D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[generic]

Just because you feel the arguments don't hold up, doesn't mean the people making them are making them solely because they don't like it. The reason I don't like it is for the reasons I've given (that an inspiring warrior falls under a different classes umbrella, and that the Lazylord doesn't match 5e's current style of play).

Just because you don't agree with that argument, doesn't mean everyone making it is making it solely because they don't like it.

I'll personally admit that I think the Warlord, both mechanically and thematically, would match a setting that has larger sized battles, and where a PC is less likely to become personally involved in a fight. I think in the current slate of what 5e is, the Lazylord doesn't really fit.

That's my argument. I'm not accusing everyone who disagrees with me of acting in bad faith, like you seem to be making to me and others who feel warlord doesn't need to be a class. So yeah, you're making a strawman.

My main point is that you and @Sacrosanct shouldn't care what is put into the game, as long as it's not egregious. Please don't hyperfocus on one point in my post and ignore the part about letting others have their fun. Adding a warlord is not going to ruin your game.

 

[generic]

@Sacrosanct my point about feelings, and the 'solely based' point only makes sense in the context of allowing stuff that you don't like to be published, please don't ignore that point.

 

[generic]

Just because you feel the arguments don't hold up, doesn't mean the people making them are making them solely because they don't like it. The reason I don't like it is for the reasons I've given (that an inspiring warrior falls under a different classes umbrella, and that the Lazylord doesn't match 5e's current style of play).

Just because you don't agree with that argument, doesn't mean everyone making it is making it solely because they don't like it.

I'll personally admit that I think the Warlord, both mechanically and thematically, would match a setting that has larger sized battles, and where a PC is less likely to become personally involved in a fight. I think in the current slate of what 5e is, the Lazylord doesn't really fit.

That's my argument. I'm not accusing everyone who disagrees with me of acting in bad faith, like you seem to be making to me and others who feel warlord doesn't need to be a class. So yeah, you're making a strawman.

Liked because of the veracity of the portions of the argument when you ignore my main point in that post.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not exactly what I said or meant, but whatever. I'm happy to speak on this on more impartial terms, but your insults and arrogant attitude were rather infuriating, I must say.

Well, you win the irony award, that’s for sure. I’m not the one who’s saying, “despite what you said, I don’t believe you and I know the real reason, you just won’t admit it.”

And I don’t know how many times I have to say I have no problem with the warlord being in the game before you stop accusing me of trying to prevent it from being in the game. Not that I have that power anyway, but so far you haven’t let facts stop you yet.

 

[generic]

Well, you win the irony award, that’s for sure. I’m not the one who’s saying, “despite what you said, I don’t believe you and I know the real reason, you just won’t admit it.”

And I don’t know how many times I have to say I have no problem with the warlord being in the game before you stop accusing me of trying to prevent it from being in the game. Not that I have that power anyway, but so far you haven’t let facts stop you yet.

Jeez

The rhetoric becomes strong on all sides, I will agree, and I do apologize for the combative tone of my earlier posts. Honestly, I am so invested in WotC adding new classes, and not having them be shouted down, that my tone can sometimes be a bit energetic for theoretical arguments in forum posts.

But.

I did not mean to say that your sole reason for opposing the warlord as a class was emotion, which I should have specified. I said that it seems illogical, to me, to oppose having a warlord in the game (different).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Robin Hood is literally the base that all Rangers are based on.

He's a sneaky bastard in the woods that leads a band of merry men, and is an absolute crack shot with a bow, .

more importantly, it is literally referred to as the example in the 2e ranger.

If you cannot emulate robin hood with a ranger, your ranger has failed.

(4e did a great job emulating robin hood)

Then the 2e book was wrong lol

Robin Hood has a survival proficiency, and is otherwise just a rogue who is very skilled with a bow. Archer =\= Ranger.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

All of those characters have at one time or another been in groups of 3-6 in a smaller skirmish.

Back to my original question, which still no one has bothered to answer, what famous lazylords exist in fiction?

Again, why should anyone answer it? It’s either irrelevant, or asked in bad faith.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Jeez

The rhetoric becomes strong on all sides, I will agree, and I do apologize for the combative tone of my earlier posts. Honestly, I am so invested in WotC adding new classes, and not having them be shouted down, that my tone can sometimes be a bit energetic for theoretical arguments in forum posts.

But.

I did not mean to say that your sole reason for opposing the warlord as a class was emotion, which I should have specified. I said that it seems illogical, to me, to oppose having a warlord in the game (different).

Ok, then let’s reset for a minute.

Here are some points I’m trying time make that I hope will help

• I don’t mind a warlord being in the game, and think there is room for it in the game. My main issue is I don’t know how that could be done in 5e and be unique enough.
• Earlier you said that classes like the paladin and sorcerer have attributes similar enough that any arguments against the warlord are flawed. Two things to that. First, it’s my chocolate and rocky road analogy. Just because I like chocolate, and rocky road has chocolate, doesn’t mean I like rocky road. So someone can approve of the paladin, but still not be a fan of the warlord. Secondly, if the warlord mechanics already exist and are that similar to existing classes/feats as you argued, then what’s the justification for the warlord? By the nature of introducing a new class, it has to have enough unique features to justify it. Like adding marshmallows to my chocolate. No thanks. So those similarity arguments are flawed
• it’s been argued that people who don’t want a warlord in the game are haters of the class. As I mentioned, this isn’t true. Some, sure. But most aren’t. Because there are many other reasons that aren’t driven by dislike at all. Like design scope. Or class bloat. Or it just doesn’t feel right. I’d bet most of the people who are against warlords are against several classes, not just the warlord. I.e, it’s not hate against the warlord, it’s preference for only the few core classes. I’m sure there are aspects of previous editions that you’d not want to see in 5e. Doesn’t mean you dislike or hate them, you just don’t think they fit to your preferences.
• this is just a forum where people express opinions. No one to my knowledge has any special connection or power over the WoTC design team. Therefore, no one is preventing, or trying to prevent you from playing what you want. They aren’t protesting in front of WoTC headquarters. They aren’t petitioning WoTC to remove or eliminate the class. They aren’t forcing DMs Guild to remove 3PP versions. So no one is actively trying to do anything. They are just voicing opinion. There is no gate keeping going on. No one is going to your table and preventing you from playing what you want just like you aren’t going to my game table and forcing me to play a warlord.
• some people want their classes to have a literally precedence, but literary precedence is not required to justify a class. AFAIC, if enough demand is there, that’s justification. It’s a fantasy game, not a history emulation.

So when people start to classify those who don’t want a warlord as haters who just can’t see reason or logic, or accuse them of actively trying to prevent you from gaming how you want, I take issue with that. It isn’t true, and drives the conversation to unrepairable places. No one likes being accused of being a hater or unable to see reason, or to be accused of harming other players when they aren’t. “It doesn’t feel right, or like it fits, or it’s not in scope” =/= “I hate or dislike that thing”

We need to acknowledge there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone wouldn’t want a warlord in the game, and recognize that there are plenty of people and legitimate reasons to have a warlord in the game.

 

[generic]

Ok, then let’s reset for a minute.

Here are some points I’m trying time make that I hope will help

• I don’t mind a warlord being in the game, and think there is room for it in the game. My main issue is I don’t know how that could be done in 5e and be unique enough.
• Earlier you said that classes like the paladin and sorcerer have attributes similar enough that any arguments against the warlord are flawed. Two things to that. First, it’s my chocolate and rocky road analogy. Just because I like chocolate, and rocky road has chocolate, doesn’t mean I like rocky road. So someone can approve of the paladin, but still not be a fan of the warlord. Secondly, if the warlord mechanics already exist and are that similar to existing classes/feats as you argued, then what’s the justification for the warlord? By the nature of introducing a new class, it has to have enough unique features to justify it. Like adding marshmallows to my chocolate. No thanks. So those similarity arguments are flawed
• it’s been argued that people who don’t want a warlord in the game are haters of the class. As I mentioned, this isn’t true. Some, sure. But most aren’t. Because there are many other reasons that aren’t driven by dislike at all. Like design scope. Or class bloat. Or it just doesn’t feel right. I’d bet most of the people who are against warlords are against several classes, not just the warlord. I.e, it’s not hate against the warlord, it’s preference for only the few core classes. I’m sure there are aspects of previous editions that you’d not want to see in 5e. Doesn’t mean you dislike or hate them, you just don’t think they fit to your preferences.
• this is just a forum where people express opinions. No one to my knowledge has any special connection or power over the WoTC design team. Therefore, no one is preventing, or trying to prevent you from playing what you want. They aren’t protesting in front of WoTC headquarters. They aren’t petitioning WoTC to remove or eliminate the class. They aren’t forcing DMs Guild to remove 3PP versions. So no one is actively trying to do anything. They are just voicing opinion. There is no gate keeping going on. No one is going to your table and preventing you from playing what you want just like you aren’t going to my game table and forcing me to play a warlord.
• some people want their classes to have a literally precedence, but literary precedence is not required to justify a class. AFAIC, if enough demand is there, that’s justification. It’s a fantasy game, not a history emulation.

So when people start to classify those who don’t want a warlord as haters who just can’t see reason or logic, or accuse them of actively trying to prevent you from gaming how you want, I take issue with that. It isn’t true, and drives the conversation to unrepairable places. No one likes being accused of being a hater or unable to see reason, or to be accused of harming other players when they aren’t. “It doesn’t feel right, or like it fits, or it’s not in scope” =/= “I hate or dislike that thing”

We need to acknowledge there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone wouldn’t want a warlord in the game, and recognize that there are plenty of people and legitimate reasons to have a warlord in the game.

Good points, all. I'll have to consider them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Good points, all. I'll have to consider them.

I can’t ask you to change your mind. I can only ask you to try to hear me out. So thank you for that.