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

[Tony Vargas]

But Tony... if the Ranger isn’t in DnD it just wouldn’t exist at all!

Oh, there'd still be Army Rangers, Texas Rangers, park rangers and NY Rangers....

 

[Undrave]

Oh, there'd still be Army Rangers, Texas Rangers, park rangers and NY Rangers....

That’s just words, the concept of the DnD Ranger is basically self referential at this point and exists nowhere outside DnD itself

 

[Don Durito]

Just to be clear, the original post wasn't just about the barbarian sub-class. It was about a lot of other things that have been officially added to the game without apparent push-back. The poster was arguing that that lack of push-back could be taken for silent approval. I was merely pointing out the problems with that logic.

Actually when I said "no one cared" I was using hyperbole. Presumably at least one person did in fact care about all the things I listed. It's a big world.

What I basically meant was that there was no outcry. The implied comparison was with previous very vocal complaints. People were not silent about all the things they hated in 4e. There was nothing of the same noise made out those aspects of 5E - despite the fact they had been presented as dealbreakers during previous edition wars.

If people are silently giving up on D&D in despair in order to take on entirely new hobbies such as trainspotting, or speckled pigeon spotting, then that is already a significant contrast - because the response previously was not silent.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s just words, the concept of the DnD Ranger is basically self referential at this point and exists nowhere outside DnD itself

Hard disagree, but this is a thread about warlords, so I won’t go into it.

 

[Prakriti]

If folks were consistently against the addition of any classes, then, fair enough.

I think if you asked most people if they supported the addition of a new class into D&D, they would say it depends on the class. Something like the Alchemist or the Psion might garner high approval ratings, but the Poop-flinging Spidermonkey? Not so much.

 

[Don Durito]

Poop-flinging Spidermonkey?

Subclass of the Pie-thrower. Told you I was leaving design space for sub-classes.

 

[Mecheon]

Well, uh, this thread sure did explode since last night, huh?

In fact, I'd be curious to see how it would play in 5E. If one of my players wanted to give a good 3PP version a try, I'd be game. If nothing else, just to see what all the fuss is about.

KibbleTasty's tends to be the go-to one. Its been revised a ton of times, and Kibble's various classes and updates are fairly well respected. It also has an Int option so gets bonus points for actually having something that isn't just locked to being a charisma-based class
Schwaib's had a really poor opening when it was first dropped and was significantly unbalanced. Its been revised since but I haven't kept up with the updates so I'm not 100% on the community's feel on it, but that opening did sour a lot of people towards it, but given it has been done by a writer for the game its probably a touch more official-adjacent

There's warlord options out there for absolute days which is the reason a lot of people want an official one, so you can point at that rather than have to sift people through the choices out there.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I still don’t get why it would be a category error? What EXACTLY do you think a Warlord does?!

I believe it is what I was saying earlier. Some warlord fans are arguing that a warlord class is required to do the tactical planning in combat. It's a category error because players plan, not characters or classes.

If that isn't what a warlord does - if it is just a non-magical support class - then the category error goes away, and so do the objections.

 

[Eubani]

The Warlord is no more required to do tactical planning than it is required to be a fighter to swing a sword or be a Bard to sing. What is, is their specialty their area of expertise. Hence they would get mechanics that show this. This just like any character can provide inspiring leadership through roleplay yet not have the feat. Next Strawman.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Warlord is no more required to do tactical planning than it is required to be a fighter to swing a sword or be a Bard to sing.

Absolutely, that is my view of the warlord.

Next Strawman.

Unfortunately, it's not a strawman - some supporters of the warlord are quite clearly making the argument that a warlord is required to do the tactical planning. (and any fictional character who does any planning must therefore have levels of warlord).

It should be a strawman.