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

[Corwin]

If someone enjoys playing 5e, and 5e puts out a warlord class (that the player can completely ignore) and that player refused to play that game again, then I think that's silly and immature.

I agree completely that many people would see it as pretty silly and immature to walk away over it. But you missed a step that I think can be important. Or, at least, a step you included seems wrong to me. The "that the player can completely ignore," part. That's not exactly true, is it? There are other players at the table. Maybe one of them wants to play a warlord. Or, worst case, they could *all* choose to play one. Now poor Jimmy is sitting there playing with three to five other characters that offend his sensibilities (regardless of how immature or silly you think those sensibilities may be, they are still his and still real). I don't expect people to play in groups that they do not mesh with. Sure, Jimmy can go find another group. For some people that's harder than others. I'd recommend against dismissing such an endeavor as trivial. Certainly not for everyone.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not interested in hypothetical scenarios that will never happen (everyone playing a warlord at the table). As for the other scenario (someone else wanting to play one)? Well, it's been that way since day 1. Most everyone has their favorite classes, and classes or races they don't like. If everyone walked away from the game because someone at the table played a class or race that they didn't like (that the DM was OK with naturally), then no one would be playing the game. Do all the people who don't like gnomes quit D&D because a player at their table played one? Or a paladin? Or a wild mage? If they did, I'd still rack that up there with "silly and immature".

Because the reality is, not every single sensibility of every single player should be catered to. I've heard people make statements in the past that unless every other player is optimized, they are hurting them as a result. That's a sensibility, so should that be catered to? Screw that. So to use a legal definition, I use the "reasonable person" standard combined with "try not to be a jerk." But that doesn't mean I need to cater to every person's whims all the time, especially if they are in fact silly and immature whims.

 

[Corwin]

Not interested in hypothetical scenarios that will never happen (everyone playing a warlord at the table). As for the other scenario (someone else wanting to play one)? Well, it's been that way since day 1. Most everyone has their favorite classes, and classes or races they don't like. If everyone walked away from the game because someone at the table played a class or race that they didn't like (that the DM was OK with naturally), then no one would be playing the game. Do all the people who don't like gnomes quit D&D because a player at their table played one? Or a paladin? Or a wild mage? If they did, I'd still rack that up there with "silly and immature".

Because the reality is, not every single sensibility of every single player should be catered to. I've heard people make statements in the past that unless every other player is optimized, they are hurting them as a result. That's a sensibility, so should that be catered to? Screw that. So to use a legal definition, I use the "reasonable person" standard combined with "try not to be a jerk." But that doesn't mean I need to cater to every person's whims all the time, especially if they are in fact silly and immature whims.

Cool. Not at all the point I was addressing. But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Garthanos]

"People who want a new class to represent a favorite class are unwilling to compromise to balance with the rest of the classes "

I honestly thought sloppier balance was the premise of 5e.

 

[Imaro]

I honestly thought sloppier balance was the premise of 5e.

Really? I thought balance had been regulated to lesser importance than the previous edition (I'm assuming in order to prioritize other things as more important)... but no I don't remember a design goal or principle of 5e being to... "make balance sloppy" much less the game having that as one of its premises...

 

[Garthanos]

Really? I thought balance had been regulated to lesser importance than the previous edition

Tomatoe --- tomahto, You call it having less importance I call it sloppy

Either way balance cannot be held up as the reason for a 5e not having a Warlord.

 

[Garthanos]

Apparently I am using a non-standard definition of slop, I was thinking about when one is measuring things means having more leeway around the edges.

 

[Imaro]

Tomatoe --- tomahto, You call it having less importance I call it sloppy

Either way balance cannot be held up as the reason for a 5e not having a Warlord.

I disagree, that's like claiming because food is salted... adding more salt can't ruin it. Just because balance was given a lesser priority doesn't mean it's absent or wasn't a consideration whatsoever for 5e...

 

[Garthanos]

Just because balance was given a lesser priority doesn't mean it's absent or wasn't a consideration whatsoever for 5e...

Balanced being a lower priority THAN 4e and 4e being the primary source of the Warlord functionality (even if the concept is older) basically means you are caliing the games designers kind of well incompetent, if you think they cannot make a Warlord because of this less important thing which was handled fine in 4e.

If anyone was going to reject the Warlord for balance reasons it would have been in 4e.

 

[Imaro]

Balanced being a lower priority THAN 4e and 4e being the primary source of the Warlord functionality (even if the concept is older) basically means you are caliing the games designers kind of well incompetent, if you think they cannot make a Warlord because of this less important thing which was handled fine in 4e.

If anyone was going to reject the Warlord for balance reasons it would have been in 4e.

Again your logic seems a little off...

In this game where balance was a priority (4e)... A different set of designers working under the assumptions of a different game system created a class (the warlord)balanced around the confined structure of AEDU class design (because well there were balance issues with the warlord and essentials classes)... Erego if the totally different designers who are using a different system can't recreate the same class balanced within the new and different system... then they must be incompetent... huh? Yeah something seems off with that logic... but whatever man, I'm not really interested in going any further with the discussion.