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

[Tony Vargas]

Then what class is batman?

Upper.

Rich, lives in a mansion, has a butler and a ward...

 

[pming]

Hiya!

NOTE: I have no idea why I'm bothering in yet another "Warlord" debate...I guess I just like pain and suffering...

Then what class is batman?

Batman (20th level Fighter (Dark Knight Avenger*))
*Dark Knight Avenger Class below

[snip where I take an hour to write up a Dark Knight Avenger arch-type that combines Fighter, Thief and 'Knowledge' Cleric stuff]

That's what Class Batman would be.

So, what is a Warlord? I'd say a warlord would also be an arch-type. It would [snip where I take yet another hour of my life to write up a Warlord arch-type under Fighter Class].

What's the point of all this? In the time people have spent bitching, moaning, whining, debating, convincing, debunking, opposing everyone else in these Warlord threads...we could have had a few DOZEN variations of good, kick ass Warlord Arch-types and Classes! We could all be using the variation of Warlord that we liked the most. We could have been talking about how good/bad some Warlord variation worked in our games. We could have been listening to people regale us with tales of daring-do, sacrifice, and genius tactics that saw the defeat of the Hundred Blood-Men of Bishaal at the Battle of Baalor Pass. But noooooo.... We have to waste time trying to convince some WotC employee who just might happen to stumble on here and for some inane reason choose just this thread and just 'your' post, which, by miracles of miracles, that WotC employee says "Oh, wow. We never even thunked of this! Hey guys! Guys! Lets do a new Warlord class just like what this guy here said!"

*insert red, unhappy frown face here*

^_^

Paul L. Ming <-- who obviously hasn't had his coffee yet...

 

[Guest 6801328]

You don't help your own cause (whatever it even is now)

The same as it has always been: to explore a complex, interesting topic with intelligent fans of a game I love.

I'm not going to ignore an argument...or, worse, try to distort into a twisted parody...just because it doesn't 100% support my "side".

FFS, that's how we ended up with a presiden....errr, nevermind.

trying to shoehorn iconic characters like Batman or Robin Hood in some kind of warlord camp. That's all I'm saying. By the standards you guys are throwing around, and you guys are even dancing around the point, all heroic charcters are "warlords" to one degree or another. From Conan to Urkel.

It doesn't seem like you are even understanding the argument. Agreement that, yes, there is an interesting archetype in fiction and literature that isn't well represented currently in 5e is by no means the same as concluding that this missing archetype is a "Warlord" or even a class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Honestly "Avenger" is another class name I think would work pretty well for some of this (the Int stuff more than the Cha stuff, imo)...it's colorful, evocative, and not very specific...but I know all you 3.5 and 4.0 players have baggage with existing class names, so....yeah.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ignore mah bad.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly "Avenger" is another class name I think would work pretty well for some of this (the Int stuff more than the Cha stuff, imo)...it's colorful, evocative, and not very specific

I don't really see how it calls out the abilities in question, though I can see how it works for Batman, obviously, and Odysseus as the very end of his story arc, for that matter.

but I know all you 3.5 and 4.0 players have baggage with existing class names, so....yeah.

I think the Avenger and Invoker are pretty dispensable 4e classes in the context of 5e, since they were both the product of the way 4e sliced up Tier 1 classes (other than wizard which they more just whittled a bit) to fit into the formal-Role paradigm. The former was little* more than an unarmored paladin, and with 5e's seamless STR/DEX decision point, that'd doable (if not ideal) as-is, and a sub-class might take care of anything* beyond that. The latter is prettymuch wholly subsumed by the return of the Cleric as prepped caster in 5e - prep blasting spells, wave a rod around, & RP Moses.

But, yeah, the names will still carry the baggage, even if all the baggage fits neatly in the back of the resurgent traditional class's Hummer.













* Full disclosure: I never 'got' the Avenger. Not just because I never cared to play strikers myself, most of 'em I could see the point of - what they were meant to 'be,' how they might be played, etc. The Avenger never gelled for me. I ran for Avengers, and the players generally had a great time, though, so clearly there was something there. So if any Avenger fans feel like I'm throwing your class under the bus, well, nolo contendere...

...also, apropos of nothing, it's the class that heavily-used the mechanic that would become Advantage in 5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

Feel free to troll away.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?531210-Made-it-Happen-5E-Warlord

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't really see how it calls out the abilities in question, though I can see how it works for Batman, obviously, and Odysseus as the very end of his story arc, for that matter. I think the Avenger and Invoker are pretty dispensable 4e classes in the context of 5e, since they were both the product of the way 4e sliced up Tier 1 classes (other than wizard which they more just whittled a bit) to fit into the formal-Role paradigm. The former was little* more than an unarmored paladin, and with 5e's seamless STR/DEX decision point, that'd doable (if not ideal) as-is, and a sub-class might take care of anything* beyond that. The latter is prettymuch wholly subsumed by the return of the Cleric as prepped caster in 5e - prep blasting spells, wave a rod around, & RP Moses.

But, yeah, the names will still carry the baggage, even if all the baggage fits neatly in the back of the resurgent traditional class's Hummer.













* Full disclosure: I never 'got' the Avenger. Not just because I never cared to play strikers myself, most of 'em I could see the point of - what they were meant to 'be,' how they might be played, etc. The Avenger never gelled for me. I ran for Avengers, and the players generally had a great time, though, so clearly there was something there. So if any Avenger fans feel like I'm throwing your class under the bus, well, nolo contendere...

...also, apropos of nothing, it's the class that heavily-used the mechanic that would become Advantage in 5e.

AD&D, 3E and 4E all had lots of stupid marginal niche classes. Expecting them all in is not reasonable IMHO. Eg a 3.5 healer- just play a life cleric.

 

[Darkness]

This is B.S. rhetoric. ...

Keep it civil, please. Questioning an argument's validity is no reason to abandon civility.

... FFS, that's how we ended up with a presiden....errr, nevermind. ...

Yeah, let's not go there.

 

[mellored]

i think the Avenger and Invoker are pretty dispensable 4e classes in the context of 5e, since they were both the product of the way 4e sliced up Tier 1 classes (other than wizard which they more just whittled a bit) to fit into the formal-Role paradigm. The former was little* more than an unarmored paladin, and with 5e's seamless STR/DEX decision point, that'd doable (if not ideal) as-is, and a sub-class might take care of anything* beyond that. The latter is prettymuch wholly subsumed by the return of the Cleric as prepped caster in 5e - prep blasting spells, wave a rod around, & RP Moses.

Agreed. Though i think barbarian is a better fit for the avenger. (big weapon, light armor, extra movement, and advantage).

That said, I have no issue with reusing the name.