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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Eubani]

The argument that there needs to be more tactically heavy rules for a Warlord to be viable is just one more turd on the mountain of BS. There are Warlordesque abilities throughout 5e that if pulled together then cleaned up would work. Granting extra movement and attacks, coordinating initiative or bonuses to hit or damage do not require heavy tactical rules.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Don Durito]

If I didn't know better I might even be convinced that different posters hold their own individual divergent viewpoints.

 

[Don Durito]

The argument that there needs to be more tactically heavy rules for a Warlord to be viable is just one more turd on the mountain of BS. There are Warlordesque abilities throughout 5e that if pulled together then cleaned up would work. Granting extra movement and attacks, coordinating initiative or bonuses to hit or damage do not require heavy tactical rules.

I actually started to post a reply, pointing out examples that could be pulled together for that purpose - but then started experiencing deja vu and I realised I was pretty sure I already did it somewhere in this vast continent of a thread.

Edit: Yep. Post 62 again. This thread needs a FAQ.

 

[Eubani]

So it's not toxic to put forth things that are obviously factually wrong or a misrepresentation time and time again and expect us to take it with a smile. It's alright not to like the Warlord, it is alright to have no interest in the Warlord but would it hurt people to use facts and even a little honesty. You can't throw out an obvious untruth like the Warlord requires a more tactical ruleset that 5e does not have and expect no pushback, claiming victimhood after being dishonest.... now that is toxic.

 

[Hussar]

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 they rules you need to come up with a plan that will work with those rules or play a different game.



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

Umm, actually, adding a class can fix it. If the class allows other PC's to act out of turn, thus breaking the cyclical nature of the initiative rules, then these actions will work.

Which is what a Warlord DOES. That's exactly what a Warlord did in 4e - it allowed exceptions to the cyclical nature of the initiative rules by granting additional actions to allied characters, enabling the group to take actions that would not normally be allowed within the scope of the rules.

Shouldn't that be what a new class does? Adds something to the game that wasn't there before?

Again, and I really have to stress this, have you actually seen this in play? Have you actually taken the time to read what a 4e warlord was capable of within that system? Or are you simply basing these opinions on gut reactions without any actual support?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If I didn't know better I might even be convinced that different posters hold their own individual divergent viewpoints.

They do. The problem is people are calling things a strawman because it wasn't what they where arguing, ignoring the fact that other people - ostensibly on the same "side" - where making that argument.

There are people in this thread making good, strong arguments in favour of the warlord - but they are being undermined by people making bad arguments in favour of the warlord.

IMO the strongest argument for warlord-as-a-class is 5e has insufficent options for people who want to play "muggles".

 

[Don Durito]

Ignore

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*