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

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, I have. I still have objections to the Warlord, as I have stated, but an optional Warlord for those that want it would be fine in my opinion.

In the meantime those that like the Warlord will try to convince WotC that they should add a Warlord, and I will tell them the game is better off without it.

These statements are contradictory. If you're still campaigning against the Warlord, then you're not OK with the idea of an opt-in optional Warlord. You still begrudge other people the right to play the game their way, and want to use the threat of boycotting WotC products ("driven away for them game") to force them to deprive others of what they want from the game. If you really are OK with the option of a Warlord, then it's inclusion won't "drive you away from the game" and you have no reason to oppose it, only to keep it opt-in (which, given the structure of 5e is a virtual certainty).

 

[Lord Twig]

These statements are contradictory. If you're still campaigning against the Warlord, then you're not OK with the idea of an opt-in optional Warlord. You still begrudge other people the right to play the game their way, and want to use the threat of boycotting WotC products ("driven away for them game") to force them to deprive others of what they want from the game. If you really are OK with the option of a Warlord, then it's inclusion won't "drive you away from the game" and you have no reason to oppose it, only to keep it opt-in (which, given the structure of 5e is a virtual certainty).

I guess there is a misunderstanding here, and it's because I wasn't clear enough. I think D&D is better off without the Warlord in the "I like this game better than that game" sense. In the "better for the D&D community" sense it would be better to have an optional Warlord, in the name of inclusiveness. And I'll admit this is begrudging, because I really don't like the Warlord class as a concept.

Contrary to that, I think it would be bad for the D&D community to add a magical pony class. While it would be inclusive of the Brony group (there's a couple at the game story I play at), I really don't care. I'm not playing a game with magical ponies.

And because I love to contradict myself, magical unicorns are fine, just not as a class.

 

[El Mahdi]

No, the reason for boycotting the Warlord is because I don't like how the class effects MY character. I'm not trying to force someone to stop playing a certain way. I am trying to stop them from forcing their way of playing on me.

I do not want to be inspired by their character. I don't want to be ordered or directed by their character. I don't want their character to "pep talk" me all better.

I don't like that play style/fluff/theme/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. But if I refuse to have it forced on me, I'm the bad guy.

We are getting back to the "Well you can also refuse healing from a Cleric" argument. But that's a silly argument. The whole idea is for a support class. Whether it is a Cleric or Warlord, refusing to allow the class to use their abilities to support your character is a crappy thing to do and will not make anyone happy.

Okay. First off, you can't claim that you're fine with other people having or playing what they want, and at the same time try to exert counter pressure against inclusion by saying you'll quit playing the game (translation: quit buying the game) if it's included.

In other words, you're not fine with other people having and playing a Warlord if you actively take action (with your wallet) to prevent the very existence of that class.


Those two claims are contradictory.


Second, even in a game where somebody might be playing a Warlord, there is nothing saying you have to do anything the Warlord advises, or accept any bonus, buff, or hit points.

There is no penalty for ignoring the Warlord. Nobody is going to twist your arm. WotC game police are not going to break down your door and haul you away if you don't comply.

There is no Force at play in any potential scenario whatsoever.

And how are you the bad guy just because somebody else wants to be a jerk? You tell them up front that you're not following their guidance. If they insist on doing it anyways, they are the one being the jerk. That has nothing to do with a Warlord class and everything to do with that person.

If you want, you can even make that a part of your character - they don't like being told what to do, they don't trust that person, their character reminds your character of somebody, they've been burned before, they're part of a group or faction you don't like, they're alignment is in opposition to yours, etc. Based on character and campaign specifics, there could be dozens of narrative reasons why your character would ignore the Warlord's input.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Contrary to that, I think it would be bad for the D&D community to add a magical pony class. While it would be inclusive of the Brony group (there's a couple at the game story I play at), I really don't care. I'm not playing a game with magical ponies.

Yeah, but that'll never happen...

 

[El Mahdi]

My translation is akin to not buying a comic book novel because I didn't like how the artist rendered those damn ears.

Kind of. I think it's more like not buying a comic book because it has an ad in it for Sea-Monkeys, and nobody should ever be allowed to have the hated Sea-Monkeys.

 

[El Mahdi]

He's already admitted it doesn't, and is fine as long as it's 'opt-in' instead of 'opt-out.'

Except threatening to boycott says the exact opposite - and actions speak louder than words.

 

[Hussar]

No, the reason for boycotting the Warlord is because I don't like how the class effects MY character. I'm not trying to force someone to stop playing a certain way. I am trying to stop them from forcing their way of playing on me.

I do not want to be inspired by their character. I don't want to be ordered or directed by their character. I don't want their character to "pep talk" me all better.

I don't like that play style/fluff/theme/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. But if I refuse to have it forced on me, I'm the bad guy.

We are getting back to the "Well you can also refuse healing from a Cleric" argument. But that's a silly argument. The whole idea is for a support class. Whether it is a Cleric or Warlord, refusing to allow the class to use their abilities to support your character is a crappy thing to do and will not make anyone happy.

So, let me get this straight. It's not okay to refuse to let the cleric heal you, because that's a "support class" and not allowing them to use their abilities is a crappy thing to do.

But, telling all other players, including people who don't even play at your table, "You must not play that class AT ALL" is perfectly acceptable?

Is this what you're saying?

 

[Lord Twig]

Except threatening to boycott says the exact opposite - and actions speak louder than words.

You'll see that I've clarified my statement above that I would support (a.k.a. continue to buy) D&D products with the Warlord class as an option.

However, if an adventure book comes out where you are tasked with working with some NPC Warlord I may pass on it. If I could swap the character with a Fighter I might do that instead. If I'm a player I just won't play in that game.

If campaign books come out with Warlords as every guard captain you meet or are rulers of every town you enter. I will probably just give up all together. But that's not very likely to happen.

Look. 4th edition D&D was not a bad game. Lots of people loved it. But it was not my cup of tea. Everyone in my group except for one person didn't care for it and our group broke up shortly afterwards. We got back together when Pathfinder came out, and it was fun for quite a while. Eventually it became too much to keep up with and we stopped playing that too. Sure we could have continued with just the rules we had, but for whatever reason we didn't.

Enter D&D 5th. Love the game! My friends and I found the more vague, less finicky, DM empowering rules refreshing. There are some 4e-isms in it, but it wasn't overpowering. We used some optional rules and ignored others. We have even done some "Theater of the Mind" combats with no grid at all for the first time in many, many years. Great!

Now WotC is starting to add stuff. I will encourage them to add stuff I like, and leave out stuff I don't like. Isn't that what everybody does? If it is something I really don't like, but other people really want, then "Well, put it in as optional" is a reasonable compromise. Isn't it?

 

[Lord Twig]

So, let me get this straight. It's not okay to refuse to let the cleric heal you, because that's a "support class" and not allowing them to use their abilities is a crappy thing to do.

But, telling all other players, including people who don't even play at your table, "You must not play that class AT ALL" is perfectly acceptable?

Is this what you're saying?

No, I'm saying I don't want to play with that class. So it's not that I don't want anybody anywhere to pay a Warlord, I just don't want them to play one in the same group with me.

If I decided I wanted to play a Cleric, then found out someone in the group really didn't like the idea of Clerics, I'm not going to just say, "Well I'm playing a Cleric. So just deal with it!" I'll just play something else. Now if I really, really wanted to play a Cleric for some reason, I would talk to the player to try to find out why he doesn't like Clerics. Maybe we can find a compromise, but if not, one of us is going to have to give.

If it's a Warlord, most likely it will be me that has to give. I'll bow out and let them play without me bothering them. But I'm not going to sit in a campaign where I'm going to be constantly annoyed and irritated for several months. That's not something I want to do with my free time and it probably wouldn't be very fun to play with me in that situation.

I guess it would be the same as playing with someone that insists on playing a Chaotic Evil murder-hobo character. You know the kind, he kills everyone he meets. Tortures children because the thinks it's funny. That kind of thing. I wouldn't want to sit and endure his psychotic murder-hobo fantasies.

It really is that important to me. The Warlord really does annoy me that much. I would rather not play at all than play with a Warlord. I don't think I'm alone in this feeling. And that is probably why the Warlord was not in the PHB to begin with.

And now I think I should bow out of this conversation. I've explained why I don't want a Warlord, accepted that it would be good to add one anyway as an optional class and that's it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now WotC is starting to add stuff. I will encourage them to add stuff I like, and leave out stuff I don't like. Isn't that what everybody does?

Not everybody, no. I'm sure there's some folks who have bought into the 5e vision enough to just advocate for what they want, not make an effort to deprive others of things they might like. Don't know how many - by definition, they'd tend not to make a lot of noise.

If it is something I really don't like, but other people really want, then "Well, put it in as optional" is a reasonable compromise. Isn't it?

Everything in 5e is very much optional, but if you need the re-assurance of opt-in optional, it's a nearly trivial difference.