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

[Guest 6801328]

I hope you don't mind me asking you a question. In your honest opinion - and in the full respect of the integrity of all people involved in this discussion - what do you see as the probable appeal of the Warlord archetype for its fans?

I suspect it's different reasons for different people, but honestly few of the possible reasons make a lot of sense to me.

E.g., I understand the appeal of the "tactical" mechanics, but then why the insistence that it meet all these other criteria (e.g. healing, no magic).

Playing a pure support class (what I gather y'all mean by "lazylord") I can see as a fun variant, especially for veterans who have played every flavor of damage-dealer. But, again, why the insistence that every aspect be non-magical?

Making low-magic campaigns more viable also sounds good on the surface, but temporary HP and tuning encounter difficulty/frequency would accomplish that, so the insistence that this solution isn't sufficient, given that D&D is a high-magic game, strikes me as...awfully demanding.

Some are probably just carrying baggage from the edition wars, and the Warlord is as symbolic for them as it is for the 4e-haters Tony describes.

And there might be others who really (if secretly) do want to play the "leader".

So I just don't know.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh, how about "Squire"? I think that checks all the boxes. Including the whole giving the knight a sword thing (i.e. grant attack).

"Battle Butler" can be a sub-class.

I proposed the Squire, in all seriousness, back on the WotF forums.

By the way, on the forums for The One Ring there has been recurring discussion about the Sam archetype, and what you call a hero whose motivation to adventure ("Calling", in TOR parlance) is simple loyalty to another. Worthy topic.

 

[Gradine]

7
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.

Archivist... Factotum... Spellthief... Incarnate... Binder... Psion...

It's excessively hard to model the whole breadth of what a 4e class could do in 5e; the best you can really do is decide what the core powers of the class are and build a class around that. Which is why I say that we already have (several) Warlords in 5e... they just came far shy of what a 4e warlord could do (mostly because that would be impossible in 5e, but also partially due to the fact they were subclasses and not a full class with subclasses of its own). You could do a lot more with a full-class version, but I suspect it's still going to fall substantially short. Note that while nobody's clamoring for a 4e Fighter in 5e, the constant call for a "spell-less Ranger" was basically about asking for a 4e Ranger.

When people talk about "caster supremacy", though, that is an edition-war red flag. 5e, I feel, has done a really good job of balancing all of the classes, at least when compared to 3.X, across all three pillars, while still making each class feel unique, something I felt 4e struggled with. Obviously this is not a universal belief. But calling foul on "caster supremacy" is generally a call for some version of the symmetric power structure of 4e. I will take a pass on that.

That said, as I've mentioned previously I love class bloat. I think new classes present new and interesting play mechanics and opportunities, and as I've argued in the past I don't see class bloat as having anything to do with the power creep present in 3.5 (I can't speak for PF, but in 3.5 CoDzilla still reigned supreme, and not even Book of the Nine Swords really ever changed that; 3.5's power creep was almost entirely based on feats & magic items). So yeah, I'd love to see a new take on Warlord as a full class (there's precedent for this anyway: see Artificer). But I'd much rather see WotC spend their resources first on other full classes that bring something new to 5e (Psion, Factotum, Archivist, Spellthief, etc.) I think some of those could be subclasses (Archivist as a Wizard subclass, for instance; I could see Binder as a Warlock pact boon, to be honest). But PDK as a full-class? I don't know I'd agree that we need that right away.

Alternatively, we could get it and then be done with it and then move on with our lives to more interesting mechanical expansions. I'd be happy either way, but happier if we got some of my other wishlist classes first.

My two cents, anyway.

 

[mellored]

Alfred Pennyworth definitely took that subclass...

Dishware Combat: Proficiency in improvised weapons. Bonus to unarmed combat.
Formality: Expertise in diplomacy, immune to fear and charm. At-Will Calm emotions.
Polish: After a short rest, each ally gains advantage on their charisma checks until they take a short or long rest, or are in a combat.

 

[mellored]

Playing a pure support class (what I gather y'all mean by "lazylord") I can see as a fun variant, especially for veterans who have played every flavor of damage-dealer. But, again, why the insistence that every aspect be non-magical?

Because buff spells don't make you feel like you're involved in combat. You just cast your bless/haste/greater invisibility, and sit back for 3 rounds shooting firebolts. Particularly with concentration, you want to stand back as far as possible. You could be an effective pacifist cleric sitting in the other room.

Warlords/Squires/Butlers get into the fray. Not just by being in melee, but they are using abilities every round. Letting the squishy wizard get away from the oger, helping the rogue land their sneak attack, buffing the AC of the surrounded fighter. You need to pay attention to when/where/how you buff to make the best use of it. Not cast-and-forget. Or walking aura.

It's less magic vs non-magic. And more active vs passive.


IMO.

 

[Satyrn]

I suspect it's different reasons for different people, but honestly few of the possible reasons make a lot of sense to me.

E.g., I understand the appeal of the "tactical" mechanics, but then why the insistence that it meet all these other criteria (e.g. healing, no magic).

Playing a pure support class (what I gather y'all mean by "lazylord") I can see as a fun variant, especially for veterans who have played every flavor of damage-dealer. But, again, why the insistence that every aspect be non-magical?

The non-magical bit is one of the fundamental points for me because I prefer playing non-magical characters. I like the flavor of that. I want the flavor of that.

I also really like playing the role the cleric has filled for a long time, and I generally play my clerics as front line fighters taking hits, dishing out damage and supporting my allies with the sort of help that gets them through a fight - the healing and buffs to attack and protection stuff.

The warlord let me combine those 2 likes.

My insistence for 5e's version to be non magical (if I was insisting) would be because that's the whole point of the 4e warlord to me - it was a non-magical support class. It's a niche that 5e doesn't fill, while the cleric, bard and paladin (and druid and wizard to a great degree) can all fill that support role magically.

 

[tuxgeo]

I'm going to recap parts of this conversation for the sake of context:

(Aldarc said)

. . . So pro-Warlord fans should compromise on their fervor towards one of their favorite class archetypes and instead be lukewarm on its existence?

(And Elfcrusher replied)

Mmmm...hypotheses. But no strong conviction. Mostly I find it curious enough to trigger my spidey sense that there's more here than meets the eye.

Here, I offer an alternative interpretation: That's not a "spidey sense" -- that's suspicion triggered by your acknowledged lack of understanding, which you describe below.
The difference, of course, is that true "spidey senses" (if there were any true examples of that) would be responding to the actual existence of examples of the thing being sensed; but mere suspicion can occur without the actual existence of anything worthy of being suspicious about.

(Then Aldarc replied to that)

I hope you don't mind me asking you a question. In your honest opinion - and in the full respect of the integrity of all people involved in this discussion - what do you see as the probable appeal of the Warlord archetype for its fans?

(And Elfcrusher replied again, this time describing and acknowledging a lack of understanding)

I suspect it's different reasons for different people, but honestly few of the possible reasons make a lot of sense to me.

E.g., I understand the appeal of the "tactical" mechanics, but then why the insistence that it meet all these other criteria (e.g. healing, no magic).

Playing a pure support class (what I gather y'all mean by "lazylord") I can see as a fun variant, especially for veterans who have played every flavor of damage-dealer. But, again, why the insistence that every aspect be non-magical?

Making low-magic campaigns more viable also sounds good on the surface, but temporary HP and tuning encounter difficulty/frequency would accomplish that, so the insistence that this solution isn't sufficient, given that D&D is a high-magic game, strikes me as...awfully demanding.

Emphasis added above. IMHO, D&D is more accurately described as a Roleplaying game that does high-magic well, but that also has the capability to do low-magic nearly as well; and some players want it to do a better job of the latter. If you sufficiently and consistently persuade yourself into truly believing that "D&D is a high-magic game," then it will continue to be difficult-to-impossible for you to understand the motivations of those for whom that description ("is a high-magic game") isn't necessarily true of all possible uses of the game.

Some are probably just carrying baggage from the edition wars, and the Warlord is as symbolic for them as it is for the 4e-haters Tony describes.

And there might be others who really (if secretly) do want to play the "leader".

So I just don't know.

Oh, you know already quite a bit of the truth. You're right when you say that different people have different reasons for wanting a full Warlord class.

Here's one factor you may have missed: It isn't just the presence of specific features that the Warlord fans want; but more than that, it's the ability to use those features as much as can be fit into 5E. A Fighter subclass won't ever achieve that "as much as can be fit into 5E" criterion because a Fighter has too many other built-in features that accomplish other things (hit die size, Extra Attack, etc.), and those cut into the room for a Warlord-y subclass of the Fighter to do more Warlord-y things without becoming way overpowered in the process of building it that way.
For the people who want to do Warlord-y stuff as much as can be fit into 5E, the offerings to date in that direction don't go as far as they would like; and they think that a full-class version would necessarily be able to go farther in that direction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMHO, D&D is more accurately described as a Roleplaying game that does high-magic well, but that also has the capability to do low-magic nearly as well; and some players want it to do a better job of the latter.

How 'nearly as well' depends on what you mean by 'low magic.'
5e D&D does a relatively-few-magic-items definition of 'low magic' - but the party can still be all casters (high magic indeed), if desired - just fine. Indeed, I'd say that's it's optimal mode, as it actually strains to offer challenge if you have many magic items in the party. It also does high-magic-PCs in a low-magic-world (Primeaval Thule can be run that way, for instance) well enough (again, challenging them requires the DM to step up). It can even do a non-caster party, loaded down with magic items selected to fill in deficiencies (especially healing potions, obviously) well enough to get by.

What it can't do as well is low-magic in the sense of little magic available to the party, overall. And where it really falls down is with no magic available to the party - whether an all-non-caster party in a typical world, or a very-low/no- magic world & party both. Those are things D&D was rarely able to support without substantial modification. 4e, one of those 'rarelies,' handled the all-martial party and/or low-/no-magic world prettymuch seamlessly (lack of magic items requiring inherent bonuses, for instance), and the Warlord was a non-trivial part of enabling that.
It could do the same (and, because there are no 'Role' boxes restricting design, possibly more) for 5e, as well.

 

[Corwin]

Here's one factor you may have missed: It isn't just the presence of specific features that the Warlord fans want; but more than that, it's the ability to use those features as much as can be fit into 5E. A Fighter subclass won't ever achieve that "as much as can be fit into 5E" criterion because a Fighter has too many other built-in features that accomplish other things (hit die size, Extra Attack, etc.), and those cut into the room for a Warlord-y subclass of the Fighter to do more Warlord-y things without becoming way overpowered in the process of building it that way.

It sounds to me as if you are speaking like you know better than the people who wrote and developed the game.

 

[tuxgeo]

I don't see how you reached that conclusion, and I don't think that conclusion is justified by what I wrote, but I guess I don't need to. You are, after all, free to form your own opinions.