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

[FormerlyHemlock]

In as much as the barbarian is already built into the Outlander background.

Having a CR 1/4-ish NPC minion is built into the Knight background. Inasmuch as that is what I understood was being proposed for the hypothetical fighter subclass, it seems to be completely fulfilled by the Knight background, with the implication that that feature is probably too weak to build a class around (since background features are intentionally weak).

I don't know of any conceptualization of the Barbarian class which the Outlander fulfills so thoroughly. Were you engaging in hyperbole or have I misunderstood your point, sir?

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is another point I have to comment on.

The Warlord is none of the things you've listed. He's not a commander, king, war marshal, or leader. The "Leader" of the party is chosen not by the character class, but by some agreement at the table.

He is also not the tactician, strategist, or heart of the team. First because what we're talking about is a group of 4-6 people who are engaged in very small scale combat. Further, each other character is either a master of combat, master of stealth, or extremely intelligent. If they can't figure out "Tactics" in a fight that is generally no more complex than "fighters stand in front, spellcasters/archers behind them" then we're talking about a group with a collective intelligence lower than a 3. Second, strategies are decided by discussion amongst the Players, being the "Warlord" doesn't give the player the right to dictate strategy and tactics to everyone else, so the Warlord pretty much has nothing to do with strategy and tactics.

I haven't yet understood why people keep assigning all of these qualities to the Warlord class and his abilities which bear little relation to what it is and what it's abilities do. The Warlord class is nothing more than a support class that is meant to buff the Fighters and heal, he's a non-magical buff mage. I honestly don't understand why anyone would even want to play one, he's strictly worse than every other option you could take based on what you want to do with it. If you want to be pushing things around the battlefield and buffing fighters than being a Wizard will always be better than being a Warlord. If you want to be healing and buffing fighters then being a Cleric will always be better than being a Warlord. Dual classing Cleric/Wizard would be substantially better than being a Warlord.

Did you see my post (#564) right before yours? Can you see why it's hard for some of us warlord-skeptics to believe you?

 

[Pandamonium87]

I am at daggers drawn with the warlord since when his presence on the 4th edition corebook killed the bard, so I am not missing him

Apart from jokes I think you can make a warlord-like character easily with a college of valor bard or even a battlemaster.

 

[GreenTengu]

People can't really even decide if they want the replacement class for the Warlord (whatever it may be named) to be basically just a Fighter with some token Bard powers thrown in or to basically be a Cleric without the god stuff and anti-undead stuff (or spell slots) or Bard without the music, lore and illusion magic parts or maybe something else entirely.

It is really tough when one can't really even say what constitutes the class exactly.

 

[Hussar]

People can't really even decide if they want the replacement class for the Warlord (whatever it may be named) to be basically just a Fighter with some token Bard powers thrown in or to basically be a Cleric without the god stuff and anti-undead stuff (or spell slots) or Bard without the music, lore and illusion magic parts or maybe something else entirely.

It is really tough when one can't really even say what constitutes the class exactly.

I would disagree with your final statement pretty strongly. We've seen pretty consistently what people want from a warlord:

• Non magical healing above and beyond the bare minimum provided by the 5e feat
• The ability to grant additional actions to other PC's or characters, again, above and beyond what the 5e Battlemaster can do.
• The ability to non-magically grant buffs to the party, again, above and beyond what the 5e battle master can already do.

That pretty much covers it. IOW, the existing mechanics gets you about 60% of the way there. We just want the other 40%.

Personally, I'd add in some non-magical buffs for skills as well. But, that's just me. I certainly don't expect it. Maybe even some bonuses for down time activities like construction or what not. Just spit balling here. But, the above list is pretty much the bog standard list of demands for a 5e warlord. And, I'd say that people have decided.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would disagree with your final statement pretty strongly. We've seen pretty consistently what people want from a warlord:

• Non magical healing above and beyond the bare minimum provided by the 5e feat
• The ability to grant additional actions to other PC's or characters, again, above and beyond what the 5e Battlemaster can do.
• The ability to non-magically grant buffs to the party, again, above and beyond what the 5e battle master can already do.

That pretty much covers it. IOW, the existing mechanics gets you about 60% of the way there. We just want the other 40%.

Personally, I'd add in some non-magical buffs for skills as well. But, that's just me. I certainly don't expect it. Maybe even some bonuses for down time activities like construction or what not. Just spit balling here. But, the above list is pretty much the bog standard list of demands for a 5e warlord. And, I'd say that people have decided.

Cool. I'm working on an essay that I'll post about this topic, and I will use your three criteria as the definition to work from.

 

[GreenTengu]

I would disagree with your final statement pretty strongly. We've seen pretty consistently what people want from a warlord:

• Non magical healing above and beyond the bare minimum provided by the 5e feat
• The ability to grant additional actions to other PC's or characters, again, above and beyond what the 5e Battlemaster can do.
• The ability to non-magically grant buffs to the party, again, above and beyond what the 5e battle master can already do.

That pretty much covers it. IOW, the existing mechanics gets you about 60% of the way there. We just want the other 40%.

Personally, I'd add in some non-magical buffs for skills as well. But, that's just me. I certainly don't expect it. Maybe even some bonuses for down time activities like construction or what not. Just spit balling here. But, the above list is pretty much the bog standard list of demands for a 5e warlord. And, I'd say that people have decided.

I wouldn't want to see it granting extra action to other PCs, at least if we are talking off-turn actions. Maybe granting them an extra attack or extra bonus action on their next turn would be acceptable. But at least no more so than a Cleric does. It is one thing to enhance other PCs actions, but to utterly screw up the turn order of combat is not something I would think it conducive to a good flowing game. Too often people stop paying attention when it isn't their turn or they just remember that in a combat they go after someone else, so if you are suddenly granting people extra additional actions off their turn then things are going to get screwed up.

 

[Hussar]

I wouldn't want to see it granting extra action to other PCs, at least if we are talking off-turn actions. Maybe granting them an extra attack or extra bonus action on their next turn would be acceptable. But at least no more so than a Cleric does. It is one thing to enhance other PCs actions, but to utterly screw up the turn order of combat is not something I would think it conducive to a good flowing game. Too often people stop paying attention when it isn't their turn or they just remember that in a combat they go after someone else, so if you are suddenly granting people extra additional actions off their turn then things are going to get screwed up.

Do you have the same reservations about a Battle master? After all, a BM can already grant off turn actions (well, during the BM's turn) right in 5e core.

 

[El Mahdi]

If someone is actually "offended" by warlord fluff that implies a class is a party leader, then I think they might have bigger issues. It's a game with friends - save getting offended for serious life issues.

I agree. Any potential "I'm-in-charge" aspect, if even present, resides only in the realm of roleplaying choice and in the metagame. Mechanically, the only effect on the group of having a Leader character is either a few group bonuses, or at the worst a neutral result. At worst the Warlord is just another character in the group; no better, no worse.

Nobody loses the ability to make choices for their own character.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

• Non magical healing above and beyond the bare minimum provided by the 5e feat
• The ability to grant additional actions to other PC's or characters, again, above and beyond what the 5e Battlemaster can do.
• The ability to non-magically grant buffs to the party, again, above and beyond what the 5e battle master can already do.

This is pretty indicative of the core problem I have with proponents of this class. Buzzwords like "bare minimum" for one. Why are you assuming what is currently present is a "bare minimum" and not "just right" for 5e's system paradigm?

What if "above and beyond what the battlemaster can do" makes it a thing too good? Because it seems what's already there is what the devs have determined is balanced? Too many folks lose sight of the fact that they want something they recall from a different system, but forget to filter it through what the current system deems appropriate and balanced. You can't just take the 4e warlord and port it into 5e. That's not how it works. The devs looked at the 4e warlord, gleaned the underlying concept and feel for the class, and placed what they felt was salvageable into the battlemaster, valor bard and a few feats.

But that's not enough. Guess what? That's the point. Because if its "enough" as some of you are demanding, it's "too much".

Do you have the same reservations about a Battle master? After all, a BM can already grant off turn actions (well, during the BM's turn) right in 5e core.

See, that right there. It's not that people want a warlord. Because in many eyes (including the devs) the warlord is already there. It's that a few people want more than that. They want better than balanced. They want it all. To heck with 5e's principle baselines and system assumptions.

Yes, the battlemaster grants off-turn actions (if they take that maneuver choice). Let me turn it around. Why is that not acceptable? Why is how the BM does it not good enough for you, as a pro-warlord proponent?

I confess I believe I already know the answer. Because I've seen this debate numerous times before. It won't be "acceptable" until you have a pure lazylord. And, frankly, I just don't think that's ever gonna happen.