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

[Tony Vargas]

My idea of warlord class is a fighter but with the poses and maneuvers of the school of White Raven from "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Battles".

Might've been a place to start in 3e. In 5e, though, the fighter is already all-in as a DPR class. Look at the PDK, it does virtually nothing warlord-like, trivial hp restoration at 3rd, one attack grant at 10th, each /once/ between rests. That's sad as a faux-warlord, but even as a fighter sub-class it seems lacking.

Here is why I do not like the concept of having a warlord: the fact that it is there means my players will badger me into allowing it no matter how much I want to run a classic style D&D game that doesn't have such things.

So everyone must be forced to play your way by the game, itself, so you won't have to tell your players 'no?'

I want to go back to a classic style Greyhawk game where things are simpler, the player characters are defined by their actions, not catlike ears and special faerie powers, and the "weird" belongs with monsters and villains. I want old school Sword & Sorcery.

I think part of your problem is that you're trying to re-create something you never actually had. D&D didn't ever do a good job modeling S&S, it was too magocentric for that, among other things. D&D characters were defined by the pointy ears (elves) and special powers. And, D&D was never a 'simple' game.

That said, you could still get where you want, and you don't need WotC to ruin the game for everyone who wants something different to do it, either. Just use the tools 5e very explicitly gives you as the DM. Limit your campaign to the traditional classes you want, keep the books off the table and have players describe actions, rule what happens, including calling for a d20 check. It's easy, it's fun, you could probably do it with just the free-pdf Basic game.

But I always end up going along with it because the resistance from players is simply too great once something is in a core rulebook or presented as an option for a core class.

That's sad. Maybe you should find players who are looking for the kind of experience you're trying for?

Is the warlord somehow essential to Sword & Sorcery?

S&S tends towards sole protagonists or hero + sidekicks. D&D doesn't do that well, in part because of how combat flows. It's a fair bit of re-jiggering to get D&D to really simulate S&S. You can get close without re-inventing the game, though, by avoiding full casters in the party - that /does/ require a Warlord, not because of the concept, which is fine, but not required for S&S, but for the vital support contributions it makes. Without a class like the Warlord, you need a full casters PC to take up the slack, and that is contrary to the S&S genre.

 

[jayoungr]

When I proposed that my Pathfinder group (which was before that a D&D 3.5 group) start playing 5e, I also proposed that I would disallow these options. Some of my players were almost riotous at the very idea that I would consider disallowing something from the Player's Handbook.

Off-topic, but you could try phrasing it as restricting it to what's in the free Basic Rules document, assuming you're okay with all those races and classes. That might go over better, especially if you have any thoughts of bringing in new players (they wouldn't have to buy a book to get in).

People coming from Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 are used to having a ton of options for race and class, so I'm not surprised they had trouble wrapping their minds around only having a few choices.

 

[airwalkrr]

Off-topic, but you could try phrasing it as restricting it to what's in the free Basic Rules document, assuming you're okay with all those races and classes. That might go over better, especially if you have any thoughts of bringing in new players (they wouldn't have to buy a book to get in).

People coming from Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 are used to having a ton of options for race and class, so I'm not surprised they had trouble wrapping their minds around only having a few choices.

I actually did propose this, not with any expectation that it would be accepted, but that we could negotiate upwards from there, but the idea was literally laughed off as if I were joking. I would run a game using the Basic Rules if I could find a group who would play it. I've asked, and being an LC for D&D Adventurers League and a long-time member of San Antonio's geek community I know a lot of gamers. But the consensus seems to be that the Basic Rules are NOT an entire game, but rather training wheels for the "real" game.

Back on topic though. I find it better when a "Core" rule book like the PH contains as few high fantasy, epic fantasy, or the bizarre and monstrous details. The warlord has never seemed a necessary archetype to fantasy gaming for me. It, and its predecessors such as the marshal, were born of attempts to do something new and different. That's fine, but I want it reserved for supplements. Should we get an updated PH in the future a la 3.5, I don't want to see the warlord in there. There's enough stuff I have to tolerate that I would rather not have in my game, and saying "you can't use this even though it is in the PH" seems to be a verboten with today's players. I once tried to run a 3rd edition game without level-based feats and static skill modifiers based on level, and that was balked at by players for the same reason. If you put it in the PH, it is hard to extricate it from any D&D game. So release the warlord as a supplement or in unearthed arcana, but don't make it a core option please.

 

[Tony Vargas]

saying "you can't use this even though it is in the PH" seems to be a verboten with today's players. I once tried to run a 3rd edition game without level-based feats and static skill modifiers based on level, and that was balked at by players for the same reason. If you put it in the PH, it is hard to extricate it from any D&D game.

I know it got that way in much of the community in 3.x, with RAW and core-only ruling the day, but I've never seen it to be much of a problem before or since. In classic D&D the DMs word was generally seen as law, and 5e hearkens back to that, going the extra mile to Empower the DM. I'm sorry you're dealing with such difficult players, but I don't think it's reasonable to ask the game to fix you player problems.

Whether you need to be more assertive with them, or just need to cope with there not being players in your area interested in playing the games you want to run, it's not something the game can solve for you.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Do I think the warlord (or its progenitors like the marshal from 3.5) are contrary to my vision of a Sword & Sorcery game? Not necessarily. Is the warlord somehow essential to Sword & Sorcery? No way.

There are a lot of things in the Player's Handbook that I tolerate for the very reason that they are in the Player's Handbook. Players have come to see it as somehow sacred, and it's hard to pull any of that away once it infects the game.

Actually, I'd argue that the 4e warlord is a perfect fit for a S&S game. It's pulled straight from S&S inspirations. There are a ton of S&S archetypes that fit perfectly with a warlord. Glen Cook's Black Company series' Croaker and The Captain both work perfectly as warlords. Various characters in Conan would work as warlords. Is it essential? Nope. Nothing is. But a non-magical inspiration character? Oh, yeah, that's totally S&S.

But, at the end of the day, that's your table problem, not a problem with the books. The books should never be written with your table or my table as the criteria for what makes it in or not. Your inability to sell the idea of limiting PHB options to your group is, unfortunately, your problem, not mine. Why should I not get what I want simply because you can't say no to your players?

 

[Uchawi]

I honestly believe it is due to bias for a given version of D&D and how long the class has existed when you consider the entire history of D&D. Because if you just take a stance of why or when a class can exist, then you can take concepts like the paladin and combine it with the cleric and the barbarian with the fighter, or sorcerer/warlock with the wizard. Which in the end, regardless of the reason, if you do not like a warlord class then ban it. The same applies to feats, spell, races, magic, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I honestly think that the main reason we won't have a warlord is because all the warlord pieces have been dished out to other classes via class or subclass abilities. It seems WotC would prefer that each class, or at least many of them, have some form of inspirational ability instead of focusing it into a single one.

5e's done that prettymuch across the board. You've got the Paladin & Ranger, two whole classes that just mix fighter and Cleric or Druid, sub-classes that mix fighter & rogue with wizard, arcane magic spread of 6 classes and 17 builds, plus Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate feats, you've got backgrounds like Accolyte or Criminal or Outlander that slip a little of one class into any class that takes them. It's really kinda cool if you stop to think about it.

 

[Imaro]

I honestly think that the main reason we won't have a warlord is because all the warlord pieces have been dished out to other classes via class or subclass abilities. It seems WotC would prefer that each class, or at least many of them, have some form of inspirational ability instead of focusing it into a single one.

This is basically my issue with the warlord in a nutshell... in most literature the ability to inspire, whether through intellect, fear, respect, or charisma is a characteristic almost every protagonist, or sidekick possess and exerts... on top of being skilled as a warrior, or rogue or wielding magic, etc. It doesn't feel like a true archetype for me because it never seems to be the defining characteristic of the hero or sidekick...

EDIT: IMO 5e skews more towards the tropes of the fantasy genre by allowing inspirational subclasses for all of the major classes than if there was a class based around inspiration but was substandard as a martial combatant, couldn't wield magic and had no exceptional skills...

 

[Tony Vargas]

It really is pretty cool. Before I had character concepts that required multiple classes to work, now I am often able to use a single class with an appropriate background and subclass. It's one of the things I really like about 5e... Of course, I'm usually GM so I don't often get to play these characters.

Of course, in this context that cool feature does mean that having bits of the Warlord floating around in a feat here or sub-class there doesn't mean there's no call for it, not anymore than there's no need for a Rogue because there's a Criminal background, and characters of all sorts can be on the wrong side of the law.

 

[BryonD]

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?

"many people clearly want" is a fair statement. But it seems really obvious that "many people really oppose" is also just as fair. So keep that in context.
The question of "forcing" people to use something is valid. But only if we ignore the reality of what is being put out.
3E had TONs of crap that I ignored and disallowed. I never thought twice about it.
3E had TONs of great content as well.

Convince WotC to start putting out some wide ranging content and nobody who hates warlords will have the time or energy to care if you get one.
But in the vast void of new classes, if they suddenly focus on something that specifically caters to one group (and a playstyle they are clearly backtracking from overdoing) then that woudl send a pretty negative message to a lot of people.

So, again, the message is NOT "no warlord ever". It is "produce content that everyone can use by either avoiding niche topics for the precious little material coming out or cover a lot of ground really well"

Option 2 doesn't seem to be in the cards. So niche avoiding it is.
Put it to a vote. I will LOVE to ignore your warlord while drinking up all the other options produced. Convince WotC.