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

[Prakriti]

If I came across someone who was incensed at the idea a chess manual might include some fairy chess varients along with the standard rules, and was petrified that their fellow players may want to play one of those varients instead of the standard game, I would think them eccentric at best.

Creating a warlord as a "variant" that is separate from "the standard game" would be homebrew or 3PP, and I'm all for that.

 

[Garthanos]

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

I give it an OK only what another Charisma only Warlord? It didnt feel very innovative but I should probably do more than just read it. I do think Mearles understands the target better actually even if he seems to miss how the fighter chassis is too restrictive. To be honest I want to see something better than the 4e Warlord and I am pretty certain it can be done with the 5e tools some 3pp I have seen have very interesting components. I think that Noble having the built in Heart / Lazylord subclass is an example of a 3pp actually moving forward.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Is the class balanced? Official? Then I don’t care if it’s there or not. I’ll let you play a Space Marine if it fits the expected power level of the game.

And what exactly do you hate so much about the Warlord??

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now, for at least one person on these forums, it is partly about the edition wars. That is unavoidably obvious.

Every argument against the warlord drips with edition war talking points.

The truth is I've actively defended every edition of D&D I've played, when it's been subjected to unfounded criticism... it's just that no other edition has been subjected to such an unending torrent of such utterly unfounded criticism.

But even Tony also just wants to play a good 5e warlord. He also wants magic to be less prevalent, and doesn't view 5e as balanced at all, but hey, we all have things we're wrong about. Doesn't make us any less right when we're right.

5e's 6-8 encounter balance is poor, fragile, and seems not to be calibrated to how the game is typically played. I have some conspiracy theories about that, but I don't often find them worth getting into. ;P And, yes, 5e is too all-in on the magic side. Folks have played 'low magic' in a variety of senses since the beginning, it's a set of play styles and campaign themes that 5e does not handle at all well, and should.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

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?

This is such gross absurdity it's hard to imagine you are making these arguments with a straight face.

Oathbreaker and Conquest Paladins and gnolls that lack free will don't belong in the game, IMO, but I'm not trying to convince anyone else that they shouldn't get what they want. I just don't allow them at my table, and suck it up like an adult when another player uses them.

Your hangup with the warlord isn't other people's problem, and the game should never cater to people who can't stand the idea of things they don't like being part of the game they can just not use.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Every argument against the warlord drips with edition war talking points.
5e's 6-8 encounter balance is poor, fragile, and seems not to be calibrated to how the game is typically played. I have some conspiracy theories about that, but I don't often find them worth getting into. ;P And, yes, 5e is too all-in on the magic side. Folks have played 'low magic' in a variety of senses since the beginning, it's a set of play styles and campaign themes that 5e does not handle at all well, and should.

Tony. I don't care. Fair dues, I mentioned you by name, but it was a passing joke about not writing people off just because some of their stances are absurd to you. I'm not gonna argue this stuff here.

Have we ever had a thread that was just about what balance means and how that applies to 5e, though? If you make one, I'll happily argue without you about this, there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Is the class balanced? Official? Then I don’t care if it’s there or not. I’ll let you play a Space Marine if it fits the expected power level of the game.

And what exactly do you hate so much about the Warlord??

This.

And the warlord isn't even an archetype from an entirely different genre, like the Space Marine is. It's just such a wild comparison, as every single comparison used in this way always is. It's like someone arguing that the ranger doesn't belong in dnd.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's like someone arguing that the ranger doesn't belong in dnd.

Oh, the Ranger totally doesn't belong in D&D. Completely superfluous.

 

[Prakriti]

I'm not trying to convince anyone else that they shouldn't get what they want.

But that's exactly what you're doing. I want a D&D that conforms (as near as possible) to my vision of what D&D should be. That vision does not include the warlord class. You, meanwhile, are arguing that I shouldn't get what I want because it conflicts with your own vision of what D&D should be. Your vision includes the warlord class. Our visions are in conflict. Only one of us can get what we want. We are both arguing against the other's interests and supporting our own. Do you not see this?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But that's exactly what you're doing. I want a D&D that conforms (as near as possible) to my vision of what D&D should be. That vision does not include the warlord class.

So, when you run D&D, you do not opt-into that class (which, in 5e, as it stands now, can only be added as an optional supplement).

You, meanwhile, are arguing that I shouldn't get what I want

You. Have. What. You. Want.
It won't go away because more options are added.