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: 7372281" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Because it's completely bogus, Imaro. ...oh, yeah: "*Sigh*" ...</p><p></p><p> Not a /wider variety/, as the goal was stated, not yet. It does fairly neatly cover the styles most readily expressed in basic & AD&D, and at least reaches somewhat into the 3.x realm if you turn on enough optional rules, but not arguably enough to be satisfying to a hard-core 3.5 fan who has no appreciation for other styles, or who really wants a lot more empowerment on the player side of the screen...</p><p></p><p> Player options, not so much, again, not compared to the other WotC era editions, nor, quite, to later 2e, though it's slowly getting closer. DM options, though, aplenty. And, via that it can be /open/ to a DM supporting an unsupported play style or adding player options. So points for the right direction, and not actually slamming the door. It certainly incorporates many elements - more, for instance, from 4e than most give it credit/blame for - often very small elements that don't mesh the same way they used to, but certainly plenty. It even has a unique way of including radically different elements in one single rule. HD are the shining example. They're HD, just like in 1e, and also a bit like surges in 4e.</p><p></p><p>5e also succeeds in including things that aren't exactly elements of a past edition, but deliver something a past edition did. The Bladesinger, for instance, is not TSR-era multi-classing, but it is a nominally elf-only option that feels a good deal like a classic Elf or elf fighter/magic-user. </p><p></p><p> Well, of course, you don't see it that way. If we only examine the things we want, we're not checking for overall diversity.</p><p></p><p> Not just that, no. There's also 3.x style characters that cannot be created in 5e, even with Feats & MCing turned on. The ones that stand out to me are, of course, the one's I most enjoyed: carefully-crafted 3.x fighter builds, 3.x build-to-concept Sorcerers, and the topic of this thread, the Warlord - but, at release, 5e also lacked a psion, and still lacks one both in name and in print, and it still lacks PrCs and Epic-level play. With it's slow pace of release, though, it's not surprising nor unfair that it's taking it's time, especially with that last, as even at 5e's fast-combat/fast-levelling pace, it takes a while to not only hit 20th, but get bored with it!</p><p></p><p> The Warlord was the only unique-to-4e class in a PH1, so certainly needs to be first in line. There were not a whole lot of others. The Warden and Avanger, technically the Invoker (though the traditional Cleric prettymuch subsumes it completely). The Shaman, Swordmage, Artificer, Psion, Ardent, and Battlemind (under the name psychic warrior) have all been in other editions, and the Seeker & Rune Priest were prettymuch stillborn, and the Seeker was just 4e's bizzaro version of the traditionally magic-using Ranger, which (in its more classic form, obviously) 5e went with, anyway.</p><p></p><p>Which is why you don't bomb warlord threads and attack anything it's proponents have say.</p><p></p><p> Yeah, that one hasn't gone as well as the others. There was a lot of 'grandfathering' in vague concepts. The Ranger, Sorcerer, and Fighter all suffered from lack of a clear enough archetype/trope/whatever outside of D&D's traditions and class-history - the Ranger, in particular, suffering from it in lack of direction. </p><p></p><p>To actually have gone there, they'd've had to at least consider consolidating the Fighter, Barbarian, non-casting Ranger, and/or Rogue or even Monk for that matter, not to mention actually changing the Fighter's name to something less suggestive of single-pillar-specialization and carried through with what that implied. We probably wouldn't have gotten all three of Warlock, Sorcerer & Wizard. </p><p></p><p>The Druid, I have to admit, as delighted as I am with the 5e version, could as easily have been a Cleric sub-class (as it was, in name, in 1e, which was actually my favorite version of the class). My problem with that would have been that a sub-class in 5e can't be as different from the base class as it was in 1e. Indeed, the 5e Druid's casting is still not as distinct from the Cleric's as it was as a 'sub-class' in 1e.</p><p></p><p>I think that's one area where the goals were in conflict with eachother. Making D&D more grounded in genre and archetypes would have made it less D&D, and hurt it's ability to capture the feel & elements of each prior edition.</p><p></p><p> People who don't want the warlord spend a lot of effort in articulating what those who do want, rather than listening to them. I'm just say'n. You could've at least thrown in a "seems" there, or something, to acknowledge that you're not speaking as someone who wants the class, nor seems to understand why anyone would want it.</p><p></p><p>Which is the major problem with the Warlord as Fighter sub-class. It focuses on mechanics - Extra Attack, Second Wind, Action Surge, d10 HD, etc, rather than on archetypes.</p><p></p><p> For instance, the mechanical requirement that every warlord be a bad-ass whirlwind of destruction on the battlefield. </p><p></p><p> Because it's a mechanical requirement? But, it references no mechanics, at all. It's a critical part of the concept - it's not defined by using magic, unlike the Warlock, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger, and, apparently Monk & Mystic - and a general category of contribution to the party's success. </p><p></p><p> But he's a lot more likely to choose it for that, than for /getting/ extra attacks. And, that requires there be benefits to having the warlord as that kind of ally, rather than the kind of ally people hide behind because he's tougher than they are.</p><p></p><p> And, from there, your check back with your other goals, and go back and look at game elements that have expressed that in past editions. And, you find the Warlord, with 6 formal builds, two more de-facto ones, a score of Paragon Paths, and 300+ powers. (And, the Marshal, with a few passive auras. And 9th level fighter who builds a keep attracting bands of 0-level followers. Am I missing anything? from later 2e, perhaps?)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7372281, member: 996"] Because it's completely bogus, Imaro. ...oh, yeah: "*Sigh*" ... Not a /wider variety/, as the goal was stated, not yet. It does fairly neatly cover the styles most readily expressed in basic & AD&D, and at least reaches somewhat into the 3.x realm if you turn on enough optional rules, but not arguably enough to be satisfying to a hard-core 3.5 fan who has no appreciation for other styles, or who really wants a lot more empowerment on the player side of the screen... Player options, not so much, again, not compared to the other WotC era editions, nor, quite, to later 2e, though it's slowly getting closer. DM options, though, aplenty. And, via that it can be /open/ to a DM supporting an unsupported play style or adding player options. So points for the right direction, and not actually slamming the door. It certainly incorporates many elements - more, for instance, from 4e than most give it credit/blame for - often very small elements that don't mesh the same way they used to, but certainly plenty. It even has a unique way of including radically different elements in one single rule. HD are the shining example. They're HD, just like in 1e, and also a bit like surges in 4e. 5e also succeeds in including things that aren't exactly elements of a past edition, but deliver something a past edition did. The Bladesinger, for instance, is not TSR-era multi-classing, but it is a nominally elf-only option that feels a good deal like a classic Elf or elf fighter/magic-user. Well, of course, you don't see it that way. If we only examine the things we want, we're not checking for overall diversity. Not just that, no. There's also 3.x style characters that cannot be created in 5e, even with Feats & MCing turned on. The ones that stand out to me are, of course, the one's I most enjoyed: carefully-crafted 3.x fighter builds, 3.x build-to-concept Sorcerers, and the topic of this thread, the Warlord - but, at release, 5e also lacked a psion, and still lacks one both in name and in print, and it still lacks PrCs and Epic-level play. With it's slow pace of release, though, it's not surprising nor unfair that it's taking it's time, especially with that last, as even at 5e's fast-combat/fast-levelling pace, it takes a while to not only hit 20th, but get bored with it! The Warlord was the only unique-to-4e class in a PH1, so certainly needs to be first in line. There were not a whole lot of others. The Warden and Avanger, technically the Invoker (though the traditional Cleric prettymuch subsumes it completely). The Shaman, Swordmage, Artificer, Psion, Ardent, and Battlemind (under the name psychic warrior) have all been in other editions, and the Seeker & Rune Priest were prettymuch stillborn, and the Seeker was just 4e's bizzaro version of the traditionally magic-using Ranger, which (in its more classic form, obviously) 5e went with, anyway. Which is why you don't bomb warlord threads and attack anything it's proponents have say. Yeah, that one hasn't gone as well as the others. There was a lot of 'grandfathering' in vague concepts. The Ranger, Sorcerer, and Fighter all suffered from lack of a clear enough archetype/trope/whatever outside of D&D's traditions and class-history - the Ranger, in particular, suffering from it in lack of direction. To actually have gone there, they'd've had to at least consider consolidating the Fighter, Barbarian, non-casting Ranger, and/or Rogue or even Monk for that matter, not to mention actually changing the Fighter's name to something less suggestive of single-pillar-specialization and carried through with what that implied. We probably wouldn't have gotten all three of Warlock, Sorcerer & Wizard. The Druid, I have to admit, as delighted as I am with the 5e version, could as easily have been a Cleric sub-class (as it was, in name, in 1e, which was actually my favorite version of the class). My problem with that would have been that a sub-class in 5e can't be as different from the base class as it was in 1e. Indeed, the 5e Druid's casting is still not as distinct from the Cleric's as it was as a 'sub-class' in 1e. I think that's one area where the goals were in conflict with eachother. Making D&D more grounded in genre and archetypes would have made it less D&D, and hurt it's ability to capture the feel & elements of each prior edition. People who don't want the warlord spend a lot of effort in articulating what those who do want, rather than listening to them. I'm just say'n. You could've at least thrown in a "seems" there, or something, to acknowledge that you're not speaking as someone who wants the class, nor seems to understand why anyone would want it. Which is the major problem with the Warlord as Fighter sub-class. It focuses on mechanics - Extra Attack, Second Wind, Action Surge, d10 HD, etc, rather than on archetypes. For instance, the mechanical requirement that every warlord be a bad-ass whirlwind of destruction on the battlefield. Because it's a mechanical requirement? But, it references no mechanics, at all. It's a critical part of the concept - it's not defined by using magic, unlike the Warlock, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger, and, apparently Monk & Mystic - and a general category of contribution to the party's success. But he's a lot more likely to choose it for that, than for /getting/ extra attacks. And, that requires there be benefits to having the warlord as that kind of ally, rather than the kind of ally people hide behind because he's tougher than they are. And, from there, your check back with your other goals, and go back and look at game elements that have expressed that in past editions. And, you find the Warlord, with 6 formal builds, two more de-facto ones, a score of Paragon Paths, and 300+ powers. (And, the Marshal, with a few passive auras. And 9th level fighter who builds a keep attracting bands of 0-level followers. Am I missing anything? from later 2e, perhaps?) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top