D&D 5E (2014) Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.

[mellored]

Let's stick on topic. There's enough controversy there without bringing up edition history.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Tony,

First you say that it's only a minor little inconvenience to those who don't like Warlords if it's in AL, which effectively trivializes the objections of others, making it seem as if those people are being overly fussy and uncompromising and even petulant.

Then you go on to say that none of the existing classes and subclasses are appealing, and that you'd only want to play a PC if Warlord were available. But you could easily put together a multi-class character that heals, and buffs, and attacks. Yes, I know what the objections to that are (I've heard them many times) but to me they sound just as fussy and uncompromising and even petulant.

I actually don't want to diminish your sentiment; I get it, and I sympathize. I just want to point out the double standard you're applying. Please recognize that, even if you don't agree, the inclusion of official classes (races, etc.) that don't fit with one's design aesthetic can change the nature of the game in ways that reduce the fun-factor just as much as the absence of the warlord does for you.

I really wish we could get away from greatest-good-for-most-people arguments, because the relative cost/benefit cannot actually be measured, and each side exaggerates their own costs and benefits while dismissing the perceived cost and benefits of the other.

 

[Aldarc]

in only 1 edition that regardless of your personal thoughts (my dislike is known) you must admit is at best controversial

Yes, the prior one. New classes have to start somewhere, and some start in more maligned editions.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What does that leave?

It leaves everything non-martial and non-magical, of course. Social interaction, device manipulation, deduction, politicking, commerce, and construction all come to mind.

Sounds great. But, weren't Quaggoths pretty implacably hostile? (I only remember them from their first appearance, maybe they changed?)

Honestly I don't even remember them from AD&D2 (if they were even there), so the OotA Quaggoths are effectively my first-ever Quaggoths. Almost nothing can really be implacably hostile to everything though unless it is specifically designed to be a giant killing-and-eating-machine Doomsday Device like a Witchlight Marauder or some versions of the Tarrasque. In this case it felt appropriate to play off-duty Quaggoth guards devoid of drow officers as something other than active aggressors. The fact that they responded aggressively to threats conveyed their flavor well enough. (And the combat itself was fun too, taking place as it did on the lip of the cliff, with the PCs on the edge initially. The last quaggoth died by failing his Athletics contest to avoid shove and also his Dex save to grab the lip and fell screaming, Return of the Jedi-like, into the chasm below.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

It leaves everything non-martial and non-magical, of course. Social interaction, device manipulation, deduction, politicking, commerce, and construction all come to mind.

Things martial touch on some of those, but sure I see. During the playtest, BTW, they took to sorting those sorts of things into the 'social/interaction' and 'exploration' "pillars" as distinct from the 'Combat Pillar.'

Honestly I don't even remember them from AD&D2 (if they were even there), so the OotA Quaggoths are effectively my first-ever Quaggoths. Almost nothing can really be implacably hostile to everything though unless it is specifically designed to be a giant killing-and-eating-machine Doomsday Device

It seems like an aweful lot of things in D&D do get described that way "inimical to all live" "vicious when hungry, and always hungry" "murderously xenophobic," etc. But, no, it seems I was thinking of a different humanoid starting with 'Q' that had its first appearance in the Fiend Folio... the Qullan. 8|

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Things martial touch on some of those, but sure I see. During the playtest, BTW, they took to sorting those sorts of things into the 'social/interaction' and 'exploration' "pillars" as distinct from the 'Combat Pillar.'

And then they gave the "Combat Pillar" 90% of the attention and rule support. It's not even really a Wizard vs. Warrior divide either--wizards have a handful of spells that can do construction (Fabricate, Unseen Servant), but only a handful. Rogues likewise have a handful of abilities, and fighters have a handful of feats, which are useful in socializing and espionage.

But for the most part, if you want to do espionage/politicking/commerce/construction/device manipulation/social interaction in 5E, all you've got is the raw ability check mechanic and a handful of dubiously-relevant skills like Deception. The current state of 5E is that if you're not interested in mostly combat most of the time, you'd be better off playing Shadowrun or GURPS. I view that as unfortunate but not irreparable, at least at my own table.

As a player I don't really mind combat-oriented scenarios, especially for CRPG-like solo play, but as a social activity they bore me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Tony,

First you say that it's only a minor little inconvenience to those who don't like Warlords if it's in AL, which effectively trivializes the objections of others, making it seem as if those people are being overly fussy and uncompromising and even petulant.

Sure. That's all accurate enough. There are 12 classes, with a Psion in the pipeline, add the Warlord and that's 14 classes. 4 or 5 of them make decent support classes, the warlord would take that up to 6. Even if the Warlord were exactly as popular as other classes (and detractors seem to think it's wildly unpopular), what's the chance that one of the 4 or 5 other players at your AL table will be playing a Warlord? What if there's already a support class - for instance if you're already playing a Cleric or Bard or the like? It's really pretty unlikely you'll be confronted with the intollerable horror of the Warlord, even were it permitted in AL. And, really, many folks have a class or two they don't care for, quite possibly one that's availble in AL play. They cope. So it really would be a relatively minor inconvenience.

Then you go on to say that none of the existing classes and subclasses are appealing, and that you'd only want to play a PC if Warlord were available.

Or a fighter that reprised the 4e fighter as well as the existing fighter does the 2e version. Or a class or classes that could be used to create concept builds the way you could in 3.5 with the fighter & other non-casting classes. Or, really, anything that's not primarily about DPR and the least bit original.

I completely understand the choice they made with 5e to, use the Basic & Standard games to really re-establish and sew-up the feel of the classic game. They did a great job with that, but the timing was just wrong for me, personally. If they'd done it 10 or 12 years ago, when I was still feelling nostalgic for the classic game, I'd've been delighted with it. But, for me personally, that ship has sailed. There's nothing much that'd've ever appealed to me, that I could now do with a character in 5e that I hadn't already done (or seen done) so much in the 80s and 90s that I got bored with it and switched to Storyteller and Hero System.

But, 5e is supposed to be for fans of all editions, and 3.x and 4e /did/ bring more variety and interest to the game in their days, so, while I understand that 'classic feel first' strategy, I've had to wait for more options, and I'm still waiting. But, communication is a two-way street, so I can't just sit silently and wait, I do need to be open about what I hope to get from the game going forward.

But you could easily put together a multi-class character that heals, and buffs, and attacks.

Not without using a Vancian class. Heck, I wouldn't even need to MC, just play a concept I've always found faintly ridiculous (the Bard) or one that I genuinely liked, but played to death back in the day (the Druid). I did try the latter in the playtest, and it was fun - for a couple hours, then it got old again.

I actually don't want to diminish your sentiment; I get it, and I sympathize. I just want to point out the double standard you're applying. Please recognize that, even if you don't agree, the inclusion of official classes (races, etc.) that don't fit with one's design aesthetic can change the nature of the game in ways that reduce the fun-factor just as much as the absence of the warlord does for you.

I most certainly am /not/ applying a double-standard. I get that I'm in essence a demographic second-class citizen, and, it's just in the context of a game, so I can live with the things I want coming later in the development cycle. And, I totally get that inclusion of classes that clash with one's design aesthetic can impact your enjoyment of the game. The Drow (matriarchal = evil? really?), Monks (orientalism), psionics (sci-fi), Kender (no explanation needed, I trust), and a few other odds & ends do that for me to varying degrees. But, I respect & defend the right of other players to get the things they want /too/, because I'm NOT about to apply a double-standard or tell other people how they should play the game.

I really wish we could get away from greatest-good-for-most-people arguments, because the relative cost/benefit cannot actually be measured, and each side exaggerates their own costs and benefits while dismissing the perceived cost and benefits of the other.

I'd like that, too. So much of the edition war then, and the stonewalling of the Warlord, now, consists of people claiming they speak for 'a majority' or 'most' or 'the typical' or whatever arbitrary greater-number, or even quote murky sales statistics to 'prove' that what they want is what WotC should do, or not doing what they want caused WotC to 'fail.' I, too, wish we could put that kind of sophomoric pseudo-utilitarianism behind us, and just be accepting and considerate of eachother.
Personal preferences are just that, personal. My personal disappointment with all 12 classes in the PH - personal. I don't begrudge anyone enjoying any of those classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And then they gave the "Combat Pillar" 90% of the attention and rule support.

Yeah, I know, it's a source of disappointment. It's not like D&D hadn't always been pretty combat-focused when it came to actual mechanics, but still, the pie-in-the-sky stuff they came up with early in the playtest, vs what actually made it off the presses was not inspiring. It's one of those things where we can hope for more down the line.

It's not even really a Wizard vs. Warrior divide either--wizards have a handful of spells that can do construction (Fabricate, Unseen Servant), but only a handful. Rogues likewise have a handful of abilities, and fighters have a handful of feats, which are useful in socializing and espionage.

Feats are optional, and anyone can take them, but, yes, Rogues have a handful of tricks that are useful in the other two pillars, and casters have some spells, some of them rituals that don't consume slots.

But for the most part, if you want to do espionage/politicking/commerce/construction/device manipulation/social interaction in 5E, all you've got is the raw ability check mechanic and a handful of dubiously-relevant skills like Deception. The current state of 5E is that if you're not interested in mostly combat most of the time, you'd be better off playing Shadowrun or GURPS. I view that as unfortunate but not irreparable, at least at my own table.

As a player I don't really mind combat-oriented scenarios, especially for CRPG-like solo play, but as a social activity they bore me.

I certainly wouldn't have played D&D as much as I did if I didn't enjoy some aspects of combat. 5e has actually gone and minimized some of those, though, which is also sad. But, again, we can hope for more support for the other two pillars, and for something other than short/blah combats, going forward.

...and, as a DM, I don't have to wait, I can go ahead and run those things, without letting the rules (or lack thereof), get in my way. That's the most amazing thing about 5e, not that it /says/ that the DM has that prerogative, but that at actually seems to have convinced the player base that it's OK to trust the DM to exercise it. I did not think they were going to be able to neatly reverse 14 years of 3.x/PF groupthink like that, but they did. It seems like every new ed has had at least one pleasant surprise for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

YOu seem to be avoiding the question. One more time.

Have you looked at the Noble class?

When people did not like 4E we went to Pathfinder. The Noble is non WotC (just like Pathfinder) but if you are that keen on a warlord pay $3 and check it out. Sure it might not be called a warlord but it doesn't have connotations of child slavers or African despots. THe name Warlord has some negative connotations its not quite as bad as Schutzstaffel but it is a terrible class name (Officer, Noble, Marshal are all better).

 

[ZickZak]

Gee, that sounds terrible.

That is 4e.