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

[Don Durito]

If people want to see a professionally done Warlord they can look at Rob Schwalbe’s version on Drivethrurpg. It may not necessarily satisfy all Warlord fans but it does demonstrate that the conceptual space can be filled without anything breaking.

 

[Don Durito]

And as for satisfying everyone - well the Fighter and the Ranger don’t meet that goal.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[generic]

Again, you posted that link hundred of comments ago, and most people weren't fond of it.

This isn't about satisfying everyone. Nothing does. But every time these threads come up, you get the same old tired arguments.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE WARLORD.

That's why you the arguments get so harsh, and mean, and you see the exact same people take the exact same sides. You don't see that when people discuss the psion, or the artificer, or the spell-less Ranger, do you?

Nope. Didn't think so.

Well, I actually see a similar level of hostility when discussing the Psion, but not the other two.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can you point me to any homebrew Warlords that you think are done particularly well then?

I've not found any.

I'm mostly curious to see how a warlord would play in 5E, and how the subclasses would differ from each other. I never played 4E.

Until there is a warlord in 5e, that curiosity must go unsatisfied. You could try playing a BM with some of the following maneuvers (at 3rd level, mind), in a party with no Cleric, Paladin, Druid, Bard or Artificer.

Commander's Strike
Rally
Distracting Strike
Maneuvering Attack

You might get a sense of how the warlord might play, though you'll also find it's inadequate for getting a party through typical challenges, and you're really only getting a hint.

It would be fairly absurd to have a illusionist in 5e, because the mechanics in 5e have shifted away from the old class/subclass restrictions that we used to see.

It'd be less absurd if 5e had retained opposition schools. As it stands now, the biggest objection to the Illusionist Tradition as a stand-in for the 1e Illusionist sub-class, is that it gets far too many of the 'wrong' spells - it's too powerful & too versatile to be a 'true illusionist.' Ironically, one solution would be to play an Illusionist-Tradition wizard, and willfully refuse to ever learn evocation spells.

4e was a much more tactically complex game in many ways; , there was a good design space for the Warlord to be slotted into.
But 5e isn't 4e, or, for that matter, 3e.

That's a disappointing statement. Do you really realize what you just said. You just claimed that 5e is a complete failure. That it is strictly inferior to 3e & 4e. That, instead of enabling more styles of play, as was among its intended goals, it has cut off whole swaths of potential play styles.

While I'm not saying you're objectively wrong, I'd prefer not to agree with you if I can possibly avoid it.

Rather, in 5e, while 'tactical' play is shunted to a dubious DMG variant or simply left to the DM to judge, the available design space is much greater. The 5e Warlord could be taken on concept-first, rather than limited to just the closely-defined Leader role of 4e, in which obvious abilities were kept tightly constrained to avoid stepping on Controller toes. In 5e, it'd be much more reasonable for a Warlord's gambits to affect enemies as well as allies, for instance.

There's nothing wrong in asking. But I'm going to point out for the Nth time:
1. The people who disagree with you do, in fact, have good-faith reasons for disagreeing.

Sorry, it's hard to find an anti-warlord argument not thoroughly tainted by all the bad-faith reasoning of the edition war.

Furthermore, why should there even be an anti-warlord argument? Why is it important to individual fans to actively exclude other people and other preferences from the game?

If it was that easy to satisfy people who want a Warlord, it would be simple to homebrew a satisfactory version.

No homebrew or 3pp version can ever be entirely satisfactory, precisely because it's not official (heck, even an unsatisfactory official version would be a single place to start).
Again, it'd be a case of 5e failing to meet it's goals.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE WARLORD.

The Psion, Shaman, and until it finally snuck in, the Artificer are common similar topics. There tends to be less profound and determined negativity, though.

you see the exact same people take the exact same sides. You don't see that when people discuss the psion, or the artificer, or the spell-less Ranger, do you?

You absolutely do.

 

[generic]

True, it is an important difference. But the other point I was trying to make (which people still haven't seemed to grasp) is that D&D's class system isn't the right system for representing warlords and evil stepmothers. They are better represented by things like backstory, alignment, and roleplay.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but asking why the warlord or evil stepmother isn't a class is, to me, like asking why "plate mail" isn't a class. It's like saying, "Why isn't there a Fighter alignment? I want to play a Fighter!" Well, you can play a Fighter, it's just that Fighter isn't an alignment. And you can play a Warlord, it's just that Warlord isn't a class.

You might say, "But Warlord was a class at one time!" Yeah, well, so was Elf. It doesn't make it right.

Everyone on the boards comprehends your argument, it's stupid, however. Why? Because, we are not discussing archetypes that are "common in literature", we're discussing the re-introduction of a pre-conceived class that is, in fact, something more akin to a profession.

We can argue all day about whether "ingenue" or "evil stepmother" are 'professions', but the core of your argument boils down to an absurd reduction of all logic that negates the need for every and all class(es).

Why make an argument that bites down to the core of the game's principles, and literally destroys the need for any class, race, background, or character element at all?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What is "a normal D&D game?" And isn't it gatekeeping for you to say that my class idea doesn't belong in "a normal D&D game?" What would the game-designers have to say about that?

Evil stepmothers thwart and actively oppose their stepdaughters. You can argue that I have expressed that trope poorly in D&D mechanics, but you can't deny that the trope exists.

Again, we are making the same argument. If the argument in support of the evil stepmother is absurd, then so is the argument in support of the warlord.

Yeah, no. They aren’t the same.

 

[generic]

If your only objection to the evil stepmother being a class is that she's evil, then let's go with the ingenue instead. The ingenue is an innocent young girl that, as an archetype, is found throughout literature, film, and theater. Literary examples abound.

If you think the warlord should be a class, then why not the ingenue as well?

(Sarcasm)

Why should we have a fighter class? Why not have an MLG Gamer class instead? You know, what is the real reason for having a Cleric, or Fighter, or any class at all?

(End of Sarcasm)

Your argument is absurd.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

You keep going back to the idea that 5e is a failure if it doesn't do everything for everyone that ever played D&D

Yes. Because it's justification leading into the playtest was that 4e somehow 'failed' to support fans of past editions, while 5e would go forth and support all fans.

Or, put another way, perhaps all pro-Warlord arguments are just people continuing the edition war from another angle?

The edition war happened, and the resolution of it was supposed to be inclusion of all sides (because it was never as simple as two sides).

Why is there ever any argument about anything?
People argue all the time about what is, or is not, best for a product they love.

We argue - or on good days discuss - all the time. The question isn't why argue, it's why argue for the exclusion of others?