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

[Tony Vargas]

True, it is an important difference. But the other point I was trying to make is that D&D's class system isn't the right system for representing warlords and evil stepmothers.

You say "things like" in one breath, like they're related, when they're opposites: protagonist (PC Class) on the one hand, antagonist (monster-style stat block) in the other.

Obviously, the class system is not the right one to use for an antagonist, but is the right one to use (in D&D) for a PC.
Now, that said, there is a strong, but irrelevant point to be made about the D&D class system being inadequate for many purposes: if you want to start a thread advocating D&D go classless, it'd probably generate some discussion.

You might say, "But Warlord was a class at one time!" Yeah, well, so was Elf. It doesn't make it right.

The elf class was only found in a basic set, never in a PH1, like the Warlord, so it's a weaker case in that sense, FWIW. The Warlord was the only class that appeared in a prior-ed PH1 as a full class, yet was completely excluded from the 5e PH. That was a mistake, on the grounds of inclusion, since it created the appearance of taking sides in the divisive edition war, when 5e had been meant to heal those rifts - and still has a chance to carry through with that goal, by, among other things, publishing a worthy Warlord class, albeit, as an option in a supplement.

But, heck, having a halfling and elf class in the basic PDF instead of a Wizard and Rogue would've been cool, and probably could've been done in a way that'd've made it overall even simpler (fighters & clerics would've all been implicitly human, so you make one choice instead of two).

(Of course the basic take on the Cleric was still way too complex.)

 

[Garthanos]

Because the warlord, in spite of it's garbage name, is an archetype that actually translates into usable character abilities that are relevant to a normal game of dnd.

And further many of which are existent already and one of the arguments others want to use to say its not needed when they say yeah but you can play a "Battle" War "Master" Lord or some other sub-class non-specialist.

 

[Prakriti]

you're describing an entirely new game, or perhaps a very very very specific setting.

The Warlord works entirely within the scope of a normal dnd game.

What is "a normal D&D game?" And isn't it gatekeeping for you to say that my class idea doesn't belong in "a normal D&D game?" What would the game-designers have to say about that?

And you might suggest such abilities, but the story archetype you're proposing doesn't. Literally only "dominate husbands" is a thing common to more than, say, 2, evil stepmothers in fiction. None of them ever "detect fair godmothers". I can't think of a single time any actually grant disadvantage to anyone, much less their stepdaughters.

Evil stepmothers thwart and actively oppose their stepdaughters. You can argue that I have expressed that trope poorly in D&D mechanics, but you can't deny that the trope exists.

Here's the thing. When you make an example that is absurd on it's face, you aren't actually making the reductio ad absurdum argument, you're just falling into the fallacy of the same name.

Again, we are making the same argument. If the argument in support of the evil stepmother is absurd, then so is the argument in support of the warlord.

 

[Prakriti]

You say "things like" in one breath, like they're related, when they're opposites: protagonist (PC Class) on the one hand, antagonist (monster-style stat block) in the other.

Obviously, the class system is not the right one to use for an antagonist, but is the right one to use (in D&D) for a PC.

As I said to doctorbadwolf, if your only objection to the evil stepmother 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. Is there any reason (besides popular demand) to include the warlord as a D&D class and not the ingenue?

 

[Don Durito]

Objection: Warlords don’t represent a literary archetype; therefore they shouldn’t be a class.
Response: Yes they do here are some examples.
Objection: Just because they represent a literary archetype doesn’t mean they should be a class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is "a normal D&D game?"

Presumably, an heroic fantasy TTRPG.

And isn't it gatekeeping for you to say that my class idea doesn't belong in "a normal D&D game?"

No, it is reasonable response to an obvious category error: like saying 'no' to a player wishing to play a Gelatinous Cube.

What would the game-designers have to say about that?

They appear to be all for gatekeeping. Or as they'd probably put it "presenting a unified brand image" or something like that.

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. Is there any reason to include the warlord as a D&D class and not the ingenue?

Ironically, that it could be implemented as a 'lazylord' pretty easily. Really, there's a whole raft of less-combatant heroic & support-character literary archetypes that D&D couldn't handle, that various takes on the lazylord build - like Moonsong's Heart sub-class of Noble, arguably an even better fit for the ingenue - could.

 

[Garthanos]

(Of course the basic take on the Cleric was still way too complex.)

Never liked how the divine was handled by D&D RuneQuest spoiled me. The priests in RuneQuest felt way more distinct from anyone using battle magic or sorcery, and way more about actual sacrifice in return for some bit of temporary awesome and their miracles tied directly to actions which improve your relationship with the source were bound up in random chance also felt miraculous.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm pretty sure Jeremy, Mike, and others on the design team give two craps about the literary portfolio of references for each class. Can we stop that line of conversation please? It literally has no value one way or the other other than to get everyone upset.

 

[Prakriti]

No, it is reasonable response to an obvious category error: like saying 'no' to a player wishing to play a Gelatinous Cube.

Exactly! Finally, someone says it! Including the warlord as a class would be a category error. It's like making a "Fighter alignment" or a "an evil stepmother class." Warlords are no better represented by the class system than elves would be. That doesn't mean you can't play one. It just means that you need to find a better way of incorporating them (or representing them) in the current architecture of the game.

 

[Hussar]

Exactly! Finally, someone says it! Including the warlord as a class would be a category error. It's like making a "Fighter alignment" or a "an evil stepmother class." Warlords are no better represented by the class system than elves would be. That doesn't mean you can't play one. It just means that you need to find a better way of incorporating them (or representing them) in the current architecture of the game.

Umm, the Basic/Expert Elf class was represented in 1e and 2e perfectly well with a fighter/mu. You most certainly can represent an "elf" class in 5e as well, simply through multi-classing. The argument is specious because the rules in EVERY edition already allow a complete expression of an "elf" class. The only difference is that now elves are no longer limited to fighter/mu.

The same way that you can still represent a "halfling" class in every edition, however, halflings are no longer limited to simply being rogues.

However, what you cannot do is actually represent a warlord using existing 5e mechanics in a way that is satisfactory. You can get some of the way there, eventually- typically around 8 or 9 class levels are needed, spread across several classes. Thus, no, the warlord isn't represented.

Warlords occupy a similar space to bards. However, bards support the party by making each PC better at that PC's job - through straight up numerical bonuses from bardic inspiration and through spells. A warlord approaches things from a different direction. A warlord doesn't make you better at your job, it grants you more opportunities to do your job. It's a design space that is touched on with a number of other classes - Battlemaster, Mastermind, a few others - but, is not specialized in by any one class. And, it's a pretty wide open space. Do you inspire? Do you think more tactically? Do you lead from the front? Whatever. There's more than enough room for multiple sub-classes.