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

[Tony Vargas]

Explain to me please, the logic of this statement.

How does an element that can easily be separated from the game and ignored, change the whole game?

He's already admitted it doesn't, and is fine as long as it's 'opt-in' instead of 'opt-out.'

So how does a purely optional component (as technically, any and every component of the game is optional) drive you away from the game when it doesn't affect you at all?

The only reason to boycott something because of how /other/ people use it is to try to exert some sort of indirect force on them to get them to stop using it that way. In many a RL political context such boycott strategies may make sense or at least be expedient in an 'end justifies the means' way. In the context of 5e, it's straight-up telling everyone else how to play the game, which is antithetical to the spirit and goals of 5e.

 

[Miladoon]

Explain to me please, the logic of this statement.

How does an element that can easily be separated from the game and ignored, change the whole game?

It's not like we're talking about adding salt to water. What we're talking about is having Salt and Pepper on the table and you choose what to use or not use - and some (maybe not you) saying Pepper shouldn't be allowed on any tables whatsoever.

So how does a purely optional component (as technically, any and every component of the game is optional) drive you away from the game when it doesn't affect you at all?

My translation is akin to not buying a comic book novel because I didn't like how the artist rendered those damn ears.

 

[Lord Twig]

Fireballs were never square. Their area of effect included all the squares the "ball" could reach/enter.

As for simulationism, that's just a rationale for your preferences. You're more than happy to make allowances for a HUGE amount of nonsensical game elements (dragon flight, human beings with as much or more HP than Giants, etc). But when it comes to an aoe that effects a square configuration on a grid, suddenly that's a bridge too far. Or, god help us, non-magical HP recovery on class B instead of class A, "simulationism" is the battle cry.

So there is no bridge too far? I can certainly think of things that people would object to in their game, regardless if they are player or DM.

Everyone has a line somewhere.

But the entire concept, as you seem to realize, is bankrupt. You've pointed out its not all white and not all black, but some mixture suited to taste. And THAT is correct. It's a matter of taste. And there is no logic, or game-theory-principle, behind taste. Even among self-described "simulationists" there's no agreed-on ratio of cinematic :: realistic.

"I'm a simulationist, therefore I don't wan a Warlord in my game, or square fireballs, but HP is meat, even when small-sized fighters have more than huge Giants. Simulationism!" It's frankly absurd.

No, it's not.

I am trying to describe my feelings on the matter and why I prefer it more one way as opposed to more the other way. Simulation is not an absolute, but I prefer a little more of it and a little less cinematic. And of course what I think of as simulation might not be the same as someone else. But if it helps someone understand where I am coming from then the term has served its purpose.

We all feel the need to defend our tastes when someone else disagrees. You see this all the time in sports fandom - team rivalries, etc. But the truth is, what you like doesn't need a logical or rational defense - and no logical defense will ever be sufficient to convince anyone that your tastes are justified. Essentially, you cannot "logic" someone out of a belief or desire that they didn't "logic" into.

I agree, and I'm not trying to tell people what they should believe or desire. I'm describing what I believe and desire.

For me some things "are not logical" or "don't make sense" and I try to describe why. Mapping out a circular Fireball as a square doesn't make sense to me. If it makes sense to you, or it doesn't matter. Great! But at least you can see where I'm coming from.

I'll wrap this up. You're not -NOT- a bad person for playing how you like. Have at! Corollary - nobody else is ridiculous for not playing as "simulationists" (to say nothing of the innumerable contradictions inherent in simulationism). Warlords are not beyond the pale simply because they rub you the wrong way. Your game isn't beyond the pale even if it rubs Me the wrong way. It's all good.

So I'm not bad or wrong, but my way of playing has "innumerable contradictions inherent" to it? They are not contradictions. I don't play a 100% simulation of a fantasy world.

Just to throw some numbers out there, lets say that I like 70/30 on the simulation side. Then lets say Warlord would take it to 50/50. That's too far for me. And honestly 5e is probably a bit farther than would be my ideal anyway. So it might be a 60/40 and with Warlord would be 50/50.

You, on the other hand, might like the 50/50 divide. That's fine. But if it went to 30/70 you might start looking for another game. I know I would.

Please don't get hung up on the numbers too much. They might be (are probably) way off. They are just to illustrate the point.

 

[Lord Twig]

He's already admitted it doesn't, and is fine as long as it's 'opt-in' instead of 'opt-out.'

The only reason to boycott something because of how /other/ people use it is to try to exert some sort of indirect force on them to get them to stop using it that way. In many a RL political context such boycott strategies may make sense or at least be expedient in an 'end justifies the means' way. In the context of 5e, it's straight-up telling everyone else how to play the game, which is antithetical to the spirit and goals of 5e.

No, the reason for boycotting the Warlord is because I don't like how the class effects MY character. I'm not trying to force someone to stop playing a certain way. I am trying to stop them from forcing their way of playing on me.

I do not want to be inspired by their character. I don't want to be ordered or directed by their character. I don't want their character to "pep talk" me all better.

I don't like that play style/fluff/theme/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. But if I refuse to have it forced on me, I'm the bad guy.

We are getting back to the "Well you can also refuse healing from a Cleric" argument. But that's a silly argument. The whole idea is for a support class. Whether it is a Cleric or Warlord, refusing to allow the class to use their abilities to support your character is a crappy thing to do and will not make anyone happy.

 

[Bawylie]

So there is no bridge too far? I can certainly think of things that people would object to in their game, regardless if they are player or DM.

Everyone has a line somewhere.



No, it's not.

I am trying to describe my feelings on the matter and why I prefer it more one way as opposed to more the other way. Simulation is not an absolute, but I prefer a little more of it and a little less cinematic. And of course what I think of as simulation might not be the same as someone else. But if it helps someone understand where I am coming from then the term has served its purpose.



I agree, and I'm not trying to tell people what they should believe or desire. I'm describing what I believe and desire.

For me some things "are not logical" or "don't make sense" and I try to describe why. Mapping out a circular Fireball as a square doesn't make sense to me. If it makes sense to you, or it doesn't matter. Great! But at least you can see where I'm coming from.



So I'm not bad or wrong, but my way of playing has "innumerable contradictions inherent" to it? They are not contradictions. I don't play a 100% simulation of a fantasy world.

Just to throw some numbers out there, lets say that I like 70/30 on the simulation side. Then lets say Warlord would take it to 50/50. That's too far for me. And honestly 5e is probably a bit farther than would be my ideal anyway. So it might be a 60/40 and with Warlord would be 50/50.

You, on the other hand, might like the 50/50 divide. That's fine. But if it went to 30/70 you might start looking for another game. I know I would.

Please don't get hung up on the numbers too much. They might be (are probably) way off. They are just to illustrate the point.

The number illustrate both our points, really. If you're laying down a marker for where your tastes lie, I get it. Presumably, a warlord designed closer to the 60/40 split would therefore be more palatable than the 50/50 one. And one designed 70/30 would be completely acceptable. Right?

That's definitely a reasonable debate we can have. There may even be 65/35 or 55/45 wiggle room, or subclasses than lean in disparate directions. (Ex, I like me a non-magical fighter 100%. But I don't mind a fighter with a spell casting subclass (70/30) at all).

That kind of conversation > No Warlord bc simulationism.

 

[Lord Twig]

The number illustrate both our points, really. If you're laying down a marker for where your tastes lie, I get it. Presumably, a warlord designed closer to the 60/40 split would therefore be more palatable than the 50/50 one. And one designed 70/30 would be completely acceptable. Right?

That's definitely a reasonable debate we can have. There may even be 65/35 or 55/45 wiggle room, or subclasses than lean in disparate directions. (Ex, I like me a non-magical fighter 100%. But I don't mind a fighter with a spell casting subclass (70/30) at all).

That kind of conversation > No Warlord bc simulationism.

Yes, absolutely. It is certainly possible for a Warlord to be made that I will like, or at least accept. But there is a good chance that then people on the other side might not be happy. After all, I don't care for the Battlemaster Fighter, but it's acceptable. But it isn't nearly far enough for the pro Warlord group.

Edit: Left out a "not".

 

[Tony Vargas]

So there is no bridge too far? I can certainly think of things that people would object to in their game, regardless if they are player or DM.

Everyone has a line somewhere.

And those lines are all different.

And past editions have drawn their own lines in ways that have never meshed up with eachother or with at least some fans.

5e tries to be more inclusive by providing more options. You walk up to that list of options and you draw you line where you need it, and take the stuff on the right side of it, and leave the rest. Like a salad bar, or Chinese magic.

I am trying to describe my feelings on the matter and why I prefer it more one way as opposed to more the other way.

No need, people have been coming up with excuses for hating perfectly good games for a long time - going back even before the edition war to GNS and even Roll v Role in the 90s.

You started out trying to address the OP's question, which was not why you feel the way you do or like to play the way you do, but why you needed to force everyone else to play the same. You started with an honest admission of selfishness, but eventually backed off the issue entirely and allowed that it was OK for others to play their way, as long the stuff you couldn't stand was 'opt-in' instead of 'opt-out' - still a tad selfish, but not at all reprehensible, and not what the OP was asking about (probably rhetorically).

I don't know what's left for you to talk about on the topic. If you just want to get in some late edition war hits against 4e, please, take it somewhere else. ENWorld asks that we refrain from that sort of thing.

 

[Bawylie]

Yes, absolutely. It is certainly possible for a Warlord to be made that I will like, or at least accept. But there is a good chance that then people on the other side might be happy. After all, I don't care for the Battlemaster Fighter, but it's acceptable. But it isn't nearly far enough for the pro Warlord group.

The Battlemaster is a 70/30 fighter :: warlord. And warlord players would prefer to be more warlord than fighter. I think that's the largest deficiency of the Battlemaster-as-warlord. Battlemaster is fine all on its own, if you want to do maneuvers and whatnot & aren't concerned with being a warlord so much.

Another one of these threads asked about how much "healing" a warlord should do vs how much "damage mitigation." I favor damage mitigation myself, but don't oppose hp restoration. You might find a warlord that didn't heal at all, but instead raised AC or cut incoming damage, WAY less objectionable.

Most of us agree that the warlord ought to be able to accomplish these 3 things (in some form):
1.) mitigate damage (somehow)
2.) grant actions to allies (somehow)
3.) grant combat bonuses to allies (of some kind)

I don't imagine you'd object to any of these things collectively or individually, on their own. You might have some (very understandable) objections to specific implementations of those things. Like a warlord whose vocal shouts actually closing wounds would be silly to you. But, we're all kind of trying to find a way to do these 3 things in ways that are fun, not-trivial, non-magical, not OP.

If you have ideas on how, that'd be neat! A lot of us have started from existing mechanics and tried porting them over. Some of us have written new ones. None of us has hit the exact right note.

Now, the objections to warlord are gonna exist. Ok, fine. What we'd like to do is try to design one that fits the 5e game, and addresses those objections without sacrificing the secret sauce that makes the warlord what it is. We're not asking anyone to give up their objections - that's dumb. Just asking for positive contributions such that we can move forward, rather than re-litigating why the damn class should exist in the first place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, the reason for boycotting the Warlord

Not boycotting the warlord, boycotting the game. Not using an option in a game - let alone pledging not to use a hypothetical option no matter how good it might turn out to be - is not boycotting anything. There's plenty of stuff for you in SCAG, for instance, even if you wouldn't use the PDK. Claiming you're being 'driven away from the game' by an option you don't have to use would be boycotting. You've gotten past that, to "it's OK as long as it's nominally opt-in, not opt-out," haven't you?

 

[Lord Twig]

Not boycotting the warlord, boycotting the game. Not using an option in a game - let alone pledging not to use a hypothetical option no matter how good it might turn out to be - is not boycotting anything. There's plenty of stuff for you in SCAG, for instance, even if you wouldn't use the PDK. Claiming you're being 'driven away from the game' by an option you don't have to use would be boycotting. You've gotten past that, to "it's OK as long as it's nominally opt-in, not opt-out," haven't you?

Yes, I have. I still have objections to the Warlord, as I have stated, but an optional Warlord for those that want it would be fine in my opinion.

As for being driven away. If the game goes in a direction I don't like, I will try to find a game that is closer to my preference. Not saying I'm there yet with 5e, but I'm there with Pathfinder.

In the meantime those that like the Warlord will try to convince WotC that they should add a Warlord, and I will tell them the game is better off without it. (I participate in their surveys, for whatever it's worth.) They will then do what they think makes the most people happy.

If the game never has a Warlord I'd be happy with that, but I recognize that would be a bit selfish. If it ends up with an optional Warlord I'll deal with it when it comes up. If it becomes a core class with tons of support and incentives to play I will probably move on.

But really the two extremes are probably unlikely and we will get something in the middle. How far one way or the other remains to be seen.