D&D 5E What's a Warlord? Never heard of this class before.

[Mecheon]

I want buy Warlord but in my opinion World of Warcraft has ended at TBC :/
In Warlord all is simple and easy.

Wrath of the Lich King was the best expansion

I will fight anyone who disagrees with this statement.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Wrath of the Lich King was the best expansion

I will fight anyone who disagrees with this statement.

I completely agree

More importantly, as to the matter at hand, the warlord as a class is important because it sets a mechanical value to a character's 'tactical' ability that doesn't have to be reflected with the player's own skills- you can play a character that has high int as a real life dumbass, play hulking strength character as a real life reed, play a sneaky dextrous rogue as a real life clutz- i think that someone should be able to play a charismatic tactician as a real world tactical ignoramus.

Your answer to "I want to sneak around" isn't "Just roleplay it" your answer to "I want to throw a fireball" isn't to shoot an arrow and roleplay it, your answer to "I want to play a holy knight" isn't to make a fighter and roleplay it, why would your answer to "I want to play a tactical mastermind" be to just play something else and roleplay it?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Or perhaps it's just your limited definitions and/or application of roleplaying that is getting in the way...

Lemme axe you this. When the average-smarts player wants to play a brilliant wizard, and places a high score in Intelligence, how is that roleplayed? Practically speaking, I mean. At the table. How is that character's (higher than the player's) intelligence reflected in play?

That's the question I'd like an answer to. Not to muddy the waters but similarly a timid/shy/boring person wanting to play a very charismatic character can be said to have similarities. Your "physical" analogies are irrelevant, as tactical acumen in a mental faculty. So lets stick to the intelligence example, shall we?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Or perhaps it's just your limited definitions and/or application of roleplaying that is getting in the way...

Or perhaps it's that you have an irrational opposition to the class and that's getting in the way. You say it's posibly I am wrong. I might be about some things. But your idea that the warlord is a broken archetype in a game that includes the wizard and the bard is utterly ridiculous.

Lemme axe you this. When the average-smarts player wants to play a brilliant wizard, and places a high score in Intelligence, how is that roleplayed? Practically speaking, I mean. At the table. How is that character's (higher than the player's) intelligence reflected in play?

This depends from table to table.

Some tables it isn't. Period.

Other tables they get more information and longer to think. Or other problem solving tools. Or the ability to make things with tools or make better things with e.g. abstracts such as chemistry labs.

That's the question I'd like an answer to. Not to muddy the waters but similarly a timid/shy/boring person wanting to play a very charismatic character can be said to have similarities.

And again it's handled on different tables in different ways.

Your "physical" analogies are irrelevant, as tactical acumen in a mental faculty. So lets stick to the intelligence example, shall we?

Oddly enough greater tactical acumen is one of the mental abilities that is best covered for by providing extra mechanical options and ability to make ordinary plans work. If we look at a major military model, the OODA loop, greater tactical acumen means one of three things. First your OODA loop is simply shorter (which is a pain to model). Second you get more information and more options out of the Orient loop (which is modelled well by the Warlord's powers and even better by the Bo9S Crusader's abilities), and third you have a better handle on which decisions will work (which maps to throwing around bonusses because the game is too zoomed out for exact detail).

(Note: This is tactical acumen as opposed to strategic acumen).

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Or perhaps it's just your limited definitions and/or application of roleplaying that is getting in the way...

Lemme axe you this. When the average-smarts player wants to play a brilliant wizard, and places a high score in Intelligence, how is that roleplayed? Practically speaking, I mean. At the table. How is that character's (higher than the player's) intelligence reflected in play?

That's the question I'd like an answer to. Not to muddy the waters but similarly a timid/shy/boring person wanting to play a very charismatic character can be said to have similarities. Your "physical" analogies are irrelevant, as tactical acumen in a mental faculty. So lets stick to the intelligence example, shall we?

They play the character to the best of their abilities and the ruleset goes out of it's way to help them- they can use the mechanical advantages the game gives them for the archetype to cast spells, make knowledge checks, perform investigation checks- things that are designed to simulate super high intelligence through game mechanics to make the archetypes possible to play for the majority of players- same as a warlord class would do for players lacking tactical acumen- offering a mechanical advantage that's based on the character being played, and not just the player's personal ability.

I also have to disagree that the physical analogues are inappropriate, mental stats are based off physical properties of the brain, the character's appearance, and such every bit as much as strength is based off their muscle.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

They play the character to the best of their abilities and the ruleset goes out of it's way to help them- they can use the mechanical advantages the game gives them for the archetype to cast spells, make knowledge checks, perform investigation checks- things that are designed to simulate super high intelligence through game mechanics to make the archetypes possible to play for the majority of players- same as a warlord class would do for players lacking tactical acumen- offering a mechanical advantage that's based on the character being played, and not just the player's personal ability.

Goalpost moving. Also, not what I asked. You were the one bringing up the issue of "just roleplay it" as a topic/defense. Then avoid answering my specific question as to how one goes about roleplaying a higher intelligence character.

I also have to disagree that the physical analogues are inappropriate, mental stats are based off physical properties of the brain, the character's appearance, and such every bit as much as strength is based off their muscle.

Unless we are talking LARPs, I'm at a loss as to how you equate the two very different aspects of a RPG.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It was a 4e martial support class. In 3.5 it was called the marshal. It mostly gave other people extra attacks, movement, and other bonuses, using Int for tactical analysis , and Cha to boost moral. Similar to a war cleric, but without religion or magic.

It's not too powerful for 5e.

People want more support, less fighter. (Roughly) bardic inspiration, battlemaster dice, and purple dragon knight to be in 1 class. Removing spells and multi-attack to make room. Or something along those lines.

THis.

Also, they gotta include less combat focused subclasses.

And replace multi-attack with ability to have an ally attack when you use the attack action, and upgrade the commander's strike thing to use your action to give two allies an attack, IMO. Simple and effective.

FOr the other parts of the game, add the mastermind's help action as a bonus action thing, maybe?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Goalpost moving. Also, not what I asked. You were the one bringing up the issue of "just roleplay it" as a topic/defense. Then avoid answering my specific question as to how one goes about roleplaying a higher intelligence character.


Unless we are talking LARPs, I'm at a loss as to how you equate the two very different aspects of a RPG.

It was in response to the sentiment that you described in post #36 and more on the previous page- that tactical acumen should be confined to the player's ability to roleplay it manually. your specific question is entirely irrelevant, you are not socrates and I am not obligated to answer within the context of the socratic method, your question engages with an answer far larger and more fundamental than some convenient strawman, a construct that you've shown a marked tendency to create in this thread. when one roleplays a higher intelligence character, they do it with the aid of the game- they roleplay a character as they expect the personality to be presented for the concept in their mind, and the game mechanics shore up the difference between their levels of intelligence in order to make that intelligence a distinctive, very real advantage.

Consider the roleplaying difference between a character with high or low intelligence, nothing obligates the less intelligent character to act without cognizance, and it would be a meaningless statement to suggest they should- what truly defines stupid? is the player obligated to take worse choices because of their score? How is that decided and enforced? of course its not an applicable concept, even the lowest conventional score, an 8 is still considered the intelligence of an average human being- the intelligence of a PC wizard (usually 16+) is a level of exceptional that may very well lie outside of real human experience. The game makes the difference between these two characters evident with mechanical numbers, the mechanics of a character have a distinct role in roleplaying- they supply the connection between how the character is played, who they are, and their ability to affect the world around them in a direct way.

If A high-int spell caster is allowed to translate their character trait into a mechanical advantage that the game gives them to reinforce the impact of their intelligence on the world.

it follows that

A character with strong leadership skills should be allowed to translate their character trait into a mechanical advantage that the game gives them to reinforce the impact of their leadership skills on the world.

This should be true regardless of the player's personal abilities, a player who has low int should successfully be able to play a character with high int, a player with low strength should be able to successfully play a character with high strength etc. That's the advantage afforded to us by it being a narrative game, and not a physical game- we shouldn't carelessly diminish the nature of that advantage in a fit of pique as we look for excuses to invalidate what others find appealing.

You present another strawman as well, earlier you challenged the notion of being given a mechanical right to boss around party members, but quite frankly this is ridiculous, a warlords abilities have always been written to "Grant" attacks and other benefits, the player is fully capable of not doing so- it also isn't necessary that these abilities be fluffed as direct orders, they can be encouragement, guidance, inspiration, banter, suggestions, narratively constructed opportunities that in a roleplay context have nothing to do with the warlord- all tailored to the individual parties preferences.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Srsly? Did someone try to argue that tactical acumen isn't something that should have mechanical representation, and should "just be role played"?

Yeah, ok. I'll bring a rekeyable lock and lock pick set for the rogue, and instruments for the bard, and heavy things to lift for the fighter...guess no one can play the magic guys, tho, unless they can do magic. ...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Srsly? Did someone try to argue that tactical acumen isn't something that should have mechanical representation, and should "just be role played"?

Yeah, ok. I'll bring a rekeyable lock and lock pick set for the rogue, and instruments for the bard, and heavy things to lift for the fighter...guess no one can play the magic guys, tho, unless they can do magic. ...

I think the odd thing about this is that a strong guy generally won't get any perks from playing a strong character.

But someone with tactical acumen will actually get more out of any class - including the Warlord - then someone without.
For example, if you give one of your allies an extra attack, a tactical versed player will probably pick a better ally and target for that ally than someone less versed experienced. But - a tactical versed player would also pick better spells for the given occasion, or the right position for his fighter to block enemy avenues of attacks without hindering his allies.