D&D 5E Warlord - Is 5E SRD/DMsGuild a Solution? Is AL a Problem?

[Tony Vargas]

For more intense Warlord-specific discussion of the 5e Forum thread, if anyone feels the need....

Sorcerer/Warlord - Is 5E SRD The Solution or AL The Problem?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-The-Solution-or-AL-The-Problem#ixzz3xFh6ieMJ

Now that the SCAG has answered the question of "When will 5E see more support?" and the new 5E SRD has answered the question of "What's up with the OGL for 5E?"... the next largest issue here on the boards that it seems 5E needs to tackle for a lot of players is the perceived lack of workable Sorcerers and Warlords. Bring up either of these classes and there will be a lot of people who will make a lot of responses in the thread about what they feel are the faults of them (or the fact that WotC's Fighter workarounds aren't enough.)

Now whether or not their issues are justified is not the purpose of this thread, and indeed we have seen many threads already about it from both sides so there's no reason to do over it again here. But really, my question is this...

If we say for the sake of argument that WotC doesn't intend on creating a full Warlord class, or give more/varied spells to the Sorcerer to fill them out... is the idea that the DMGU might step in and "fix" both of these issues by creating just that, the "solution" to the issue... or is the fact that the Adventurer's League wouldn't allow said creations the real "problem" for people that won't be solved until WotC makes those design creations themselves (so they are AL legal?)

In other words... does WotC *have* to produce the Sorcerer fix and the Warlord class themselves for this issue to be ever be considered "solved", or are published creations from the DMGU enough?

 

[tuxgeo]

The SRD thread has already helpfully supplied what I believe to be the answer: if your material that you submit to the DMGuild is good enough, and people like it enough, WotC might buy the rights from you. If they do, there's your official support, even if WotC didn't write it originally. They might tweak it to suit their professional tastes, so that means such DMGU submissions might not be enough as stand-alone concepts; but the path to officialdom is there.

 

[Valetudo]

Honestly I think wizards had the fix for the sorcerer and dropped the ball. I think all the sorcerer really needs is some subclass specific spells known.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that could have been posted in the main thread...

 

[Remathilis]

I said this a while back.

WotC isn't going to waste ink on a niche product whose mere existence divides the fanbase. They tossed some nods to the warlord in the forms of PDK and BM, but they aren't going to stick their neck out further. This is a prime area for the OGL/DMsG. A dozen different warlords, ranging from safe (an expanded battlemaster) to wild (a non-magical "caster" class with non-magical "spell"-like effects) can be done. If one of them sells exceptionally well enough to prove WotC wrong, they will simply buy the rights to it from the writer and put THAT in whatever supplement they wish to later. It is literally win-win for WotC.

As for AL, I don't think that's a concern much anymore. AL is now open to home play, and the modules can be used inside AL and outside it. A DM can buy all the AL modules for a season and run it with whatever houserule, homebrewed, and third party stuff they want. Those who enjoy convention/public play will have to make do without a Warlord for those games, but the only people who are being actively hurt by not having an Official WotC Warlord are "People Who Have No Choice But to Play ALL Their D&D Games in Public and REALLY Want to Play a Warlord". I wager that number is probably less than a percentage point these days.

Since the announcement of the DMsG, I see literally no obstacle to having a warlord in your 5e game. Not AL play, not for want of choice, none.

 

[ccs]

Yes, AL, PFS, OP programs, tourneys, etc ARE a problem.
And it's grown over the years.
1) Because they condition people into thinking that there's 1 official way to play these games.
2) And then rules get written & errata issued based on the needs of these OP programs & tournaments*. Despite the fact that those formats don't reflect how the vast majority of games are played.
(* I've seen alot of this in miniatures games. But it does creep into RPGs.)

The presence or abscense of an SRD/OGL will not solve this problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I said this a while back.

WotC isn't going to waste ink on a niche product whose mere existence divides the fanbase.

Why do you think it is that WotC won't carry through with the inclusive design intent of 5e?

They're on track to do so with psionics, for instance.

 

[Remathilis]

Why do you think it is that WotC won't carry through with the inclusive design intent of 5e?

They're on track to do so with psionics, for instance.

One more time:

1.) Psionics are either ignored or loved. Warlords are actively reviled. I wager there are far more psionic fans that warlord fans.

2.) Psionics are integral to one setting (Dark Sun), and important to another (Eberron). Warlords are important to exactly one setting: Nentir Vale.

3.) Psionics have been in the game since AD&D 1e; warlords only appeared in 4e.

4.) WotC has made two attempts at subclasses that cover the warlord niche. They might not be the warlord YOU want, but for them, it's sufficient.

5.) WotC isn't making a lot of crutch material these days. They outsourced that job to the fans (DMs Guild and OGL). Fans unhappy with the Pdk and bm now have a 100% legal way to make the warlord they want.

6.) AL is largely irrelevant now. Every module is available for home play, barring promos and epics. So unless you only pay at cons and gamestores and cannot fathom playing anything but a warlord, you can run everything you want with your warlord class.

Which brings me to my final thought: why aren't you doing something other than complaining on the forums? You have the tools, make a real, proper warlord. Put it on DMsG. Get everyone in this forum to buy it and spread the word. Make it a top seller. Get WotC's attention. Show them there is a market.

This "there must be a warlord or WotC lied about unity" shtick is old and tired. Put your money where your mouth is or accept what you're given.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1.) Psionics are either ignored or loved. Warlords are actively reviled. I wager there are far more psionic fans that warlord fans. 2.) 3.)

That's really just begging the question. Why do you think WotC is more concerned with catering to the negativity of h4ters than carrying through with the idea of 5e being for all D&D fans?

4.) WotC has made two attempts at subclasses that cover the warlord niche.
5.) WotC isn't making a lot of crutch material these days.

That's true, but they are publishing some, even if they don't have the staffing to produce it all in house. So the rationale then, is that WotC (or Hasbro) is simply not willing to put resources into producing anything signficant for D&D, going forward? But, again, that begs the question, why? Why are you so convinced D&D doesn't rate development effort like it did under 3.x and 4e? The slower pace of release could be a matter of strategy rather than lack of resources.

Edit: Missed an on-topic bit buried amongst all the negativity:

This is a prime area for the OGL/DMsG. A dozen different warlords, ranging from safe (an expanded battlemaster) to wild (a non-magical "caster" class with non-magical "spell"-like effects) can be done.

So one in the 'solution' column. I'm interested to see what sort of material shows up in DMsG, it'd be nice to see some reviews, even moreso than with published product...

 

[Remathilis]

Let me help you out here.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170957/Warlord--Martial-Archetype

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/171718/Fighter-Archetype--Warlord

The DMGuild has two warlords in it, one is a $1.00, one is pwyw. Pick the one you like and problem solved.

Good gaming.