatha - who was identified as fighter in 2e.

Sorry is your scale of kicking butt right? I mean sure compared to a lot of people but compared to Thor and Hulk... sorry you are ramming him into a fighter model he isnt THE butt kicker abilities he has in this universes paradigm are as a secondary.

I’d say that 4e is the only edition since at least 2e (I genuinely don’t care about anything older) where Ranger would be on the table for Robin Hood.

In 5e, he’s a rogue. Maybe not even a scout rogue, tbh.

 

[generic]

I’ve said, repeatedly, that I don’t mind if there is a warlord. So swing and a miss. And stop with the strawman already. Good lord. You can’t, and don’t, have the right to tell me and others what we really think or feel. The fact that you have to keep going back to that fallacy speaks volumes about the merit of your argument.

Not exactly what I said or meant, but whatever. I'm happy to speak on this on more impartial terms, but your insults and arrogant attitude were rather infuriating, I must say.