D&D 5E Is the Noble class a good Warlord substitute?

[MoonSong]

I need to ask, do you guys think the Noble class does a good job on helping express character concepts that required the warlord? There is a lot of discussion about whether we want a warlord for 5e, or warlord healing, or whether battlemaster is a good stand in. But not much has been discussed about the Noble class from En5ider, which was meant to at least cover some of the concepts that used to be expressed by the warlord. So wha tdo you think?

The Noble class showed up in En5ider 34 (news here)

 

[Sunseeker]

Is this thread a joke? I mean honestly is this some kind of indirect insult at the people who want a warlord class?

 

[Jester David]

Is this thread a joke? I mean honestly is this some kind of indirect insult at the people who want a warlord class?

Is the attitude necessary?
Someone worked hard on the class. Weeks. Months. Likely a warlord fan who wanted to design a new version.

 

[Duganson]

I'm anxious to see what the Noble looks like but it'll be have to wait until there is some more fun money, but I'm certainly hopeful.

 

[El Mahdi]

I selected "Other" simply because I haven't bought it or read it yet. I didn't want it to inform my ideas on the Warlord we've been working on in the Warlording the Fighter thread, until I'd worked through all of the feedback and initial design there. I wanted to start with a clean slate and build a Warlord up from the bottom, using the feedback to define the core aspects and refine them.

Once I get through that, I fully intend to give it a read.

What you've said about it though, in other threads, sounds good. But I'll have to read it to put that all in context.

 

[El Mahdi]

As to this thread being an insult...

Uhmmm...No. Just No.

You're good, MoonSong.

 

[Mephista]

The problem with making a poll for the Noble class is that its exceedingly biased. Naturally, you're not going to get many people answering that they prefer the Battlemaster. Why? Because those who DO like the Battlemaster for it won't download the Noble class in the first place! Its behind a pay wall. Yes, only a $1, but that's still money to do nothing more than glance at something you have no intent on using. The only ones who are in any position to judge are those who felt the need to buy it in the first place!

Really, its a bit annoying to me; I won't spend the money on something that I have no way of judging the quality of, and I can't judge the quality of it without spending the money.

Its really hard to make any call on the matter without many more details. The first page we can see gives us no information to go by.

 

[Sunseeker]

Is the attitude necessary?
Someone worked hard on the class. Weeks. Months. Likely a warlord fan who wanted to design a new version.

Someone worked hard on all the classes in 5E.

First off: I find this thread somewhat annoying because Moonsong has been pushing this class in almost every post they've made in the Warlord thread; second: as Mephista points out, unless we buy it, we really have no idea what its about at all; third: from the glance we do get at it we get a non-combat class with no weapon or armor proficiency whose initial art looks more like classic French nobility than a battlefield commander.

So aside from being another shameless plug on the subject, the basic concept of a "non combat" leader flies in the face of what the Warlord was. So yes, at this point I find it quite insulting.

 

[Saplatt]

from the glance we do get at it we get a non-combat class with no weapon or armor proficiency whose initial art looks more like classic French nobility than a battlefield commander.
...

The combat aspects are in the subclasses. The Path of the Brave, for example, grants proficiencies in melee martial weapons and up to medium armor, as well as an extra 2 hit points per level. As they advance, they get a combat style from the fighter list and an extra attack.

The Path of the Tactician grants proficiencies in the longbow and a couple of martial weapons, medium armor and some Battlemaster maneuvers.

The third subclass, Path of the Heart, is really the only one designed for noncombatants.

 

[Jester David]

The noble overlaps with most of the lazylord role and can do that well, or beat people up as needed.
It's not my preferred class as it actually heals, spends hit dice for people and other mechanics I personally don't like. And it mostly limits itself to bring a lazylord, which not every warlord was.
But if someone wants a 5e warlord it will do the job.

Someone worked hard on all the classes in 5E.

Which mean every class and every author deserves some respect.

First off: I find this thread somewhat annoying because Moonsong has been pushing this class in almost every post they've made in the Warlord thread;

And? Were you expecting something different in a topic explicitly on the subject? Why even read the thread if you cannot give real or constructive feedback?
And he wants to draw some attention to a class he thinks will fill the desires of people calling for a warlord class. I can respect that; its not like he gets paid extra for more subs or downloads.

second: as Mephista points out, unless we buy it, we really have no idea what its about at all;

And? So is the PHB, but you're expected to buy that before giving feedback on the battlemaster. Do you complain when a preview of a for-pay PDF is on the front page of the site?
Plus, its a buck a month. That is an insignificant amount of money. I'm not going to tell you that you *have* to spend a singles lone dollar, its your money, but don't complain about something priced so low that it's less than a cup of coffee.

third: from the glance we do get at it we get a non-combat class with no weapon or armor proficiency whose initial art looks more like classic French nobility than a battlefield commander.
So aside from being another shameless plug on the subject, the basic concept of a "non combat" leader flies in the face of what the Warlord was. So yes, at this point I find it quite insulting.

So you're literally judging a book by its cover. Gottit.