D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[Tequila Sunrise]

You never "need" a class but we have sorcerers who have all there stuff stolen by wizards. Not LG paladins who sound a lot like clerics (though 5e & 4e differentiate them well). Warlocks who are a mish mash of trying to be different design & lots of terrible options.

Yeah, D&D has never needed any clear and present reason for another class. Nobody needs the knight-in-shining-armor-with-god-magic class, or the tribal-warrior-with-anger-management-issues class, or the jack-of-all-trades-I-sing-you-good class, or any of a dozen others. (And some of them are real head-scratchers. I mean, spell-thief, really?!)

So no enterprising game designer, pro or amateur, who wants a warlord class need humor this question.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, D&D has never needed any clear and present reason for another class. Nobody needs the knight-in-shining-armor-with-god-magic class, or the tribal-warrior-with-anger-management-issues class, or the jack-of-all-trades-I-sing-you-good class, or any of a dozen others. (And some of them are real head-scratchers. I mean, spell-thief, really?!)

So no enterprising game designer, pro or amateur, who wants a warlord class need humor this question.

In fact, I don't really think anyone need entertain it. That way madness lies--aka class hyperreductionism or even going totally classless. ("Madness" only in the context of D&D--the presence of discrete classes is probably the only sacred cow that won't get killed by an official version any time in the near future. Even PF won't take the plunge fully, even though the combination of all their new classes and their Archetypes make it effectively classless.)

 

[Eric V]

See, this is what bothers me most about taking this position. it puts me squarely in the camp with those that hate the warlord because it comes from 4e. So many of the arguments are couched in language that drips with hatred of all things 4e. And I really, really don't want to associate with that.

There is the other side of the equation. For those that want a warlord, existing options really aren't scratching the itch because the options have been smeared across half a dozen classes. I suppose that a class that buffs like a cleric, but does so through something like stances, might be a strong enough mechanical niche to fill.

IOW, I'm really reluctant to hold this position and I really want someone to show me where I'm wrong.

I don't know Hussar; I have played HotDQ twice, LMoP, and a revision of Ravenloft and we have ALWAYS needed in combat healing to get people back up (usually Healing Word, for whack-a-mole type stuff).

In that sense, a warlord would be great.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know Hussar; I have played HotDQ twice, LMoP, and a revision of Ravenloft and we have ALWAYS needed in combat healing to get people back up (usually Healing Word, for whack-a-mole type stuff).

In that sense, a warlord would be great.

My experience, limited and low-level though it is, generally dovetails with this. 5e combat, as I've witnessed it, is this weird combination of being super drawn out, and super dangerous, with at least one person knocked to 0 HP every fight (and usually more like two or three) out of a group of five. If we hadn't had a group where nearly everyone could lay down healing (particularly the "just 1 hp to get someone back up" aspect of Lay on Hands), we would've had a TPK long before the time my character actually died and a lucky crit on a player's last death save turned things around.

 

[TwoSix]

My experience, limited and low-level though it is, generally dovetails with this. 5e combat, as I've witnessed it, is this weird combination of being super drawn out, and super dangerous, with at least one person knocked to 0 HP every fight (and usually more like two or three) out of a group of five. If we hadn't had a group where nearly everyone could lay down healing (particularly the "just 1 hp to get someone back up" aspect of Lay on Hands), we would've had a TPK long before the time my character actually died and a lucky crit on a player's last death save turned things around.

I tend to agree with this. Honestly, the only healing spells you need are healing word (get someone back up as a bonus action), heal (the only efficient in-combat healing), and some combination of aura of vitality and prayer of healing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

See, this is what bothers me most about taking this position. it puts me squarely in the camp with those that hate the warlord because it comes from 4e. So many of the arguments are couched in language that drips with hatred of all things 4e. And I really, really don't want to associate with that.

There is the other side of the equation. For those that want a warlord, existing options really aren't scratching the itch because the options have been smeared across half a dozen classes. I suppose that a class that buffs like a cleric, but does so through something like stances, might be a strong enough mechanical niche to fill.

IOW, I'm really reluctant to hold this position and I really want someone to show me where I'm wrong.

Stances that give party buffs, and just putting those scattered elements into a single class, so one character can actually focus on that archetype/playstyle, should about do it. And a subclass that gets a Second, i.e. A humanoid npc companion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Imo, warlord should also give bonuses on saving throws, rather than just healing. That seems like a better representation of inspiration to me

 

[ChrisCarlson]

...don't forget it should also do X. And it has to be able to Y, and it needs to have Z.

This is exactly why I keep pointing out that this so called warlord advocate community won't be happy until we have a kitchen-sink for a class. So many people want to add "one more crucial warlord feature" or else it's a fail. There can be no warlord class that isn't broken. Because you can's stop coming up with more things for a warlord to be able to do.

If the immediate discussion is any evidence (healing and save bonuses), sounds like you can just reskin a paladin and you are good to go. AmIright?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Imo, warlord should also give bonuses on saving throws, rather than just healing. That seems like a better representation of inspiration to me

That would be consistent with the only past version, which could grant some save re-rolls or bonuses to non-AC defenses (closer to what saves represent in 5e).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That would be consistent with the only past version, which could grant some save re-rolls or bonuses to non-AC defenses (closer to what saves represent in 5e).

Well, there is also the marshal from 3.5. It's just as much a warlord version as the old Theif is a version of the rogue.

...don't forget it should also do X. And it has to be able to Y, and it needs to have Z.

This is exactly why I keep pointing out that this so called warlord advocate community won't be happy until we have a kitchen-sink for a class. So many people want to add "one more crucial warlord feature" or else it's a fail. There can be no warlord class that isn't broken. Because you can's stop coming up with more things for a warlord to be able to do.

If the immediate discussion is any evidence (healing and save bonuses), sounds like you can just reskin a paladin and you are good to go. AmIright?

As always on this topic, no, you aren't right.

The reason there are so many suggested things a warlord should do is the same reason that most classes have a long list of things they can do. I.e., it is a versatile, broad concept, with plenty of room for a full class and a handful of subclasses.

But at this point, no one cares what you think about it, because you have shown again and again that you are weirdly invested in crapping on anything to do with the warlord, regardless of the merits of what anyone else is saying.