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

[Prakriti]

Considering how dirty a fighter Sam Vimes is, I'd probably consider him a rogue.

Guards! Guards! gets my vote for funniest book ever written. But I don't think Sam has a class; he isn't an adventurer. He's just a guard NPC with higher-than-average intelligence and charisma (or is that krisma?).

 

[Mecheon]

They don't "do" anything that can't be expressed through roleplay and maybe a decent charisma score. The one thing they have in common -- being leaders -- is purely circumstantial.

D&D does not allow you to heal HP damage through roleplay and a decent charisma score. Plus, let's just grab this argument and apply to the Barbarian: Barbarian's just a dude who gets angry. You can represent that with roleplay and a background.

And 5E calls the warlord a "Banneret" or "Purple Dragon Knight."

Banneret is a setting-neutral name for the PDK which is an upgrade of a FR specific archetype (That was one of the last PRCs added to Neverwinter Nights for some reason) that touches on some aspects of the Warlord but not all. The Battlemaster is the go-to semi-warlord, given the PDK is also notoriously weak

That's like saying "Oh, yeah, 5E has a psion, its just called the psionic wizard".

 

[Hussar]

Guards! Guards! gets my vote for funniest book ever written. But I don't think Sam has a class; he isn't an adventurer. He's just a guard NPC with higher-than-average intelligence and charisma (or is that krisma?).

The problem with this argument is that it applies to EVERY literary example. You comment that rogues, for example, have a "signature ability". I would assume that means sneak attack. Show me a literary example please of a rogue whose signature ability is stabbing people from behind or by surprise. After all, Bilbo certainly isn't a rogue by that standard. He's just a peasant. No D&D class at all.

See, this is why I say that the argument for archetype is pointless. You can make the identical argument about EVERY single example that gets brought up. Vimes isn't even a fighter? Seriously?

Ah, crap, now I understand the confusion. I said Cutter and I meant Croaker. Sorry, my total bad. It's been a while since I read the books and I got the names mixed up.

But, Croaker, Miles and Vimes all share similar roles - they are commanders, even if they aren't in command. They inspire those around them to do things they normally wouldn't do. Which is exactly what a Warlord should be doing.

It's a pointless argument at the end of the day. D&D classes do not represent literary archetypes. They don't. They are completely self-referential game artifacts that only exist within the bounds of the game itself. Trying to apply them outside of the game will never, ever line up 1:1.

So, yes, this is a totally thin argument. Since none of the other classes have any literary archetypes that line up any better than a warlord does, then, well, you can't really argue against a warlord based on literary archetypes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Show me a literary example please of a rogue whose signature ability is stabbing people from behind or by surprise.

The aforementioned Vimes. His preferred mode of combat is sneak attack. He is also good at uncanny dodge and setting traps.

 

[Eubani]

The aforementioned Vimes. His preferred mode of combat is sneak attack. He is also good at uncanny dodge and setting traps.

Vimes also would often stand back and command his people to do things and advise how to do them. Amongst all the guards he was the man with the plan. These things became more true in later novels. A Rogue/Warlord multiclass I could agree with.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Vimes also would often stand back and command his people to do things and advise how to do them. Amongst all the guards he was the man with the plan. These things became more true in later novels. A Rogue/Warlord multiclass I could agree with.

As pointed out though "coming up with a plan" does not require a class ability. It's the job of the player to make decisions, not the character.

 

[Hussar]

As pointed out though "coming up with a plan" does not require a class ability. It's the job of the player to make decisions, not the character.

Sigh.

Wow, do we really need to go over this again?

Look, "coming up with a plan" does not have any mechanical heft. None. "Ok, you two go first, then we'll follow you" is a plan. That goes 100% all to hell because the initiative rules don't allow you to delay and are entirely random.

What a warlord brings to the table is the mechanical heft to be able to ACT on a plan. "Let's rush in" is a plan that utterly fails because of the initiative rules. But, with a warlord in the party, the plan works because the warlord can grant movement to the entire party (at least a limited number of times).

I really have to ask. Those of you who are criticizing the warlord concept - have you ever actually played in a game where warlords were played? Do you have any actual direct experience with the class in play? Because, judging from the criticisms being brought forward, it is painfully obvious that none of you have actually any direct experience. If you did, you would understand what's being talked about here and all of these questions would go away.

 

[Garthanos]

Sigh.

Wow, do we really need to go over this again?

Look, "coming up with a plan" does not have any mechanical heft. None. "Ok, you two go first, then we'll follow you" is a plan. That goes 100% all to hell because the initiative rules don't allow you to delay and are entirely random.

Those are of course trivials, whereas it can get pretty complex.
When I make this whistle or shout "scramble" everybody adjacent an enemy either shift around them or disengage (or I may have prompted your enemy to try) I will have distracted them or picked a moment when you can do this without problems if you are adjacent to an enemy afterwards that will be very ahem useful.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sigh.

Wow, do we really need to go over this again?

I'm in favour of a Warlord class, but yes, so long as warlord fans keep making this BOGUS argument - any character who does any tactical thinking MUST be a Warlord, we need to go over it again. The implication is, any character who is NOT a warlord is incapable of using their brain in a combat situation. Vimes may do some planning before a fight, but during a battle he does not help his men to move faster, or hit harder, or stay on their feet longer (If anyone does that sort of thing it's Captain Carrot) Vimes gets in there and kicks the villains in the fork.

Using a bogus argument weakens the case you are trying to make. If you want to convince doubters you need to drop the idea that "the warlord is the character who makes the plans". This is not only false (because players make the plans), it is potentially harmful at the table: "my character is a warlord, so your character has to do what I tell them to".

"The warlord is a team support character who does not use magic" is a perfectly good and valid argument.

Look, "coming up with a plan" does not have any mechanical heft. None.

Correct. And this is how it should be. "Coming up with a plan" is simply playing the game.

"Ok, you two go first, then we'll follow you" is a plan. That goes 100% all to hell because the initiative rules don't allow you to delay and are entirely random.

Indeed, and this is a quirk of 5e rules that WotC are never going to change. Giving a character or the whole party a flat bonus to initiative rolls at the start of a fight is the best that can be achieved with this ruleset.

But, with a warlord in the party, the plan works because the warlord can grant movement to the entire party (at least a limited number of times).

It still wouldn't work because of 5e's initiative and reaction rules. If you want a 5e Warlord is has to be one that works with 5e rules, not 4e rules. It would have to be different, just as all the other classes have to be different in different editions.

I really have to ask. Those of you who are criticizing the warlord concept - have you ever actually played in a game where warlords were played? Do you have any actual direct experience with the class in play?

No, but I have played in plenty of games where a particular player has taken the lead in tactical decision making when their character was NOT a warlord.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Correct. And this is how it should be. "Coming up with a plan" is simply playing the game.

Indeed, and this is a quirk of 5e rules that WotC are never going to change. Giving a character or the whole party a flat bonus to initiative rolls at the start of a fight is the best that can be achieved with this ruleset.

Nope. Battlemasters can cause multiple allies to move on the BM's turn. Maneuvering Attack may be done multiple times in a turn (no action required), meaning that even a 3rd level BM can cause 4 allies to move (spending a second wind to do so). So, nope, you're flat out wrong here.

It still wouldn't work because of 5e's initiative and reaction rules. If you want a 5e Warlord is has to be one that works with 5e rules, not 4e rules. It would have to be different, just as all the other classes have to be different in different editions.

Again, sorry, nope. All of the objectionable maneuvers already exist in the game - either as BM maneuvers or as abilities in other classes.

No, but I have played in plenty of games where a particular player has taken the lead in tactical decision making when their character was NOT a warlord.

Yup. So, answer me this. How much weight should we give your criticisms? Seriously. You have zero experience with the system, zero knowledge of how it actually plays in the game, and no experience with testing the mechanics. Why should we listen to you?

I mean, sure, I've argued against psionics having their own class. But, at least I've PLAYED multiple games of D&D with psionic rules. I have actual play experience to back up my opinions. What do you have?