Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6718837" data-attributes="member: 1879">So there are three bits to it, as I read it. Genre, role and crunch (I.E. Mechanical support.)Role-wise you desire this:And to be frank, you have it. At the roleplaying level this is a series of actions you as a player take at the table. It does however require buy-in from the rest of the players. If you offer sound tactical advice, and the group accepts you as party leader or tactician then you are good to go. These are true statements, but I think you will find the Warlord is also a D&Dism. Yelling exhausted soldiers back onto their feet is soundly in genre. Yelling stab wounds closed or the comatose back into fighting trim is purely a D&D thing, and a 4e thing at that.So now onto crunch. Is there mechanical support to playing the non-magical tactical support role in 5e? Yes. It is present, although the degree to which it is present depends heavily on the options your GM is employing. If you are playing in a theater-of-the-mind no options game then you are pretty much limited to the Battlemaster and the aid another action, and I'll grant you that is pretty weak. If you are using map-based tactical combat your options go up. If you are using multi-classing your option go up. If you are using feats your option go way up. With the Healer feat you do posses the ability to get a downed character back on his feet. With some of the others like sentinel or polearm master you can gain considerable ability to protect your party, and control the battlefield. To the degree that you could in 4e? No, but no one in 5e has the kind of battlefield control 4e offered. It's a different system with different standards.For example, if we flipped the question around and asked "Can I model a Warlord in 3.5?" what would the answer be? For myself, it would be yes. Between the Marshall class, and the Devoted Spirit and White Raven schools from Bo9s I could make a "martial" support character who inspired the party with his spirit, lungs and steel. Could he do everything a 4e Warlord can do? No, but he'd have tricks of his own. Each edition is different, and interpretations of the same concept in each edition are different.As far as no neo-vancian casting goes, I'm going to call shenanigans. In 4e there was no way to break out of the AEDU power structure aside from (eventually) the essentials line, and unless I missed it the Warlord was never in essentials. In 4e you couldn't warlord without AEDU. In 5e you can't cast without neo-vancian, although you can add Warlock to bring in a little AEDU. Looks like edition equivalency to me.I concede that 5e does not support the Warlord/Tactician role or archetype as strongly as 4e did. It will not allow you to play a 'lazy warlord' to be sure. However with all the options on, and an agreeable table it looks more than supported strongly enough to match the genre fiction. If I've understood your position adequately, I don't think I see the cause for your vehemence.Out of curiosity, if the Battlemaster has been called the Warlord, would you feel it was an insult to Warlord fans, or merely an inadequate interpretation?</blockquote>

Verification