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

[Aldarc]

As opposed to looking for an excuse to shove a play style on those that don't like it?

There's no shoving involved when the option to say "no" exists as a GM.

If it's not a big deal for me to exclude the Warlord, then it is not a big deal for you to allow it if it is an optional class, right?

All classes are optional.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you are fine with the Warlord being presented as a UA article then. All classes are optional. Basic, PHB or UA. It's all the same. So UA is fine. Right?

UA would be a good first step, but I'd like to see it in print. I just have a thing for dead trees, that way. Besides, print would mean a better-developed class with more play-testing behind it.

But, yes, to be clear, opt-in is just fine by me. By the same token, I'm fine with things I don't care for being opt-out. It's not that big a difference, and can't keep me from enjoying the game, either way.

 

[Bawylie]

So you are fine with the Warlord being presented as a UA article then. All classes are optional. Basic, PHB or UA. It's all the same. So UA is fine. Right?

UA isn't fine, if that's where it stops. UA is a testing ground to see if they're on the right track.

So I'm fine starting there, but not ending there.

 

[Lord Twig]

UA would be a good first step, but I'd like to see it in print. I just have a thing for dead trees, that way. But, yes, to be clear, opt-in is just fine by me. By the same token, I'm fine with things I don't care for being opt-out. It's not that big a difference, and can't keep me from enjoying the game, either way.

Awesome! We are in agreement then.

The main reason for wanting an opt-in is that there is less chance that I will end up in a game with one as a player. Sure if I'm the DM I can allow whatever I want (with input from the players of course), but as a player your ability to include or exclude things are more limited.

 

[Lord Twig]

UA isn't fine, if that's where it stops. UA is a testing ground to see if they're on the right track.

So I'm fine starting there, but not ending there.

I understand the desire for a dead-tree version. I prefer those myself. Still want it to be an opt-in class though.

 

[Bawylie]

I understand the desire for a dead-tree version. I prefer those myself. Still want it to be an opt-in class though.

My understanding is that anything outside the free Basic Rules is opt-in. That includes, IMO, the core 3 as well as all setting guides & adventure paths / products. For instance, SCAG.

I'm not asking for a warlord to be added into the basic rules version.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Awesome! We are in agreement then.

Ironically, though, it also means you've come around from the position the OP was asking about. I guess it's a good irony.

The main reason for wanting an opt-in is that there is less chance that I will end up in a game with one as a player.

Don't be so sure of that. Feats, for instance, are opt-in, officially, but AL has opted into them from the beginning, and that doesn't seem to be too unusual.

In the case of a PC class choice, even a class that's legal to play at the table may not show up, at your table. You only have 5 or 6 players - so five /other/ players at a table with an opening for you. There are 13 classes in the PH, the Warlord is unlikely to be the first optional class to see print, so you're talking 15+ class choices. The chances someone at any given table is playing the specific class you object too (assuming you're lucky enough to only object to one), really isn't all that high. Even if someone is, there's always a chance he has an alternate he'd be just as happy to play, and is more considerate of others than you are so willing to do so. So you'd really have to assume the Warlord is /very/ popular (fighter- or wizard- level popularity) to have any significant fear of being unable to find a table where no one's playing one, even if it were a Standard PH class.

Sure if I'm the DM I can allow whatever I want (with input from the players of course), but as a player your ability to include or exclude things are more limited.

As it should be. DMs have visions for their games, designers for their settings, other players have their preferences and bugaboos. Basic consideration for eachother should head off problems like these, even if the game were officially wide-open to including everything published.

 

[mellored]

Between battlemaster, PDK, mastermind rogue, cutting words, haste, heroism, virtually every aspect of the warlord is already in the game.

We just want to pull all the options together, and allow them to be used more often.

 

[Bluenose]

You know it sounds reasonable, "Why not just let people have Warlords if they want them?" But adding things to the game changes the game for everyone, not just those that play with the new addition.

Well congratulations. Now you've require that we go through the whole damn game looking at every single thing that's been added to it since the earliest editions, trying to discover whether they "belong" or not. Do you know how many spells and magic items now need looking at? How many classes and races? I hope you're proud of yourself.

Like it or hate it, D&D 4e split the community.

So, just like every other edition then. I guess it was part of the tradition after all.

 

[Uchawi]

There is a lot of stuff that does not make sense in D&D and all you have to do is look as monsters and different modes of travel, flight, or even being able to hold their own body weight. Then you can branch out into other areas of the game, but when it is all said and done, you are probably bored with the game or are a control freak on what you consider as important. If the game presented options and the DM always has the final say on what is allowed, then we could all enjoy it. And with classes it should be easy to state allow this one and ban the other. The only thing I wish they did was implement maneuvers for martial classes, so regardless of you viewpoint on any given class mechanic the more contentious concepts like hit dice healing, automatic damage (damage on a miss), charm person, summoning, etc. could be added or removed.