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

[Tony Vargas]

Not really. You pick the class and subclass first, and then pick whichever background (probably build one, because most complex characters benefit from not using one of the example backgrounds in the phb) covers what those options don't cover.

Which is why we see people wanting to make Robin a Ranger, to get those woodsy skills.

And the idea that BM is the only one that could possibly be an exceptional archer is pretty silly, tbh.

Really? Because Precision Attack adding a decent-sized die to an arrow shot seems hard to match.

The main missing component here is mechanical representation of the ability to lead in combat. Mastermind Rogue doesn't feel right but could work in a pinch, and the BM just doesn't get enough dice, and if I'm limiting my skills by going fighter im gonna take Archery, not the new manuever granting fighting style.

Agreed.

 

[Prakriti]

this is the worst case of reductio ad absurdum I have ever seen.

But we're both making the same argument. "I want to play X, a common literary trope, therefore X should be a D&D class." If my argument is absurd, then so is yours.

My objection had literally nothing to do with it being evil.

My objection is that it isn't even kinda-vaguely-a-little-bit similar to the sort of archetype that the captain represents.

I'll use a different example, instead of trying to play your game.

We're saying we want a class for playing The Scoundrel, and aren't picky about the name (although we absolutely will argue about what the best one is because that's what nerds do), and you're comparing that to wanting a class for The Hero.

The comparison is completely absurd. It's apples to trucks.

I wasn't suggesting that the evil stepmother would take the place of the warlord or in any way satisfy players desiring to play the latter archetype. I was merely pointing out that the evil stepmother is a common literary trope (more common than the warlord even) and that it doesn't exist in the game as a class. So why should the warlord be a class and not the evil stepmother? As far as I can tell, there is no argument for or against one's inclusion that can't be used for or against the other.

 

[Prakriti]

Because they aren't comparable. There is no "the hero" class because "the hero" can be literally anything. There is no mechanical direction of any kind suggested by the archetype. Likewise the evil stepmother and the ingenue. They don't have any common elements that suggest literally any theme in terms of character ability.

meanwhile, "warlord" (as garbage a name as that is), suggests character abilities and common themes that don't include "literally all PCs".

This is literally untrue! I gave examples of the evil stepmother's abilities above. To repeat, I want an evil stepmother that can grant disadvantage to stepdaughters and dominate husbands. I want an evil stepmother that can detect the presence of fairy godmothers. In short, the evil stepmother archetype absolutely supports abilities that can be translated into in-game mechanics, just as much, if not more, than the warlord does. So why does one deserve to be a class and not the other?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Aaaaannnndddd just when the discourse seemed like we were headed in a decent path last night, here we are...

The decent path would be those who aren't interested in a warlord class signaling their disinterest with silence (more effective than one might think, since it doesn't keep pushing threads on the topic to the top of the page).

Tolerance, instead of Gatekeeping.

I don't think that's their point. The point as I'm reading it is that any archetype (good, evil, whatever), we have people saying "Well, if you want to play that, just use the stat block or whatever. But my favorite archetype needs a full class."

There is a lot of that, sure. People set against eachother by the scarcity of new classes imposed by 5e's slow pace of release. It undermines the idea of abundance that helps people with different priorities cooperate instead of sabotage eachother. 5e design makes the realm of class inclusion seem like a zero-sum game, that we must kill all hope of one class to get another into the queue. It's a definite downside to the strategy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is literally untrue! I gave examples of the evil stepmother's abilities above. To repeat myself, I want an evil stepmother that can grant disadvantage to stepdaughters and dominate husbands. I want an evil stepmother that can detect the presence of fairy godmothers. In short, the evil stepmother archetype absolutely supports abilities that can be translated into in-game mechanics, just as much, if not more, than the warlord does. So why does one deserve to be a class and not the other?

Demand. As a game designer myself, I wouldn't spend time drafting up a class (which is not an easy task) that only a couple people would play. Are the enough to warrant a warlord? I don't know, I haven't seen the survey results. But that's what the difference is.

 

[Hussar]

But we're both making the same argument. "I want to play X, a common literary trope, therefore X should be a D&D class." If my argument is absurd, then so is yours.

/snip

Nope. Not even a little. YOU are the only one hung up on "common literary trope". When it's pointed out that NONE of the classes in D&D actually fit with literary tropes, you then move beyond actual classes to made up classes like "ingenue" or "evil step-mother" which have never existed in D&D in order to "prove" your point. Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more obvious that you are no longer arguing in good faith. You started out by pointing out that classes have literary counterparts. That was shown to be false. So, placing the goalposts on roller-skates, you move the goal line to something no one, other than yourself, is actually arguing.

From your argument, NONE of the classes in D&D succeed in providing "common literary trope" play. Never have.

So, why should the warlord, which is not based on "playing a common literary trope" but rather adding elements to the game which don't exist - the ability to add mechanical heft to planning and strategy - have to clear a bar that no other class in the game clears? What "literary trope" does an alchemist clear? A cleric? A barbarian?

And, again, for those of you with NO experience with 4e or with a warlord in play, WHY ARE YOU IN THIS THREAD? What do you think you can possibly contribute to the discussion when you have no idea what you're actually talking about?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The trope evil stepmother in D&D would be the antagonist noble woman. Cersei Lannister isn't a stepmother but her character is too close to the concept.

 

[Prakriti]

Demand. As a game designer myself, I wouldn't spend time drafting up a class (which is not an easy task) that only a couple people would play. Are the enough to warrant a warlord? I don't know, I haven't seen the survey results. But that's what the difference is.

True, it is an important difference. But the other point I was trying to make (which people still haven't seemed to grasp) is that D&D's class system isn't the right system for representing warlords and evil stepmothers. They are better represented by things like backstory, alignment, and roleplay.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but asking why the warlord or evil stepmother isn't a class is, to me, like asking why "plate mail" isn't a class. It's like saying, "Why isn't there a Fighter alignment? I want to play a Fighter!" Well, you can play a Fighter, it's just that Fighter isn't an alignment. And you can play a Warlord, it's just that Warlord isn't a class.

You might say, "But Warlord was a class at one time!" Yeah, well, so was Elf. It doesn't make it right.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wasn't suggesting that the evil stepmother would take the place of the warlord or in any way satisfy players desiring to play the latter archetype.

Who said you were? What does this have to do with my post that you quoted?

This is literally untrue! I gave examples of the evil stepmother's abilities above. To repeat, I want an evil stepmother that can grant disadvantage to stepdaughters and dominate husbands. I want an evil stepmother that can detect the presence of fairy godmothers. In short, the evil stepmother archetype absolutely supports abilities that can be translated into in-game mechanics, just as much, if not more, than the warlord does. So why does one deserve to be a class and not the other?

Now I know you're arguing in bad faith.

you're describing an entirely new game, or perhaps a very very very specific setting.

The Warlord works entirely within the scope of a normal dnd game.

And you might suggest such abilities, but the story archetype you're proposing doesn't. Literally only "dominate husbands" is a thing common to more than, say, 2, evil stepmothers in fiction. None of them ever "detect fair godmothers". I can't think of a single time any actually grant disadvantage to anyone, much less their stepdaughters. They're just the villain of the story. That is literally all they have in common.

Here's the thing. When you make an example that is absurd on it's face, you aren't actually making the reductio ad absurdum argument, you're just falling into the fallacy of the same name.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True, it is an important difference. But the other point I was trying to make (which people still haven't seemed to grasp) is that D&D's class system isn't the right system for representing warlords and evil stepmothers. They are better represented by things like backstory, alignment, and roleplay.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but asking why the warlord or evil stepmother isn't a class is, to me, like asking why "plate mail" isn't a class. It's like saying, "Why isn't there a Fighter alignment? I want to play a Fighter!" Well, you can play a Fighter, it's just that Fighter isn't an alignment. And you can play a Warlord, it's just that Warlord isn't a class.

You might say, "But Warlord was a class at one time!" Yeah, well, so was Elf. It doesn't make it right.

Everyone understands that this is your point. Literally everyone. From the first time you made the asinine comparison.

Your point is just completely nonsensical, and you've tried to support it with nonsensical arguments.

Because the warlord, in spite of it's garbage name, is an archetype that actually translates into usable character abilities that are relevant to a normal game of dnd.

Every comparison you make is either ignored or dismissed because none of them are actually comparable.