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

[El Mahdi]

In addition to that the main problem, in my eyes, is that the mere existence of a Warlord requires everyone at the table to accept explanations for situations and events that are required for the Warlord to work.

I don't agree. The Warlord is consistent with the conceits expressed in the games rules.

Hit points are not meat, ever.

Ahhh...that explains the above comment. This isn't correct. Hit Points are, as the rules say, a mix of meat, mental, and luck. I haven't noticed any Warlord fans saying otherwise.

Warlords do affect the meat, but only in the manner I described previously. The wound itself still remains, though a portion of the effect of the wound (lost hit points, pain, bleeding, significantly reduced blood pressure/loss of homeostasis, etc.) have been nullified.

If Hit Points represent the progression from healthy to dead, then treating wounds or mitigating their effects - thereby moving one farther away from dead - means a gain of Hit Points.

That's it. Nothing else.

You will be inspired by the Warlord.

No. The Warlord can inspire you. You can ignore it if you want. Same as you can ignore a Clerics healing if you want (just don't add any hit points from healing onto your character sheet).

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that you're not in control of your character...

You will benefit from following the Warlord's orders or advice (or whatever you want to say it is that isn't a command).

Again, there's nothing that says you can't ignore the Warlord.

You will never be performing at your absolute best unless there is a Warlord around to tell you what you are missing.

You're never performing at your absolute best whether the Warlord is around or not. Well, except for rolling a critical/automatic success.

Is there some mechanic or game rule that I'm unaware of? One that guarantees your character maxes out all the time as long as a Warlord is kept out of the game...?

Yes, a lot of these are shared with other classes, but the Warlord takes them all and puts them in one big package.

And that's bad why...?

I'm not the only one that dislikes the Warlord. It is not just me. We are legion. (Okay, I don't know how true that last one is. I just wanted to say it. But there are still a lot of us.)

Yeah. Saying "I Am Legion!" is pretty fun...

 

[Lord Twig]

It's just the only thing you said that had any bearing on the OP you were trying to answer. You acknowledged being 'a bit' selfish in demanding the game exclude the warlord.

As it stands, if there's any class in the game someone doesn't like they can refrain from playing that class and/or, as a DM, ban it from their campaign. Nothing about the Warlord would make it any different in that regard.

And I disagree. The Warlord is different in how it effects those around him.

So there we are.

 

[Lord Twig]

I don't agree. The Warlord is consistent with the conceits expressed in the games rules.



Ahhh...that explains the above comment. This isn't correct. Hit Points are, as the rules say, a mix of meat, mental, and luck. I haven't noticed any Warlord fans saying otherwise.

Warlords do affect the meat, but only in the manner I described previously. The wound itself still remains, though a portion of the effect of the wound (lost hit points, pain, bleeding, significantly reduced blood pressure/loss of homeostasis, etc.) have been nullified.

If Hit Points represent the progression from healthy to dead, then treating wounds or mitigating their effects - thereby moving one farther away from dead - means a gain of Hit Points.

That's it. Nothing else.



No. The Warlord can inspire you. You can ignore it if you want. Same as you can ignore a Clerics healing if you want (just don't add any hit points from healing onto your character sheet).

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that you're not in control of your character...



Again, there's nothing that says you can't ignore the Warlord.



You're never performing at your absolute best whether the Warlord is around or not. Well, except for rolling a critical/automatic success.

Is there some mechanic or game rule that I'm unaware of? One that guarantees your character maxes out all the time as long as a Warlord is kept out of the game...?



And that's bad why...?



Yeah. Saying "I Am Legion!" is pretty fun...

What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just don't like the flavor text, or description if you will. It is absolutely a matter of taste. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Warlord mechanically, I just don't like the fluff.

People dislike the Monk for the same reason. The difference is the Monk doesn't give someone else in the party a Ki strike. He doesn't grant Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows. And he doesn't heal his friends with the power of his serenity (or whatever). If the Warlord went around Inspiring himself to action and granting himself extra attacks, that would be fine. He could leave me out of it.

And sure, I could just refuse all of the bonuses that the Warlord grants, but that would be a sucky thing to do. If there is a Warlord in my party then I have agreed to play with that player and that character and I'm not going let him play it. But I would really rather he didn't.

Again, it is easier to allow an optional class than to ban an official class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What you are saying makes perfect sense. I just don't like the flavor text, or description if you will. It is absolutely a matter of taste. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Warlord mechanically, I just don't like the fluff.

Fluff isn't as neatly segregated nor easily changed as in 4e, but it's still not that hard to re-skin or re-imagine a class in 5e. If you're bothered by something in the way a class is described, you can often just choose to visualize it differently, for your own purposes.

As it stands, if there's any class in the game someone doesn't like they can refrain from playing that class and/or, as a DM, ban it from their campaign. Nothing about the Warlord would make it any different in that regard.

The Warlord is different in how it effects those around him.

A class that didn't have any impact at all on the party would be pretty darn bland. In any case, that still doesn't force anyone to play one nor a DM to allow one.

 

[Miladoon]

Haha I just got an image of my next character when the party cleric tries to heal him.

"Get you paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"

 

[Hussar]

Woah! I'm not sure you read what I wrote. But to answer your questions. A Cleric does not require you to worship her god when she heals you. The Cleric's god exists, it is an in game fact. That god channels power to the Cleric in the form of magic which the cleric uses to heal you. None of that requires my character to accept or do anything. I am not inspired by the Cleric or her god, I don't worship her god, and I don't have an innate ability to heal myself that the Cleric is somehow unlocking. The Cleric is using an external power source to produce an effect. Bless works the exact same way. There is a measurable magical force that is enhancing my abilities. It is real, it exists, and it can be stopped with a Dispel Magic or other counter.

The Bard's Inspiration dice requires my character to be inspired by the Bard's performance. There is no magical inspiration enhancing my character's abilities. Apparently I would always be able to perform at that level, but for some reason I wasn't able to until I was "Inspired" to do so. If my character hates the Arts and was terrified by travelling performers when he was a child it doesn't matter, he's still inspired. It is almost like it is a Mind-effecting compulsion that has no save.

And what really makes me think you didn't actually read my post was that I explicitly called out the Battlemaster as a problem. I explained that the Battlemaster Commander's Strike can be re-fluffed, but that might not sit well with everyone.

So Paladin aura. It's magic. (I'm pretty sure.) It is something he is giving me, like the Cleric's healing or Bless. It is not requiring me to do anything but accept the offered magical bonus. I don't need to be inspired by his performance or follow his orders and I don't have to be of his alignment. Nothing is required of me.

And for the most part I do ignore the Bard's Inspiration and the Fighter's Second Wind or Commander's Strike and all the other minor things that are just glossed over. But to make a character that is all about those type of abilities is something that becomes difficult to just ignore.

I'll leave edition warring out of this. I think all my points stand on their own without any reference to any particular edition. I understand that a lot of people will disagree, or don't see the same problems as I do, but that doesn't make my own view any less valid.

IOW, it's all okay because it's magic. Yeah, moving on.

 

[El Mahdi]

I have already said that I would be fine with Warlord as an optional Unearthed Arcana class. It is easier to allow an optional class than to ban a standard class. I don't doubt there are at least a few people that wish the Monk was in that situation.

While for my purposes I'd be happy with an Unearthed Arcana version, there are some Warlord fans who play Adventurers League that want an official one.

I'd like to see that happen for them.

Thanks for the informative discussion!

You're Welcome. It's been fun and informative for me too. Thanks.

 

[El Mahdi]

So, is there a corollary: "Any sufficiently bland, available, and widely understood magic is indistinguishable from technology?" Because that's a malaise D&D (or any other FRPG) seems to come down with sometimes. The rules so quantify magic that it looses any sense of the fantastic.

Yeah, I think it can. It's a fine line. Once the magic is lost, it's hard to get it back.

 

[Miladoon]

I'd like to see that happen for them.

Spoiled rotten, they are.

 

[Umbran]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]
If all you got from all of my posts is "Because I'm selfish" you missed quite a bit.

And you also seemed to be missing a great part of his point, too. So, you're kind of even.

I'm not the only one that dislikes the Warlord. It is not just me. We are legion. (Okay, I don't know how true that last one is. I just wanted to say it. But there are still a lot of us.)

Yes, and a lot of people don't like anchovies. They are still offered as a pizza topping. It is up to the people placing a particular order to hash out if a particular pizza has them.

You are asking that the rules enshrine for *everyone* what probably ought to be a discussion for an individual table.