5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses the Wild Soul Barbarian and Path of the Astral Self Monk

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
Apart from maybe the Lazylord build, that's how 4e Warlords worked. ;)
Huh. Sam Vimes from Discworld makes a pretty darn good warlord archetype. As does Sharpe from Sharpe's Regiment. Cutter from Cook's Black Company. I'm sure I could find more, but, then again, I don't read that much fantasy. I DO read lots of military fiction though. But, then again, since you're insisting that warlords lead from the rear, it shows that you don't really know much about the warlord class. Why would you think that warlords must lead from the rear? ((Other than, well, thousands of years of military history)) Many of the warlords were front line combatants, similar in vein to a cleric.
Of the assorted demands for warlords (and quite a few of the more passive-aggressive attacks on the developers for not including them yet) that I've seen on this forum, the ability to freely grant extra attacks to allies seem to be one of the most common requirements. Second only to "doesn't make detect magic go 'Ping!' when they use their abilities" I think.
 

Hussar

Legend
That's because it's a really, really, really stupid idea.

Like paying someone to play D&D on your behalf.
I think psionics are a really, really stupid idea too. Does that mean that we should never have a psionic class in the game? Why do your personal tastes get to dictate what is or is not in the game.

I am telling, directly, that at least I would like a warlord class in the game. If it can be done as a subclass, so be it (I kinda wonder if a strongly variant bard might work) but, n any case, why should the fact that you don't like matter?

Why do you feel entitled to tell everyone else how to play the game?

Why does it matter to you whether or not a warlord class in in the game? How does it possibly impact you at all?

See, YOU are the reason that we cannot have what we want. Because WotC KNOWS that if they so much as whisper the idea of bringing in the Warlord, the edition warriors will come out of the woodwork and piss all over everyone. So, it's just not worth it. I just find it baffling to stand in other people's way from getting what they want when it costs me nothing. Sure, I have made it pretty clear that I have no love for Planescape, but, I certainly don't begrudge PS fans getting a book. More power to them.

So, why is it so difficult to just say, "Yup, ok, you folks want this. I'm not going to use it, but, hey, go for it"? Why does your enjoyment of the game only come with the caveat that anyone who doesn't like what you like has to be shouted down?
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
I think psionics are a really, really stupid idea too. Does that mean that we should never have a psionic class in the game? Why do your personal tastes get to dictate what is or is not in the game.
It's not a matter of taste. The idea is OBJECTIVELY bad. Say the game has henchmen. My character could pick up a couple of warlords to use solely as "Action Batteries". Say the 20th level wizard picks up on this idea and employs an army of low level warlords. He can now cast all his spells in the first round of combat.

And then there is the fun issue. How is someone going to have fun with a class that the best thing it can do in combat is give their turn away to someone else (at least beastmasters control their pets)?! As I said, it's like paying someone else to play for you.

I am telling, directly, that at least I would like a warlord class in the game.
I have no issues with there being a class called warlord in the game. What I have issue with is giving them abilities that could only be achieved by magic and handwave "it's not magic, honest".

The truth is, the game already has warlords covered thematically: they are called bannerets and battlemasters; and mechanically: in Law clerics. The only thing missing is the name, and I have no objection to that.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
The truth is, the game already has warlords covered thematically: they are called bannerets and battlemasters; and mechanically: in Law clerics. The only thing missing is the name, and I have no objection to that.
Again: there are aspects of what people want from Warlords that WotC has only given out in the most miserly and restricted ways possible, falling far short of the experience those people had in 4th edition.
 

Hussar

Legend
It's not a matter of taste. The idea is OBJECTIVELY bad. Say the game has henchmen. My character could pick up a couple of warlords to use solely as "Action Batteries". Say the 20th level wizard picks up on this idea and employs an army of low level warlords. He can now cast all his spells in the first round of combat.

And then there is the fun issue. How is someone going to have fun with a class that the best thing it can do in combat is give their turn away to someone else (at least beastmasters control their pets)?! As I said, it's like paying someone else to play for you.



I have no issues with there being a class called warlord in the game. What I have issue with is giving them abilities that could only be achieved by magic and handwave "it's not magic, honest".

The truth is, the game already has warlords covered thematically: they are called bannerets and battlemasters; and mechanically: in Law clerics. The only thing missing is the name, and I have no objection to that.
I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this again. I was just making a bit of a joke about warlords, since I know that it's not going to happen. But, this? This is just wrong.

What's stopping your character from picking up a couple of Battlemasters to use as "action batteries"? Oh, right, you think that warlord action granting must apply to spell casting... something it never, ever did. But, that's okay, since, you've obviously spent some time actually learning what the 4e warlord could actually do before going on about how it's an "objectively" bad idea. :uhoh:

Of course, the thing is, I can RIGHT NOW play a class that lets me give away my turn - the Battlemaster already exists. So, it's not like the mechanic is a problem. In fact, virtually every warlord mechanic already exists in the game... just not under one class. So, it's not the mechanics that are a problem.

And, the final thing is, what warlord abilities were "magic"? Arguably healing I suppose, but, that ship has already sailed in 5e -we have non-magical healing with the fighter and full overnight healing. Other than that, nothing a warlord did was even remotely magical.

So, let me ask this, what 5e class would let me grant movement to the entire party on my turn, and allow them to make a trip attack during that movement? That's one of those "not really" magic powers that apparently warlords had.

Sure, I can get about 70% of the warlord. I just would actually like the class. No, that's not true. I'd actually like it for WotC to actually have the intestinal fortitude to pose the question to the fandom. If the fandom speaks up and says, nope, we don't want it? Then fine and dandy. I'll accept that. But, right now, it's completely swept under the rug and not even acknowledged. And that's a bit annoying to be honest. Being turned invisible because WotC is too scared of the blowback from edition warriors.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
So, let me ask this, what 5e class would let me grant movement to the entire party on my turn, and allow them to make a trip attack during that movement? That's one of those "not really" magic powers that apparently warlords had.
None, because that is not how 5e works. However casting Haste (at higher level) achieves the same effect in terms of the game fiction. It enables your allies to move faster and do more than they normally would. Whether it is on their turn or your turn is purely an artefact of game mechanics, which changes between editions.

So 5e can never have a class that is identical to the 4e warlord for the very simple reason that 5e rules are not identical to 4e rules.

It does, however let you create a character that taps into exactly the same archetype.

But if you want 4e game mechanics you need to play 4e.

Case in point:
Oh, right, you think that warlord action granting must apply to spell casting... something it never, ever did.
I don't know 4e rules, but I do know 5e rules. And under 5e rules, if someone gains an extra action they can use it to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action.

Of course, in 5e rules you can't use an action if it's not your turn. The 5e equivalent is enabling someone to use their reaction to do something. Which battlemasters can do. Or giving them the ability to make an extra attack on their turn. Which the Haste spell does.

So the reason there is no 4e warlord in 5e is it is IMPOSSIBLE for a class in 5e to function identically to a class in 4e. And I suspect the reason there is no class called Warlord in 5e has nothing to do with the people who didn't care for 4e, and everything to do with the 4e fanbois who would kick up a fuss if anything didn't function identically to 4e.
 
Last edited:

Aldarc

Adventurer
Of the assorted demands for warlords (and quite a few of the more passive-aggressive attacks on the developers for not including them yet) that I've seen on this forum, the ability to freely grant extra attacks to allies seem to be one of the most common requirements. Second only to "doesn't make detect magic go 'Ping!' when they use their abilities" I think.
This is a non sequitor to what I wrote that supplies a few passive aggressive barbs on its own about advocates for including the Warlord. The criticism was that Warlords as a class "stand at the back telling others what to do" rather than "lead from the front," which is blatantly untrue. Regarding the rest of what you wrote, these "criticisms" have already been addressed ad nauseum in other Warlord-related threads.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
This is a non sequitor to what I wrote that supplies a few passive aggressive barbs on its own about advocates for including the Warlord. The criticism was that Warlords as a class "stand at the back telling others what to do" rather than "lead from the front," which is blatantly untrue. Regarding the rest of what you wrote, these "criticisms" have already been addressed ad nauseum in other Warlord-related threads.
I'm agreeing with you and Hussar that a warlord leading from the front and by example is the classic warlord.
But I'm pointing out that any class or archetype introduced as a 'Warlord or equivalent' is going to need to be able to replicate the lazylord playstyle before it is deemed acceptable as such by a significant number of those wanting a warlord.

This folds in to the larger discussion how a class, and whether there is a need or fit for it, can depend on either concept or mechanical capabilities or both, depending upon the person.
 

Hexmage-EN

Explorer
Personally I really liked the Warlord because I like tactical combat. My second 5E character was a Battle Master/Hexblade specifically so I could reposition enemies and allies with Repelling Blast, Grasp of Hadar, Manuevering Strike, etc. I'm running a Banneret now with the Martial Adept feat so I can let the Rogue get an extra sneak attack in with Commander's Strike.

Calling this kind of playstyle "objectively bad" is bizarre to me. I enjoy helping to maximize the other players' actions in a way other than healing.
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
Which, if numbers say it is the more popular, only strengthens his proposition. That with all the impediments, there is a strong desire for non-specialist wizards.
I wasn't attempting to argue otherwise.

Bladesinger and Warmage aren't really generalist wizards in the 1st/2nd edition sense though.
 
oh boy oh boy another Warlord thread yaaaay, like we haven't gone over this several nonillion times.

Would it be remiss of me to say that I don't think you want a warlord, you want your warlord?
 

Hussar

Legend
oh boy oh boy another Warlord thread yaaaay, like we haven't gone over this several nonillion times.

Would it be remiss of me to say that I don't think you want a warlord, you want your warlord?
Fair enough. We'll never know will we since there is virtually zero chance of getting any warlord. My warlord, someone else's warlord, any warlord is dead in the water because there is no chance that the edition warriors will let something like that pass without losing their collective minds.

Heck, even in this thread, we have people admitting they don't even know what a 4e warlord IS and they still insist it's an "objectively" bad idea. :(

Nice to know that my enjoyment of the hobby is predicated on keeping the loudest complainers happy.
 
Fair enough. We'll never know will we since there is virtually zero chance of getting any warlord. My warlord, someone else's warlord, any warlord is dead in the water because there is no chance that the edition warriors will let something like that pass without losing their collective minds.

Heck, even in this thread, we have people admitting they don't even know what a 4e warlord IS and they still insist it's an "objectively" bad idea. :(

Nice to know that my enjoyment of the hobby is predicated on keeping the loudest complainers happy.
I mean, I would like to be the only person catered to in D&D development, but I am pretty sure that would anger basically everyone else and probably be a kinda crappy edition.
 

Advertisement

Top