D&D 5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

So, folks - a question to ask yourself before you post again about warlords: What is the point of your post? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you apt to make any constructive motion towards your goal with this post?

Because the whole lot of you are in grave danger of entering headbutting territory where the only thing you accomplish is giving everybody, including yourself, a massive headache.

Angry venting and relentless headbutting are part of the Bogus Journey, not the Excellent Adventure. So, be excellent to each other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But "proper warlords" are not adventurers, they are people sitting in castles and command tents miles from the action. That is not something that really needs much in a way of mechanics, and is certainly not a PC character class. So again, that fear must be unfounded.

I'n scale of the typical D&D party they would be the squad leaders. A sergeant rather than a general. But still the same 'profession' and a clear offshoot of 'soldier' concept which in 5E is the fighter.

And the 4e Warlord does exactly that; "is a replacement for" != "is identically equal to". So mission accomplished?

4E warlord was super gamey and immersion breaking. As a lot of 4E was like that it was not super jarring in it, but as 5E thankfully moved away from that direction porting the 4e version directly to 5E would not work. Sure, a concept of a battle leader can easily work, but it must be interpreted through the 5E design paradigm which is less gamist than the 4E one.

But This has gotten too argumentative. So to be more constructive, what are the things you would want the warlord to have which you feel could not be fitted in the subclass structure and relatedly what aspects of the base fighter class you feel the warlord shouldn't have?

 

[Cadence]

And the 4e Warlord does exactly that; "is a replacement for" != "is identically equal to". So mission accomplished?

I wonder how close some of the things in the PF Cavalier are to coming up with a Warlord idea:

"Role: Cavaliers tend to marshal forces on the battlefield, using their mounted talents and challenges to control the flow of the fight. Outside of battle, cavaliers can be found advancing their cause through diplomacy and, if needed, subterfuge. The cavalier is no stranger to courtly intrigue and can hold his own in even the most delicate of social situations. "

Not so much the way PF actually did it, but in terms of the idea of teamwork feats (and granting them to your allies) , and decidedly not the parts about orders and being mounted. It gives a reason for someone to be controlling the battlefield without having anything that could derogitorally be called "yelling people better" or being portrayed as a reskinning of some cleric/bard types. Is there some trepidation on the part of WotC to re-use parts of 4e (that weren't before) that grated the older players the wrong way?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Could the spot of special Gish classes (like the PF Magus) be met by simpling having a toolbox of skills/feats/abilities that could be applied to even-split Sorcerer/Wizard x Fighter/Rogue* to keep them at the power level of the single classed characters? Maybe a rule for 1st level, something for casting while wielding, and possibly a restriction on some types of spells. This would allow for the filling of that nitch without needing 4 extra classes (or 5 if Barb/Sorc* too) and having to force some unique flavoring.

I think you need to give gishes their own spell list, including spells that actually support getting in close and hitting people. (and, importantly, does not support standing in the back and blasting people.) Just using the wizard list is a bad way to do this - even if you add a bunch of spells for EKs to the wizard list, you've now added a bunch of trap options for evokers. If we're gonna have spell lists, they should be curated to specific roles. Which means each new role needs a new spell list.

So to not do this via a new class, or, to do this with a multiclass, you would need to break precedent and give a multiclass option their own spell list (and a feat or two for 'actually blending weapons and spells'). At what point does it make more sense to just make a new class, like they did with paladin?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is one I'm heavily going to disagree with.

Clerics follow divinities. They worship a being and gain a bit of its power, but they're hardly the only ones who do so. Being an adventurer they might get a one-on-one session of 'hey, you're doing great, keep doing that' or 'please sort this problem out', but they're hardly the only ones around. I mean, some may worship regional deities, but there's that worship base in there and the fact you are specifically doing it for that deity.
Warlocks do not follow divinities. They make pacts and bargains with various beings, who run the whole gamut from 'nice' to 'evil' and of course 'unknowable ancient beings from beyond the veil'. They may have just stumbled into an area and accidentally just, read the wrong thing. Picked up a sword in a store and next thing they know they hear its whispers, as its been waiting oh so very long for someone like them, and now its plans can begin. Warlocks aren't necessarily working for where they have the power from, they just have that power and, well, boss'll be back every now and again to check in.

Yeah. I'm still not seeing it. The only difference seems to be the arbitrary difference whether the thing is a divinity or not. Except that we have things like Raven Queen patron... So now there literally are both clerics and warlocks of the Raven Queen... So what's the difference?

 

[Cadence]

So to not do this via a new class, or, to do this with a multiclass, you would need to break precedent and give a multiclass option their own spell list (and a feat or two for 'actually blending weapons and spells'). At what point does it make more sense to just make a new class, like they did with paladin?

I wonder if having a separate Gish spell list would be more elegant than having a flood of different Gish classes though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So to not do this via a new class, or, to do this with a multiclass, you would need to break precedent and give a multiclass option their own spell list (and a feat or two for 'actually blending weapons and spells'). At what point does it make more sense to just make a new class, like they did with paladin?

I think that subclasses could and sometimes should have their own spell lists and in some cases perhaps even some bespoke spells. Now multiclass structure in 5E is pretty awkward, so I'm not sure I'd bother trying to fix that.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah. I'm still not seeing it. The only difference seems to be the arbitrary difference whether the thing is a divinity or not. Except that we have things like Raven Queen patron... So now there literally are both clerics and warlocks of the Raven Queen... So what's the difference?

They type of being they get power from doesn't seem that important to me.

It feels like the difference comes from "the real existing concept" they're trying to emulate. Working for someone because you believe in them seems a lot different than having a pact with someone as a price you pay to get power from them - the priest of the evil god working to further their goals on earth feels very different than the scoundrel who is working towards their own ends but needs to do what the devil tells them to in order to keep their magic powers.

 

[Mecheon]

what are the things you would want the warlord to have which you feel could not be fitted in the subclass structure and relatedly what aspects of the base fighter class you feel the warlord shouldn't have?

I've said it before: Basing a class around the Battlemaster/Mastermind tactical options and making that the class's main point. EK is a fighter with a dash of wizard, Arcane Trickster is a rogue with a dash of wizard, BM and MM should be fighter/rogue with a dash of warlord. You could squish it into fighter, I guess, but that's just going to lead to the exact same discussion we're having with psionics of "Psionics/Warlords have more design space available for sub-classes and shouldn't just be relegated to such themselves"

I just, point at Kibble's Warlord for how its done super well in a 5E framework

Yeah. I'm still not seeing it. The only difference seems to be the arbitrary difference whether the thing is a divinity or not. Except that we have things like Raven Queen patron... So now there literally are both clerics and warlocks of the Raven Queen... So what's the difference?

Nature of their agreement.

Clerics worship the Raven Queen and respect her. They seek to further her goals. They have that whole 'actually worshipping' thing keeping them in line. They get spells and abilities based around specific domains represented by that deity
Warlocks do not necessarily worship the Raven Queen. They're basically a freelancer. Once enpowered, they are under no obligation to serve whoever they got power from and could just as well work against them.

They're two vastly different concepts, between 'power through faith' and 'power through a pact'

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They type of being they get power from doesn't seem that important to me.

It feels like the difference comes from "the real existing concept" they're trying to emulate. Working for someone because you believe in them seems a lot different than having a pact with someone as a price you pay to get power from them - the priest of the evil god working to further their goals on earth feels very different than the scoundrel who is working towards their own ends but needs to do what the devil tells them to in order to keep their magic powers.

Well, that is merely a difference in character's internal motivation. This indeed will make character's feel rather different, but it is a rather bizarre justification for a massive mechanical difference. It is not like we have completely separate class with different mechanics to represent a selfish thief who only steals to enrich themselves and one who does so to give it to the poor.