D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[mellored]

Hitting things is a ridiculously large tent. Samurai and warlords and knights all fit into that same tent. All professional warriors throughout history fit into that tent.

Damage is a pretty small tent. The ability to kill stuff and not die is incredibly effective, but it's still a very narrow focus.

Magic is a ridiculously large tent.

I would be perfectly happy with representing Cleric and Warlock and Wizard as the three subclasses of Magic User, alongside the Barbarian and Ranger and Warlord as subclasses of Fighter. Spellcasters are over-differentiated, and they have been at least since 3E decided that the Druid was a completely different class from a Nature Cleric.

I agree.

I would have been fine with barbarian, ranger, and warlord under fighter. It could have worked.
But that would require a complete rewrite of the fighter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah, but remember that in order to get all the other things the make a ninja a ninja (like sneak attack, poison, and disguise expertise), you'd have to multi class into an assassin rogue, so really, you don't get that water walking until around level 18 or so, assuming you're splitting evenly. So in practical effect, you're not getting it. Or your giving up other core ninja abilities to do so. FWIW, I know this also applies to the warlord too (multiclassing from valor bard to battlemaster fighter).



See, you're doing the exact same thing that you disagree with re: the warlord in previous discussions. People telling you, "Well, it's not exactly like the class, but you can do things similar by replace them with X, Y, and Z.

You can't really have it both ways on this, applying one standard to your preferred class, while holding a different one to a class you're not as passionate about. Also, there are more than just two things missing to replicate how I envision a ninja, as explained a bit earlier. Context matters, and in this case, context is the sacrifice you make while multiclassing, specifically around delayed ability acquirement (and again, I fully know that the suggestions about multiclassing to get a warlord suffers the same problem).

This next part isn't directed at you specifically, but more in general. This thread (and similar discussions) has gone like this:

Warlord Fan: The game doesn't have a warlord
Person B: No, but you can get really close by doing X, Y, and Z combinations
WF: That still doesn't cover what I want from a warlord class, because I'm missing some things, and shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get weird combination to get what I want
Ninja Fan: I totally know how the warlord fan feels. I feel the same way about the lack of ninja.
WF: No, but you can get really close by doing X, Y, and Z combinations.

:/


The bottom line is this. For the warlord, and ninja, and I'm sure a few other archetypes, we have a choice. We can accept the extra work to get 90% close to what we want now, or we can stick with an edition where we do get what we want. Maybe down the road we get what we want, but until then, those are our choices.

I'm not doing that, though. I don't expect every single ability of a class to directly port over in a new edition.

I'm holding both classes to the same standard. Can I play one and do the things that the class has previously done most of the time? Not have the same exact specific list of class features. I don't need all of, or even most of, the warlord's specific powers to exist, under the same name, etc, in 5e. I don't think anyone on these forums does.

It just needs to be able to do the same sorts of things, covering the core class abilities (secondary specific abilities are optional, but they are also why both classes should have some levels where you pick a feature from a list), *and be able to do the very most core things most of the time.*

IMO, the ninja, avenger, swordmage (even before SCAG cantrips), even the summoner, witch/shaman, and maybe the warden, can do their thing most of the time. They can focus on their thing without having to ignore a bunch of irrelevant features from their core class.

A Hexblade/Paladin of Vengeance makes a really, really good Avenger. It doesn't do it well enough to replace a full class, for a few reasons, but it can be done better than a warlord without MC or feats. Hexbllade by itself comes very close. Battlemaster doesn't.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] - There is another point to remember in all this.

Classes change across editions. We all know this and accept it. A 1e barbarian looks nothing like a 5e barbarian which is based off the 3e barbarian. A 1e paladin and a 5e paladin aren't even in the same ballpark. And let's not even start with the 1e bard. Classes across editions are different.

And I get the idea that there are things missing in 5e. I'm a huge fan of summoner wizards. One of my favorite classes to play. And I flat out cannot play it in 5e. Not even remotely. The closest I can get is a Land Druid, and that's not really close at all. So, I do feel what you are saying. I would love a UA article on summoner wizards.

But, all that being said, in 5e, there IS a ninja class. It's the Way of Shadow monk. It's right there in the description of the class. Now, it's not the same as a 1e ninja, that's true. It's a new interpretation for a new edition. IIRC, the 3e ninja was closer to a rogue than a monk (but, it's been a really long time and I might be misremembering). But, at the end of the day, there is a ninja class in 5e. And, it's a ninja class that does ninja things most of the time - illusions for distracting, disappearing into the darkness, kicking butt out of the darkness. Yup, that's a ninja. It's not a 1e version of the ninja, but, it is a ninja. It's just as much of a ninja as a barbarian is a barbarian or a bard is a bard.

But, there's nothing in the game that actually gives me a warlord. Bards are out - why is my warlord carrying a lute and casting spells. Battlemaster isn't too bad, but, again, it's only two maneuvers and only usable about 20% of the time. Various other options are just seriously lacking.

So, no, there isn't an equivalency here. You HAVE a ninja class. Right there in the PHB. It's even CALLED a ninja. It might not be something you like, fair enough. But, it is there. Warlord fans don't even have that. To even come close to a warlord, we have to Frankenstein a bunch of classes together, and then ignore wide swaths of those class' flavor in order to still come up very short on what a warlord actually is.

Here's another f'rinstance for you. You can only play a caster at 6th level. For the first five levels, you can only have very limited access to spells plus you will have a bunch of flavor that has nothing to do with what you want to play - wearing armor, using a sword, bonuses to Str and Con skills - that sort of thing. Is that acceptable? Is that good enough?

 

[Imaro]

Sorry, not going to play the shifting goalposts game with you. Instead of trying to change the scenario, why not simply answer the question. If you were forced to play half casters instead of full casters, would you be content? After all, "You can just home-brew it" is a facile response that ignores the question. It's just another way to shut people up. Oh, you want X in the game? Too bad, just home-brew it and shut up. You want a specific ninja class in the game? Just home-brew it and shut up. You want psionics in the game? Why not just home brew it and shut up? You want magic item economies in the game? Just home brew it and shut up.

It's the same for pretty much anything. It's an easy, facile answer that doesn't actually have to engage in the issue in order to shut down conversation.

so you're making a comparison to the situation with the warlord... but not making it equivalent (homebrew and 3rd party options being available). There's no shifting of goalposts, you're trying to equate said goalposts with a basketball rim and then asking me if I'd dunk on the goalposts. Sorry not going to play that game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OD&D had three classes: Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric. Are you saying you wouldn't play it because it has too few classes, even with a great DM?

I wouldn't play OD&D because IMO there are a hundred alternatives that accomplish the same goals with more options for players and less weird rules.

Ignoring that whole thing, I mean, probably not. I can imagine a game where there are only three classes, but skills and the general rules of the game give players a lot of ways to distinguish their characters and have a decent amount of "real" options, both in making their character and during play.

I also enjoy games with few classes, but where the choices within a class do the same job that a modern DnD class choice does. That is, those options are how you customize a character, and mechanically represent a concept.

I dont really dig games where the player is expected to just imagine the differences of one character to another.

Min other words, I like the three classes of the Dragon Age games, or the five classes of Star Wars Saga Edition. ODND, not so much. But those games effectively have more classes, because the class is silo inside which you choose distinct abilities to create a character, rather than being classes in the sense of 5e classes. Like if 5e classes only gave you HD, and basic proficiencies, and the rest came from your subclass.

 

[Eubani]

I keep hearing just shut up and homebrew already but how many people do not have a steady group and can only play in AL or has a group but the DM only allows what is in a WotC book. Homebrew may work for those with a steady group that allows homebrew and the skills and time to decently do so but many simply do not. Even if none of that was an issue I as a consumer what it so I will ask for it and blatantly ignore all of you keep telling us that it is not wanted or you don't want to see discussion about it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's not true. The classes in AD&D were presented as sub-classes, right from day 1.

And the Druid was a mere example priest of a specific mythos (or whatever they called it in 2e). So, yeah, Saelorn, painful as it may be to admit, was not entirely off base with that observation.


Anyway, I quite liked the 1e Druid and am pretty pleased with the 5e. Not s'much all the druids in between, though. Just say'n.

oh..in other paleogaming references...

For example:

And you could totally fight from the second rank with a Ranseur, too. Those were the days!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

oh..in other paleogaming references...

And you could totally fight from the second rank with a Ranseur, too. Those were the days!

Trust Gygax to take the time and page space to explain what "yes" means but leave players to figure out multiclassing for themselves.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I keep hearing just shut up .

No one is telling anyone to shut up, so I really wish you and Hussar would stop trying to play the victim and accusing people of doing that.


Wait, you know what? There's an easy fix to this. For me anyway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

so you're making a comparison to the situation with the warlord... but not making it equivalent .

I know, it's totally unfair, let's go back and make it equivalent:

Try this. The next time you want to play a caster, you can't. You are not allowed to.

Whoa! Wait, first of all, the Warlord is just one class. OK? There's three other mostly-martial classes! Of course, they're all DPR heavy. Are there any DPR-heavy full casters with just not much flexibility outside of that? Oh, well, /no/. Hmm... That make equivalency terribly difficulty. To get equivalency with "there are no caters" we'd have to look not, just relative to the Warlord, but relative to all missing 'martial' options from both 3.x & 4e, and, we'll have to paint a /very/ different hypothetical picture of D&D, more nuanced than just 'no casters.'
Let's get started:

Ok, first off, there are no classes that get traditional vancian magic, none, there are a bunch of martial classes, mind you, who do all kinds of crazy things with maneuvers and martial practices and whatnot (that's to correspond to all the full- and half-caster classes), there's one class that isn't /technically/ martial but is still strictly non-magical (that's to correspond to the Monk, heck, it can be the Monk, even, though maybe a western monk, just to be cute, since it's only a hypothetical, why not?). Those classes are all hard-out as caster components. There's, le'see, 3 classes, with 5 sub-classes among them that are arguably casters, actually using magic. 4 of them don't actually cast spells, one them throws blasts of magical power around, eventually several of them per round, that do a lot of damage (not as much damage as some of the high-level martial maneuvers, though), one of them channels a deep well of mystical power and throws one big blast every round, but burns himself out after a couple/few times a day, one of them throws a particularly lethal death-spell, but only at especially-vulnerable targets.

You can only play a half caster. After all, an Eldritch Knight or a Ranger should be good enough right? You get to cast spells. Full casters are just the munchkin option anyway. Only power gamers choose to play full casters. Real role players certainly don't.

No! No! No, bad Hussar! Bad! Bad! Give your wings back to the quartermaster!

Equivalency, we must have equivalency. /Half/-caster? You should be so lucky! no, no half-caster-soup for you...

But, wait, all is not lost: one of the 3 rapid-blaster-class's sub-classes actually casts spells. It gets four 1st level slots at third level, and eventually 6 total; it can use them to cast 1st level spells, and can know 3 first level spells from a list of 16, gaining more over time until, at terribly high level, it can know 9 different 1st level spells, and cast six times, in any combination.
As they said in Bored of the Rings, when Goodgulf lit their campfire with a zippo lighter: "Such magic!"

There is one catch, only a few of them are recognizable spells from past editions of D&D, the others are just minor variations on blasting things, which that class already does pretty darn well. Icing on the cake kinda stuff.

Sucks wouldn't it? Being told that over and over and over again every time you even mention the idea of playing what you want to play? Never minding that you're being told this by people whose only real objection is that they don't want what you want and will do everything in their power to deny you the opportunity.

Yeah, OK, might suck a teeny little bit. But at least we have a start on equivalency... and they're could be mitigating factors, even so.

Such as:

Do I get to homebrew my own caster

YES! Problem solved!!!!

Of course, even though the fast-blaster-caster-type-II - let's call him the Magicmaster - has spell slots, and has a list of 16 whole spells, and even 3 of them that are clearly recognizable classic spells, that still leaves you a hundred plus spells short of a full deck of spell cards, and, ah, well, the mechanics are more than a little different from what they've ever been before, and you can't just graft-on the old spells just as they were in some past edition, so...

...yeah, be ready to write a lot of spells, not just a quick class outline....

But, hey, if you have the fortitude to do all that design work, you'll have exactly the caster you want!

and play it?

Well... um... sure, yeah, some DM, somewhere, might let you bring in whatever it is you come up with. He might be worried it's some kind of overpowered Mary Sue - and if he's not, you might be worried about what kind of DM he is... but...

...yes. In theory. Possibly before the next ice age, certainly before the heat death of the universe, anyway.

Are there third party options for casters

Yes! PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!!!

Wow, to think, we were worried! In fact, there's a dozen of them. They're burried in that pile of stuff called DM's guild. When you dig into them, you find that they're mostly modest re-writes of the Magicmaster. A few have promise, but they're rather rough designs, and none actually bring back anything near the full glory of traditional D&D spellcasting.

I can play in this hypothetical scenario?

Ahh..... sure, hypothetically, a DM only slighlty less loopy than the one who might let you play some Mary Sue Uberclass might conceivably let you play one. I mean, it won't be anyone here, or anyone at AL, but, y'know, before global warming melts the ice caps, quite probably - way before the next ice age, anyway.


But, y'know, after a year or so of languishing in that hypothetical hell-hole, there's a hypothetical ray of hope. Yes, a hypothetical book (hypo-... I'm sorry, folks, the bits in my computer refuse to spell out hyyp h- that word anymore) comes out with some more crunch!

Yay!

It's called SCRAG, and along with a bunch more martial options, one of which, the Bladedancer, can do a one-two blast kinda like the fast-blaster-caster, it has a few actually-mostly magical one. One of them, a sub-class of the deadly-blaster-caster, the mastermagician, can use 5 spell-like abilities gained over 17 levels, the other, the Purple Dragon Blaster ("Mr Purple Dragon Blaster, what's your line?" "It's blast'n purple dragons and it sure is fine!") is a fast-blaster-caster sub-class who gains two new spell-like abilities, two ally-affecting riders to the fast-caster-blaster's two spell-like abilities (which, more vaguely resemble two classic spells that the magicmaster already gets less vague versions of), and as a capstone, gets an upgrade to one of those two riders.

WOW!

Need I quote Bored of the Rings again, or is that an embarrassment of riches?


There, equivalency achieved.