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

[Tony Vargas]

Can I just comment that some of the new psionic discipline fit damn well for a warlord.
Especially mantle of command, courage and fury.

They do further illustrate that neither the mechanics nor the mere use of a word like 'command' are reasons to stonewall the addition of a class.

As supernatural powers, of course, they're in no way suitable to building a warlord, just as spellcasters weren't a suitable substitute for psionics, in the first place.

that discussion already happened. Those, and the Avatar, are apparently a different Leader class called an Ardent, which was basically a Psionic Warlord as far as I can tell.

In 4e the Ardent was a Psionic Leader, and the Warlord a Martial Leader, so in the sense that the Avatar is a good enough take on the Ardent to evoke the Leader-Role functionality it had, that's an apt metaphor.

4e's is still the only vision we have of the Warlord, and it'd be too easy to get caught up in the Leader functions as defining the Warlord, entirely, when fitting a class to a role also meant constraining it. The Warlord had exploits that hinted as functions that would have impinged on both Defender and Controller. 5e doesn't need to worry about constraining it's designs so much.

 

[Krachek]

By the way, somewhere in this thread somebody (Aldarc?) asked me why I think some people are so keen...bordering on zealotry...on getting the warlord. I think maybe I should add one theory to that list: that it has become the symbol for whether or not WotC was serious about trying to bring together fans of all editions. That the "Warlord"...as a base class with that name that includes a list of non-negotiable features...is the one and only thing that will prove that 4e fans are welcome in the tent, and that it's absence is proof of their duplicity.

And finally, if I was in the dev team I would be concerned at being attractive to the pathfinder community.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And finally, if I was in the dev team I would be concerned at being attractive to the pathfinder community.

How would you compete with the attentive service, comparatively open communication, and voluminous, arguably unequaled, support from Paizo?

 

[Hussar]

Can I just comment that some of the new psionic discipline fit damn well for a warlord.
Especially mantle of command, courage and fury.

See, here's the thing.

You're absolutely right. We have a psionic leader. Those that want to play a 4e style leader can now do so. And that will probably make some people happy. But, there are a few issues raised by the existence of this class:

1. All mechanical arguments against the Warlord now fade into the wind. Since it's acceptable for an Avatar to do all the things a warlord is expected to do, there can be no more arguments about how a warlord is over powered or mechanically unacceptable. Even the idea of telling other players what to do goes out the window, because, well, all we have to do is point to the Avatar and say, "Well, he can do it, why can't I?" And since there hasn't been an upsurge in rage quits over the Avatar, it's pretty obvious that the mechanics were never really an issue.

2. Which brings us to the real issue - flavor. The debate is no longer over whether or not we can do warlord and leader things in D&D. We can. There's a boatload of classes, subclasses, feats and whatnot that prove that a warlord class brings nothing to the game that doesn't already exist. So, the true question is, is it acceptable for a class to do these things without supernatural powers? What is the extent that people are willing to accept for non-supernatural characters?

And, really, that's a question that shifts over time. The idea of a self-healing fighter would have been a non-starter ten years ago, for example. Now, it's accepted without issue. No one complains about the fighter's second wind power, or at least, not too loudly. Champion fighters bloody well regenerate and that's acceptable. Never minding the 100% healing on a long rest, a major hot button issue in 4e that is passed largely without comment in 5e. We do accept that non-magical characters can do some warlordy/leadery things - granting actions, granting movement, protecting allies, granting temporary hp, and even full hp with a feat.

So, at the end of the day, that's the debate. Debating over the mechanics isn't really an issue. We HAVE the mechanics and it looks like they're here to stay. What's needed to make a warlord in 5e is some way to convince people that it is acceptable for non-magical characters to be able to do things that were silo'd under supernatural flavor previously.

 

[cbwjm]

I'll just chime into say i don't think warlord is a good name, but also, I don't care what it's called. I extremely rarely use class names in games, except when telling other's what I'm playing.

I'll happily switch to calling it by it's new name as soon as it get's one.

I love the name warlord. I hope they keep it if they bring in a warlord class. Not something I think will happen at this point, but if it does show as a full class, I hope they keep it.

 

[Krachek]

How would you compete with the attentive service, comparatively open communication, and voluminous, arguably unequaled, support from Paizo?

WoTC and Paizo don't compete on the same level.
WoTC is good at r&d. Create new rules and games.
Paizo is good at selling a product.
You compete by offering a new and simpler product, needing less time, service and support.
You compete by letting others do things you are not good at, like Dmleague and DnDbeyond.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything here, but...can you give any examples? I watch rather a lot of international news media, and I've never heard sorcerer used in the context you're talking about. Even the article @Garthanos posted uses it (along with wizard) to refer to a person suspected of practicing magic, and that is the only context I've ever seen it used.

Far as I can tell, Anyone who believes that the person in question is a con man, rather than just a guy being randomly accused of witchcraft to stir up a mob, calls them a con artist, or a synonym thereof, whereas sorcerer is reserved for someone that the speaker genuinely believes is performing miracles via magic, and even that is *extremely* rare in a modern context.


I mean, it's tangential to the discussion, so no big deal, it just struck me as odd.

IMO, when you use the term sorcerer amongst non nerds, they think medieval/ancient miracle men/wizards, and/or someone possessed by spirits/devils, or someone who consorts with spirits/devils, and gains supernatural powers from that.

I'd say the DnD sorcerer fits just fine into that. Of course, so does the warlock.

I'm like you, I cannot recall ever seeing sorcerer used to refer to conmen saying they have magical powers, but I have seen plenty of witch doctors showing up in the media (in my case media means the New Zealand herald), not often, but enough that it stands out.

 

[Krachek]

See, here's the thing.

You're absolutely right. We have a psionic leader. Those that want to play a 4e style leader can now do so. And that will probably make some people happy. But, there are a few issues raised by the existence of this class:

1. All mechanical arguments against the Warlord now fade into the wind. Since it's acceptable for an Avatar to do all the things a warlord is expected to do, there can be no more arguments about how a warlord is over powered or mechanically unacceptable. Even the idea of telling other players what to do goes out the window, because, well, all we have to do is point to the Avatar and say, "Well, he can do it, why can't I?" And since there hasn't been an upsurge in rage quits over the Avatar, it's pretty obvious that the mechanics were never really an issue.

2. Which brings us to the real issue - flavor. The debate is no longer over whether or not we can do warlord and leader things in D&D. We can. There's a boatload of classes, subclasses, feats and whatnot that prove that a warlord class brings nothing to the game that doesn't already exist. So, the true question is, is it acceptable for a class to do these things without supernatural powers? What is the extent that people are willing to accept for non-supernatural characters?

And, really, that's a question that shifts over time. The idea of a self-healing fighter would have been a non-starter ten years ago, for example. Now, it's accepted without issue. No one complains about the fighter's second wind power, or at least, not too loudly. Champion fighters bloody well regenerate and that's acceptable. Never minding the 100% healing on a long rest, a major hot button issue in 4e that is passed largely without comment in 5e. We do accept that non-magical characters can do some warlordy/leadery things - granting actions, granting movement, protecting allies, granting temporary hp, and even full hp with a feat.

So, at the end of the day, that's the debate. Debating over the mechanics isn't really an issue. We HAVE the mechanics and it looks like they're here to stay. What's needed to make a warlord in 5e is some way to convince people that it is acceptable for non-magical characters to be able to do things that were silo'd under supernatural flavor previously.

I do remember the long threads about second wind during play test....

In fact we have all mechanics to create a Warlord.
But in 5 ed classes are not stuck in one role. Warlord fans seem to insist on the 4ed leader role.
A 5ed Warlord should be able to be more support or more damage dealer on demand.
Much like paladin who can prepare and cast support spells or use smite.
By building a class mainly based on class feature, and not spells ( or discipline) you can greatly reduce its versatility.
In a fantasy world a warlord can't be only a corner coach, He should be able to shine as a solo warrior.

 

[Guest 6801328]

See, here's the thing.

You're absolutely right. We have a psionic leader. Those that want to play a 4e style leader can now do so. And that will probably make some people happy. But, there are a few issues raised by the existence of this class:

1. All mechanical arguments against the Warlord now fade into the wind. Since it's acceptable for an Avatar to do all the things a warlord is expected to do, there can be no more arguments about how a warlord is over powered or mechanically unacceptable. Even the idea of telling other players what to do goes out the window, because, well, all we have to do is point to the Avatar and say, "Well, he can do it, why can't I?" And since there hasn't been an upsurge in rage quits over the Avatar, it's pretty obvious that the mechanics were never really an issue.

2. Which brings us to the real issue - flavor. The debate is no longer over whether or not we can do warlord and leader things in D&D. We can. There's a boatload of classes, subclasses, feats and whatnot that prove that a warlord class brings nothing to the game that doesn't already exist. So, the true question is, is it acceptable for a class to do these things without supernatural powers? What is the extent that people are willing to accept for non-supernatural characters?

And, really, that's a question that shifts over time. The idea of a self-healing fighter would have been a non-starter ten years ago, for example. Now, it's accepted without issue. No one complains about the fighter's second wind power, or at least, not too loudly. Champion fighters bloody well regenerate and that's acceptable. Never minding the 100% healing on a long rest, a major hot button issue in 4e that is passed largely without comment in 5e. We do accept that non-magical characters can do some warlordy/leadery things - granting actions, granting movement, protecting allies, granting temporary hp, and even full hp with a feat.

So, at the end of the day, that's the debate. Debating over the mechanics isn't really an issue. We HAVE the mechanics and it looks like they're here to stay. What's needed to make a warlord in 5e is some way to convince people that it is acceptable for non-magical characters to be able to do things that were silo'd under supernatural flavor previously.

Could you please explain to me how these two arguments can co-exist?

"The Mystic doesn't isn't sufficient to make the Warlord because it's still supernatural and the Warlord has to be non-supernatural."

and

"If people are ok with the Mystic then they have no argument against the Warlord because they're the same thing."

The first argument is saying that the fluff absolutely matters, and the second is saying that the fluff doesn't matter.

 

[Garthanos]

But in 5 ed classes are not stuck in one role. Warlord fans seem to insist on the 4ed leader role.

That only needs to be a possibility the Warlord CAN be potentially good at manipulating enemies ranging from using one against the other tricks where you maneuver them to trip over each other or hit each other with friendly fire or trick them in to moving where you wanted them ie its entirely within the conceptual shtick of the Warlord to do some fear and intimidation as well as deception based trickery which was not exploited very much in 4e AND it is one of the elements some of us have been mentioning.

The Warlord can be improved.