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

[FormerlyHemlock]

(Double post: please delete.)

 

[Imaro]

Y'know, I largely agree with this. I never saw the Warlord as "the Healer". I saw him as a Fight Guy with some healing tacked on. It wasn't that hard to make a warlord that, outside of the basic healing he could do, didn't actually do much healing at all.

The problem I have with the Battlemaster warlord is that he just doesn't grant enough actions. There are only two maneuvers that grant actions - Commander's Strike and Maneuvering Attack. Realistically, at best, you're only granting an action to one PC per round. Yes, you can do more than one, but, then again, the max is 8 (4 attacks, Action Surge) and that's only going to possibly happen 1/short rest and likely isn't going to happen at all. Also, since you burn your allies reactions when you do this, it isn't really a full extra action. Many classes need those reactions - using Commander's Strike on a Protection Fighter means that fighter trades protection for a single attack. The casters lose their abilities to cast reaction spells, which can be a big cost. Plus, you lose your Opportunity Attacks which screws over any Sentinal feat fighter.

Hmm... with combats considerably shorter in the number of rounds they last... how many actions between short rests should a Battlemaster be able to grant? As to burning the reaction... I'm not sure I see that as that big of a downside, I mean there should be a limit on the number of actions and there should be a tradeoff, otherwise the optimal tactic becomes to simply grant as many actions as possible to your biggest damage dealer as a no-brainer. I guess I like the fact that it's an actual decision point...

Warlords had a number of powers which allowed them to grant true extra actions to the party and often to multiple characters in the party. Which added a very large amount of tactical considerations that the Battlemaster just doesn't allow for. If I'm a protection or sentinal fighter, I likely will never want the Battlemaster granting me extra actions. Sure, you can grant an extra attack to the rogue, but, who cares? He can't backstab. A Giant Killer Ranger gets screwed over by this too, since it burns reactions.

IOW, the Battlemaster can replace the Warlord, but, only if the rest of the group isn't playing certain classes. The BM features don't play nicely with the class features of other classes.

I disagree... what it means is that the Warlord and the player he's granting actions to are going to have to assess whether and extra attack or the reaction is a better choice this round, and that is going to depend largely on what is happening real time in combat.

 

[Imaro]

Even if the majority of voters don't care if there's a warlord or not, that's not the point. Is there enough desire for a warlord out there that it would be a good idea for WOTC to make one?

I'd say that there certainly is. But, then again, I want a warlord. So, my group is in the same boat as those groups that had a gnome wanting player - IOW, part of that 50%.

Didn't WotC collect data from the online CB on the popularity of classes? Did they ever release any of this information? It makes me wonder just how popular the Warlord really was since it wasn't included (at least in name as a separate class) in the 5e PHB...

 

[MoonSong]

Didn't WotC collect data from the online CB on the popularity of classes? Did they ever release any of this information? It makes me wonder just how popular the Warlord really was since it wasn't included (at least in name as a separate class) in the 5e PHB...

Head designer apathy kills hard data. Not a new version of the warlord has showed up since it didn't appear on Essentials.

 

[KarinsDad]

Is there enough desire for a warlord out there that it would be a good idea for WOTC to make one?

No. It wasn't a good idea in 4E either.

 

[Imaro]

Head designer apathy kills hard data. Not a new version of the warlord has showed up since it didn't appear on Essentials.

It's possible but I highly doubt that the lead designers "apathy" would have caused the elimination of a class if it was really popular... The fact that there is so much controversy around the Warlord along with it not making the cut to Essentials or to 5e seems to point to it not being that popular of a class. I'm starting to think it's a very vocal minority of 4e fans that really want the warlord (in 4e form), while most 5e fans are fine with the Battlemaster as a replacement, could care less or don't really want one and that's why it wasn't included in the core.

EDIT: Another factor is that unlike the half-orc and gnome the Warlord has very little D&D history or even classic D&D feel to it.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'm starting to think it's a very vocal minority of 4e fans that really want the warlord (in 4e form...

Incorrect. I am not a fan of 4E, but was a fan of the 4E Warlord concept - and I'm most certainly very vocal about wanting one for 5E.

I would doubt I'm the only one. I'm just not that unique...

 

[Imaro]

Incorrect. I am not a fan of 4E, but was a fan of the 4E Warlord concept - and I'm most certainly very vocal about wanting one for 5E.

I would doubt I'm the only one. I'm just not that unique...

How does you not being a 4e fan preclude there being a very vocal minority of 4e fans that want a 4e warlord in 5e? Notice how I used the word "most" for 5e fans, that in and of itself says there is room for 5e/non 4e fans that want a Warlord and thus outliers like you are accounted for in my statement, now honestly I think the number of non-4e fans, that are 5e fans and who also want (not are indifferent) a 4e warlord is so minuscule as to be pointless to cater too but then like I said I remain unconvinced the Warlord class was all that popular even during 4e's run...

 

[El Mahdi]

How does you not being a 4e fan preclude there being a very vocal minority of 4e fans that want a 4e warlord in 5e?

It doesn't. It precludes the implication you made that it's exclusively a vocal minority of 4E fans.

I'm starting to think it's a very vocal minority of 4e fans that really want the warlord (in 4e form)...

 

[Imaro]

It doesn't. It precludes the implication you made that it's exclusively a vocal minority of 4E fans.

There was no implication that it was only 4e fans... again re-read the entire passage... I didn't preclude a fan of 5e who wasn't... you know what never-mind I just explained this in the previous post and you totally ignored it... so yeah, whatever.