D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Sacrosanct]

Something absolutely can be "just like" and "in reverse" and you know it.

My obvious point was that once you have a Cleric (Class) and a Theurge (Cleric-like Subclass of another class) in the game, you have the same situation as having a Warlord (Class) and a PDK (Warlord-like Subclass) in the game.

I don't think you know what "Just like" means. It means exactly the same. And if something is different, especially in significant ways (especially if it changes the context), then it very much is not "just like" something else. Got a problem with it, take it up with Merriam Webster.

And I know what you were trying to argue, which is why I said a very critical difference: The theurge cannot replace the cleric class, and isn't meant to replace the cleric class. The cleric class can do a ton of things the theurge subclass cannot. However, if they come out with a complete warlord class (with subclasses of its own because that's how 5e is designed), then it completely makes the PDK moot because that warlord class would replace the PDK, accomplishing all the features of the PDK as part of the new warlord class.

That's a huge difference between the two. So again, no, it's not the same.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Generally AL is a place where people know how to play nice with others. Therefore, most are likely to allow you to playtest UA or play a 3p.

As long as it's not disruptive. (Part of the play nice with others bit..)

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think you know what "Just like" means. It means exactly the same. And if something is different, especially in significant ways (especially if it changes the context), then it very much is not "just like" something else. Got a problem with it, take it up with Merriam Webster.

And I know what you were trying to argue, which is why I said a very critical difference: The theurge cannot replace the cleric class, and isn't meant to replace the cleric class. The cleric class can do a ton of things the theurge subclass cannot. However, if they come out with a complete warlord class (with subclasses of its own because that's how 5e is designed), then it completely makes the PDK moot because that warlord class would replace the PDK, accomplishing all the features of the PDK as part of the new warlord class.

That's a huge difference between the two. So again, no, it's not the same.

Sorry, really not following your logic. The Theurge (again, bad example because it technically doesn't exist) can do SOME of the stuff that a Cleric can do, while being a Wizard.

Let's use a better example. The Eldritch Knight can do SOME of the things that a Wizard can do, while being a Fighter. There being a Wizard class does not make the EK "moot".

Following that rather simple logic, a Warlord class would not make the PDK "moot". One would still be able to play a Fighter with some Warlord-like abilities if it fit their character.

Likewise all the other subclasses that work like a sort-of multiclassing without the multiclassing.

This is what I meant by it being alike. There was no need for a pedantic dictionary lecture.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

The regret would come from the fact that I suspected an outright dismissal of the concept by certain posters here, buts its been mostly civil. (So far.).

It's not like you suggested re-skinning a Valor Bard.

Which gets into a discussion I'm unwilling to have with you

So, you're dismissing that aspect outright, then?

what do these "higher level effects" look like. I could certainly see another tier or two of effects beyond the BM list,

Nod just because other classes went back to the 9 level spell system doesn't meant the Warlord should go 'back' to it, since it neither cast spell, nor existed under the 9-level structure, so there's some freedom there. I agree that a few tiers - the 5e ones are, IIRC, 1-4; 5-10, 11-16, 17-20. That's only 4 gradiations. Seem's like it'd be adequate design space.

but what those effects do to warrant being "high level"

Well we have plenty of examples from 4e, including some that are clearly 'held back' to keep w/in the 'Leader' box, and we have what the current support classes can /accomplish/ at those higher levels as a vague guide, as well. So, really, probably quite a lot. Afterall, you get to high level, you get to do some cool stuff. No reason to begrudge /any/ class that. (Though, really, very high level play isn't a huge design consideration. If the Warlord were egregiously under-powered or broken in that last Tier, it'd matter to vanishingly few tables.

Suffice to say, I would prefer the Warlord not cure diseases, raise the dead, divine a lich's true name, give the rogue 3-4 Sneak Attacks per round, or ANYTHING resembling "martial mind control" (aka Come and Get It).

I've already given sound rationales for how the Warlord could accomplish some of those without actually crossing the line. I know you invoke 'dissociated mechanics' in outright dismissal of any such concepts, though. Suffice to say I've rarely heard a remotely coherent definition of the term, it always seemed to be nothing more than a circular rationalization of basic dislike. Dislike is actually fine. There's plenty of things to dislike in a game with as many options and as wide a scope of play as a typical RPG, and, the more things are kept optional, the easier it is to gravitate to the things you like, instead. I don't care for psionics, but I have no objection to the Mystic, I just won't play one. Sacrosanct 'wants' his ninja, because he was a ninja fanboy in the 80s. I was so sick of ninjas back then I played a character specifically designed to exterminate them, I loath the orientalism of the Monk, the OA classes, and so forth. But I neither insisted there never be a ninja nor fabricated reasons there shouldn't be. Heck, I suggested it'd be a good PRC candidates. I have no objection to them being in the game, especially at this point, when it can't be anything but opt-in optional.

That's right "don't like it? Don't use it!" Or, as we call it outside the D&D community: tolerance.

Guilty; I lifted auras from the marshal since the marshal was the proto-warlord and 5e has a nice habit of trying to combine things from most iterations of a class (except when they contradict each other or would unbalance the class). I figure a mixture of "passive" powers mixed with Superiority dice to enact "flashy" effects would be a good compromise. You feel warlordy even when you opt to just make an attack action and don't have to spend CS dice every round to do it. (Compare to cantrips, if you want).

Sounds solid to me.

I still wager Warlord is so far down on their to-do list that it can invest is asbestos underwear.

Yeah, bask in the schadenfreude.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think you know what "Just like" means. It means exactly the same. And if something is different, especially in significant ways (especially if it changes the context), then it very much is not "just like" something else. Got a problem with it, take it up with Merriam Webster.

And I know what you were trying to argue, which is why I said a very critical difference: The theurge cannot replace the cleric class, and isn't meant to replace the cleric class. The cleric class can do a ton of things the theurge subclass cannot. However, if they come out with a complete warlord class (with subclasses of its own because that's how 5e is designed), then it completely makes the PDK moot because that warlord class would replace the PDK, accomplishing all the features of the PDK as part of the new warlord class.

That's a huge difference between the two. So again, no, it's not the same.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. It's not as if the Wizard makes the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster moot. The critical difference lies in the class chassis itself versus the more limited or chassis-specific features that are included as part of a subclass. The Eldritch Knight, for example, has wizards abilities (i.e. arcane spells), but uses them in a way that assumes the core design of the Fighter chassis. The EK uses wizard things as a fighter would.

In our hypothetical case of the PDK and the Warlord, the PDK would still likely have a place due to their higher DPR via Extra Attacks, Action Surge, Second Wind, more feats, etc. This is not mentioning things that the PDK has that a (hypothetical) Warlord may not: e.g. Royal Envoy. But just as the EK is a "wizard" subclass on a Fighter chassis, the PDK can be a "warlord" subclass on a Fighter chassis. I don't think that providing the Fighter with warlord-like options should be taken to mean that a Warlord would replace the PDK anymore than a Wizard replaces the EK.

Edit: Oops just saw the reply by FitztheRuke, who uses the same example.

 

[Hussar]

And that's a problem at the 1,700 stores where AL is played and the maybe 20,000 people who play there. Of which (assuming equal interest in *all* classes) there might be 1,300 warlord fans.

Sorry, but "because AL" is not a valid reason to do or not do something in the books.

Really? The ability to play a class you want to play isn't a reason to have an official warlord? Seems like a pretty darn good reason to me. Granted, I don't do AL play, so, I have no idea how strict or lenient tables are about keeping to the official rules. I would presume that most would be following the guidelines pretty closely. It's one thing to grant DM's a fair bit of leeway in making rulings, it's another to walk into an FLGS with a 3pp class and expect to be allowed to play.

I'm thinking that that's a pretty uphill battle.

 

[Jester David]

Really? The ability to play a class you want to play isn't a reason to have an official warlord? Seems like a pretty darn good reason to me.

But you can't make new classes for everyone. I'd love to play a summoner again. And a jester. But you need to draw the line somewhere. You can't just produce content because one person on the internet said they *might* want to play with that option. Or even ten people or a hundred.

Needing something to be an option for the fractional number of players who are involved with AL is just too small a percentage. Likely less than 1% of gamers. It's not the average. It's not "the bar" that needs to be crossed. It'd be ridiculous to make decisions for the game in terms of storyline or content based solely on what 1% of the fanbase might find useful over the other 99%.
The hard truth is that AL shouldn't be a factor to publication. The AL admins need to react to what WotC is doing and not the other way round.

Granted, I don't do AL play, so, I have no idea how strict or lenient tables are about keeping to the official rules. I would presume that most would be following the guidelines pretty closely. It's one thing to grant DM's a fair bit of leeway in making rulings, it's another to walk into an FLGS with a 3pp class and expect to be allowed to play.

I'm thinking that that's a pretty uphill battle.

Yeah, you're highly unlikely to be allowed to use even "official" but not hardbound content like Unearther Arcana in AL, let alone 3rd Party content.

The potential 1,000 AL players are being shafted in terms of a warlord. But the other 99,000 warlord players can make do with 3rd Party products. (Again, assuming the highly unlikely situation where the warlord is as popular as every class in the PHB and the artificer/mystic.)

 

[Aldarc]

But you can't make new classes for everyone. I'd love to play a summoner again. And a jester. But you need to draw the line somewhere. You can't just produce content because one person on the internet said they *might* want to play with that option. Or even ten people or a hundred.

Then who can you make new classes for? Where is the line? And is that line being drawn fairly? And how close do you think the Warlord is to that line? (Either in general or in relation to the summoner and jester class you mentioned.)

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=21556]Jester[/MENTION] Canuck - take a look at the poll results. Just a hair over TWO PERCENT of respondents are satisfied with the 3pp efforts. Seriously? You're going to die on the hill of "be satisfied with 3pp products"?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sorry, really not following your logic. The Theurge (again, bad example because it technically doesn't exist) can do SOME of the stuff that a Cleric can do, while being a Wizard.

Let's use a better example. The Eldritch Knight can do SOME of the things that a Wizard can do, while being a Fighter. There being a Wizard class does not make the EK "moot".

Following that rather simple logic, a Warlord class would not make the PDK "moot". One would still be able to play a Fighter with some Warlord-like abilities if it fit their character.

Likewise all the other subclasses that work like a sort-of multiclassing without the multiclassing.

This is what I meant by it being alike. There was no need for a pedantic dictionary lecture.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

I'm not sure if I agree with that. It's not as if the Wizard makes the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster moot. The critical difference lies in the class chassis itself versus the more limited or chassis-specific features that are included as part of a subclass. The Eldritch Knight, for example, has wizards abilities (i.e. arcane spells), but uses them in a way that assumes the core design of the Fighter chassis. The EK uses wizard things as a fighter would.

In our hypothetical case of the PDK and the Warlord, the PDK would still likely have a place due to their higher DPR via Extra Attacks, Action Surge, Second Wind, more feats, etc. This is not mentioning things that the PDK has that a (hypothetical) Warlord may not: e.g. Royal Envoy. But just as the EK is a "wizard" subclass on a Fighter chassis, the PDK can be a "warlord" subclass on a Fighter chassis. I don't think that providing the Fighter with warlord-like options should be taken to mean that a Warlord would replace the PDK anymore than a Wizard replaces the EK.

Edit: Oops just saw the reply by FitztheRuke, who uses the same example.

A wizard does not do everything an EK can do. I'm not even talking about the fighter core features, I'm talking about the subclass itself. Based on the feedback what people want of a Warlord, the features of the PDK are fundamental to the warlord class (plus a bunch of other stuff). Therefore, if there were to be a warlord class (and subsequent subclasses), it would not only completely replicate what the PDK subclass can do in every way, but probably do it better.

See the difference? There is no class in the game right now that does exactly what another subclass does.

*Edit* Also, if a warlord class came out without a fighter-type subclass, people would lose their marshmallows more than they already have. Especially if you told them, "We didn't need a frontline combat warlord, because a fighter PDK does that already." I know this for a fact, because that's what the PDK was supposed to do anyway and just look at how warlord fans reacted to it.