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

[Tony Vargas]

Well, be careful there. I have no objections to the mechanics of the abilities.

But the nature of the ability is very important.

So you fundamentally object to the Inspiring Leader feat and won't play at a table where another PC's 1st-level Variant Human has it, for instance, because of the nature of that ability?

Interesting. If it really is that fundamental including the question in the poll would determine that.

It's as fundamental as being non-magical is to the fighter.

So, in 5e, really only in the context of the base class. So if there's an Inspiring and a Tactician sub-class, they should both be non-magical, as should all the abilities of the base class, just like the Champion, Battlemaster, and fighter class abilities like Second Wind. But, a spellcasting Mage-Captain or psionic Ardent as a sub-class would be in keeping with 5e design philosophies.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The very concept of 'want excluded' is a bit bizarre and wrong-headed given 5e's goals of inclusiveness and covering a wider range of play styles. Anything not already in the core game is opt-in optional. It's already excluded from the PH. That seems like more than enough exclusion to satisfy any reasonable prejudice.

Over time? A Variant Human can start with the Feat and a formal military or social rank. He doesn't have to become a mighty hero, he's inspiring you from day one with his military experience or noble blood...

Seriously, Tony? Your response to that explanation is "Ha! You can take that Feat at level 1, therefore your argument is specious!"

Ok, fine, you finally trapped me in my own falsehoods. Sign me up for the Warlord class!

 

[Guest 6801328]

So you fundamentally object to the Inspiring Leader feat and won't play at a table where another PC's 1st-level Variant Human has it, for instance, because of the nature of that ability?

No, I'd grit my teeth and play. Hoping it doesn't come to that.

It's as fundamental as being non-magical is to the fighter.

Seems to me there's an active debate about whether the fighter is non-magical.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, I'd grit my teeth and play. Hoping it doesn't come to that.

Good! Isn't that better than trying to make sure no one ever gets to play what they want?

Seriously, Tony? Your response to that explanation is "Ha! You can take that Feat at level 1, therefore your argument is specious!"

Ok, fine, you finally trapped me in my own falsehoods. Sign me up for the Warlord class!

Seriously, you claim the game shouldn't have a 1st level character others 'must' look up to, /but by your standard it already does/. That seems to undermine your argument pretty completely. Plus, it can be any human, of any class. Not just a Noble Paladin, but a Criminal Assassin or Hermit Warlock, for instance.

Of course, neither the Warlord nor the Inspiring Leader feat need force any such thing. Those're RP details, they might be hashed out among the players, if anyone's even bothered/interested in the first place.

Anyway, I feel like your concern might point to you being a potentially great partner in an RP dynamic, it's certainly sparked some interesting ideas, again, in this thread. Were it not for the context of campaigning to deprive the game of a great class that it had in past edition PH1, it'd've been entirely positive.

 

[Corwin]

Then what balance where you talking about?

Balanced with the expectations of 5e compared to 4e. So many of [you] keep trying to port over their expectations of the 4e version, as if the two systems mesh seamlessly. Or have even similar design goals.

 

[mellored]

Balanced with the expectations of 5e compared to 4e. So many of [you] keep trying to port over their expectations of the 4e version, as if the two systems mesh seamlessly. Or have even similar design goals.

Which part of 4e won't fit in 5e?

 

[Corwin]

Which part of 4e won't fit in 5e?

I've got two answers to that question. Both short.

1) That's so open ended there is no way to answer it meaningfully.

And 2) Seriously?!?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which part of 4e won't fit in 5e?

Class Balance?

Seriously, though, class design in 5e is less constrained, not just by balance concerns but by Role or Source as boxes. In 4e the Warlord was stuffed in the Martial/Leader box rather than the Martial/Controller box prettymuch just because, and carefully balanced with other 'Leaders.' In 5e, the starting point wouldn't be the box but the concept, which is really quite broad, especially when you consider the MP and Dragon Mag stuff for the class, and the directions players took it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

In the full class version of the Warlord on DMs Guild, the 'Bonds of Friendship' and 'Circle of Friends' abilities were a specific nod to the concerns of Corwin and Elfcrusher (and the presumed thousands of characters that also refuse to be friends, be inspired by, or respect other characters in their party). They only exist because we were having the same discussion a year ago.

 

[Corwin]

Fun fact. Even if my barbarian *does* look up to and respect the warlord, and find him an inspirational coach, no matter how hard I try I cannot influence the warlord or motivate him in return. At all. He gets zero reciprocity. Is he too aloof and/or above his allies that they do nothing for him? Has he so little respect and admiration for his cohorts in return that he can only yawn at their attempts at rousing speeches or words of advice?

I mean, all those times I was lying there, bleeding to death, and a few terse words barked at me from my warlord buddy and I was back in the action. But when he's lying there in poor shape, try as I might I could never rile him up or motivate him to rise above his woulds and to carry on the fight. He must not be able to practice what he preaches or something?