D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Guest 6801328]

Yet, in 5e terms, you have no problem with all three being "Fighters"? You most certainly could have all three of them be fighters and it's not like Paladin really equates to Knight of the Round table in 5e.

All three of them have the fact that they are the "face" fighter character in the story.

If you don't like the concept, don't use it. It's that simple. If you can't convince your group that they shouldn't also follow your lead and reject the class, then perhaps the issue is more simply a difference in play style?

But, why should no one ever get to play a character they want to play, just because you don't like it? Do you not hear how incredibly arrogant that sounds?

Oh, boy, we're back to that again. The "there is no reason to ever oppose any sort of addition to the game because you can always choose to not use it; you are just being selfish" argument.

I'll say it again: I really don't like the idea of a character class that by design has implications for inter-party social dynamics. It's a bad precedent, and I don't want the game going in that direction. A decision to include such a thing would, in my opinion, signal a viewpoint by the designers that I hope they do not hold.

I also hope they don't create a character class based on using firearms and explosives. Sure, I could just leave such a class out of my game, but it would signal that Wizards is suddenly thinking of firearms and explosives as part of the genre, and I would worry that such things would start showing up in other places as well.

EDIT: Oh, I never answered the Fighter question. Sure, they could be Fighters. Or maybe Paladins, or multiclassed with Ranger in Aragorn's case. But that's missing the point. I'm arguing that their leadership role comes from roleplaying, by them and the other players at the table, not from their class choice.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As a question, do you have the same issue with bards? After all, the bard is doing this to you and the rest of the group with things like Bardic Inspiration, virtually every single encounter, if not darn near every round. A bard is 100% built around the idea of being "a character whose whole purpose is to have influence over other player characters."

If you don't have the same issue with bards, why not? What's the difference?

I would say that one Bardic ability is built around that idea, not the whole class.

And the fluff for it is based on music and performance, which I find less offensive than having it based on some kind of innate superiority.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, I think it's these conversations that make me want to bang my head against a wall repeatedly. They are just so incredibly frustrating from my point of view. Take a look at the arguments, from my point of view:

1. Warlords aren't important enough. There just isn't enough demand for warlords to make them an issue. Seriously? We just had Favored Souls updated to 5e. It's not like updating fairly esoteric older edition elements isn't being done on a regular basis. Numerous DMsGuild attempts and the fact that we do have a number of official WotC classes borrowing on the theme - Mastermind Rogues, Bannerets, Purple Dragon Knights - means that obviously there is some demand. Never minding that you get this kind of go around thread every three months or so, until it either gets closed down or shoved into the forum ghettos.

2. Warlords are OP. Despite numerous analysis showing that they really, really weren't, you STILL see this one trotted out. It's baffling. 4e was an extremely well balanced game. Probably the most well balanced of any version of D&D and this was actually put forth as a strike against the edition, that it was more concerned with chasing balance than making a good game. Yet, despite all that, apparently, they completely failed and Warlords are the OP class? Yet, even though this makes zero logical sense, we still have to fight this particular battle every single time we talk about warlords.

3. Warlords don't fit in 5e mechanics. This one is probably the one that baffles and frustrates me the most. Good grief, we almost all agree that you can get about 60% of a warlord right now, just using the PHB. Virtually every single element of a warlord, save perhaps non-magical healing (and even then, fighters can do that), exists in the game already, just not under a single class.

4. Warlords don't fit in a D&D game. We shouldn't have a class based around the idea of "inspiring" other characters. Again, we've already got a bard in the game that does exactly that. Plus a paladin who can do that and a Battlemaster who can DIRECTLY FORCE your character to take actions - bonus movement, bonus attacks, advantage on attacks, etc. But, apparently, as soon as we use the word "warlord" people develop selective amnesia and claim that none of these things exist.

If we could actually just discuss the bloody class and the mechanics without having the peanut gallery repeatedly trying to ram their play preferences down our throats, that would be much appreciated.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I gotta admit, it's that sort of claim that convinces me that anytime Wizards ask I should say "No Warlord at any price, tyvm."

EDIT: What exactly do those three have in common? They don't actually exhibit the same "mechanics". Odysseus is an archer and sneaky s.o.b. Aragorn is a mighty traveler, woodsman, and healer. Arthur is a really well-intentioned, pious guy who sucks at politics and does whatever a wizard tells him to.

Really all they have in common is birthright. I guess they all have grand visions, too.

Is that what a Warlord is? A guy with a birthright with a Big Idea?

That response really makes you come across as a bit "one true way".

We get it, ya don't like the idea of a class that inspires people. Unless it's magic, apparently, because I've not seen you trash the Bard.

You are never going to dissuade anyone who does, and I've yet to see you actually engage with any of the posters who have explained how such a class can be played that doesn't involve "leading" or whatever.

As for what those three have in common, I don't believe for a moment that you don't see how they are examples of the same archetype. I also assume that your description of Arthur is facetious.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Y'know, I think it's these conversations that make me want to bang my head against a wall repeatedly. They are just so incredibly frustrating from my point of view. Take a look at the arguments, from my point of view:

1. Warlords aren't important enough. There just isn't enough demand for warlords to make them an issue. Seriously? We just had Favored Souls updated to 5e. It's not like updating fairly esoteric older edition elements isn't being done on a regular basis. Numerous DMsGuild attempts and the fact that we do have a number of official WotC classes borrowing on the theme - Mastermind Rogues, Bannerets, Purple Dragon Knights - means that obviously there is some demand. Never minding that you get this kind of go around thread every three months or so, until it either gets closed down or shoved into the forum ghettos.

2. Warlords are OP. Despite numerous analysis showing that they really, really weren't, you STILL see this one trotted out. It's baffling. 4e was an extremely well balanced game. Probably the most well balanced of any version of D&D and this was actually put forth as a strike against the edition, that it was more concerned with chasing balance than making a good game. Yet, despite all that, apparently, they completely failed and Warlords are the OP class? Yet, even though this makes zero logical sense, we still have to fight this particular battle every single time we talk about warlords.

3. Warlords don't fit in 5e mechanics. This one is probably the one that baffles and frustrates me the most. Good grief, we almost all agree that you can get about 60% of a warlord right now, just using the PHB. Virtually every single element of a warlord, save perhaps non-magical healing (and even then, fighters can do that), exists in the game already, just not under a single class.

4. Warlords don't fit in a D&D game. We shouldn't have a class based around the idea of "inspiring" other characters. Again, we've already got a bard in the game that does exactly that. Plus a paladin who can do that and a Battlemaster who can DIRECTLY FORCE your character to take actions - bonus movement, bonus attacks, advantage on attacks, etc. But, apparently, as soon as we use the word "warlord" people develop selective amnesia and claim that none of these things exist.

If we could actually just discuss the bloody class and the mechanics without having the peanut gallery repeatedly trying to ram their play preferences down our throats, that would be much appreciated.

I think I shall choose to engage with you no further on this topic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That response really makes you come across as a bit "one true way".

Hmm. Interesting. Yeah, I guess in this one case I do believe in one true way, because in my mind it impinges on player agency, which is one of the few places I draw the line.

We get it, ya don't like the idea of a class that inspires people. Unless it's magic, apparently, because I've not seen you trash the Bard.

I explained why the Bard doesn't bother me. But, yes, I'm also in general ok with the rationale being "magic" because that doesn't require a more mundane explanation where my character admires/adores/follows/looks up to/prostrates himself before your character. That is, it doesn't tell me how my character thinks. ("Magic" is useful for hand-waving away all sorts of inconveniences.)

You are never going to dissuade anyone who does, and I've yet to see you actually engage with any of the posters who have explained how such a class can be played that doesn't involve "leading" or whatever.

I don't doubt it "can be played" that way, but 95% of the time it's described as the heroic leader. If it's really so easy to play it that way I'd love to see a description (and a title) that avoids the leadership. When I bring up this concern I get some responses explaining why I'm totally wrong, but when I'm not asking the question every description, every proposed mechanic, is based on the "leader" archetype.

As for what those three have in common, I don't believe for a moment that you don't see how they are examples of the same archetype. I also assume that your description of Arthur is facetious.

No, it's from my favorite Arthurian interpretation, by Bernard Cornwell. It's a trilogy named...sit down for this..."The Warlord Chronicles".

And, yes, I do see all three of those characters as inspiring, heroic leaders. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think those characteristics belong to one class. They are a matter for roleplaying.

By the way, I would be totally fine with an inspiring leader class whose abilities only affected NPCs. That wouldn't bother me at all. Basically equivalent to a non-magical summoner.

 

[Paul Smart]

Elfcrusher, I do not believe I am hearing what you are saying properly, as what you are saying makes no sense to me. I am not sure what your intent is but what I am hearing is:

My perception of the warlord class is that it is above others and automatically tells me what my character can do. I don't like this so the warlord class should not exist.

Please tell me this is not what you are saying.

 

[mellored]

My favorite warlord character is Lelouch vi Britannia.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm. Interesting. Yeah, I guess in this one case I do believe in one true way, because in my mind it impinges on player agency, which is one of the few places I draw the line.


I explained why the Bard doesn't bother me. But, yes, I'm also in general ok with the rationale being "magic" because that doesn't require a more mundane explanation where my character admires/adores/follows/looks up to/prostrates himself before your character. That is, it doesn't tell me how my character thinks.


No, it's from my favorite Arthurian interpretation, by Bernard Cornwell. It's a trilogy named...sit down for this..."The Warlord Chronicles".

The warlord, or the inspiration/leadership Noble in Star Wars saga, or similar classes in other games, doesn't imply prostration, or anything of the sort. That kind of ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help the discussion stay civil and on topic.

Also, it's very strange to me that the "leader" classes are offensive because they maybe kinda imply that your character is inspired, but the class that magically mind controls his friends to be inspired...that's fine. I genuinely don't understand this.

Re: Arthur. Yeh, I've read those books, too. I don't think your interpretation is accurate, but it's off topic enough I'd rather not get into it. Either way, it's certainly not a standard enough interpretation that I'd be willing to use it as my example of who and what Arther is as an archetypal character.


Anyway, while I've never had someone at my table play the "inspiring leader" warlord, I certainly see it as a hugely important fantasy/literary archetype.
If someone wants to play Lan, from Wheel of Time, they should be able to. I cannot fathom how that is controversial.

And them playing Lan *does not mean that the other characters look up to them or hero worship them or whatever*. At most it means they know what they are about tactically, and they have an effect on morale when they charge into the fray or whatever. And yeah, NPCs are inspired by them. Straight up. So what?

But also...player characters being inspired by someone's battle cry lead charge into the thick of things doesn't take away player agency. It doesn't imply they look up to the other character generally, or any of that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Elfcrusher, I do not believe I am hearing what you are saying properly, as what you are saying makes no sense to me. I am not sure what your intent is but what I am hearing is:

My perception of the warlord class is that it is above others and automatically tells me what my character can do. I don't like this so the warlord class should not exist.

Please tell me this is not what you are saying.

Hmm.

I suppose if somebody selectively read my (rather extensive) posts, and then willfully misinterpreted those selections in the worst possible light, then, yes, that's a reasonable summary. (It does make me wonder if attacking the character of somebody who disagrees indicates the lack of a counter-argument.)

I tried to make clear that's it's not just my own dislike of the class, in the sense that I dislike Drow, but that I actually think the presence of the class would be bad for the game. I believe the way it defines the class, the design space that it carves out, crosses a line.

But let's talk about this "should not exist" part. My opposition is not to the "existence" of the Warlord in non-core materials; I am opposed to it becoming canonized in the core books, if there is ever such an expansion. Let's say that the litmus test is whether it becomes permissible in AL play. Anything below that I'm fine with.

So am I still being selfish? And arrogant?

Tell me this: could there be any proposed addition to the game...a Jedi class, a Smurf race, smart phones, nuclear weapons...that you think would be bad for the game if they became "official". Anything that, if asked, you would say, "No...I think it would be a bad idea to put that into the game." Not just a use of page space that you would rather see spent on something else (even though that alone is a perfectly fine justification for opposition, in my opinion) but something that would actually make the game worse? Something that you could perhaps house-rule away*, but that came with the suggestion that the designers were moving in a direction with which you disagreed?

If not, then we are clearly NOT on the same page about game design and we're simply never going to understand each other.

But if so, then are you being selfish and arrogant? Or are you trying to protect a game you enjoy from evolving into something you would enjoy less?

*And if house-ruling away an official class is a valid solution, then so is house-ruling in an unofficial class. So that argument goes either way.