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

[Hussar]

Problem is, if the itch were truly scratched this conversation would never happen.

Listening to people who hate a concept is the worst way to design anything.

 

[mellored]

I do like the sound of "commander's smite".

Oath of the officer?


Probably closer then the fighter sub-class anyways.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Problem is, if the itch were truly scratched this conversation would never happen.

This is the internets. Where untold numbers of innocuous, superfluous, and wrong-headed conversations abound. Trying to legitimize a demand, based on the existence of a conversation (the demander is directly participating in) on the internet, is certainly one of the most entertaining things I've read in a long time. Thank you for that.

And for posterity sake, are you claiming that 5e can never be complete until every complaint is resolved and every itch scratched? Do the devs need to get cracking on the superheroes sourcebook and then mecha supplement? Or should the giant robots be the priority? Cuz I'm sure there are individuals out there who would like to add those things to their 5e campaigns. Are they wrong for wanting those things? Of course not. More power to 'em. But do the devs need to drop everything any write to those "unique" proclivities? Of course not, as well.

It may be time for you and your small band of warlord fanatics to accept that the odds of getting your kitchen-sink all-things-warlord uber-class may be in the same niche pile as playing 5e with Volton and Wolverine.

Listening to people who hate a concept is the worst way to design anything.

I would argue that the idea of listening to a small contingent of random, anonymous people in the internet, who have no demonstrable sense of game design or system balance, is an even worse way to design new mechanics.

 

[jayoungr]

In a less confrontational tone, I'd say that a thread titled "I'm not sure we need a warlord" doesn't have to be 100% warlord-positive, even if the OP is on record as hoping to be proven wrong. It seems like it should be a place where people who are also not sure that a warlord is not needed should be able to say so.

(FWIW, I'm still undecided on the subject myself. I played a little 4E, with a warlord in the party, and didn't dislike it. I've also GM'd for the Star Wars Saga Edition Noble, who doesn't heal but can do a lot of buffing. But I don't have a strong picture of what a hypothetical 5E warlord should look like or how it would fit into the game.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those sound like subclasses. One subclass to focus on ShortRest based healing/saving throws/potion brewing. Second subclass to focus on ShortRest based combat buffs/military study/equipment buffs. Not overpowered if they scale it right.

Taking the range of basic support contributions the party needs and dividing it among sub-classes would be a sure way of rendering the class strictly inferior. 'Overpowered' isn't even really on the table with a martial class. It's very unlikely that a Warlord design balanced with the other existing support-oriented classes could even attain viability relative to the casters currently looked to for such contributions (among others, since neo-Vancian casters are so profoundly versatile). Even the most 'kitchen sink' of hypothetical approaches to the Warlord pales to insignificance compared to the range, flexibility & power of what casters already bring to the table.

Warlord archetypes - and it certainly needs several, the iconic Tactical & Inspiring, a tougher, lead-from-the-front type (I never cared for Bravura, but I've never heard a better name for it), and something to facilitate the more indirect side-kick-like 'lazy' builds - should be matters of emphasis, as they are for most classes, rather than changing the range of the class's options like they do for the PH fighter.

But I don't mind them re-releasing classes with each story arc. Each class in D&D should have a distinct fluff anyway, otherwse the class system doesn't work. That's why Fighter and Rogue conflict with every other martial class.

Because the fighter & rogue don't have distinct 'fluff?'

Letting the topic drift, though: D&D could be like Monopoly* with different-themed re-releases every now and then?

Kinda like what they did with the Purple Barney Knight.

lol



*famously, D&D sold better than Monopoly at the height of the fad years.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

(I never cared for Bravura, but I've never heard a better name for it)

Which is odd, because that's exactly what the word "bravura" is used for. It's originally Italian, and is still used (albeit rarely) to define a particular tone or style of a section of music, one that requires both great skill and great "spirit" in the performer. However, it is also used, more in British than American English, to refer to "a display of boldness or daring"...which is exactly what Bravura Warlords are about, being bold and daring, taking big risks for big rewards, putting themselves and others in tactically advantageous danger.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which is odd, because that's exactly what the word "bravura" is used for. It's originally Italian, and is still used (albeit rarely) to define a particular tone or style of a section of music, one that requires both great skill and great "spirit" in the performer. However, it is also used, more in British than American English, to refer to "a display of boldness or daring"...which is exactly what Bravura Warlords are about, being bold and daring, taking big risks for big rewards, putting themselves and others in tactically advantageous danger.

Yeah, I know, I just never liked it. You don't hear 'bravura' much at all in American English, but it's close to 'bravado,' which you hear do hear - almost exclusively in the phrase 'false bravado.' So, yeah, don't care for it. Not nearly as bad as 'Marshal,' just wish there were something better, because the courageous, lead-from-the-front hero is such a powerful archetype.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I know, I just never liked it. You don't hear 'bravura' much at all in American English, but it's close to 'bravado,' which you hear do hear - almost exclusively in the phrase 'false bravado.' So, yeah, don't care for it. Not nearly as bad as 'Marshal,' just wish there were something better, because the courageous, lead-from-the-front hero is such a powerful archetype.

Valiant, Gallant, Dauntless, Intrepid, Audacious?

 

[mellored]

Valiant, Gallant, Dauntless, Intrepid, Audacious?

Audacious works.

The rest sound more like immunity to fear effects, not about taking risks.


Temerarious or reckless also works.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Valiant, Gallant, Dauntless, Intrepid, Audacious?

I do like Valiant, but the Bard has already snatched up Valor, which is awfully close. Anyway, not important. As long as the archetype is done well, they can call it Shirley for all the difference it makes.
And, Bravura's already established.