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

[cbwjm]

I actually agree that if WotC did put out a well constructed warlord class that there would be little pushback. There might a minority group complaining about it but that's the thing, they'd be the minority group. Even the "It's my character and I don't want you telling me what to do!" group I would assume to be quite small because from what I've seen, when the player of the battlemaster says "Hey, hit that guy!" players tend to go "Yeah, free attack!"

I don't think we will see a WotC warlord any time soon (if ever) and I do still prefer having the warlord kit spread around multiple classes, but I don't think the pushback would be as vocal as some believe.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Hey, I like conquest paladins. I'm playing one right now.

No worries. Let me just point this out- when you (and others) dismiss people by saying that their ideas about the design of D&D amounts to "gatekeeping" and using "exclusionary gatekeeping language," you aren't exactly helping out.

You pretty much just said, "People like me are all awesome and stuff; it's too bad that people disagree with me. That's the real problem."

This is a game about unicorns and elves and dragons. It's supposed to be fun. But people can, and do, take it seriously. As such, people will have different ideas about what is best for the game; for example, I can talk at length about why Moldvay/Cook B/X is better than RC ... and one of the major points is the simplicity and elegance of the design. Or, for that matter, people can (and do) discuss whether the increasing number of splat books in 3e and/or the number of core rulebooks in 4e (aka, OPTIONS) was a good thing for the player base.

What I'm saying is that you are just a guilty of being an exclusionary gatekeeper as the people you dismiss. TBH, I don't think that there is much understanding that needs to go on; some people want something, other people don't, and people have reasons. But it's certainly not cool to demonize your fellow D&D players simply because they disagree about design. It's just a game.

YMMV.

Bollocks. Utter and complete bollocks.

Those, like @Prakriti who are claiming that warlords should never be allowed in the game are not the same as folks saying, Hey, let's let whatever into the game but, I won't use it at my table.

It's not about "people disagreeing with me". It's about being told that not only do you (not you specifically, just the general you) disagree with me, but, your disagreement trumps anything that I could possibly want. They aren't disagreeing with design. They are disagreeing with the entire existence of the concept in the game. Trying to pretend that the two are equivalent is pretty far out there.

"I don't like warlords because it slows the game down" is disagreeing with design. "You should never, EVER add warlords to the game because it might make me enjoy the game less" is not disagreeing with design.

And after TEN FREAKING YEARS of having to have this EXACT same conversation, over and over, with people with ZERO experience, ZERO interest and are only there to make sure that I DON'T GET what I want, my patience is exactly zero. Apologize for trolling all you like, but, that's precisely what's going one here - pure, unadulterated, trolling.

 

[Don Durito]

Storm Herald?
Not sure I get that one.

Yeah of the desert variety

"Desert. When this effect is activated, all other creatures in your aura take 2 fire damage each. The damage increases when you reach certain levels in this class, increasing to 3 at 5th level, 4 at 10th level, 5 at 15th level, and 6 at 20th level. "

It's very 4E. So much so that's without minion rules it strikes me as more annoying bookkeeping than anything else.

 

[Prakriti]

Those, like @Prakriti who are claiming that warlords should never be allowed in the game ... They aren't disagreeing with design. They are disagreeing with the entire existence of the concept in the game.

That's not right. I've said that I'm fine with homebrew and 3PP warlords. I have no objection to other people including them in their games. I'm even okay with the Banneret, which is 5E's version of the warlord. What I don't want is an official warlord class. That's all.

 

[Prakriti]

What? a nerd rage-quit quietly?

Why assume that it's "nerd-rage?" If the game starts moving in a direction that someone doesn't like, then sometimes they move on quietly. Sometimes it's not even a conscious decision. They just put off finding a new gaming group or scheduling the next game session until, before they know it, it's been years since they last played the game. This is a pretty common occurrence with a certain subset of gamers that I'll call "purists." Once the bloat starts to set in, they gradually stop playing until a new edition comes along and cleans the slate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why assume that it's "nerd-rage?"

Because quitting a game because an option appears in UA is quite the overreaction.


...I mean, I think there's a lot of hypothetical calamity being thrown around as if it were actual calamity.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ironically, I suspect the biggest pushback to an official warlord class would be from the warlord fans. I’ve designed games myself, and if WoTC asked me, or if I worked for WoTC, I wouldn’t touch the class with a ten foot pole. Just look at the reactions so far. I don’t need that angst lol.

As an aside, I do find it a bit comical that the same people who constantly rail how 5e ignored 4e fans and that playstyle, are also arguing that 5e has so much 4e isms in it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ironically, I suspect the biggest pushback to an official warlord class would be from the warlord fans.

Depends on how far short it falls of both the concept, and of balancing with the Cleric/Druid/Bard as a viable support options.

I mean, expectations only increase the longer it takes to get to something.

"Too little! Too late!" was heard a lot when 4e took almost a year to add something back. It's been 5.

 

[Prakriti]

Because quitting a game because an option appears in UA is quite the overreaction.

The Storm Herald wasn't just a UA option. It made it into Xanathar's Guide, an official product. As did a lot of other subclasses that not everyone liked. And if you don't think that the inclusion of distasteful elements can cause someone to quietly quit the game, then I really don't know what to say...