D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Gnashtooth]

I'm not against it, per se, but most everything I've read about how the class would look, and it screams special snowflake to me. I.e. it seems people want it to be better than any other class. It actually reminds me of many of the custom ninja classes in the 80s lol. The warlord is the new ninja?

I think part of the problem though is that people want it to do what it did in 4e, which just doesn't balance well in a 5e context with the rest of the classes.

So for me, in my humble opinion, if I wanted a warlord in 5e, I'd just play a battlemaster fighter with the inspiring leader feat and it covers the role pretty well.

Pretty much this. Having played this class for the majority of my year or so in 4e, it was fun, but doesn't really make sense in a 5e context.

 

[El Mahdi]

You used most for 5E fans, but no qualifier for 4E fans. Thus the implication. If that's not what you meant, I believe you.


Cheers.

 

[El Mahdi]

Pretty much this. Having played this class for the majority of my year or so in 4e, it was fun, but doesn't really make sense in a 5e context.

What do you mean by context? Mechanical context? Narrative context? Setting context? Conceptual context?

Seems to me if didn't fit with 5E, there wouldn't be a Battlemaster. The problem for Warlord fans is that a Battlemaster doesn't adequately fulfill the concept. But not fit within a 5E context? I'm not seeing it...

Can you expound upon this?

 

[Gnashtooth]

Mostly mechanical. The 4e context had the Warlord with strange martial healing powers. I am not even going to discuss that, but the end result is it is absent in 5th. There are also a lot of mechanical grid-based things that the warlord had which do not work in 5th either, especially if you do theater-of-the-mind play. This is all assuming you want the Warlord to work as it did, or similarly to how it did in 4th.

I don't have the PHB in front of me, but there is a leadership feat that you can add, and that could help you be the character you want as well.

Also, keep in mind that the power and experience context is different in 5th. In 4th and 5th, the life experience of a level one character is explained much differently, and the end result is that (as I see it) 4e characters were already heroic at level 1, where comparable 5e characters don't hit that point until level 3 (hence the fast leveling until that point.)

Besides, who wants to play this anyway?

 

[El Mahdi]

Besides, who wants to play this anyway?
View attachment 70212

Ack!!! *repulsive shiver*

While I would never want to admit to playing...that...it would probably be very effective.

I'd think the majority of enemies would either run away in abject fear, or be disabled by uncontrollable laughter.

And as a leader, do you really think anyone is going to tell him NO...?


(btw, I like the irony that he used to fight beside The Barbarian...)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mostly mechanical. The 4e context had the Warlord with strange martial healing powers. I am not even going to discuss that, but the end result is it is absent in 5th.

The only strange thing about martial healing was the implausibly extreme reaction a very vocal minority of fans claimed to have to it.

"Martial healing" is even present in 5e, in the form of the Fighter's 'Second Wind.'

There are also a lot of mechanical grid-based things that the warlord had which do not work in 5th either, especially if you do theater-of-the-mind play. This is all assuming you want the Warlord to work as it did, or similarly to how it did in 4th.

Every class in 4e had a fair amount of "grid-based" tricks, like involuntary movement and the like. Certain Bard builds could move allies around even more than the typical Warlord, and Wizards, just for one example, had tons of involuntary movement powers, including an at-will that is in 5e, albeit, as a 1st level spell rather than a cantrip. Since having "grid-based" abilities didn't keep wizards, bards, or any other class out of 5e, nor prevent such abilities from making the cut in 5e, it's clearly no rationale for rejecting the warlord.

 

[steeldragons]

Not to stir the pot, really, but what proof/data do you have to warrant or justify your assertion that those who don't like/want martial healing in the game are nothing more than a minority? Seems nearly universal from the posts here I see.

 

[Hussar]

Not to stir the pot, really, but what proof/data do you have to warrant or justify your assertion that those who don't like/want martial healing in the game are nothing more than a minority? Seems nearly universal from the posts here I see.

What difference does it make really? At what point does the majority get to dictate to the minority that something must not be included in the game?

5e HAS martial healing. That's a fact. It's pretty common martial healing too - anyone who plays a fighter is likely using it multiple times per session. Never minding things like Hit Dice which are effectively non-magical healing aka Healing Surges, in all but name. Then you have a feat which allows healing as well. It's not like martial healing is absent from the game.

So, why would adding an optional class, which is not in core, be a problem for the majority?

Warlord is the only class that appeared in a PHB that got left out of 5e. They made space for gnomes to come back, so, why is it such a big deal that people would like the same thing for warlords? Why is this being painted as a zero-sum game? If we make warlord fans happy, warlord critics are going to be so sad that they quit the game? What possible difference could it make to someone who didn't like warlords for WotC to include an optional 5e warlord update?

 

[Aldarc]

Not to stir the pot, really, but what proof/data do you have to warrant or justify your assertion that those who don't like/want martial healing in the game are nothing more than a minority? Seems nearly universal from the posts here I see.

Would you like me to pipe in so you don't take your "universality" as a given?

 

[steeldragons]

I thought he was referencing "martial healing" as relates to warlords...the topic of this thread.

No one is disputing that martial healing exists in 5e. But thanks, anyway, for the attempted distraction/irrelevant derailment, Hussar.

The "vocal minority" where martial healing for the warlord is concerned is in regards to the "shout healing" model of 4e. The "You're unconscious to ok...because I said so." That poses a nice variety of immersion breakage and suspending the suspension of disbelief. Folks that don't care about that as much, obviously, don't care if the warlord can do that. Is that segment the majority of players or the asserted "Vocal minority"? My anecdotal evidence, which just as good and valuable as yours or anyone else's, says to me folks who do not want the warlord performing significant martial healing are not, in fact, a minority, vocal or otherwise.

And, I would also submit that the job of the designers is to try to give the majority of players the material they are looking/asking for...in as fair a way as possible...Not exclusively. Not always. But you want to sell? You put out the best product you can for [what you believe to be] the most people you can.

It really doesn't matter to me. I have no horse in this race. In fact, one of my fighter archetypes I've been designing is for a warlord and they have something that let's folks use a HD in combat. They can also provide additional HD to others on a short rest. Helpful. Flavorful. But you're not going from 0-80% (well, maybe at first levels). If you are down and out in a combat, the warlord can yell all they want...you're still at 0 HP. I'm just pointing out the unsustainable assertion (which comes up often) that those against it are a vocal minority. I've seen no evidence to indicate this is so.