Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6733143" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It's possible. I'm skeptical, myself--not because I think it wouldn't work. I think it would work just fine--I just think there's no pleasing the "Warlord skeptic" crowd. Originally I was going to state that more...stridently, but I figure we've had enough excessive rhetoric by now. Suffice it to say, the definition of "compromise" used by (what feels like) most of the "Warlord skeptic" crowd confuses the hell out of me. [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]: I was leaving your other arguments--which didn't sit well with me either--largely to others to respond to. Such as Tony Vargas, whose responses were much better-written than anything I would have produced (given that I was mere minutes from going to sleep). I was just addressing the one point that seemed very very simple to defuse.The existence of a mechanic does not automatically entail that it will be used by NPCs (e.g. I don't believe NPCs can have Inspiration? Correct me if I'm wrong); the existence of monsters that do use a particular mechanic does not automatically entail that a DM must use them (what, is WotC putting a gun to your head unless you employ Ki-using Gith?); even with mechanics that are deeply rooted into the game, it's often barely more difficult to "fix" them than it is to "fix" the PC-option problem. NPC Cleric has 'cure wounds' on their list? Nix it. Worried that that nerfs too much? Replace it with Inflict Wounds, or whatever the appropriate name is in 5e, or just randomly select another spell of the same spell level on the Cleric list. It's not like they're suffering for spell options.You are right, in that by adding a thing to the "5e idiom" (as some have said--don't care for the term myself), that thing may start to appear elsewhere. It is thus fair to say that, for monsters published at some unknown future point after the official publication of a 5e translation of the Warlord, it is possible that some of them could pick up mechanical widgets from that Warlord-translation. Thus, there is some possibility, however small, that one or more monsters published in a future, supplementary Monster Manual type book (or free addendum, like the ToEE or PotA supplements) could have a mechanic that offends the sensibilities of someone who would also ban the Warlord.The question is, is the potential existence of this handful of monsters, which could not exist any sooner than an official Warlord could, a meaningful reason to prevent or avoid the creation of an official Warlord? I flatly disagree. You're not going to be seeing whole books riddled with this stuff. It would be, at absolute most, perhaps a dozen or two creatures. They'll be distant options, published probably years from now, in wholly supplemental material. Nobody forces anyone to use them, and even if they form an absolutely critical part of some incredibly juicy and attractive adventure path (say, the first official path to stray into levels 16+), merely looking at the monsters should reveal the existence of these traits, and the DM can simply opt not to run them, to tweak them to be different (e.g. "all monster abilities that give HP now give THP instead"), to replace them with magical equivalents (Valor Bard being a cromulent example), or simply to narrate them as "magical" even though the monster-text doesn't say that.So, I ask you: why is it such a problem that monsters could, possibly acquire these (offensive?) mechanics when D&D generally, and 5e in particular, makes it so trivially easy to ignore, repaint, rework, or rebuild them? Their presence is at best a minor inconvenience to those who dislike them, and a substantial olive-branch to those who like them.</blockquote>

Verification