Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Sadras]

It's not that the warlord couldn't be a sub-class. It just can't be a sub-class of the current 5e fighter.

Is your basis for this statement purely on the reason that Warlord would supposedly have to give up multi-attack for inspiring word? Your argument then appears very weak. Just swap out the normal Battle Master maneuvers for warlord-y-like abilities why is this such a huge deal still?

Furthermore one needs to take into context the style of game 4e is with what 5e actually is. Granted 5e is supposed to be inclusionary, but it certainly doesn't have to be an exact replica of 4e. If you want a 4e warlord so badly, I suggest you play 4e.

 

[tuxgeo]

Another angle to consider is the matter of Non-Disclosure Agreements: anybody who has now made a new Warlord class for 5E that they want to get published might be restricted by his or her NDA from posting such a thing on EN World for your digesting-and-commenting pleasure.

The main example I have in mind might be Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong--and I say "might be" because he hasn't posted on EN World for months, so I don't now know whether he has completed a new Warlord class.

I refer back, of course, to the now-closed "How many fans want a 5E Warlord?" poll thread which Mark started. His last post in that thread was dated Tuesday, 6th October, 2015.
His last activity of any kind on EN World was Tuesday, 24th November, 2015.

One of the things that I recall his having mentioned (but which I now don't want to bother to find by rereading the threads) was that he now has all the feedback he needs from other players of D&D 5E in order to create a 5E Warlord class of his own. If he did that--and I'm not certain that he did--then it is possible that he is shopping the class around to buyers, or else has already done so and is now covered by an NDA. If the latter is the case, then you aren't going to see it posted in a thread on EN World; but you may yet still see it published.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well, i'm only an authority on what i want from a warlord.
Just as you're only an authority on what you want from a warlord.

Neither of us are authorities on the Dev's.

And yet I speak to what the devs actually did and continue to do. That's my evidence. That's the backup to my POV. What's yours? A need to play a different edition's idea of a class in this edition? How irrational is that?

The devs put warlords in 5e. All over the place. All one needs to do to enjoy it is to give up on their previous edition baggage and accept 5e for what it is. Or, you know, go play the edition better suited to your needs. That's okay, too.

But i did attempt to make an honest attempt to fit a warlord i want into the fighter sub-class. Here.

My attempt also failed.

And that's the thing, isn't it? What we want, and what we can make viable within the systems' expected boundaries, are oft times two different things.

The good news is, if one is hellbent on playing a full-on 4e-style warlord character, there is a great edition of D&D to accommodate that need. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[mellored]

Is your basis for this statement purely on the reason that Warlord would supposedly have to give up multi-attack for inspiring word? Your argument then appears very weak. Just swap out the normal Battle Master maneuvers for warlord-y-like abilities why is this such a huge deal still?

Same reason why eldrich knights don't get full spell slots. It would be overpowered.


I do find it kinda funny though.

On one side, people are saying that a full warlords class would be too OP.
On the other, people are saying you can fit an the entire warlord class into a sub-class.

 

[mellored]

The devs put warlords in 5e. All over the place.

I agree, and that's part of my problem. It's all over the place.

I can't actually play one.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

On the other, people are saying you can fit an the entire warlord class into a sub-class.

The devs did. It's called the battlemaster.

 

[mellored]

The devs did. It's called the battlemaster.

Battlemaster is mostly a fighter.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I agree, and that's part of my problem. It's all over the place.

I can't actually play one.

You can. You just can't play a broken, kitchen-sink one out of the gate given 5e's expected system boundaries.

Or are you saying any class is equivalent to their 4e predecessor? Because not a single 5e class gets all the bells-and-whistles, in the way 4e provided them, like their 4e version. Not a one.

Quit trying to cram the square peg in the round hole. Accept that 5e's version of a warlord has the spirit and core concepts of the archetype and delivers them in a 5e acceptable way. Not a 4e one.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Battlemaster is mostly a fighter.

Warlords were warriors too. I know. I played several. And experienced countless more in play beside me. Or are you trying to revise history to better suit your needs?

 

[mellored]

You can.

No, i can't. Not the one i want.

You just can't play a broken, kitchen-sink 1st level one given 5e's expected system boundaries.

I don't want that.

Quit trying to cram the square peg in the round hole.

No.

There's no reason, beyond dev time, that a full martial support class could not fit comfortably into 5e.

Accept that 5e's version of a warlord has the spirit and core concepts of the archetype and delivers them in a 5e acceptable way.

I accept that the battlemaster, and PDK, are sub-classes in the spirit of the marshal and warlord.

Accept that they are still mostly fighters.