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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6756989" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>There isn't the mandate to do everything you can in Pathfinder in 5e, but if there were, those'd all be on the table... ;P</p><p></p><p>Seriously, though, I wouldn't begrudge anyone playing a party like that in 5e if that's what they really wanted. The arguably worst of those choices - CE - is already there in 5e.</p><p></p><p>Each table draws the line where they're comfortable. The game presents options that not everyone wants, and that some people may even balk entirely at using - most options are that way. The Warlord is only different in that there is lingering edition-war animosity against it.</p><p></p><p>Two of the others are already entirely do-able in 5e. </p><p></p><p>Which is fine, but I hope you realize that you're betraying a certain lack of faith in your own opinion and arguments, there. If the Warlord is so terrible, and the arguments against it so strong, then you should have no trouble convincing anyone you game with to play something else, and any table you game at to opt out of it. That you feel the need to have the handicap of it being opt-in-only, shows that you realize your opinion is unjustified and your arguments weak. </p><p></p><p>I'm fine with it being opt-in. </p><p></p><p>I understand the objection perfectly. The example you give even-better illustrates how I feel about psionics. I totally get it. There's just no need to impose that objection on others. </p><p></p><p>Yep, and 5e has Monks, is getting Psionics, and needs Warlords.</p><p></p><p>Sure there is: it's the D&D you make your own, at your table. You take the D&D WotC published, pick and choose the bits you like, and off you go. The only thing that gets in the way of having "your D&D" is if the bits you want aren't there in the first place.</p><p></p><p>D&D has included a wealth of options, including Warlords, in the aggregate. No edition before 5e has actually tried to be so inclusive as to provide that full wealth of options at once, though. Even I've criticized 5e for not having much 'new,' but bringing together so much of what's come before under one 'big tent' edition is, I suppose, pretty unique.</p><p></p><p>That's one of the criticisms of 5e, but it's not entirely justified. You don't get your sub-class until 2nd or 3rd, but you do get your class. A fighter gets a style at 1st level, casters get cantrips and spells at 1st level, etc. </p><p></p><p>If the only casters were EKs and ATs, you'd have an issue of not being able to 'be a caster' until 3rd level, and it'd be a real one. A Warlord-lite fighter sub-class (and BMs and PDKs fall short even of that) would run have the same problem. A well-done 5e Warlord could be providing adequate support to its party from 1st level.</p><p></p><p>By the numbers about 4%, but, not really a fair comparison... 4e slide couldn't move enemies into the air unless said enemy was able to fly. But, yes, the 5e fighter is too focused on being like the 2e fighter, without enough options to be more like a 3.5 or 4e fighter. Again, you're being very unfair to 5e. 5e /does/ give you most of what you could do with most classes in most editions. With regards to 4e, it gives you /far more/ in most cases. The basic 5e Druid does things it'd take 3 druid sub-classes, /combined/ to do in 4e, just for the most striking instance. Most casters get more daily spells by 4th level than a their 4e version would get even at 30th. 5e is a massive upgrade for most classes relative to 4e. The fighter is an outlier, hearkening almost exclusively to the 2e vision of that class, with just a nod to 3.5 in styles & 2 bonus (optional!) feats, and falling far short of the 4e fighter with the Battlemaster's maneuvers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6756989, member: 996"] There isn't the mandate to do everything you can in Pathfinder in 5e, but if there were, those'd all be on the table... ;P Seriously, though, I wouldn't begrudge anyone playing a party like that in 5e if that's what they really wanted. The arguably worst of those choices - CE - is already there in 5e. Each table draws the line where they're comfortable. The game presents options that not everyone wants, and that some people may even balk entirely at using - most options are that way. The Warlord is only different in that there is lingering edition-war animosity against it. Two of the others are already entirely do-able in 5e. Which is fine, but I hope you realize that you're betraying a certain lack of faith in your own opinion and arguments, there. If the Warlord is so terrible, and the arguments against it so strong, then you should have no trouble convincing anyone you game with to play something else, and any table you game at to opt out of it. That you feel the need to have the handicap of it being opt-in-only, shows that you realize your opinion is unjustified and your arguments weak. I'm fine with it being opt-in. I understand the objection perfectly. The example you give even-better illustrates how I feel about psionics. I totally get it. There's just no need to impose that objection on others. Yep, and 5e has Monks, is getting Psionics, and needs Warlords. Sure there is: it's the D&D you make your own, at your table. You take the D&D WotC published, pick and choose the bits you like, and off you go. The only thing that gets in the way of having "your D&D" is if the bits you want aren't there in the first place. D&D has included a wealth of options, including Warlords, in the aggregate. No edition before 5e has actually tried to be so inclusive as to provide that full wealth of options at once, though. Even I've criticized 5e for not having much 'new,' but bringing together so much of what's come before under one 'big tent' edition is, I suppose, pretty unique. That's one of the criticisms of 5e, but it's not entirely justified. You don't get your sub-class until 2nd or 3rd, but you do get your class. A fighter gets a style at 1st level, casters get cantrips and spells at 1st level, etc. If the only casters were EKs and ATs, you'd have an issue of not being able to 'be a caster' until 3rd level, and it'd be a real one. A Warlord-lite fighter sub-class (and BMs and PDKs fall short even of that) would run have the same problem. A well-done 5e Warlord could be providing adequate support to its party from 1st level. By the numbers about 4%, but, not really a fair comparison... 4e slide couldn't move enemies into the air unless said enemy was able to fly. But, yes, the 5e fighter is too focused on being like the 2e fighter, without enough options to be more like a 3.5 or 4e fighter. Again, you're being very unfair to 5e. 5e /does/ give you most of what you could do with most classes in most editions. With regards to 4e, it gives you /far more/ in most cases. The basic 5e Druid does things it'd take 3 druid sub-classes, /combined/ to do in 4e, just for the most striking instance. Most casters get more daily spells by 4th level than a their 4e version would get even at 30th. 5e is a massive upgrade for most classes relative to 4e. The fighter is an outlier, hearkening almost exclusively to the 2e vision of that class, with just a nod to 3.5 in styles & 2 bonus (optional!) feats, and falling far short of the 4e fighter with the Battlemaster's maneuvers. [/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