D&D 5E (2014) For the Record: Mearls on Warlords (ca. 2013)

[MechaPilot]

One is martial the other simple. If you think it's "bad", what would you do differently to it to make it "good"?

Well, as a simple answer, I'd make the two of them have more differences than just their weight and their cost. To be more specific, I'd have to test out a few different options.

I've considered giving a trident user advantage on attempts to disarm someone, to reflect the more accurate use of the weapon.

I've considered giving it advantage on damage rolls or changing the damage to something like 1d4+2 (1d6+2 when used two handed), to reflect the greater brutality of the three tines whose backsides are flared like arrowheads instead of having the leaf-shape more commonly seen on spears.

 

[El Mahdi]

And that's the core concept for you proposed "class", right there. Coincidentally, also why there are so many fervent objections. That's a horrible basis for a class.

Why?

How is this worse than any other class premise?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well, as a simple answer, I'd make the two of them have more differences than just their weight and their cost. To be more specific, I'd have to test out a few different options.

I've considered giving a trident user advantage on attempts to disarm someone, to reflect the more accurate use of the weapon.

I've considered giving it advantage on damage rolls or changing the damage to something like 1d4+2 (1d6+2 when used two handed), to reflect the greater brutality of the three tines whose backsides are flared like arrowheads instead of having the leaf-shape more commonly seen on spears.

In every instance, you've just made the weapon either the best option, and/or exceed the level of detail/complexity inherent in 5e's weapon rules.

In other words, all of those are bad options. Care to try again? Seriously. I'm not being flippant. Do you think the devs didn't see that they were so similar? Do you think they didn't sit around trying to think of a better way to distinguish them? I can virtually guarantee they bandied about dozens of ideas. Wracking their brains for months. But all of them failed because they did the same thing you are doing. And so it was determined that weight, cost and category had to be enough.

Honestly, I bet in hindsight they wished they just left the darn trident off the list entirely. They have a lot less amateur armchair designers and keyboard critics barking up that dead tree.

 

[Bawylie]

Working something up now. Will post later.

 

[El Mahdi]

ChrisCarlson laughed at this post

admcewen laughed at this post

I don't understand what you're trying to communicate as concerns my question/post.

Would you be so kind as to explain it please?

[MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson[/MENTION] [MENTION=60509]admcewen[/MENTION]

 

[MechaPilot]

In every instance, you've just made the weapon either the best option, and/or exceed the level of detail/complexity inherent in 5e's weapon rules.

5e already has weapons with the "special" property who have additional info about their use beyond what's on the weapon table, so I have exceeded nothing about 5e's weapon rules.

As far as making them the best option, I have to disagree.

In other words, all of those are bad options. Care to try again? Seriously. I'm not being flippant.

Bearing in mind that weapons with their own special properties do exist in 5e (as pointed out above) and that the average damage for the trident alternate damage proposal works out to be equivalent to that of the longsword, if you can please explain how they are bad options then I will consider other options.

Do you think the devs didn't see that they were so similar? Do you think they didn't sit around trying to think of a better way to distinguish them? I can virtually guarantee they bandied about dozens of ideas. Wracking their brains for months. But all of them failed because they did the same thing you are doing. And so it was determined that weight, cost and category had to be enough.

Honestly, I bet in hindsight they wished they just left the darn trident off the list entirely. They have a lot less amateur armchair designers and keyboard critics barking up that dead tree.

I think the devs had a lot on their plate, that they are only human, and that they missed some things. The trident definitely appears to be one of those things. With the trident being identical to the spear except for price and weight, there is literally no mechanical reason to take the trident. Even characters who can use martial weapons are better off taking the spear instead of the trident because it costs and weighs less while doing everything the trident does.

If they weren't going to make them different in an impactful way, then they should have just made one entry for "spear/trident."

 

[ChrisCarlson]

With the trident being identical to the spear except for price and weight, there is literally no mechanical reason to take the trident.

Your first point is just not true. One is simple and the other martial. Your second leads me only to see even more clearly the correlation between this and the warlord drama. Those with their minds still entrenched in 4e want crunch for everything. "The trident needs mechanical hoozits. The warlord needs crunchy whatzits. Without these things how ever will we be able to play D&D?"

I, for one, am thankful 5e stepped away from such a mentality.

 

[MechaPilot]

Your first point is just not true. One is simple and the other martial. Your second leads me only to see even more clearly the correlation between this and the warlord drama. Those with their minds still entrenched in 4e want crunch for everything. "The trident needs mechanical hoozits. The warlord needs crunchy whatzits. Without these things how ever will we be able to play D&D?"

I, for one, am thankful 5e stepped away from such a mentality.

You are misrepresenting my statements, and making an incorrect assumption about my thought process. It does your argument a disservice, and it discourages people from having a civil conversation with you.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't understand what you're trying to communicate as concerns my question/post.

Would you be so kind as to explain it please?

I'm having trouble trying to put words together to explain why I thought your post was so over-the-top obnoxious, without being insulting. I honestly can't imagine how what you wrote could ever develop into a character class. That wasn't the description of a class. It was a background. It was roleplaying. It is something the grizzled veteran soldier battlemaster could say. But the second you pulled it out, made it special, to give it to a class, no one can ever know tactics. Because now tactics are the purview of warlords. No other character need bother trying. It's silly. It's roleplay killing. It's everything 5e has strived to steer away from.

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out by numerous people, the first go-to every time someone tries to describe the warlord, is "military commander". It's almost cliche at this point. That's not a class. It's a background in the PHB. This is the same flawed mentality when I see people wanting to homebrew a knight class. (Hey, buddy, knight is already a background in 5e.)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You are misrepresenting my statements, and making an incorrect assumption about my thought process.

If you say so. I cannot know your thought processes. I'm just going on what you've been posting for days now.

It does your argument a disservice, and it discourages people from having a civil conversation with you.

Nice.