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

[doctorbadwolf]

It meant "tactical inspiration guy". In one past edition of the game. In 3e, "marshal" meant the same thing. I skipped most of the Kit books for 2nd Edition (and missed Skills & Powers) but don't see a warlord or marshal in Wikipedial's lists of kits. So that archetype likely had a third name back then. Myrmidon? Noble warrior? Soldier? Diplomat?

If they can change the psion to the mystic...


Right, and they're not doing a lot of actual dragon riding at the beginning. At 1st level. Some character concepts just take more time to fully become viable.

I'd probably work "beast riding" into a subclass, and just have the dragon be a semi-cooperative pet until 3rd level.

Nah, I'd say they are still level 1 when he starts riding toothless. Nothing wrong with being able to actually ride the dragon at lvl 1.

but I'm gonna ditch this thread too, at this point. Maybe I'll build a dragon rider class at some point, when I'm not so busy with my other projects. If so, I'll send it to you or post it for feedback.

 

[Paul Smart]

As the OP please keep it civil everyone.

 

[Morrus]

I didn't do anything remotely out of line.

And you know the rules about arguing with moderators in-thread. Don't post in this thread again, please.

 

[Corwin]

The class doesn't do any of that.

But it does though. The class is built around inspiring their allies. About coaching them up to eek out more than they could otherwise on their own. Every iteration of warlord I've seen anyway. Care to take a stab at one that doesn't? We'd love to see it if at all possible.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

Nope, but if that's how you want to misconstrue the warlord, then it's not as if I can tell you otherwise, can I? It's not as if many magi in fiction have much in common apart from being casting spells either. There's not really a fundamental difference between a barbarian and a fighter. Plus, outside of D&D fiction, the cleric is virtually non-existent. And that "wizard" Merlin, much like Gandalf, could be emulated perfectly by playing a druid. Sort of fact of the matter is that D&D fantasy has become its own fantasy fiction apart from most of its source material.

Brilliant. So it is your opinion that you aren't being disruptive, nor taking advantage of my good will, by sitting down next to me at the table and telling me that my barbarian defacto looks up to, and respects, your warlord? And, furthermore, that he needs your character's expert advice on how to better swing his axe?

Which a bard or battermaster can already do, so your dead horse of an argument is moot. This is why it seems as if people have hypocritical blinders when it comes to the "warlord." They hardly ever apply this same criticism to other classes, only when they see the name "warlord," and then they throw all reason, sense, and, most importantly, fairness out the window.

But it does though. The class is built around inspiring their allies. About coaching them up to eek out more than they could otherwise on their own. Every iteration of warlord I've seen anyway. Care to take a stab at one that doesn't? We'd love to see it if at all possible.

This is where I see the warlord differently. You see the warlord as a coach. I don't. I see the warlord as a point guard, a fellow on-the-court player, a playmaker who can call out plays on the court and helps set-up their fellow team. They help get the ball to the shooting guard or the center. They sacrifice their own offensive shooting for the big assist.

 

[Corwin]

Which a bard or battermaster can already do, so your dead horse of an argument is moot.

Great. Then you have your warlord already. Awesome.

This is why it seems as if people have hypocritical blinders when it comes to the "warlord." They hardly ever apply this same criticism to other classes, only when they see the name "warlord," and then they throw all reason, sense, and, most importantly, fairness out the window.

Do you not see that the other side of the argument is doing the exact same thing?

This is why it seems as if people have hypocritical tunnel vision when it comes to the "warlord." They can't bother to see that they are getting what they need from other classes, they just need to see the name "warlord," and they'll throw all reason, sense, and, most importantly, fairness out the window.

See?

This is where I see the warlord differently. You see the warlord as a coach. I don't. I see the warlord as a point guard, a fellow on-the-court player, a playmaker who can call out plays on the court and helps set-up their fellow team. They help get the ball to the shooting guard or the center. They sacrifice their own offensive shooting for the big assist.

Having seen a great deal of 4e warlords in play, heck, I've played several *myself*, I can honestly disagree with your assessment. What do you think is happening when the warlord is getting the barbarian to swing his weapon that much quicker, and better, to get more attack in than he otherwise could without the warlord around? And I think we can all agree that the warlord is designed around inspiring his allies, rallying them to marshal on, using his impressive leadership skills. No thanks. My barbarian will follow and respect who *I* deem worthy. Not because it says I should on your character sheet.

 

[Gradine]

I would agree.

But "warlord after we fix the ranger" is different from "no warlord".

That is pretty much my position, yes, in spirit if not in specifics.

I would say that a new Warlord is very low on my 5e wishlist.

 

[Aldarc]

Great. Then you have your warlord already. Awesome.

Great. You can whack a guy with a sword in armor, so you have your paladin, barbarian, or ranger already. Awesome. You can already cast powerful arcane spells. So who needs a bard, sorcerer, or warlock when we already have the wizard? Awesome.

Do you not see that the other side of the argument is doing the exact same thing? This is why it seems as if people have hypocritical tunnel vision when it comes to the "warlord." They can't bother to see that they are getting what they need from other classes, they just need to see the name "warlord," and they'll throw all reason, sense, and, most importantly, fairness out the window.

See?

This comes across as false equivalence and disrespectful on your part, Corwin. It's hardly the same, so I respectfully request that you cut it out if you want to actually demonstrate that you holding this discussion in good faith.

Having seen a great deal of 4e warlords in play, heck, I've played several *myself*, I can honestly disagree with your assessment. What do you think is happening when the warlord is getting the barbarian to swing his weapon that much quicker, and better, to get more attack in than he otherwise could without the warlord around? And I think we can all agree that the warlord is designed around inspiring his allies, rallying them to marshal on, using his impressive leadership skills. No thanks. My barbarian will follow and respect who *I* deem worthy. Not because it says I should on your character sheet.

So it's your experience against mine? I guess your experience is simply right on virtue of being Corwin as opposed to actually being right or presenting a coherent argument.

I have seen my share of warlords in play too, and I have played warlords as well, and I disagree with your assessment, Corwin. Though it does seem that you are describing a point guard and not a coach. It seems that we are at impasse then. But I will point out that what you are describing is what the Battlemaster can already do, to a limited extent. Many warlord advocates simply want to take the Battlemaster and expand it to a proper full class and not just a 1/3 Warlord.

 

[Corwin]

Great. You can whack a guy with a sword in armor, so you have your paladin, barbarian, or ranger already. Awesome. You can already cast powerful arcane spells. So who needs a bard, sorcerer, or warlock when we already have the wizard? Awesome.

Been shown to be a weak argument. Repeatedly. I have no interest in humoring it further. You have a handful of 5e warlord options already available to you. Enjoy them. Or don't.

This comes across as false equivalence and disrespectful on your part, Corwin. It's hardly the same, so I respectfully request that you cut it out if you want to actually demonstrate that you holding this discussion in good faith.

You don't get to tell me I'm not discussing in good faith when I broached the exact argument you did, just in reverse. Unless you are speaking to *both* our arguments? After all, you were the one claiming one side had "blinders" on and "can't see". Kinda inflammatory and in bad faith from the get-go. No?

So it's your experience against mine? I guess your experience is simply right on virtue of being Corwin as opposed to actually being right or presenting a coherent argument.

Clever. But not accurate. Talk about discussing in bad faith. Your bad faith fu is superior to mine. You aren't trying to pull one over on someone who's never played 4e, nor seen warlords in action. That's the point. We've seen how they play. What they do. How they work. Telling us the class isn't designed around inspiring their allies and coaching them, to be better than they can on their own, is simply folly. Or disingenuous. Or both. Its written into their make-up, fer gawds sake.

I have seen my share of warlords in play too, and I have played warlords as well, and I disagree with your assessment, Corwin.

Clearly. Sounds like you are none too pleased to see anecdotal evidence brought to bear against that which you had already presented.

Though it does seem that you are describing a point guard and not a coach.

You keep trying to tell me what I'm saying. Weird.

It seems that we are at impasse then.

A three-years-long one, it would seem. This ain't a new rodeo.

But I will point out that what you are describing is what the Battlemaster can already do, to a limited extent. Many warlord advocates simply want to take the Battlemaster and expand it to a proper full class and not just a 1/3 Warlord.

Wanting that doesn't make it balanced though. I've yet to see it accomplished, anyway.

 

[mellored]

Wanting that doesn't make it balanced though. I've yet to see it accomplished, anyway.

Which class is balanced?