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

[Aldarc]

Strawman. You don't have to know the warlord for it to work. Unlike the trope that keeps getting brought up.

That's fine. We can talk about something else. Let's go back to your earlier argument then:

The wizard is using external forces to influence the barbarian. External. Exerting power over the barbarian, externally. Yes, through magic. But that's not even the real point. It's that the warlord is "allowing" the barbarian to tap into his own internal forces that were there all along. Why is the barbarian never able to use that same reserve of will/strength unless the warlord "unlocks" it? If there is no warlord, is that hidden reserve even really there? If not, why is it there for the warlord to access just because he's around?

Furthermore, the wizard can paralyze the barbarian regardless of how the two feel about each other. Respect, loathing, indifference. Doesn't matter. Not so for the warlord's tricks. Just look at what Tony just said...

I find your whole external vs. internal to be something of a false dichotomy anyway. You are defining magic as an external force. Something that is exerted upon someone. Who is to say that the cleric's magic is acting upon a person? Perhaps it is doing exactly what you are describing here with the barbarian: it allows "the barbarian to tap into [their] own internal forces that were there all along"? It's not as if magical healing is explained how it works anywhere. The spell descriptions basically amount to "you regain hit points." Where does it come from? How does it work? If the only reason is "magic," then that's just a cop-out answer. It's a non-answer. It's just a conversation killer that seeks to avoid addressing any internal consistently or coherence. That may very well involve allowing the barbarian tapping into his internal hidden reserves in a manner similar to the hypothetical warlord. You are then defining the warlord's "shout healing" to be internal because of their own internal forces. Why isn't the warlord's "shout healing" considered an externality similar to magic? It acts upon a person. It's external to the patient as derived from an acting agent that causes an effect.

Is this magic? For you? Yes. For others? No. At the very least then, for all its "magic," it should be spell-less, which rules out the bard and cleric. And since you may see this as "magic," then that also rules out the Battle Master as appropriate, since you see that as "non-magical." Then it should be written in a manner that blurs the extraordinary and the supernatural. If you see this as 'supernatural,' then let it be so - at your table. If others see this as 'non-magical,' then let it be so - at their table. I have not been in a campaign to date in which many of the flavors, fluff, and lore of characters, class, races, and such were not discussed and agreed upon beforehand with the players and GM. (The nature of the 3e monk, psionics, and the sorcerer were big topic of controversy in this regard at my past tables.) This is simply another such issue.

 

[Andor]

I just came up with a theory for why the Warlord wasn't in the PHB. It's because the Ardent is a really obvious subclass of warlord, but they didn't have the psionics rules in place yet, so they decided to wait.

And with that thought, any ideas for other Warlord sub-classes?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Those lead me to want to reiterate:

What should really be sought here is a general houserule that covers inspiration and its benefits. After which, a warlord class would logically have feature(s) designed to better access, or even improve upon, said subsystem.

What should really be sought here is NOT a houserule, but actual rules from wotc... now if they added a bunch of rules including a warlord I doubt many warlord fans would complain...

 

[Guest 6801328]

OK, so you would be fine with:

Are you making a statement about my preferences or asking me a question about them? I'll assume the latter...

Inspireing word: as a bonus action choose a target within 30ft that can see and hear you they can choose to be inspired, if they do they can spend a hit die and gain a bonus to the healing equal to your Cha modifier, if they are an ally you can spend a supiority die instead of them spending a Hit die.

Rousing word: as part of an attack you can give up one attack (so only action if you aren't at least 6th level) choose an unconsias target within 30ft, if they choose to be inspired they may spend a hit die and gain a bonus to the healing equal to your Cha modifier, if they are an ally you can spend a supiority die instead of them spending a Hit die

The 'choose to be inspired' language is a false choice and you know it. Sure I can choose to not be inspired, but that's like playing the Paladin who does stupid things because he's Lawful Good. By tying a mechanical benefit to the decision you're putting me in a position of having to actually penalize my character in order to roleplay. No thanks.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Some people like to play archfiends, demigods and ancient dragons. Where's their love?

hopefully in a councle of wyrms setting due out soon...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I find your whole external vs. internal to be something of a false dichotomy anyway.

And yet is clearly factual and demonstrative. Weird, I guess.

You are defining magic as an external force. Something that is exerted upon someone.

I am? I don't think so. What an odd take. Please expand upon such a notion that it isn't.

Who is to say that the cleric's magic is acting upon a person? Perhaps it is doing exactly what you are describing here with the barbarian: it allows "the barbarian to tap into [their] own internal forces that were there all along"? It's not as if magical healing is explained how it works anywhere. The spell descriptions basically amount to "you regain hit points." Where does it come from? How does itIf the only reason is "magic," then that's just a cop-out answer. It's a non-answer. It's just a conversation killer that seeks to avoid addressing any internal consistently or coherence.

I will once again suggest you read up on the cleric class in the PHB. It may provide insight and help mitigate some of your confusion.

 

[Mistwell]

I wouldn't minds a new Cavalier. Don't need it to be a class unto itself, but a subclass might be night. Of Paladin, Fighter, or Ranger. I can see it fitting into any of those. I see a couple people took a stab at a homebrew version, here and here.

 

[TwoSix]

Some people like to play archfiends, demigods and ancient dragons. Where's their love?

Mostly in 4e, with the Demigod and Prince of Hell epic destinies. There were some dragon-related epic destinies, as well, I believe. The 2e setting Council of Wyrms had rules for playing dragons, and 3.5 had a Draconomicon with similar rules, I believe. And the 3.5 MMs had Level Adjustments for most of the dragons, I believe, which would render them as character options.

Hopefully with the introduction of Prestige Class rules, we can foresee the introduction of higher-level Prestige Classes that do something similar to 4e epic destinies. I, for one, am 100% on board.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Are you making a statement about my preferences or asking me a question about them? I'll assume the latter...



The 'choose to be inspired' language is a false choice and you know it. Sure I can choose to not be inspired, but that's like playing the Paladin who does stupid things because he's Lawful Good. By tying a mechanical benefit to the decision you're putting me in a position of having to actually penalize my character in order to roleplay. No thanks.

so you hate not being given the choice of if my character is inspireing or not, and you hate being given a choice to except it or not... I'm lost now

 

[Guest 6801328]

Some people like to play archfiends, demigods and ancient dragons. Where's their love?

Captain America...I mean, a Warlord...can beat an archfiend.