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

[Bawylie]

Oh, wow. That's an interesting and simple idea.

I think you'd need to give the class multiple fighting styles but they can only pick one at a time.

I love the idea of four sword & board melee types all having Protection style.

I don't think you do need multiple fighting styles on one person, but it's certainly helpful to have more than one in a group.

Anyway, I got the idea from your shield wall idea and tried to make it a little more broadly applicable, or like, not tied down to defense. Then the fighting style thing hit me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

First, "leader" has been around since 1e as the cleric.

Except that terminology (and the explicit emphasis of "role") was introduced a lot later, and is very noticeably absent in 5e.

As somebody who never played 4e I don't find those distinctions useful, and attempts to describe 5e classes within that framework strike me as misguided. 5e is very obviously designed to break down those distinctions. It's fine to have a character concept that plays such a role (e.g. Treantmonk's Wizard) but that's very different from using a role as a premise for a class.

But as somebody who did play way, way, way too much WoW (something like 400 days logged by 2008) the concept and terminology are all too familiar. I hope WotC doesn't start designing classes with a similar framework in mind.

 

[mellored]

Except that terminology (and the explicit emphasis of "role") was introduced a lot later, and is very noticeably absent in 5e.

The "leader" terminology was very much a 4e thing. The idea was not. The emphasis on a "role" has been around since the beginning. As in role playing game.

In fact, it was a popular criticism that 4e was not a "role" playing game. I wouldn't be surprised if you echo'd that sentiment yourself.

As somebody who never played 4e I don't find those distinctions useful, and attempts to describe 5e classes within that framework strike me as misguided. 5e is very obviously designed to break down those distinctions. It's fine to have a character concept that plays such a role (e.g. Treantmonk's Wizard) but that's very different from using a role as a premise for a class.

You can build a damage focused bard in 4e and 5e.
You can build a defense focused bard in 4e and 5e.

But the majority of a bards features in both editions are focused on leader/support. That is their role. It's always been their role. 4e just put a label on it.

 

[mellored]

Something like "allies within 10 ft of you can take advantage of your Fighting Style.

I'm still generally not a fan of aura's for the warlord. It fits, but i would prefer something more active and adaptive. Like cutting words (as a reaction, add/remove 1dx from an attack).

Or At the very least, be able to change the aura as a bonus action.

 

[Orlax]

I'm still generally not a fan of aura's for the warlord. It fits, but i would prefer something more active and adaptive. Like cutting words (as a reaction, add/remove 1dx from an attack).

Or At the very least, be able to change the aura as a bonus action.

Ooh definitely changing the aura. I liken it to a point guard calling a play. Whereas him pointing out where to throw the pick is like the warlord's turn to turn commands.

 

[Bluenose]

My reasons have nothing to do with either of those. My two main points of contention stem from a balance POV and that of agency. I have yet to see a "4e-style" warlord homebrew that wasn't broken. Likewise, they all seem to want to be the boss of the team. I have a problem with both of those big ticket issues.

I'm sure you've always regarded the idea that all classes should be balanced and should have similar amounts of agency as critically important. And that your posting history and future will show it.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm sure you've always regarded the idea that all classes should be balanced and should have similar amounts of agency as critically important. And that your posting history and future will show it.

I welcome you to check*. And I look forward to seeing what you find to the contrary.

[*BTW, this is the same handle (unlike you, this my real name) I've used for years on the WotC site.]

 

[Zardnaar]

Your right. I can't play a 3.5 martial.

We should add that to the game.

None of the classes fucntion exactly like they did in previous editions though and Mearls made it clear the 5E warlord is represented by the BM fighter and Valor Bard. Healing Word is a daily spell instead of encounter and 5E monsters are weaker than 4E monsters so it still works roughly on the same power level.

You can build a warlord type PC in concept in 5E using the PHB, 4E PHB had 5/12 classes missing and shoe horned the remainder into roles. Why couldn't my fighter be a striker type in 4E and have bow powers or powers to support a dex build? Answer because 4E.

 

[mellored]

None of the classes fucntion exactly like they did in previous editions though and Mearls made it clear the 5E warlord is represented by the BM fighter and Valor Bard. Healing Word is a daily spell instead of encounter and 5E monsters are weaker than 4E monsters so it still works roughly on the same power level.

That's good, because the 3.5 Martial was very weak.
The 4e warlord was slightly overpowered.

So... something in the middle.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's good, because the 3.5 Martial was very weak.
The 4e warlord was slightly overpowered.

So... something in the middle.

I thought the 3.5 martials were about right the spellcasters were the outliers. A 3.5 rogue in AD&D would be amazing.

5E fighter is the best one though since 2Es fighter with kit and weapon specialization.