D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6801219]Lanliss[/MENTION] - In focusing on the BM model, I hadn't looked at the monk as a possibility. It's an interesting idea - I think something "ki-ish" (perhaps a new label is needed, but that seems a small thing) might work. Like you suggest, it already allows more fine-grained balance (because it can be 1 to X points for an effect; the same sort of economy is used for legendary actions).

I'm not sure if it's your intention, but your post tends to confirm my feeling that the challenges are technical - how to do it; not whether it can be done.

Yeah, honestly, I think this is the way to cut the Gordian Knot of warlords. Give warlords some sort of "special knowledge", called ki, or whatever, make it a rest based resource and we're good. I mean, we accept Battlemasters right now - why can I only parry so many times between rests? - so, it's not like it's much of a hurdle anyway.

See, this is the funny thing - and I keep mentioning this - virtually everything that a warlord had exists in 5e. Just not in one class. Well, actually, now that we have the Avatar Psionicist, we now have a true, 4e style, leader in 5e. The next step is just to make one that doesn't need fairy dust to work.
[MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] - dude, that's a lost cause. [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s been banging that drum for a VERY long time. You're not going to win. Fortunately, I only see your quotes because I went around on this with him a while ago and got tossed in the Ignore bin. Seems like that's going around in this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] - dude, that's a lost cause. [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s been banging that drum for a VERY long time. You're not going to win. Fortunately, I only see your quotes because I went around on this with him a while ago and got tossed in the Ignore bin. Seems like that's going around in this thread.

Lol yeah, I keep seeing quotes of corwin like that. Didn't even know he'd blocked me, nor do I have any clue why. Probably told him to stop being jerky to people one too many times! Lol

Anyway, maybe saelorn will put me on ignore by the end of this, maybe not.

I just can't help but poke the hornets nest when people say really dramatic, hyperbolic things about the game/hobby, like "antithetical to role-playing", especially in reference to a mechanic that they just have a preference against, as if their preference is the objective truth about what roleplaying is, or whatever. At least they didn't say it was anathema.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I've been mostly lurking in this thread the last few pages and I realized pretty quickly that I've managed to get on a number of people's lit shist in the last couple of weeks. It was only because of a bunch of quotes that I realized that, other than maybe [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I'm on the ignore list of pretty much everyone in this thread that's been banging the warlord drum.

 

[Tony Vargas]

now that we have the Avatar Psionicist, we now have a true, 4e style, leader in 5e.

The Ardent doesn't seem a fantastic support sub-class, but it was unquestionably a 'Leader' in 4e, so I suppose it could be another model for leader-conversion along with the Cleric & Bard. Actually: aside from also being 4e-style Controllers, among other things, how are the Cleric & Bard, at minimum, not 4e-style 'Leaders?'

I understand feeling like there's a dearth of 4e-style Defenders in 5e - the classic feel that 5e core/'standard game' aspires to tends more toward the tough/high-DPR 'Tank' idiom.

I apologize if it seemed that I meant Warlord fans were inflexible. I just mean that the fans don't 100% agree on what it needs to turn out as. As I mentioned in other posts though, I agree with you that it is not a real block, just a reasonable concern someone might present if they had a real reason for not wanting the Warlord.

It's a design concern, certainly, but not an existential one, particularly, as classes with much greater identity disorders made it into the PH and/or are in development (and re-development, and re-re-development) right now. So it is not a reason to just give up and not produce a Warlord, at all, it's even a very poor rationalization.

On the ranger, that is kind of a nice example of what I am talking about. So many people were unhappy with the original that they have had to redo a ton of it. Unless some level of consensus or compromise is made on what goes into the Warlord class, the same thing will happen with him.

Honestly, that wouldn't be so bad. It can take an official attempt to get people invested enough to open up about what they want.

But, realistically, I don't think it's a meaningful danger. The risk of a Warlord upsetting Warlord fans is minimal on two levels. (1) We're just not the nerdrager type - by definition, you can't have become a fan of the Warlord if you aren't inclined to give official material a fair chance, and you certainly don't wait for years if you're prone to flying off the handle. (2) 5e gives designers a lot of space to work with. The new class need only be designed to be option-rich and customizable, and people will be able to get the Warlord out of it. There's no need for it to be simple to build or play, as the existing options already deliver on the demand for simplistic martial options, and, again, you can't have become a fan of the Warlord if you weren't up for digging into a comparatively more complex (compared to the Champion, anyway) class and building what you want out of it, since that's very much what it was in 4e.

As for your last part, Compromises made with the designers, because they don't want to transfer every individual power a fan might at some point want, and in return for actually getting the Warlord in the game?

In a very real sense, the Warlord not appearing in the PH1, was a tremendous compromise. So is waiting years for it to even enter development. In return for those compromises, the Warlord had better be 'worth the wait.'

I understand that no one* wants the warlord pulled over whole-cloth, but just hitting on the wants in this thread will take a little work, though no more than they put into the mystic.

Psionics had real controversy and disagreement amongst those who wanted them. The biggest, most obvious point: to some fans of psionics, psionics are and must be magic to stand in a fantasy world, to others, psionics have no identity unless they are separate and distinct from magic. In some editions it was clearly magic, in others clearly not, and in 3.5 it was left up to the DM.
There's nothing like that standing in the way of the Warlord. The Warlord was a martial class, it wasn't magical/supernatural.

*Someone probably does

For every sweeping statement made on the internet, there is at least one person who feels the need to stand and be counted as a counter-example.

1) See my post above, I agree with pretty much all of this. I am just playing Devil's advocate for the purpose of deeper discussion.

We have enough Devils, already, but I suppose it's the thought that counts.

2) I just had a thought. What if the warlord had a sort of Ki

Ki is already taken by the Monk, of course, /and/ is explicitly magical in 5e, on top of it's usual issues.

(Inspiration points, trust, luck*, whatever you want to call it.)

Calling it any one of those things would constrain imagining the fiction for some.

As with hit points, there are a number of things that could go into such a resource pool. Inspiration, Morale, and Luck, as you say. Physical resources, perhaps, as well, or other forms of preparation. Intelligence (not the stat, but in the spy sense: information about the enemy). Deceptions. Plans, and contingency plans. Training & Drills. Intuition, tactical acumen.
Anything that gives an advantage (already has a jargon meaning in 5e, though)... an edge, the upper hand, um... Summon Thesaurus!

Advantage:
• asset
• choice
• convenience
• dominance
• edge
• favor
• gain
• improvement
• influence
• interest
• lead
• leverage
• position
• power
• preference
• profit
• protection
• recognition
• return
• superiority
• support
• upper hand
• wealth
• aid
• ascendancy
• assistance
• authority
• avail
• blessing
• boon
• break
• comfort
• eminence
• expediency
• good
• gratification
• help
• hold
• leeway
• luck
• mastery
• odds
• precedence
• prestige
• prevalence
• resources
• sanction
• ting
• supremacy
• utility
• leg-up
• pre-eminence

Any of those sound not-so-bad as a name for the resource pool?

as well as a scaling die like the Monk has, but for maneuvers instead? Give some free abilities, like spending your bonus action to let an ally make a single attack, in the main class. Bigger things, like giving a full attack action, costs 1-2 points, and adds your Maneuver Die to their (Attack/damage/AC/Saving throw).

D&D has tended to bundle together diverse factors. Dodging, blocking with a shield, depending on armor, all bundle together into AC. Myriad factors into hps. Who-knows-how-much Occult Gobbledygook into 3/day. Etc.

I've thought, a few times, in these discussions, that the Warlord should, in the spirit 5e's greater mechanics:fluff coupling, natural language, and mechanically-differentiated classes, maybe eschew that tendency just a bit. Thus, for instance, have some maneuvers that don't work on the same intelligent (like a dog is intelligent) enemy twice, because they're just tricks no one capable of learning would fall for again, and some so out there that even enemies who might have heard you've used them won't fall for it. Have other maneuvers that require the allies who benefit from them rest before they can be used again, because they draw on 'deep reserves' (aside: 'deep reserves' was nice for Second Wind, but really, heroes 'draw on deep reserves' or 'make heroic efforts' a lot, it'd be nice if there were a generic pool for that). Have others that require an ally be inspired (as in have inspiration availabe). Etc, etc, etc.
It'd be more flavorful.

But the design advantages of abstracting all those sorts of considerations and more into a resource pool are obvious.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Right now, you can build an unarmored magical swashbuckling swordsman about 5 different ways, in 5e. Which isn't actually different, in he end, from just having a magical swordsman class, with multiple subclasses. The model remains un-borked. Why? Because there is nothing antithetical to it about there being multiple ways to approach a given concept.

Can you, though? I am aware of the Eldritch Knight, but I don't know what else would meet the description. Perhaps the Valor Bard?

Eldritch Knights and Valor Bards come about their powers in entirely different ways. They represent distinct concepts, which happen to overlap somewhat. If you met one or the other within the world, it would quickly become apparent which one you were dealing with, so it makes sense to reflect them mechanically in different ways.

You earlier example of the nature cleric and Druid is a fun case, because they aren't even necessarily the same concept, and certainly in 3.5, are not the same concept. The Cleric is not an emmisary of nature itself, has no special connection with animals, etc. it is a Cleric, with all the conceptual underpinnings of that, that worships a god of nature. The temple of Silvanus in Waterdeep isn't run by Druids (or at least shouldn't be. Sometimes the do dumb things with FR), but by Clerics of Silvanus.

In AD&D 2E, it was definitionally true that they were the same thing, because it was presented as such. If you wanted a priest who worshipped nature spirits or a god of nature, rather than a pseudo-medieval-christian analogue, then that concept was represented by the Druid class rather than the Cleric class. Unless the setting guide for Forgotten Realms introduced new classes or something, the temple of Silvanus would have been run by Druids, just as the temple of Mystra was run by Wizards.

If you want to argue that a Druid is a completely different thing than a Cleric of Silvanus in 5E (or 3E), and that they get their powers in completely different ways, and that they only look superficially similar because they both happen to deal with plants and animals and whatnot, then that's certainly an argument that you could make. It would mean that you're playing in a setting where there are a lot of different avenues to magic, which I've never been a fan of, but the argument itself is a valid one. It doesn't hurt the integrity of the game unless you try to use different mechanics to reflect the same in-game reality. (Whether it hurts the playability or approachability of the game is another matter entirely.)

 

[Lanliss]

Can you, though? I am aware of the Eldritch Knight, but I don't know what else would meet the description. Perhaps the Valor Bard?

Eldritch Knights and Valor Bards come about their powers in entirely different ways. They represent distinct concepts, which happen to overlap somewhat. If you met one or the other within the world, it would quickly become apparent which one you were dealing with, so it makes sense to reflect them mechanically in different ways.

I have a Bladelock/Swashbuckler that fits that description pretty well. One could also use a Monk/Bladelock, or a Swashbuckler/Wizard. I think Bladesinger is also built to work like that, IIRC.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]: yes. Eldritch Knight, Valor or College of Swords Bard, Arcane Trickster*, Blade Pact Warlock, Hexblade Warlock, Bladesinger Wizard, maybe a Dragon Sorcerer*, and even the Paladin, if your DM will do an armor houserule, or allow you to flavor the armor off book. I assume we aren't being pedantic about what "magical" means here. If we are, just ignore the Paladin example, I guess. Don't bog things down with semantics arguments, please.

*not built for being a magical swordsman, but absolutely capable of doing it, and doing it well.

Right now, I'm deciding between playing a Tome Pact Hexblade Warlock, or a Monk, but either way it will be a magical swashbuckler of an order similar to the fictional version of he musketeers, but with magic as part of their training. Different individuals approach magic differently (otherwise DnD doesn't make any sense, imo), so the Order is comprised of members of many classes, depending on fighting style and magic style. The Monk option will be Elemental, unless the group doesn't like the proposed houserules to fix that subclass, in which case she will be Shadow.

Either way, she will be rocking no armor, high mobility, either a rapier or shortsword, enough charisma/social skills to not piss people off unless she means to, most of the time, and some offensive and defensive magic. Shadow Monk falls down a bit there, but most of the group is already on board with making the disciplines cost 1ki/spell level, and adding two of the utility elemental cantrips to the subclass, so I should be able to swing that. Obviously they will play a bit differently, but the character is precisely the same, regardless. It's just a matter of hashing out what I want her specific fighting style to look like, and how much of her mobility is supernatural, and how much mundane.

But also, in world, how different is a college of swords Bard, and an Arcane Trickster or blade warlock with the entertainer background? I would say, about as different as they collectively are from a thief rogue, Lore Bard, and Chain Warlock.

but all this is really about the warlord, and the warlord is not going to be the same as a battlemaster, or PDK, or mastermind rogue. They will overlap, sure. Just like all the options above. Just like the Nature Domain Cleric and Druid. Just like the rogue and anyone with the Criminal Background.

 

[Satyrn]

I have a Bladelock/Swashbuckler that fits that description pretty well. One could also use a Monk/Bladelock, or a Swashbuckler/Wizard. I think Bladesinger is also built to work like that, IIRC.

And the arcane trickster! What's better than enchantment and illusion magic for our dashing fop of a swashbuckler? A real charmer!

Or even just a battlemaster with magic adept - especially if you make him a gnome who spams his race-granted minor illusion cantrip.

 

[cbwjm]

And the arcane trickster! What's better than enchantment and illusion magic for our dashing fop of a swashbuckler? A real charmer!

Or even just a battlemaster with magic adept - especially if you make him a gnome who spams his race-granted minor illusion cantrip.

High elves with their free cantrip, drew and tiefling with their spells. Can make magical swashbucklers in so many ways. All depends on how much martial and how much magical you would like. A party of these magical swashbucklers would be quite fun to play.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

but all this is really about the warlord, and the warlord is not going to be the same as a battlemaster, or PDK, or mastermind rogue. They will overlap, sure. Just like all the options above. Just like the Nature Domain Cleric and Druid. Just like the rogue and anyone with the Criminal Background.

If you're going to insist that a Nature Cleric represents a sufficiently distinct reality from the Druid so as to warrant separate mechanical representation, just as the Valor Bard is sufficiently distinct from the Eldritch Knight, then you could argue that a hypothetical Warlord would be sufficiently distinct from the existing Battlemaster that it should also exist. That's a fairly consistent position. If you think that the existing divisions are pedantic and unnecessary, and that the game is better off when you don't include redundant optional sub-classes, then obviously there's no need for an entire Warlord class.

You could make a similar argument about swords. Is the difference between a cutlass and a sabre significant enough to warrant separate mechanical representation? What about between a gladius and a tanto? It just depends on how complicated you want to make things.