D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Don Durito]

I don't see how having the Warlord as a class is so terrible a threat that people have to fight to keep it out of the game rather than not use it if it ever appeared in a book? It appears that many want to fight anything obviously from 4e, then there are others who fear any form of advancement in the game and finally those who go full froth when a martial character does anything more than an attack roll for hp damage or a ability check to accomplish a basic task.

What is so wrong about a non magical support character or a martial character that does more than attack? What evil are these people supposedly stopping from ruining the game? I fail to see why so much effort is put into stopping martial characters with agency in and out of combat.

I don’t know. It may be that people feel that’s it’s taking something away from the fighter.
Even if the Fighter is not really using that conceptual space - that’s where it has historically resided.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Ranger: Robin Hood!? LOL How?

Not every person who can live in the woods is a ranger. He isn’t known for his amazing tracking, he isn’t especially good with animals, he isn’t connected to the land in any remotely mystical way, he’s a thief and a bandit with altruistic goals and a level or three of Fighter for Archery Fighting Style and maybe some BM maneuvers for trick shots. Unless, that is, a warlord class comes out that has 3 or more skills, expertise, and fighting styles. With any warlord class out he could be a warlord/rogue of some kind, but I’d always include rogue unless there is a bandit captain/rabble rouser sort of subclass.

Robin Hood is literally the base that all Rangers are based on.

He's a sneaky bastard in the woods that leads a band of merry men, and is an absolute crack shot with a bow, .

more importantly, it is literally referred to as the example in the 2e ranger.

If you cannot emulate robin hood with a ranger, your ranger has failed.

(4e did a great job emulating robin hood)

 

[Aldarc]

Open question here; I've heard some good examples of character people would call warlords (Captain America, Robin Hood, Odysseus), but I'd argue those people could just as easily be called Battlemasters.

I don't see Robin Hood or Odysseus as Battlemasters. In many regards, the Battlemaster also fills the spot of the "Blademaster" who has a skilled technical grasp of arms combat and swordsmanship, which we see in most of the maneuvers. I don't really ever get that sense from Odysseus. He was not defined so much by his ability at arms, but by being wily, shrewd, clever, and deceitful. In some ways, he would almost make for a good rogue, but he was also an armed and armored soldier, which is why is probably the most readily apparent "Warlord" of literature. So I think that Odysseus was meant to embody a champion of Athena who was wise in the ways of war and guile.

What are examples of characters that fit the style of the Lazylord (does little fighting and all inspiring allies)? I'm struggling to find one that fits the typical party size of 3-6 people.

I haven't watched much of it, but Lelouch of Code Geass comes to mind. Arguably Julius Ceasar. Doesn't mean that he never fought, but usually he got his hands dirty fighting when "naughty word hit the fan" and/or the troops required a more "Bravura approach" to inspire them. Zhuge Liang (Romance of the Three Kingdoms): famous scholar-strategist of Chinese history and literature.

They were all definitely skilled warriors in their own rights. Captain America, for one, is one of the most skilled warriors in the Marvel universe, and is only really bested because the rest of his powers are basically just having 18-20 in all his stats (peak human) alongside characters with more ridiculous powers. On his own, without allies to direct, Captain America is still going to kick butt, and that feels like a fighter (He also fits my model of "fighters fight with technique", while other classes fight with instinct or trickery or supernatural power).

Conan is a skilled warrior in his own right, but he is still often regarded as a Barbarian rather than a Fighter. If your character exists as a PC in D&D, then your character will be a capable warrior to some extent or another. If the only requirements for a character to be considered a Fighter is "non-magical" and "good warrior," then the Fighter exists as a pretty weakly-defined catch-all archetype.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Y' said typical party size though. If that's gonna be the sticking point, then we'd kick out half of those suggestions you've just said as well

All of those characters have at one time or another been in groups of 3-6 in a smaller skirmish.

Back to my original question, which still no one has bothered to answer, what famous lazylords exist in fiction?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Gatekeeping.

"I don't like X, so X shouldn't be part of the game."

Pretty much.

As always.

This illustrates one of the biggest reasons why these conversations never go anywhere. You're all saying that if anyone doesn't support what you like, it's because they hate it or don't like it. What utter nonsense. It's just one big strawman.

There might be one or two people who say they hate something, but the vast majority can not want a particular feature in a game for many other reasons. Like bloat, or it runs counter to theme, or it's out of design scope, etc. The reasons are numerous. Do you HATE or not like every aspect of any prior edition that you wouldn't want in your preferred edition? I doubt it. I'm sure there are things you really don't care about either way, but don't want to see it for other reasons

But I get it. It's much easier just to say everyone hates or doesn't like what you like rather than address the actual reasons given.

On a related note, no one is fighting to keep the warlord out of the game. No one's protesting outside of wotc headquarters. People are just expressing opinion. That takes no effort. There isn't some great conspiracy to keep the warlord out of your games. Stop acting like you're all victims.

For the record, as I've stated many times over the years, I don't mind if there is a warlord, and think there is room for it. But these types of responses need to stop. They aren't true, and makes things worse and for everyone in the middle, makes the pro warlord crowd look disingenuous when they get repeated.

 

[generic]

This illustrates one of the biggest reasons why these conversations never go anywhere. You're all saying that if anyone doesn't support what you like, it's because they hate it or don't like it. What utter nonsense. It's just one big strawman.

No, what we're saying is that the explicit opposition to one class over all others, on the same basis, and using the same rubric, seems like inherent bias. There are many who will rage against the Warlord, but insist that the Paladin, Ranger, and Sorcerer are all necessary inclusions on the basis of the same rubric which they use to deny the warlord/psion/etc. Full disclosure: I like having more classes, so I certainly am not arguing for the removal of the aforementioned classes.

There might be one or two people who say they hate something, but the vast majority can not want a particular feature in a game for many other reasons. Like bloat, or it runs counter to theme, or it's out of design scope, etc. The reasons are numerous. Do you HATE or not like every aspect of any prior edition that you wouldn't want in your preferred edition? I doubt it. I'm sure there are things you really don't care about either way, but don't want to see it for other reasons

Yes, but many of these reasons completely collapse when you ask them about their favorite class/mechanic/race. As I stated before, I have argued with people who oppose the warlord and psion, but love paladins and rangers. They think not of bloat, but of what they enjoy, and that's great! More power to them for liking the things that they love, but that's not an argument based in logic.

But I get it. It's much easier just to say everyone hates or doesn't like what you like rather than address the actual reasons given.

I have addressed the actual reasons in thread after thread. In my opinion, they're stupid, gatekeeping, and are utterly illogical. I've re-hashed this argument many, many times, and I'm tired of it.

On a related note, no one is fighting to keep the warlord out of the game. No one's protesting outside of wotc headquarters. People are just expressing opinion. That takes no effort. There isn't some great conspiracy to keep the warlord out of your games. Stop acting like you're all victims.

It's not that I think that there's some great conspiracy, but I find the particular bias against the warlord/psion unusual in that there are those who will endlessly support the sorcerer, ranger, and paladin, but use arguments of 'bloat' against the warlord/psion.

For the record, as I've stated many times over the years, I don't mind if there is a warlord, and think there is room for it. But these types of responses need to stop. They aren't true, and makes things worse and for everyone in the middle, makes the pro warlord crowd look disingenuous when they get repeated.

What makes the anti-warlord crown disingenuous is when the same arguments they use against the warlord are pushed against them, and their response is to ignore it. Explain to me how one additional class is bloat, and how the warlord is a worse form of bloat than the sorcerer, ranger, paladin, etc.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, what we're saying is that the explicit opposition to one class over all others, on the same basis, and using the same rubric, seems like inherent bias. There are many who will rage against the Warlord, but insist that the Paladin, Ranger, and Sorcerer are all necessary inclusions on the basis of the same rubric which they use to deny the warlord/psion/etc. Full disclosure: I like having more classes, so I certainly am not arguing for the removal of the aforementioned classes.

Yes, but many of these reasons completely collapse when you ask them about their favorite class/mechanic/race. As I stated before, I have argued with people who oppose the warlord and psion, but love paladins and rangers. They think not of bloat, but of what they enjoy, and that's great! More power to them for liking the things that they love, but that's not an argument based in logic.

I have addressed the actual reasons in thread after thread. In my opinion, they're stupid, gatekeeping, and are utterly illogical. I've re-hashed this argument many, many times, and I'm tired of it.

It's not that I think that there's some great conspiracy, but I find the particular bias against the warlord/psion unusual in that there are those who will endlessly support the sorcerer, ranger, and paladin, but use arguments of 'bloat' against the warlord/psion.

What makes the anti-warlord crown disingenuous is when the same arguments they use against the warlord are pushed against them, and their response is to ignore it. Explain to me how one additional class is bloat, and how the warlord is a worse form of bloat than the sorcerer, ranger, paladin, etc.

Sorry, but none of this holds up. Why? Because when people like or dislike something, it’s entirely subjective. Maybe someone likes the paladin because they see a literary example they want to emulate, or they just like the feel of it, when the warlord doesn’t. We all prefer some classes to others for many reasons.

What you’re arguing is that someone must like rocky road ice cream because they said they like chocolate and rocky road has chocolate and they are both ice cream. Balderdash. You can’t tell other people what they can or cannot like for a game, and you can’t dismiss everyone who doesn’t like the same things as you as them being haters or disengenous.

Maybe it’s because you can’t conceive that someone would not be a fan of what you’re a fan of, I don’t know. But no one has the right to tell other people that they must like class/race X For any reason, including all those you just listed. It’s subjective. And no one is fighting to keep the warlord out of the game. People are just expressing their opinion on a forum. I get it, it’s much more convenient to think there is no possible way someone could not like what you like and they they must be disengenous. And that it’s a conspiracy to keep it away from you because surely there is no other reason why WoTC hasn’t given you what you want.

But guess what. Neither of those are true.

 

[generic]

Sorry, but none of this holds up. Why? Because when people like or dislike something, it’s entirely subjective. Maybe someone likes the paladin because they see a literary example they want to emulate, or they just like the feel of it, when the warlord doesn’t. We all prefer some classes to others for many reasons.

What you’re arguing is that someone must like rocky road ice cream because they said they like chocolate and rocky road has chocolate and they are both ice cream. Balderdash. You can’t tell other people what they can or cannot like for a game, and you can’t dismiss everyone who doesn’t like the same things as you as them being haters or disengenous.

Maybe it’s because you can’t conceive that someone would not be a fan of what you’re a fan of, I don’t know. But no one has the right to tell other people that they must like class/race X For any reason, including all those you just listed. It’s subjective. And no one is fighting to keep the warlord out of the game. People are just expressing their opinion on a forum. I get it, it’s much more convenient to think there is no possible way someone could not like what you like and they they must be disengenous. And that it’s a conspiracy to keep it away from you because surely there is no other reason why WoTC hasn’t given you what you want.

But guess what. Neither of those are true.

Nope, all wrong. Completely incorrect. This demonstrates my point.

The sole reason people oppose the warlord is because they don't like it. Their arguments against it do not hold up.

I don't care what people like, but their subjective tastes should not prevent others from getting what they want in the game, especially when it's not something egregious. It's another class, not a McDonald's crossover into the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nope, all wrong. Completely incorrect. This demonstrates my point.

The sole reason people oppose the warlord is because they don't like it. Their arguments against it do not hold up.

I don't care what people like, but their subjective tastes should not prevent others from getting what they want in the game, especially when it's not something egregious. It's another class, not a McDonald's crossover into the Forgotten Realms.

You say the sole reason is because they don’t like it. Setting aside how that’s patently false (for reasons I just gave above, like being out of design scope), what you’re failing to acknowledge are that there are numerous reasons why someone may not like it. And they are all subjective, and don’t need to be justified to you or anyone else. We all have likes and dislikes.

Also, NO ONE is preventing you from playing a warlord. They aren’t on the design team, so their opinion on a forum impacts you zero. They have literally no impact on whether or not a warlord is in the official game. And they don’t have power over the DMs Guild to remove all warlords there. No one is preventing anything. Yet another strawman to play the victim.

 

[generic]

You say the sole reason is because they don’t like it. Setting aside how that’s patently false (for reasons I just gave above, like being out of design scope), what you’re failing to acknowledge are that there are numerous reasons why someone may not like it. And they are all subjective, and don’t need to be justified to you or anyone else. We all have likes and dislikes.

Also, NO ONE is preventing you from playing a warlord. They aren’t on the design team, so their opinion on a forum impacts you zero. They have literally no impact on whether or not a warlord is in the official game. And they don’t have power over the DMs Guild to remove all warlords there. No one is preventing anything. Yet another strawman to play the victim.

Sigh, so you're making the same argument as always. But, if I try to make a design scope argument against a class that you like, you won't accept it. You'll never admit that the sole reason you don't want a warlord is because you don't want other people to have fun with a class they like, because it would ruin your D&D.

Let me ask you this: how would the creation of a warlord class, a necessity for AL players who like it, ruin your game? You told me to go play with homebrew materials, so I tell you to take your superiority elsewhere and stop using rulesets and splatbooks that you don't like.

The fact that you don't recognize the inherent lack of logic in your argument saddens me.