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

[Sacrosanct]

The Edition warriors said:

Let us not have Fighters with Daily powers - yet they were given Fighters with daily powers and no one cared

Let us not have dissociative abilties that run on metagame mechanics -yet they were given dissociative abilties that run on metagame mechanics and no one cared.

Let us not have all classes with magical abilities - then all classes were given magical abilities and no one cared.

Let us not have non-magical healing - yet they were given non magical healing and no one cared.

Let us not have Barbarians who catch fire and burn everything around them because that is stupid. Yet they were given Barbarians who catch fire and burn everything around them - and no one cared.

They said let us not have Warlord style powers that move other pcs around and let other people attack - yet they were given Warlord style powers that move other pcs around and let other people attack and no one cared.

Ok they said - we have all these things - but let us not also have the Warlord as a class, for truly that would be a fatal step back towards the dark days of the edition that may not be named but may only be whispered about in secret locations outside games stores (near the rubbish bins where the store workers go to have a smoke).

This is simply not true. People did care. They stopped playing the game. And that’s why we have 5e after the shortest edition over the past 45 years. And they still care, which is why the 5e DMG explicitly has options for slower healing, and not all classes have magical powers

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've gleaned some knowledge from previous warlord threads -- enough to understand the basic tenets of the class. And I'm not completely averse to it. In fact, I'd be curious to see how it would play in 5E.

Well, if it ever makes it as far as a UA, you'll be able to playtest it. And, like I said, if you play a 3rd level BM with just the right maneuvers, you might get an inkling of what a 1st-level Warlord might like. But take it with a grain of salt, like playing an AT at 3rd level to understand what the wizard might be like.

And they still care, which is why the 5e DMG explicitly has options for slower healing, and not all classes have magical powers

Slower healing is a matter of making rests take longer, it was seamless to implement in 4e, if anyone'd actually wanted to. And literally all 13 of 5e's classes have magical powers. Heck, even the simplest sub-class, the Champion, has a few limited-use powers, though they're not magical.
Don's point looked simple, like everything in his list is still present in 5e, but somehow no longer an issue.
If he's being optimistic, I suppose, the takeway might be that a warlord wouldn't be anymore of a problem to accept, once it gets the 5e treatment?

 

[Don Durito]

Don's point is that everything in his list is still present in 5e, but somehow no longer an issue.
If he's being optimistic, I suppose, the takeway might be that a warlord wouldn't be anymore of a problem to accept, once it gets the 5e treatment?

Either present, or has snuck back in over time. The Barbarian rages in 4E with their explicit magical effects was something I remember getting a lot of pushback in 3e to 4e edition wars.

Yet when Xanathar's introduce the Storm Herald? Crickets. (And I say this as someone who actually really does not like this particular take on a Barbarian).

Similiary all that outrage over powers a Fighter can only use on a daily timer? Where is that in regard to the Samurai?

It's not even that I think those who complained during 4E were necessarily doing so in bad faith. (And there will be a minority who never really accepted 5E - probably mostly people who went the other way and now play various OSR games). It's just that, the world has moved on, and so has D&D.

I don't think a published Warlord would get any real pushback from the player base. It wouldn't seem incongruous compared to what already exists in the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think a published Warlord would get any real pushback from the player base. It wouldn't seem incongruous compared to what already exists in the game.

OK, you were being optimistic.

 

[Prakriti]

Yet when Xanathar's introduce the Storm Herald? Crickets.

I think you'd find that at least some of those "crickets" are caused by people quitting the game. In which case, their silence isn't exactly a win for the hobby.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you'd find that at least some of those "crickets" are caused by people quitting the game.

What? a nerd rage-quit quietly?

 

[Sacrosanct]

.

I don't think a published Warlord would get any real pushback from the player base. It wouldn't seem incongruous compared to what already exists in the game.

I don’t think the majority of the player base would push back either. I was only stating it’s false to say no one cared when D&D introduced all those things, and 5e made a specific effort to ensure players who don’t like those things had other options because they know people cared.

The big reason holding up the warlord (IMO), is because it’s already there in some form. I get how a lot of people aren’t satisfied with it, but there are ways to emulate it. So priorities lie elsewhere, to focus on archetypes currently missing. we know they are reluctant to put a new class in general, and I imagine less likely for one that can be largely replicated already.

 

[Don Durito]

I think you'd find that at least some of those "crickets" are caused by people quitting the game. In which case, their silence isn't exactly a win for the hobby.

Well the hobby's growing isn't it? It's possible that it may be growing even more without Burny barbarians - but there's no evidence for that - while there does seem to be evidence that the general trend 5e is taking is widely accepted.

And of course Storm Heralds did make it through open playtest through Unearthed Arcana. So you would think that if they were a dealbreaker for many groups WotC would have heard something about it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think you'd find that at least some of those "crickets" are caused by people quitting the game. In which case, their silence isn't exactly a win for the hobby.

Honest query. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? I mean, I know you not only dislike the warlord concept, but don’t want to see it in the game. Your preferences are valid because we all have opinions. I don’t know why people are getting so worked up at your opinion because unless I’m wrong, you have as much influence as to what goes into the game as the rest of us do: not squat. So your opinion affects them exactly zero.

But why do you continue down this path? You’ve made your point, and you’re not gonna change any opinions. And I’m betting they won’t change yours. So why not just move on? Save yourself some heartache. Both given and received. Either there will be a warlord, or there won’t, and neither of us have any control over that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don’t think the majority of the player base would push back either. I was only stating it’s false to say no one cared when D&D introduced all those things, and 5e made a specific effort to ensure players who don’t like those things had other options because they know people cared.

Let's review:

Let us not have Fighters with Daily powers

All fighters get Indomitable, a long-rest recharge power. EK's cast actual spells, with daily slots.

Let us not have dissociative abilties that run on metagame mechanics

Where to start? Second Wind? Lucky? Hit points? BM maneuvers? Inspiration?

Let us not have all classes with magical abilities

Every single class has at least one sub-class that casts spells. The Barbarian, only as Rituals, perhaps the least-magical of the lot.

Let us not have non-magical healing

Overnight healing, HD; all fighters get Second Wind; PDK shouty heals

Let us not have Barbarians who catch fire and burn everything around them

Storm Herald?
Not sure I get that one.

They said let us not have Warlord style powers that move other pcs around and let other people attack

Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Strike

Hussar has also made similar points. 5e is very 4e, in a lotta ways.
Including ways that were supposedly absolutely intolerable according the loudest voices of the edition war.

Apparently, not so bad, when 5e did it.