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

[Barolo]

(...)

They have not tried. They have so far pointedly avoided it. That creates an appearance of exclusion that is harmful to the goals of 5e. It should be resolved.

(...)

This is a matter of opinion, though. I would not say they have so far avoided it, but instead that there have been at least some experimenting.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As long as you don't include me in that "we" of yours, go right ahead.

I suppose you can choose not to accept that, but it sure sounds odd. I mean, they've come out and said what the purpose of the DMs Guild is, and it's to allow fans to create and distribute things that you're asking for; that the DMs Guild is meant to provide the lion's share of new sources of bonus material. Refusing to accept something that is factually true is an odd position. Sort of like people who refuse to think the earth is a globe, but is flat instead. It's you're right to refuse to accept it, but it's pretty odd.

Almost as odd as wanting it official when you've complained about everything official they have put out. As a designer myself, from a designer's perspective, I have the impression as a designer that there is no way I would win with you. Anything official I put out you complain how it's broken. So I give you the tools to get what you want, and you complain about how it's not official. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You've put A LOT of time and effort into modifying/changing/adding mechanics that you want in the game. I keep asking you where your products are on the DMs Guild, but you haven't shown me any yet. I'm legitimately interested. Threads get old and lost. If you've put all this effort into "fixing" the problems you have with 5e, why not share those in an official capacity?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It can't have been obvious if a smart, very experienced, long-time D&Der like Aaron was confused about it.

Thank you Tony. I appreciate you approaching this as a civil conversation and assuming something of me other than ill intent.

I'll assume from the giving of experience, and the (rudely toned) thanks, that you have covered Zapp's opinion adequately.

That does, however, leave us with nothing to actually discuss because of the unbridgeable gap between "There is stuff in 5th edition with which to build a clearly warlord-like character" and "There are in fact 0 versions of the Warlord in 5e" and the completely subjective matter of how much validation someone actually needs and where is best from which to receive that validation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That does, however, leave us with nothing to actually discuss because of the unbridgeable gap between "There is stuff in 5th edition with which to build a clearly warlord-like character" and "There are in fact 0 versions of the Warlord in 5e"

Those are not irreconcilable.

Again, let me use the Wizard, since it's not such a target of the edition war, as an analogy:

The Wizard, is, indisputably, an attempt at the Wizard (and seemingly, controversy over cantrips & spontaneous casting aside, not an intolerable one for many fans).

The EK, AT, Sage Background, and Magic Initiate feat - among others - could all be used to build a clearly wizard-like character. But, were there no wizard in the game, they couldn't be construed as a failed attempt at the Wizard.

So, yes, there are bits in 5e that could be used to add mechanics or conceptual aspects to a character that are consistent with the Warlord. But, even the most significant of them, the PDK, for instance, are not plausible attempts at presenting a Warlord class. Those are both true statements. They are both reasons the Warlord should finally be brought back into D&D.

and the completely subjective matter of how much validation someone actually needs and where is best from which to receive that validation.

That's something 5e hashed out for itself in the playtest. It was going to try to avoid pointedly excluding anyone, it was going to heal the rift of the edition war, not apply a scorched earth policy to one side of said rift.
It needs the Warlord to see that through, if only symbolically.

That's why, ironically, even a badly done, strictly inferior to caster support options, Warlord in name only, published in an actual official dead-tree book, would be enough* - while an awesome, 3pp or DMsG 'Commander' or something wouldn't be (not that I've seen any danger of such a thing so far).










* to end the call for an official warlord, anyway.

 

[Yunru]

Wizard : Warlord
Eldritch Knight : Purple Dragon Knight
Ritual Caster : Inspiring Leader

Etc.

The closest we've come to a full Warlord though, remains 2/3s Fighter.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Those are not irreconcilable.

Again, let me use the Wizard, since it's not such a target of the edition war, as an analogy:

I don't think that analogy is useful.

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.

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.

That's something 5e hashed out for itself in the playtest. It was going to try to avoid pointedly excluding anyone, it was going to heal the rift of the edition war, not apply a scorched earth policy to one side of said rift.
It needs the Warlord to see that through, if only symbolically.

I find it interesting how perception of the 5th edition game works; it includes numerous elements that are, to my perception as a non-fan of 4th edition, clearly "from, or inspired by, 4th edition" and that they have been included shows genuine intent to include people that liked that edition, and seem like attempts to "heal the rift."

...but someone else sees a "scorched earth policy", and appears to only have that a particular element was not included exactly as it was in 4th edition as the explanation for that hyperbolic viewpoint.

That's why, ironically, even a badly done, strictly inferior to caster support options, Warlord in name only, published in an actual official dead-tree book, would be enough* - while an awesome, 3pp or DMsG 'Commander' or something wouldn't be (not that I've seen any danger of such a thing so far).

* to end the call for an official warlord, anyway.

I am unconvinced. After all, do we not see people on this forum calling for official magic item crafting/buying/selling rules despite the DMG containing those very things in a way that the people calling for these rules think are badly done?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think that analogy is useful.

Why not? It seems extremely clear and valid, to me. In both cases, we're talking about a concept, and contrasting the optional inclusion of small aspects of that concept in characters of other classes, with the presentation of a full class embodying that concept. What's the logical flaw in that?

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.

True, and I think that's forced by the exigencies of cleaning up after the edition war. I don't think it's a terribly unreasonable presumption, though, especially in the case of a full core class in a past PH1.

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.

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.

I find it interesting how perception of the 5th edition game works

It's something. Fans of a past edition tend to see the things from editions they loved and hated most clearly. I see 5e as very much like 2e, the edition I probably liked least. I've read reviews where 2e fans rave about how much 5e evokes that edition, too.

it includes numerous elements that are, to my perception as a non-fan of 4th edition, clearly "from, or inspired by, 4th edition"

Yes, it does, to my perception of a fan of 4e (though, honestly, among other editions), mostly in mechanical details 4e also shared with 3.x, or in forms transparently bowdlerized/limited (like Second Wind) and/or re-labeled with a veneer of the classic game (like HD). But the fact they're there is worth noting.

and that they have been included shows genuine intent to include people that liked that edition, and seem like attempts to "heal the rift."

They are, yes. They're positive signs. Reasons not to have not rejected 5e out of hand as the h4ter edition the moment it hit the shelves, and resumed the edition war at full intensity. Indicators that there's every reason to expect /more/ iconic 4e material going forward.

...but someone else sees a "scorched earth policy"

My very point is that 5e's goal was not a scorched earth policy, the above being examples of that. Purging the Warlord from the game for the whole run of the edition is thus inconsistent with both the stated goals, and the things done so far that we agree are in support of those goals - just as it would be entirely consistent with the hypothetical 'scorched earth policy.' Clearly, there are still some folks hoping for as much scorching of 4e earth as may yet still be possible.

and appears to only have that a particular element was not included exactly as it was in 4th edition as the explanation for that hyperbolic viewpoint.

I can imagine no reasonable expectation that the Warlord be 'exactly as it was in 4th edition.' No class in 5e is quite exactly what it was in any one other past edition. Some are quite a bit better in specific ways - the casting of the Cleric, Druid, & Wizard are less restricted and more flexible than ever before in the game's history, the Druid, while not a carbon-copy of the 1e Druid has all it's toys again, unlike the chopped-up version 4e came up with.

I am unconvinced. After all, do we not see people on this forum calling for official magic item crafting/buying/selling rules despite the DMG containing those very things in a way that the people calling for these rules think are badly done?

Are you unconvinced that an official Warlord would end calls for an official Warlord? ('Cause I don't blame you, there's always some unsatisfied hold-out, somewhere - the edition war was fought bitterly by such.)

Or are you still convinced that you have reason to oppose the inclusion of the Warlord? Because, while I'd love to convince you of the necessity of the Warlord, even if you don't personally want it, I'd settle for convincing you that there's no reason to actively oppose it.

Have I at least cleared up some of your confusion? It'd be nice if you didn't have to ask those questions again in other warlord threads.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am unconvinced. After all, do we not see people on this forum calling for official magic item crafting/buying/selling rules despite the DMG containing those very things in a way that the people calling for these rules think are badly done?

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.

 

[Azzy]

Let's have all of the warlord! To heck with the naysayers!

 

[Yunru]

Let's have all of the warlord! To heck with the naysayers!

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