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

[Tony Vargas]

Sounds about right. And yeah, I think you could fit all that with either a Captian/Rogue MC build with Knight background, or simply a Captain with the Bandit Leader subclass and Knight Background, if the Captain class and the relevant subclass are built right for it.

Without a new class like a warlord or sub-class/PrC like bandit-king or whatever, the biggest challenge to creating a Robin Hood in 5e is that you'd want three or four backgrounds - Outlander, Noble/Knight, (disillusioned?)Crusader, Criminal, and, of course, Folk Hero - and more skills than you could possibly have with a BM (about the only sub-class that has a shot of being that exceptional with archery). Like many martial heroes found in sources of inspiration, it's not really doable in D&D, because of the extremely restrictive treatment martial classes get, even though even the most generous implementation would in no way by OP compared to casters.

This is a completely absurd comparison. Warlord isn't even vaguely equivalent to "the bad guy". It's like saying there should be a BBEG class. ...

Like so many of these sorts of comparisons, it's clear that it would apply to extant classes that, in genre, might much more often model the villain, like the Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Thief & Assassin, and even Cleric (Evil High Priest, Cult leader) than the hero.

 

[Prakriti]

this is a completely absurd comparison. Warlord isn't even vaguely equivalent to "the bad guy".

If your only objection to the evil stepmother being a class is that she's evil, then let's go with the ingenue instead. The ingenue is an innocent young girl that, as an archetype, is found throughout literature, film, and theater. Literary examples abound.

If you think the warlord should be a class, then why not the ingenue as well?

 

[Undrave]

If your only objection to the evil stepmother being a class is that she's evil, then let's go with the ingenue instead. The ingenue is an innocent young girl that, as an archetype, is found throughout literature, film, and theater. Literary examples abound.

If you think the warlord should be a class, then why not the ingenue as well?

Ok?

I mean I would say "I don't get it" but sure, whatever.

That's pretty much what you can model with a Lazylord. A character with no strength that can help the party nonetheless. Heck, with no solid barrier between Power Sources in 5e you could have a subclass of the Warlord that deals in supernatural luck and use it to model such a sidekick -type character.

Maybe the Warlord gets 'Shouts' (, i.e. 'Commands' without sounding too patronizing and bossy) and each subclass also adds unique ones. The Inegnue could be a subclass that gets more reactions so she can use the shouts "LOOK OUT!" or "DON'T GIVE UP!" more often out of turn and get ones for her turn that lets allies move to her rescue and so forth. And then later she gets to 'awaken' a more heroic destiny and either develop skills in fighting, sorcery or divine protection magic.

Plenty of interesting design space there!

 

[Tony Vargas]

The ingenue is an innocent young girl that, as an archetype, is found throughout literature, film, and theater. Literary examples abound.

If you think the warlord should be a class, then why not the ingenue as well?

D&D does fail hard with many literary archetypes. It'd be nice if it could do better. There'd be more to it, though, than adding classes, the framing of play would need to be quite different.
That said...

That's pretty much what you can model with a Lazylord. A character with no strength that can help the party nonetheless. Heck, with no solid barrier between Power Sources in 5e you could have a subclass of the Warlord that deals in supernatural luck and use it to model such a sidekick -type character.

...such help being indirect, yes. The so-called lazylord build was quite unusual for D&D, as it did allow the sorts of concepts that couldn't directly be heroic in the ultra-competent sense, to still contribute to the success of the party mechanically, but indirectly in concept, with just the sort of low-key/low-power heroism you see from characters like the hobbits in LotR, and the sidekicks and love-interests and victims in need of rescue throughout the broader fantasy and action genres.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Why not to await until the next UA article about sidekicks, companions, warbands, monster pets, etc?

In the real History the genies of the strategy, Napoleon, for example, were "lazy lords", but they were the brains who gave orders to the troops. In "Heroes of Might and Magic III" the Heroes were practically lazy lords, and only in the next title they joined to the battlefield as units.

The warlord class isn't only a class with buffer powers, but more like a team trainer. Maybe it isn't a good class for dungeon crawling, but I guess the true goal is to command squads or armies.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If your only objection to the evil stepmother being a class is that she's evil, then let's go with the ingenue instead. The ingenue is an innocent young girl that, as an archetype, is found throughout literature, film, and theater. Literary examples abound.

If you think the warlord should be a class, then why not the ingenue as well?

My objection had literally nothing to do with it being evil.

My objection is that it isn't even kinda-vaguely-a-little-bit similar to the sort of archetype that the captain represents.

I'll use a different example, instead of trying to play your game.

We're saying we want a class for playing The Scoundrel, and aren't picky about the name (although we absolutely will argue about what the best one is because that's what nerds do), and you're comparing that to wanting a class for The Hero.

The comparison is completely absurd. It's apples to trucks.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Aaaaannnndddd just when the discourse seemed like we were headed in a decent path last night, here we are...

My objection had literally nothing to do with it being evil.

My objection is that it isn't even kinda-vaguely-a-little-bit similar to the sort of archetype that the captain represents.

I don't think that's their point. The point as I'm reading it is that any archetype (good, evil, whatever), we have people saying "Well, if you want to play that, just use the stat block or whatever. But my favorite archetype needs a full class." I.e, why are people demanding a warlord when there are existing warlord options but if someone wants to play archetype X (doesn't matter what it is) that also is just briefly covered, why are you telling them they don't need a full class and to play with the options?

Which brings me to a simple metric: popularity and demand. How many people want to play a warlord vs how many want to play an evil stepmother? Both cases rely on the same argument, but it's a matter of demand. If the demand warrants the time and effort, then make it so. IMO anyway.

*also, for clarity, my first statement above your quote wasn't directed at you

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Without a new class like a warlord or sub-class/PrC like bandit-king or whatever, the biggest challenge to creating a Robin Hood in 5e is that you'd want three or four backgrounds - Outlander, Noble/Knight, (disillusioned?)Crusader, Criminal, and, of course, Folk Hero - and more skills than you could possibly have with a BM (about the only sub-class that has a shot of being that exceptional with archery). Like many martial heroes found in sources of inspiration, it's not really doable in D&D, because of the extremely restrictive treatment martial classes get, even though even the most generous implementation would in no way by OP compared to casters.

Not really. You pick the class and subclass first, and then pick whichever background (probably build one, because most complex characters benefit from not using one of the example backgrounds in the phb) covers what those options don't cover.

And the idea that BM is the only one that could possibly be an exceptional archer is pretty silly, tbh.

A rogue (scout or swashbuckler) with a custom background, or a BM, or even a reflavored kensei monk, could all work for Robin Hood. The Skilled and Prodigy feats are options for a variant human. The fact he fought in the Crusades isn't something that needs mechanical representation beyond being good at fighting. The main missing component here is mechanical representation of the ability to lead in combat. Mastermind Rogue doesn't feel right but could work in a pinch, and the BM just doesn't get enough dice, and if I'm limiting my skills by going fighter im gonna take Archery, not the new manuever granting fighting style. Which is where a Captain class would come in. A class that gets manuever-like features, 3 skills like a ranger if not 4, extra attack, and stances that function similarly to the paladin's auras but with ties to other class abilities that key off of what stance the character is in, if I had my way. Subclasses would include a bandit, rabble rouser, vanguard, tactician, and some sort of "trueheart" sort of inspiring person thingy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Aaaaannnndddd just when the discourse seemed like we were headed in a decent path last night, here we are...






I don't think that's their point. The point as I'm reading it is that any archetype (good, evil, whatever), we have people saying "Well, if you want to play that, just use the stat block or whatever. But my favorite archetype needs a full class." I.e, why are people demanding a warlord when there are existing warlord options but if someone wants to play archetype X (doesn't matter what it is) that also is just briefly covered, why are you telling them they don't need a full class and to play with the options?

Which brings me to a simple metric: popularity and demand. How many people want to play a warlord vs how many want to play an evil stepmother? Both cases rely on the same argument, but it's a matter of demand. If the demand warrants the time and effort, then make it so. IMO anyway.

*also, for clarity, my first statement above your quote wasn't directed at you

If that's the case, they choose their examples poorly, and communicated very poorly.

Because they aren't comparable. There is no "the hero" class because "the hero" can be literally anything. There is no mechanical direction of any kind suggested by the archetype. Likewise the evil stepmother and the ingenue. They don't have any common elements that suggest literally any theme in terms of character ability.

meanwhile, "warlord" (as garbage a name as that is), suggests character abilities and common themes that don't include "literally all PCs".

 

[Garthanos]

Also, 'evil' is judgmental and hurtful 'stepmother' sexist & an implied criticism of religious preferences - the preferred term should be "legal guardian with alternate morality."

LOL