D&D 5E How much Warlord do you want?

[Sacrosanct]

I honestly cannot believe you can't see the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the 3E and 5E DMG's take, especially given the number of times it has been discussed at depth. It's not a matter of a job "badly done". It's a matter of not even attempting to do what the game did before. The label remains the same, but the contents are wildly different.

I have personally had this exact conversation with you more times than I care to remember, Aaron, so I would appreciate it if you represent this position accurately. Put another way, if you can't accept that for some players, the 5E approach is a solution in name only, utterly unsuited for the job we want it to do (which is to offer a robust way to turn looted gold into useful items); please say so instead of pretending you don't know exactly what's going on.

Now back to your Warlord discussion.

Thank you.

If 5e is "utterly unsuited" for what you want, why do you play it? Stick with the version you like best. Before you accuse me of this, I am in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM saying 5e should be immune from criticism. But when all you do, for years, is say X, Y, Z part of 5e is broken and/or fails, then it makes no sense to me why you keep continuing on complaining, day after day, month after month.

5e has magic item crafting rules. Same as 3e? No, but nor should it. 5e has guidelines on monster abilities. Is it like 4e? No, nor should it. 5e has warlordy type classes/subclasses. Is it like 4e? No, it's not. 5e is it's own game, for better or for worse. All you're doing is doing yourself and everyone else a huge disservice by constantly trying to turn 5e into a previous edition. At some point, when are you going to make the decision to stick with the games you like best. Because I gotta tell you, it has gotten old that literally every time a topic comes up about how 5e does something or something comes out in UA, you complain about how it doesn't work for you. I'm tired of pulling up every thread on the UA articles for instance, and there you are, complaining about it; it offers nothing to the discussion because it's nothing but veiled attacks on the developers. It sure seems like 5e doesn't work for you at all, so why do you insist on fighting it? It's not gonna change to how you want it. Not gonna happen.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The draconic bloodline is a sub-class of a full Sorcerer class. If it were a Wizard Tradition or Bard School, I could see the analogy holding.

See this is evidence of the unbridgeable gap I was talking about. You can't even look at my view of the analogy and see the same thing I am seeing when I look at it, because what class the "the character is descended from dragons" sub-class is attached to has no effect at all in determining whether that sub-class is enough to count as "has dragon-blooded characters" or a full-class dedicated to the idea is needed before such a statement is true.

Or are you still convinced that you have reason to oppose the inclusion of the Warlord?

I have never once said that I have reason to oppose the inclusion of the warlord.

In fact, the only comment I've made regarding warlord inclusion is more along the lines of "Yes, it's fine to include. That's why they've done it in a few different ways so far."

You are misconstruing my questioning of why "is official" was being prioritized as highly or higher than "does what I want it to" as something it wasn't if you think I've been saying something else.

Have I at least cleared up some of your confusion?

Again, I was never confused. I had a curiosity - those two things are different, and I'd appreciate you not conflating them any further.

I honestly cannot believe you can't see the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the 3E and 5E DMG's take, especially given the number of times it has been discussed at depth. It's not a matter of a job "badly done". It's a matter of not even attempting to do what the game did before. The label remains the same, but the contents are wildly different.

I have personally had this exact conversation with you more times than I care to remember, Aaron, so I would appreciate it if you represent this position accurately. Put another way, if you can't accept that for some players, the 5E approach is a solution in name only, utterly unsuited for the job we want it to do (which is to offer a robust way to turn looted gold into useful items); please say so instead of pretending you don't know exactly what's going on.

Now back to your Warlord discussion.

Thank you.

Zapp, I've not represented any position inaccurately. I've represented your position as being unsatisfied with the 5th edition magic item rules found in the DMG to such degree that you insist they don't even count, and you've said the same in your claim that I was misrepresenting something.

What seems to have tripped you up is that my opinion is different from your own; I feel that the 3E and 5E DMG both provide the same degree of usability to the DM (just one with less math and less character build requirements), and both approach magic items from a "what is it actually worth in terms of the typical campaign?", or as you have phrased it "utility based", point of view.

It's fine that our opinions differ, and I've never once faulted you for having your opinion. My only argument against your statements on the topic is that you have claimed the rules that are in the DMG don't count as an attempt to provide rules to turn looted gold into useful items (and I've also made the inquiry as to why you think WotC taking another shot at it would hit the mark for you when what was likely their best attempt missed so widely for you, but that's not actually contesting your opinion in any way, just seeking to understand it better).

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Well we already have the Edritch Knight (Purple Dragon Knight) and Arcane Trickster (Mastermind), so why not?

Currently it seems they've been parceling out a lot Warlordy things, scattering them around other classes. Maybe there's a reason for it, maybe they simply haven't gotten around to bringing the Warlord into 5. I'd love to see where they go with it, if they go with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See this is evidence of the unbridgeable gap I was talking about. You can't even look at my view of the analogy and see the same thing I am seeing when I look at it

Ah, actually, it was evidence of hasty reading, as I didn't take a close enough look at what you said. I missed 'dragon-blooded characters.'

Take two:

I don't think that analogy is useful.

You find something invalid about an analogy that compares the conceptual relationship between a sub-class of the fighter that has some mechanical aspects of another core class and that core class, itself, with a corresponding relationship between different sub-class of the fighter with similar mechanical aspects of a different core class, to that class, in turn?

It presumes that anything less than a full class specifically dedicated to a particular sort of character cannot possibly be the best attempt at including that sort of character that WotC can muster.

No, it does not presume any such thing, it illustrates that fact by analogy. An Eldritch Knight, though it casts some wizard spells, something like a Wizard does, is not a Wizard, and could not be construed as an attempt at providing all the concepts covered by the wizard in the past. That's clearly analogous to the fact that Battlemaster, though it has a very few maneuvers that are similar to Warlord exploits, is not a Warlord, and could not be construed as an attempt at providing all the concepts covered by the wizard in the past.

Indeed, in that analogy, the Eledritch Knight is a much closer approximation of a Wizard than the battlemaster is of the Warlord, having access to far more than 3 wizard spells, and over 4 spell levels.

To flip the analogy around to try and better illustrate my meaning, it's like saying that draconic bloodline sorcerer does not count as an attempt to include dragon-blooded characters.

OK, third read, finally got it.

Yes, it is a bit like saying that a sub-class does not equate to a racial template. Templates like the 3.5 half-dragon clearly have not been attempted in 5e, as yet. FWLTW.

Perhaps another way to flip it around would be to look at a case where a sub-class does cut it. Consider, if you will, the Illusionist. The illusionist first appeared as a sub-class of the Magic-user (which became the Wizard, it's erstwhile level-11 'Name Level' title, a sign of ultimate achievement, incidentally). In subsequent Players' Handbooks it appeared as a sub-class (1e) or a specialty (2e, 3e), and, though it did not appear in a 4e PH, but did make an appearance as a 'school' under the Essentials Mage. Now, in 5e, the Illusionist is once a gain, a sub-class or 'Tradition.' It does quite a lot of what the original illusionist did - and, since there are no longer opposition schools, has quite a lot of additional options, as well.

I think the difference are clear. The Illusionist was always a sub-class, the 5e Illusionist is not limited to a tiny sub-set of it's past abilities.

because what class the "the character is descended from dragons" sub-class is attached to has no effect at all in determining whether that sub-class is enough to count as "has dragon-blooded characters" or a full-class dedicated to the idea is needed before such a statement is true.

A full class might even be /worse/ as an attempt at a half-dragon template or dragonborn race or the like.

I have never once said that I have reason to oppose the inclusion of the warlord.

Would you mind terribly if you stopped doing so, then?

In fact, the only comment I've made regarding warlord inclusion is more along the lines of "Yes, it's fine to include. That's why they've done it in a few different ways so far."

You don't see how that implies that it shouldn't be tried again? Really?

I get the feeling you are being intentionally disingenuous. That's not an accusation, it's feedback. I expect you're not trying disingenuously, to imply things while claiming not to be saying them, nor to misrepresent the facts by claiming that there are three versions of a particular past-edition core class in 5e, when in fact there are none.

But you're starting to come off that way, and you should be aware of it, maybe do something to head off that impression.

You are misconstruing my questioning of why "is official" was being prioritized as highly or higher than "does what I want it to" as something it wasn't if you think I've been saying something else.

I suggest that the error was in your attempt at encoding the message. I'll accept that you didn't mean to argue, adamantly, against the inclusion of the Warlord. But you should be aware that you have been saying things that are difficult to construe in any other way.

Again, I was never confused. I had a curiosity - those two things are different, and I'd appreciate you not conflating them any further.

Lack of threading really is an issue around here:

it sounds like you are saying that if something is officially released by WotC in print that you'll like it regardless of its other qualities - and since that clearly didn't work out for you on at least a couple parts of the game so far, it is confusing to see you keeping those criteria at high priority.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Actually, it presumes that anything less than a full class can't be considered the best possible attempt at including a core class option. Bordering on the tautological, I know, but an assumption, not an argument.

I think it is arbitrary to insist that a concept be attempted as a core class, rather than be attempted in whatever form best matches concept to design paradigm.

Would you mind terribly if you stopped doing so, then?

I literally cannot stop doing a thing that I have not begun doing.

You don't see how that implies that it shouldn't be tried again? Really?

I can see how someone might choose to interpret that implication as being present, but that is reader bias and there is nothing I can do to change that.

I can only tell you that I put the words I meant in the order I meant them, and I didn't include any words without reason. The "so far" is key - no reason for me to include those words other than to show my statement as applying to potential future inclusions, which is pretty much the exact opposite of suggesting it shouldn't be tried again.

Can you point to exact portions of the statement I made that indicate the implication you've falsely accused me of making?

I get the feeling you are being intentionally disingenuous. That's not an accusation, it's feedback.

It's feedback you may want to apply to yourself, given the following:

...claiming that there are three versions of a past-edition core class in the game...

is a claim I didn't make, and I know you know I didn't make it. Perhaps you were reading my statements hastily again, and as a result have seen what I did say (that there are ways to make a warlord-like character) as this thing that I didn't say (that there are three versions of the warlord core class in the game). Perhaps you just don't see those things as being different, while I do (which would get us back to the unbridgeable gap).

I suggest that the error was in your attempt at encoding the message.

Encoding the message? I think you've grown paranoid, Tony. I'll let this accusation of nefarious behavior slide though, as a gesture of the good faith with which I approach our discussion.

Lack of threading really is an issue around here:

I see now why you thought I was confused. I admit I could have worded that particular statement more clearly to be showing hypothetical confusion (confusion I would experience assuming someone were actually saying the statement I mentioned it sounds like was being said) rather than current confusion.

But since no one was saying that something being officially released by WotC in print means they'll like it regardless of its other qualities, I am not confused - even though I still lack full understanding of Zapp's priorities, I am not confused about them (I know what they are, and I know his reasons for having them, but I don't fully understand because those reasons do not resonate with me).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it is arbitrary to insist that a concept be attempted as a core class, rather than be attempted in whatever form best matches concept to design paradigm.

The best fit to include a core class in a new edition is clearly as a core class. That doesn't seem arbitrary so much as obvious.

"I need a new car to replace my old one. It's worn out from my long commute."

"How about wheelbarrow?"

"No, I really need a car."

"How arbitrary!"


Besides, it's been the approach 5e took with every other full class presented as such in at least one PH1. They're all full classes in the PH, not even with names changed for 5e. The two that only appeared as sub-classes are sub-classes in 5e. Even classes that haven't appeared in the PH as such are in the pipeline as full classes.

But, at the same time, 5e has been quite profligate in providing multiple ways to mix in aspects of a full class without actually taking that class. (I assume, in part, to help make MCing truly optional in a practical sense.)

I literally cannot stop doing a thing that I have not begun doing.
I can see how someone might choose to interpret that implication as being present, but that is reader bias and there is nothing I can do to change that.
I can only tell you that I put the words I meant in the order I meant them, and I didn't include any words without reason.

Be aware that how you say something has meaning, too. And that what you later claim you did or didn't mean, may carry a bit less weight and sound like intentional equivocation or evasion.

The "so far" is key - no reason for me to include those words other than to show my statement as applying to potential future inclusions,

Or the temerity for asking for a fourth when you've already had three?

which is pretty much the exact opposite of suggesting it shouldn't be tried again.
Can you point to exact portions of the statement I made that indicate the implication you've falsely accused me of making?

No, I cannot do that, since I made no false accusation. (See how much fun that is?)

Yes, of course, lack of threading strikes again, so back up the pages we go:

my topic of choice was the "I want something officially released by WotC in print" part. Instead of expressing that you want something you like the way works, for your replacement of three offerings that you don't like, you express that you want something that you like the way works made by people that have already tried and failed to give you just that.

In the context of the thread, "give you just that" can only apply to a Warlord class (in the context of the post you're replying to, an official warlord class, in print). The 'three offerings' can only refer to the three vaguely part-warlord-like sub-classes in print. The BM in the PH, and the PDK & Mastermind in SCAG. You are clearly saying that each of those sub-classes was meant to be an attempt at filling the desire for a Warlord class.

I have to stick with the judgement that you were mistaken in that assertion. And stand by EK/Wizard BM/Warlord analogy to illustrate why they couldn't be construed as such by any reasonable person.
(I also hope that you are mistaken in implying such monumental incompetence on the part of WotC's design team.)

I didn't say (that there are three versions of the warlord core class in the game).

You said that they were three attempts at providing what was being asked for, which was a return of the warlord core class to the game. Obviously you were wrong. Presumably you didn't mean it exactly the way it came out, even if you remain unable to better articulate what you really meant.

Encoding the message? I think you've grown paranoid, Tony. I'll let this accusation of nefarious behavior slide though, as a gesture of the good faith with which I approach our discussion.

Sorry, I used jargon without thinking. In signaling - including natural language - a message is encoded by the sender, and decoded by the receiver. You seem quick to assume decoding error - 'misconstruing' - and exceedingly resistant to the idea of encoding errors - that is, saying something that doesn't quite mean what you meant it to mean.

Now, when I misread you above, I readily admitted it and went back for another go. So please don't get too comfortable assuming it's always may fault. I'm try''n here.

I see now why you thought I was confused. I admit I could have worded that particular statement more clearly to be showing hypothetical confusion (confusion I would experience assuming someone were actually saying the statement I mentioned it sounds like was being said) rather than current confusion.

Fair 'nuff. I hope I've satisfied your curiosity, then.

I still lack full understanding of Zapp's priorities, I am not confused about them (I know what they are, and I know his reasons for having them, but I don't fully understand because those reasons do not resonate with me).

Yeah, Zapp's a little hard to suss out, at times.

..uh.. no offense, Cap'n...

I honestly cannot believe you can't see the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the 3E and 5E DMG's take, especially given the number of times it has been discussed at depth. It's not a matter of a job "badly done". It's a matter of not even attempting to do what the game did before. The label remains the same, but the contents are wildly different.

Magic items do have a very different role in 5e, being tools of DM Empowerment much more than class features or player build resources. Adopting something more like a 3.5 make/buy system (which'd really help with the Artificer, you'd think that'd be an opportunity to tackle it), would probably entail completely new lists of make/buy qualified items that are less game-disrupting/'make you just better' than 5e items (possibly down to the level of 4e items, even). Hopefully they'll do something like that at some point. It could make a good part of an Ebberon sourcebook, for instance. Artificer, 'new' magic item shopping lists. Yeah.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The best fit to include a core class in a new edition is clearly as a core class. That doesn't seem arbitrary so much as obvious.

It is not necessarily true that what were core classes in prior editions will be best fit into a new edition as core classes.

After all, the Illusionist class got moved from it's own class to being a sub-class, and that worked out just fine, right?

"I need a new car to replace my old one. It's worn out from my long commute."

"How about wheelbarrow?"

"No, I really need a car."

"How arbitrary!"

Where as my perception has things looking much more like

"I need a new camaro to replace my old one. It's worn out from my long commute."

"There's a minivan in decent condition for sale over there."

"No, it's gotta be a camaro."

"That's kind of arbitrary. Isn't the point to have a vehicle that gets you from A to B?"

Or the temerity for asking for a fourth when you've already had three?

You've lost me. How am I showing temerity? What am I asking for?

In the context of the thread, "give you just that" can only apply to a Warlord class

Only under the condition of refusing to count anything short of a full class as a genuine attempt at officially supporting warlord characters. That, being an arbitrary restriction, is not one under which I will discuss things.

You are clearly saying that each of those sub-classes was meant to be an attempt at filling the desire for a Warlord character.

Fixed this bit for you. Now it's what I actually said, rather than some fiction you made up.

You seem quick to assume decoding error - 'misconstruing' - and exceedingly resistant to the idea of encoding errors - that is, saying something that doesn't quite mean what you meant it to mean.

You appear to have me confused for someone else.

Fair 'nuff. I hope I've satisfied your curiosity, then.

I think its as satisfied as it is going to get, considering the only further source of satisfaction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is not necessarily true that what were core classes in prior editions will be best fit into a new edition as core classes.

Every full class that 5e put in the PH was a full class in at least one past PH1. It seems like a pretty obvious approach.

What could be a better fit to reprise a core class than a core class? Failing that, an optional full class would seem the next best thing, but a steep compromise, none the less.

After all, the Illusionist class got moved from it's own class to being a sub-class, and that worked out just fine, right?

Lol!

Perhaps another way to flip it around would be to look at a case where a sub-class does cut it. Consider, if you will, the Illusionist. The illusionist first appeared as a sub-class of the Magic-user (which became the Wizard, it's erstwhile level-11 'Name Level' title, a sign of ultimate achievement, incidentally). In subsequent Players' Handbooks it appeared as a sub-class (1e) or a specialty (2e, 3e), and, though it did not appear in a 4e PH, but did make an appearance as a 'school' under the Essentials Mage. Now, in 5e, the Illusionist is once a gain, a sub-class or 'Tradition.' It does quite a lot of what the original illusionist did - and, since there are no longer opposition schools, has quite a lot of additional options, as well.

I think the difference are clear. The Illusionist was always a sub-class, the 5e Illusionist is not limited to a tiny sub-set of it's past abilities.

Lack of threading really is just kill'n us in this conversation!

You've lost me. How am I showing temerity? What am I asking for?

I got the impression you were expressing a sentiment along the lines of "how dare you ask for that..."

Only under the condition of refusing to count anything short of a full class as a genuine attempt at officially supporting warlord characters.

The context of the discussion isn't 'warlord characters' (whatever you think that distinction means), but the Warlord class, a core class, from a prior edition PH1 that was very well-implemented.

Now, if we want to get into the character concepts and playstyles that class enabled, we can, it'd be a longish discussion...

...hopefully a worthwhile one. I guess even still on topic.

Are you game?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I got the impression you were expressing a sentiment along the lines of "how dare you ask for that..."

Why did you get that impression? What, specifically, in my statements do you believe to be the cause? Because if you can't point that out for me, I'll certainly not be able to make sure my statements don't appear entirely different to you than I intend for them to, and I will continue to think the problem is actually your bias rather than my statements.

The context of the discussion isn't 'warlord characters' (whatever you think that distinction means), but the Warlord class, a core class, from a prior edition PH1 that was very well-implemented.

I think the context of the discussion should be 'warlord characters', because that focuses on the what the character does - the actual, practical, game-play elements of the thing - rather than on details that are more easily mutable like what is written down on the class section of the character sheet, or how the material is presented/arranged within a document.

But then, I've found I frequently bump up against people on this forum that want to consider the topic of a conversation as being so narrow as to make anything other than full agreement with their own opinion "off topic."

Are you game?

Nope. I'm about to start trying out some paint on a few translucent purple miniatures, and would rather focus on that than invite even more times that I have to figure out how I 'encode' something like 'I've played three wizards so far' and you 'decode' something like 'how dare you play a wizard'.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That is typical of traditional D&D class design. Casting systems give tremendous flexibility, while non-magical abilities are usually locked in. It may well have been another of the classic games many failed attempts at balance. Vancian magic was limited in how often you could use it, each memorized spell only once. Don't have any spells (or the right spell) left, you can't use it. By a vaguely similar token, if your abilities are few and narrow, there will be times none of them apply, and you effectively can't use them. Both are functionally not always available. There are too many problems (LFQW, 5MWD, etc) to go into with that, and obviously, it didn't work. But, with 5e's classic-feel spirit, it's hardly surprising people feel the need to keep re-treading the old ground. Certainly, it made sense to evoke the classic fighter, rogue, & barbarian as much as possible.

But, the Warlord simply never had that baggage. There's no need to design it in such a constrained way.

Sure.

If I was so passionate about the Warlord as many others seem to be, then I'd create a DMsGuild offering that included several versions of the concept, both as its own class and also as a subclass of another class.

I know the DMsGuild is often looked down upon, and only WotC produced material is deemed "official". And while I understand that, I also know that for my game personally, if I wanted a Warlord, my criteria would be about how well designed it was rather than who designed it. Sure, a WotC produced version may carry a little more weight due to the resources and playtesting involved, but I'd still consider any source. And I'm sure that most groups would fall into the same category. I'm sure that there would be plenty of examples of players or DMs who would only allow WotC material, notably including AL games.

So I think trying to give multiple takes on the class would be the most reasonable approach, until WotC does in fact put some sort of true Warlord out.