D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[Bawylie]

And you also seemed to be missing a great part of his point, too. So, you're kind of even.



Yes, and a lot of people don't like anchovies. They are still offered as a pizza topping. It is up to the people placing a particular order to hash out if a particular pizza has them.

You are asking that the rules enshrine for *everyone* what probably ought to be a discussion for an individual table.

Lol. My adult's group includes one vegan and one lactose intolerant. Our pizza orders are ridiculous. One time, the local place was so confused by our order they sent us a crust with sauce and no other toppings at all!

But yeah, it's a table decision. Like setting. Which is why I don't quite get the argument that it isn't easy to ban a base class. Sure it is! Plenty of settings ban classes, no? At the very least, I have regions where certain classes aren't present.

 

[Lord Twig]

You know it sounds reasonable, "Why not just let people have Warlords if they want them?" But adding things to the game changes the game for everyone, not just those that play with the new addition.

If you add psionics to the game, now you have a world with psionics in the world. So you lose players that don't want to play in that type of game. You can mitigate that some by making psionics "optional", but you will still lose people. There are other games out there, maybe games that might appeal to that player more.

It's the same as adding firearms to the game. It makes a world where firearms exist. Not only do I not want to play a Gunslinger, I don't want my character getting shot by guns in a fantasy adventure game. That's just not the type of game I want to play.

Like it or hate it, D&D 4e split the community. Not saying that adding a Warlord will have the same effect, but the farther you go towards 4e, the greater the chance of a schism. There are already numerous rules and abilities that have been ported from 4e to 5e. WotC has to weigh the benefits of adding a controversial class like the Warlord against the possible backlash of players that don't like it.

The problem with, "If you don't like it, don't play it!" is that people will follow that advice.

 

[Aldarc]

You know it sounds reasonable, "Why not just let people have Warlords if they want them?" But adding things to the game changes the game for everyone, not just those that play with the new addition.

If you add psionics to the game, now you have a world with psionics in the world. So you lose players that don't want to play in that type of game. You can mitigate that some by making psionics "optional", but you will still lose people. There are other games out there, maybe games that might appeal to that player more.

It's the same as adding firearms to the game. It makes a world where firearms exist. Not only do I not want to play a Gunslinger, I don't want my character getting shot by guns in a fantasy adventure game. That's just not the type of game I want to play.

Like it or hate it, D&D 4e split the community. Not saying that adding a Warlord will have the same effect, but the farther you go towards 4e, the greater the chance of a schism. There are already numerous rules and abilities that have been ported from 4e to 5e. WotC has to weigh the benefits of adding a controversial class like the Warlord against the possible backlash of players that don't like it.

The problem with, "If you don't like it, don't play it!" is that people will follow that advice.

Creating classes or races for a rules system does not inherently place those things in a setting. That's just a ridiculous argument rooted in fear-mongering that is totally disconnected from facts and D&D history. For example, having rules for psionics does not mean that every D&D or homebrew setting from thenceforth has psionics. Such an argument would be absurd to make. What is included is dictated by the setting and its creators and game masters.

 

[Lord Twig]

Creating classes or races for a rules system does not inherently place those things in a setting. That's just a ridiculous argument rooted in fear-mongering that is totally disconnected from facts and D&D history. For example, having rules for psionics does not mean that every D&D or homebrew setting from thenceforth has psionics. Such an argument would be absurd to make. What is included is dictated by the setting and its creators and game masters.

But the pro-Warlord groups want Warlords in the default setting. They want Warlords in Forgotten Realms and they want them in the Adventurer's League. And Wizards of the Coast is free to do that. The question is will adding an official Warlord increase or reduce the total number of 5e players?

If adding the Warlord will add more players than it will drive away, then they should add it. If it will drive away more than it will add then they shouldn't. My guess is that adding a Warlord will not significantly increase the number of 5e players, but it would drive some away. It really is that simple.

 

[Aldarc]

But the pro-Warlord groups want Warlords in the default setting. They want Warlords in Forgotten Realms and they want them in the Adventurer's League. And Wizards of the Coast is free to do that. The question is will adding an official Warlord increase or reduce the total number of 5e players?

If adding the Warlord will add more players than it will drive away, then they should add it. If it will drive away more than it will add then they shouldn't. My guess is that adding a Warlord will not significantly increase the number of 5e players, but it would drive some away. It really is that simple.

I suspect that most players will be happy to have more player options and give little cares about a forum debate in which people make a mountain of anti-warlord opposition out of a molehill. For the record, I hate the inclusion of the monk as a class in the core rules. Know what I do about it? Deal with it - for the benefit of people who want the monk - and move on with my life about something more important, because as a GM I have the power to say 'no' and don't think it's my place to tell people in AL or other D&D games that they are playing "bad-wrong-fun."

 

[Bawylie]

But the pro-Warlord groups want Warlords in the default setting. They want Warlords in Forgotten Realms and they want them in the Adventurer's League. And Wizards of the Coast is free to do that. The question is will adding an official Warlord increase or reduce the total number of 5e players?

If adding the Warlord will add more players than it will drive away, then they should add it. If it will drive away more than it will add then they shouldn't. My guess is that adding a Warlord will not significantly increase the number of 5e players, but it would drive some away. It really is that simple.

They said the same thing about non-magic healing. And the vocal detractors of things like second wind and the champion's regeneration were limited to forum-only. Same with people who said if HP are anything other than meat, people will leave the game.

When you check the hundreds of Amazon reviews (those of 3 stars or less), these complaints are NOWHERE to be found. The overwhelming majority of the complaints regard the book binding.

So no, nobody is going to leave the game, let alone in droves, simply because an option they don't like exists in the game somewhere.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You know it sounds reasonable, "Why not just let people have Warlords if they want them?" But adding things to the game changes the game for everyone, not just those that play with the new addition.

That's just not true. If you don't use something, it has no effect on you.

Now, it may be that things snowball going forward. That a new class introduces new mechanics that are so useful they get re-cycled for new sub-classes of existing classes or for monster write-ups or whatever. But you can hold the line against that. Either by cutting more and more of new material as it comes out (which might, eventually, become a little onerous, but is still much easier than creating new material yourself), or by freezing the game at a point in time, if new material becomes too pervasively

If you add psionics to the game, now you have a world with psionics in the world. So you lose players that don't want to play in that type of game. You can mitigate that some by making psionics "optional", but you will still lose people. There are other games out there, maybe games that might appeal to that player more.

By that theory a game can only broaden it's appeal by having less. The ideal game would have nothing. That's nonsense. 5e provides many options, conveniently grouped in the free basic version of the game, the 'Standard' version, and whatever combination of opt-into and out-of optional rules & modules a particular DM wants (one example of that being whatever is AL legal atm). Those options make the game more inclusive, not less.

Until you have psionics, players who want that are being excluded. Once you add it, they're included, and people who don't want psionics simply don't use them, and remain included.

Like it or hate it, D&D 4e split the community. Not saying that adding a Warlord will have the same effect, but the farther you go towards 4e, the greater the chance of a schism.

Bringing the community back together was part of the mandate of 5e. That means 5e needs to include fans of 4e as well. Positive inclusion means accepting that the game will include things others like, and that you don't, but don't have to use and can safely ignore. It's not much of a burden to take up. For the most folks, it's a lighter burden than carrying around a lot of resentment towards others.

But the pro-Warlord groups want Warlords in the default setting. They want Warlords in Forgotten Realms and they want them in the Adventurer's League. And Wizards of the Coast is free to do that.

Personally, I could care less if Warlords are in Forgotten Realms, since I don't particularly care for playing in that setting to begin with. But, sure, the concept is as valid even in magocentric FR as in any fantasy setting and there'd be little reason for the setting to ban them - though nothing would force a player to use one nor keep a DM from banning the class at his table. AL, as with all new material, can probably be expected to allow the Warlord for a season or so when it's first introduced, and that's it.

The question is will adding an official Warlord increase or reduce the total number of 5e players?

It can only increase the number of 5e players. By how much depends on how well-done the class is. The more successful it is in expanding the range of character concepts available and playstyles supported, the more players it'll attract.

If adding the Warlord will add more players than it will drive away, then they should add it. If it will drive away more than it will add then they shouldn't.

That kind of cynical calculation is antithetical to the inclusive spirit of 5e.

No one should be driven away by the inclusion of an option. If it weren't optional, if you were, indeed, forced to play a class you didn't like or if it were inextricably woven into every setting, sure, it might 'drive away' some people. But that's not the case of /any/ class and wouldn't be the case with the Warlord.

 

[Umbran]

The problem with, "If you don't like it, don't play it!" is that people will follow that advice.

Exactly. So, what is the problem?

Really - D&D has a tradition, from its very inception, of DMs choosing what to have, and what not to have, in their games. Picking and choosing is a regular thing. There is no slippery slope.

 

[Lord Twig]

So we should have AEDU powers? Healing Surges? Martial Power Source? Damage on a miss? Forced movement power? Marking abilities? After all, adding things can only bring more people in.

It is not true that leaving something out will always increase the player base. Just as it is not true that adding something will always increase it. Adding bad options or options that are unpopular with your players is not going to increase your player base.

I have tried, but I feel many of you still don't understand the objection people like myself have to Warlords. It introduces a style of play to D&D that I don't want in my D&D games. Some people don't want psionics, I don't want non-magic magic. And that's what it is. It's magic, without calling it magic.

Someone in another thread mentioned having the Warlord replace the role of a Cleric. So tell me, if given the choice between having a Warlord tell you to just ignore your wound and having a Cleric make your wounds disappear, which would you choose? Be honest. Because even if the Warlord can remove the "Hit Point" part of injuries, he still can't remove the injury. You need healing magic, or just time for you to heal naturally, for that.

So after a Warlord removes all of your Hit Point damage with his inspiring talk, is there anything left to heal? Do you need any kind of medical attention? Does it still hurt? Cause after a Cleric hits you with a Heal spell, your healed. No pain, nothing. I get the impression that after a Warlord "healed" you, you would still be battered and bruised at the very least. And if you are, a Cleric could heal it. Because why couldn't he?

It is these types of nonsensical problems that I don't want in my game. I don't need to rationalize magic. It is it's own rationalization. The Warlord requires a whole lot of "Well maybe the wound wasn't that bad." or "Maybe he pointed out an opening you missed." or "Maybe his words are just so inspiring you just perform better... for some reason... even though your characters hate each other and only grudgingly work together."

Magic makes sense. Psionic power makes sense. Ki makes sense. Non-magic magic does not make sense.

 

[Lord Twig]

Exactly. So, what is the problem?

Really - D&D has a tradition, from its very inception, of DMs choosing what to have, and what not to have, in their games. Picking and choosing is a regular thing. There is no slippery slope.

It's only a problem if people decide not to play D&D at all.

And I have said before that adding it as an option might be a good compromise. Don't make it a default option. Essentially make it an opt-in option instead of an opt-out option. If I say, "no optional or UA classes" that should include the Warlord.