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

[generic]

That's how I, and many others, feel about the warlord. It doesn't belong in the game. Its inclusion negatively impacts us. It's just one more thing on the "not-fun" scale of D&D, which, if it tips too far, makes us not want to play anymore. So while you're unhappy that the warlord isn't included in the game, remember that a lot of us would be just as unhappy if it were. There's no way to please everybody here. And no one is persecuting anyone else. By arguing for the warlord's inclusion, you are arguing against our happiness just as much as we are arguing against yours.

Understood, but is this not a bit of a self-centered argument? If you're not an AL DM, you're able to alter the game in any way you choose.

 

[generic]

The lack of complaints is not an indication that all parachutes are perfect, in much the same way that a surplus of humor is not an indication of humanity.

I am a human humor with the funny funnies that humans like.

Why dog cross road? To bite Paladin!

Humor.exe exited with code 0...

 

[generic]

Then why aren't you satisfied with a 3PP warlord?

Actually, I am satisfied with a 3PP Warlord. To be completely transparent, I'm not a lover of the Warlord class, but I am a lover of not excluding content from the game because you don't like it.

I would prefer a Psion, or even, another class, but my main concern is that people don't argue against the inclusion of something on a purely selfish basis.

Why are you not satisfied with removing an official element?

 

[generic]

That's not right. I've said that I'm fine with homebrew and 3PP warlords. I have no objection to other people including them in their games. I'm even okay with the Banneret, which is 5E's version of the warlord. What I don't want is an official warlord class. That's all.

So...

Exactly what @Hussar said, word for word?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[generic]

Don't do that to the poor dog; you lay down with Paladins, you gonna get fleas.

"Sir, there are Paladins in the sewers, spreading disease!"

Those 1st-level exterminators know what they have to do.

 

[Hussar]

Inititative buffs for the team could be int that aura... a front and center ability that gets overlooked.
Co-timed team actions impairing enemies. I know they arent in 4e for the Warlord but as said the Warlord has more potential than has actually been explored why restrict it?

Hang on, I'm sorry, maybe I'm not reading this right.

Initiative bonuses were specifically a Tactical Warlord power. And, there were many, many co-timed team action powers - at virtually every level of powers for warlords.

I'm not sure why you would claim that these were not part of the 4e warlord.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

Hang on, I'm sorry, maybe I'm not reading this right.

Initiative bonuses were specifically a Tactical Warlord power.

Sorry didnt separate them out the first was just yes do this

And, there were many, many co-timed team action powers - at virtually every level of powers for warlords.

I was getting specific on this part, yes definitely cotimed team action (common in 4e) -> but the idea and the important part was "impairing enemies. " ... like your fancy maneuvering slows enemy movement rate or sends the enemies into sudden retreat. In effect Warlord Controller powers.

No need to limit Warlords to the roles that 4e locked down

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, but, the reason they left the game was because of the 4E ruleset as a whole, not the fact that the Warlord existed. Or, are there people who loved 4E, but left the game because they couldn't stand the Warlord?

Hmm...

They weren't just talking about the warlord in that post, but the core design structure of 4e in general: daily powers, everyone has magic powers, lots of non magic healing, etc. And said no one cared about those. Which isn't true, as we know looking back at what happened.