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

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, you posted that link hundred of comments ago, and most people weren't fond of it.

This isn't about satisfying everyone. Nothing does. But every time these threads come up, you get the same old tired arguments.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE WARLORD.

That's why you the arguments get so harsh, and mean, and you see the exact same people take the exact same sides. You don't see that when people discuss the psion, or the artificer, or the spell-less Ranger, do you?

Nope. Didn't think so.

Nah. The argument is about the warlord.

 

[Prakriti]

We argue - or on good days discuss - all the time. The question isn't why argue, it's why argue for the exclusion of others?

It's a fair question, but for me, it has a fairly obvious answer: because I want D&D to stay D&D, and not become some other game. The more stuff that's added to the game that's not-D&D, the harder it is for me to find and play the sort of D&D games that I want to play.

And yes, these things do matter. They directly affect me and my table. I don't like having to exclude official material or tell my players no. But WotC adding silly things to the game like Dragonborn (dear lord, why...) and warlords means that I have to do just that. I don't like having to do it. Stopping it from happening more is 100% in my best interests as a DM and a player. And that's why I oppose the introduction of the warlord into 5E.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a fair question, but for me, it has a fairly obvious answer: because I want D&D to stay D&D, and not become some other game.

So Gatekeeping, in the name of Tradition.

I don't agree that it's desirable to keep the game from evolving or broadening it's appeal. And I don't agree that excluding folks with different preferences is a good way to do that.
And, I say that as someone who's played D&D since 1980, and would hate to see it abandon it's roots entirely and 'become another game' in which we could no longer play the way we used to back in the day. Mind you, it's never done that - not when it got all player-centric in 3e, not when it got all setting-crazy in 2e, and not even when it dared to approach class balance in 4e.

But, that said: mission accomplished. Keeping the Warlord out of the PH has accomplished what you want. It'll only be an add-on option, at this point, not part of the game's core identity.

The more stuff that's added to the game that's not-D&D, the harder it is for me to find and play the sort of D&D games that I want to play.

In the 3.x era, there was nothing easier to find than a "Core only" game.

And yes, these things do matter. They directly affect me and my table. I don't like having to exclude official material or tell my players no.

If you're not telling your players "no" D&D is already no longer what it was. ;P 5e is your game as the DM, just like the classic TSR editions. You don't need WotC to play stormtrooper to your Palpatine.

And, really, you're bothered by telling half-a-dozen people "no" but not by telling up to 40 million people "no?" It's true what they say about large numbers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This time is different!

Tell you what, Lucy. I’ll check in later and see how different this is. Something tells me that the warlord, Um football will just be yanked away again leaving me on my back looking at people arguing.

You misunderstand. I’m rejecting your premise that if the argument doesn’t change, it means the argument isn’t about the warlord. It is.

It doesn’t change because the situation hasn’t changed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm pretty sure Jeremy, Mike, and others on the design team give two craps about the literary portfolio of references for each class. Can we stop that line of conversation please? It literally has no value one way or the other other than to get everyone upset.

It seems like fertile ground for discussion, to me. D&D even at it's best, aspires to emulate only a rather narrow, largely hypothetical or self-referent slice of the broader fantasy genre, let alone the action genre that TTRPGing seems to lend itself too, let alone more rarified literary genres.

 

[Garthanos]

Warlords occupy a similar space to bards. However, bards support the party by making each PC better at that PC's job - through straight up numerical bonuses from bardic inspiration and through spells. A warlord approaches things from a different direction. A warlord doesn't make you better at your job, it grants you more opportunities to do your job. It's a design space that is touched on with a number of other classes - Battlemaster, Mastermind, a few others - but, is not specialized in by any one class. And, it's a pretty wide open space. Do you inspire? Do you think more tactically? Do you lead from the front? Whatever. There's more than enough room for multiple sub-classes.

Do you take risks with huge payback and influence the other heroes to do similarly but in efficient ways. I am liking Bravura these days actually.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure. This is about the warlord in the same way that Moby Dick is just a nice book about a whale.

The unexamined life isn’t worth living.

Right, so it’s about the warlord just like a tree is natural.* The fact that everything is complex doesn’t change that the argument is about the warlord.

*im sure you’ve seen people pedantically point out that everything is technically natural? IMO you’re doing the same thing, here.

 

[Eubani]

Wow I go to sleep and I come back to troll feeding and a moderator with bad aim.