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

[generic]

I can’t ask you to change your mind. I can only ask you to try to hear me out. So thank you for that.

Of course.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Again, why should anyone answer it? It’s either irrelevant, or asked in bad faith.

In this particular case, I'm legit curious. Because when I think of the Lazylord, I think of people like Sun Tzu, Cortez, Attila the Hun. People who, at the pinnacle of their ability, were not personally getting involved in fights.

The Lazylord just doesn't seem to fit the classic D&D gameplay of 6 people fighting a group of monsters/people. But I'm willing to believe I'm wrong on this, so I'm trying to think of a figure in history or fiction of someone in a small group going on adventures, who is using tactics to tell his comrades the best way to fight without personally getting involved.

Closest thing I can think of is Fire Emblem, but in even those the game gives you a PC who is a combatant itself.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In this particular case, I'm legit curious. Because when I think of the Lazylord, I think of people like Sun Tzu, Cortez, Attila the Hun. People who, at the pinnacle of their ability, were not personally getting involved in fights.

The Lazylord just doesn't seem to fit the classic D&D gameplay of 6 people fighting a group of monsters/people. But I'm willing to believe I'm wrong on this, so I'm trying to think of a figure in history or fiction of someone in a small group going on adventures, who is using tactics to tell his comrades the best way to fight without personally getting involved.

Closest thing I can think of is Fire Emblem, but in even those the game gives you a PC who is a combatant itself.

Why do you keep calling it a lazy lord? Is that some sort of pejorative?

as for the justification, 4e has already proven that a squad based group can be tactical, and thus a warlords function can work on a squad level

 

[generic]

Why do you keep calling it a lazy lord? Is that some sort of pejorative?

as for the justification, 4e has already proven that a squad based group can be tactical, and thus a warlords function can work on a squad level

Lazylord is just a nickname, in my circles at least. It's like how we call dedicated healers "healbots".

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also, if you’re looking for an example of a person on a small scale group telling others how to fight without getting involved, let me introduce you to Dave. That’s all he does

also, who says the warlord isn’t involved? They just aren’t as good at combat than the fighter. Doesn’t mean they aren’t involved at all

 

[Urriak Uruk]

My main point is that you and @Sacrosanct shouldn't care what is put into the game, as long as it's not egregious. Please don't hyperfocus on one point in my post and ignore the part about letting others have their fun. Adding a warlord is not going to ruin your game.

That's a fair POV. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of new options for players always being a net positive, even when those options aren't broken. I think the new options should have a purpose within the framework of what D&D 5e is. I know you believe this is "gatekeeping" but D&D is a rule-based game, so unless you're explicitly expanding what D&D 5e actually is (and I'll get to how you can do that), you work within the framework.

I think the typical warlord does fit in 5e, but that it really should be a singular class but instead split up into several subclasses for the other classes. Because I think the idea of an inspiration fighter can also be an inspiration wizard, an inspiration rogue, etc.

I think the Lazylord doesn't match 5e play (currently), but that with additional rules like larger-scale combat, sieges, more war-like elements, it's inclusion is much more logical.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Why do you keep calling it a lazy lord? Is that some sort of pejorative?

as for the justification, 4e has already proven that a squad based group can be tactical, and thus a warlords function can work on a squad level

Sorry it's not meant to be insulting, it's meant to differentiate it from the "normal" warlord which is largely an inspiring fighter. I don't have as many issues with a normal warlord, though still feel it is better suited as several subclasses for the current slate instead of its own silo-ed thing.

 

[generic]

That's a fair POV. Personally, I'm not fond of the idea of new options for players always being a net positive, even when those options aren't broken. I think the new options should have a purpose within the framework of what D&D 5e is. I know you believe this is "gatekeeping" but D&D is a rule-based game, so unless you're explicitly expanding what D&D 5e actually is (and I'll get to how you can do that), you work within the framework.

I think the typical warlord does fit in 5e, but that it really should be a singular class but instead split up into several subclasses for the other classes. Because I think the idea of an inspiration fighter can also be an inspiration wizard, an inspiration rogue, etc.

I think the Lazylord doesn't match 5e play (currently), but that with additional rules like larger-scale combat, sieges, more war-like elements, it's inclusion is much more logical.

Of course, these are all good points. The lazylord is more of a build than anything else, though, one must remember, and 5E, even though it's not 3E, has no shortage of weird builds. For example: Tabaxi Cleric/Monk who dashes past hordes of enemies, activating Spirit Guardians.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why do you keep calling it a lazy lord? Is that some sort of pejorative?

as for the justification, 4e has already proven that a squad based group can be tactical, and thus a warlords function can work on a squad level

Also, if you’re looking for an example of a person on a small scale group telling others how to fight without getting involved, let me introduce you to Dave. That’s all he does

also, who says the warlord isn’t involved? They just aren’t as good at combat than the fighter. Doesn’t mean they aren’t involved at all

Sacrosanct, the Lazylord is a specific type/build of Warlord. When someone is talking about a Lazylord, they are not talking about Warlords in general, just about that specific archetype.

Lazylords were an edge case that could be assembled out of the Warlord class by carefully picking powers that did not involve the Warlord doing anything themselves, but just granting a bonus or action to another player.
Thus the Lazylord was more optimisable because they didn't need combat stats like most other Warlords.

 

[Azzy]

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.

The 2e ranger doesn't fit Robin Hood, either—the 2e ranger was a dedicated dual-wielder with nothing to support archery. (And, of course, the 1e ranger never had any archery focus—that didn't come online for the ranger until 3.5e.)