D&D 5E (2014) Warlord as prestige class?

[Jester David]

Probably because there is a demand for the warlord. Assassin fans are satisfied with the 5e assassin. Many avenger fans are satisfied with the 5e paladin path of vengeance. Illusionist fans are satisfied with the 5e wizard illusionist. The level of interest regarding the beguiler, hexblade, or acrobat does not approach that of the warlord.

Are they? Has anyone bothered to check?
The warlord is getting some attention because of a half-dozen ardent fans and some subtle edition warring going on, as the warlord has become the poster boy for 4e. The absence of the warlord is a way to vent about their dislike of 5e.

Also, the warlord ranked better than about three of the 5e PHB classes in popularity in the D&D Next playtesting polls for favorite class.

You mean the unofficial poll on a staff member's blog?

You may not put much weight in those polls, but it's still relevant data.

No, it really isn't. There's massive sampling bias from where it was posted and who could vote. A post on the front page of ENWorld would be just as relevant.

And it's also clear that a number of warlord fans are not satisfied with either the battle master fighter or valor bard as "warlord surrogates."

And?
There's a clear number of people unsatisfied with lots of things. The moon druid, the beastmaster ranger, the champion fighter, the bard, the berserker barbarian, and many others. Pointing out that geeks are complaining that something they enjoy is not perfect is hardly game changing news.

* Also, the Cavalier probably would make a good sub-class of the "Warlord."

Or the fighter, or the paladin, or the ranger...

Then give it a name that better conveys its archetypal identity. The magic-user became the wizard. The thief became the rogue. Clearly the possibility exists for the warlord to receive another name. Legionary? Centurion? Tactician? Whatever. It could even be as dull of a name as the "fighter" already is.

There have been attempts. I'm a fan of the "commander" personally. While it has military rank connotations like the warlord, it also has the verb of "one who commands". Marshal would also work. Tactician could also work.
But, apparently, even renaming the warlord is not an option and is a deal-breaker...

 

[El Mahdi]

the 4e definition of "leader" explicitly states that it does not give you the ability to lead. leading was purely a roleplaying thing. it was simply that you had powers and abilities to help your allies. like a cleric. in most games, they call that role support.

I disagree. 4E did not "explicitly" state that it doesn't give you the ability to lead, it said you weren't necessarily the group leader; which is a different thing entirely.

Leader (Cleric, Warlord)

Leaders inspire, heal, and aid the other characters in an adventuring group. Leaders have good defenses, but their strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on.

Clerics and warlords (and other leaders) encourage and motivate their adventuring companions, but just because they fill the leader role doesn't mean they're necessarily a group's spokesperson or commander. The party leader - if he group has one - might as easily be a charismatic warlock or an authoritative paladin. Leader (the role) fulfill their function through their mechanics: party leaders are born through roleplaying.

That is actually a pretty good representation of what real-life Leadership is. Leadership is not about telling people what to do. That would be Authority.

It's a common misconception of those that don't understand what Leadership is.

And [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] , that is not a pedantic differentiation. Leadership is one of the most misunderstood concepts.

It was a deliberate decision as to why the Warlord we've been working on in the Warlording the Fighter thread does not tell other characters what to do. The mechanical representation of Leadership is expressed through a group bonus. The Warlord's display of Leadership enables a group to function more synergistically. That's all.

Practicing Leadership does not necessarily require one to be in charge. Exhibiting Leadership is not defined by telling others what to do. One does not need to be the Leader of a Group in order to be a Leader or possess Leadership.

You know that guy at work that just always seems to be "with it"? You know that girl at your job that everybody always goes to for advice when they have a work problem? You know that coworker that always seems to see beyond the noise and usually has the best idea for how to get something done?

Those are Leaders. They aren't telling anybody what to do. They aren't necessarily in charge. But they most definitely display Leadership and function as Leaders.

That is a Warlord. (...and Yes, it absolutely does need a better name!!!)

It would of been less confusing if they did [give the ability to be group leader].

I think it would have been the deathknell of Dungeons & Dragons if they had.

What I think would best alleviate that confusion, would be for those so against an expression of Leadership in the class to first gain an understanding of what Leadership actually is, then look at how it's actually being applied.

 

[El Mahdi]

...so it is a bit irritating to receive such condescension.

It wasn't condescension. Any such interpretation of what I said or how I said it, is yours and yours alone.

If you really think that's what I'm doing, then report it. Otherwise, just ask me if that's what I intended. I'm sure we can have a friendly conversation without needing to throw around accusations and insults.

 

[El Mahdi]

A Warlord PrC seriously impedes, if not destroys, any hope of a Warlord class, particularly for "'fans of the warlord' warlord class." It's simply another way of saying that the warlord class is dead, and I am an advocate for a warlord class.

Why?

You keep making statements like this as if they are self-evident fact.

Can you explain why you think this is so?

 

[Aldarc]

Are they? Has anyone bothered to check?
The warlord is getting some attention because of a half-dozen ardent fans and some subtle edition warring going on, as the warlord has become the poster boy for 4e. The absence of the warlord is a way to vent about their dislike of 5e.

There has been a dearth of threads at least on ENWorld about these other archetypes. For the record, I greatly prefer 5e over 4e, though there were things about 4e that I liked, including the warlord. And I would like to see a good translation of the warlord, and one that incorporated its past as well: i.e. White Raven Discipline, Marshall, etc.

And?
There's a clear number of people unsatisfied with lots of things. The moon druid, the beastmaster ranger, the champion fighter, the bard, the berserker barbarian, and many others. Pointing out that geeks are complaining that something they enjoy is not perfect is hardly game changing news.

*sigh* And there should be a place for the warlord class. I would personally like for there to be a place for such a class. Will people be completely happy with it? Probably not. But it would be nice if there was a legitimate attempt made that did satisfy a larger core of warlord fans in a manner that neither the two "surrogates" do.

Or the fighter, or the paladin, or the ranger...

Probably less so.

There have been attempts. I'm a fan of the "commander" personally. While it has military rank connotations like the warlord, it also has the verb of "one who commands". Marshal would also work. Tactician could also work.
But, apparently, even renaming the warlord is not an option and is a deal-breaker...

I am admittedly conflicted. It would be nice for the warlord name to remain, because, again, purposes of class traction and as a sign of good faith that a name change is not a subtle sign of edition warring or "appeasement." On the other hand, I would prefer something more apt to the archetype.

And [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] , that is not a pedantic differentiation. Leadership is one of the most misunderstood concepts.

If you would like to bring up "real life" then you would certainly find this debate to be pedantic differentiation, as the distinction between 'authority' and 'leadership' was not always crystal clear in the minds of historical writers, nobility, warriors, etc.

Why?

You keep making statements like this as if they are self-evident fact.

Can you explain why you think this is so?

Because there is not enough room in the rules for both to exist. Each potentially makes the other redundant. Quite simply, "There can be only one."

 

[Jester David]

For the record, I greatly prefer 5e over 4e, though there were things about 4e that I liked, including the warlord. And I would like to see a good translation of the warlord, and one that incorporated its past as well: i.e. White Raven Discipline, Marshall, etc.

*sigh* And there should be a place for the warlord class. I would personally like for there to be a place for such a class. Will people be completely happy with it? Probably not. But it would be nice if there was a legitimate attempt made that did satisfy a larger core of warlord fans in a manner that neither the two "surrogates" do.

I am admittedly conflicted. It would be nice for the warlord name to remain, because, again, purposes of class traction and as a sign of good faith that a name change is not a subtle sign of edition warring or "appeasement." On the other hand, I would prefer something more apt to the archetype.

I'd honestly like to see the warlord as well.
I like the idea of another martial class, and something different than the fighter and rogue.
I also like the proposed idea of the warlord as the master of maneuvers, with the battlemaster fighter being to the warlord what the eldritch knight is for the wizard.

I'd prefer a name change away from something associated with war crimes, child soldiers, and African military dictatorships though.
And martial healing really rubs me the wrong way. So I'd prefer that handled by rules modules for the warlord.

 

[MoonSong]

Are they? Has anyone bothered to check?
The warlord is getting some attention because of a half-dozen ardent fans and some subtle edition warring going on, as the warlord has become the poster boy for 4e. The absence of the warlord is a way to vent about their dislike of 5e.

Why so meanie? 4e isn't my favorite edition, but I want a warlord (seriously ask Pemerton, I complained a lot). And I like 5e a lot. And if we are talking about stealth edition war, how about the opposition? a lot of them sound like they hate 4e.

 

[El Mahdi]

If you would like to bring up "real life" then you would certainly find this debate to be pedantic differentiation, as the distinction between 'authority' and 'leadership' was not always crystal clear in the minds of historical writers, nobility, warriors, etc.

That's not even what pedantry means. You're twisting things around and bending them so far out of shape that it's coming across like you're desperate to justify an untenable position. This is a specious argument.

Of course Leadership is a real-life concept. Despite D&D being a fantasy game, the majority of it is predicated upon real-life. Walking, running, resting, exploring, using skills, crafting, handling objects, carrying capacity, and on and on... They're all real-life concepts. The game is the embodiment of the question "What would life be like if Magic and Monsters were real?" Do we ignore the real-life implications or realities of these things? Of course not. The default assumption is that they work like real-life unless otherwise noted, so there's a common base of understanding among participants. Exceptions are tacked on as required, or as needed to fit the form of a game.

Leadership is a real-life thing, therefore the real-life concept of Leadership has bearing.

The fact is, the expression of Leadership I described is not Authoritative. What are your objections to what has been described?

Because there is not enough room in the rules for both to exist. Each potentially makes the other redundant. Quite simply, "There can be only one."

Ahh - I think things are becoming clearer. This is about you wanting a dedicated class and only a dedicated class, isn't it? Is that why you lash out with specious arguments and accusations of concerted conspiracies? Because your argument lacks an objective, logical premise? An argument other than "that's not what I want so it shouldn't be allowed"?

A Prestige Class is also a Class; and the Warlord is not just for you.

Sorry if a Prestige Class isn't the form you prefer, but it's really not your call whether people explore it or not, or whether it gets adopted or not. Not to mention that the arguments you've expressed are more likely to energize people to pursue a Prestige Class, rather than deter them...

 

[El Mahdi]

The warlord is getting some attention because of a half-dozen ardent fans and some subtle edition warring going on, as the warlord has become the poster boy for 4e. The absence of the warlord is a way to vent about their dislike of 5e.

Really?

While going through all of these threads, post by post, collating the scattered feedback and opinions concerning a Warlord, there's one thing that has really stood out to me...there are far more than a half-dozen ardent fans.

I'm not even half-way through all of the threads and posts, and I already have significant feedback from over 200 unique posters about this topic, with the majority of those making multiple posts on the subject.

Also, while this may be a 4E/5E thing for some, it's incredibly misrepresentative to try and paint everybody that wants the Warlord with the same brush.

Case in point, I have been a very vocal proponent for the Warlord, and I am absolutely not a 4E fan. Never was, never will be.

Not to mention that your statement above is in itself some not so subtle edition warring...

 

[Aldarc]

That's not even what pedantry means. You're twisting things around and bending them so far out of shape that it's coming across like you're desperate to justify an untenable position. This is a specious argument.

Of course Leadership is a real-life concept. Despite D&D being a fantasy game, the majority of it is predicated upon real-life. Walking, running, resting, exploring, using skills, crafting, handling objects, carrying capacity, and on and on... They're all real-life concepts. The game is the embodiment of the question "What would life be like if Magic and Monsters were real?" Do we ignore the real-life implications or realities of these things? Of course not. The default assumption is that they work like real-life unless otherwise noted, so there's a common base of understanding among participants. Exceptions are tacked on as required, or as needed to fit the form of a game.

Leadership is a real-life thing, therefore the real-life concept of Leadership has bearing.

The fact is, the expression of Leadership I described is not Authoritative. What are your objections to what has been described?

El Mahdi, have you still not gone back to reading my past posts yet? Well? Because you are still prattling as if you haven't. I am aware that leadership is a real life concept, but I am also aware that historically authority was often equated to leadership. So what is your point other than a truism that leadership exists as concept?

Ahh - I think things are becoming clearer. This is about you wanting a dedicated class and only a dedicated class, isn't it?

Is that why you lash out with specious arguments and accusations of concerted conspiracies? Because your argument lacks an objective, logical premise? An argument other than "that's not what I want so it shouldn't be allowed"?

This is approaching harassment.

A Prestige Class is also a Class; and the Warlord is not just for you.

It's also not just for you, so I don't see your point here.

Sorry if a Prestige Class isn't the form you prefer, but it's really not your call whether people explore it or not, or whether it gets adopted or not. Not to mention that the arguments you've expressed are more likely to energize people to pursue a Prestige Class, rather than deter them...

It is not a matter of exploration, but of implementation. People are welcome, for example, to explore turning the paladin into a prestige class. But when it comes to a final product that I would like to see in official rules, then yes, I am going to advocate that the warlord gets turned into a full class.