Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 6746153" data-attributes="member: 12460"><p>Here is why I do not like the concept of having a warlord, at least not as a core character class or a primary character class (the minimum I would tolerate in the current incarnation of the game as a Fighter archetype): the fact that it is there means my players will badger me into allowing it no matter how much I want to run a classic style D&D game that doesn't have such things.</p><p></p><p>This is the same reason I am opposed to the tiefling, dragonborn, drow, warlock, and sorcerer being in the Player's Handbook. These are not classic or even essential concepts. When I proposed that my Pathfinder group (which was before that a D&D 3.5 group) start playing 5e, I also proposed that I would disallow these options. Some of my players were almost riotous at the very idea that I would consider disallowing something from the Player's Handbook. Now, I want to go back to a classic style Greyhawk game where things are simpler, the player characters are defined by their actions, not catlike ears and special faerie powers, and the "weird" belongs with monsters and villains. I want old school Sword & Sorcery. Even allowing some of the things from the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook is a compromise from my position because I have a hard time wrapping my head around wuxia-style monks and mischievous PC gnomes in my Sword & Sorcery. But I always end up going along with it because the resistance from players is simply too great once something is in a core rulebook or presented as an option for a core class. Do I think the warlord (or its progenitors like the marshal from 3.5) are contrary to my vision of a Sword & Sorcery game? Not necessarily. Is the warlord somehow essential to Sword & Sorcery? No way.</p><p></p><p>There are a lot of things in the Player's Handbook that I tolerate for the very reason that they are in the Player's Handbook. Players have come to see it as somehow sacred, and it's hard to pull any of that away once it infects the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="airwalkrr, post: 6746153, member: 12460"] Here is why I do not like the concept of having a warlord, at least not as a core character class or a primary character class (the minimum I would tolerate in the current incarnation of the game as a Fighter archetype): the fact that it is there means my players will badger me into allowing it no matter how much I want to run a classic style D&D game that doesn't have such things. This is the same reason I am opposed to the tiefling, dragonborn, drow, warlock, and sorcerer being in the Player's Handbook. These are not classic or even essential concepts. When I proposed that my Pathfinder group (which was before that a D&D 3.5 group) start playing 5e, I also proposed that I would disallow these options. Some of my players were almost riotous at the very idea that I would consider disallowing something from the Player's Handbook. Now, I want to go back to a classic style Greyhawk game where things are simpler, the player characters are defined by their actions, not catlike ears and special faerie powers, and the "weird" belongs with monsters and villains. I want old school Sword & Sorcery. Even allowing some of the things from the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook is a compromise from my position because I have a hard time wrapping my head around wuxia-style monks and mischievous PC gnomes in my Sword & Sorcery. But I always end up going along with it because the resistance from players is simply too great once something is in a core rulebook or presented as an option for a core class. Do I think the warlord (or its progenitors like the marshal from 3.5) are contrary to my vision of a Sword & Sorcery game? Not necessarily. Is the warlord somehow essential to Sword & Sorcery? No way. There are a lot of things in the Player's Handbook that I tolerate for the very reason that they are in the Player's Handbook. Players have come to see it as somehow sacred, and it's hard to pull any of that away once it infects the game. [/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