D&D 5E Class Inclusion Criteria (general discussion)

[Aldarc]

No, not really. Go back and look at all of those threads. What you'll find is people saying a whole list of things they want/need in a warlord class, and it's usually powers/abilities that would make it an OP class. Look at the feedback from the PDK. Almost universally the response is "it doesn't have enough powers" and "the powers it does have can't be used enough". To make the PDK do what people wanted it to do would make it a completely imbalanced OP subclass. While there are some people who have given (by suggesting things like lowering HP and reducing armor proficiencies, etc), those are by far the more infrequent posts.

How about you go back and read those threads instead? No one argued that the warlord should have everything that the fighter should have. I dare you to find a homebrewed warlord (that isn't a fighter subclass) that gets everything a fighter does. Go ahead. I'll give you time.

When you're ready to stop mischaracterizing arguments pertaining to the warlord, then maybe you can demonstrate a genuine desire to establish actual criteria for class inclusion that does not seek to exclude the warlord at the outset.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

How about you go back and read those threads instead? No one argued that the warlord should have everything that the fighter should have. I dare you to find a homebrewed warlord (that isn't a fighter subclass) that gets everything a fighter does. Go ahead. I'll give you time.

I already brought up the PDK. No one talked about removing things from that subclass. They talked about how it needs to do a lot more, things that would have made it way too OP if those things were added.

*Edit* Oh, and my statement didn't limit it to classes only, excluding subclasses. That's an exclusionary criteria you introduced, so no, I don't need to find your example to prove what I said was accurate.

When you're ready to stop mischaracterizing arguments...

wait for it...

... maybe you can demonstrate a genuine desire to establish actual criteria for class inclusion that does not seek to exclude the warlord at the outset.

Yep, there's the irony. If you weren't trying to mischaracterize my argument, you'd see that my entire point of this thread was to have a set of criteria that includes the warlord (and other classes) by default. I think you're so intent in your hostility that you're letting your bias lead you to assumptions about my position that are quite literally the opposite of what I've said.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Agreed that Paladin is grokable.

Counterpoint- it is grokable because all good and right-thinking people intuitively understand that the Paladin is to be universally shunned. It is the class that Gygax first thought, "Hey, I need a word like ... antipathy, yeah, that's the ticket!"

In every group of people, there is always one person who says, "You know what, I kind of like Paladins." Do not trust that person. He is likely named something like, "Paul," will play a character with the exact same name that he has, and will single-handedly drain all joy and goodness from the universe. Just as ... you know, an example.

Paladins are the residue on your boot after you have been traveling in the sewers. Paladins are the person who gets into the 10 items or less lane at the Supermarket with 30 items and wants to pay with a check. Paladins are that song that gets overplayed each summer, until twenty years later, you find yourself humming "Hey now, you're an all star, get your game on, go play," until you pound your head on your desk until the sound goes away. Paladins are your co-worker that greets you every day by saying, "Hot enough for ya?" Paladins are Ultimate Beastmaster- the show you ended up binging on Netflix because you were too darn lazy to watch something good.

Paladins are the abyss staring back at you.

I thought that was gnomes. A gnome paladin? :O

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think those are good criteria, [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], but I do think you *at least* exaggerate the case of threads with no compromise for balance regarding the warlord.

1st, most threads don't get very far into workshopping abilities and features before they get aggressively threadcrapped.

2nd, in the threads that haven't been threadcrapped, we are discussing different ways to accomplish the goals of the class without overpowering anything, but that comes *after* figuring out what things the class needs to accomplish. Usually, IME, people start with the idea, then execute with little regard to balance, *then* iterate to achieve balance.

To use a non warlord example:

I rebuilt the Shadow Monk, because it is close to what I want, but not quite there.

Firstly, I consider Shadow walking (teleporting) a core pillar of he concept, so it can't come in at lvl 6.

First. I looked at simply giving them the feature without the "advantage on your next attack" part, but a bonus action 60ft teleport is still too much, along with everything else they get at lvl 3. So, I played around with an ability to use your movement to teleport your speed while in dim light or darkness, and at lvl 6 your speed increases by 10ft in darkness, and you can use a bonus action to teleport your speed, and if you do you gain advantage on either the next Stealth check or attack roll you make.

It's a little weird and clunky, so I also played with dim light or darkness simply increasing your speed, jumping, climbing, and acrobatics. But then the lvl 6 ability would obviate the use of the lvl 3 ability.

Then I combined them. Dim light and darkness increase your speed by 5ft. You can use a bonus action and 1 ki to teleport your speed, and gain advantage on your next stealth check. I subtracted one of the spells at level 3, and put it in at lvl 6.

At lvl 6, your speed bonus in dim light or darkness increases to 15ft, and gain advantage on your next stealth or attack roll after you teleport in dim light or darkness.

It works great at the table now, does what I want, and isn't overpowered.

My point being, the balance criteria has to come into play, but we shouldn't be dismissing class ideas because the concept sounds broken at first. We should let the people who are excited about it dig into the mechanics, and figure out how to balance it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I thought that was gnomes. A gnome paladin? :O

You're both terrible. Gnomes and Paladins are great.

You're thinking of Halflings.

Gnome is another great example of how I don't understand people on the internet. And yes, only online do I ever see gnome hate.

Get rid of the Halfling, not the gnome! Halflings are a vestige of Gygax trying to rip off Tolkien. They're boring. Especially the "we live in the pastoral countryside and smoke pipes and excel at applied boredom as a lifestyle" Halflings people inexplicably clamor for.

Gnomes have an actual, distinct, character. They aren't just hobbits with wallpaper over their hairy feet.

At least 4e river nomad Halflings had a culture that wasn't just "happy small humans". Those Halflings, I could stand.

But every time I see gnome hate, it ends up eventually claiming that gnomes are redundant because Halflings. As if the game only has room for 1 small race, which is itself an absurd notion, but even if it were true, Halflings are a crap race with no distinction! There is literally nothing special about them!

At least give them some kind of culture that isn't just "professionally boring hobbit stand-ins".

also, I want Dwarves to be small, but strong enough to use weapons like medium races. Maybe give them something like Powerful Build or whatever that Goliath and firbolg have.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

I already brought up the PDK.

Which isn't a homebrewed Warlord class... (please see the parentheses in what you quoted)

No one talked about removing things from that subclass. They talked about how it needs to do a lot more, things that would have made it way too OP if those things were added.

I suspect you are misunderstanding the crux of the arguments surrounding PDK, perhaps from conflating separate arguments. I would estimate that most of the discussion surrounding the PDK on its own merit as a fighter subclass has been on the PDK being lackluster, boring, or under-powered as a suboptimal choice for a fighter subclass.

There is a separate discussion regarding whether the PDK makes for a suitable Warlord substitute. And yes, there are people who have said that it does not do enough to be Warlord-like. But perhaps you are mistakenly taking this to mean that the Warlord should have the Fighter chassis plus a more powerful PDK? I think the intent in saying the PKD should have more to be a Warlord is that the PDK (and BM or Mastermind) subclass should be expanded on a separate chassis apart from the Fighter chassis. In fact, one of the most common arguments that the pro-warlord party have repeated on this forum is that the fighter chassis provides TOO MUCH for any warlord. Warlord fans don't want the Warlord to be a Fighter. They want the Warlord to be a Warlord. They want the offensive DPR output that the Fighter chassis inherently has to be toned down in favor of tactical utility and support. It's difficult to find a homebrewed Warlord that gets more than one extra attack. The Fighter gets four. Many Warlord homebrews give them d8 HD instead of a d10. I have not seen a Warlord homebrew that gives Warlords as many ASIs as the Fighter. Most give them 5-6, as per the standard or rogues.

Yep, there's the irony. If you weren't trying to mischaracterize my argument, you'd see that my entire point of this thread was to have a set of criteria that includes the warlord (and other classes) by default. I think you're so intent in your hostility that you're letting your bias lead you to assumptions about my position that are quite literally the opposite of what I've said.

I apologize if I have let your gross mischaracterization of the warlord discussion to cause me to mischaracterize the intent of your argument.

 

[77IM]

Ugh, can we please stop arguing about warlords, and get back to arguing about how we should be arguing about warlords?