"No, don't touch that blue mage!!! It's actually a..." *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP* "...uh, never mind."
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)
- Thread starter Slit518
- Start date
"No, don't touch that blue mage!!! It's actually a..." *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP* "...uh, never mind."
Hussar
Legend
See, here's the thing that I find frustrating.
"The concept seems to be built around the idea of leading/commanding the other PC's" is simply not true. No more than say, a Battlemaster using Battlemaster's Command (hey, it's right in the name) is commanding your PC. No more than someone with the Inspiring Leader feat is either inspiring or a leader. Again, note, it's right there in the name.
It's frustrating because the criticisms you are using apply equally to all these other elements of the game that you don't seem to have a problem with. Does it bother you get get "stuck playing with" someone with Inspiring Leader, or a Battlmaster, or a Bard (after all, the bard gets to outright tell you how to be better at something) or a Mastermind?
Earlier in the thread, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], you stated that you didn't play 3e or 4e. So, you've never actually seen this class in play. Have you actually taken the time to read the class? Read what it actually says in the 4e PHB? Or are you basing your opinions on second hand information and gut reactions to concepts taken out of context?
mellored
Legend
To be honest. I'd be fine if we just called the Warlord a Bard. If we scrapped their spells and gave them other features.
i.e.
Inspire Fury.
Your sing a song of encouragement and inspire an ally to attack even more furiously. When they take the attack action, they can make 1 additional attack.
Though I'd still prefer Int over Cha.
i.e.
Inspire Fury.
Your sing a song of encouragement and inspire an ally to attack even more furiously. When they take the attack action, they can make 1 additional attack.
Though I'd still prefer Int over Cha.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Again, I also think that both Battlemaster's Command and Inspiring Leader are problematic, for the exact same reasons, both in the naming and in the effects. Less so, because they are just elements of a class (and in Inspiring Leader's case, at least something that any class can take) and not an entire class based on the concept.
No, I've never "seen this in play" although I'm not sure why that's relevant. That feels to me like asking, "Well, have you actually seen Plasma Rifles in play in 5e? Then how do you know you don't want them in the game?"
I have read some of the descriptions I've found online, although not for a while now. I do remember that it is considered a "Leader" role, which I realize doesn't literally mean group leader, but...hey...they picked that term for a reason. My assessment about the "ordering other people around thing" is based on many, many online discussions I've had, both here and at the former WotC forums. Some of the things that I see expressed repeatedly include:
- The example of Patton yelling at a private to explain martial healing (note: I'm not automatically opposed to martial healing itself, just the implications of this example)
- The class described as "officer", "captain", "leader", "sergeant", etc.
- The recurring phrases "give orders" and "inspire/inspiring" "yell at" "look up to" "natural leadership" "command"
- All the coolest heroes (Odysseus, Arthur, Aragorn, Captain America, etc. etc. etc.) offered as examples of Warlords. It gets farcical. "Well, Boromir was really a Warlord, too because he was a natural leader. And Faramir. And Gandalf, too, really. Frodo was probably a 1st level Warlord...." (I exaggerate in jest, but only slightly.) Basically anybody who does anything except hit things until they are dead becomes an example of a Warlord.
- The implications of the name "Warlord" itself. It's more grandiose by far than any existing class or sub-class name (except, perhaps, Mastermind. Which is telling.)
Then when I point this out, I get "Oh, no, that's not it at all. Think of it as a 'tactician'." But as soon as a new thread starts (which, face it, happens every time a kobold dies) it's back to the inspiring officer giving orders to adoring peons again.
And please understand that I don't think any of this means the players of Warlords are going to try to order around the other players at the table. My objection is based entirely on the roleplaying aesthetics.
To try to offer an illustrative example: imagine a class called the Ingenue or Heartthrob. The fluff of this class is that he/she is physically desirable...hot...and inspires romantic and lustful notions in others. He/she is able to capitalize on this to encourage teammates to go above and beyond. Ability names are "Do It For Me" "Seductive Wink" and "At Least We Still Have Waterdeep".
Even if this class were played completely deadpan/neutral, "Yeah, I'll use my last charge of Do It For Me on the Monk and give him an extra 1d6" it would bug the living $#%& out of me. You don't get to tell me who my character is attracted to.
This is exactly how I feel about the Warlord, and...yes...Inspiring Leader and Battlemasters, too, although (again) to a lesser extent because it's not the whole basis of the class's existence.
Note that I don't have any objection to these sorts of abilities working on NPCs. (Also maybe worth noting that at my tables I don't allow persuasion & intimidation to be used on PCs, for the same reason: nobody but the player gets to decide what the players thinks and feels...unless magic.)
Action Granting is not really all that bad, except for the fact that it's just one more facet to this whole narrative. I don't object to Haste giving me an extra attack, again 'because magic'. We don't need to explain it as my character looking up to, following, or getting advice from your character. It's just magic.
EDIT: It's kind of ironic that the absolutely adamant "non-magical" requirement is exactly the ingredient that ends up producing all this cognitive dissonance for me, even though in general I'm fine with, for example, Second Wind being non-magical.
I'd like Action Granting much, much more if it was "You distract an enemy. The next ally who attacks it with a melee weapon gets one extra attack." I'd love that. You could even Hold Action to make sure its the ally you want and I'd still be ok with it. But it affects the NPC, not the PC. Heck...make it a reaction to somebody else's attack. "When a creature within 5' attacks another creature, you can use your reaction to distract the target, giving the attacker a free extra attack." (The game designer in me would then say that it should really be Advantage not extra attack, but hey I guess Samurai broke that already.)
Martial Healing? I'd be way more ok with that if happened during short rests, like the Bard, instead of during combat. No, I don't think all HP are meat, but if it's possible to encourage/inspire your friends to dig deep and recover those HP without magic, the implications of only one class getting to do that bring us back to the part that bothers me. Whereas a skilled healer who can do the same thing over the course of an hour or 8 hours is...is just different. I'm not 100% sure why. Maybe because doing it in six seconds implies a relationship, but doing it over an hour implies expertise in psychology.
And for the love of all that's holy find a name that doesn't imply rank and isn't as dry as "tactician".
Last edited by a moderator:
ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
A little disappointed that the Summoner is not getting more traction I really enjoy that niche.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
...and because I love analogies, even though they always go awry on the Internet, here's another:
Imagine that I spent all this time explaining why I hate Rogues: because I just feel that stabbing people in the back is dishonorable, and I think D&D should be about heroism not moral bankruptcy. (I'm making this up; I love playing Rogues. Neutral Good ones, but still...)
Now, the response to that should be, "Then you are S.O.L., bub, because that's just what Rogues do."
Imagine, instead, the response was, "No...no...no...Rogues are not actually fighting dirty, they are just using finesse to avoid armor and hit vulnerable spots. Sure, it's called 'Sneak Attack' but that just means they sneak in under their defenses, not that they are fighting dishonorably. And the subclass might be called Assassin but it doesn't mean they actually assassinate people. Some people play it as a little girl who gets the bonuses just because she's so darned cute that the victims...I mean, sparring partners...stand there saying, 'Awwwww'."
And so on.
Horse$#!+, right? That's kind of how these discussions always feel to me. Absolutely everything about the Warlord...from the name on down...screams "leader giving orders" and instead of just saying, "Yeah, that's what it is. If you don't like it you never will," everybody pours all this energy into explaining to me why it's really nothing like that at all. It's kinda hard to swallow.
Really it increases my resistance to the class.
Imagine that I spent all this time explaining why I hate Rogues: because I just feel that stabbing people in the back is dishonorable, and I think D&D should be about heroism not moral bankruptcy. (I'm making this up; I love playing Rogues. Neutral Good ones, but still...)
Now, the response to that should be, "Then you are S.O.L., bub, because that's just what Rogues do."
Imagine, instead, the response was, "No...no...no...Rogues are not actually fighting dirty, they are just using finesse to avoid armor and hit vulnerable spots. Sure, it's called 'Sneak Attack' but that just means they sneak in under their defenses, not that they are fighting dishonorably. And the subclass might be called Assassin but it doesn't mean they actually assassinate people. Some people play it as a little girl who gets the bonuses just because she's so darned cute that the victims...I mean, sparring partners...stand there saying, 'Awwwww'."
And so on.
Horse$#!+, right? That's kind of how these discussions always feel to me. Absolutely everything about the Warlord...from the name on down...screams "leader giving orders" and instead of just saying, "Yeah, that's what it is. If you don't like it you never will," everybody pours all this energy into explaining to me why it's really nothing like that at all. It's kinda hard to swallow.
Really it increases my resistance to the class.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Summoner-type classes have a fundamental problem when it comes to action economy. I would be way more likely to get behind them if they weren't also, invariably, pure spellcasters.
If you made the Summoner into a kind of rider that sits on the summoned creature's shoulder, you could have this class essentially fill the same role that a Shapeshifter class would normally fill, except you solve the whole "shapeshifter baggage" issue.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] - I would highly recommend actually reading the description of the Warlord in the 4e PHB before you make up your mind. I think you will find that the whole "giving orders to PC's" thing is largely an artifact of edition warring and people trying to prove that warlords are bad. There's a reason that warlord fans, like myself, don't describe warlords the way you do. Because we've actually READ the class, know what the class is all about, which is largely either inspiration (inspiring warlord is an actual 4e class, very similar in feel to a bard) or a tactical warlord (my personal favorite - someone that, because of training, knows how to keep his head under fire and suggest (not order, suggest, as in offer advice) on when and how to strike.
Virtually none of the actual 4e warlord powers revolve around the warlord telling anyone to do anything. All they do is create opportunities. Hammer and Anvil, for example, was one of my favorite powers. The warlord hits an opponent and an adjacent ally gets a free shot at the opponent as well. It's precisely what you are saying you don't have a problem with. The warlord is distracting the NPC to grant a PC an extra attack. And, the vast majority of warlord powers work exactly like this. Or, as another example, Wolfpack Tactics. I make an attack and an adjacent ally gets to shift 5 feet so we can gang up on a baddy. Now, that's a power that isn't so useful in 5e since tactical combat is less of a thing, but, again, I'm knocking the baddy off balance so you can move up. It's pretty genre fitting.
Like I said before, context matters. Your rogue example works because rogues are actually (at least in part) described as nasty buggers who stab people in the back. It's right there in the description of the class. Doesn't have to be, true, but, it is right there. But, the whole idea that I'm telling you what to do as a warlord isn't actually true for the most part. The vast majority of powers follow what you say you don't have an issue with - the warlord does something to the NPC and an ally gets to do something.
For S&G's, I dug out my 4e PHB. Here's the flavor text for the first bunch of powers for a warlord:
So, yeah, there's a couple in there that might be a bit problematic with the idea of telling another player how to feel, but, again, most don't. The majority of powers for warlords work like the ones I just listed.
Virtually none of the actual 4e warlord powers revolve around the warlord telling anyone to do anything. All they do is create opportunities. Hammer and Anvil, for example, was one of my favorite powers. The warlord hits an opponent and an adjacent ally gets a free shot at the opponent as well. It's precisely what you are saying you don't have a problem with. The warlord is distracting the NPC to grant a PC an extra attack. And, the vast majority of warlord powers work exactly like this. Or, as another example, Wolfpack Tactics. I make an attack and an adjacent ally gets to shift 5 feet so we can gang up on a baddy. Now, that's a power that isn't so useful in 5e since tactical combat is less of a thing, but, again, I'm knocking the baddy off balance so you can move up. It's pretty genre fitting.
Like I said before, context matters. Your rogue example works because rogues are actually (at least in part) described as nasty buggers who stab people in the back. It's right there in the description of the class. Doesn't have to be, true, but, it is right there. But, the whole idea that I'm telling you what to do as a warlord isn't actually true for the most part. The vast majority of powers follow what you say you don't have an issue with - the warlord does something to the NPC and an ally gets to do something.
For S&G's, I dug out my 4e PHB. Here's the flavor text for the first bunch of powers for a warlord:
- Commander's Strike: With a shout, you command an ally to attack.
- Furious Smash - You slam your shield into your enemy... your anger inspires your aly to match your ferocity
- Viper's strike - You trick your adversary into making a tactical error that gives your comrade a chance to strike
- Wolf Pack Tactics - Step by step you and your friends surround the enemy
- Guarding attack - With a calculated strike you knock your adversary off balance and grant your comrades some protection ...
- Hammer and Anvil - You land a ringing blow against your foe, inspiring a nearby ally to strike a blow of his own
- Leaf on the wind - Like a leaf caught in the autumn wind your foe is driven by the flow of battle. Your fierce attacks force him to give groung
- Warlord's Favor - With a caculated blow, you leave your adversary exposed to an imminent attack from one of your closest allies
So, yeah, there's a couple in there that might be a bit problematic with the idea of telling another player how to feel, but, again, most don't. The majority of powers for warlords work like the ones I just listed.
Aldarc
Legend
There are class features that other characters can take as feats as well.
Pointing to the "Leader" role for the Warlord as evidence paints an incomplete picture. Please keep in mind that this term also applied to the Cleric and Bard, with the Cleric being considered the "Leader" par excellence for 4E. I suspect that WotC felt that calling the role "Leader" would be more player-empowering than the oft-avoided "Healer," "Support," or "Walking Band-Aid" titles that often were applied to clerics, bards, and other similar classes.
There were multiple subclasses of the Warlord, including the Inspiring Warlord, the Tactician Warlord, and the Bravura Warlord, which placed different emphases on their support function. The Inspiring Warlord was like an inspiring Valor Bard without any actual magical spells, at least if one were to convert them to 5E. You would be more than welcome to fluff up their inspiration as magic if it bothers you that much. But at the very least "spell-less" is part of the Warlord package.
That is more or less how the 4E Warlord operates.
Ironically, I think that the ability for the Warlord to empower other players to use their HD during combat would distinguish it from the Bard.
Battlemind? Warmind?
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Legend
With the 6-8 encounters per day around 18-24 but 12-18 is probably more realistic YMMV.
Similar Threads
