# Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.



## steeldragons

Seriously. Half the threads in the top ten of the 5e forum are all rehashing Warlords: yay/naye, how, why, what do they get....

Didn't we do all of this already last year?


----------



## Satyrn

Another forum I frequent has a "hugs" rating for posts.

I really want to rate your post


----------



## mellored

steeldragons said:


> Seriously. Half the threads in the top ten of the 5e forum are all rehashing Warlords: yay/naye, how, why, what do they get....
> 
> Didn't we do all of this already last year?



So you start yet another thread?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bigsta

Obviously magic would be required resurrect the sub-forum, because it's absolutely ridiculous to think you could just "shout" it back into existence.


----------



## Yunru

It's weird, because at least half the posts say the Warlord's not wnated by anyone except a minority, and yet here we are again.


----------



## Eubani

Yunru said:


> It's weird, because at least half the posts say the Warlord's not wnated by anyone except a minority, and yet here we are again.




Probably the same group that dishonestly screams that a martial character doing more than "I attack" and the occasional ability check is using magic.


----------



## transtemporal

I actually don't know what a warlord is. Was it a class in a previous edition or something?

If only there was someone to explain it...


----------



## Yunru

Eubani said:


> Probably the same group that dishonestly screams that a martial character doing more than "I attack" and the occasional ability check is using magic.



Yeah, Warlord abilities are pure psychological in their basis, not mystical.


----------



## Yunru

transtemporal said:


> I actually don't know what a warlord is. Was it a class in a previous edition or something?
> 
> If only there was someone to explain it...



Warlords play Pot of Greed.

Unless you weren't joking, in which case it's been in several generations under different names. 4e's was the Warlord.


----------



## Onslaught

Glad to know I'm not the only one annoyed


----------



## Gardens & Goblins

The current group friendly option available to Battle Masters can boost damage movement/actions/grant advantage and grant temporary hit points. All of which are non-magical abilities.

As a stand-along class, I'm not sure how they'd make a 5E Warlord significantly different to the Battle Master, other than adding some group-friendly maneuvers. 

I guess they could throw out some additional group-friendly maneuvers, boosting initiative, armour class, saves and so on.


----------



## Sacrosanct

steeldragons said:


> Seriously. Half the threads in the top ten of the 5e forum are all rehashing Warlords: yay/naye, how, why, what do they get....
> 
> Didn't we do all of this already last year?




About every six months or so.


Here's the thing though.  I don't think anyone has denied that there are some people who want the warlord.  But if you look at all these threads, no one agrees as to what that should be, even among warlord fans.  As a game designer myself, that sends a HUGE message to me if I were on the WotC design team:  If we were to release an official warlord in an UA, it would be met with an overwhelming response of "This sucks!  It's horrible!  What were they thinking!"  I am doubly sure of this response based on how a lot of people react to literally every UA already.

So, as a designer, at this point I'd leave it up to individual fans to create what they want and go with it, and just avoid the drama from the get go and spend my time designing things that have a greater overall appeal and less drama surrounding them.  Like  a new ranger....


----------



## Guest 6801328

Eubani said:


> Probably the same group that dishonestly screams that a martial character doing more than "I attack" and the occasional ability check is using magic.




Now _that's_ not trying to pick a fight.  Nosir.


----------



## mellored

transtemporal said:


> I actually don't know what a warlord is. Was it a class in a previous edition or something?
> 
> If only there was someone to explain it...



A non-magical support class.  They use a mix tactics and inspiration to buff allies, and cajole enemies into bad position.

It was called Marshal in 3.5, and warlord in 4e.

In 5e, there are the mastermind and purple dragon knight subclasses, but they are too little for some fans, and you still end up spending most of your actions attacking instead of supporting.  Similar to how an Eldritch knight isn't a good replacement for a wizard class.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Elfcrusher said:


> Now _that's_ not trying to pick a fight.  Nosir.




It's also not honest.  Not the first time he's made a comment like that, and yet has been unable to show one single person making that claim (that anything other than "I attack" is using magic.)


----------



## Sacrosanct

mellored said:


> A non-magical support class.  They use a mix tactics and inspiration to buff allies, and cajole enemies into bad position.
> 
> It was called Marshal in 3.5, and warlord in 4e.
> 
> In 5e, there are the mastermind and purple dragon knight subclasses, but they are too little for some fans, and you still end up spending most of your actions attacking instead of supporting.  Similar to how an Eldritch knight isn't a good replacement for a wizard class.




Why would anyone think the EK is a replacement for the wizard?  Also, I know a lot of people think the warlord options in 5e are too little, but what I think is happening is they are comparing the 5e version to previous edition versions.  Pretty much every class in 5e is toned down from previous editions.  Just part of design.  So yeah, I totally get why people may feel that way, but expecting a 5e variation with all the bells and whistles of a previous edition's version will just frustrate people.  For better or worse, 5e is what it is.


----------



## ccs

Eubani said:


> Probably the same group that dishonestly screams that a martial character doing more than "I attack" and the occasional ability check is using magic.




On the basis of this comment alone I oppose the 4e/Warlord fans in ever seeing this class officially added to 5e.  You can wade through however many versions you can find on the DMGuild, pick your favorite, & then plead with your DMs to allow you to use it.  And I hope your DM tells you "No".


----------



## 77IM

mellored said:


> A non-magical support class.  They use a mix tactics and inspiration to buff allies, and cajole enemies into bad position.
> 
> It was called Marshal in 3.5, and warlord in 4e.
> 
> In 5e, there are the mastermind and purple dragon knight subclasses, but they are too little for some fans, and you still end up spending most of your actions attacking instead of supporting.  Similar to how an Eldritch knight isn't a good replacement for a wizard class.




This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but _not_ a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?


----------



## mellored

Sacrosanct said:


> Why would anyone think the EK is a replacement for the wizard?



It's not.  And the PDK is not a replacement for the Warlord.  Sure it's got some of the features, but it's still mostly a fighter.

And no one said they shouldn't tone it down.  But that's doesn't mean it shouldn't exsist.  Wizards where overpowering in 3.5, but that doesn't mean 5e wizards shouldn't exsist, you just modify the numbers.


----------



## Sacrosanct

77IM said:


> This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but _not_ a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?




Just my opinion of course, but the only "story" validation I would need is if it fits the story of that particular game table that wants it.  D&D isn't very good at reflecting fictional characters completely.  The Gray Mouser, Elric, etc?  What clear class are they?  You kinda just go with what seems to work the best.

So while I see where you're coming from, I don't think we really need a story justification on whether or not the class should exist.  Things like "can you create what you want with existing classes/subclasses/feats" are more legitimate reasons as to why there should or shouldn't be a warlord class IMO.  YMMV of course.


----------



## mellored

77IM said:


> This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but _not_ a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?



What character could be a barbarian, but not a fighter?
What character could be a ranger, but not a fighter?
What character could be a paladin, but not a fighter?

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lelouch_Lamperouge


----------



## Sacrosanct

mellored said:


> It's not.  And the PDK is not a replacement for the Warlord.  Sure it's got some of the features, but it's still mostly a fighter.
> 
> And no one said they shouldn't tone it down.  But that's doesn't mean it shouldn't exsist.  Wizards where overpowering in 3.5, but that doesn't mean 5e wizards shouldn't exsist, you just modify the numbers.




But that goes back to my post on page 1.  No one can seem to agree what those things are.  Almost every single discussion going back 2 years now, a lot of people want the 5e warlord to do what the 4e one did.  And you can't do that in 5e without having an OP class.  Every thread has this big list of things a warlord should do, but you can't have all of those in 5e because you're essentially getting the best of 2 classes in one.  So when you need to pare down those abilities to fit with balance in 5e, no one can agree with what those abilities should be.

And that's why, from a designer's perspective, I see red flags all over the place where you'll piss off more people than who would be pleased with an official warlord, and instead let the fans create what they want by giving them to tools to do so.


*Edit*  For the record, I'm not against a warlord in 5e.  Heck, about 2 years ago, I even came up with my own version.  The problem as I see it is how do you do it from an official standpoint for the reasons I mentioned.


----------



## mellored

Sacrosanct said:


> But that goes back to my post on page 1.  No one can seem to agree what those things are.  Almost every single discussion going back 2 years now, a lot of people want the 5e warlord to do what the 4e one did.  And you can't do that in 5e without having an OP class.



  of course you can.

Try listing everything a wizard can do.  Burn things, teleportation, turn invisible, fly, summon creatures, dominate people's minds, turn people to stone, reverse gravity, disguise themselves as anything, suck the life out of people, create illusion, clone themselves....
Over 30 different spells and 10 cantrips just at level 1.
it's a massive list, way bigger than the warlord, and everyone will have a different opinion on what spells they should be able to cast, and what their ideal version of a wizard is.

Yet you can have a wizard who isn't OP, because he can't do everything all at once.  You have to choose which one you do.

Similarly, a warlord could have 20 maneuvers, but only do one at a time.  Just don't do anything like give them more actions and you're fine.

And as a balance point, consider that a level 11 wizard could cast haste every battle.  So a level 11 warlord should give out about the same amount.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Gardens & Goblins said:


> The current group friendly option available to Battle Masters can boost damage movement/actions/grant advantage and grant temporary hit points. All of which are non-magical abilities.
> 
> As a stand-along class, I'm not sure how they'd make a 5E Warlord significantly different to the Battle Master, other than adding some group-friendly maneuvers.
> 
> I guess they could throw out some additional group-friendly maneuvers, boosting initiative, armour class, saves and so on.




And support for the other 2/3 of the game.


----------



## Mecheon

77IM said:


> This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but _not_ a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?




Alexander the Great, Zhunge Liang, basically any sort of legendary general

A fighter gets into the fray and cuts heads. The Warlord stands to the side and gives orders to achieve maximum victory


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mecheon said:


> Alexander the Great, Zhunge Liang, basically any sort of legendary general
> 
> A fighter gets into the fray and cuts heads. The Warlord stands to the side and gives orders to achieve maximum victory




Or leads the charge, with banner high/battle cry/howling, or hectors enemies, or any combination of those.


----------



## steeldragons

What's "hector[ing]" an enemy? That's a new one for me.


----------



## 77IM

Mecheon said:


> Alexander the Great, Zhunge Liang, basically any sort of legendary general
> 
> A fighter gets into the fray and cuts heads. The Warlord stands to the side and gives orders to achieve maximum victory




Those are excellent examples. Thank you.


----------



## jayoungr

Sacrosanct said:


> As a game designer myself, that sends a HUGE message to me if I were on the WotC design team:  If we were to release an official warlord in an UA, it would be met with an overwhelming response of "This sucks!  It's horrible!  What were they thinking!"



They kind of did, in SCAG's Purple Dragon Knight--I can dig out the quote if you want, but someone who worked on the book confirmed on a podcast that it was an attempt to get a warlord-like subclass into 5E.  And I don't think any of the warlord fans on this board were happy with it (can't speak for anyone not on this board).


----------



## jayoungr

steeldragons said:


> What's "hector[ing]" an enemy? That's a new one for me.



From Merriam-Webster:  "to intimidate or harass by bluster or personal pressure; [e.g.] football players being _hectored_ by their coach."


----------



## Paul Smart

Hector

Rather than use his strategy to boost allies, he uses it to demoralize and disarray his enemies. With choreographed attacks that are designed to be as demoralizing as they are damaging, he causes enemies to miss opportunity (attacks), take penalties to hit or damage, or to incur fear-based conditions. Like the vanguard, his powers trigger off attacks, but unlike the vanguard, his attacks are meant to affect other enemies, rather than his allies.

Signature Power: Hit an enemy and impose a condition on nearby allies of that enemy.


----------



## Sacrosanct

jayoungr said:


> They kind of did, in SCAG's Purple Dragon Knight--I can dig out the quote if you want, but someone who worked on the book confirmed on a podcast that it was an attempt to get a warlord-like subclass into 5E.  And I don't think any of the warlord fans on this board were happy with it (can't speak for anyone not on this board).




Yeah, but there was no way they were going to call it a warlord, or imply in the book that the subclass was meant to be 5e's version of a warlord.  If they did, I imagine the reaction would be pretty vitriolic lol


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jayoungr said:


> They kind of did, in SCAG's Purple Dragon Knight--I can dig out the quote if you want, but someone who worked on the book confirmed on a podcast that it was an attempt to get a warlord-like subclass into 5E.  And I don't think any of the warlord fans on this board were happy with it (can't speak for anyone not on this board).




It doesn't work that well, felt rushed or phoned in, and is a subclass, and thus still mostly does what the base class does, rather than what fans of the concept want it to do. 

And as a Purple Dragon Knight fan, I didn't want a subclass for that concept to just be a cheap consolation prize for some other concept. I wanted it to be built to be a purple dragon knight.


----------



## Yunru

I would of been happier with the purple dragon knight if they hadn't been so afraid of vitriolic, rabid anti-Warlord fans that they put the defining feature at level 10 rather than level 3.

If those two had been swapped, I would of been fine (though somewhat disappointed) with a multiclass of Mastermind, Purple Knight, and Bard.


----------



## mellored

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, but there was no way they were going to call it a warlord, or imply in the book that the subclass was meant to be 5e's version of a warlord.  If they did, I imagine the reaction would be pretty vitriolic lol



People weren't happy with the PDK because there wasn't enough PDK.

The abilities where fine, the name was fine, but it only let you be a PDK a few times per day.  Most of the time a PDK is a fighter, swinging his weapon.


----------



## Sacrosanct

mellored said:


> of course you can.
> 
> Try listing everything a wizard can do.  Burn things, teleportation, turn invisible, fly, summon creatures, dominate people's minds, turn people to stone, reverse gravity, disguise themselves as anything, suck the life out of people, create illusion, clone themselves....
> Over 30 different spells and 10 cantrips just at level 1.
> it's a massive list, way bigger than the warlord, and everyone will have a different opinion on what spells they should be able to cast, and what their ideal version of a wizard is.
> 
> *Yet you can have a wizard who isn't OP, because he can't do everything all at once.  You have to choose which one you do.*
> 
> Similarly, a warlord could have 20 maneuvers, but only do one at a time.  Just don't do anything like give them more actions and you're fine.
> 
> And as a balance point, consider that a level 11 wizard could cast haste every battle.  So a level 11 warlord should give out about the same amount.






mellored said:


> People weren't happy with the PDK because there wasn't enough PDK.
> 
> The abilities where fine, the name was fine, but it only let you be a PDK a few times per day.  Most of the time a PDK is a fighter, swinging his weapon.




Can you see how these two statements are contradictory?  First, you're saying the warlord doesn't have to be OP because you can limit what it does to keep it balanced with other classes, and then say that the problem with the PDK is that it was limited in its abilities (to balance it with the other classes).

Which goes back to what I was saying initially.  To have the warlord do what people want it to do, it becomes an OP class.  If I were to guess, it's because people want the 5e warlord to do what the 4e warlord did, and thus my caution about comparing classes from different editions.



> And as a balance point, consider that a level 11 wizard could cast haste every battle.  So a level 11 warlord should give out about the same amount




I forgot to address this earlier, so I'll do it now while I remember.  You can't do this without the warlord being way too OP because you're forgetting that the warlord (being a fighter) gets action surge, extra attacks, better armor, more ASIs, and better HP than a wizard.  So what you're doing is like I said: you want 2 classes in 1.  Everything the fighter has, PLUS the power and utility comparable to a wizard's spells.


----------



## Onslaught

From SCAG:


> Banneret serves as the generic name for this archetype if you use it in other campaign settings or to model *warlords* other than Purple Dragon knights




We had our Warlord all along! Wow!




Yunru said:


> I would of been happier with the purple dragon knight if they hadn't been so afraid of vitriolic, rabid anti-Warlord fans that they put the defining feature at level 10 rather than level 3.



It's nice of these forums to learn new words (like vitriolic).

I don't like the Warlord from 4E, but I kinda like PDK implementation... however I agree with you when you say Inspiring Surge comes a bit late in the game.

On the other hand, if you push Rallying Cry (which is a nicely implemented ability) forward, it became a little lackluster... 10HP at Lvl 10 is, well... meh... 

So... "What If": 

Lvl 3: Rallying Surge: when you Surge you can A) use effect from Rallying Cry; or B) use effect from Inspiring Surge... maybe as trade-off for having more options is that the attack doesn't include ability bonus to damage, or the range of effect is reduced (to 30ft instead of 60ft)
Lvl 7: OK 
Lvl 10: When you Second Wind you get Rallying Cry, improve lvl 3 Inspiring Surge to what it is in the book

I would prefer a discussion about "how make PDK more appealing" (and yet balanced) than more of "We need a Warlord class"... 'cos, well... we already have, it's written there...


----------



## jodyjohnson

We have a Warlord archetype (I'd say two).  

Fighter archetypes have a very small power budget to work within because so much of the ability budget comes from the Fighter chassis.

An archetype doesn't cover the Class.

You crit more and get an extra combat style covers the entire design space of the Champion - try wedging a versatile support class into that space.


----------



## Corwin

jodyjohnson said:


> You crit more and get an extra combat style covers the entire design space of the Champion



That's simply inaccurate.


----------



## mellored

Sacrosanct said:


> Can you see how these two statements are contradictory?  First, you're saying the warlord doesn't have to be OP because you can limit what it does to keep it balanced with other classes, and then say that the problem with the PDK is that it was limited in its abilities (to balance it with the other classes).



Not at all.

The PDK has as much warlord as you can fit into a fighter sub-class.
No one is asking for a full warlord class to be inside a fighter sub-class.  That would be OP.  (as would full spell slots for the Eldritch Knight).

They want a full warlord class, with no fighter.  That gives you a lot more room to do warlord-y things.  (as having a full wizard class give you more room for spell things).


----------



## jodyjohnson

Corwin said:


> That's simply inaccurate.




That is correct.  I used some hyperbole.

At 18th level the Champion has infinite hit points within certain parameters.  I forgot about that because we've never been beyond 14th level.


----------



## Remathilis

steeldragons said:


> Seriously. Half the threads in the top ten of the 5e forum are all rehashing Warlords: yay/naye, how, why, what do they get....
> 
> Didn't we do all of this already last year?




Those who do not learn from history...


----------



## ppaladin123

Yunru said:


> I would of been happier with the purple dragon knight if they hadn't been so afraid of vitriolic, rabid anti-Warlord fans that they put the defining feature at level 10 rather than level 3.
> 
> If those two had been swapped, I would of been fine (though somewhat disappointed) with a multiclass of Mastermind, Purple Knight, and Bard.




as it stands, isn't using battle master with the right maneuvers in that mix better than using purple dragon knight?


----------



## Yunru

ppaladin123 said:


> as it stands, isn't using battle master with the right maneuvers in that mix better than using purple dragon knight?



As it stands a Mastermind with Inspiring Leader is better than using a PDK.


----------



## Remathilis

I remember the great Warlord Wars of 2015 (long stare off). I remember two big problems with the warlords that got bandied around the first time.

The first is that the belief that a warlord who is simply attacking isn't being a warlord; a warlord should be commanding allies and granting bonuses every round. Most of the earlier debates hinged around things like 4e warlords having commander's strike as an at-will power, thus assuming a 5e warlord should have the ability at will as well. That debate spiraled into how a warlord should track resources for his abilities (comparable to spell slots, ki points, or martial dice) with nobody agreeing on how, how much, and how powerful the warlord's powers should be. Some believed they should rival a cleric in raw power (being able to use a variety of abilities eventually equaling 9th level magic), some believed a more buffed battlemaster (limited powers, keyed off martial dice) would do fine. Another group vouched for a warlock-like "very limited list, but nearly unlimited use" method. Others I swear had no idea and simply wanted warlords granting free attacks every round to their allies without cost. 

The other was exactly what a warlord should be doing. Granting free attacks, allowing casters to additional spells/round, healing wounds vs. temporary hp, healing statuses like blindness, poison, fear, charm, and even death, and buffing everything from AC to skill checks. Since there was never a consensus on how a warlord should track resources (aside from a very visceral dislike of a "slot" system) there was no way to gauge what strength a walord's powers should rate as. 

There is no answer at this point that I think WotC could give that will satisfy even the most ardent of warlord supporters at this point. The fact the community hasn't even been able to create/rally around a DM's Guild/OGL version (and WotC has literally given you everything you need to make one at this point) is telling of that. Until there is a bit more concensus of how a warlord does things and what exactly it supposed to do, I don't think there will be anything more than these random outbursts of warlord threads ever-so-often.

Oh, and its time to bring back the subforum again.


----------



## Lanliss

I had a thought that I feel is worthy of throwing my hat into this ring. What if one were to play around with the Spell-less ranger from UA, and make Warlord a subclass of that? It comes with some BM in it already, and some martial non-magical healing already. Give it a bard/PDK subclass, and it might work, right?

EDIT: looking the ranger over, it has a few changes that need to be made first, to cut out some of the "Nature", like removing call Natural Allies. Good news is, that leaves more room for adding in Warlord abilities. Having never played a warlord, or even seen a warlord in play, I can say that this seems to work for what I have seen people describing at least.

EDIT 2.0: Another thought. There is a spell-less ranger, why not a spell-less bard?


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Obviously the warlord should be a subclass of the mystic.  Both are all about "not being magic" and "telling other people what to do" is good for warlords and telepaths.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Lanliss said:


> EDIT 2.0: Another thought. There is a spell-less ranger, why not a spell-less bard?




There's one in adventure in middle-earth called the Warden. Its more or less exactly the PHB bard, but with refluffed features to remove the word ''magic'' from the text. There's a refluffed valor bard (the herald), the emissary; a social warlord with buff/debuff in combat thru speech and the bounder, a defending warlord.


----------



## Hussar

The problem with the discussion isn't that there is disagreement over what a warlord should be able to do.  That's what sub-classes are FOR after all.  

The problem is, that every... single... discussion... gets derailed by multiple posters jumping in and telling all and sundry that warlords shouldn't be in the game at all.  Which winds up doing exactly what those posters want - derailing any actual discussion of value while not having to actually bring any argument of substance to the conversation.

How many umpteen thousand times do you have to justify the archetype?  Good grief, even in this, the what tenth thread in a week, we have people questioning whether or not the very concept of a warlord actually exists as a class.  So, we spend pages trying to defend just the notion that we want this class, and every single thread gets derailed.

And then it gets shoved into the forum ghetto where these self-same "defenders of all things D&D" pounce out in every single thread, continuing to derail thread after thread until people just give up in frustration.

It's sanctioned trolling.

My vote?  One week ban to ANYONE who goes into a warlord thread and questions whether we should have warlords in the game or not.  Want to talk about new mechanics or how to actually implement concepts in a game?  Fantastic.  Want to come into yet another thread and tell all and sundry that warlords are an anathema to role play because they tell players how to feel?  Welcome to a one week holiday from the forum.

Then, maybe, we can actually have constructive conversations about warlords.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

Hussar said:


> My vote?  One week ban to ANYONE who goes into a warlord thread and questions whether we should have warlords in the game or not.



I don't have a horse in this race, and really only read these warlord threads to see if some cool ideas happen, but I've got to participate just long enough to ask one question:

How is banning someone for expressing an opinion about warlords which you do not yourself share different from someone "derailing" (quote marks because it's your choice of term, not my own) the thread on purpose; aren't both examples of one opinion being treated as an opinion, and the inverse opinion being treated as misconduct?


----------



## Hussar

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I don't have a horse in this race, and really only read these warlord threads to see if some cool ideas happen, but I've got to participate just long enough to ask one question:
> 
> How is banning someone for expressing an opinion about warlords which you do not yourself share different from someone "derailing" (quote marks because it's your choice of term, not my own) the thread on purpose; aren't both examples of one opinion being treated as an opinion, and the inverse opinion being treated as misconduct?




Because I'm recognizing the point of these "opinions".  It has nothing to do with adding anything to the conversation and everything to do with forcing the conversations into the ground and completely derailing them with ludicrous non sequiturs that are pure 100% trolling.

IOW, it's edition warring pure and simple.  The ONLY reason for the vitriol over the warlord is because the warlord is a 4e class.  Every single actual mechanical issue - martial healing, adding actions, inspiring feelings, etc - already exist in the game.  In the same way that warlord fans lost the argument over having a core warlord class with the publication of the 5e PHB, every warlord hater lost with the very same publication.

So, after realizing that they can't simply point to mechanics not fitting, since, well, the mechanics obviously fit, they simply change tactics and now argue that the "concept" doesn't fit.  And because it's such a nebulous and fuzzy issue, they can keep derailing thread after thread with pointless semantic debates and ensure that no forward progress is done.

And it's all done out of some sort of bizarre edition warring sense that we have to "protect" D&D from 4e cooties.

Not all opinions are equal.  The only reason that the warlord threads got banished to the forum ghetto in the first place is because people couldn't keep their edition warring out of things.  If warlord threads simply discussed mechanics and how we can implement those mechanics, you'd see one, maybe two threads on the forum, instead of ten, 1 thread talking about mechanics (and being massively derailed) and 9 threads questioning whether or not we actually need to talk about this in the first place.

I mean seriously, when we talk about psionics, how many "Psionics Demand Polls" do you see?  No one tells artificer fans, "Oh, well, there's just not enough of you to bother with.  Why are you being so unreasonable?"  It's 100% trolling .


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> I mean seriously, when we talk about psionics, how many "Psionics Demand Polls" do you see?  No one tells artificer fans, "Oh, well, there's just not enough of you to bother with.  Why are you being so unreasonable?"  It's 100% trolling .



 We saw some polls about the psion, and some mildly contentious threads - very mild, compared to the edition war.  Of course, the Artificer and Mystic are in the pipe-line, so their fans don't have much to complain about, at this point.



> IOW, it's edition warring pure and simple. The ONLY reason for the vitriol over the warlord is because the warlord is a 4e class.



 Well, and it was a martial class that could fill in functionally for a critical role that formerly required magic.  There's a bit of caster privilege maybe feeling threatened, there, too - though I suppose that was very much part of the edition war, as well.  :shrug: 



> Every single actual mechanical issue - martial healing, adding actions, inspiring feelings, etc - already exist in the game. In the same way that warlord fans lost the argument over having a core warlord class with the publication of the 5e PHB, every warlord hater lost with the very same publication.



'Compromised' sounds better than both sides lost.  No Warlord in the PH, so those who want traditional D&D 'pure' have the standard game that way, but with the system capable of handling one later in some supplement.  The reasons for giving Psionics similar treatment were probably different - it was always problematic mechanically, as well as contentious, and it wasn't /technically/ a /class/ in any past PH1, so punting and coming back to it must have seemed fine...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Hussar said:


> Not all opinions are equal.




Some are more equal than others...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Is there a need for a new subform?  Don't know.  But as of this moment, several on the front page are warlord related


----------



## 77IM

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] when I read your post I sympathize with your frustration. The people who derail warlord threads don't know how to communicate properly. Sometimes I'm that guy. Sometimes I'm guilty of exactly that.

But when I read your post, I feel that you are being guilty of that too. Rather than try to communicate with people, you're suggesting a one-week ban? wtf? If we simply banned everyone we had trouble communicating with, we could all go back to living in caves.

I believe game rules exist to translate the ideas in our heads -- our imaginations -- the "story" -- into consistent agreed-upon game play. So if you have an idea for a character who is a "warlord" there are three ways to model this character:

1. Using existing rules. (E.g., battlemaster fighter + inspiring leader; it's not too far off.)
2. Using a new fighter subclass. (E.g. PDK, except I think PDK is sucky and just plain weak. But certainly you could envision a fighter subclass that was balanced with the battlemaster but more warlordish. Heck, a few more warlordish battlemaster maneuvers might actually do the trick.)
3. Using a whole new class.

When people argue against number 3 (a whole new class) _they are really arguing for_ numbers 1 or 2. _Engage them!_ Figure out what character concept they are trying to model, and why options 1 or 2 work for them.

Maybe they are modelling a character very different than what you have in mind for the warlord? or maybe they've discovered that you can get most of the way there without a whole new class? That could inform your warlord design. Or maybe your warlord suggestion doesn't go far enough? (For my part, I'd only want to see a warlord class if it was radically different than existing 5E classes, not just "more of the same. E.g., if every warlord had troops under their command, that would be an interesting and different gameplay experience. A "martial cleric" like in 4E sounds boring as .)

Class bloat is a real thing -- it's a real problem, at least for some people. Even if you don't mind class bloat (some people LOVE having more more more), it's disrespectful to just dismiss people who feel otherwise. Don't dismiss them, engage them!


----------



## Tony Vargas

77IM said:


> But when I read your post, I feel that you are being guilty of that too. Rather than try to communicate with people, you're suggesting a one-week ban? wtf?



 Nod.  That's prettymuch what the title of this thread suggests - that a view be suppressed.  Not one person's, but a whole topic, and not for one week but for months on end.  

When the Warlord discussion ghetto was finally re-integrated, and someone bumped one of the threads - updating about a DMsG addition, I think it was, they were called out for violating that 'ban' and it had to be pointed out that, hey, the Warlord forum was gone.  While it existed, though, it was a banned topic, here, and folks were quick to assert that ban.


----------



## pogre

Start a new thread: 







> How Much Damage Does a Sneaking/Hiding WarLord Take From Dodging an Opponent's Near Miss and Falling 138 feet?




Have a moderator fold every related topic into this one thread. 

That would save me a lot of scrolling!


----------



## Remathilis

Hussar said:


> My vote?  One week ban to ANYONE who goes into a warlord thread and questions whether we should have warlords in the game or not.  Want to talk about new mechanics or how to actually implement concepts in a game?  Fantastic.  Want to come into yet another thread and tell all and sundry that warlords are an anathema to role play because they tell players how to feel?  Welcome to a one week holiday from the forum.




Can we expand that?

One week ban to anyone who complains about WotCs release schedule in a new product announcement thread.

One week ban to anyone who complains an AP is set in the Forgotten Realms. 

One week ban to anyone who complains an AP is just a rehash of [insert famous adventure here.]

That should lighten the load of this board significantly.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

Hussar said:


> IOW, it's edition warring pure and simple.



My perception may be a bit cloudy, but it appears that you may be creating the war by assuming others are fighting it.

I mean, I asked how suppression of one opinion was different from suppression of another, and your response has taken the form of a lot of bluster about edition warring and assumed motives of other posters, and ended up being somewhat lacking in answer to the question itself.


Hussar said:


> The only reason that the warlord threads got banished to the forum ghetto in the first place is because people couldn't keep their edition warring out of things.



That doesn't seem right to me. This forum has moderators, and I've seen them moderate, they don't seem the type to let flagrant rules violations like edition warring slide. Nor the type to think that disruptive posters would be slowed down in their disruptions by putting the topic they want to disrupt into a sub-forum. Which is a lot of words to arrive at saying I think there is a different reason for the "banished to the forum ghetto" (again, quotes because that's not my choice of phrase) situation.



Hussar said:


> I mean seriously, when we talk about psionics, how many "Psionics Demand Polls" do you see?  No one tells artificer fans, "Oh, well, there's just not enough of you to bother with.  Why are you being so unreasonable?"  It's 100% trolling .



I don't see many "psionics demand polls," no... I see worse, actually. I see people insisting that psionics isn't even the right genre for D&D, and no-poll-needed-certainty in stating that there aren't enough people that like psionics for it to ever be a justified investment of effort on the part of WotC for them to make psionics rules.

I'd go more in-depth as to exactly how much resistance there is to the incorporation into D&D of things I like, but my food has just arrived and I've probably derailed this thread enough as-is (for non-trolling, non-edition-warring reasons).


----------



## Hussar

Thing is, AaronofB, the psionics folks got what they wanted.  Granted, they might want it a bit sooner,  , but, they got it.

If you're a warlord fan, you can't even get it off the ground.

Now, as far as the one week ban goes, let's not forget, these arguments have been going on FOR YEARS.  Several years.  And it's the same thing over and over and over again.   Why should I try to engage with posters whose sole purpose is to derail every single conversation and force their personal tastes on me?  Compromise is a two way street.  Look, we don't have warlords in core.  You folks won.  You have managed to prevent something from "polluting" your game.  Congratulations.  

Now, what compromise going the other direction are we seeing?  Three years in, not a single mention of even a glimpse of a warlord.  The class has been mugged and its mechanics spread across several classes just so it can come in under the radar.  And, again, every single conversation about warlords turns into quasi-edition warring disingenuous crap.  Ohh, no, we cannot have ANY class telling another character how he feels.  Bard?  Ah, that gets the pass because... reasons.  

It's such complete and utter crap.


----------



## Dualazi

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> That doesn't seem right to me. This forum has moderators, and I've seen them moderate, they don't seem the type to let flagrant rules violations like edition warring slide. Nor the type to think that disruptive posters would be slowed down in their disruptions by putting the topic they want to disrupt into a sub-forum. Which is a lot of words to arrive at saying I think there is a different reason for the "banished to the forum ghetto" (again, quotes because that's not my choice of phrase) situation.




The problem I think is that to any casual (or even interested) observer, they don't seem as such because they're usually structured as suggestions. Such as "you can already make a functional warlord by multiclassing X Y and Z", which may or may not fit the description the OP is looking for, nor arrive in a reasonable enough timeframe for the average campaign. The problem being described is that these crop up every single thread trying to brainstorm a warlord, and as other have said derail the thread into discussing why those suggestions are or aren't good enough.

A counter-example I think are classes like artificer, which was originally released as a UA subclass that got mild to poor reception, and was later realized into a full class because the concept simply wasn't able to be adequately fleshed out as a subclass/multiclass, and people who pointed this out were no subject to the frequency of scrutiny that warlord threads usually are (IIRC).


----------



## Azzy

I'll first start by saying that I avoided 4e like the plague and have very negative opinions about it.

That said, I wholeheartedly support an official WotC warlord class for 5e. 

Just to spite the anti-warlord posters.


----------



## Mishihari Lord

77IM said:


> This is a great mechanical description, but I have yet to hear a story-first description of a warlord character. What characters from fiction (books, movies, comics, radio drama, mythology, etc.) could plausibly be called a "warlord" but _not_ a "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" or some other existing class?




Croaker from the Black Company books is the example that always comes to my mind first.  There are plenty of others.  Unfortunately the 4E warlord fits the characters _I_ think of as warlords quite poorly.  I've always considered the 4E warlord a good idea poorly implemented.


----------



## Yunru

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod.  That's prettymuch what the title of this thread suggests - that a view be suppressed.  Not one person's, but a whole topic, and not for one week but for months on end.
> 
> When the Warlord discussion ghetto was finally re-integrated, and someone bumped one of the threads - updating about a DMsG addition, I think it was, they were called out for violating that 'ban' and it had to be pointed out that, hey, the Warlord forum was gone.  While it existed, though, it was a banned topic, here, and folks were quick to assert that ban.



Y'know I'm actually all for suppressing a view if it has no relevance, because that's not a view, it's spam.

Saying "I don't want a Warlord" in a thread entitled "How could a Warlord be implemented?" (for example), is about as relevant as "Get Bett3r in the BedrOom, cl1ck here!"


----------



## Onslaught

Hussar said:


> The problem with the discussion isn't that there is disagreement over what a warlord should be able to do.  That's what sub-classes are FOR after all.





This is an important part of the discussion that gets no attention at all, because... 




77IM said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I believe game rules exist to translate the ideas in our heads -- our imaginations -- the "story" -- into consistent agreed-upon game play. So if you have an idea for a character who is a "warlord" there are three ways to model this character:
> 
> 
> 1. Using existing rules. (E.g., battlemaster fighter + inspiring leader; it's not too far off.)
> 2. Using a new fighter subclass. (E.g. PDK, except I think PDK is sucky and just plain weak. But certainly you could envision a fighter subclass that was balanced with the battlemaster but more warlordish. Heck, a few more warlordish battlemaster maneuvers might actually do the trick.)
> 3. Using a whole new class.
> 
> 
> When people argue against number 3 (a whole new class) _they are really arguing for_ numbers 1 or 2. _Engage them!_ Figure out what character concept they are trying to model, and why options 1 or 2 work for them.



When prompted with Options 1 and 2, what we get is mostly whining because it's not Option 3.



> Maybe they are modelling a character very different than what you have in mind for the warlord? (...)  A "martial cleric" like in 4E sounds boring as .)



But... that's exactly what people are after!! 

Since 5E have this huge emphasis on characterization... why not use a War Cleric with a specific spell selection (Guidance, Bless, Healing Word, Prayer of Healing...), and allow him to give is bonus attack (WarPriest) to any friend in 30ft range? Or mix that with PDK. Just describe as if there was no magic being cast.




> Class bloat is a real thing -- it's a real problem, at least for some people. Even if you don't mind class bloat (some people LOVE having more more more), it's disrespectful to just dismiss people who feel otherwise. Don't dismiss them, engage them!



Class bloat is a real thing not only for part of the community, but also to the designers. The fact that they built the Artificer as a Wizard archetype first is proof of that.. but, as with the Warlord, that class was first built with *edition mechanics* in mind (magic item creation from 3.5), so it'll probably never be perfectly ported to 5e (since no magic item creation rules)



Hussar said:


> IOW, it's edition warring pure and simple.  The ONLY reason for the vitriol over the warlord is because the warlord is a 4e class.  Every single actual mechanical issue - martial healing, adding actions, inspiring feelings, etc - already exist in the game.  In the same way that warlord fans lost the argument over having a core warlord class with the publication of the 5e PHB, every warlord hater lost with the very same publication.
> 
> 
> So, after realizing that they can't simply point to mechanics not fitting, since, well, the mechanics obviously fit, they simply change tactics and now argue that the "concept" doesn't fit.  And because it's such a nebulous and fuzzy issue, they can keep derailing thread after thread with pointless semantic debates and ensure that no forward progress is done.
> 
> 
> And it's all done out of some sort of bizarre edition warring sense that we have to "protect" D&D from 4e cooties.
> .



It borders edition warring because Warlord is a child of 4E mechanics. The whole concept of a "Martial Leader" is pure 4E. It's a class to demonstrate the new system's capabilities and themes, as... Wii Sports was a game to demonstrate what the Wii is about - it is still a game, and its still fun, see?


----------



## Zardnaar

The Warlord threads seem to be generated by the same dozen odd people now and then ad seem to be mostly edition warring and spamming.

 Roill them into 1, stick em in a ghetto because they are more or less designed to troll. The developers don't care about this forum site so it would be more productive to go and complain on twitter.


----------



## Mecheon

Onslaught said:


> Since 5E have this huge emphasis on characterization... why not use a War Cleric with a specific spell selection (Guidance, Bless, Healing Word, Prayer of Healing...), and allow him to give is bonus attack (WarPriest) to any friend in 30ft range? Or mix that with PDK. Just describe as if there was no magic being cast.



Because, per mechanics, there is magic being cast so it won't function 100%.

Now, if you take that exact concept, complete divorce it from being a cleric and using magic and it just using the same equivalent mechanics (Albeit without magic), bamn, you've got me happy at least


----------



## Corpsetaker

Sacrosanct said:


> About every six months or so.
> 
> 
> Here's the thing though.  I don't think anyone has denied that there are some people who want the warlord.  But if you look at all these threads, no one agrees as to what that should be, even among warlord fans.  As a game designer myself, that sends a HUGE message to me if I were on the WotC design team:  If we were to release an official warlord in an UA, it would be met with an overwhelming response of "This sucks!  It's horrible!  What were they thinking!"  I am doubly sure of this response based on how a lot of people react to literally every UA already.
> 
> So, as a designer, at this point I'd leave it up to individual fans to create what they want and go with it, and just avoid the drama from the get go and spend my time designing things that have a greater overall appeal and less drama surrounding them.  Like  a new ranger....




We get this anyway with UA so why not just go for it? A good game designer will also dip his/her toes into the water to see where they are. Creating a Warlord and then sending it out in the public will give you a bit of direction by the reactions that are given. Doing nothing accomplishes nothing and relying on fan made will never really amount to anything because a lot of people do not allow fan made classes into their games not to mention AL.

UA was designed for this very purpose.


----------



## raleel

Well, I'm going to propose mechanics for the core class, not the subclasses (not yet, my beloved Bravura). Rest of the discussion is going round and round. 

1) the warlord can use the Help Action as a bonus action. Gets the additional rider of being able to use the help action out to 30'. This maps roughly to Cunning action and action surge. I could see expanding this to include disadvantage on single rolls by single targets instead.
2) warlord gets medium armor, shields, and martial weapons, d8 HD
3) he can perform the Help action as a reaction. Also can be done out to 30'. I'm also inclined to put a low grade heal or temp hp in here. Mellored suggested this in another thread, and I think "Cunning action, but on reactions" is a solid core. 
4) he can use his action to grant someone else another attack, with the warlord's primary stat as a bonus to damage or to hit (undecided). I'm inclined to limit this in some fashion, as extra attacks are hard to come by, but have not nailed it down. Being able to spend their reaction against a target would be good. 

I think that's the core of it. Buff allies, rebuff foes, and granting attacks. I'd think that reaction enabling is a pretty good place to be, and help action use seems right as well. I've not put in any restrictions, but that's not to say that I don't think there shouldn't be some.


----------



## jayoungr

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod.  That's prettymuch what the title of this thread suggests - that a view be suppressed.  Not one person's, but a whole topic, and not for one week but for months on end.



I truly disagree that creating a subforum equals suppression.  When the subforum existed, I actually enjoyed being able to have all of the warlord threads in one place _and_ being easily able to see all of the "everything else" threads in another place.

P.S.  I'll bet that if/when someone creates a warlord on the DM's Guild that draws widespread acclaim, that person will be tapped to write official 5E material.


----------



## Yunru

jayoungr said:


> I truly disagree that creating a subforum equals suppression.  When the subforum existed, I actually enjoyed being able to have all of the warlord threads in one place _and_ being easily able to see all of the "everything else" threads in another place.
> 
> P.S.  I'll bet that if/when someone creates a warlord on the DM's Guild that draws widespread acclaim, that person will be tapped to write official 5E material.



You mean like the homebrew subforum? #NeverForget


----------



## Sacrosanct

Hussar said:


> If you're a warlord fan, you can't even get it off the ground.




This is not true.  The implemented some elements of the warlord into the BM, and took more of an official plunge with the PDK.  It might not be exactly what you want for various reasons, but to say you can't even get if off the ground is simply not true.  Especially since SCAG is _more _official than UA.



> Now, as far as the one week ban goes, let's not forget, these arguments have been going on FOR YEARS.  Several years.  And it's the same thing over and over and over again.   Why should I try to engage with posters whose sole purpose is to derail every single conversation and force their personal tastes on me?  Compromise is a two way street.  Look, we don't have warlords in core.  You folks won.  You have managed to prevent something from "polluting" your game.  Congratulations.




Pure conjecture.  Which seems to be the basis of a lot of your arguments in this thread.  Accusing others who don't share your opinion as nothing more than people throwing tissy fits and edition warring, and now accusing them of preventing the class?  If you're going to throw out accusations like this, where is your evidence?  Because the only person who appears to be throwing a fit and using profanity is you.  Not agreeing with you =/= trolling, or edition warring, or somehow oppressing your desires.




Corpsetaker said:


> We get this anyway with UA so why not just go for it? A good game designer will also dip his/her toes into the water to see where they are. Creating a Warlord and then sending it out in the public will give you a bit of direction by the reactions that are given. Doing nothing accomplishes nothing and relying on fan made will never really amount to anything because a lot of people do not allow fan made classes into their games not to mention AL.
> 
> UA was designed for this very purpose.




They did go for it.  The PDK.  And what was the reaction?  Not a very good one, that's for sure.  It's WAY easier to design a subclass than a full on new class, so if they are going to go to that effort and spend the time and money doing it, it better be pretty good and a whole lot of players better want it.  And seeing as how what they have put out has been met with a lot of vitriol, I'm not surprised they haven't done a full class.  Look at how long it is taking for them to try to get the ranger right.  And a lot more people like the ranger over the warlord as a core class.


----------



## Yunru

Sacrosanct said:


> They did go for it.  The PDK.  And what was the reaction?  Not a very good one, that's for sure.  It's WAY easier to design a subclass than a full on new class, so if they are going to go to that effort and spend the time and money doing it, it better be pretty good and a whole lot of players better want it.  And seeing as how what they have put out has been met with a lot of vitriol, I'm not surprised they haven't done a full class.  Look at how long it is taking for them to try to get the ranger right.  And a lot more people like the ranger over the warlord as a core class.



No it's not. It's way harder to shoe-horn something into a subclass than it is to give it its own class.

Take the PDK, since you mention it. Does it work? No, because you can only use the defining abilities of a PDK a very limited number of times per day. Why's that? Because it's shoe-horned into a Fighter subclass, and thus has to be balanced around the Fighter chasis.


The Eldritch Knight is a perfect showcase of this. It's similar enough to shoe-horning the Wizard into a Fighter subclass, and look at that, it's a third of what the Wizard is. Because it has to balance with the Fighter chasis.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Yunru, don't put me on your ignore list (like you did yesterday or the day before), then quote me.  I can't see it.  All I see is a notification you quoted me.  Besides, if you're going to quote me, it defeats the purpose of putting me on your ignore list.


----------



## Yunru

Sacrosanct said:


> Yunru, don't put me on your ignore list (like you did yesterday or the day before), then quote me.  I can't see it.  All I see is a notification you quoted me.  Besides, if you're going to quote me, it defeats the purpose of putting me on your ignore list.



My apologies, I genuinely forgot because it still shows your messages in the app.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Yunru said:


> My apologies, I genuinely forgot because it still shows your messages in the app.



 They really need to fix that bug.


----------



## Satyrn

Yunru said:


> "Get Bett3r in the BedrOom, cl1ck here!"




!!!

Why isn't this a link?


----------



## Yunru

Satyrn said:


> !!!
> 
> Why isn't this a link?



Fixed, thanks!


----------



## Satyrn

raleel said:


> 3) he can perform the Help action as a reaction. Also can be done out to 30'. I'm also inclined to put a low grade heal or temp hp in here. Mellored suggested this in another thread, and I think "Cunning action, but on reactions" is a solid core.
> 4) he can use his action to grant someone else another attack, with the warlord's primary stat as a bonus to damage or to hit (undecided). I'm inclined to limit this in some fashion, as extra attacks are hard to come by, but have not nailed it down. Being able to spend their reaction against a target would be good.



Nice suggestion from [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION]. Interesting reaction uses would be an excellent place to focus the Warlord's uniqueness, whether it's boosting an ally or hindering an enemy.

Just providing a bonus to damage or advantage/disadvantage on something done by/to another player would feel very warlordy to me. I wouldn't even need that action granting - at not least not one with greater effect than the battlemaster has.


----------



## Hussar

Heh, for all my bluster, I really don't think that WotC can do anything else.  They've spent the last four or five years rebuilding all the good will with gamers that was lost during 4e.  There's just no upside for them to weigh in on this.  If they do nothing, then nothing really happens - people go on playing 5e and every six months or so, you get a bit of agitation for a warlord which dies down in a couple of weeks and probably gets less and less as time goes on.

If they actually DO come out with a warlord, they risk the huge amount of backlash and edition warring crap that these six month go arounds prove will happen.

There's just no upside for them.  So, I can't really blame them for it.

So, hey folks, stand up and be proud.  You've shown that you can nicely throw 4e players under the bus and claim edition war victory.  Aren't you so proud?  Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that you've protected 5e from those dirty 4e ideas?  Stand up and take a bow.  After all your hard work, you should be taking credit where credit is due.


----------



## Remathilis

Hussar said:


> So, hey folks, stand up and be proud.  You've shown that you can nicely throw 4e players under the bus and claim edition war victory.  Aren't you so proud?  Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that you've protected 5e from those dirty 4e ideas?  Stand up and take a bow.  After all your hard work, you should be taking credit where credit is due.




Do you have the version that lacks dragonborn, devil-tieflings, healing word, unlimited cantrips, the warlock class, hunter's quarry, commander's strike, the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos, legendary actions for monsters, eladrin and the Dawn War deities in the DMG, and a slew of other 4e-inspired ideas in it? If so, I do apologize. 

Not having the warlord =/= 4e not being represented in 5e. Unless you think the only thing unique about 4e was warlords and ADEU...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Remathilis said:


> Do you have the version that lacks dragonborn, devil-tieflings, healing word, unlimited cantrips, the warlock class, hunter's quarry, commander's strike, the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos, legendary actions for monsters, eladrin and the Dawn War deities in the DMG, and a slew of other 4e-inspired ideas in it? If so, I do apologize.
> 
> Not having the warlord =/= 4e not being represented in 5e. Unless you think the only thing unique about 4e was warlords and ADEU...




Even AEDU exists, to an extent, with abilities that are at will, recharged on short rest (essentially encounter), and recharged on long rest (daily).  And then there's a ton of non magical healing (abilities, hit dice, etc) and other elements that certainly seem inspired by 4e.

Saying 5e kept out all elements of 4e is like me saying 5e didn't take any inspiration from AD&D because there's no THAC0.  It's just an outright silly thing to say.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

Sacrosanct said:


> Saying 5e kept out all elements of 4e is like me saying 5e didn't take any inspiration from AD&D because there's no THAC0.  It's just an outright silly thing to say.



Or that they threw 3.5 fans "under the bus" by not having high ability score provide additional spell slots, or by making feats a one-and-done prospect rather than a collect-three-to-finally-feel-its-worth-it  one.


----------



## Hussar

To be honest this is what baffles me. 

You're absolutely right. Everything that makes up a warlord already exists in the game. So why the resistance to a warlord Class?  I've never been able to understand that one.


----------



## cbwjm

jayoungr said:


> I truly disagree that creating a subforum equals suppression.  When the subforum existed, I actually enjoyed being able to have all of the warlord threads in one place _and_ being easily able to see all of the "everything else" threads in another place.
> 
> P.S.  I'll bet that if/when someone creates a warlord on the DM's Guild that draws widespread acclaim, that person will be tapped to write official 5E material.




I actually enjoyed the warlord forum as well, I was checking it daily to see what was coming out of it. Most of it was whining on both sides, but every now and then someone posted ideas for a 5e version of the class which was actually interesting.


----------



## cbwjm

Hussar said:


> To be honest this is what baffles me.
> 
> You're absolutely right. Everything that makes up a warlord already exists in the game. So why the resistance to a warlord Class?  I've never been able to understand that one.




A lot of people really don't want to have to play with another player whose character is like some kind of party leader that they are meant to follow. A character that can say to their own character "Do this thing" which they have to do. They don't want their character's actions to be controlled by another player and find the very idea offensive. I can see where they are coming from, but then I also really don't care about their reasoning. After DMing a player who made use of the Battlemaster's commander's strike, I think a full warlord would make an interesting addition to the game.


----------



## FrogReaver

cbwjm said:


> A lot of people really don't want to have to play with another player whose character is like some kind of party leader that they are meant to follow. A character that can say to their own character "Do this thing" which they have to do. They don't want their character's actions to be controlled by another player and find the very idea offensive. I can see where they are coming from, but then I also really don't care about their reasoning. After DMing a player who made use of the Battlemaster's commander's strike, I think a full warlord would make an interesting addition to the game.




Except no one bats an eye at such mechanics in practice.  It's only threads like these where that issue gets brought up.

Bard wants to give *BARDIC INSPIRATION* to a party member for an attack roll bonus they use it.
Warlock with *INSPRING LEADER* feat buffs the party with temp hp no one cares how.
Fighter grants the rogue an extra attack with *COMMANDERS STRIKE* and he gladly accepts it.
etc...

I've never seen one actual game of DND where such abilities were a problem.  Have any of you?


----------



## Hussar

cbwjm said:


> A lot of people really don't want to have to play with another player whose character is like some kind of party leader that they are meant to follow. A character that can say to their own character "Do this thing" which they have to do. They don't want their character's actions to be controlled by another player and find the very idea offensive. I can see where they are coming from, but then I also really don't care about their reasoning. After DMing a player who made use of the Battlemaster's commander's strike, I think a full warlord would make an interesting addition to the game.




And I get that.  I really do.  No one wants anyone else at the table to take control over their character.  Fine.

But, that argument was lost as soon as the PHB came out and you had bards, battle masters and various other goodies.  It's especially a specious argument when we're told over and over again that 5e already has warlords in the shape of battle masters and bards and masterminds.  

You can't really have it both ways.  You can't on one hand complain that you don't want mechanics that allow other players to influence your character, while on the other hand tell those that want warlords that they should be happy because the mechanics for influencing other characters is already baked into the game.


----------



## cbwjm

FrogReaver said:


> Except no one bats an eye at such mechanics in practice.  It's only threads like these where that issue gets brought up.
> 
> Bard wants to give *BARDIC INSPIRATION* to a party member for an attack roll bonus they use it.
> Warlock with *INSPRING LEADER* feat buffs the party with temp hp no one cares how.
> Fighter grants the rogue an extra attack with *COMMANDERS STRIKE* and he gladly accepts it.
> etc...
> 
> I've never seen one actual game of DND where such abilities were a problem.  Have any of you?




I haven't (I'm also not opposed to a warlord, thought I'd just mention that in case you didn't read my post in its entirety), these are just the concerns of others. Perhaps they can put up with what's currently in the game even though they don't like it, perhaps they explain it away as magic in the bard's case. But a player running a class which tells the rest of the party what to do might make them feel like they are getting bossed around. Who knows, maybe they did mention this back in 4e if they played it, maybe it was one of the things that turned them off 4e and saw them play old school systems, I don't know. I just know that they don't want to have someone else play a class dedicated to telling them what to do.

On a somewhat warlord-related note. I read Transformers comics by IDW. Megatron has repented, joined the autobots and now refuses to fight, but he can direct a battle like nobody's business and now makes for a classic lazylord style character.


----------



## Tony Vargas

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Or that they threw 3.5 fans "under the bus" by not having high ability score provide additional spell slots, or by making feats a one-and-done prospect rather than a collect-three-to-finally-feel-its-worth-it  one.



 Wait, do you mean 5e throwing them under the bus?  Wow, right after 4e threw them under the bus, and 3.5 threw 3.0 fans under the bus.  Darn, that poor busdriver's insurance premiums must be prohibitive...

...and he'll probably be laid off come Christmas, too.  
Must be tough, driv'n the WotC bus.



Remathilis said:


> Do you have the version that lacks dragonborn, devil-tieflings, healing word, unlimited cantrips, the warlock class, hunter's quarry, commander's strike, the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos, legendary actions for monsters, eladrin and the Dawn War deities in the DMG, and a slew of other 4e-inspired ideas in it?



 I get the impression that was part of the irony Hussar intended, there.  H4ters are still fighting tooth and nail to block and the Warlord, when so much of 4e has already made it in - including small examples of each of the hot-button things they were so exercised about the Warlord getting in the first place.



Hussar said:


> To be honest this is what baffles me.
> 
> You're absolutely right. Everything that makes up a warlord already exists in the game. So why the resistance to a warlord Class?  I've never been able to understand that one.



 Does it really baffle you.  You were here for the edition war.  Has that much changed on that side of the equation?


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

Tony Vargas said:


> Wait, do you mean 5e throwing them under the bus?  Wow, right after 4e threw them under the bus, and 3.5 threw 3.0 fans under the bus.  Darn, that poor busdriver's insurance premiums must be prohibitive...



I think you've missed the boat on this one. I can't unpack what you are actually asking me. I can, however, rephrase my statement in hopes that it helps you understand it in case the reason I don't understand your reply is rooted in you not understanding me:

Accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 4th edition fans liked because a specific manifestation of an idea is not present is as ridiculous as accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 3.5 fans liked because a different example of a specific manifestation of an idea is not present.



Tony Vargas said:


> I get the impression that was part of the irony Hussar intended, there.  H4ters are still fighting tooth and nail to block and the Warlord, when so much of 4e has already made it in - including small examples of each of the hot-button things they were so exercised about the Warlord getting in the first place.



I get the impression that some folks fought so hard and so long in the war that they can't help but see the enemy everywhere they look.

So they see any disagreement with their opinions, or any difference of desires and interests, as enemy attacks and plots.


----------



## Tony Vargas

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I think you've missed the boat on this one.



 I think I missed the _bus_.  Which is good, there was no chance to throw me under it!

Y'see, 4e came out, and it was all 'no gnome!?' WotC threw us under the bus!  (Really, it was announced, and it's like /another edition/ really, soaking us again, huh?)  
So, yeah, D&D fans.  They complain.  A lot.  You may've noticed.



> Accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 4th edition fans liked because a specific manifestation of an idea is not present is as ridiculous as accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 3.5 fans liked because a different example of a specific manifestation of an idea is not present.



 Fair enough.  There's no Warlord, Avenger, Shaman, or Warden in 5e, though all were in 4e PHs.  And there's no Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight, or Beguiler full class in print, yet, in 5e, though all were in the 3.5 PH2.  Those are vaguely comparable.  It'd be nice to see most of them included, eventually.  Prefferably in PH order.  Warlord, only one of those from a PH1, first.  



> I get the impression that some folks fought so hard and so long in the war that they can't help but see the enemy everywhere they look



 And some are still fighting it. 

Just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you, y'know.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

Tony Vargas said:


> There's no Warlord, Avenger, Shaman, or Warden in 5e, though all were in 4e PHs.  And there's no Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight, or Beguiler full class in print, yet, in 5e, though all were in the 3.5 PH2.  Those are vaguely comparable.  It'd be nice to see most of them included, eventually.  Prefferably in PH order.  Warlord, only one of those from a PH1, first.



Some of those things you say there aren't, there are - they just aren't exactly like their prior iterations. But nothing in 5e is exactly like a prior iteration, so there really isn't anything wrong with that.

Those few things in this impromptu list that aren't in 5e, maybe they will be once the "big book of crunch" finally hits shelves.



Tony Vargas said:


> Just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you, y'know.



Don't forget that the inverse is true, too - someone being out to get you doesn't stop you from being paranoid.


----------



## Tony Vargas

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> Some of those things you say there aren't, there are



 Nod.  Some in UA, some in sketchy ways, others in all but name.  But any lack can be enough for someone to claim bus-tracks.



> Those few things in this impromptu list that aren't in 5e, maybe they will be once the "big book of crunch" finally hits shelves.



 The Knight is in the pipeline, as a fighter sub-class (and it was so very fighter-like in 3.5, and an actual fighter sub-class in Essentials, I don't see that as a major sticking point), the Warden (not a class that much grabbed me, I have to admit) has a conceptual cousin in the Oath of Ancients but not really, the Avenger (likewise, it always seemed superfluous to me, but a number of players at my table over the years loved it) not at all, Shaman's been rumored but nothing yet, other than the Knight I don't know enough about the original forms of the 3.5 PHII classes to judge, really.  



> Don't forget that the inverse is true, too - someone being out to get you doesn't stop you from being paranoid.



 Just 'cause _I'm_ paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get me!


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

Tony Vargas said:


> But any lack can be enough for someone to claim bus-tracks.



Doesn't make the claim a reasonable one, though.


----------



## SkidAce

cbwjm said:


> On a somewhat warlord-related note. I read Transformers comics by IDW. Megatron has repented, joined the autobots and now refuses to fight, but he can direct a battle like nobody's business and now makes for a classic lazylord style character.




It's a trap!


----------



## Guest 6801328

AaronOfBarbaria said:


> I get the impression that some folks fought so hard and so long in the war that they can't help but see the enemy everywhere they look.




This is certainly what it feels like whenever I discuss my aversion to the Warlord, which has absolutely nothing to do with 4e or philosophy about hit points or whatever.

The reactions tend to be (loosely paraphrased):
1) You are 100.0% wrong.  There is not a single iota of worth to your arguments.
2) You are selfish and arrogant for trying to deprive other players of something they like.


----------



## SkidAce

I know I am (apparently) a minority, however;

I liked 4e well enough. I am not an edition warrior (too many scars from 1e to 2e). 

I just don't care for a warlord class (or the Marshall from 3.0/3.5).

---

Disagreement, even firm "No Sir, I don't like it"




and then explaining why, is NOT edition warring.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Elfcrusher said:


> This is certainly what it feels like whenever I discuss my aversion to the Warlord, which has absolutely nothing to do with 4e or philosophy about hit points or whatever.
> 
> The reactions tend to be (loosely paraphrased):
> 1) You are 100.0% wrong.  There is not a single iota of worth to your arguments.
> 2) You are selfish and arrogant for trying to deprive other players of something they like.




I'm sort of the inverse.  I don't like 4e at all.  Doesn't fit what I like in D&D.  And yet, I have no problems with the Warlord if they really wanted to include it.  I don't like bards, and the answer is "I don't play them.".  Pretty simple.

I find most of those arguments to be strawmen at best.  There are a lot of reasons why people want the warlord, and a lot of reasons why people don't.  To paint anyone who doesn't want it as a "h4ter" or being completely irrational is simply lazy, and it certainly doesn't endear me to your point.


----------



## Mistwell

Like Warlord, Hate Warlord, or Indifferent to Warlord - I think the premise of the thread is a fair one.  Time for it's own forum again.


----------



## Hussar

Elfcrusher said:


> This is certainly what it feels like whenever I discuss my aversion to the Warlord, which has absolutely nothing to do with 4e or philosophy about hit points or whatever.
> 
> The reactions tend to be (loosely paraphrased):
> 1) You are 100.0% wrong.  There is not a single iota of worth to your arguments.
> 2) You are selfish and arrogant for trying to deprive other players of something they like.




Not rsure really though. 

When it's pointed out to you that all the things you don't like about a warlord are already in the game, apparently that doesn't matter. Any counter point raised just gets shrugged off. Warlords are OP. Nope. Players shouldn't be able to tell you how you feel?  Sorry there's a bard right there as well as battlemaster and mastermind. So, what's left?


----------



## Mecheon

Hussar said:


> Not rsure really though.
> 
> When it's pointed out to you that all the things you don't like about a warlord are already in the game, apparently that doesn't matter. Any counter point raised just gets shrugged off. Warlords are OP. Nope. Players shouldn't be able to tell you how you feel?  Sorry there's a bard right there as well as battlemaster and mastermind. So, what's left?




Well, given player who has annoyed a god enough and shouldn't get Cleric healing (Which, let's be honest, is the same argument) should DM fiat, I'm going to up and say that Elfcrusher's case should be DM fiat as well


----------



## Darkness

*Please keep it civil, everyone. In particular, the attacks on (supposed) groups of posters seriously need to stop.

Also, subforums are more of a Meta topic, so I'm moving the thread there.*


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria

FrogReaver said:


> Except no one bats an eye at such mechanics in practice.  It's only threads like these where that issue gets brought up.



I will preface this by saying that I've not found myself in the position necessary to feel the negative feelings that some have stated a warlord character in their party could give them - because I am so rarely a player, rather than the DM, and the few warlords that I saw in play during 4th edition "my action is that you take an action" type, nor were they in play while I was playing rather than DMing.

However, I'd like to take a shot at figuring out why the following things don't create the same negative feelings, or at least create those feelings with low enough intensity to not cause the same reaction. If anyone that has felt the negative feelings mentioned thinks anything I say on the matter is off-base, please let me know.



FrogReaver said:


> Bard wants to give *BARDIC INSPIRATION* to a party member for an attack roll bonus they use it.



Bardic inspiration has a long window of use (10 minutes), and has a variety of use options (ability check, attack roll, saving throw, and war college adds damage and AC against incoming attack)  that are at the player of the receiving character's choice for when and how to use the bonus.

It seems like the reason the reaction to this feature isn't as potent as the reaction to the idea of the warlord class because it's not "Your character does X now because my character says so" so much as it is "Here's a bonus, use it within the next 10 minutes, if you get a chance."



FrogReaver said:


> Warlock with *INSPRING LEADER* feat buffs the party with temp hp no one cares how.



Maybe the difference in reaction is as simple as not every table uses feats since they are specifically labelled "optional" so it's not viewed as being "officially included". Maybe it's just the "Come on guys, we can do this!" vibe the feat can give upon reading not matching the "Everybody do what I say" vibe that is worried will come from the warlord class.



FrogReaver said:


> Fighter grants the rogue an extra attack with *COMMANDERS STRIKE* and he gladly accepts it.



This one is a bit trickier for me to find a reason why it doesn't spark the same reaction. I would level a guess at it being a minor thing that the fighter in question does - minor both in that not every battle-master will have that maneuver, and that it's not likely to be the go-to thing for a character that does have it to be doing (going buy the assessments I've seen that it's not a very good maneuver choice) - while it would be a (if not the) major feature of the warlord as a class according to at least a good portion of the folks I've seen asking for a full warlord class.



FrogReaver said:


> I've never seen one actual game of DND where such abilities were a problem.  Have any of you?



I have seen actual games of D&D where-in one frustrated player said to another player something along the lines of "Just let me play my character." I admit it was because of the attitude with which the player saying "You should do X" was presenting the idea, rather than because there were game mechanics attached to the statement - but I can see the same kind of frustration arising with it being game mechanics, not just another player, saying "You should do X".


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, I've been flogging this hobby horse too much.  Bowing out now.  Sorry folks, let my personal bugaboos get the better of me.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> I've been flogging this hobby horse too much.



 I visualized that before I could stop myself.


----------

