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

[Diffan]

I'd love be to see a 4e-style Warlord in 5e. Heck I'd settle for more 4e-style maneuvers for the Battle Master.

 

[TrippyHippy]

So, let's recap:

Warlord inspirational healing is consistent with the games definition of Hit Points.

Warlord inspirational healing is consistent with real-world examples.

Warlord inspirational healing is an old and common trope in fiction.

Even if Warlord healing wasn't consistent with real-world examples, it wouldn't matter; plenty of things in D&D are unrealistic in a real-world context.

5E fans are not going to suddenly make a mass exodus from the game if the Warlord is included. For the few that might, they have significantly bigger problems than dislike of a class.

Consistency with alternate definitions of Hit Points is not necessary. If consistency with every possible external definition was necessary for the inclusion of a class, there would be no D&D at all.



Anything I missed?

I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.

The Warlord, as a Class, encapsulated much of what I didn't like about the last edition into one nutshell. It was a contrived Class that had no archetypal role in a narrative sense, but merely existed to fulfil a niche in the rules system. The term 'Warlord' is pejorative in root usage, while the notion of a 'leader' class denoted rank over other PCs. It undermined the functional roles of Fighters (why shouldn't they be Lords?). The healing via inspiring words was not a sole issue of the Warlord Class alone, but it tended to accentuate a lack of realism in the rules rather than mask them.

I would support trying to develop a Fighter subclass - like the Battlemaster or something else - to try and create a more strategic, tactical style of Fighter. Beyond that, I am just happy to see the end of the Warlord Class in the D&D Core rules.

 

[Imaro]

Calling me a 5e fan would be a stretch(more like slight approver of 5e), but I want a 5e Warlord. We have the lololol-I'm-mad-so-I-swing-harder-and-take-less-damage class, so why not Warlords? I mean the inspirational commander is probably more of a common fantasy trope nowadays than medieval Hulk.

Eh... I'm doubtful "Inspirational Commander" is a more prevalent/well recognized/popular fantasy archetype than the "Berserker".

 

[Diffan]

I dunno it had a lot going for it conceptually and thematically. While I'm not too keen on the name of the class I think there is a need for a strategic-style character that isn't tied to any sort of magical sub-system. Call it whatever suits your fancy: Marshal (my choice), Warlord, Commando, Commander, Sargent, or even Warrior. Regardless, this is what it brought to the table:

• Intelligence-Based features - For a class (ie. non-magical warrior) to utilize it's smarts in combat was something not seen before. The idea that a Tac-Lord gained benefits for having a higher Int Score was something that I initially enjoyed about the class. Players weren't dropping INT like it was their business when the Warlord came around.

• Non-Magical Healing - This also heavily spoke to me, as someone who's constantly finding ways to make Clerics more diverse and/or fun. I enjoy support roles but I hated being saddled with ALL those spells and meta-gaming ways in which I had to select my spells for the beginning of the day. With the Warlord I could offer support but in a non-magical way.

• Re-positioning / Battle-grid movement: One of the things that I've been using since AD&D was a grid and minis. I enjoyed painting them and then using them for my D&D games. This continued with 3e, moved to 4e, and is still going strong with 5e. I get the whole "No Grid" style and have even done that in 4e games but I'll always use a map and grid because they're fun. What the Warlord allowed me to do was manipulate my character and my allies to better positions on that to better make use of enemies (and terrain) pitfalls. That's what I want to see return to the game and what I feel the Warlord can bring in terms of a class.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.

The Warlord, as a Class, encapsulated much of what I didn't like about the last edition into one nutshell. It was a contrived Class that had no archetypal role in a narrative sense, but merely existed to fulfil a niche in the rules system. The term 'Warlord' is pejorative in root usage, while the notion of a 'leader' class denoted rank over other PCs. It undermined the functional roles of Fighters (why shouldn't they be Lords?). The healing via inspiring words was not a sole issue of the Warlord Class alone, but it tended to accentuate a lack of realism in the rules rather than mask them.

I would support trying to develop a Fighter subclass - like the Battlemaster or something else - to try and create a more strategic, tactical style of Fighter. Beyond that, I am just happy to see the end of the Warlord Class in the D&D Core rules.

I agree. There was something always off putting about the warlord. Especially the lazylord.

The fighter is a romper-stomper of a combat machine. But some guy shows up and starts giving order and now the fighter is better at his job? Why did he need some guy telling him what to do to be the best at what he is designed to do? Why does this guy who clearly sucks at swinging a greatsword in comparison know how the fighter is supposed to do it better than he otherwise would? In some ways it was seen as a little insulting to other characters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.

Really? Five years from now... you've been playing D&D 5E for well over half a decade and are in the middle of a two-year campaign... WotC ends up releasing their third 'Adventurer's Guide' setting/character option book, this time based around the Nentir Vale... and within it there's a Warlord class (just like the previous Eberron guide had an Artificer class). Are you REALLY going to get up from the table right at that point, dust off your hands, and tell your tablemates "Well, sorry, that's it for me! WotC released a Warlord class, I'm not playing 5E anymore! Have a great end of the campaign folks, time for me to find a new game."

Really?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The hyperbolic opening comment was the only thing you took away from his post? Or felt was worth quoting and responding too?

Odd.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The hyperbolic opening comment was the only thing you took away from his post? Or felt was worth quoting and responding too?

Odd.

Yep.

If someone feels the need to use ridiculous hyperbole to try and get their point across, it tells me they're afraid their point isn't that strong to begin with.

If you have a strong point you don't need to embellish it. The point can stand on its own.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Really? Five years from now... you've been playing D&D 5E for well over half a decade and are in the middle of a two-year campaign... WotC ends up releasing their third 'Adventurer's Guide' setting/character option book, this time based around the Nentir Vale... and within it there's a Warlord class (just like the previous Eberron guide had an Artificer class). Are you REALLY going to get up from the table right at that point, dust off your hands, and tell your tablemates "Well, sorry, that's it for me! WotC released a Warlord class, I'm not playing 5E anymore! Have a great end of the campaign folks, time for me to find a new game."

Really?

How do you know he's not an AL DM? The word "forced" is a pretty good clue to what he really means. All you're doing is pointing out that home games cannot be "forced", in the sense that there are guys out there still playing AD&D.

From WotC's standpoint, if they publish OotA v2.0 and TrippyHippy doesn't buy it because it assumes or relies on PHB v2.0 material (including hypothetical Warlord) which has been around for three years, but TrippyHippy isn't using PHB v2.0... from WotC's standpoint, is he still playing 5E or have they lost a player? How about from Enworld's standpoint?

I still own GURPS v4 and I still like the v4 game as it was originally published (plus excellent supplements like Martial Arts) but from SJ's perspective, am I really still a GURPS player when I don't like the direction they've taken it in since then and have stopped buying the new stuff and no longer frequent the SJ forums?

 

[El Mahdi]

I would leave if the Warlord was forced back into the game.

One, the Warlord cannot be forced back into the game. If it does get included, it will be because the designers chose to.

Second, if one would quite playing a game they enjoy, because of inclusion in the game of something they can simply ignore, then they have a problem much bigger than presence of an undesired class.

The hyperbolic opening comment was the only thing you took away from his post? Or felt was worth quoting and responding too?

Odd.

Odd? Not really.

Nothing else he said really matters after opening with that. If he would leave because a Warlord is included, his commitment and interest are suspect at best. Honestly, why should anybody even care about his opinion of a game he would so easily leave just because others had something they wanted? It doesn't affect him or his game at all, yet he'd leave anyways?

His opening statement concedes or nullifies any ethos he has on the topic. With no ethos, why waste the time listening to his argument?