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

[ZzarkLinux]

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.

You are worried about 3.5 Bard syndrome? I actually played a 3.5 bard, like, 10 years ago back in college. I had fun with it.

As much as [MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson's[/MENTION] smoking dog avatar still haunts me, he is right that the class can't do everything by default. It needs to be more limited than in 4e so he can fit the 5e class model:
- It's easier to buff classes than to nerf them
- It's easier to increase an ability's numbers than to nerf them
- People will play Warlords based on name and artwork alone (like me with the bard)
Yes, it's not a caster. But healing / ShortRest buffs "feels" strong.
So I'm okay with nerfing the 4e Warlord to fit it into 5th.

D&D could be like Monopoly* with different-themed re-releases every now and then.

I was thinking more like Magic the Gathering, but if Monopoly makes more money then whatever works Literally all MtG does is release the same mechanics with different artwork every few months.

But they really need to release a Ranger and a Warlord with every campaign. The two classes are just big fluff-ball rehashes of other core classes anyway. Where is the "Elemental Ranger"? Where is the "Warlord on the Road"? Where is the "Underdark Ranger"? So much fluff is missing from those books, that could have been done in class format. Maybe DMsGuild will fox this gap.

(The Warlord) has been shunted off to its own ghetto

Yea, I keep playing Eminem's "Sing for the Moment" in my head:
Entertainment is changing, intertwine it with gangstas.
In the land of the warlords, the fanboy's mind is a sanctum.
Magic or mundane, only one side to stay.
Only this one post, lonely, cause I don't got time to play.
Yet everybody just feels like they can relate.
I guess all my words are loaded, they can be great.
Or they can degrade, or even worse they incite hate.
It's like this Warlord hangs on every statement I make.

 

[Bluenose]

You are worried about 3.5 Bard syndrome? I actually played a 3.5 bard, like, 10 years ago back in college. I had fun with it.

As much as [MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson's[/MENTION] smoking dog avatar still haunts me, he is right that the class can't do everything by default. It needs to be more limited than in 4e so he can fit the 5e class model:
- It's easier to buff classes than to nerf them
- It's easier to increase an ability's numbers than to nerf them
- People will play Warlords based on name and artwork alone (like me with the bard)
Yes, it's not a caster. But healing / ShortRest buffs "feels" strong.
So I'm okay with nerfing the 4e Warlord to fit it into 5th.

Yet there's a number of classes that have been substantially strengthened in 5e relative to where they were in 4e. Sure, Bounded Accuracy has been applied but they've still had massively expanded repertoires of abilities, more powerful abilities, and greater flexibility in using them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are worried about 3.5 Bard syndrome? I actually played a 3.5 bard, like, 10 years ago back in college. I had fun with it.

The 3.5 Bard was often underrated. It was a slightly silly concept as presented, and it didn't measure up to other full casters, but if you limited a campaign to Tier 3, not only would the Bard have been a perfectly viable support character, he'd be about the only one.

the class can't do everything by default. It needs to be more limited than in 4e so he can fit the 5e class model

That is the exact opposite of what's true. Look at the existing support classes, by virtue of full access to large spell lists, they can, indeed, do just about anything by default - it's just a matter of picking what they want to do that day. We're not even talking anything the party might need in terms of support contributions, either, since most spells lists include a variety of other functions, as well. That's versatility far in excess of what they had in 4e. Any 5e version would have to greatly exceed the versatility and resources of the 4e Warlord, not to equal the current support casters but to be remotely viable along side them.

Yet there's a number of classes that have been substantially strengthened in 5e relative to where they were in 4e. Sure, Bounded Accuracy has been applied but they've still had massively expanded repertoires of abilities, more powerful abilities, and greater flexibility in using them.

Exactly. The smaller list of spells relative to 3.5 might make 5e casters look a little restrained by comparison, but the sheer flexibility & availability of the neo-Vancian model, combining as it does the greatest strengths of traditional Vancian, 3.5 Spontaneous, and 4e at-will casting, constitutes a high water mark for full casters.

 

[Eric V]

One does have to wonder, @ChrisCarlson, what your end goal in these threads are. Obviously you don't want a warlord, but, this is a forum for those who want to discuss a potential warlord. It's been shunted off to its own ghetto precisely because of people endlessly threadcrapping and cluttering up the main discussion forum.

I asked a fairly specific question and got a pretty specific answer. Is there room for a warlord? Yup, while a 5e warlord would draw from different niches than the 4e warlord, there are certainly enough spaces for a non-magical tactical character.

What's your goal here?

He doesn't have a constructive goal here, Hussar. His presence in warlord-related threads is basically to troll; check his history in such threads.

Best to keep the conversation moving into something more fruitful, IMO.

Mod Note: Making it personal and insulting people isn't fruitful. The next time you feel the need to make a discussion about the person, rather than the content of the post, resist the urge, please and thank you. ~Umbran

 

[Shardstone]

After reading this entire thread, I fail to see how a Warlord can be mechanically unique in 5E. It sounds like a Battlemaster with a new round of manuevers. Make it a subclass and call it a day, stop trying to make it into a full class option. It's a Warlord--it isn't even unique in terms of fantasy from a fighter, at least not by much.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You are worried about 3.5 Bard syndrome? I actually played a 3.5 bard, like, 10 years ago back in college. I had fun with it.

Not to mention that he exposes his lack of 5e knowledge by claiming that 5e martial characters are not capable of being "overpowered". I'd urge him to go to the charop forum and check out all the wicked builds that all seem to include fighter at its core. In 5e, fighter is consistantly one of the biggest damage dealers

As much as [MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson's[/MENTION] smoking dog avatar still haunts me...

Haha. I remember that avatar. For the record, that was a pic of my dog, Juliet. And it wasn't a cigarette in her mouth. It was one of those thin rawhide sticks. But the way she liked to carry them around made it look like she was smoking.

 

[Bluenose]

Not to mention that he exposes his lack of 5e knowledge by claiming that 5e martial characters are not capable of being "overpowered". I'd urge him to go to the charop forum and check out all the wicked builds that all seem to include fighter at its core. In 5e, fighter is consistantly one of the biggest damage dealers.

Just to let you know, an awful lot of people were very upset about 4e because it was, in their opinion, a game purely about combat which neglected much of what was important about an RPG. Suggesting that a class is "overpowered" because it's consistently "one of the biggest damage dealers" might incline some of them to object to your post, because apparently that's not what D&D is mostly about.

I actually also think that's a bad thing. The Barbarian should be the top damage dealer, the class that's about attacking recklessly without regard for the damage they're taking themselves. The Fighter really should be a much more considered combatant.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yet there's a number of classes that have been substantially strengthened in 5e relative to where they were in 4e. Sure, Bounded Accuracy has been applied but they've still had massively expanded repertoires of abilities, more powerful abilities, and greater flexibility in using them.

Don't get me wrong, I like 5e, but huh? More flexibility?

The one thing I genuinely have a problem with in 5e is that it is, in nearly every aspect other than maybe 1 or 2*, noticably and seemingly intentionally less flexible than 4e.


Multiclassing, and the fact that casters can cast the same spell over and over if they want, rather than each ability being single use/ time period.

That's it. Other than those two things, what about 5e's classes is more flexible?

After reading this entire thread, I fail to see how a Warlord can be mechanically unique in 5E. It sounds like a Battlemaster with a new round of manuevers. Make it a subclass and call it a day, stop trying to make it into a full class option. It's a Warlord--it isn't even unique in terms of fantasy from a fighter, at least not by much.

No offense, but...you missed something.

I'm not sure what, exactly, because it's hard to explain something that is obvious to yourself to someone who doesn't see it, but you definitely missed something.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I fail to see how a Warlord can be mechanically unique in 5E. It sounds like a Battlemaster with a new round of manuevers. Make it a subclass and call it a day, stop trying to make it into a full class option.

IMO it can't be implemented as a Fighter+. The fighter has to lose some of it's combat abilities if it wants to get support abilities. Fighters need to lose Action Surge, lose Second Wind, lose strength as a primary stat in order to get the healing, combat support, and intelligence that the warlord needs. Subclasses won't do that.

It's a Warlord--it isn't even unique in terms of fantasy from a fighter, at least not by much.

But this isn't just "fantasy". This is 5e D&D, a fully developed game that already has Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins implemented. By your logic, we'd need to remove Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins because we already have nature Fighters, angry Fighters, and Eldrict Knights. I actually think the Warlord is more distinct than the Barbarian and Paladin. Regardless, the Warlord would fit fine into the rest of the mess.

Go to the charop forum and check out all the wicked builds that all seem to include fighter at its core. In 5e, fighter is consistantly one of the biggest damage dealers.

FWIW, I envision the Warlord having a similar power curve to the Druid. I dont mind becoming weak at level 12+ because most games don't go that long.

For the record, that was a pic of my dog, Juliet. It was one of those thin rawhide sticks.

Ah, thanks. Less haunting now. Pet personalities are weird like that.

Also, man mobile posting is tough. I'll take my turn against Tony's/ Bluenose's "Warlord should be a Big Tent" argument in a bit.

 

[Shardstone]

You misunderstood what I meant by fantaasy completely. As in the, fantasy you are playing. As in, the trope. The trope of a fighter and a warlord--I don't see a major different. I see that with rangers, barbarians, and paladins. Not warlords. I also have no idea why a fighter has to give up their combat abilities for the archetype to have support abilitis.