D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[MechaPilot]

You'd be having these conversations regardless - the evidence being your response when people have pointed out how to build up the character you describe. You say it's not good enough for you - fine, but you can't say it's not catered for.

It's not catered to because it's not possible to have a warlord that really fits the capabilities of a warlord without requiring both MC'ing and Feats, and even then you have to wait until at least 4th level to achieve the desired level of functionality (not power, but functionality). You might as well say that the paladin shouldn't be a class because you can achieve the same thing by MC'ing cleric and fighter. And you can make a paladin by MC'ing fighter and cleric, but not right away. And that's the same reason a warlord class is advocated for.

Now, WotC is clearly not going to produce a Warlord class. The only real hope for one is that a fan or a 3rd party develops one that is satisfactory (or, dare I hope, even really good).

 

[MechaPilot]

The closest situation to this for the Warlord resides in the BattleMaster subclass - which was also highlighted as something Wizards' D&D team were looking at.

Unfortunately, the Battlemaster subclass is insufficient to the task. The bard is more accurate to the warlord than the Battlemaster (except for the whole "magical" thing), and coming close to accurately representing the warlord with the PHB's options would generally require a Fighter/Bard character with at least the Inspirational Leader feat.

As I have said on repeated times before, people would do much better suggesting constructive ways of improving that Subclass rather than endlessly petitioning - as a vocal minority - over a new Warlord Class that simply ain't ever going to happen.

The problem with suggesting that a subclass be improved to be a warlord is that a warlord is larger than a subclass. You could take everything a warlord is and shove it into a subclass, but that would be the same as making 5e paladins and rangers into 5e fighter subclasses. That's why a fan or 3rd party class is really going to be the only solution that fits the bill for an authentic warlord.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It's not catered to because it's not possible to have a warlord that really fits the capabilities of a warlord without requiring both MC'ing and Feats, and even then you have to wait until at least 4th level to achieve the desired level of functionality (not power, but functionality).

So it is catered for, just not to your taste. There is a difference. Feats/MultiClassing are there as tools to be done with as each group determines for themselves, while saying you don't feel cool enough till 4th level merely suggests that you want to start the game at higher levels too.

 

[MechaPilot]

So it is catered for, just not to your taste. There is a difference. Feats/MultiClassing are there as tools to be done with as each group determines for themselves, while saying you don't feel cool enough till 4th level merely suggests that you want to start the game at higher levels too.

It's not a matter of "not feeling cool enough." It's a matter of functionality. Functionality is about capability, not about "feeling cool."

 

[TrippyHippy]

Unfortunately, the Battlemaster subclass is insufficient to the task. The bard is more accurate to the warlord than the Battlemaster (except for the whole "magical" thing), and coming close to accurately representing the warlord with the PHB's options would generally require a Fighter/Bard character with at least the Inspirational Leader feat.

So again, you've pointed out that the options are there - just not to your taste.

The problem with suggesting that a subclass be improved to be a warlord is that a warlord is larger than a subclass.

The D&D game designers don't think so. Neither do I, or other people. I think that taking the Battlemaster concept away from the Fighter Class deny the options and potential leadership aspects of the Fighter itself. I like having a more strategic option under the remit of the Fighter Class and reject the need for a new Class just to cater for one aspect that is handled well enough - for my tastes - under the Battlemaster Subclass. If I wanted to enhance those aspects I wouldn't feel any problem with multiclassing or taking Feats accordingly.

It ought to be noted the Ranger and Paladin were originally subclasses of Fighter too, but they have become ingrained in the culture of the game to the extent that their inclusion as full Classes is both popular and uncontroversial. The same is not true for the Warlord - for a whole heap of reasons that keep being brought up in circular arguments again and again.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It's not a matter of "not feeling cool enough." It's a matter of functionality. Functionality is about capability, not about "feeling cool."

There is no functional need for a Warlord Class, evidently from the success of 5E which does not include one.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is no functional need for a Warlord Class, evidently from the success of 5E which does not include one.

Please identify the functional need for anything in any leisure-time activity. I'm all ears.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Please identify the functional need for anything in any leisure-time activity. I'm all ears.

What a fatuous question.

In D&D, as a leisure activity, there is no functional need for the Warlord Class to exist. It's aspects are already catered for in the existing rules, and it's inclusion as a full Class would merely be divisive.

 

[MechaPilot]

There is no functional need for a Warlord Class, evidently from the success of 5E which does not include one.

There is no "functional need" for any one class, race, or other option. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot achieve the functionality of the warlord without jumping through a lot of hoops that people would not be okay with jumping through to create a paladin, ranger, or any other class.

The D&D game designers don't think so. Neither do I, or other people. I think that taking the Battlemaster concept away from the Fighter Class deny the options and potential leadership aspects of the Fighter itself. I like having a more strategic option under the remit of the Fighter Class and reject the need for a new Class just to cater for one aspect that is handled well enough - for my tastes - under the Battlemaster Subclass. If I wanted to enhance those aspects I wouldn't feel any problem with multiclassing or taking Feats accordingly.

I'm not talking about removing the Battlemaster concept or options from the fighter. The Battlemaster's concept and options are right there, in the PHB. Adding a warlord class does not remove that concept and options from the Battlemaster. And, it's not as if class overlap doesn't already exist; just for example, there's plenty of wizard and sorcerer overlap.

I like having a more strategic option under the remit of the Fighter Class and reject the need for a new Class just to cater for one aspect that is handled well enough - for my tastes - under the Battlemaster Subclass.

As mentioned above, the existence of a warlord class removes nothing from the fighter class. And, if a warlord class were to be published by WotC or others you could easily ban it, or you could mine it for other goodies to potentially add as maneuver choices to the Battlemaster fighter. It appears to me that the creation of a warlord class is a win-win for Battlemaster fans, especially if those fans don't want inspirational healing to be part of their Battlemaster, because it definitely should be part of the warlord.

So again, you've pointed out that the options are there - just not to your taste.

Then the ranger and paladin should not exist for the same reasons. Splash some druid in your fighter, and possibly some rogue, and you have a ranger. Splash some cleric in your fighter and you have a paladin.

It ought to be noted the Ranger and Paladin were originally subclasses of Fighter too, but they have become ingrained in the culture of the game to the extent that their inclusion as full Classes is both popular and uncontroversial. The same is not true for the Warlord - for a whole heap of reasons that keep being brought up in circular arguments again and again.

Publishing the warlord as an entirely optional class that can be banned by those who don't want to use it is also uncontroversial. Now, someone will inevitably say that they don't want resources spent on the warlord when they would prefer other things be developed. However, that doesn't make the warlord controversial. The spending of resources to develop one thing at the expense of being able to develop another thing concurrently is not unique to the warlord; it is a fundamental aspect of developing all game material. In that regard, the warlord is no different than the artificer, or the psionicist.

Also, how do you think things become ingrained? Over time. The warlord hasn't had much time, a little over eight years, but it has already earned a very loyal following. And that's rather impressive considering that it didn't originate as an objectively more powerful subclass of fighter the way the paladin and ranger did.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, there are less-popular options and equally niche options that were included in the 5e PHB. The 5e PHB has tinker gnomes (i.e. the rock gnomes in the PHB). Tinker gnomes are incredibly polarizing; everyone I've seen on forums either loves or hates the little buggers. The warlord is easily as popular as Tinker Gnomes as a PC race.

Now, I'm not deluded. I don't expect WotC to develop a Warlord class; they clearly either don't care to cater to fans of warlords, or they don't see the onerous nature of creating a warlord-esque character in 5e. If a warlord is to be published, it will likely be from a 3rd party. Frankly, I'm expecting a lot of the material that I want for 5e to be developed by a 3rd party instead of WotC. And that's fine. Or, at least it would be if WotC would get off their collective derrieres and finish and implement a good license.

 

[TrippyHippy]

There is no "functional need" for any one class, race, or other option.

So your argument for the Warlord's inclusion boils down to 'if we can't have it, we should throw out every other Class and everything else in the game'?

Forget it. Get over it. The Warlord isn't happening. And the vast majority of D&D players, new and old, don't care.

This is plain rude and doesn't contribute anything at all. Leave the discussion if you don't like it. Thank you. -Lwaxy, EN World Mod