D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[Evenglare]

So from what I gather is that people don't want the warlord because non martial HP healing is dumb and shouldn't work like magic. Ok ok of course this is an incredible over simplification and I acknowledge that. This topic isnt really about the warlord, but about why people want or don't want something in the game.

The question is this... I don't get the idea of being opposed to something that many people clearly want. People limit things like races and magic items and things like that. So why can't people just disallow the classes? Think martial healing is terrible and shouldn't be a thing? Don't use it. It's literally that simple. It seems childish to not want something but then force your opinion and views on other groups who have completely different expectations and playstyles. Can someone clue me into this kind of mentality? Is there something I'm just overlooking? Does the game actually force you to play these classes, was it a rule I overlooked or something?

 

[wedgeski]

You are lighting the blue touchpaper connected to the shaped charge at the heart of a nuclear bomb. The argument basically boils down to what Hit Points are intended to be, vs. what people interpret them as being, vs. what people thought they were 30 years ago, vs. what people think they should be, vs. what they are in their actual game.

 

[Evenglare]

You are lighting the blue touchpaper connected to the shaped charge at the heart of a nuclear bomb. The argument basically boils down to what Hit Points are intended to be, vs. what people interpret them as being, vs. what people thought they were 30 years ago, vs. what people think they should be, vs. what they are in their actual game.

lol, I do understand that which is why this topic exists. D&D 5e's marketing seems to be something long the lines of "play it your way here are tools." I get both sides of the HP healing argument, that's not a problem. The problem comes from that disagreement between the types of people. It's just baffling that those against martial healing want to actively prevent other groups to use the class or ... subclass or whatever it is in 5e. So it's ok if it's not your thing, that's cool. What isn't cool is preventing the other half of the fans a class that they really want. I don't get the mentality.

 

[Zardnaar]

Healing is only part of it. The class was heavily tied to 4E mechanics and concepts such as the leader role and the AEDU power structure. Apparently there were also isses with the class in organized play (using other PCs as pawns with powers).

To make an accurate warlord faithful to the 4E version I suppose you would have to reintroduce things that people hated in 4E. 4E was not well received to put it mildly. I don't care if the class exists as such just maybe it should not be in the PHB. The class was also overpowered with the essential classes and magic items that enhanced melee basic attacks and at will powers that could be used as MBA..

The lazylord build also acted as a force magnifier. You get a class that is OK at healing but can drastically boost a parties damage per round. It looks innocent enough but then you realize the warlord is boosting whatever needs it the most.

Its also a reason why people probably find the Ranger underwhelming. In 4E it was the best striker by DPR, in 5E the hunter is decent enough but the beastmaster can't do that.

The class also encourages a large amount of min/maxing. In the right party it is awesome in the wrong party not so much. The 4E Warlord and Ranger were very powerful though in that edition. The equivalent would be 3.5 players demanding the concentration mechanic should go and spells scale for free (damage dealing spells scaling for free did not break 3.5 though the main culprits were other spells).

Relative class power has differed by the editions though and pre 3E what rules were allowed (weapon specialization and kits for fighters in AD&D).

The warlord was only in one edition of D&D, most of the other classes were in several editions and even newer classes like Sorcerer and Warlock have been in 3 editions. Unfortunately for the warlord 4E was very different and to make a decent warlord you would need to bring back things people hated about that edition. The rise of Pathfinder and the OSR resurgence also demonstrated to WoTC that the fanbase was also willing to give them the collective finger and play other games so it is more or less a popularity contest and the warlord did not do so well in polls for popular classes (it was not the least popular class though).

 

[TrippyHippy]

Zardnaar outlines some of the technical problems well, but it isn't just an issue of not liking 4E. Indeed, it's an irritation that people have framed their arguments about Warlords in such a way as to discredit counterarguments as just being about 'edition wars', or trying to stop people having the freedom to play the game the way they want. This misses the point.

For the record, there is nobody going to tell anybody what they can do around their own game table or write, as optional rules, in any unofficial capacity. Whatever floats your boat in terms of playing the game your own way is fine. It becomes a broader issue when people are then petitioning for it to become an official ruling. The 4E aspect is only relevant insofar that the design of the Warlord is largely based upon design features that were prominent in the last edition, that were also highlighted as points of criticism. People don't dislike Warlords because they were in 4E, they disliked 4E because of factors like Warlords and the way they operated.

Warlords are basically set up as 'Warriors who Lead'. This is problematic because it denotes a rank to the Class, while undermining the leadership potential of other Classes in a roleplaying sense. While it is possible to create mechanics that present inspiration and tactical nous, having all this being the sole remit of one Class - while other Classes like Fighters are supposed to then become 'footsoldiers' by comparison - inhibits the enjoyment of other players around the table. Outside of the mechanical niche of being 'Martial Leaders' there isn't really a story-based archetype that they represent that isn't already provided for in the rules as they stand. The name also has issues insofar that 'Warlord' is actually a pejorative term - and doesn't literally mean what the Class denotes it as meaning. The healing aspect is really a minor issue and is much more related to a more general discussion about what HP are supposed to represent.

And it's also worth noting that it isn't just a few cussed individuals that decided not to include a full Warlord Class in the 5E. It was WotC and the 5E design team, after two years of extensive playtesting. They collated feedback and found a lot of people had problems with that Class. The Player's Handbook tried to create a compromise by introducing the BattleMaster as a Fighter subclass, the Bard College of Valour and some Feats. These appeal to some but not others it seems. I wouldn't mind seeing the BattleMaster subclass reviewed and revised though, perhaps.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sweet Lord in Heaven, do we really need another thread guys? Really?

I am an ardent defender (hehe, punny) of the Warlord, and even I am starting to get annoyed by the profusion of threads. If you have something to say, take it to one of the other threads. We really don't need another one. We really, really don't.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sweet Lord in Heaven, do we really need another thread guys? Really?

I am an ardent defender (hehe, punny) of the Warlord, and even I am starting to get annoyed by the profusion of threads. If you have something to say, take it to one of the other threads. We really don't need another one. We really, really don't.

Get used to it, these threads have been going for 3 years on the WotC forums and they are largely fuelled by the same people who migrated here en masse

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Get used to it, these threads have been going for 3 years on the WotC forums and they are largely fuelled by the same people who migrated here en masse

Perhaps the mods should create a quarantine thread. It's a thing I've seen done on other forums I've used. Keep discussion of a topic (as an example, discussions of shipping or specific popular characters in a fandom) confined to a single thread so it doesn't get out of hand.

Though I hesitate to think that the real culprit is the WotC forum thing. The OP, at least in this case, has a join date of 2008 and over 1600 posts.

 

[Zardnaar]

Perhaps the mods should create a quarantine thread. It's a thing I've seen done on other forums I've used. Keep discussion of a topic (as an example, discussions of shipping or specific popular characters in a fandom) confined to a single thread so it doesn't get out of hand.

Though I hesitate to think that the real culprit is the WotC forum thing. The OP, at least in this case, has a join date of 2008 and over 1600 posts.

Its not the OP that is why he doesn't get it The designers decided on no Warlord its not to hard to figure out why. The idea is to bait people into edition warring and report them while trying to be a bit more subtle. Deny, provoke and misdirect are the basic strategies of that group whose name I am not allowed to mention. Creating spam Warlord threads is fine though.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Zardnaar outlines some of the technical problems well, but it isn't just an issue of not liking 4E. Indeed, it's an irritation that people have framed their arguments about Warlords in such a way as to discredit counterarguments as just being about 'edition wars', or trying to stop people having the freedom to play the game the way they want. This misses the point.

For the record, there is nobody going to tell anybody what they can do around their own game table or write, as optional rules, in any unofficial capacity. Whatever floats your boat in terms of playing the game your own way is fine. It becomes a broader issue when people are then petitioning for it to become an official ruling. The 4E aspect is only relevant insofar that the design of the Warlord is largely based upon design features that were prominent in the last edition, that were also highlighted as points of criticism. People don't dislike Warlords because they were in 4E, they disliked 4E because of factors like Warlords and the way they operated.

Warlords are basically set up as 'Warriors who Lead'. This is problematic because it denotes a rank to the Class, while undermining the leadership potential of other Classes in a roleplaying sense. While it is possible to create mechanics that present inspiration and tactical nous, having all this being the sole remit of one Class - while other Classes like Fighters are supposed to then become 'footsoldiers' by comparison - inhibits the enjoyment of other players around the table. Outside of the mechanical niche of being 'Martial Leaders' there isn't really a story-based archetype that they represent that isn't already provided for in the rules as they stand. The name also has issues insofar that 'Warlord' is actually a pejorative term - and doesn't literally mean what the Class denotes it as meaning. The healing aspect is really a minor issue and is much more related to a more general discussion about what HP are supposed to represent.

And it's also worth noting that it isn't just a few cussed individuals that decided not to include a full Warlord Class in the 5E. It was WotC and the 5E design team, after two years of extensive playtesting. They collated feedback and found a lot of people had problems with that Class. The Player's Handbook tried to create a compromise by introducing the BattleMaster as a Fighter subclass, the Bard College of Valour and some Feats. These appeal to some but not others it seems. I wouldn't mind seeing the BattleMaster subclass reviewed and revised though, perhaps.

Spot on.

And yet, opposition is still always going to be mischaracterized as either being about HP-as-meat, or h4atred. I assume because that makes it easier to dismiss those opinions.

The thing I'm curious about is whether this mischaracterization is strategically willful, or merely myopic.