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

[TrippyHippy]

No. The Cleric says, "I represent the team assist leader" as per the basketball analogy that was originally in play

It's precisely because people who defend the Warlord in these never ending debates always end up asserting bad sporting analogies such as this that I am glad that the Warlord has gone, and would not want to play D&D if it ever returned (No hyperbole!).

D&D is not a team sport and I can't stand the way in which some people try to push the D&D game in that direction by insisting that a strategic or tactical role is akin to a narrative archetype. It isn't. I'm not sure I'd recommend anybody a dictionary, but a crash course in literary criticism might be useful....

 

[Aldarc]

It's precisely because people who defend the Warlord in these never ending debates always end up asserting bad sporting analogies such as this that I am glad that the Warlord has gone, and would not want to play D&D if it ever returned (No hyperbole!).

D&D is not a team sport and I can't stand the way in which some people try to push the D&D game in that direction by insisting that a strategic or tactical role is akin to a narrative archetype. It isn't. I'm not sure I'd recommend anybody a dictionary, but a crash course in literary criticism might be useful....

Been there. Done that. I'm not sure if "literary criticism" means what you think it means. Perhaps it would be more helpful to the discussion if you provided actual criticism and not just condescension.

Let me reiterate. I don't get the opposition of warlord on either fantasy archetypical or literary grounds. It exists, in as much as other 'class archetypes' exist in these same mediums. I genuinely see no reason why the 'barbarian' or 'paladin' considered valid archetypes when the 'warlord' is not. I am not trolling. Not being argumentative for the sake of it. I just don't see why these archetypes get classes but the warlord does not. What makes them different? The standard response to the warlord class has been to make a fighter and pick an appropriate sub-class, background, and feats. Okay. Why isn't the barbarian just a fighter sub-class with the outlander background and appropriate feats? Why isn't the paladin just a fighter sub-class with the acolyte or noble background and appropriate feats? The warlord exists as a fantasy archetype as much as either the barbarian or paladin.

If the warlord does come to 5E, I wish you the best luck in finding another roleplaying alternative to D&D. (No false sincerity.) But your threat of leaving D&D should the warlord return will not stop others and me from wanting a 5E warlord.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Oh, forgot to say, that's me outta this thread! I'm going to talk about something more worth it on another thread.

 

[Jessica]

It's precisely because people who defend the Warlord in these never ending debates always end up asserting bad sporting analogies such as this that I am glad that the Warlord has gone, and would not want to play D&D if it ever returned (No hyperbole!).

Good. D&D is better without the type of people who would shut out fan favorite choices from the game itself to suit their own tastes instead of just not playing the class itself or only playing in games that don't use said class. I'm joining a 4e game where the DM doesn't like the concept of certain races(e.g. Shardminds and Warforged) being Vampires. So instead of throwing a fit and crying because those race/class combos exist, he puts on his big boy pants and just bans those specific race/class combinations unless the player can make a case for it.

 

[mellored]

cleric is defensive. it mostly supports HP and, AC and saves.
warlord is offensive. it mostly supports movement and damage.
the closest thing to a warlord's offensive support now is a valor bard/sorcerer casting twin haste and giving to-hit bonuses via insperation dice.
though the second apeal of the warlord is beacuse NOT magic.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Good. D&D is better without the type of people who would shut out fan favorite choices from the game itself to suit their own tastes instead of just not playing the class itself or only playing in games that don't use said class. I'm joining a 4e game where the DM doesn't like the concept of certain races(e.g. Shardminds and Warforged) being Vampires. So instead of throwing a fit and crying because those race/class combos exist, he puts on his big boy pants and just bans those specific race/class combinations unless the player can make a case for it.

Warlords aren't fan favourites. That's why they were shut out from the 5E game after the most extensive playtest in D&Ds history. And good riddance to them too!

Have a nice day!

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the reason why they were shut out is because Warlord is an inherently 4E:ish concept.

I see no reason to conclude the Warlord itself was hated. You just need to discuss it with 5E fans open to 4E concepts, and those fans only.

Otherwise you will never be able to separate the constructive "I dislike the Warlord or some of its features but like other 4E-specific classes" sentiment from the wholly unconstructive "I dislike 4E" or "I dislike you bringing 4E into my 5E game" sentiments.

A basic premise of a real Warlord is running 5E the 4E way. I'm not sure the discussion climate here will ever tolerate such a discussion, but in order to give it a shot, you need start a new thread making this clear from the start.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Absolutely for the following reasons:

1. it fulfills a niche that currently isn't covered in 5e dnd (martial leader).
2. Two words: Dark Sun. It also allows a great alternative when you don't want to deal with gods in your world or game. With this class in place, you don't need to overhaul the game to get similar coverage.
3. It has a fan base. By not doing it, they're practically throwing money away.

and honestly, spellcasters need competition. I believe in the "agony of choice" when it comes to character design, and honestly, 5e is following (but not to the same degree as 3.0/3.5) of favoring spellcasters over non-spellcasters.

edit: as for what actions, I want a mechanic where I can give up my action, to give it to somebody else an action with a bonus, or get somebody to move, or to get everybody to dive under cover without resorting to spells.

 

[Uchawi]

This discussion can probably be repeated for any class that was not included in 5E for various reasons. So hopefully an OGL equivalent license would be released so dedicated fans or third party developers can take risks that WOTC is not willing to take when adding content. You are not going to convince people to like certain features of D&D if they are firmly against it. The real question is whether there is a mechanism to add it through approved channels.

 

[mellored]

I think the reason why they were shut out is because Warlord is an inherently 4E:ish concept.

No, it's not.

Marshal existed in 3e.

Help action, Commander's Strike, Healer, and Inspiring Leader already exist in 5e.

A basic premise of a real Warlord is running 5E the 4E way. I'm not sure the discussion climate here will ever tolerate such a discussion, but in order to give it a shot, you need start a new thread making this clear from the start.

There's no reason the warlord can't be made to fit 5e.
Heck, just give them bonuses for using the help action.

i.e.
"You can use the help action as a bonus action."
"If you help an ally attack, and he hits, he deal extra damage to your Int modifier."
"You can use the help action to give advantage on saving throws."
ect...