Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7365425" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>There's only a couple of 5e classes that had long-time fans of their up in arms - the Sorcerer and Ranger. That's not a terrible track record. Surely, you're not implying that WotC has suffered some drastic loss of game-design competence in the last few years? Or are you privy to some secret information, like Mike Mearls had a stroke and has been replace by an LMD?</p><p></p><p> Right. And the first cohort we should remove from 'everyone' to get a potentially-please-able audience is: Yep, those guys. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>There's one vision of the Warlord: the 4e version, that all Warlord fans, by definition, were happy enough with. It's a model that 5e should have no trouble emulating, it will just have to add to it to fit the 5e paradigm.</p><p></p><p>Where warlord fans fall into sharp disagreements is in discussions like these where detractors keep asking for 'concessions' and demanding justifications for the class far in excess of what's ever been asked for with any other. </p><p>That individual fans come up with different things they'd be willing to part with - and some find one of those same things 'most-important' doesn't mean there's an unbridgeable gap among those fans. It just illustrates how varied and interesting the class was, and that all that breadth & interest needs to be realized in 5e. </p><p></p><p>Which is not a tall order. 4e was a more restrictive design environment than 5e. It'll be much easier than it was.</p><p></p><p> It's the worst proposed name for an additional martial class beyond the fighter - except for all the others. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>Seriously, the objection to the name is spurious nonsense. Spurious nonsense some warlord fans are willing to get behind if it means getting the class they want in all but name, and others are justifiably offended by.</p><p></p><p> Yep, there's more freedom of design, there. Of course, AEDU /was/ used, loosely, as a framework for the Warlock (or you could say the 3.5 Warlock presaged AEDU), and it worked quite nicely. All casters now have at will (A) Cantrips, and of course, D&D has always had daily (D) spells, many of which have utility (U) beyond attacks. 5e even gives some casters a short-rest recharge of an otherwise daily spells, so the E is there in more than just the Warlock.</p><p></p><p>So, not an issue, really. Use a short-rest focused AEDU-ish framework, like the Warlock, or, y'know, show some design chops and come up with something unique that accomplishes the same goals in the context of 5e.</p><p></p><p>The only real challenge in creating the Warlord is in making it effective and versatile enough to stand in for a Cleric, Bard, or Druid (or, for a bravura warlord, Paladin, I suppose) without putting the party at a profound disadvantage. Simply porting the Warlord from 4e - strictly-limiting AEDU and role structures intact - would fall short. </p><p></p><p> The Warlord, Cleric, Bard, & (Sentinel) Druid were all leaders in 4e, and the Paladin was a strong secondary leader. In 5e, the Cleric, Bard, and Druid are all first-tier support classes, and do more than ever they did in 4e, besides. That's a clear target in necessary contributions, and nothing inhernet in the system stands in the way of it.</p><p></p><p> No, it's not hard to say. It's just that some people who already hate the warlord don't like what it's had to say on the subject. </p><p></p><p>That's why the warlord isn't for them, and, if I'm to get off my high horse and be pragmatic for a moment, why it was a 'good' that it was excluded from the PH. That makes it necessarily optional, so anyone who doesn't care for the narratives around martial support can just choose not to opt into the class for their campaigns.</p><p></p><p>There are some default narratives some folks just plain don't like. Vancian magic has probably repelled more potential D&Ders over the decades than will ever be exposed to a Warlord class, let alone repelled by it, but it remains, in somewhat bowdlerized (yet less restricted, even more versatile) form, none the less - and, with clear alternatives like the AEDU-ish Warlock available. Those who still can't stand it even have an optional spell-point rule in the DMG, too. </p><p>And, nothing really stops us from using mechanics, but rationalizing our own narrative that does work for us. And, nothing stops DMs from tweaking mechanics. Those that /did/ like classic Vancian, for instance, can't possibly find it difficult to just treat the three prepped casters as such, using slots as old-school daily spells. Heck, the game probably 'balances' a little better that way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7365425, member: 996"] There's only a couple of 5e classes that had long-time fans of their up in arms - the Sorcerer and Ranger. That's not a terrible track record. Surely, you're not implying that WotC has suffered some drastic loss of game-design competence in the last few years? Or are you privy to some secret information, like Mike Mearls had a stroke and has been replace by an LMD? Right. And the first cohort we should remove from 'everyone' to get a potentially-please-able audience is: Yep, those guys. There's one vision of the Warlord: the 4e version, that all Warlord fans, by definition, were happy enough with. It's a model that 5e should have no trouble emulating, it will just have to add to it to fit the 5e paradigm. Where warlord fans fall into sharp disagreements is in discussions like these where detractors keep asking for 'concessions' and demanding justifications for the class far in excess of what's ever been asked for with any other. That individual fans come up with different things they'd be willing to part with - and some find one of those same things 'most-important' doesn't mean there's an unbridgeable gap among those fans. It just illustrates how varied and interesting the class was, and that all that breadth & interest needs to be realized in 5e. Which is not a tall order. 4e was a more restrictive design environment than 5e. It'll be much easier than it was. It's the worst proposed name for an additional martial class beyond the fighter - except for all the others. :P Seriously, the objection to the name is spurious nonsense. Spurious nonsense some warlord fans are willing to get behind if it means getting the class they want in all but name, and others are justifiably offended by. Yep, there's more freedom of design, there. Of course, AEDU /was/ used, loosely, as a framework for the Warlock (or you could say the 3.5 Warlock presaged AEDU), and it worked quite nicely. All casters now have at will (A) Cantrips, and of course, D&D has always had daily (D) spells, many of which have utility (U) beyond attacks. 5e even gives some casters a short-rest recharge of an otherwise daily spells, so the E is there in more than just the Warlock. So, not an issue, really. Use a short-rest focused AEDU-ish framework, like the Warlock, or, y'know, show some design chops and come up with something unique that accomplishes the same goals in the context of 5e. The only real challenge in creating the Warlord is in making it effective and versatile enough to stand in for a Cleric, Bard, or Druid (or, for a bravura warlord, Paladin, I suppose) without putting the party at a profound disadvantage. Simply porting the Warlord from 4e - strictly-limiting AEDU and role structures intact - would fall short. The Warlord, Cleric, Bard, & (Sentinel) Druid were all leaders in 4e, and the Paladin was a strong secondary leader. In 5e, the Cleric, Bard, and Druid are all first-tier support classes, and do more than ever they did in 4e, besides. That's a clear target in necessary contributions, and nothing inhernet in the system stands in the way of it. No, it's not hard to say. It's just that some people who already hate the warlord don't like what it's had to say on the subject. That's why the warlord isn't for them, and, if I'm to get off my high horse and be pragmatic for a moment, why it was a 'good' that it was excluded from the PH. That makes it necessarily optional, so anyone who doesn't care for the narratives around martial support can just choose not to opt into the class for their campaigns. There are some default narratives some folks just plain don't like. Vancian magic has probably repelled more potential D&Ders over the decades than will ever be exposed to a Warlord class, let alone repelled by it, but it remains, in somewhat bowdlerized (yet less restricted, even more versatile) form, none the less - and, with clear alternatives like the AEDU-ish Warlock available. Those who still can't stand it even have an optional spell-point rule in the DMG, too. And, nothing really stops us from using mechanics, but rationalizing our own narrative that does work for us. And, nothing stops DMs from tweaking mechanics. Those that /did/ like classic Vancian, for instance, can't possibly find it difficult to just treat the three prepped casters as such, using slots as old-school daily spells. Heck, the game probably 'balances' a little better that way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top