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

[Eubani]

Can you point me to any homebrew Warlords that you think are done particularly well then? I'm mostly curious to see how a warlord would play in 5E, and how the subclasses would differ from each other. I never played 4E.

Robert Scwalb did quite a good one and he is a note designer.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Prakriti]

So Gatekeeping, in the name of Tradition.

I don't think it amounts to that. But do me a favor. Imagine a hypothetical class that you don't think belongs in the game. It could be the Evil Stepmother, the Space Marine, or something else -- it doesn't matter what it is, as long as you would exclude it from most of your games and wouldn't even want to see it as a player.

Now imagine having to tell your players that they can't play that class.

Imagine your players asking why, and having to explain. Imagine having to do this every now and then because it'll come up more often than you think.

Imagine looking for a game to join on Roll20, and seeing that a lot of games include that class.

Imagine the class turning up in a lot of official adventures and having to write them out.

That's how I, and many others, feel about the warlord. It doesn't belong in the game. Its inclusion negatively impacts us. It's just one more thing on the "not-fun" scale of D&D, which, if it tips too far, makes us not want to play anymore. So while you're unhappy that the warlord isn't included in the game, remember that a lot of us would be just as unhappy if it were. There's no way to please everybody here. And no one is persecuting anyone else. By arguing for the warlord's inclusion, you are arguing against our happiness just as much as we are arguing against yours.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No. I don't mean that. I mean that since 2015, these threads are a bad joke that ends up with nothing but troll bait and eventual moderation, because they aren't about the Warlord (as in, actual solutions about a Warlord class). They are about validation for the edition war

5e wasn't sufficient validation? Exclusion of the Warlord from the PH wasn't sufficient validation? Any hint of compromise would un-do all that validation?

I don't think it amounts to that. But do me a favor. Imagine a hypothetical class that you don't think belongs in the game.

I don't have to imagine one: Rogue, (5e) Sorcerer (3.x sorcerer OTOH, I was totally down with), Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, and Psion.

Now imagine having to tell your players that they can't play that class.

Also don't need to imagine it. I don't think I've ever run a simple "anything goes" campaign. There's usually things I ban, change, or encourage. (Mind you, never Rogue, my objections to it are more a matter of game design philosophy, and the 'fix' is too involved.)

Imagine your players asking why, and having to explain. Imagine having to do this every now and then because it'll come up more frequently than you think.

"Psionics are a classic sci-fi bit, they're fine in a lot of D&D campaigns, but I like to play closer to classic fantasy, at least in this setting. If you really want a character with mental powers, I have a complete School of "Mysticism" you can specialize in as a wizard." - Me, c1991.

Imagine looking for a game to join on Roll20, and seeing that a lot of games include that class.

I can't imagine I'd ever want to play an RPG on-line. But, I don't have to imagine sitting in on a convention game or a session of encounters that happens to include a class I disapprove of. It's going to happen. If I want a 'pure' session that's just so in theme & content, I'll run it.

Imagine the class turning up in a lot of official adventures and you having to write them out.

I tend not to use official adventures, but, sure, easy to imagine, easy to do.

That's how I, and many others, feel about the warlord. It doesn't belong in the game. Its inclusion negatively impacts us. It's just one more thing on the "not-fun" scale of D&D, which, if the scale tips too far, makes us not want to play anymore. So while you're unhappy that the warlord isn't included in the game, remember that a lot of us would be just as unhappy if it were. There's no way to please everybody here.

There is a way to please everyone: be pleased for other people getting what they want, while you happily play with the things you want. It's not even hard.

Now, once you've managed to do that in D&D, expand it to real life, and make the world a better place....
...mind you, IRL, it might get you beaten up now and then.

 

[Prakriti]

There is a way to please everyone: be pleased for other people getting what they want, while you happily play with the things you want. It's not even hard.

But in this case, people getting what they want negatively impacts me, as I have already explained. I don't like having to tell my players "no," and the warlord would just be one more thing that I would have to tell my players "no" about.

So why not take your own advice and be happy for those of us who got what we wanted (no warlord in 5E) and stop petitioning WotC for a change that many of us would find distasteful? You realize your advice cuts both ways, right?

 

[generic]

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

You're not allowed to criticize moderation in-thread.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[generic]

But in this case, people getting what they want negatively impacts me, as I have already explained. I don't like having to tell my players "no," and the warlord would just be one more thing that I would have to tell my players "no" about.

So why not take your own advice and be happy for those of us who got what we wanted (no warlord in 5E) and stop petitioning WotC for a change that many of us would find distasteful? You realize your advice cuts both ways, right?

"No one bloody well cares about one man's difficulty when it would lead to the enjoyment of many" - Some renowned Brit or somesuch.

Even if many of you find the Warlord distasteful, that is not an excuse for a selfish attitude of denying others what they want just because you can't be bothered to deal with your players or with published APs.

What's harder, writing out a Warlord, or making one from scratch?

The selfishness and narcissism at the core of this argument is absolutely, bloody insane in its self-centeredness.

 

[generic]

But in this case, people getting what they want negatively impacts me, as I have already explained. I don't like having to tell my players "no," and the warlord would just be one more thing that I would have to tell my players "no" about.

So why not take your own advice and be happy for those of us who got what we wanted (no warlord in 5E) and stop petitioning WotC for a change that many of us would find distasteful? You realize your advice cuts both ways, right?

The main problem with stating that this advice, given by Tony, is that it is simply not a fair comparison. If it's a lot of work for you to write Warlords off for your players, or hard to write them out of APs, harder, in fact, than Warlord fans creating their own Warlord, then there might be a problem.

It is in no way equal, and your argument is Narcissian.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But in this case, people getting what they want negatively impacts me, as I have already explained. I don't like having to tell my players "no," and the warlord would just be one more thing that I would have to tell my players "no" about.

I mean, you get the idea that people who aren't at your table are, in fact, also people, right?

So why not take your own advice and be happy for those of us who got what they wanted (no warlord in 5E)

That's not getting what you want, that's you demanding others be deprived of something they want.

and stop petitioning WotC for a change that many of us would find distasteful? You realize your advice cuts both ways, right?

We already demonstrated, above, how it does. There are classes I don't care for, both in the 5e PH, and queued up to be added to it. I do not begrudge their inclusion, even if I don't see fit to play them, myself, or if I do see fit to ban them in a specific campaign.

But, y'know, there is a danger that, having committed to tolerate something, you might find it's not that bad, afterall...

So, if you think 5e is validation for everyone "on the other side" while you still are searching for it …

I don't need validation, just options that open up the game enough to include the things I'd like to do in it. I find it much more reasonable to exclude options I don't want, than to create them from whole cloth, even as a DM. As a player, of course, an official option is far more likely to get even a glance from a harried DM, so if I want to play something, there's barely a point bringing it up without some level of officialdom.

That said, validation of pre-5e playstyles is not a bad thing for 5e to try to manage, even if some of them seem a bit exclusive of eachother. That's what options are for.