Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6728949" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>People want the Warlord because it was a great class, that gave solid mechanical support to concepts and play styles that couldn't be done well before (and, in 5e, once again cannot be done that well at all). </p><p></p><p>People don't want the Warlord for the reciprocal of the same reason: it opens up character concepts and play styles that they don't approve of, and do not want to allow anyone to play.</p><p></p><p>You can ascribe all sorts of motivations to those desires - many of them having to do with the edition war, including the edition-war skirmishes over how to over-analyze hps that you allude to, or 'caster-supremacy' agendas (or the reverse), or whatever - but the basic issue is that the Warlord expanded the character concepts you could play in D&D and the styles in which the game could be played.</p><p></p><p>It is, but doing so makes you theoretically 'wrong' on some academic 'RAW' level. That seemed really important under the 3.5 zietgeist, but it really shouldn't matter in 5e. 5e is meant to be a unifying edition, for all prior fans of D&D (and incidentally, it's hoped for potential new ones), and that mean no one gets to be 'right,' even though, inevitably, the default Basic and Standard games have let certain fans feel that way (arguably old-school Basic and AD&D respectively) a bit more than others. </p><p></p><p> The idea is you can invert that argument. By including a class, you allow a sole player at the table to 'force' everyone to play a certain way just by picking that class. That's both absurd on the face of it, and a meaningless truism. It's absurd because players should have some basic respect for eachother, for the DM's vision of the campaign, and should communicate enough to know what kind of campaign is being played. It's a truism because any/every class implies things about the setting and the nature & tone of the campaign, and can affect how PC's interact & players get along.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6728949, member: 996"] People want the Warlord because it was a great class, that gave solid mechanical support to concepts and play styles that couldn't be done well before (and, in 5e, once again cannot be done that well at all). People don't want the Warlord for the reciprocal of the same reason: it opens up character concepts and play styles that they don't approve of, and do not want to allow anyone to play. You can ascribe all sorts of motivations to those desires - many of them having to do with the edition war, including the edition-war skirmishes over how to over-analyze hps that you allude to, or 'caster-supremacy' agendas (or the reverse), or whatever - but the basic issue is that the Warlord expanded the character concepts you could play in D&D and the styles in which the game could be played. It is, but doing so makes you theoretically 'wrong' on some academic 'RAW' level. That seemed really important under the 3.5 zietgeist, but it really shouldn't matter in 5e. 5e is meant to be a unifying edition, for all prior fans of D&D (and incidentally, it's hoped for potential new ones), and that mean no one gets to be 'right,' even though, inevitably, the default Basic and Standard games have let certain fans feel that way (arguably old-school Basic and AD&D respectively) a bit more than others. The idea is you can invert that argument. By including a class, you allow a sole player at the table to 'force' everyone to play a certain way just by picking that class. That's both absurd on the face of it, and a meaningless truism. It's absurd because players should have some basic respect for eachother, for the DM's vision of the campaign, and should communicate enough to know what kind of campaign is being played. It's a truism because any/every class implies things about the setting and the nature & tone of the campaign, and can affect how PC's interact & players get along. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
Top