D&D 5E Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter

[I'm A Banana]

But that's not really the choice that has to be made. Not choosing a few spells because they are tough to refluff as martial powers doesn't mean you are now less effective than the other players.

Well..maybe. I know I wanted to play my Minotaur Bard up this alley (spell selection of buffs and charms) and found it difficult. There's a lot of fluff back-flips and suspensions of disbelief required to do most of 'em, and some really excellent spells in the category are pretty overtly magical. That's not an intractable problem, necessarily, but it's not as easy as all that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's partly a matter of degree. No rational (or even semi-rational) character concept should be substantially less useful than others, but the keyword is "substantially." Not every build can, or should be expected to, be optimal.

It's finding the continuum between "less than optimal" and "relatively useless" that's important--and, of course, where we're going to find the bulk of differences in preferences from player to player.

 

[Cybit]

If the choice is
a) I play the character I want and, as a result, I am not as effective in the game as the other players, or
b) I am as effective as the rest of my party, and, as a result, I cannot play the character I want to play

This is not a choice that a player should have to make. It is choosing which kind of crappy experience you want, the crappy experience of not being awesome, or the crappy experience of not being the character you want. That is a non-choice. I'm just gonna choose not to play that character/that game.

Assuming the character isn't out of context, it should be entirely possible to do both.

So advice that boils down to, "if you want to be in character, ignore your character's abilities" is not greatly useful. It's like saying "Would you like to be punched in the eye, or in the throat?" There's gotta be an option not to get punched at all, or else why that person doing this?

...How did I get quoted in this? I think you meant to quote DefCon1

I think part of the issue is comparison to other players rather than to the world. If player A does 10 damage, and player B does 8 damage, but the monster has 6 HP - that's not "gimping" your character. The end result is still a dead monster.

 

[Sailor Moon]

It's partly a matter of degree. No rational (or even semi-rational) character concept should be substantially less useful than others, but the keyword is "substantially." Not every build can, or should be expected to, be optimal.

It's finding the continuum between "less than optimal" and "relatively useless" that's important--and, of course, where we're going to find the bulk of differences in preferences from player to player.

I for one am glad that I can sit down and just create a character that I want without needing to worry about it's effectiveness. I don't really worry about optimal party synergy, if I have a concept in my head then I go with that.

I don't think there is a "useless" build if the player is having fun.

 

[DEFCON 1]

would it be ok if a more then 0% of the players wanted this, for those players to go online and say "Gee I hope WotC comes out with a non sneak attack rogue"

Sure you can say it. You can also hope against hope WotC does it. No skin off my (or anyone else's) nose. Just try and refrain from the ridiculous and hyperbolic "WotC is a terrible company!" and "WotC is incapable of giving customers what they want!" ranting when you (the general you) don't get it. Some options WotC doesn't think are necessary, and some they think are capable of being adapted/created by the DMs and players themselves as needed at their individual tables. It happens. And we should all be prepared to accept it.

 

[Pickles JG]

I for one am glad that I can sit down and just create a character that I want without needing to worry about it's effectiveness. I don't really worry about optimal party synergy, if I have a concept in my head then I go with that.

I don't think there is a "useless" build if the player is having fun.

Provided your fun isn't being so inept that you are a liability to the rest of the party you might be right.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Provided your fun isn't being so inept that you are a liability to the rest of the party you might be right.

This "liability" argument is more a myth than anything else. Unless the person is actually being disruptive to the game then this rarely exists.

 

[Pickles JG]

I never wanted to play a warlord before 4e so while I miss them I am not exactly distressed.
There are many great things to play in 5e or any edition & I just tend to go with ones I like the sound of - like fighters & warlords in 4e after the tedium of 1,2,3e fighters.

I need a certain amount of mechanical depth to a character to really enjoy it along with a good story/character. It's just a con on myself really too - my Pathfinder Inquisitor has complicated way of being about as effective as a fighter some of the time & for me that's more fun than just hitting things (though I will not be sad if I never play Pathfinder again). I also got to bite people occasionally.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure you can say it. You can also hope against hope WotC does it. No skin off my (or anyone else's) nose. Just try and refrain from the ridiculous and hyperbolic "WotC is a terrible company!" and "WotC is incapable of giving customers what they want!" ranting when you (the general you) don't get it. Some options WotC doesn't think are necessary, and some they think are capable of being adapted/created by the DMs and players themselves as needed at their individual tables. It happens. And we should all be prepared to accept it.

First I like WotC... infact I get labled a "Fan boy" and a "Defender" a lot here and at there form (although I have not posted on there's in months)

Second, I want a few things we haven't gotten yet... a swashbuckling light weapon warrior with both flash and substance, a leader style combat class that can fill in for a 4e warlord, and a complex combat class that can be dialed up to as effective and complex as a wizard.

 

[DEFCON 1]

First I like WotC... infact I get labled a "Fan boy" and a "Defender" a lot here and at there form (although I have not posted on there's in months)

Second, I want a few things we haven't gotten yet... a swashbuckling light weapon warrior with both flash and substance, a leader style combat class that can fill in for a 4e warlord, and a complex combat class that can be dialed up to as effective and complex as a wizard.

If we get them, then more power to us! And if we don't, and we accept it with relative grace... then that's an even bigger thumbs up!