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?
As I've said several times, it's ok when it's an ability here and there. It's when those mechanics become the whole point of the class that it bothers me.
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.
No worries. I've only been having this debate since D&D Next and I feel the same way. I feel like it's a constant cycle of having my arguments twisted and misconstrued and having to repeat them. (See below.) I assume it's PTSD from the early 21st century Edition Wars and try not to let it bother me.
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?
Yup. Doing it with music/performance/poetry or just plain being nice is fine. Doing it because you're the Leader is not. As I keep saying and saying and saying it's not the mechanics, it's the class concept.
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.
Sigh. No, I'm not. If you read what I wrote I'm not saying that "Warlords lead to Nuclear Weapons". I'm asking where your own line is, and if not wanting to cross that line makes you selfish and arrogant.
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.
That's nice. Nowhere have I disagreed that this concept isn't a common archetype. My argument, again, is that the Warlord as described over and over again is the Leader. Yelling, giving orders, telling other classes how to do their job, being admired and looked up to. You deny it,
but that's what I'm reading in the homebrews. My belief is that this is unlike any other class premise, and is not just a class I don't want to play but a class that pollutes the game.
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.
I dislike most of WotC's campaign settings. But (other than opportunity cost of what they focus on) there's no impact on my game if they publish them. It's easy to partition off the settings from the rules, and if Dragonlance gets published and a player shows up with a Kender (may they rot in hell) the DM can always say, "Sorry, that's Dragonlance only."
New classes, sub-classes, races, spells, feats, and the like are different. That is, if they become "official" (as in, legal for AL play).
