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

[generic]

Freyja Ahlia Aefelsdottr, my new Smugadin character, disagrees. She hasn’t a selfless inclination in her entire psyche!

She’s also a 4 foot tall Norwegian Forest Cat person who fights with twin bearded axes and serves The Lady.

FIFY

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Sure, that's fair: if you find any of the rationalizations for excluding the warlord remotely persuasive, then, on the same grounds, the paladin, ranger, and barbarian are outright indefensible as anything more than fighter archertypes, possibly just backgrounds.

I wouldn't say their indefensible, though they have less merit. I still find that the paladin, ranger and barbarian are much easier to define in an "adventuring party" than the warlord is. Especially as the very word "warlord" isn't well suited for a group of about 5 people.

 

[Tony Vargas]

.I think the classes should all be able to be multiple roles.

That's an interesting ideal, but 5e fails it pretty hard. Fighter, barbarian and rogue, for instance, all single-target DPR. The fighter Tanky DPR, the Rogue sneaky, but that's about it as far as meaningful contributions to the party in combat.

Ideally, each of the base classes would be able to be multiple roles, depending on their subclass choice. 5E doesn't strictly use roles, but they're there still.

There's arguably more of 'em. You can be a multi-target blaster, sitting between controller and striker, for instance. Face is arguably a role, that dominates in the social pillar, for another.

Warlords would be support characters.

The bravura build was a secondary defender, and there were some exploits that could be grouped into a 'Hector' concept, that could have gone full controller, had 4e not been so hung up on grid-filling.
The 5e warlord should definitely be able to reach into control and defender roles, too, and to a much greater extent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wouldn't say their indefensible, though they have less merit.

They've always been a tad marginal. But, 5e has - with the glaring exceptions of the warlord & psionics - been pretty committed to inclusion of past editions fans' interests, so they're justifiable in that sense, WotC just shouldn't have stopped there for so long.

 

[Prakriti]

Sure, that's fair: if you find any of the rationalizations for excluding the warlord remotely persuasive, then, on the same grounds, the paladin, ranger, and barbarian are outright indefensible as anything more than fighter archertypes, possibly just backgrounds.

In 1E, the Paladin and Ranger were sub-classes of the Fighter, and that, IMO, is the correct way to incorporate them into the game. I agree that the Barbarian is not distinct enough from the Fighter to justify its existence. Really, it's just a Fighter with a particular cultural background.

Personally, I think the Basic rules, with its four classes and races, got things right. I find it much more satisfying than the pig's breakfast we got with the PHB (although I still think the PHB is very good overall).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

FIFY

I really hate “FTFY” stuff. Please don’t change the text of my posts when you quote me, unless it’s to snip text not relevant to your reply.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wouldn't say their indefensible, though they have less merit. I still find that the paladin, ranger and barbarian are much easier to define in an "adventuring party" than the warlord is. Especially as the very word "warlord" isn't well suited for a group of about 5 people.

Okay, imagine a word that has no baggage, and apply all the arguments for the Warlord to that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree that the Barbarian is not distinct enough from the Fighter to justify its existence. Really, it's just a Fighter with a particular cultural background.

It absolutely isn’t that.

 

[Prakriti]

I agree that the Barbarian is not distinct enough from the Fighter to justify its existence. Really, it's just a Fighter with a particular cultural background.

It absolutely isn’t that.

Conceptually it is, just as the Samurai is a Fighter of a different cultural background. Mechanically, the Barbarian is distinct, yes -- but conceptually, it's just a different kind of Fighter. It being its own class makes about as much sense as the Champion or the Battle Master being their own class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Conceptually it is, just as the Samurai is a Fighter of a different cultural background. Mechanically, the Barbarian is distinct, yes -- but conceptually, it's just a different kind of Fighter. It being its own class makes about as much sense as the Champion or the Battle Master being their own class.

Nope. If anything it’s a type of spellless ranger, but no, it’s its own thing.