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

Popping by to add my 7 cents:

1) I'm not sure I buy that the Warlord "controversy" is driven by 4e-haters who have chosen the Warlord as the poster child for everything they didn't like about that edition (or whatever that exact reasoning was.) Given that the number of classes exploded in 3 and 4, and now we only have a handful, I have to wonder where the zealous, uncompromising defenders of those other missing classes are? Sure, here and there is somebody looking for a Hexblade or a Runepriest or a...something (look I'm making this part up because I don't know what those classes are) but nowhere is there a relentless drumbeat of demand that comes anywhere close to that for the Warlord. So clearly there's pro-Warlord zealotry going on.
/snip

See, that's the thing though. There aren't particularly any call for those other classes. No one has any real strong feelings about them, pro or con. And, between UA and SCAG, we've been covering a LOT of those other classes. Hexblade actually HAS a UA article, for example. A Runepriest might have lots of people who want one, but, since no one's actually asked for one, we can't really know.

What we do know, though, is that there are persistent requests for Warlords. And every time those requests come up, unlike requests for any other class, you have a number of posters pop up and tell us that such a concept is "anathema" to the game or that we should just be happy with what we already have, or that there isn't enough of us to actually matter and we should just let the matter drop.

And, if you are right, and there is a relentless drumbeat of demand for a Warlord, then doesn't that mean that there are a number of people who would like to see one in print?

The only reason that you see "pro-Warlord zealotry" is because, despite repeated requests, we haven't actually gotten any loving.

And we all want some loving. :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Popping by to add my 7 cents:

1) I'm not sure I buy that the "controversy" is driven by 4e-haters who have chosen the Warlord as the poster child for everything they didn't like about that edition (or whatever that exact reasoning was.)
That was part of half of it, though I didn't mean to imply "chosen," as you put it. There's two 'controversies' and the Warlord happens to be at a place where they intersect.


D&D was briefly but brutally afflicted with the edition war, and has been perennially afflicted with a martial|magic double-standard. The rejection of 4e by a sub-set of fans already well-served by an open-source version of the game, and the entrenched expectation that casters should be held to much looser and more forgiving standards* of balance & realism than non-supernatural alternatives, are the sources of the controversy you're alluding to.

The Warlord is a convenient focus for them, since it's a martial class that was very nearly balanced with casters, and was introduced by 4e, challenging one side, I guess you could say the 'establishment' side, of both controversies.

Divorced of both issues - for instance, if appearing in a game not technically D&D, and/or in a form that wouldn't in any way challenge the dominance of magic - it would not be caught up in much, if any, controversy.


Given that the number of classes exploded in 3 and 4, and now we only have a handful
If were being fair 'bloat' was the D&D marketing strategy for a good 20 years. 5e's thankfully going at a slower pace, and it's crystal clear that the basic and standard versions of the game are all but set in stone.

I have to wonder where the zealous, uncompromising defenders of those other missing classes are? Sure, here and there is somebody looking for a Hexblade or a Runepriest or a...something (look I'm making this part up because I don't know what those classes are)
Artificer, Psion, Binder, Beguiler, Shaman, and Warden have all gotten some air time.

But, yes the Warlord's the most significant, "missing' class not yet in the pipeline. There's more demand for it, and it could do the most to expand the range of supported play & campaign styles, so, of course the calls for it are persistent.
 

See, that's the thing though. There aren't particularly any call for those other classes. No one has any real strong feelings about them, pro or con.
While some are just flavors and variations of the already plentiful caster choices 5e provides in the PH, a couple are quite significant. Psionics was left out of the PH, for instance, and so the 'Mystic' - not entirely without controversy, either - is in its second version.
 


Popping by to add my 7 cents:

Given that the number of classes exploded in 3 and 4, and now we only have a handful, I have to wonder where the zealous, uncompromising defenders of those other missing classes are? Sure, here and there is somebody looking for a Hexblade or a Runepriest or a...something (look I'm making this part up because I don't know what those classes are) but nowhere is there a relentless drumbeat of demand that comes anywhere close to that for the Warlord.
You ask a good question. Where are these fans? There are likely several factors at play here, some of which requires pointing out the obvious.

1) Not all classes are equally popular or have fanbases. How or why that is the case is a separate subject entirely. So when we take the Hexblade or Runepriest, following your example, we may ask how popular these classes were in the context of 4E (or potentially in their pre-4E roots). I doubt that many 4E fans would dispute, for example, that the Seeker was something of an unpopular or dud of a class in the context of 4E. So the demand for updates will not be equal across classes.

2) A number of these other classes had "good enough" updates to 5e. These other classes may have received serviceable updates that integrated them into other classes. The subclass system works for creating variation of playstyles within classes, largely reducing the redundancy of other classes. The Assassin and the Illusionist, for example, were both turned into subclasses for the Rogue and Wizard, respectfully. And, for that matter, a number of popular 3E Prestige Classes were also turned into 5E Subclasses (e.g. Dragon Acolyte, Arcane Trickster, Assassin, Lore Master, Shadow Dancer, etc.). We also see this with the 4E Invoker or Avenger. Many Invoker players have simply shifted over to the Light Cleric. The Invoker was a "divine blaster," and the Light Cleric through its subclass features and spell choices allows for a player to sufficiently mimic that niche. The Favored Soul will also likely cater towards those ends. Many Avenger players have shifted over to the Vengeance Paladin, though there are still the occasional calls for a divine subclass of Rogue that fills a similar niche. The Hexblade is now a subclass of the Warlock, as of the most recent UA, which seemed to be well received.

But...

3) Not all class updates to 5E are "equal" in their authenticity or faithfulness. This is where, for example, I suspect we see some demands for other favorites of 4E or older editions. The Shaman was a fairly popular class in 4E. People have expressed desire for a Shaman class or subclass. The Circle of the Shepherds in UA was likely an attempt to re-create a Shaman/Summoner subclass for 5E, though it is questionable how well it succeeded on that front. And although we have a number of ways of creating a "gish" in 5E (e.g. Eldritch Knight, Valor Bard, Bladelock, Paladin/Sorcerer MC, etc.), we can also see that the Swordmage has some demand as well. And we also saw a recent UA attempt to give the Stone Sorcerer the Swordmage's stuff. But we also saw the first iteration of the Artificer on UA as a Wizard subclass. This received a tremendous amount of negative feedback, hence it being made into a full class in a recent UA. This decision received much better positive feedback. This has moved the UA Artificer much closer to the realm of Point #2. If the Artificer becomes "good enough" then the clamoring for its inclusion will likely stop. Basic goals achieved.

So when we look at the question of fanbases and edition updates, it's of course worth asking how the Warlord situates itself in this conversation. For those oppose a Warlord class, they may feel, in part, that the Warlord does not satisfy #1, which has been a source of nebulous debate. How popular was the Warlord class? How big is its player fanbase? (Sadly a number of the old polls about class popularity have since been removed from WotC's website.) Or they may believe that existing options (e.g. Battlemaster, Mastermind, Purple Dragon Knight) satisfy #2. So they may not understand why Warlord fans want a full-class update when they believe "good enough" options already exist for their purposes. Naturally, advocates for a full-class Warlord archetype see the issues differently. In this case, they may regard the Warlord as having a sufficiently large fanbase to warrant its inclusion as a class. And in regards to Points #2 and #3, Warlord fans do not see the available options as being "good enough" to fill in the unique playstyle niche that the Warlord (and its spiritual predecessors) filled in terms of martial tactical support play. Here, many Warlord fans cites the Battlemaster or Purple Dragon Knight as being as much of a Warlord as the Eldritch Knight is a Wizard or the GOO Warlock as a Psion. I also think that the comparison to the Artificer is now warranted given how it originally started as a Wizard subclass before being expanded into its own proper full class. The "zealous" calls for a Warlord class are still around because the absence of their unique niche is still felt in 5E (i.e. Point #3).
 

Snipping down to the headings to save space....

1) Not all classes are equally popular or have fanbases.

Sure, and you'd expect to see some kind of power law distribution, with one clear "winner". But it's the shape of the curve in this case that raises my eyebrows. If we're counting threads or posts then I would estimate the Warlord is ahead by an order of magnitude, over all the others combined. And while a number of opponents jump into threads, for the most part the threads are started by the proponents.


2) A number of these other classes had "good enough" updates to 5e.
Pretty much every class has had it's share of complaints that its not faithful to older versions, or that key features were left out, or whatever. But the discussion tends to fade away pretty quickly, only popping up when something relevant appears in UA. Not so the Warlord.

3) Not all class updates to 5E are "equal" in their authenticity or faithfulness.
I'm glad you mentioned the gish, because my perception is pretty much what you describe, but (again, I missed 3rd and 4th editions) I don't really have the expertise to know for sure. So, yes, I follow the discussions and despite all the gish-y options a lot of people aren't completely satisfied by those options. So where are all the threads? Where are the enumerations of the criteria that a gish has to meet?

I don't doubt that some opponents of the Warlord are motivated by baggage from previous wars; there's some sort of culture war going on here. But as somebody who stepped into the debate relatively recently, I am surprised...and suspicious...of the uncompromising pro-Warlord fervor that I perceive. It goes way, way beyond, "Gosh class X was kind of fun; I wish they would bring that back."
 

2) Just to distinguish my concerns from Corwin, I'm not basing my opposition on the fear that some jerk is going to play the leader aspects of his Warlord to the hilt and be a nuisance at the table.
To be clear, I was originally just being a bit snarky in counterpoint to a certain poster's overly dramatic hyperbolic posting style. That isn't to say I haven't seen such behavior at tables. Of course I have. More than once during the 4e heyday playing RPGA at cons. But I don't consider those instances rules/system problems. Those are always people problems. Just like the issues being had here, ironically enough.

However, I do think we agree that we would prefer any warlord that is introduced into 5e not be designed to foster a sense of admiration or inspiration from its allies, nor strongly suggest leadership or authority over them. Because that's bad design, IMO.
 

The only reason that you see "pro-Warlord zealotry" is because, despite repeated requests, we haven't actually gotten any loving.
And yet, my one friend who did especially love warlords during our 4e years, isn't here constantly clamoring and grousing. Because he *does* see the loving given him in 5e already. Its all over the place. He just chooses to see it because he is reading though 5e colored glasses.
 

I don't doubt that some opponents of the Warlord are motivated by baggage from previous wars; there's some sort of culture war going on here. But as somebody who stepped into the debate relatively recently, I am surprised...and suspicious...of the uncompromising pro-Warlord fervor that I perceive. It goes way, way beyond, "Gosh class X was kind of fun; I wish they would bring that back."

I can tell you what it is for me - played it in 4e, was one of my favorite characters, if not my favorite. It has intricate and complex tools. It made full use of the action economy. It was highly team focused, and I am the guy who likes playing team focused characters. Highly tactical and complex, and frankly, not relying on some external power. He didn't spend his whole action healing you (and neither did the 4e cleric mostly). He attacked and healed, or attacked and granted CA, or attacked and shifted another party member.

I've had Good fun with the 5e bard, but it's not quite the same. Just not enough knobs for my taste. Maybe needed to MC diviner with Lucky and and Shield Mastery or something :)
 

However, I do think we agree that we would prefer any warlord that is introduced into 5e not be designed to foster a sense of admiration or inspiration from its allies, nor strongly suggest leadership or authority over them. Because that's bad design, IMO.
I have no issue with that.

And i'm still half tempted to vote for butler... particularly with batmans butler in mind.
 

Remove ads

Top