D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Lanliss]

Maybe read their last post? Bc they addressed this already.

You can't actually, meaningfully build a warlord in 5e. You can build a ninja in 5e. The Shadow Monk is literally explicitly called out as a ninja, and does everything a ninja needs to do. Even the rogue MC is just icing.

The warlord would require homebrew to meaningfully represent in 5e.

The difference between the two examples is a difference of both type and scale. It is apples and motorcycles.

I am sorry but, from the outside, both of these arguments look exactly the same, practically to a word.

People who don't particularly care about (Ninja/Warlord) telling fans of (Ninja/Warlord) That it is all right there, just needs some mixing together. People who want (Ninja/warlord) Saying that it really cannot be done, and it doesn't matter if (Shadow monk is labeled "Ninja"/PDK is labeled "Warlord"), it does not at all meet what they want out of (Ninja/Warlord).

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's a little subjective though. Some people think that they can't get a warlord, others look at the current options and think "Cool, I can make my warlord in 5e". It's the same with the Ninja, some look at the options and think that the shadow-monk fits for their ninja, whereas others won't.

I am sorry but, from the outside, both of these arguments look exactly the same, practically to a word.

People who don't particularly care about (Ninja/Warlord) telling fans of (Ninja/Warlord) That it is all right there, just needs some mixing together. People who want (Ninja/warlord) Saying that it really cannot be done, and it doesn't matter if (Shadow monk is labeled "Ninja"/PDK is labeled "Warlord"), it does not at all meet what they want out of (Ninja/Warlord).

Thank you. Much less wordy then what I said lol.

For the record, because I know things get confused on forums and communication often gets muddled. I not only have nothing against the warlord class (I even created a thread supporting its inclusion), but I would actually like to see one if it meets my criteria. My only criteria is that it does something unique that can't be replicated by any other class. I've seen some homebrews that do this. So I support it. but for me personally I don't see a need for it because you can do 90% of what a warlord does with other classes/subclasses/feats. Just like I don't see a need for a ninja class because you can do 90% of what that class does for how I envision it. But that doesn't mean I think a class like the ninja fits everything I want, just that 90% is a pretty darn good coverage, IMO. And even though I don't see the need for a warlord, I can see how some people do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't really understand what the hell you're talking about in this post.

Manbearcat has that effect, I've noticed.

Wait until he starts going on about Forge stuff, your eyes will glaze over, and you'll be wondering how you ended up getting to the Philosophy of Quantum Physics board by typing in ENWorld.

What I saw in the earlier post of yours I quoted was you effectively saying that in one case someone should be happy that they can just mix and match current classes as they wanted

I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about how anyone should feel, neither directly, nor even 'effectively.'

Rather he contrasted the build options for two very different concepts, as they're actually available in 5e.

that they shouldn't need an update to one of their favourite classes and then turn around and say that the warlord, however, should have their own class in spite of the fact that you can create a warlord using current options.

I'm sorry, but it's poor debate etiquette to preface something with "in spite of the fact that," when, in reality, it is not a fact, at all (but even, as it may be, the point of contention in the first place).

Now, Manbearcat did, if you want to take up the gauntlet, give us an overview of how to build a ninja, that, frankly, I can hardly comment on, having conceived something of a hatred for the little pajama-wearing murderers in the 80s, when folks were just playing way too many of them, especially in Champions!, which was an otherwise awesome game. But, if you can either take apart his assertion that you can build a ninja (by presenting at least one authentic ninja concept that you can't model with an Assassin and/or Shadow Monk), or prove that you can build any concept a Warlord could have been used to build (a little more exhaustive) using the Fighter and Mastermind, then you could maybe refute his point, or, at the very least, the point you read into his point.

It's a little subjective though. Some people think that they can't get a warlord

Because that's the fact of the matter, yes. Nothing anywhere near it. Point by point comparisons of what the Warlord concept covers in 4e vs what you can actually fake up in 5e prove that indisputably.

The subjective part is whether that's a good or bad thing.

others look at the current options and think "Cool, I can make my warlord in 5e".

I suspect exactly no one actually thinks that. (I mean, apart from the internet trollkin inevitably summoned to volunteer themselves as newly-minted counterexamples to any sweeping statement). They might think "cool, I don't have to worry about anyone making one of those annoying warlords in 5e!"

It's the same with the Ninja, some look at the options and think that the shadow-monk fits for their ninja, whereas others won't.

Or assassin.

Either works for me - as long as it's dead.

I am sorry but, from the outside, both of these arguments look exactly the same, practically to a word.

People who don't particularly care about (Ninja/Warlord) telling fans of (Ninja/Warlord) That it is all right there, just needs some mixing together. People who want (Ninja/warlord) Saying that it really cannot be done, and it doesn't matter if (Shadow monk is labeled "Ninja"/PDK is labeled "Warlord"), it does not at all meet what they want out of (Ninja/Warlord).

Your confusion is understandable, as they are very similar in phrasing, they are just differently grounded in the underlying foundation.

For instance, saying "I can't get the azure color of the sky today just right in my painting using the colors in this set that include only black and white jesso" isn't exactly contradicted by "I can get the color of the sky just right on this moonless night with that same set, so you're full of it."

 

[cbwjm]

Manbearcat has that effect, I've noticed.

Wait until he starts going on about Forge stuff, your eyes will glaze over, and you'll be wondering how you ended up getting to the Philosophy of Quantum Physics board by typing in ENWorld.

I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about how anyone should feel, neither directly, nor even 'effectively.'

Rather he contrasted the build options for two very different concepts, as they're actually available in 5e.

I'm sorry, but it's poor debate etiquette to preface something with "in spite of the fact that," when, in reality, it is not a fact, at all (but even, as it may be, the point of contention in the first place).

Now, Manbearcat did, if you want to take up the gauntlet, give us an overview of how to build a ninja, that, frankly, I can hardly comment on, having conceived something of a hatred for the little pajama-wearing murderers in the 80s, when folks were just playing way too many of them, especially in Champions!, which was an otherwise awesome game. But, if you can either take apart his assertion that you can build a ninja (by presenting at least one authentic ninja concept that you can't model with an Assassin and/or Shadow Monk), or prove that you can build any concept a Warlord could have been used to build (a little more exhaustive) using the Fighter and Mastermind, then you could maybe refute his point, or, at the very least, the point you read into his point.

Because that's the fact of the matter, yes. Nothing anywhere near it. Point by point comparisons of what the Warlord concept covers in 4e vs what you can actually fake up in 5e prove that indisputably.

The subjective part is whether that's a good or bad thing.

I suspect exactly no one actually thinks that. (I mean, apart from the internet trollkin inevitably summoned to volunteer themselves as newly-minted counterexamples to any sweeping statement). They might think "cool, I don't have to worry about anyone making one of those annoying warlords in 5e!"

Or assassin.

Either works for me - as long as it's dead.


Your confusion is understandable, as they are very similar in phrasing, they are just differently grounded in the underlying foundation.

For instance, saying "I can't get the azure color of the sky today just right in my painting using the colors in this set that include only black and white jesso" isn't exactly contradicted by "I can get the color of the sky just right on this moonless night with that same set, so you're full of it."

What's forge stuff?

 

[Manbearcat]

Wrong on a couple fronts. First, you can't be an assassin rogue AND an arcane trickster rogue in 5e (which is required if you wanted the illusion spell casting that I'm talking about with false tracks). You'd have to choose magic initiate feat, which is not baked into a class (a complaint several of the warlord fans have made when being told they can do the same thing). Also, there is no replication of the pass through walls ability, and it doesn't matter what your acrobatics skill is, you can't walk on water. Physics still is physics. Re: the holding of breath, that is something ninja could do a lot longer than everyone else (which is what you're positing if it's just a Con check). There's no ability for that either available. To be blunt, who cares if YOU find them trivial. It doesn't discount the fact that these abilities did exist in prior editions and don't exist in 5e, which is one of the foundational arguments for the need of a warlord.

except cast illusion spells, or pass through walls, or hold breath, or walk on water or.....

Sure seems like you're holding a double standard there. You can build a ninja in 5e, just like you can build a warlord. If you say the shadow monk heavily implies it covers the ninja class, then I can fire right back and say the purple dragon knight heavily implies it covers the warlord class (since that is what it was designed to do). In the case of the warlord, it doesn't do exactly what you want so you want an official class. In the case of the ninja, it doesn't do what I want, but I guess I don't get the same consideration as you? Well, that's nice.

1) You said a "Core Ability" of the Ninja class was to create false tracks. In your first post you mentioned 1e OA Ninja.

* There is no Core Ability in the 1e OA Ninja to be able to create false tracks.
* There is no Core Ability in the AD&D 2e Complete Ninja Handbook to create false tracks.

The only reason I know what you're referring to is because I GMed so many ninjas in AD&D. What you're referring to is peripheral ability of few Ninja Kits from AD&D2e. It is not core to any Ninja class of AD&D. It is a 1st level spell that the Kits I outlined above can choose to learn.

2) The Shadow Monk can't cast illusion spells?

How about Minor Illusion as a Cantrip? That is more powerful and more versatile than False Tracks ever was and should be able to replicate it.

And Silence...as a Ritual.

And Invisibility...At-Will.

Not to mention Pass Without Trace, Darkness, Darkvision.

And Shadow Jump...At-Will.

3) Even though it sounds like you guys aren't using the Wuxia Flavors of Fantasy (where the Ninja is home), its still up to your table to determine what DC 25 and DC 30 Ability Checks mean in the fiction. Physics are physics in our world. D&D physics are an entire different ball of wax (and utterly incoherent).

But...again, if your GM/table wants Earth Physics to bind mortal heroes in D&D world (while dragons fly and arthopods larger than a chicken...actually larger than apes...actually as big as huge dinosaurs exist), then why can't Tool Proficiency (Ninja) just cover the walking on water, the underwater breathing, and the create false tracks shtick? Why not? This is exactly_how_these_legends_came_to_be in our own mundane world. Ninjas using mundane tools and honing their techniques in their deployment! I mean "physics are physics!" And to double your pleasure, they would be invulnerable to Dispel Magic and Detect Magic (like they were in our silly little mundane world)! Better still!

4) An obscenely limited, slow, and dangerous Phase Wall ability that chews up your ki and spits it out. That is all there is left. Which is what I said. Oh and Clan Followers for the AD&D 2e Ninja (which is also what I said).

---

Alright, I've said my piece. You can have the last word. I'll be ok merely with the knowledge that I've said accurate and correct things and that I'm awesome. And charming.

And handsome

 

[Lanliss]

Your confusion is understandable, as they are very similar in phrasing, they are just differently grounded in the underlying foundation.

For instance, saying "I can't get the azure color of the sky today just right in my painting using the colors in this set that include only black and white jesso" isn't exactly contradicted by "I can get the color of the sky just right on this moonless night with that same set, so you're full of it."

This doesn't help me understand at all. Possibly rolled too low on my Insight to understand your analogy. Are you saying that Ninja/Warlord fit together, and people should stop telling fans of both that they don't need a new class? Or are you saying that Ninja/Warlord are separate, and should not be equated?

 

[Sacrosanct]

OK, a few things Manbearcat:

1. Again, you're doing the exact same thing you said I can't do with the warlord ("use these multiclassing rules, and use these feats, etc"), and again, you can't replicate everything that I wanted

2. This argument that we should ignore physics and allow mundane characters to do supernatural things (like walking on water) because there are fantastical creatures like dragons needs to die in fire. It's a horrible fallacy. Do you allow all of your PCs to never need to eat or sleep, and everyone can fly? Why not, I mean, if dragon's can fly.... Quite frankly, every time I see someone use that argument, I find it to be really lazy for obvious reasons. It's a failure to actually argue an effective counter argument and instead just hand waves it away for a reason that is 99.99% arbitrary (unless you do in fact allow all of your players to fly and never need to eat or sleep).

3. And finally, you do realize that many of those abilities that you keep attributing to tools used by real ninja in history never actually happened in real life, don't you? They were exaggerated stories to build up the myth of the ninja. Those pontoon shoes to walk on water? Didn't really exist. Mythbusters already busted that anyway. But even if they did, it completely ignores that these are abilities tied to that class. Everything you've suggested (acrobatics, using tools, etc) is available to every other class, and without a specific class feature to the ninja, they would not be any better at it than any other class. Which sort of defeats the entire purpose.

 

[cbwjm]

Thank you. Much less wordy then what I said lol.

For the record, because I know things get confused on forums and communication often gets muddled. I not only have nothing against the warlord class (I even created a thread supporting its inclusion), but I would actually like to see one if it meets my criteria. My only criteria is that it does something unique that can't be replicated by any other class. I've seen some homebrews that do this. So I support it. but for me personally I don't see a need for it because you can do 90% of what a warlord does with other classes/subclasses/feats. Just like I don't see a need for a ninja class because you can do 90% of what that class does for how I envision it. But that doesn't mean I think a class like the ninja fits everything I want, just that 90% is a pretty darn good coverage, IMO. And even though I don't see the need for a warlord, I can see how some people do.

This is pretty much how I feel as well. For this poll, I ticked I'm happy with the current warlord options in 5e however, I'd be perfectly fine with it being included. I've even participated in some threads looking at the mechanics of the class and in my free time I've mapped out warlord features for a dedicated 20 level warlord class (pretty much one of many little projects that I start and never finish). My main problem which has seen me write my recent posts is that someone says that X class should be made and then they turn around and say to someone that they don't need Y class to be made because you can create with current options. It's just one of those things that really annoys me.

I've seen a few good warlord homebrews on the unearthed arcana subreddit. Some pretty cool stuff on there and often the creativity of some of the posters makes me re-evaluate some of my creations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's a little subjective though. Some people think that they can't get a warlord, others look at the current options and think "Cool, I can make my warlord in 5e". It's the same with the Ninja, some look at the options and think that the shadow-monk fits for their ninja, whereas others won't.

A little subjective, sure. But it is objectively a huge difference of severity, at least.

Every "warlord" option in the game is a sliver of warlord on top of a big meaty helping of an entirely different concept that has little, if anything, to do with the warlord.

The Bard is only vaguely similar in that both so support. Sorry, but that is about as much a warlord option as warlocks are a Druid option. The Battle master is about as much a warlord as the Eldritch Knight is a wizard.

The ninja Monk is a ninja, sans, what, two abilities? Maybe?

I know you haven't been making that arguement, but I don't feel like multiquoting, so let's review that.

1. Water walking. Nope. Level 9 Unarmored Movement.

2. Change Tracks: lets break it down
2.a. Making it impossible to read your tracks. Level 3, pass without a trace.
2.b. Tricking someone into thinking you went a different direction. Minor Illusion and skills. With MI, you do it better than others, but others can also do it. As it should be. 1e didn't even properly have skills, so it should be no surprise that skills cover some of what a class did in 1e. If there were a tactics skill in 5e, warlord fans would expect some of the warlord's shtick to live there, and warlords to have feature that synergies well with it.
2c. I'll give that this one could easily have been added to the Shadow Monk without beefing up the subclass. 1 ki to extend and expand minor Illusion for a few specific purposes, including changing tracks.

3. Walking through walls. This one I kinda grant, although you do get 60ft teleport at level 6. I only kinda grant it because you can't teleport if you can't see the destination. It should include the option to instead gain a phasing movement of 30ft for a turn, as a bonus action. *

4. Holding breath. I agree. This should be part of the Monk. Monks should be better at holding their breath.

5. Create illusions. Lvl 3, Shadow arts.

It doesn't even just imply strongly that it is a ninja, but literally says that it is a ninja. It's missing two things, at most. One of which it replaces with something that is along the same theme, but arguably stronger.

But again, I fully support an assassin class, just like I support a Captain (warlord) class, a warden, a true summoner, a shaman/witch, an "Avenger"**, and the Artificer and Mystic.

I'm just saying, the ninja is vastly better represented in 5e than the Warlord. A ninja player can "ninja" every turn, most parts of exploration, and many parts of a social encounter. The various "warlord" options can't. They can be a fighter 80% of the time, and warlord every now and again. Or replace fighter with rogue or paladin. It's not the same, at all.

*anyone else think Shadow step is a big power increase that would work better if you get minor teleportation at level 3, one or two fewer spells at that level, and then upgrade to full Shadow step and get those delayed spells at level 6? Also, at will bonus action 60ft teleport and advantage on an attack...dude. That is a lot. I'd rather have advantage on Stealth, and gain a teleportation movement for a turn, so I can teleport my speed, along with increased speed in dim light or darkness.

**which would be a wis based unarmored holy warrior whose hand is guided by faith, and thus adds wisdom to AC and damage, possibly attack. play like a Monk/paladin in some ways, with a few spells it casts without spell slots, SCAG cantrips instead of Smite, gets evasion, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My main problem which has seen me write my recent posts is that someone says that X class should be made and then they turn around and say to someone that they don't need Y class to be made because you can create with current options. It's just one of those things that really annoys me.

So, for instance, someone might say that the Psion should definitely be made, then turn around and say that the Warlord definitely shouldn't be. Annoying. I get it.

Personally, I find classes that are cultural artifacts like the Barbarian, Monk, and hypothetical Ninja 'class,' to be superfluous, and I consider some classes, like the Monk, Ninja, and psionics of all types sorts & descriptions to be contrary to genre. And, while I'm not shy about mentioning that, I don't actually campaign to block any of them being included in the game, since there are some players who may really enjoy them, and some campaigns that may even benefit from them. Fans who'd enjoy the Warlord and campaigns that could benefit from its inclusion should be extended the same courtesy.

And, lest we forget, fans who (like me) don't care for psionics, or even couldn't stand to have one in the same party, and campaigns that would find them inappropriate, also have been extended a courtesy, it's absence from core, and it's inevitably optional status when it's finally introduced. Those who feel the same about the Warlord have already received the same courtesy, as well.