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

[Gadget]

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.

But a Fighter with the noble background does not do that. Or not enough to be worth mentioning. And once again, you are missing the point by being to literal in the 'leader' designation. There is nothing about the warlord that says they have to be the party leader. They just help the party by their inspiration and/or tactical acumen. They are the team assist leader, not the leading scorer, to use a basketball.

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.

Because you don't like the name and it could be taken negatively in a game that is, essentially about a bunch of murder hobos? That does not make it a 'purely game-mechanic inspired Class', though game mechanics do have something to do with it.

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.

Or it could indicate that your arguments were so spurious and edition warring that people felt they had to comment, even if they have said in this very thread (like myself and others) that they are not sure if a Warlord is needed in 5e. But yeah, fanaticism, that's it.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

That is incorrect. I did not change the punctuation. And that was a complete sentence I quoted. And "newly edited"? What?

And I only quoted that portion of your post because that was all I wished to respond to. The sentence which made a complete point. The one I quoted. The one I disagreed with.

Are you trying to use a sock-puppet account? If so it could use a more original name. And you shouldn't reference to yourself when doing so. It kinda gives it away...

 

[TrippyHippy]

They are the team assist leader, not the leading scorer, to use a basketball.

You can use a basketball if you like, but a 'team assist leader' is never going to be a valid narrative archetype no matter how hard you assert it.

 

[pemerton]

a lazylord is just saying, "You should just swing your sword again," as if the fighter hadn't already thought of that on his own or made the effort were it within his capability. He's fighting for his life, after all. Why would he not swing more often if he could?

To me, this is the basic issue. It applies to warlords, action surge-type mechanics, second wind, etc.

Is there such a thing, in D&D, as a character trying harder?

Most editions of D&D answer that question "no".

4e answers the question "yes". And it allows the trying harder to be driven internally (second wind, action points) or externally (inspiration from a warlord or some other "leader" PC).

5e answer the question "yes" on the internal side (for fighters). But it doesn't have the full suite of warlord-style, external, inspirational mechanics.

can you name 5 characters from fantasy stories (not historical) that would fit the Warlord archetype?

The examples I would have given have already been mentioned - a range of LotR characters, and Conan. (You also seem to be suggesting, in some of your posts, that a warlord contrasts with a warrior character, whereas the paradigmatic warlord is type of warrior.)

most fantasy characters can be broadly grouped into categories... and Conan really could be represented, at least in 5e, as a fighter with really high attruibutes and the right background.

The same thing could be said of a ranger - fighter with some sort of outrider or wilderlands background. And paladins are clerics are the same archetype though the mechanics of the classes are different. Equally, Conan could be built as a warlord with an athlete or cat-burglar type background.

D&D has never imposed a requirement of archetypical or functional uniqueness as the condition for establishing a class.

Why can't anyone just pray?

My response to this is to flip it around - given that anyone can pray, a cleric or paladin isn't simply someone making a prayer. It is a holy person, on the model of a mediaeval saint or hermit, who has a special sort of connection to the divine.

 

[Hussar]

Look, all I know is, the Warlord in 4e is a class I was trying to play for the previous 3 editions and never quite getting what I wanted. I tried various bards, paladins, clerics and whatnot to get what a warlord gave me out of the box.

If 5e gave us a decent warlord, I'd play it in a heartbeat. It's, by far, my favourite D&D class of any edition. Not that I'm particularly enamoured to 4e mechanics. 5e has shown me that much higher pacing is a good thing. I do not want the tactical level of 4e. But, I DO want a greater tactical level than the three Battlemaster exploits that we have right now.

Here's hoping.

 

[Jessica]

A hard Warlord archetype character that immediately come to my mind.

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

What fantasy uncivilized berserker archetype characters do we have other than Conan?

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I really wish they would use the Unearthed Arcana column to develop a Warlord type class for people's home games who want to play with such a character and don't want to homebrew their own. I wouldn't put it in an official product or let it be used in AL play unless the community is overwhelmingly supportive of it once it is out in the wild. But UA is a great place to introduce things like Gunslingers and other niche concepts that won't fit in most group's campaigns but might be fun for some groups or at least provide some inspiration to people looking to homebrew their own variants.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I think there is something subtle, but important, being overlooked in this thread by all the warlord fans who are fervently "going after" those who disagree on the need for this class...

This isn't a warlord fanboi thread. It's a poll asking who wants one and who doesn't (or at least, wants lemon curry more, presumably). I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the veiled, "if you don't like warlords why are you bothering those of us who do?" or, "if you don't like them don't play them," sentiments.

I've avoided the Warlording the Fighter thread, in spite of being asked to go there more than once, precisely for that reason. That's not my thing. I'm here to have my voice heard on a question that does pertain to me. One asked of me. You don't like dissent? Cool. Go to town in that thread. I won't bother you there.

I'll be here, having the lemon curry.

 

[Aldarc]

You can use a basketball if you like, but a 'team assist leader' is never going to be a valid narrative archetype no matter how hard you assert it.

The cleric says "hello."

I think there is something subtle, but important, being overlooked in this thread by all the warlord fans who are fervently "going after" those who disagree on the need for this class...

Irony. Delicious irony.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Get a dictionary. I've only reacted to those who are doing so with kind. I sure as heck didn't launch any kind of first salvo or whatever. Heck, my first post was a polite statement of how I agreed with another poster's sentiments. Then, my second to defend a poster I felt was being unfairly marginalized for an off-hand remark that had nothing to do with their larger point.

But, look. Another rude local piling on with nothing to add but vitriol. This place sure is full of tolerance and polite discourse. Yeah, now I see what you guys were saying over in the "welcome" thread...

[Edited for typos. The adult beverages take their toll...]