D&D 5E (2014) What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Barolo]

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.

To me it seems the name of the class implies something else than just a martial buffer on the heads of some people (myself included). And that seems to have a significant impact on their acceptability of the class (not necessarily my case here, as I can just ignore the name). Giving the class another name, I don't know, combat tactician maybe, and letting the ones that actually accomplish something (probably at higher levels, but not necessarily) claim the title of warlord might (or might not, I can be completely wrong) go a long way improving its acceptability to some that currently advocate against them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Doesn't work for me. You are putting me as a player in a position of invalidating another persons characters abilities. On a theoretical level that shouldn't happen. It makes me into a prick for doing that as long as his class was a valid choice for our game.

On a more practical level it just means I will not ever play the character that hates bard music performance etc. Theoretically that may limit my options just a little. But it's better than the alternative.

Also all these inspiration abilities take away from any non-class character being able to inspire others with music or through their own bravery etc.

Those considerations are why people hate thinking about such classes. IMO most hardly care at all in actual practice as is evidenced by the bard.

Almost every criticism that can be leveled at the warlord can already be leveled at the bard and no one cares enough to complain about the bard...

I agree that the problem is also present in the bard, but to a much lesser extent.

I also agree that it is kind of a jerk move to invalidate another player's actions, but if there's a solid roleplaying reason for it (and it's done for RP and not be a jerk) then I could see it working, and anyway the bard will very quickly learn to not give his inspiration dice to that player.

I guess I'm defending this behavior because if and when Warlords are in the game and I find myself at the table with one I want to reserve the right for my character to be thoroughly unimpressed and therefore immune to his non-magical abilities.

 

[Mecheon]

I agree that the problem is also present in the bard, but to a much lesser extent.

I also agree that it is kind of a jerk move to invalidate another player's actions, but if there's a solid roleplaying reason for it (and it's done for RP and not be a jerk) then I could see it working, and anyway the bard will very quickly learn to not give his inspiration dice to that player.

I guess I'm defending this behavior because if and when Warlords are in the game and I find myself at the table with one I want to reserve the right for my character to be thoroughly unimpressed and therefore immune to his non-magical abilities.

I mean, you can pull the exact same thing on Clerics and Druids today by blaspheming against the character's deity every time you get a heal until the deity just gives up and tells the cleric to knock off healing you.

If your character is like that, why are they even in an adventuring group?

 

[mellored]

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.

"expertise" is literally a level 1 rogue feature.

 

[mellored]

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.

That's like saying Eldritch knight and arcane trickster do not count as 2 different wizard classes.
Sure, they can do the wizard thing of casting wizard spells, but they are truncated.

Now if you combined battlemaster, PDK, mastermind, and bardic insperation into a single class, then you would have a warlord. Though there's still room for more. Like wizard, it's a broad concept.

 

[mellored]

I guess I'm defending this behavior because if and when Warlords are in the game and I find myself at the table with one I want to reserve the right for my character to be thoroughly unimpressed and therefore immune to his non-magical abilities.

I don't see any issue with that.

Besides, "inspiring" it's already in the game..

You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you and who can understand you.

 

[Gradine]

That's like saying Eldritch knight and arcane trickster do not count as 2 different wizard classes.
Sure, they can do the wizard thing of casting wizard spells, but they are truncated.

Now if you combined battlemaster, PDK, mastermind, and bardic insperation into a single class, then you would have a warlord. Though there's still room for more. Like wizard, it's a broad concept.

I'm not arguing that it isn't a broad concept. What I'm saying is that it isn't a new concept. It all already exists, and I'd simply rather have WotC focus their energy and efforts on bringing something new to 5e. There's a lot more interesting design space to be found in other legacy classes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, you can pull the exact same thing on Clerics and Druids today by blaspheming against the character's deity every time you get a heal until the deity just gives up and tells the cleric to knock off healing you.

If your character is like that, why are they even in an adventuring group?

Druids have no deity

 

[FrogReaver]

That was kinda the point. That inspiring is in the game and no one has an issue with it in practical terms.

I don't see any issue with that.

Besides, "inspiring" it's already in the game..

You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you and who can understand you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you and who can understand you.

Great example. It's a Feat and therefore open to everybody, and it's just one single mechanic. So if the concept you have in mind is the inspiring leader you can literally play any class, perhaps take Noble or Soldier background, and over time get this feat, and increase your Cha, Persuade, and Intimidate, take one of the existing sub-classes or dip into Bard, etc. By the time you are high level and actually are a mighty hero, you'll have the build to show it.

I'll say it again (and again and again and again): I don't mind these sorts of abilities being sprinkled around here and there, especially if they are available to any class; it's basing an entire class on the premise that other (player) characters look up to you and follow your lead that I object to. Finding isolated examples of similar mechanics in no way invalidates that criticism.