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

[Morrus]

You should follow along with the conversation. Several people have already addressed that.

Don't admonish people for not having read 30 pages of discussion, please. Conversations move on and people join and leave. That's how it works.

 

[Aldarc]

Deleted.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you wish to consider rage as a purely mundane/martial concept, I suppose. However, I do not subscribe to such notions. To me, barbarians don't just "get angry."

Suit yourself, the Barbarian in the PH literally gives you both in the fluff, some barbarians commune with spirits, others just harbor vast rage. Doesn't change the fact that many non-magical abilities are tied to classes - sneak attack and combat style are also examples.

If its good enough to allow my barbarian to be an inspirational leader, why is it not good enough for making a battlemaster (or whathaveyou) a "warlord"?

Same reason a wizard who takes Martial Adept isn't a Battlemaster, or the Champion who takes Magic Initiate isn't a Wizard.

You mean like Noble, or Soldier? Maybe even Folk Hero? All potentially representative of a leader-ish type.

I'd pointed out the similar nature of the first two often, yes. Folk Hero hand't occurred to me. But there is a lot of that in 5e. Noble is also a bit suggestive of Paladin and vice-versa. Acolyte is representative of a Cleric type. Hermit & Sage of a Wizard type. Criminal of a Rogue type. Outlander of a Ranger type. Really, a lot of answers to your original conundrum of why can only members of Class A do a bit of thing Y?

 

[Corwin]

Suit yourself, the Barbarian in the PH literally gives you both in the fluff, some barbarians commune with spirits, others just harbor vast rage. Doesn't change the fact that many non-magical abilities are tied to classes - sneak attack and combat style are also examples.

If a totem barbarian's rage is supernatural, and a berserker can go into a rage that surpasses even *that*...

Again, you can read it how you prefer. I don't equate rage, of any kind, with just "getting angry". YMMV.

Same reason a wizard who takes Martial Adept isn't a Battlemaster, or the Champion who takes Magic Initiate isn't a Wizard.

...and anyone who take the inspiring leader feat can be an inspiring leader. Or, as some have come to call them, "warlords". Wanna be even more warlord-y? Be a battlemaster. Want even more? MC to bard or any number of other options available. There are plenty out there. Take you pick. Or take them all. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't equate any kind of barbarian rage as a supernatural ability, maybe I would if they gained it via a subclass ability but otherwise I see them as something extraordinary not supernatural. Same goes for the bard's inspiration, a non-magical extraordinary ability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't equate any kind of barbarian rage as a supernatural ability, maybe I would if they gained it via a subclass ability but otherwise I see them as something extraordinary not supernatural. Same goes for the bard's inspiration, a non-magical extraordinary ability.

5e PH, p 46 5th paragraph under Barbarian. "For some, their rage springs from communion with fierce animal spirits."

Sounds pretty supernatural, unless you think spirits are mundane. Sure, you can make the argument that the spirits or superntaural, but the rage they inspire isn't. Wiggle room.

it continues: "Others draw from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain."

Sounds dramatic, but personal. Phrased slightly differently it could sound like the reservoir were something outside themselves. Wiggle room.

But, to me, that really sounds like a Totem/Berserker distinction, and one that fits the supernatural rituals and spirits of the former, and the lack of any sort of supernatural trappings of the latter.

JMHO.

...and anyone who take the inspiring leader feat can be an inspiring leader. Or, as some have come to call them, "warlords". Wanna be even more warlord-y? Be a battlemaster. Want even more?

What to be a wizard? Take Magic Initiate feat, and you're a spell-caster, or as some call them, 'wizards.' Wanna be even more wizard-y, be an Arcane Trickster. Clearly the Wizard is redundant and should never have been in 5e.

And, I mean, seriously, the AT is a /much/ better Wizard than the BM is a Warlord.

MC to bard or any number of other options available. Or take them all.

Bard is a caster, it's not a Warlord option, in any sense at all. The other Warlord-like sub-class option is the PDK, you /can't/ MC from BM to PDK. You could play a PDK with Inspiring Leader, the Noble Background, and take Martial Adept to pick up a BM trick. Even if you /could/ take all those options at once, you'd still be far short of even the narrow 4e vision the Warlord as contents of the marital/leader box.

There are plenty out there. Take you pick. Whatever floats your boat.

Do you like to play full casters of any sort at all? Would you sign a pledge to never play any other caster again, only Arcane Tricksters or non-casters with Magic Initiate feat? Would that float the arcane boat? No.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I"m afraid you grossly misunderstood my argument, or perhaps are merely intentionally distorting it.

I intentionally included the option to not be forced to accept inspiration from the party's Warlord in both my versions of the Warlord (the Marshal is in JoLydee's Obvious Arcana). I believe that refusing to be inspired/befriended/encouraged is a legitimate stance to take in character.

This kind of thing highlights my main frustration in the process of designing a Warlord - vague yet damning criticisms.

I "grossly misunderstand" something and then get an accusation rather then an explanation.

"Some powers are weak and others are overpowered" then silence on the specifics. There is so little feedback on DMs Guild products that the one or two pieces of feedback one gets can be overvalued because they lack any statistical balance.

 

[jodyjohnson]

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?

For any who don't buy 'inspiration' as a power source for specific class abilities the Marshal is powered by Ki (if one needs that semi-magical source for buy in).

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.

This is shades of "shouting my arm back on". At the table level, it is easier to come to an agreement of what HP represent but over the internet it's impossible. At my table I'm not going to narrate those kind of descriptions at 0 hp because anything can happen - roll a '20' and pop back up naturally with full HP after an hour's rest (and HD healing), or roll a '1' and next round fail a Death save and the character died, or anything between. The most likely result being some sort of aid followed by full recovery after a long rest at worst.

If the table wants meaty HP then I'd probably disallow the Warlord and a number of other class mechanics that I'm surprised so many tables are apparently fine with in combination with narrated wounds.

 

[Gradine]

Other legacy classes, by definition, aren't new, either. Psionics, for instance, could be faked with a GOO Warlock pretty convincingly. The Artificer is just a guy that makes magic items, and Wizards can make magic items, it's just a very 'truncated' system. The Ranger has already been re-done a couple times.

They'd be new to 5e. Yeah, you can fake a few of those concepts, but to really do them justice you'd really need to design something new for the system 5e. To really do Warlord justice you'd just need to pile a bunch of mechanics that already exist into a single chassis. Sure, it'd be nice to see some day, but I'd much rather they give us something new, or at the very least, something new to 5e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, you can fake a few of those concepts, but to really do them justice you'd really need to design something new for the system 5e

You could fake up most of them (I can't think of an example, but I'm sure there could be one you really can't, yet) as well or better than you could the Warlord. I get that it's a matter of priority for you, you don't care that others can't play the characters they want, yet, and are willing, on there behalf, for us to wait a very long time. I'm patient, but not quite as patient as you seem to want me to be.

To really do Warlord justice you'd just need to pile a bunch of mechanics that already exist into a single chassis.

You'd need a lot more of them, too. The existing bits cover examples of the kinds of things the Warlord does, a little. Even all put together they're wildly inadequate. They just serve as 1) examples that prove those things can exist in 5e, and 2) options to make a character who's a little bit warlordy, but not really. 5e is full of options like that, you can kinda-sorta be a little bit any class with the right background or feat or whatnot. Some classes more than others - including some classes that don't exist yet.