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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

You mean like the homebrew subforum? #NeverForget

Hussar said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Yunru said:

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

Click to expand...

They really need to fix that bug.

Yunru said:

"Get Bett3r in the BedrOom, cl1ck here!"

Click to expand...

!!!

Why isn't this a link?

Satyrn said:

!!!

Why isn't this a link?

Click to expand...

Fixed, thanks!

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.

Click to expand...

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.