Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[FrogReaver]

Ah, this makes sense. I could see a wizard wanting to avoid melee combat so much that he doesn't even distract a foe. As a GM I would allow it.

Do note however that distracting the goblin does not require the wizard to admire the Rogue, or vice versa.

This discussion isn't about what you would allow as a GM. This discussion is about classes that take away player agency.

As we just pointed out, the rogues does. Proposing a DM fix to that doesn't solve the issue in the context of the current rules. That is, the current class rules rob players of agency in many ways that they do not immediately see and are often not actualy problems while playing the game.

By the rules my fighter cannot become as angry as the barbarian. My fighter cannot be as musical as a bard. My fighter cannot carry divine favor as well as a cleric. My fighter can not be in tune with nature as much as a druid. My fighter cannot fight unarmed and unarmored as well as a monk. My fighter cannot make as good of pacts as the warlock... ETC.

By the rules there are also quite a few abilities that directly force other players characters into doing something or not doing something or doing something better or worse.
A totem warrior barbarian forces allies fight better with melee weapons just for being near him (thus indicating that the allies aren't fighting to their full potential no matter how their player envisions it)
You already agree such problems exist with bardic inspiration.
A rogue by the book forces allies to distract enemies enough to grant them an opening even if the ally wants to not do that
A paladin can make allies fearless just by being near them even if the player wanted their character to be frightened

There's tons of examples that can be found if one closely analyzes the game as is. Basically your problem with the warlord taking away player agency doesn't really make sense in light of all the similar agency deprevation currently in the game.

 

[Manbearcat]

Wow. Do you talk like this in real life?

No offense, but if you'd quit trying to hard to sound hyper-intelligent, maybe your points would become more concise and relatable.

Look. I don't know you. You don't know me. I'm pretty sure both of us would like to keep it that way. So if you could stay away from the passive-aggressive, motive-hunting, moderation-baiting snark and solely respond to the content of my posts as it pertains to the subject at hand (as you do directly below and then I do, politely, in kind), that would be really great.

In spite of the fact that all this continuing to side-step and avoid my point, that your "sport team leader" = warlord analogy fails, more shockingly you've proven it even more so with your further analysis and examples. You've just shown that leadership is a personality trait, not a position/training/occupational trait. Claiming we need a warlord class flies in the face of your own analysis.

I'm not sure what point you're making that I'm side-stepping.

Is it that TTRPG systems which silo suites of resources under broad archetypes (which can then be modified through "build" to capture further specificity) only do so under vocation with no consideration for behavioral portfolio? Behavioral portfolio that is likely intrinsic to that broad archetype? Such as:

Rangers are:

Rugged, tough, self-sufficient, industrious, canny

Paladins are:

Devoutly religious, deeply driven, sincere, duty-bound, sacrificing

Etc, etc. We are at a chicken and the egg or nature vs nurture scenario. Recent class-based systems such as D&D4e, 13th Age, Dungeon World, Cortex + (its various genre systems including Hacker's Guide which has Heroic Fantasy), Apocalypse World all contain a class/playbook for the archetype of "heart of the fellowship" or "battle captain" or outright "warlord" in the modern conventional sense (the Hardholder in AW). Just like the Ranger and Paladin, they have a "base personality mesh". Theirs is a behavioral portfolio in which they all have some overlap: extroversion, cool, resolve, mettle, resourcefulness, presence, charismatic, empathetic, awareness, accountability, elocution.

Players don't have to have their PCs relating to other PCs if there is a lack of coherency in the roleplaying (in the same way that a player would, through their PC, choose to not relate to a Paladin who is played as insincere or self-preserving...or who might better relate to a Fighter who exhibits those traits). Further, they don't have to have their PC accept the Warlord buff (be it action economy or statistical), same as in 4e. But shouldn't most of this stuff be handled at the social contract level? "Bob, your dude expects more from us than he does from himself. He isn't 'cool under fire'. You seem to want to do your own thing. Neither your roleplaying nor your activation of your dude's abilities expresses resourcefulness or tactical awareness that we can believe will see us through danger. Maybe, Bob, you should just play a Fighter?" Sounds a lot like the incoherently-played Paladin archetype issue!

Regardless of its persuasiveness, does that better address your point (if that indeed was your point)?

 

[Jester David]

Is the discussion still on player agency?

This seems weird given the language of 5e focuses on words like "can". A warlord that uses a power like Commander's Strike would have language such as "the friendly creature can use their reaction to make an attack". So the character can always say "no". It's never forced.

 

[Jester David]

Warlords...

I said earlier that there seems to be little demand for a warlord as demonstrated by the seeming low sales of the two warlord fighter archetypes on the DMsGuild. Neither has made it to Copper medal status, meaning that in a month and a month-and-a-half respectively, neither product could sell more than 50 copies.
But, the question remains of reputation. Perhaps these authors, neither of which has much of a name or reputation, cannot move their class.

So I opted to publish my own warlord fighter archetype, with a list of new maneuvers. (In honesty, it was because I had written the class and options and had it on my website, but the battle master wasn't in the SRD, so keeping the class on my site made it non-OGL legal. So rather than just trash the class, I revised and doubled the number of maneuvers and threw it on the DMsGuild).


In the week since I published, I have sold 10 copies of 5MWD Presents: Maneuvers & Commander. 1.37 copies per day to be exact.
My other books have sold 3.05, 6.73, and 4.84 copies per day with an average of 4.87 copies per day. So the Maneuver book is really under-performing.
Now, two of those books (Traps and Diseases) are DM content, which is rarer on the Guild and seems to sell quite well. But even my player focused Feat book is selling three times as much as the book of Maneuvers and the warlord.

Making that product was apparently hardly worth my time.

So I reiterate my position: there isn't much interest for the warlord. It has a few ardent fans, but the majority are likely happy with the bard, battle master, or Purple Dragon Knight, and there's not really enough interest for WotC to be concerned about making a brand to class.

 

[FrogReaver]

Warlords...

I said earlier that there seems to be little demand for a warlord as demonstrated by the seeming low sales of the two warlord fighter archetypes on the DMsGuild. Neither has made it to Copper medal status, meaning that in a month and a month-and-a-half respectively, neither product could sell more than 50 copies.
But, the question remains of reputation. Perhaps these authors, neither of which has much of a name or reputation, cannot move their class.

So I opted to publish my own warlord fighter archetype, with a list of new maneuvers. (In honesty, it was because I had written the class and options and had it on my website, but the battle master wasn't in the SRD, so keeping the class on my site made it non-OGL legal. So rather than just trash the class, I revised and doubled the number of maneuvers and threw it on the DMsGuild).


In the week since I published, I have sold 10 copies of 5MWD Presents: Maneuvers & Commander. 1.37 copies per day to be exact.
My other books have sold 3.05, 6.73, and 4.84 copies per day with an average of 4.87 copies per day. So the Maneuver book is really under-performing.
Now, two of those books (Traps and Diseases) are DM content, which is rarer on the Guild and seems to sell quite well. But even my player focused Feat book is selling three times as much as the book of Maneuvers and the warlord.

Making that product was apparently hardly worth my time.

So I reiterate my position: there isn't much interest for the warlord. It has a few ardent fans, but the majority are likely happy with the bard, battle master, or Purple Dragon Knight, and there's not really enough interest for WotC to be concerned about making a brand to class.

It would be very strange for a warlord class to fare as well as general purpose content for every class. Thus I'd actually think the feat book selling three times as much as the warlord subclass material means that your warlord class was fairly popular overall.

 

[jodyjohnson]

It wasn't a Warlord class. It was a Fighter archetype.

To someone wanting a Warlord class yet another Fighter archetype is a non-starter. Because Battle Master does a small slice of Warlord (Bravura) very well. The Warlord disguised as an asskicker fighter.

 

[Jester David]

It would be very strange for a warlord class to fare as well as general purpose content for every class. Thus I'd actually think the feat book selling three times as much as the warlord subclass material means that your warlord class was fairly popular overall.

Which would be true if no other non-generic, non-general stuff was selling well. But there is a wealth of other classes and archetypes doing far better than any warlord content.

It wasn't a Warlord class. It was a Fighter archetype.

To someone wanting a Warlord class yet another Fighter archetype is a non-starter. Because Battle Master does a small slice of Warlord (Bravura) very well. The Warlord disguised as an asskicker fighter.

Maybe. But given warlord content seems to be a big hole you throw time and energy into for no return, I see zero reason anyone would bother designing a warlord.
I'm not doing more work with that document. No Return on Investment.

Of course, if there was a large and devoted audience desperate for a warlord class and unsatisfied by anything else... why haven't any of them posted anything in the month that the DMs Guild has been up?
There's been a year and a half to design the class, and now a full month to get it formatted and into a PDF. That's more than enough time.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Thanks for the info. Sorry you self-fulfilled your prophecy

My effort is proceeding at a pace I'm happy with.

 

[Jester David]

Thanks for the info. Sorry you self-fulfilled your prophecy.

Something is only a self-fulfilling outcome if you try affect the outcome. Your implication is more than a little insulting.
So, because you don't have a really good counter you claim I set out to sabotage a product so I could declare victory in a message board argument?

I put out the document because I couldn't in good faith host it on my website, and had already done much of the content. I didn't set out to have an under-performing document and certainly gave that product as much time and attention as any other. I didn't want it to do poorly. That means less money for me. I'd actually be happier to be proven wrong and have a huge hit.


Maybe it would have sold much better had it been a full class. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't see any compelling reason to invest that time and energy. Not when there doesn't seem to be a pronounced number of actual warlord fans interested in doing so.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which would be true if no other non-generic, non-general stuff was selling well. But there is a wealth of other classes and archetypes doing far better than any warlord content.

You gotta compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

The fact is that you created very specific content and it's selling at 1/3 the rate of some of your other general purpose content. Given how specific it is, it's actually amazing it's selling as well as it is. Consider this: If on average there is 1 player at each table that wants a warlord (which may be a high estimate) and I'd estimate most players at a table would like additional feat options then Your warlord material should be selling at about 1/4 to 1/5 the rate of the feat book. It's actually closer to 1/3 which is impressive IMO. The stats you posted about your own sells are actually evidence that warlord material is as sought after as it should be.

Now there may be other stats that show what you are trying to claim about the warlord not being a popular selling class but don't act like your own stats back up that assertion.