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

[ChrisCarlson]

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

Short of them erasing or editing their posts from earlier, I believe its there for all to see.

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

Do you feel your jumping in with parroting posts contributed at all to the current situation?

 

[Eric V]

Edited.

Deleted comment.

This is just going round and round, and going nowhere fast. It's becoming combative, and unnecessary.
@DEFCON 1

You did nothing wrong.

That's all I have to say.

I don't think you did anything wrong either. I have to say, as the guy trying to come up with a decent 5e warlord, you've been unfortunately at the centre of a lot of these arguments* concerning the 'validity' of the class and you've always shown restraint. Myself, I just use the ignore function, but since you want player feedback, you don't seem to do the same, and you remain pretty civil and open to explanation and whatnot. It's impressive.

Sorry I haven't commented on your warlord build, btw; I am working on one using the warlock chassis and don't want outside influence yet.

*They're not 'arguments' as commonly understood in philosophy (premises leading logically to a conclusion) but more statements of taste. Which is totally fine; there's no one right way to play the game. I notice that they tend to misrepresent existing D&D ideas however, like hit points.

-E

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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've never felt this was a strong argument. If a group feels leadership/inspiration options are an important part of their play, they will include it. Whatever "it" is. If that means feats, then so be it. Just like it currently is for access to Inspiring Leader and the Martial Adept feats providing warlord-y benefits.

Must we reinvent the wheel for everything feats otherwise touch on? Do we need a boxer class in case Tavern Brawler is unavailable due to not using feats?

 

[Imaro]

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 thought he was always the rightful king of Mithral Hall... and just needed to retake it. It has been awhile since I read the stories though.

 

[sleypy]

I've never felt this was a strong argument. If a group feels leadership/inspiration options are an important part of their play, they will include it. Whatever "it" is. If that means feats, then so be it. Just like it currently is for access to Inspiring Leader and the Martial Adept feats providing warlord-y benefits.

Must we reinvent the wheel for everything feats otherwise touch on? Do we need a boxer class in case Tavern Brawler is unavailable due to not using feats?

I explained why I think it is a strong argument. You are free to disagree, but the rest of the post already answers the questions your asking.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I explained why I think it is a strong argument. You are free to disagree, but the rest of the post already answers the questions your asking.

Of course. But I likewise explained why I think it is not a strong argument. Clearly we disagree, which is why I bothered to reply. But FWIW, I asked the questions because I didn't feel like your post adequately answered the questions I just asked. <shrug>

 

[mellored]

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.

you can still be lazy without action granting.
also, i feel like "you trick the enemy into provoking an OA" might be more palitable flavor.

 

[Lanefan]

False. Even if it were, so is Warlock and to a much greater degree, and Warlock is objectionable to some on the basis of RL religion. Same, to a lesser degree with Sorcerer and even Wizard. If you hear 'Cleric' in the news in recent years, it's probably in reference to a fanatic exhorting zealots to violence. Those same zealots and their less radical sympathizers would find the crusader implications of 'Paladins,' and, due to it's use by US Special Forces, 'Rangers' provocative, as well.

The connotation of inherent leadership beyond just the confines of combat is a put0off for some, which is why I'm supporting "Marshal" as the name...it much more ties the class' main role to combat tactician.

Never mind that in my own campaign to talk about a Warlord means you're talking about some jumped-up petty ruler who's taken over a few villages, got a gang of toughs together, and is looking to start trouble. Their actual adventuring class, if any, can be anything.

Really, if you did away with D&D classes on the basis of such trivial objections to their names, we'd be left with nothing but the Fighter.

True, the lack of realism that is brought up has always been there. Whether it's really being 'highlighted,' or whether the foes of the class just selectively attack the system's perennial lack of realism within the context of the warlord, because they realize they have no valid objections to the concept itself, is really moot. The system lacks realism, objecting to a class because it lacks realism is nonsense.

The system lacks realism; which to me is a bug rather than a feature. As the Marshal class as apparently intended would add to that lack of realism rather than reduce it, its official addition to the game would indicate the design direction is moving away from where I'd like to see it go. So, no official Marshal class, please and thanks.

Yes. Good leaders help people do even better those things they are already great at. IRL. Heck, it's more realistic for the Warlord to make the fighter better at fighting and the wizard better at wizzing than, than it is for the wizard to exist in the first place.

Assuming the fighter and-or wizard are willing to accept that leadership. Hell, if this happened to one of most of the characters I've ever played the after-combat conversation would - immensely cleaned up to suit Eric's grandma - go something like:

My PC: Hey, was that you dancing those orcs all over the place while I was trying to kill 'em?
Marshal: Yeah, it was; I was trying to line them up for you.
My PC: I HAD 'em lined up, you damnfool idjit! Never mind you took that one off Tony and put it on my flank were I wasn't expecting it. Most of this pain I'm in right now is 'cause of YOU!"
Marshal: Sorry 'bout that. Here, let me inspire you to greater deeds <inspiring speech follows, with healing>
My PC: Better. But know this: pull a stunt like that again in a fight I'm in and you'll be making your next inspiring speech out of the gash in your throat. I follow no man's lead; if I did I'd still be guarding the Baron's castle walls.

The best they did for the mace-wielding, spell-casting Cleric was Archbishop Turpin, who used Sword & Lance like all the rest of Charlemagne's Knights, and never cast a spell.

The best archetypal Cleric for me has always been Friar Tuck. Not much if any spellcraft but he nails the rest of it.

Things like the 3.x 5'-step, shifting, flanking, marking, 'forced' movement &c arguably do a fair, very abstract, job of modeling just that sort of thing (and similar things) without drowning in detail.

5'-step and flanking are both quite elegant and reasonably good. Marking does nothing for me as it takes away the target's choice; ditto the movement ones. In play some of these things might occur naturally - I heroically step up and challenge the Orc leader to battle; his overwhelming ego (and risk of scorn from his underlings) insists he choose to accept. So I've in effect marked him, but there's no mechanics involved and nor should there be.

Shift-slide-pull mechanics I see arising from a desire (by the designers?) to have enemies be almost playable like chess pieces by the party, at an extreme extent. Makes me wonder what the players' reactions would be if the opposition suddenly started this sort of action against them.

Within the fluidity & randomness of melee, the confusion of the 'fog of war,' the chaos of the 'press,' or whatever, you can very easily have an individual end up somewhere he rationally very much would not want to be, had he perfect knowledge of the battlefield and his opponents' intent. A skilled combatant taking advantage of that to slip away from a foe, get closer to one, give an ally a chance to slip away, attack from a position of advantage, etc, etc, is perfectly reasonable. To avoid drowning the system in the complexity of multiple contested checks, even more detailed positioning, simultaneous action declaration, and other impractical mechanics, modeling such things abstractly is obviously desirable - and mechanics like the 5'step, forced movement, flanking, marking, and the like seem perfectly good ways to do so.

What alternative mechanics would propose?

Without going into a full-ride redesign of the combat system, I'd probably try to remove or minimize some mechanics. Marking would go; the Orc-challenge example just above would actually count as a social encounter (i.e. roleplaying), with decisions made in character. Forced movement would go, as would turn-based movement at all; insteat at the beginning of the round you state your intended move (if any) then at each point within the round that it becomes relevant we figure out how far you've got, and you arrive on your initiative. (option: a harsher method would be to declare move at start of round but not start until initiative, and at end of round you get there) In any case if circumstances suggest or dictate a change of course while you're on the move you're free to change course on the fly - an example: Ranged combat is already underway. Bob the Light Ranger wants the party to cover him while he charges the Orcs' sniping post. He declares movement, his turn comes up, and off he goes. Next up is an Orc sniper who ignores the party distractions and nails Bob in the leg for 10 points damage; Bob at this point has only covered 20' of the 60' he had to go, and that hurt. Bob immediately decides to bail, and turns hard right where 15' away is a rock that'll give some cover. He makes is there just as the next Orc fires, the arrow rattles off the rock instead of Bob's head.

And to lead into my next issue: what if Bob and Fred wanted to charge side-by-side together?

I'd also loosen up the turn-based mechanics to allow some common sense. As written, two individuals in combat cannot move together even if the faster one waits for the slower one's initiative, because two turns cannot happen simultaneously...and this is laughable. Most DMs would overrule this and allow it but there's some out there...

I'd allow simultaneous resolution also. Right now in D&D as written two meleeing foes cannot mutually kill each other because one always has to win the initiative. This loses some nice potential for drama.

Lan-"drifted off topic but it's that sort of day"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

Anyone can fight, why have a fighter? Can't anyone learn to swing a sword? No class exclusively does things no other class can. Even casters share many of the same spells.

And, while we use 'leader' as short-hand, because of the familiarity of the 4e formal Leader Role, that role no longer exists, and the Warlord isn't going to be defined by either the formal role of Leader, nor was it ever strictly leading in the literal sense of the warlord player bossing everyone around.

It's a support 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.

The class has some avid fans. I don't see what's wrong with that. I do see something wrong with the contrary obsession, though: why go out of your way to try to deny fans of a class something they enjoy playing. What will be so unbearable about living in a world where the Warlord exists as a playable class option in the Advanced Game?

The system lacks realism; which to me is a bug rather than a feature.

I consider it a feature in a fantasy game, and a necessity even in one that has some reason to shoot for realism. Attempts at realism can really hurt balance & playability, often for very little actual realism achieved.

D&D is so very far from being remotely realistic, though, that I doubt it could even much accommodate the impulse even in very extensive modules. That doesn't mean it shouldn't try. I could see at least a full, PH-sized supplement devoted to such an end being added to the Advanced Game.

Assuming the fighter and-or wizard are willing to accept that leadership.

Nod. If one of them has a "doesn't play well with others" or "problems with authority" concept, yeah, it could be an RP problem - or 'opportunity.'

The best archetypal Cleric for me has always been Friar Tuck. Not much if any spellcraft but he nails the rest of it.

Doesn't heal, never met undead, no spellcasting, no granted power, notoriously deadly swordsman, occasionally uses a bow, wears chainmail in some versions or a mere brown robe in others.
Yeah, screams D&D Cleric.

5'-step and flanking are both quite elegant and reasonably good. Marking does nothing for me as it takes away the target's choice; ditto the movement ones.

Marking /doesn't/ take away the marked creatures choice, it just makes it more difficult, catch-22 choice. Similarly, forced movement doesn't consume a target's actions, so he still has all the same opportunities to act as before, just (hopefully) in a more difficult circumstance. Ironcially, more granular/realistic modeling of combat tricks and maneuvers to draw enemies out of position might more literally take away choice, by consuming their actions or movement, if they lose whatever mechanical contest would be used to represent such things.

Shift-slide-pull mechanics I see arising from a desire (by the designers?) to have enemies be almost playable like chess pieces by the party, at an extreme extent. Makes me wonder what the players' reactions would be if the opposition suddenly started this sort of action against them.

Many 4e monsters did do those sorts of thing. Never saw it cause a problem, but then, 4e players were kinda self-selecting that way.

Without going into a full-ride redesign of the combat system, I'd probably try to remove or minimize some mechanics. Marking would go

Marking is gone from the Standard Game, check.

Forced movement would go

Also not an actual sub-system of the Standard Game, though a things, like Thunderwave, do it - check.

as would turn-based movement at all; insteat at the beginning of the round you state your intended move (if any) then at each point within the round that it becomes relevant we figure out how far you've got, and you arrive on your initiative.

Wow, that's a change, alright.

In any case if circumstances suggest or dictate a change of course while you're on the move you're free to change course on the fly

Doesn't that undercut what you're trying to accomplish in declaring first?

And to lead into my next issue: what if Bob and Fred wanted to charge side-by-side together?

The higher initiative one would Ready in 3.0 and later.

I'd also loosen up the turn-based mechanics to allow some common sense. As written, two individuals in combat cannot move together even if the faster one waits for the slower one's initiative, because two turns cannot happen simultaneously...and this is laughable.

With Ready you can have two (or more) actions happening on the same turn, even if not technically several turns simultaneously. Many DM's'd just run something like that as if it were literally simultaneous. Certainly nothing wrong in doing so in 5e.

I'd allow simultaneous resolution also. Right now in D&D as written two meleeing foes cannot mutually kill each other because one always has to win the initiative. This loses some nice potential for drama.

Fortunately, in 5e, you can just rule something Simultaneous if you want, when it matters - without adopting a more onerous action-declaration system and using it every round. DM Empowerment, rulings-not-rules, &c...

But, y'know, an action-declaration system would make for a very tactical 'tactical module,' indeed, downright wargamey.

Drifted pretty far from the Warlord, but interesting stuff, as always, Lanefan.

[sblock="Aside: Separated by a Common Language"]

The connotation of inherent leadership beyond just the confines of combat is a put0off for some, which is why I'm supporting "Marshal" as the name...it much more ties the class' main role to combat tactician.

For Americans, the most familiar meaning of 'Marshal,' by far, is a law-enforcement officer, particularly in the Old West. It blows as a word you'd use in the context of a fantasy setting, even worse than 'Sheriff,' which suffers the same problem, but at least has the Sheriff of Nottingham mitigating it. Next most familiar would be an honorary position in a parade. The common European meaning, an officer of high military rank, is fairly obscure here. Just an aside, since names don't matter. ;P [/sblock]

I've never felt this was a strong argument. If a group feels leadership/inspiration options are an important part of their play, they will include it. Whatever "it" is. If that means feats, then so be it.

If it means opting into a Warlord class presented in the Advanced Game, so be it.

Must we reinvent the wheel for everything feats otherwise touch on? Do we need a boxer class in case Tavern Brawler is unavailable due to not using feats?

Well, we do have the Monk for those who want to kick it unarmed.

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.

Heck, you're 'blocking,' now, and, no, it's no fun at all. Stop it. ;P

Seriously, though, conceptually it only makes sense for taking an action-grant to be at the option of the subject. We might presume that the Warlord & his allies have drilled extensively, that their maneuvers are second-nature (that's why they can accomplish that much more when executing them), but those allies still have free will and need to be able to act in response.

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".

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?

That's surprisingly close to how the Warlord often works out in actual play. The leadership aspect is conceptual. Just as the player of the fighter doesn't get up and swing a replica sword around, or the warlock player actually put his soul up for sale, the player of the Warlord wasn't actually bossing the other players around.

Why do you need crunch to justify something like this?

Well, the game does need some support functions in a party, particular hp-recovery in combat, and the Warlord provides a non-caster option that opens up more concepts to that kind of informal, but vital, role. So it's as much the concept justifying the crunch as the other way around (what others have put less charitably as 'filling a niche' - most classes do, those that don't end up '5th wheels'). The player of the Warlord gets to contribute, gets to play the concept he wants, and the party gets the support function it needs, and, depending on the concept, the story might also get the nominal leader character that's so common.
(Of course, the concept of the Warlord as could also reach beyond the traditional healer or formal leader roles to model strategy and tactics in similarly abstract ways.)

 

[sleypy01]

Of course. But I likewise explained why I think it is not a strong argument. Clearly we disagree, which is why I bothered to reply. But FWIW, I asked the questions because I didn't feel like your post adequately answered the questions I just asked. <shrug>

You quoted half the sentence and changed the punctuation. Then questioned your newly edited statement attributed to me. Can you understand why I wouldn't want to continue the conversation after that.