D&D 5E What classes do you want added to 5e?

[Tony Vargas]

You have to have heard that one before.


Edit: no pun intended.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

If it's like an alarm clock, then what makes the warlord's voice any different than the rogue or wizard shouting at them? Noise is noise, no?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If it's like an alarm clock, then what makes the warlord's voice any different than the rogue or wizard shouting at them? Noise is noise, no?

So I take it that you've never known anyone that can sleep through just about anything, but then someone says a couple of key phrases, or even just something in the right kind of tone with the right deliver, and they bolt upright awake?

I know a guy that would sleep through people playing Rock Band with the volume cranked up, but if someone just said his name like his mom did to wake him up every day for most of his life, he's suddenly awake and aware of his surroundings.

I know another guy that wakes up at the tone of an excited voice (like "Oh man, awesome!" excited) because he subconsciously doesn't want to miss out on something cool.

There are plenty of examples of what can be boiled down to "the warlord can always seem to say the right thing at the right time, while other people try as they might but can't seem to hit the same 'button'."

 

[steeldragons]

This is finally starting to make sense now...what you are proposing/claiming the warlord is/should be [to be what pro-warlord folks want]...a class whose whole purpose is to exploit and exist in the metagame...under the guise of an in-game "tactical master", but really just metagaming with "sanctioned" mechanics in a form the player can directly employ.

 

[mellored]

This is finally starting to make sense now...what you are proposing/claiming the warlord is/should be [to be what pro-warlord folks want]...a class whose whole purpose is to exploit and exist in the metagame...under the guise of an in-game "tactical master", but really just metagaming with "sanctioned" mechanics in a form the player can directly employ.

You're thinking of magic.

Wizard: i wave my hands and launch a brilliant ball of fire that deals damage, and somehow take less damage if you dodge but don't actually get out of the area. And i can only do that once per day.

Warlord: How is that possible? Why only one per day?

Wizard: officially sanctioned metagame mechanic.

 

[Leatherhead]

Without magic traveling through the air somehow, how does so-called "inspirational healing" work when the recipient isn't conscious enough to process emotions like inspiration?

To be fair, the entire D&D universe is made out of magic instead of physics. But that begs the question of exactly how a character running on magi-physics and abstracted luck or divine intervention based HP can be considered to be mundane, and what exactly "non-supernatural" means.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Guys, there are, what, four warlord-specific threads right now? Do we really need to get back into the "should we or shouldn't we" warlord debate in a thread that's not even about that particular class?

 

[Andor]

Nope. Not what Warlords ever did, nor what anyone wants them to start doing (I hope!). Strictly an edition-war era bit of misinformation. Sorry you were exposed to it. Please, treat it like any other toxic rhetoric from a regrettable historical era.

In order for that to be true, 4e Warlord healing would have to include a rider that prevents it from working on dying targets. It does not. A warlords inspiring word works just fine on a character at -20 hp, with two failed death saves, whose is also deaf, blind, 20' away, a different type of life (myconid or xorn) and shares no languages with the Warlord.

'Tactics' on the player side in D&D are essentially meta-gaming, and I'm fine with that as far as it goes. Tactics on the character side need to be modeled by the rules & stats that define the character.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...do-you-want-added-to-5e/page10#ixzz3nS5n5ulE- Player (meta-game) tactics: TotM might be considered to constrain the tactics of the meta-game (player decisions), but, really, it just shifts them from grid-based positioning to 'gaming the DM,' and, really, grid or TotM, the D&D hp systems makes "Focus Fire" prettymuch /the/ meta-game tactic, anyway.

You seem very caught up on the idea that tactics must apply meta-game knowledge, and that seems to me to be contrary to your goals. Tactics, to be meaningful, must apply in world logic, otherwise it is the very definition of supernatural. A tactician should be applying his knowledge and perceptions of terrain, the enemies equipment and doctrines, his allies strengths and weaknesses, and the shifting tides of the battlefield and communicate them to his allies, directing them to leverage every advantage they can get. In game it consists of little more than awareness and knowledge checks and the role-playing you poh-poh as wizardry without spells. Systems mastery does come into it, using height advantages, or cover, etc. to employ the physics of the game world to your advantage, but that is not meta-gaming. I think you have the tactics on the character side backwards, knowing Sir Johan to be the strongest guy in the party and therefore having him hold the door closed while you try to brace it makes sense, using some sort of character sheet level ability to allow the mage to borrow Sir Johan str score while holding the door because 'tactical acumen' says you can let any character make one ability check at the highest score in the party 1/encounter does not.

A good 3e ability for the sort of character I view as a tactician would be the "Knowledge Devotion" feat from Complete Champion.

With the Healer feat you do posses the ability to get a downed character back on his feet.

Mechanically, yes, but not a very practical way, and not one that's in keeping with the concept, nor the way it played, /mechanically/.

I'm sorry, I don't follow this at all. To clarify, I have as little interest in a debate on the nature of HP as I do in an edition war, but I am not a fan of purely abstract hit points. If HP damage reflects physical or even psychic injury, what could be more on concept then to apply first aid with a healing kit? If you're thinking of it as restoring morale, then to me that seems more like offering a saving throw vs fear, or (to borrow from another system) a command test to stop a unit from being pinned under fire. Since my reading of 5e's hit point system makes them less abstract than those of 4e, I don't think healing, particularly healing capable of rousing someone on the edge of death, should be doable at a distance without supernatural power.

To the degree a Warlord could, though, those aspects are comparable. It's really the 3.5 fighter that those options fall short of. They're not really part of the Warlord concept, at least not a large or specific part. (The Warlord might come up with a strategy that involved pole-arms - in one situation, but in another it might be pit traps, or archery volleys, or almost anything, really. Feats lack the flexibility for those sorts of things. The Warlord needs to be very flexible, with a lot of options, some of them decidedly situational.)

3.x has wonderfully customizeable character creation rules, so to some extent, certainly. In fact, though I didn't realize I was doing it at the time, I tried for something very like a Warlord with a complex fighter-based build for 8 years and through 14 levels. It was not a rousing success. While 3.5 made great strides in modeling character abilities with skill points and feats, it hadn't made the leap to modeling inspiration or leadership or tactical acumen on the character side.

And 4e didn't exactly support it fully or perfectly, either. Tidy and convenient as the formal roles may have been, sticking the Warlord in the 'Leader' box put some obvious things the concept might do out-of-bounds or at least, forced them to be de-emphasized. Modeling ways to 'out maneuver' or 'psych out' or demoralize enemies, for instance - there were a few, but they were limited to keep from stepping on the Controller role. A 5e Warlord could do the concept better, because it focus on concept first (a tautology, maybe, but 5e deserves the props).

I'm happier with the door still being open to a worthy version of the class in the future, though.

I admit I'm intrigued. While we seem to have differing approaches to the game, I would be very interested to see what you consider to be a good 5e take on the warlord class.

Are you familiar with the Hunter class and the Tactics feats chains from Iron Heroes? Do you consider them an acceptable implementation of your ideas?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Guys, there are, what, four warlord-specific threads right now? Do we really need to get back into the "should we or shouldn't we" warlord debate in a thread that's not even about that particular class?

to be fair this is a thread about adding classes to the game, so isn't adding or not adding warlord on point?

 

[Mouseferatu]

to be fair this is a thread about adding classes to the game, so isn't adding or not adding warlord on point?

Saying "I want a warlord" is on point. Getting into a multi-page back and forth over whether it should be there, or whether the concepts it represents should be there, isn't. Certainly not when there are already multiple threads, one of which is well over a hundred pages long, on the exact subject. Getting into it here gets in the way of people talking about else they want.