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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Do you not see a certain form of irony, in saying that before, concepts you wanted needed multiple classes and/or a specific combination of features but now you can do it single-class...but you oppose others who want the same thing for their own concepts?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's funny, but I reread what I said and nowhere did I say that I oppose others who want to multiclass and, in fact, didn't realise that I had to explicitly state it when I was simply talking about how I can now use a class, subclass, and background to represent characters which previously required multiclassing. I even use multiclassing if that's what will fit the concept better.

Okay, perhaps I am misunderstanding here--though there's a bit of misunderstanding on both sides I think.

I was under the impression that you are not in favor of adding a full Warlord class--that you think multiclassing, feats, etc. are sufficient to cover the concept. If that is the case, that's what I was getting at. Being pleased with and appreciative of the fact that many concepts which used to need MC no longer do, while (again, as I had understood) you are opposed to the addition of a class which would do the same thing for concepts held by others. I see a degree of irony in that.

 

[airwalkrr]

/snip Why should I not get what I want simply because you can't say no to your players?

Because you can get what you want in a rules supplement which is far easier for DMs everywhere to allow or deny their players at their preference.

I'm ticked off enough about the presence of drow, tieflings, and warlocks among other things in the PH. Even the 1e PH had pretty tight limits on what was allowed for players, which was all done with the understanding that the PH is for the players and should generally be considered integral to the game except in extraordinary circumstances. I never played in a 1e or 2e game where the DM had to restrict things in the PH. I've heard tell of such games, but they were usually for thematic one-off campaigns not necessarily intended to run long, such as an all dwarf campaign, and often brewed as ideas among players as much as the DM.

3e brought a lot of old players back to the hobby (or at least into the new edition) because of its attempt to reconcile with the "old guard," include Greyhawk, and include the essential elements of what made D&D the game it was. It came with a lot of new ideas, but they didn't really mess with the core concepts of race and class. Up until 4e, it had always been understood that introducing such things ought to be the realm of the DM and supplements to the game. My case is that there's already enough "weird" and "newfangled" stuff in the 5e PH for my liking. I'd like to see a reprint with all the post-1e core races and core classes edited out, including that the bard is an optional class in the "Custom" chapter, but that's probably hoping for too much. That's still the way I think it ought to be though.

You can add to the PH with supplements easily. It's difficult for any DM to take away, and there are plenty of people who have already said "enough" and are drawing a line in the sand with the warlord. We already choked down enough.

 

[Psikerlord#]

My personal view is a warlord class is probably unnecessary in a standard high magic world, but is pretty much essential for a low magic world. I would love to see a Warlord in the Player's Companion PDF to Primeval Thule, for example.

 

[Hussar]

My personal view is a warlord class is probably unnecessary in a standard high magic world, but is pretty much essential for a low magic world. I would love to see a Warlord in the Player's Companion PDF to Primeval Thule, for example.

Very very true. Even the Myrmadon background, while leaning in this direction doesn't go far enough.

I am toying with some house rules for PT that I posted to the house rules forum that might help with that if you're interested.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Very very true. Even the Myrmadon background, while leaning in this direction doesn't go far enough.

I am toying with some house rules for PT that I posted to the house rules forum that might help with that if you're interested.

Ah I will definitely check those out, thanks

 

[Lord Twig]

I know lots of people liked the lazy lord and that's cool. What I'm talking about is like, this round, the warlord goes and shores up the front line (hangs with the fighter, gets some hits in, maybe averts some damage). Next round they back off the front and shore up the artillery, calling out a good shot maybe.

It's not strictly lazy lord. I came up with Vanguard. Something like "allies within 10 ft of you can take advantage of your Fighting Style, and you can also employ the fighting styles of any allies within 10 ft of you." This lets you go up and shield wall, fire off volleys, join a duel, and helps you help others when you team up.

Here's a problem that I have with the Warlord. Let's say that I am that archer artillery character. I am the best archer in the party. A master bowman. As a matter of fact I'm not just the best in the party, I am the best archer for hundreds of miles in any direction. Who does this second rate archer Warlord guy think he is calling out a shot like I would miss such an obvious opportunity? I'm the best at what I do and he should leave me to it!

But wait! He's right, I did miss a shot I could have taken. How did I miss that? And it keeps happening! Every time he is around there is a shot that he points out that I some how missed. What the heck! Why can I get an extra shot in every few seconds when he is here, but no matter how hard I try I can't find them myself?

And then he keeps yelling encouragement at me! "Good job archer! I believe in you! You can do it!" It's like I'm a child! It's bad enough when the Bard does it, but I can't deny the magic behind her words. But this guy seems to think that the "power of positive thinking" will somehow save the day. And it does! What the heck is up with that?

So to drop back out of character. I just find the entire concept of the Warlord annoying. Not only do I not want to play a Warlord, I don't want to play in the same group as a Warlord. Maybe that is a bit selfish, but that's the way I feel.

I do understand the concept of the Warlord, I understand the RP, and I understand that people like the idea of a support character with no magic. What I don't understand is why people want a non-magic support character.

What's wrong with magic? Why do you need to be able to miraculously heal a wound with out a miraculous source? In the same line, why would you need to be able to punch through a steel plate with your bare hand without using Ki? If it's not magic, what are you using? It sure ain't physics.

My hope for posting this is to give some insight into why someone (me) would not like the concept of the Warlord and objects to it even being an option. It may not be a good reason, but it is what it is. In return I would love it if someone could explain why a Warlord can't use magic to generate his support. Why does it have to be non-magical?

Edit: Yep, I'm a refugee from WotC forum. I registered here a long time ago and never posted before. I was just able to recover my account (and username) recently.

 

[Bawylie]

Here's a problem that I have with the Warlord. Let's say that I am that archer artillery character. I am the best archer in the party. A master bowman. As a matter of fact I'm not just the best in the party, I am the best archer for hundreds of miles in any direction. Who does this second rate archer Warlord guy think he is calling out a shot like I would miss such an obvious opportunity? I'm the best at what I do and he should leave me to it!

But wait! He's right, I did miss a shot I could have taken. How did I miss that? And it keeps happening! Every time he is around there is a shot that he points out that I some how missed. What the heck! Why can I get an extra shot in every few seconds when he is here, but no matter how hard I try I can't find them myself?

And then he keeps yelling encouragement at me! "Good job archer! I believe in you! You can do it!" It's like I'm a child! It's bad enough when the Bard does it, but I can't deny the magic behind her words. But this guy seems to think that the "power of positive thinking" will somehow save the day. And it does! What the heck is up with that?

So to drop back out of character. I just find the entire concept of the Warlord annoying. Not only do I not want to play a Warlord, I don't want to play in the same group as a Warlord. Maybe that is a bit selfish, but that's the way I feel.

I do understand the concept of the Warlord, I understand the RP, and I understand that people like the idea of a support character with no magic. What I don't understand is why people want a non-magic support character.

What's wrong with magic? Why do you need to be able to miraculously heal a wound with out a miraculous source? In the same line, why would you need to be able to punch through a steel plate with your bare hand without using Ki? If it's not magic, what are you using? It sure ain't physics.

My hope for posting this is to give some insight into why someone (me) would not like the concept of the Warlord and objects to it even being an option. It may not be a good reason, but it is what it is. In return I would love it if someone could explain why a Warlord can't use magic to generate his support. Why does it have to be non-magical?

Edit: Yep, I'm a refugee from WotC forum. I registered here a long time ago and never posted before. I was just able to recover my account (and username) recently.

We don't have that same complaint over the Battlemaster granting attacks, nor for the bard non-magically enhancing your accuracy with an inspiration die.

As for HP recovery - it isn't healing wounds. So there's no miracle involved. Whereas a cleric undoes damage/injury, a warlord replaces lost HP with some of hit points' more ephemeral qualities.

 

[El Mahdi]

Here's a problem that I have with the Warlord. Let's say that I am that archer artillery character. I am the best archer in the party. A master bowman. As a matter of fact I'm not just the best in the party, I am the best archer for hundreds of miles in any direction. Who does this second rate archer Warlord guy think he is calling out a shot like I would miss such an obvious opportunity? I'm the best at what I do and he should leave me to it!

It happens in the same way that a coach sees things their players don't - even though their players are far better at what they do than the coach is, or probably ever was.

It happens in the same way that snipers, when possible, prefer to use spotters.

Two sets of eyes are better than one. Two brains are better than one.

Nobody performs optimally all the time. If someone could, there'd be no need for a dice roll. We'd just determine the bonus a character gets - a quantification of their optimal performance - and compare it to a target number.

In sports, we'd never need to actually play a game. Just determine what everyone's optimal abilities are and run a simulation.

The D20 roll models the variability of people's focus, effort, and success - as well as external factors. The Warlord's assistance mitigates the effect of those factors by providing a bonus or some other mechanical representation.

Just like real-life...

What I don't understand is why people want a non-magic support character.

I can't answer for "people" - nobody can - but I can answer for me.

I want a class that can eliminate the need for the crutch of magic - the deus ex machina of magic.

Why do we need magic, when people are capable of such extraordinary things on their own?

I want a class that allows one to play in-game, with characters similar to so many non-magic fictional/literary characters.

I want a class that models and utilizes the effects of leadership that I saw everyday - in real life - during my time in the military. (And I mean "Leadership", not "Authority"...)

I want a class that highlights the Magic of the human heart and mind, rather than burying it behind a wish-fulfillment mechanic.

I want my role playing to be more realistic...

 

[Lord Twig]

We don't have that same complaint over the Battlemaster granting attacks, nor for the bard non-magically enhancing your accuracy with an inspiration die.

As for HP recovery - it isn't healing wounds. So there's no miracle involved. Whereas a cleric undoes damage/injury, a warlord replaces lost HP with some of hit points' more ephemeral qualities.

Actually I have the same complaints, but it's not as bad as an entire class devoted to the idea. For the Battlemaster, at least he is hitting the opponent and you can say he is using physical power to create an opening. As for the Bard (which I never liked much anyway) I thought the inspiration die was magical, now I dislike it even more.

And the problem with saying that Warlord healing restores the "more ephemeral qualities" of hit points is two-fold. How exactly does saying, "Come on! Get up! We still have a battle to fight!" restore luck, or endurance or anything else for that matter? And how does it wake someone up or stop the bleeding if they are at 0?

And why can't it just be "magically enhanced" support like the Bard? Why does it have to be non-magical?