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

[Zardnaar]

You know what? The value of this thread really has sunk to just about nil at this point. I think plenty of folks have concluded there's no reason to exclude the concept and that it can be done in some fashion that works. Clearly there are many people who find the idea of this class worthwhile. Its pointless to debate that any more with the few who are left who aren't ever going to agree. I'll just predict that we will get what we want, as it is one of the few things remaining that has significant traction and hasn't yet been introduced. Maybe Mike is digging in his heels, but he will come around, just as he's giving on PrCs and other things.

Mike indicated back in 2012 0r 13 that 5E was going to have PrCs. He has also said the Battlemaster is the tactical side of the warlord and the Valor Bard the inspirational part.

Ironically you could probably port the warlord more or less as is to AD&D rather than 5E. You could make the class as powerful as you like it just might level up slower than say a wizard because that class sucks at level 1 in AD&D and a Warlord would not.

THe ZNoble class has a lazylord type build that might be a good example of the problems with a Warlord. If you had the right party it looks like an outright broken class and I think 4E players would find that class a "weak" lazylord.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Mike indicated back in 2012 0r 13 that 5E was going to have PrCs. He has also said the Battlemaster is the tactical side of the warlord and the Valor Bard the inspirational part.

I honestly would be happier if battlemaster hadn't been a thing, but I'm dealing with it... now I just hope we never see more of the warlord (but that new rouge looks like it's going there)

 

[Aldarc]

I just want to touch on this one interesting statement.

Do you likewise see that many of us have never accepted the premise that 5e doesn't already adequately represent the aspects of warlord that fit into 5e's system paradigm?

And do you see that our opinion in that is just as valid as yours is here? I just want you to stand on this side of the fence for a second and see that you aren't battling monsters. Just people who disagree with your premise just as much as you disagree with theirs.

Given your own hostility to the pro-warlord class, have you? Do you likewise see that many of never accepted the premise that 5e already adequately represents the aspects of the warlord that fit into 5e's system paradigm? I'm skeptical that you have. Otherwise, I imagine that you would be one of the posters resistant against the warlord who are nevertheless working on trying to find common ground, compromise, and room for a warlord class within the 5e paradigm.

Woah... woah... who said I was objecting to anything. A statement was made about a problem with divine casters and I offered an alternative in 5e.

But since I'm being called out for something I didn't do, I'll breakdown what my my personal feelings are about the warlord. The fact is that the warlord was never played by anyone during the time I ran 4e and is, IMO, a waste of design effort and space which I'd rather see devoted to other classes and areas (like psionics or more options for what we already have), my view is that it should be a subclass within other classes and with the battlemaster and mastermind I'm glad to see WotC going in that direction. The fact that we have so many ways to heal, so many ways to get advantage and numerous ways for character's to boost themselves and others makes an entire class centered around such, again IMO, redundant and kind of pointless.

Or for another take... there aren't enough actual fans of the warlord, in the real world, as opposed to the internet, to affect the sales or popularity of 5e. That most people actually are fine with the game the way it is and would rather see other classes as well as new options for the existing ones before they'd rather see a warlord... and that ultimately the gain from designing a warlord class just isn't worth it.

If I excluded the classes that no one played during the time I ran 4e, there would be a lot of otherwise 'favorites' who would not be in the 5e PHB now. BTW, for what little it may be worth it for you to know, the warlord was a popular class at my table.

 

[Zardnaar]

I honestly would be happier if battlemaster hadn't been a thing, but I'm dealing with it... now I just hope we never see more of the warlord (but that new rouge looks like it's going there)

I wonder how many have played or seen the BM in action. Its the most powerful fighter overall IMHO.

 

[Aldarc]

I wonder how many have played or seen the BM in action. Its the most powerful fighter overall IMHO.

Maybe you missed the part where people in this thread indicated that they didn't want to play a fighter?

 

[Imaro]

If I excluded the classes that no one played during the time I ran 4e, there would be a lot of otherwise 'favorites' who would not be in the 5e PHB now. BTW, for what little it may be worth it for you to know, the warlord was a popular class at my table.

What's your point... dueling anecdotes, ok... I guess. Luckily for me you didn't create the PHB for 5e.

 

[Imaro]

I wonder how many have played or seen the BM in action. Its the most powerful fighter overall IMHO.

Yeah apparently he's too good at personal combat to be a proper warlord...

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I'm sorry, but it is page 174, and you are having the same arguments as on page 5.

This thread is now of more harm than good. I'm closing it.