D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warden?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is another case where I feel like the sort of character the Warden class represents can already be represented by mechanics in the game as-is, so I don't personally want there to be a class for it.

But I'm not so opposed to making up new classes that aren't actually something new and unique being added to the game that I'll try and shout down anyone that wants to not only have a character that fits the idea of a warden, but also has "official permission" to fill in the class section of the character sheet with the word "Warden."

 

[Uchawi]

If you are talking about feel for a 4E warden class, then depending on how loosely you define it, the 5E paladin could cover it. But if you are talking about unique things about the 4E warden, or mechanical ability, then the 5E version is a distant cousin. The same could be stated for the warlord, or my favorite class from 4E which is the shaman.

The entire feel/design theory of 5E in relation to any class presented in D&D provides a wide margin of interpretation by the developers. And in reference to 4E classes, it goes to the point of losing the majority of features that define any given 4E class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The entire feel/design theory of 5E in relation to any class presented in D&D provides a wide margin of interpretation by the developers. And in reference to 4E classes, it goes to the point of losing the majority of features that define any given 4E class.

You're exactly right. And I think that's why we are unlikely to actually see 4E classes such as this being reintroduced to 5E any time soon. The warden, the shaman, the warlord, the invoker... they were all introduced into the game for two reasons... one of course was because there *was* a niche flavor concept that the class brought about, but two-- there was also space in "the grid" as it were that these classes were designed to fill.

With 4E's demarcating the specific "roles" in the game and the design of classes meant to fill those roles... these other classes were made partially just because these roles needed filling. There was space available in the power sources to make classes that took those slots. And to be perfectly honest, I think the desire to fill those slots in the grid was not because the game *needed* a warden, or a shaman, or an invoker or whatever... but because the game *needed* enough stuff to justify the individual Power splatbooks they were producing. They weren't about to produce Divine Power for just the cleric and the paladin-- the book would be too short-- so they invented two new divine classes that just happened to fill the grid, but which gave the book the heft needed to be a valid item to be published. And by the same token... I don't think the warlord was created because there was an obvious gap in the game that it had suffered through for 30 years... but rather it was because they had a Leader gap in the Martial power source and created and designed a concept to fill it (to help justify the Martial Power book that was being released like 4 months after the Player's Handbook release.)

Now it just so happens that their creation was really, really cool for a lot of people (I happened to love the warlord myself in my 4E games)... but I'm also under no illusion that it's creation was partially due to filling a slot. But that also means that because 5E did away with these "grids" per se... there's no need or desire on WotC's part to create classes just because there's space to create classes. And if the identity of these 4E classes can be reimagined through the lens of sub-classes for the older classes, that's what I imagine they will look towards doing first.

 

[zingbobco000]

I thought you were refering to Lemon Curry/Tacos then and was like

The offensive Lemon Curry/Taco barbarian subclass! You gain more abilities by being "offensive" and eating!

 

[mellored]

The offensive Lemon Curry/Taco barbarian subclass! You gain more abilities by being "offensive" and eating!

Do they get to cast stinking cloud?

 

[zingbobco000]

Do they get to cast stinking cloud?

Yes, however it's centered on them.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I miss the transfigural aspect of the warden (which only shows up as the capstone for the paladins). I have often said that I think the warden should of ate the paladin in 5e (instead of vice versa)--you could have celestial forms (ranging from a slight glow and aura of menace at low levels to looking like an angel/archon/guardinel/eldarin at high levels) for the devotion paladin, fiend forms for the oath breaker, undead forms for the vengeance paladin, and trees/critter forms for the oath of the ancients.

They don't even get the investiture spells.....

Druid has kind of taken that transfigural nature, but I think they missed the opportunity to give the land druid a "guardian form" at 10th level. There are a lot of CR 5 monsters that could be representative of terrains: giant sharks, hill giants, ropers, etc.

A more werewolf/bear/etc. barbarian type would work too.


Finally, breakfast tacos are the best kind of tacos.

 

[Jessica]

Yes. I believe they should include a 5e Warden. Then again I believe they should include as many classes/subclasses as humanly possible for the sake of providing players with more options to realize their character concept through mechanics. Reflavoring shouldn't be a replacement for classes.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Yes. I believe they should include a 5e Warden. Then again I believe they should include as many classes/subclasses as humanly possible for the sake of providing players with more options to realize their character concept through mechanics. Reflavoring shouldn't be a replacement for classes.

I respectfully disagree! See, for me, I have no problem realizing my player concept through re-flavoring or providing a background. I've never really need mechanics, nor have I had DMs that required it. I wanted to play a sharp shooter type warrior in 2e, something like an English Yeoman ready to slice down the flower of the French Nobility. This wasn't something that was available (maybe the Complete Fighter's Handbook had something - I never checked). So I just created a fighter with a long bow and put my highest score into dex. During game play, my DM would either allow something, make me roll a dex check, or tell me it wasn't happening. All back of the napkin type gaming. It was a lot of fun, and very free flowing. 5e makes it even easier to do that by providing more options for napkin calculations.

But, at the same time, I totally understand my style of play is not the same as others! YMMV!

 

[Jessica]

I respectfully disagree! See, for me, I have no problem realizing my player concept through re-flavoring or providing a background. I've never really need mechanics, nor have I had DMs that required it. I wanted to play a sharp shooter type warrior in 2e, something like an English Yeoman ready to slice down the flower of the French Nobility. This wasn't something that was available (maybe the Complete Fighter's Handbook had something - I never checked). So I just created a fighter with a long bow and put my highest score into dex. During game play, my DM would either allow something, make me roll a dex check, or tell me it wasn't happening. All back of the napkin type gaming. It was a lot of fun, and very free flowing. 5e makes it even easier to do that by providing more options for napkin calculations.

But, at the same time, I totally understand my style of play is not the same as others! YMMV!

Back in 4e, I wanted to play an elven vampire type character(this was before Heroes of Shadow). I ended up making an Elf Predator Druid, fluffing my shapeshift form as my wolf form, changing the theme of the powers so they were more in line with a vampire, and taking the Dhampyr feats. It worked reasonably well for the time I think, but as soon as an actual Vampire class came out then I stopped worrying about reflavoring a vampire and actually using the Vampire class to play a vampire(well MCing into Vampire).

I mean some character concepts might not need their own class(like your aforementioned Yeoman for instance), but some character concepts are a strong enough divergence away from existing character classes in order to kinda need their own class/subclass. I think Wardens are one of those classes because the two primary iconic things of that class(being insanely durable and transforming into anthropomorphic animal/plant forms when things get tough) are hard to get into the same class right now. Oath of Ancients Paladin, which I took to be the spiritual successor to Wardens in 5e), completely fails at being a Warden because it doesn't shape shift and it tends to be DEX-based when it wants to be in light armor and STR-based when it wants to be in heavy armor and the Warden is a STR-based character in light armor(like a Barbarian for instance). The Druid would seem the closest but even then you can't take on an anthropomorphic form(only a normal animal form).

Also there are those of us(like myself), who have had incredibly bad experiences with DMs who crap all over you for doing reflavoring. I was doing AL and playing an Elf Necromancer who I had reflavored as being undead and I wasn't using it in anyway to gain a mechanical advantage(I guess except for not getting terminal diseases from eating dead people) until one day when I was almost level 5(i.e. the point of no return for redoing your character) he suddenly said "you're character isn't undead she just thinks she is undead" and in my mind I was like "ek-f***ing-scuse me!". I don't take kindly to other people rewriting my character concept for me. Especially when every other person I had ever played with at AL liked my character even if their characters may not have. Having an actual undead/revenant feat/race/whatever would have basically been a way to tell those people to go and get f***ed when they try to tell me who my character is and isn't.