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

[Garthanos]

Someone telling me that warlords shouldn't be part of the game because they don't like having to tell their players they can't play the class they don't like is not comparable to me saying I'd like warlords to be in the game, and that they can just not use them if they don't like them.

Lastly, saying that someone is being jerk for being a jerk isn't demonizing them.

I think adjectives of selfish and spiteful could be better descriptions

 

[Garthanos]

Start Sarcasm
1 Hey you were do you see wizards and their abilities in fiction...
2 Good faith examples preferred there is Gandalf and Merlin
1 Nyeh bad examples just play an EK. After all Gandalf used a sword for basically every real attack and an EK can cast more spells than Merlin is mentioned doing in his entire storyline. You don't need a specialist just because somebody is described as casting a spell here or there.
1b You are just picking out characters who can shout passwords ineffectually at a wall and do cantrips for children or once in a while do rituals to teach a boy and calling that a Wizard. You dont have to have levels in Wizards to do that convince the DM to let you use Arcana/Int Checks to do those passwords and abstract the teaching out completely as intelligence/charisma checks, or maybe pshah grab a ritualist feat and call it a done deal.

2 But wait I want to play a wizard that feels like one most of the time not just once in a while and has to hope the dm lets his intelligence or charisma do something useful

1 The DM is on your side he is your friend i am sure he will let you teach and entertain children well its what your examples did the most. You probably do not even need the EK for most of your examples ... be sure and describe the beard and pointy hat right its the important part. ( not being able to reliably affect the battlefield in some real way mechanically with a wizards style )

1 Besides I think you secretly want to be overpowered and control who is king and control the whole destinies of kingdoms we cannot let you do that it might step on the autonomy of the other players who could get to decide that. Mary Sue wanna be's sheesh.

1 there obviously shouldn't be a Wizard class. just put points in the right stats. It would take away from those putting points in the stats AND doing it with roleplay.

End Sarcasm.

 

[Hussar]

Absolutely, that is my view of the warlord.

Unfortunately, it's not a strawman - some supporters of the warlord are quite clearly making the argument that a warlord is required to do the tactical planning. (and any fictional character who does any planning must therefore have levels of warlord).

It should be a strawman.

Umm, nope?

No one has made that argument, thus the strawman comment. The point that WAS made is that a warlord brings actual mechanical benefits to tactical planning which is a totally different kettle of fish. Again, simply doing a mass charge in 5e is virtually impossible. One of the most basic tactics out there - GET 'IM - is actually impossible to implement in 5e with any existing character class because of the initiative rules.

Thus, if we add a warlord class, things like shield walls, mass charges, acting as a team, rather than as a group of individuals, become possible.

 

[Hussar]

Well, uh, this thread sure did explode since last night, huh?


KibbleTasty's tends to be the go-to one. Its been revised a ton of times, and Kibble's various classes and updates are fairly well respected. It also has an Int option so gets bonus points for actually having something that isn't just locked to being a charisma-based class
Schwaib's had a really poor opening when it was first dropped and was significantly unbalanced. Its been revised since but I haven't kept up with the updates so I'm not 100% on the community's feel on it, but that opening did sour a lot of people towards it, but given it has been done by a writer for the game its probably a touch more official-adjacent

There's warlord options out there for absolute days which is the reason a lot of people want an official one, so you can point at that rather than have to sift people through the choices out there.

That kibbletasty's warlord is pretty full on. It's certianly got lots of meat on the bones. Have to reread that a few times to digest everything, but, on first glance, yeah, that's pretty much what we're talking about.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Again, simply doing a mass charge in 5e is virtually impossible. One of the most basic tactics out there - GET 'IM - is actually impossible to implement in 5e with any existing character class because of the initiative rules.

And again this a fault/feature of the rules system. Adding a class will not magically fix it.

The tactical planning - which the players do, not the characters - takes the rules system into account. If something won't work because of the rules you need to come up with a plan that will work with those rules - or play a different game.

The point that WAS made is that a warlord brings actual mechanical benefits to tactical planning

Tactical planning -i.e. playing well - brings it's own benefit. The warlord brings mechanical benefits for pretend tactical planning.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, it's not really about the Warlord. It's about edition warring.

That seems to be the case. Many of the people arguing for the warlord seem to think it will make the tactics-lite 5e play like the tactics-heavy 4e.

 

[Eubani]

The warlord brings mechanical benefits for pretend tactical planning.

Does that mean a spell can only be cast in game if the player can cast it irl?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Does that mean a spell can only be cast in game if the player can cast it irl?

No, my point is exactly the opposite. What happens in real life is unrelated to what characters can do.

The player does not cast spells, but the player does plan the tactics, e.g. deciding which spell their character will cast.

 

[Eubani]

No, my point is exactly the opposite. What happens in real life is unrelated to what characters can do.

The player does not cast spells, but the player does plan the tactics, e.g. deciding which spell their character will cast.

Sorry couldn't help myself, should of put a emoji or something.