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

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Oh, I think it's a hugely important fantasy/literary archetype as well. Again, I just think it belongs to roleplaying, not to a specific class. I don't think you should get to choose that role (or the path that leads to that role) at 1st level.

 

[raleel]

To harken back several pages to The example of using a Reaction for a limited set of actions, similar to Cunning Action - the Inquisitive has this. It explicitly allows you to use Cunning Action for a power. It seems to me this is a good model for it. You can use your reaction for warlord specific actions.

Notably, the mastermind also allows the help action at range. It seems like the rogue is picking up a lot of these

 

[Paul Smart]

Elfcrusher, I think we have very different views on game design and what is enjoyable in D and D. I personally think that not only is this a line that should be crossed, but that it should have been crossed much earlier. I believe that the Warlord is a valuable addition to the game, allowing a much wider variety of stories and characters to be made. That being said, I now understand where you are comming from and can respect that, even though I disagree with it. Have a good day.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, I think it's a hugely important fantasy/literary archetype as well. Again, I just think it belongs to roleplaying, not to a specific class. I don't think you should get to choose that role (or the path that leads to that role) at 1st level.

See, to me, that is in the same category of ideas as a strong focus on lvl 1 PCs being "farm boys" or equivalent, that anything that remotely implies accomplishment or expertise shouldn't be a lvl 1 concept.

I don't think you should be able to tell me I can't choose that concept at level 1. Even if you are the DM, but especially if you aren't even at the same table as me.

 

[Gradine]

I love me some good old fashioned class bloat. I'll be the last person to say that we should never have a fully fledged Warlord in 5e. My biggest problem with this constant refrain is that we already have it. We've gotten it at least three different ways now. No, no single way is perfect; I won't repeat the arguments about the differences between combat in 5e and 4e, or how it's bad design to include abilities centered around precise positioning in a system where tactical positioning is not strictly enforced or even assumed, only to say that these arguments are true and shouldn't be really dismissed. But even if you do, the fact remains that with the right multicasting and squinting at the fluff of certain abilities (such as Bard healing) you can, more or less, make that character. Right now.

Now, I won't argue that it wouldn't be nice to have an easier way to make that character, like having its own dedicated class. But WotC clearly has limited resources to put to new class construction, and given the choice between new classes that rehash current mechanics, and new classes that create new mechanics and dynamics in gameplay, well, to me that choice is obvious.

So here is my not at all complete list of legacy classes I'd rather WotC work on recreating for 5e instead of Warlord. As an added bonus, many of them perform similar roles, at their core mechanically, even if they appear quite different.

1) Factotum. From 3.5: Dungeonscape. The basic concept is twofold. First, they are the ultimate INT based skill monkey; its class skill list just said "All." Second, they had a limited resource pool (Font of Inspiration, which the 5e Bard stole the name of) that they could spend in order to perform the basic functions of any other archetype; cast a limited range of spells, heal, sneak attack, etc. A 5e Factotum would probably add Extra Attack to that repertoire. It's very similar to the concept of trading your action for the most appropriate action in any given round; the big difference is it's still your action. The class would probably drive charopers nutty over trading power for versatility (that and not having any Iaijutsu nonsense to abuse), but isn't that the basic principle of the lazylord? Just without the laziness?

2) Archivist. From 3.5: Heroes of Horror. Fulfills your need for nonmagical buffs. Oh they're still magical (divine book casters, which for my money is way more interesting conceptually than divine spontaneous casters); but the buffs are strictly knowledge based. I used to describe them to my players as a Watcher with a Pokedex. May not need a full class, maybe a Wizard archetype, similar to the new Favoured Soul being a Sorcerer archetype, with Dark Knowledge buffs filling out the subclass abilities.

3) Spellthief. From 3.5: Complete Adventurer. Way too interesting of a concept and mechanic to be confined to a single ability of a single subclass at way too high a level to ever see typical play. Could basically absorb spells, and eventually spell-like and supernatural abilities from others to use later, like a limited use version of Rogue from the X-men. You could even use it on a willing target, like an ally. Rather than have it step on the Arcane Trickster's toes, I'd probably make it a full fledged class with half casting, with a spell list more focused on transmutation, conjuration and divination. A mobile, striker-y class that focuses more on having the right tool for the job. I see the old Mindspy prestige class as a possible archetype, or the 4e Swordmage.

So yeah, those are three classes off the top of my head I'd rather see before a Warlord. To say nothing of even more niche but interesting classes like Psionics, Incarnum, Binders. I'm not opposed to hashing out yet another attempt at a Warlord. I'm opposed to making it a priority when there's way more interesting conceptual new ground to cover instead.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Thing is, a Bard can inspire your character through oration. It's right there in the description of the class. There is no musical component required. So, why is it okay for a bard to tell you that you feel better and heal faster but it's completely wrong for a warlord to do it?

Never minding that a Battlemaster can tell you to attack better than you can attack on your own, and can tell you to move faster than you can normally move.

Or, we have feats like Inspiring Leader which can increase your HP multiple times per day, just by talking to you.

See, this is why I get so frustrated. The things you claim you hate in the game are already in the game. That ship has sailed. It's right there in the mechanics. So why is slapping the name Warlord around the mechanics that already exist such a hurdle?

I do appolgize for coming across rather strongly on this, but, you have to understand that this conversation is the same conversation I've been having over and over and over again for YEARS. And it's incredibly frustrating.

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.

That's an awfully fine line to draw no? My bard can heal your wounds by talking to you, can make you fight better, can make your better at your skills, make you better able to resist effects, just by talking to you. It's right in the name of the power - Bardic Inspiration. My bard tells you how your character feels. And this is apparently completely acceptable. But, having a Warlord do it isn't?

And, now you're bringing in a slippery slope argument. If we allow warlords, well, why not nuclear weapons and Smurfs too? Bwuh? Is anyone actually advocating that? Is anyone actually calling for Smurfs in the game? I don't think so, but, hey, maybe I missed it.

Warlords fill a niche. It's a popular niche. It's well supported in genre fiction - my person favorite example is Croaker from Glen Cook's Black company series. Perfect Warlord, and, funnily enough, not the leader of the group. There are numerous examples in Erikson's Malazan series as well that would fill the Warlord's books nicely. Hicks from the Aliens movie makes a nice Warlord example as well. Again, none of these characters are the actual leaders of their groups, and none of them have any "Divine Destiny". Carrot from Pratchett's Discworld series makes a good warlord, although, arguably, he might have a divine destiny.

But, again, you're basing your entire argument on your personal preferences. You don't have a problem with bards, but, you have a problem with warlords. At the end of the day though, it's YOUR problem. IOW, there's no actual problem with the class or the concept, it's just something you don't happen to like. Strongly. Fair enough. I get that. I loathe Planescape and I've been on record multiple times arguing just that. However, the difference here is that I would never, ever, tell everyone else they should never have what they want just because I don't want it.

 

[Jester David]

There are several reasons for a warlord class to exist. One of the big ones is to have a combat support class that functions as the tactical leader. To support the leader type character issuing orders and training the party to work as a team. Which is a character archetype that has not been well supported in the mechanics prior to 4e (instead being handled by roleplaying).

However, in every one of the four warlord thread that have popped up, the same argument is given: there needs to be a warlord so there is a nonmagical replacement for the cleric.
That, however, is a flawed reason for having a warlord.

Now, this was true in 4e. Because that game assumed you would have the four roles covered. (Although, there was far less pressure for a nonmagical controller.)
However, you don't need a nomagical replacement for the cleric in 5e because you don't need a cleric. Hit dice help during the day, and you heal to full between adventuring day. Combat healing is nice, but it's inefficient compared to damage: you can never heal a creature more than a monster can deal damage. It's a niche ability, and you'll generally end the fight faster by dealing damage than healing a party member.

That, and as I mentioned in another thread, what you *need* a cleric for in 5e (or a druid/hard) is NOT healing, but the casting of situational spells: lesser restoration, regenerate, greater restoration, raise dead, etc. But no one brings that up. It's always healing. The warlord needs to restore hit points so it can replace the cleric. Despite the fact 7/8th of the cleric subclasses don't assume the cleric is the healer. But after the fighter gets brain effed by an intellect devourer or the rogue rolls a 1 disarming a drag and gets poisoned or the wizard gets turned to stone by the medusa, you're going to want a cleric and not a warlord and no amount of restoring hit points is going to help...

 

[Jester David]

See, to me, that is in the same category of ideas as a strong focus on lvl 1 PCs being "farm boys" or equivalent, that anything that remotely implies accomplishment or expertise shouldn't be a lvl 1 concept.

I don't think you should be able to tell me I can't choose that concept at level 1. Even if you are the DM, but especially if you aren't even at the same table as me.

Cool. I want to play at your table.
Imma gonna be an archmage! No, wait, a genie binder. No. I love Dragonlance. I'm going to be a dragon rider. At level 1. Because that's my character concept.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Cool. I want to play at your table.
Imma gonna be an archmage! No, wait, a genie binder. No. I love Dragonlance. I'm going to be a dragon rider. At level 1. Because that's my character concept.

I don't allow people who disruptively try to take advantage of others' good will into my home, much less my table, but ignoring that for a second:

Sure, if we can build a dragon rider that is balanced with the rest of the table, that is fine. It's gonna be your whole class, just to cover the concept in a balanced way, but we can make it work. "Archmage" is literally nothing more than an in-universe title in 99% of my games, so, fine, as long as there is an actual backstory there. I've also had royal heirs, 1 king, a fallen god, and a dragon as 1st level PCs.
But none of that is actually the point, nor is any of it remotely comparable to playing a person whose presence inspires people, and/or whose tactical acumen makes the party as whole work better together.

 

[Hussar]

Cool. I want to play at your table.
Imma gonna be an archmage! No, wait, a genie binder. No. I love Dragonlance. I'm going to be a dragon rider. At level 1. Because that's my character concept.

That's the standard answer there isn't it. Now, I'm pretty sure you meant that tongue in cheek, but, lots don't.

Thing is, the problems with your concepts aren't based in role playing, but, in the level system of the game. A genie binder doesn't work, not because the idea is bad, but, because it's simply too powerful for most campaigns. Same with having a pet dragon.

Now, scale that down a touch though. Maybe you're a genie binder (Aladdin). Ok, but, now your genie powers are on line with your character level. Sure, you have an all powerful genie at your beck and call, but, because your control is so weak, you can't make it do things it doesn't want to do. So, we use a Warlock chassis with an unusual patron and choose your invocations to match. Instead of you casting the spells, your pet genie does. Add in the idea of Chainlock and futz about with the familiar rules a bit, and poof, we have your genie binder.

Again, if the issues were mechanical, I'd be a lot more sympathetic. But, they aren't. Not really. The issue is that some folks want to play gatekeeper over the game and force their tastes on everyone else.