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

[Umbran]

I don't care if you disagree with me, I really don't. Just be honest whilst doing so.

Mod Note:

Again:

The internet is a very poor medium for telepathy. You may know what people say, but you only think you know why they say it. You cannot honestly call someone dishonest if you don't know why.

So, be careful when you claim folks are dishonest. Because... while it may seem correct to you, and it may be easy to believe, you are very likely to be wrong at some point. At that point you do that, you've just become a Grade A Jerk, as bad as the people who are dishonest.

Beware the accusation that feels right. Our feelings in discussions in which we defend points we care about are suspect.

Please address the information in the post, not things you suppose about the person of the poster, or their presumed motivations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You do see it in other threads. I get into arguments all the time about not adding more classes or other material, and I've used a few actual examples in this thread (for example, Capn Zapp was so incensed about people disagreeing with him about the premise of adding magic item shoppes and prices in various threads that he advocated for the inclusion of "+" threads). I can't tell you how many times I've had to defend my design aesthetic with analogies (less is more, negative space, leaving space for DIY, etc.). It's fine to like more options, and it's fine to like less, and those are both fine preferences in design.

Yet only in these threads (Warlord threads) do I feel like other posters take it to a ... different level. Because, again, it's not really about the Warlord.



In approximately five years, they've added one new class. And that was exceptionally setting specific. I expect that this is the new normal. Which is why we are likely to see a Psion of some kind (Dark Sun et al.) but not a setting-agnostic Warlord.



So, it's not really about the Warlord. It's about edition warring. And all that stuff @doctorbadwolf said ... not so much. And just as one side is a gatekeeper defending, whatever, D&D tradition or something, the other side is a gatekeeper to advance, whatever, you can't even voice an opinion. Got it. Otherwise you will be shouted down as the usual suspects upvote each other's contradictory opinions (It's not about the edition war, no, it is!).

That's okay. Really. I don't want to be a part of either of y'alls groups.* Because while I generally support people getting what they want,** I'm never a fan of saying that you can't even have an opinion.


*Normally, I'd use the Groucho Marx refrain here- I'd never join a group that would have me as a member. But seriously- this is toxic. I find it funny to joke about disliking things, so I am often genuinely shocked when I see this amount of genuine rage and hate over something silly and trivial. It's a game. A hobby. It's supposed to be fun. I see the exact type of entitlement on both sides of this argument that I see in the usual toxic nerd battles. No, thank you.

**In the end, even if an 5e is ruined (whatever that means), I can play other editions. And I do. Which is why people should be able to discuss hypothetical additions or even subtractions of classes, races, and so on understanding that none of this really matters. If I, or you, walk away from 5e, do you know what that means? Absolutely nothing.

We got maybe 2 people for whom it’s about more than just the Warlord. That doesn’t mean it isn’t about the Warlord. It very much is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Start Sarcasm
1 Hey you were do you see wizards and their abilities in fiction...
2 Good faith examples preferred there is Gandalf and Merlin
1 Nyeh bad examples just play an EK. After all Gandalf used a sword for basically every real attack and an EK can cast more spells than Merlin is mentioned doing in his entire storyline. You don't need a specialist just because somebody is described as casting a spell here or there.
1b You are just picking out characters who can shout passwords ineffectually at a wall and do cantrips for children or once in a while do rituals to teach a boy and calling that a Wizard. You dont have to have levels in Wizards to do that convince the DM to let you use Arcana/Int Checks to do those passwords and abstract the teaching out completely as intelligence/charisma checks, or maybe pshah grab a ritualist feat and call it a done deal.

2 But wait I want to play a wizard that feels like one most of the time not just once in a while and has to hope the dm lets his intelligence or charisma do something useful

1 The DM is on your side he is your friend i am sure he will let you teach and entertain children well its what your examples did the most. You probably do not even need the EK for most of your examples ... be sure and describe the beard and pointy hat right its the important part. ( not being able to reliably affect the battlefield in some real way mechanically with a wizards style )

1 Besides I think you secretly want to be overpowered and control who is king and control the whole destinies of kingdoms we cannot let you do that it might step on the autonomy of the other players who could get to decide that. Mary Sue wanna be's sheesh.

1 there obviously shouldn't be a Wizard class. just put points in the right stats. It would take away from those putting points in the stats AND doing it with roleplay.

End Sarcasm.

Sarcasm?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Urriak Uruk]

First of all I do apologize for the Turd Mountain comment, that was a road too far.

This sentence is so funny

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is fair observation. For those who just want their own Warlord class, I think the following would be helpful for those of us who are either on the fence, ambivalent, or hesitant to add any classes.

1. Given the release schedule of 5e, where it appears that new classes are few, far between, and tied into a setting, how would you like the Warlord to be officially introduced? In a realistic way- not just, "In some sort of splat book."

Well, I think that a Dragonlance book would be a good place, as would a “guide to the multiverse” book that describes several settings and uses them as examples for worldbuilding yadda yadda.

2. What features are essential to a "true" Warlord? Are these features that you can easily make in 5e, or features that would require more extensive rules changes?

Oh, man, most of it is already in the game in some form.
Gotta be able to give bonus movement, sacrifice attacks for ally attacks, bonuses to saves and attacks, etc
Help as a bonus action would be cool, but Help in place of an attack or as a rider on a successful attack would be even better.
Stuff like that.
I’d like to see stances that provide passive benefit to anyone within an aura, perhaps with triggers for active features along the lines above.

3. Given that the Warlord's genesis is in 4e, which has a reputation (if not always a reality) of being more grid-focused, do you think that the features of the Warlord work equally well in TOTM and grid?

That would definitely be a design priority. Imagine a mix of the leader/support abilities of the PDK, Battlemaster, and Mastermind, for a vague idea of what it might be like.

4. Finally, the most debate occurs around creating a Warlord class. But what types of archetypes (subclasses) are you expecting to see?

By the way, I'm not expecting you to have answers for all of these questions. I think it is unlikely that there will be a true Warlord class in 5e- at least officially, based on tea leaves and Mearls tweets. But stranger things (and, um, Stranger Things starter edition) have happened!

Subclasses would be, if I had my way;

Vanguard: full fighter-level weapon/armor proficiencies, better personal damage, more bonus to ally damage when you deal damage yourself.

Rabble-Rouser (needs better name): Very social oriented, gets deception stuff. Hector

Bandit/Outlaw: survival, scouting,

Some kind of nerd-lord: a nerd. Back field tactician with extra knowledge skills. Steal that historian feat benefit from UA.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

All good stuff.

I snipped this bit, and I'm replying to it, because I happen to agree that (given the current realities of the 5e release schedule) Dragonlance is the best candidate to provide some type of advanced martial class / Warlord.

So this brings up a second issue- would DL call the class a Warlord, or is there something else that is DL-specific (and would have a sidebar explaining that in other settings, it would be called, inter alia, a Warlord). I honestly haven't kept up with DL since, oh, the mid 80s so I don't have the foggiest on that one.

The other question I would have is this-

Do you envision that class as being a Martial Plus (like a Battlemaster), or more of a support-type? And if a support-type, how would you balance the abilities with pure martials like the Fighter and the Barbarian? Would you balance it, perhaps, with the Monk (d8 HD, for example)?

I’d honestly look to the monk and the bard for my balance perspective. Spells are the 5e benchmark for “what can a limited use thing do at this level” balancing. I’d give the class extra attack, though, so maybe Paladin is a better model than Bard.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

One thing that seems clear over the past 5 years is that no one agrees totally on what a warlord should look like. But it seems that the most common conglomeration is something like:

Cleric chassis with INT instead of WIS, d8 hit die, and armor. martial weapons and extra attack instead of channel divinity
Warlock "power" template: limited "spells" but they are escalating, with a few "incantations" that are specialized. Only instead of spells, it's inspiration slots, and instead of incantations, it's expertise, and instead of cantrips, it's maneuvers.

I see no way around stepping on the battlemaster on some level, but that would be a way to do it without introducing a brand new set of mechanics (which 5e is loathe to do).