D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[Orlax]

I think my only issue with warlords really comes from an almost purely mechanical place. It's really hard to make the warlord because the extent of features wished for, and the level by which those capabilities are required to exist by is unreasonable in almost all cases. As it stands it seems pretty much impossible to create anything that would satisfy actual warlord fans that still fits within the 5e design structures. On top of that there is the hp issue, and any way you come down on it will piss off someone.

 

[Bawylie]

Get used to it, these threads have been going for 3 years on the WotC forums and they are largely fuelled by the same people who migrated here en masse

Don't pretend you weren't a contributor over at WOTC. And don't even try to suggest you weren't right there fomenting the conflicts you're now lamenting. You were there; I saw you do it. That you're now above it all is disingenuous. And your criticism of those of us who've migrated over from a closing board is weak.

Apart from hypocrisy...

The "warlord has bad connotations" argument only works if you ignore that "Rogue" and "Warlock" and "Demon" etc also have bad connotations. It's a bad argument.

The "4E had a short run" argument is also stupid. There's no statute of limitations and no longevity requirements for good and bad ideas. It would be an absurd standard if it were applied at all.

The "OSR proves people hate warlords" argument is worthless. It assumes people either cannot or do not enjoy "competing" products. But since we know people drink both Coke And Pepsi, or eat burritos And hamburgers, you can just throw out the idea that the popularity of one thing predicts the unpopularity of another.

What it truly comes down to is a matter of taste. Someone wants NN. Someone else doesn't want any NN. What gets weird is that the people who don't want any NN also want to stop those that do want it from having it. And since that's insane, and everyone knows it, they have to come up with something that sounds like logic to have that viewpoint. But it's not logic, it's a load of waffle cloaked in self-righteousness.

I don't like wizards as a class. Know what? I just don't play them. I don't demand their removal or argue their popularity or harangue the people that do like them. Live and let live, right?

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't pretend you weren't a contributor over at WOTC. And don't even try to suggest you weren't right there fomenting the conflicts you're now lamenting. You were there; I saw you do it. That you're now above it all is disingenuous. And your criticism of those of us who've migrated over from a closing board is weak.

Apart from hypocrisy...

The "warlord has bad connotations" argument only works if you ignore that "Rogue" and "Warlock" and "Demon" etc also have bad connotations. It's a bad argument.

The "4E had a short run" argument is also stupid. There's no statute of limitations and no longevity requirements for good and bad ideas. It would be an absurd standard if it were applied at all.

The "OSR proves people hate warlords" argument is worthless. It assumes people either cannot or do not enjoy "competing" products. But since we know people drink both Coke And Pepsi, or eat burritos And hamburgers, you can just throw out the idea that the popularity of one thing predicts the unpopularity of another.

What it truly comes down to is a matter of taste. Someone wants NN. Someone else doesn't want any NN. What gets weird is that the people who don't want any NN also want to stop those that do want it from having it. And since that's insane, and everyone knows it, they have to come up with something that sounds like logic to have that viewpoint. But it's not logic, it's a load of waffle cloaked in self-righteousness.

I don't like wizards as a class. Know what? I just don't play them. I don't demand their removal or argue their popularity or harangue the people that do like them. Live and let live, right?

I have participated in them of course but I do not instigate them as a general rule (except for my don't care thread) and Mearls addressed the Warlord issue back in 2013 with the Valor Bard and Battlemaster representing the archtype as healing word for example is now a daily spell not a leader encounter power.

All the Warlord threads have actually undermined the cause due to the behaviour of fans who won't compromise on the concept. For whatever reason fans of previous editions who like 5E do not seem to care that 5E classes do not function the same as previous editions classes looking more at the concept of the class and how effective it is in 5E rather than worrying to much about how they functioned in previous editions.

Not helped by the fact that the Warlord fans are also the sort who are also opposed to LG only Paladins, vancian casting and spells functioning like they used to. The AD&D/3E players who play 5E have already compromised on things like that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So from what I gather is that people don't want the warlord because non martial HP healing is dumb and shouldn't work like magic. Ok ok of course this is an incredible over simplification and I acknowledge that. This topic isnt really about the warlord, but about why people want or don't want something in the game.

People want the Warlord because it was a great class, that gave solid mechanical support to concepts and play styles that couldn't be done well before (and, in 5e, once again cannot be done that well at all).

People don't want the Warlord for the reciprocal of the same reason: it opens up character concepts and play styles that they don't approve of, and do not want to allow anyone to play.

You can ascribe all sorts of motivations to those desires - many of them having to do with the edition war, including the edition-war skirmishes over how to over-analyze hps that you allude to, or 'caster-supremacy' agendas (or the reverse), or whatever - but the basic issue is that the Warlord expanded the character concepts you could play in D&D and the styles in which the game could be played.

The question is this... I don't get the idea of being opposed to something that many people clearly want. People limit things like races and magic items and things like that. So why can't people just disallow the classes? Think martial healing is terrible and shouldn't be a thing? Don't use it. It's literally that simple.

It is, but doing so makes you theoretically 'wrong' on some academic 'RAW' level. That seemed really important under the 3.5 zietgeist, but it really shouldn't matter in 5e. 5e is meant to be a unifying edition, for all prior fans of D&D (and incidentally, it's hoped for potential new ones), and that mean no one gets to be 'right,' even though, inevitably, the default Basic and Standard games have let certain fans feel that way (arguably old-school Basic and AD&D respectively) a bit more than others.

It seems childish to not want something but then force your opinion and views on other groups who have completely different expectations and playstyles. Can someone clue me into this kind of mentality? Is there something I'm just overlooking? Does the game actually force you to play these classes, was it a rule I overlooked or something?

The idea is you can invert that argument. By including a class, you allow a sole player at the table to 'force' everyone to play a certain way just by picking that class. That's both absurd on the face of it, and a meaningless truism. It's absurd because players should have some basic respect for eachother, for the DM's vision of the campaign, and should communicate enough to know what kind of campaign is being played. It's a truism because any/every class implies things about the setting and the nature & tone of the campaign, and can affect how PC's interact & players get along.

 

[Bawylie]

"We already compromised by liking stuff that was overwhelmingly popular."

K

"You didn't compromise enough, because you're complaining that a thing you wanted doesn't even exist in the game!"

K

 

[Tony Vargas]

lol, I do understand that which is why this topic exists. D&D 5e's marketing seems to be something long the lines of "play it your way here are tools." I get both sides of the HP healing argument, that's not a problem. The problem comes from that disagreement between the types of people. It's just baffling that those against martial healing want to actively prevent other groups to use the class or ... subclass or whatever it is in 5e. So it's ok if it's not your thing, that's cool. What isn't cool is preventing the other half of the fans a class that they really want. I don't get the mentality.

You're being too reasonable, I'm afraid you'll have to leave the internet, which is meant for trolling and ranting.

And yet, opposition is still always going to be mischaracterized as either being about HP-as-meat, or h4atred.

That's one of the sad legacies of the edition war: lines were drawn, if you come down firmly on one side or the other of a line, you inherit all the baggage of that side, deserved or not.

The thing I'm curious about is whether this mischaracterization is strategically willful, or merely myopic.

Attributing either is just making the same kind of mischaracterization of the folks mischaracterizing you, so it's kinda moot, and only makes things worse.

The only thing that might help is staying focused on the specific issues you care about, and not responding to the stuff that doesn't apply to you. As long as your argument advances an agenda, you're never going to be able to 'prove' you're not trying to advance it, anyway. Getting into an argument about whether or not you have this or that edition war agenda only distracts from your original point.

What can I say, the edition war was about the worst thing to ever happen to the community - baring genuine tragedies like the death of Wrecan, of course.

 

[Bawylie]

Edition War and Playstyle War were both ridiculous marketing ploys that turned casual conversationally interesting reflections into warring factions.

By saying "This is my Playstyle and that is not" we were invited to write off any other opinions than our own and cease even developing skills! Why even bother? It's my Playstyle.

 

[Orlax]

People want the Warlord because it was a great class, that gave solid mechanical support to concepts and play styles that couldn't be done well before (and, in 5e, once again cannot be done that well at all).

People don't want the Warlord for the reciprocal of the same reason: it opens up character concepts and play styles that they don't approve of, and do not want to allow anyone to play.

You can ascribe all sorts of motivations to those desires - many of them having to do with the edition war, including the edition-war skirmishes over how to over-analyze hps that you allude to, or 'caster-supremacy' agendas (or the reverse), or whatever - but the basic issue is that the Warlord expanded the character concepts you could play in D&D and the styles in which the game could be played.

I'm sorry but what concept or concepts does it make available that are not currently available in 5e, or were not available before it existed?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

And yet, opposition is still always going to be mischaracterized as either being about HP-as-meat, or h4atred. I assume because that makes it easier to dismiss those opinions.

That's one of the sad legacies of the edition war: lines were drawn, if you come down firmly on one side or the other of a line, you inherit all the baggage of that side, deserved or not.

My reasons have nothing to do with either of those. My two main points of contention stem from a balance POV and that of agency. I have yet to see a "4e-style" warlord homebrew that wasn't broken. Likewise, they all seem to want to be the boss of the team. I have a problem with both of those big ticket issues.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm sorry but what concept or concepts does it make available that are not currently available in 5e, or were not available before it existed?

This. I keep hearing "the concept" isn't being met. But "the concept" is. Absolutely. It's the 4e mechanics that aren't. But the essence/flavor/feel of the class? That exists in 5e currently. There is no denying that.