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

[ChrisCarlson]

Also, IMO, grant extra attack should be kept at a minimum, for any class.
Playing with the action economy was what broke 4e.


I'd much rather have something like "You study the opponent and point out his weakness. As an action, allies gain +1d6 damage against the target."

Agreed.

I've only ever taken to task the idea of a lazylord, specifically. Heck, in 4e (I greatly enjoyed 4e, actually) I played several warlords. Both bravura. A dwarf and a minotaur. Neither with any action granting powers. Intentionally.

 

[Eric V]

Hyperbolic, indeed. I never said I was going to put you on an ignore list.

I don't think I said you did...I was making a reminder.

As for the rest, my issue was your dismissal of El Mahdi, not DEFCON 1.

 

[El Mahdi]

There's really only one way you are going to get to play the exact warlord you are looking for. That previous edition's books are still available for purchase if you don't have them already.

Now that's making some serious assumptions. Assumptions based on facts not presented or not in existence.

I would suggest you actually look at the Warlording the Fighter thread. The links to the specific posts where the rough draft ideas are presented are in the OP of this thread - so you don't have to slog through 400 or so posts to get the relevant portions.

I think if you look at that, you'll see that we are specifically not doing what you just baselessly accused Tony of.

 

[TrippyHippy]

No archetypal role? The beloved King/Knight/Hero jumps on the wall and defies the enemy inspiring the rest of the warriors to fight more vigorously and harder. .

That is a Fighter, with a Noble Background. The very point that you are arguing that you need to have an entirely different Class just to be able to _lead_ simply undermines what the Fighter can be. As it does for all Classes in fact - why can't any Class potentially be a good leader? By artificially introducing a Class whose sole purpose is to _lead_ (regardless of whether other characters want to be led), you are undermining an essential roleplaying aspect of the game.

Moreover, as with a few posts, if your counter-argument to the point about a 'Warlord' being a problematic name is merely to list a bunch of other names with the implication that it does not matter what it is called, then it illustrates the point again that there really is no archetypal/narrative niche that exists for a Warlord. It's purely a game-mechanic inspired Class.

Now, I made this comment last night before I went to bed, and immediately got a bunch of responses in response. To me, it indicates a somewhat fanatical aspect, obsessing over one Class. I'd suggest people would find more traction in trying to develop a strategic sub-class of Fighter to taste, rather than petition for the inclusion of a Class that was removed with entirely justifiable reasons given, after the most extensive playtest in D&D history. The Warlord is a done deal, no matter how much you petition for it's re-inclusion. My post is merely reminding some folks here, that have convinced themselves of one thing that there are whole bunch of folks who entirely disagree and simply aren't wanting to debate it any more.

 

[El Mahdi]

Edited.

Deleted comment.

This is just going round and round, and going nowhere fast. It's becoming combative, and unnecessary.
[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]

You did nothing wrong.

That's all I have to say.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The way we've been designing the leadership features in the Warlording the Fighter thread, is that the other characters are under no requirement to do what the Warlord directs. However, if they don't, then the group does not gain the benefits that would result. In fact, if the Warlord can't inspire their group to follow their directions, it's the Warlord that's penalized through loss of their actions.

Though the argument could be made that the group also suffers if the Warlord loses their actions - but that's what happens with bad or failed leadership - lack of synergy.

So as the fighter or wizard, or whomever, I can choose to invalidate the warlord's action by not doing as "ordered". Who's the jerk there? Now I'm blocking. And that's not fun for anyone.

Here's one I've used before on the WotC forum when this same debate reared its ugly head:

I used to play in a friend's homebrew, episodic WWII TTRPG game. Based on the character creation process, everyone was assigned a rank. Highest rank was in command for the mission (as would be expected for any kind of military action).

Here's the thing. Player agency was kept intact because it was presumed to be roleplayed such that the commander of the mission ordered the action the other players chose to take. We use to call it "Shrodinger's Command". What did the lieutenant just order the private on the 50-cal to do? Whatever the player of the private on the 50-cal decided to do.

Player 1 [Private Heavygun McNally]: "I spin the 50-cal around to shoot those Germans on the mezzanine!"
Player 2 [Lieutenant Snappypants]: "Private! Look out for those krauts up there. Take 'em out!"
GM: "Cool. Okay, Player 1, make your roll to light them up."

Why can't roleplaying leadership type actions in 5e work the same? Why do you need crunch to justify something like this? Heck, without crunch you have more freedom to play it to whatever degree you want without having limitations like rules getting in the way or quantifying and restricting you.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

As for the rest, my issue was your dismissal of El Mahdi, not DEFCON 1.

They were both making the exact same point. Responding to one addressed them both.

 

[Eric V]

They were both making the exact same point. Responding to one addressed them both.

The exact same point? No, not really, no.

But I'm done here. As El Mahdi said above, it's just going round and round.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

This is exactly what I said. If one makes an opening statement to a post like TrippyHippy does, they lose all credibility (ethos) right out of the gate.

Why would anyone bother reading anything else that person posted after nullifying their own credibility?

Nope. It's nobody's fault other than the one that made the post in the first place. You have no fault here.

Why would anyone care about the opinion someone has about a game, if they've said right out of the gate that they care so little for that game that they'd quit it if something they didn't like - and could be ignored - was included?

As a discourse community, one of the defining aspects is a shared interest in a subject. TrippyHippy declared he doesn't share that interest. As a result, his opinion about the subject is suspect - it lacks Ethos.

All of that is supposition and opinion of its own. No more valid than mine. None of this is objective fact.

There's nothing unreasonable about that.

To paraphrase you, "Where is your proof? Just because you say so doesn't make it true."

 

[sleypy]

I am unfamiliar with Mehen... but I've read the R.A. Salvatore books and isn't Bruenor an actual king? That's the definition of a position of authority. Moreso as I remember his character he was a fighter with some leadership qualities... and I believe he's always been stated up as a fighter... which is again my point, you just don't see someone like a lazylord who sits back and competently directs adventurers in battle without their main contribution during that time also being to kill things in some way... I'm starting to think "inspirational" feats (or abilities) that any character class can take was/is the way to go with this in 5e...

Bruenor didn't start out as a king; he did become king (more than once I believe). He didn't become a king and then become a leader; he was a leader first.

I am not going to argue for or against a thing someone else wants. I don't have any particular need for 4e mechanics specifically in 5e. (Though having a thing someone wants is preferable to not having a thing just cause I don't care.)

I do think that there should be options to build on leadership/inspiration that doesn't require feats because they are not assumed option. I would like features to coming from a sub-class, if not a class; It is not fun to have an upper bound that is equal most other classes lower bound. I think is is reasonable to want to sacrifice more martial combat features to gain more support features.

I don't see it as an unreasonable concept considering the past popularity pacifist traits and feats. Also, it is not unusual for the person that tend to be the weakest fight in fiction to be the most inspiring.

I would be pretty close to what I wanted if not for the division of both bardic inspiration dice or combat superiority dice. By 5th level, they are both short/long rest abilities, and they have relatively similar power levels. Plus, it would have offered a meaningful choice without the requirement of optional feats.