Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[ChrisCarlson]

I think I finally grok what I see as the underlying trend with those who still demand a warlord in 5e. Perception. Or maybe its just unreasonable expectations?

Because I see warlords everywhere. Battlemasters. Masterminds. Purple Dragon Knights. Heck, the Soldier background. Even EN5ider's Noble. Just to name the biggest elephants in the room. Not to mention the variations of a warlord class popping up across DM's Guild as we speak.

Maybe that's why the number of people in these threads are such a tiny minority (and steadily shrinking). And not just a minority of D&D players as a whole, but even of strictly forum goers. As I see it, that the bulk of players who liked 4e warlords (and the 3.5 marshal), can already see the multitudes of options, and are happily playing the various 5e equivalents available to them. And thus they have no need to come here looking for something that's never going to be (a kitchen-sink of options, or plain direct port-over of 4e warlord). Because perception. They see it. They get it. And they are doing their thing.

<shrug> That's my take-away, anyhow. Before replying, I strongly recommend rereading paragraph #2 above. If you don't see warlords in 5e, its simply a lack of vision, AFAIC.

 

[mellored]

Battlemaster, mastermind, and PDK are sub-classes.
That's like saying that eldrich knight and arcane trickster and acolyte are enough to be a wizard. Sure they can cast spells, but they still need to spend much of their time hitting things.


Noble sounds like it's a decent contender though. Didn't look at it.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Battlemaster, mastermind, and PDK are sub-classes.
That's like saying that eldrich knight and arcane trickster and acolyte are enough to be a wizard. Sure they can cast spells, but they still need to spend much of their time hitting things.

No that's not what it's saying. That's more perception issues. What it actually says is that warlord's design space qualifies it for subclass duty. And based on the kind of warlord you want to be, there are different subclasses to accommodate.

Otherwise, lets turn it around. It feels to me like you are really saying that every subclass should be a whole, independent class. That no subclass should be relegated to such an indignity. And that's absurd.

Noble sounds like it's a decent contender though. Didn't look at it.

I haven't gotten around to it either. But I hear good things. Less posters around here after it showed up. Coincidence? More evidence of this thread's premise? You be the judge...

 

[mellored]

Otherwise, lets turn it around. It feels to me like you are really saying that every subclass should be a whole, independent class. That no subclass should be relegated to such an indignity. And that's absurd.

Which sub-class doesn't have a full class?

EK has a full class wizard.
Assassin has a full class rogue.
Beserker has a full class barbarian.
ect...

Battlemaster, PDK, and Mastermind don't have a full class to compare to.


I could see a case for elemental monks as well. Some kind of elemental bender class.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Which sub-class doesn't have a full class?

EK has a full class wizard.
Assassin has a full class rogue.
Beserker has a full class barbarian.
ect...

Heh. That's some contorting there. So two of your three example subclasses have comparable full classes of themselves? Do you see how untenable such an argument is? It's like a caricature of a complaint.

And I disagree about the one example that isn't invalidated by itself. The EK is not a wizard. It's not even trying to be a wizard. It is a gish. It's its own thing. You can't play an EK by being a wizard. You can't be a wizard by playing an EK. Your argument is hollow.

Battlemaster, PDK, and Mastermind don't have a full class to compare to.

But why would you even want to be able to compare them to a full class? That defeats the purpose of those subclasses. Again, perception. Confirmation bias. You see things that aren't there (full classes to compare subclasses against - even within the very same class) and fail to see what is there (subclasses that provide warlord features).

Because, otherwise, using your own examples above as a basis:
Battlemaster has a full class fighter
PDK has a full class fighter
Mastermind has a full class rogue.

See? All comparable to full classes as well...

 

[mellored]

Clearly you don't understand my argument.

The EK is not a wizard. It is a gish.

And in the same way, the battlemaster is not a warlord.
It's a hybrid.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Clearly you don't understand my argument.

Considering you are comparing classes to themselves, you may wish to consider that you do not understand your own argument.

And in the same way, the battlemaster is not a warlord.

Are you sure? Because by that unduly strict standard, if I go look at the 4e ranger I'm going to see there isn't a 5e version either. Nor is there a 4e barbarian in 5e. Nor a paladin. Nor an assassin. Nor a bard. Nor wizard. And so on. And so forth.

It's a hybrid.

What does that even mean? That's a meaningless category/definition. Hybrid of what? Dozens of classes/subclasses could be shoehorned into being seen as "hybrids" of something else. Quit trying to make it into some kind of derogatory term.

 

[mellored]

Considering you are comparing classes to themselves, you may wish to consider that you do not understand your own argument.

I understand it just fine.
But i don't know how to communicate it to you.

Are you sure? Because by that unduly strict standard, if I go look at the 4e ranger I'm going to see there isn't a 5e version either. Nor is there a 4e barbarian in 5e. Nor a paladin. Nor an assassin. Nor a bard. Nor wizard. And so on. And so forth.

Still not what i was saying.

What does that even mean? That's a meaningless category/definition. Hybrid of what? Dozens of classes/subclasses could be shoehorned into being seen as "hybrids" of something else. Quit trying to make it into some kind of derogatory term.

Hybrid - a thing made by combining two different elements; a mixture.

It's not derogatory. At least not by me.


But as you say... an eldrich knight is not a wizard.
And in the same way, a battlemaster is not a warlord.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I understand it just fine.
But i don't know how to communicate it to you.

Still not what i was saying.

Let me know when you figure it out.

Hybrid - a thing made by combining two different elements; a mixture.

It's not derogatory. At least not by me.

I disagree, based on the way in which you keep couching your argument: that warlords aren't warlords "cuz hybrid". I reiterate, I see warlords all over 5e. I listed a handful of obvious ones. And that didn't even include the most important way to represent one: roleplay yourself as a "leader of men". Take up that role. Play it. Maybe I (and the people I play with) are different, but that tends to work great. Try it. You may be pleasantly surprised. Heck, stack that mindset with one or more of the various crunchy options we all know already exist and <whammo!> you got yourself a warlord.

But as you say... an eldrich knight is not a wizard.
And in the same way, a battlemaster is not a warlord.

An orange is not an apple. See, I can make obvious statements that mean nothing as well.

Also, your supposition, that a battlemaster is not a warlord, is false. As the devs have specifically commented on the fact that they put the warlord in the battlemaster. So unless you are claiming you know more about 5e than the people who designed it, you need to stop saying things like that.

We all get it. You want something different. More. Whatever. It all gets so nebulous when anyone starts asking for particulars to be nailed down. But there are other systems and/or editions for that. I don't get the need to make 5e into something it is not. To move backwards. That does no one any good. Especially not WotC.

 

[mellored]

An orange is not an apple. See, I can make obvious statements that mean nothing as well.

Not understanding the meaning is different then it not having a meaning.

I don't get the need to make 5e into something it is not. To move backwards. That does no one any good. Especially not WotC.

I don't see the warlord as moving backwards.