D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)

[Jester David]

How would you feel if somebody wanted space ships and plasma rifles and light sabers and argued "If you want low tech dnd you got it in spades. Why can't have what I want too?" Do you see the arguments as parallel, or are they fundamentally different?

(Note that in principle I'm not opposed to low magic D&D, in fact I think D&D has become too high magic/fantasy. It's just when it leads to my character being...effectively...a follower of your character that I get nervous.)

That'd be fine as well. I have fond memories of Tale of the Comet: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17106/Tale-of-the-Comet-2e?it=1

A better problem would be pointing out that you don't need to make a brand new class just to have a high technology science fantasy D&D game or a low technology stone age D&D game. Instead, you modify the rules and, if needed, tweak the existing classes to match the variant type of game.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Ironically enough, all the pc’s in myThule game are carrying laser weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Guest 6801328]

That would be AWESOME!

However, it also changes the genre conventions considerably. In contrast, the warlord concept is well within the bounds of genre, as evidenced by the battlemaster fighter, the mastermind rogue, etc.

Yes, that's a fair point. (To which I could counter that there are firearms in the DMG, gnomes making gadgets, and other examples of minor technology, so plasma rifles would only be taking an existing concept further. But I won't.)

But you're also...I know there's a formal term for this...mixing up the arguments here. I wasn't responding to "can't I have the Warlord" I was responding to "can't I have a low magic D&D". Not just the inclusion of an element, but (unless I'm misunderstanding the request) but an actual genre shift.

Is low magic a smaller shift than high tech? Probably. Not sure that changes the underlying argument.

At this point, Elfcrusher, you are starting to sound a little bit irrational about it. Like, nobody likes being bossed around at the table, whether it's by a warlord, or a war domain cleric, or a valor bard, or a devotion paladin, or mastermind rogue, or whatever -- we all agree with you about that.

Except that's not what I've been saying. Allow me to quote myself from a few posts back (I'll assume you just missed it, instead of being all snarky):

And please understand that I don't think any of this means the players of Warlords are going to try to order around the other players at the table. My objection is based entirely on the roleplaying aesthetics.

To try to offer an illustrative example: imagine a class called the Ingenue or Heartthrob. The fluff of this class is that he/she is physically desirable...hot...and inspires romantic and lustful notions in others. He/she is able to capitalize on this to encourage teammates to go above and beyond. Ability names are "Do It For Me" "Seductive Wink" and "At Least We Still Have Waterdeep".

Even if this class were played completely deadpan/neutral, "Yeah, I'll use my last charge of Do It For Me on the Monk and give him an extra 1d6" it would bug the living $#%& out of me. You don't get to tell me who my character is attracted to.

In other words, it's not player behavior at the table that I'm concerned about, it's the narrative implications.

But the way you keep going on about it, and viewing the warlord only through that lens, it's starting to sound more like some personal trauma that you've suffered.

Do you need a hug? I am working on a class called the Huglord that goes around hugging fellow PCs. It's basically a no-magic bard. Here, have a Comforting Hug die (1d8).

Yeah. You know, I really would love to get into the whole exchanging personal insults with you because I enjoy that sort of thing more than I should, but every time I think I'm responding eye-for-an-eye to this kind of stuff I'm the one the forum mods come down on. So I think I'll just report you instead. (Which is new for me...I'll have to actually find the Report This Post button.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

Heh. Ironically enough, all the pc’s in myThule game are carrying laser weapons.

I'd still love a response to my question about the narration behind granting a Wizard an extra Action, which he uses to cast another spell. If you're writing the short story in which this happens, what does actually happen?

I thought we made progress on the extra attack, where I was seeing it as your character messing with the monster, rather than as messing with me. But with the Wizard example (because of the full Action) I'm having trouble interpreting this as anything other than, "The Wizard is so inspired and motivated by the non-magical words of the Warlord that he can do twelve seconds worth of casting in just six seconds." If there's another way of looking at it I really do want to understand.

 

[Hussar]

I'd still love a response to my question about the narration behind granting a Wizard an extra Action, which he uses to cast another spell. If you're writing the short story in which this happens, what does actually happen?

I thought we made progress on the extra attack, where I was seeing it as your character messing with the monster, rather than as messing with me. But with the Wizard example (because of the full Action) I'm having trouble interpreting this as anything other than, "The Wizard is so inspired and motivated by the non-magical words of the Warlord that he can do twelve seconds worth of casting in just six seconds." If there's another way of looking at it I really do want to understand.

Who says that a warlord would allow casters to cast two spells? You're creating problems that don't actually exist. How do I narrate it? Could not possibly care less. Not my problem. Because no matter what narrative I come up with, you'll just pooh pooh it and say that it breaks your immersion. So, no, not going to start playing that game.

Besides that, why would a 5e warlord be able to do something that a 4e warlord couldn't? Who's asking for this? Warlords couldn't allow casters to cast more spells, so, why would they suddenly gain this ability.

Again, PLEASE take the time to actually read the class before you start criticizing. It would save everyone a heck of a lot of bother is we didn't have to explain every single point to your over and over again because you refuse to actually educate yourself about the subject. In the imortal words, RTFM.

 

[Mecheon]

I'd still love a response to my question about the narration behind granting a Wizard an extra Action, which he uses to cast another spell. If you're writing the short story in which this happens, what does actually happen?

Warlords don't grant extra actions. There's your answer

I mean, story-wise what happens is the Warlord spots an opening that lets the wizard cast a spell

 

[5ekyu]

Warlords don't grant extra actions. There's your answer

I mean, story-wise what happens is the Warlord spots an opening that lets the wizard cast a spell

Without getting into the sparring all that much, the idea of a class ability that allowed you to have additional reactions (more tan the usual one per turn) and also give them out to others (narrative effect you see the events unfolding quicker and can shout warning or orders for shifts in focus) would be an interesting and limited but useful ability IMO.

It would seem to fit within the scope of tactics and on the fly adjustments more than extra actions, imo.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I’m not sure that warlords granting attacks is really optional. I suppose you could choose powers that don’t but you’d have to go pretty far out of your way to do it.

And, really, it’s not attack granting that’s mandatory. It’s ACTION granting that is.

Who says that a warlord would allow casters to cast two spells? You're creating problems that don't actually exist. How do I narrate it? Could not possibly care less. Not my problem. Because no matter what narrative I come up with, you'll just pooh pooh it and say that it breaks your immersion. So, no, not going to start playing that game.

Besides that, why would a 5e warlord be able to do something that a 4e warlord couldn't? Who's asking for this? Warlords couldn't allow casters to cast more spells, so, why would they suddenly gain this ability.

Simply mentioning "Apart from spells" in the post is which you stated that a warlord class would have to be able to grant full actions would have saved some bother.
You stated that the ability to grant actions would be mandatory for a Warlord class. Spells are an action. Its not really a leap, and hardly deserving of such a snarky response to follow the reasoning that you expected Warlords to be able to enable casters to cast additional spells.

Warlords don't grant extra actions. There's your answer

I mean, story-wise what happens is the Warlord spots an opening that lets the wizard cast a spell

Elfcrusher was addressing someone who had explicitly stated that granting actions would be a mandatory part of the Warlord class.

The narrative implications of spotting an opening in which someone already engaged in sparring with the opponent can take advantage of, are much less than spotting an opening that allows someone to chant out a spell that would normally take a significant proportion of a 6-second round to cast.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Who says that a warlord would allow casters to cast two spells? You're creating problems that don't actually exist. How do I narrate it? Could not possibly care less. Not my problem. Because no matter what narrative I come up with, you'll just pooh pooh it and say that it breaks your immersion. So, no, not going to start playing that game.

Besides that, why would a 5e warlord be able to do something that a 4e warlord couldn't? Who's asking for this? Warlords couldn't allow casters to cast more spells, so, why would they suddenly gain this ability.

Again, PLEASE take the time to actually read the class before you start criticizing. It would save everyone a heck of a lot of bother is we didn't have to explain every single point to your over and over again because you refuse to actually educate yourself about the subject. In the imortal words, RTFM.

Whoah...hostility.

I did read the...er...fine manual. Twice. (In an earlier post I linked both versions I found.) But those are from earlier editions, so of course it's not going to translate exactly.

And, really, it’s not attack granting that’s mandatory. It’s ACTION granting that is.

You wrote that it has to be an extra Action, not an extra Attack. I assumed (I'm really not being disingenuous here...just reading the words you wrote) that an Action is an Action, and the grantee could use it as such.

So it's some mid-way thing between an extra attack and an extra action?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Warlords don't grant extra actions. There's your answer

I mean, story-wise what happens is the Warlord spots an opening that lets the wizard cast a spell

That's fine in the abstract. I mean, wizards can in some cases use reactions to cast spells, so there's already precedent for 12 seconds worth of casting in six seconds (and, no, I'm not saying that they literally take six seconds per cast; it's just a reference to game constraints.)

But I do have trouble visualizing what "spots an opening" means in terms of casting a spell. For an attack, yeah I guess I get it (even if it kind of bugs me that a Warlord is so much better at fighting than a Fighter that a 1st level warlord can 'spot an opening' that much better than a 15th level fighter...and have time to convey this verbally to the Fighter in a way that allows him to comprehend and react to it within the window) but with spell casting I'm not even sure what that means.

"Frank! That ogre shifted his weight, you now have time to cast a spell before he can reach you!" "Thanks! Abracadabra...."

Sure, I'm being a little facetious but I honestly don't have anything better.

Without getting into the sparring all that much, the idea of a class ability that allowed you to have additional reactions (more tan the usual one per turn) and also give them out to others (narrative effect you see the events unfolding quicker and can shout warning or orders for shifts in focus) would be an interesting and limited but useful ability IMO.

It would seem to fit within the scope of tactics and on the fly adjustments more than extra actions, imo.

Bold text aside (/cough) granting an extra reaction (or more?) sounds like the Captain America stuff you guys want, and it doesn't offend my RP sensibilities. It still depends what you do with those reactions, but on its own that's cool.