Tony Vargas
Legend
No, Twig, you're conflating character concept with player agency. His concern is with the former, specifically what is meant by a concept not being 'magical,' yours is with the latter.
A Warlord, a solider or noble, for instance, might very well be part of a military or social hierarchy and have demands on him, allies or rivals watching him, or various other sorts of relationships to the setting, NPCs, and other PCs. That's true of every character. It's particularly true of AL characters who choose a Faction, for instance, and has nothing to do with whether the class is 'magical' or not, which was the distinction Bawylie was drawing.
That's very different from wielding supernatural/magical power granted by a deity or pact patron or bloodline or initiation into occult secrets or the like, whether those powers come with strings or not (and really, the way most of the PH is phrased it seems like it's usually not).
Not everyone has to like the idea of a class. I don't like the idea of psionics in a fantasy game, I think it's out of place.
It can't be forced on them, so that's a non-issue. Whether a given class sees play at a given table is up to that table. If we assume the Mystic and Warlord are the only two new classes that get introduced to 5e, then any given table of 6 players is going to exclude more than half the available classes, anyway. Doesn't seem like it is or ever would become difficult to avoid a specific single class you find objectionable.
Now, if you had problems with all neo-Vancian casters, you'd have a more serious issue...
Not liking the idea does not make it a problem. You don't like it, you don't use it. There's an extra leap you're making there, from you not liking it, to it existing being a problem solely because you don't like it. The former is fine, you don't even need an explanation. The latter isn't, it smacks of OneTrueWayism and wanting to dictate to everyone what they can play.
The kind of relationship implied is a sensitive one for many people, yes. The class you describe could theoretically turn into the Stalker or even Rapist class without the consent of the romantic interest. So, yeah, you're strolling through a cultural minefield with that one, especially once you postulate non-consent.
But, the idea of PCs having romantic relationships - to whatever degree of detail the group is comfortable with - is hardly out of line, and some systems have even given benefits (and disadvantages) for it.
Not in the least, no. The premise of D&D is an heroic fantasy game with a party overcoming challenges together. Teamwork of some degree is assumed. Those challenges include killing a lot of creatures, many of them sentient, and taking their stuff. Which our culture finds less troublesome than dealing with a romantic relationship. Whatever that says about society, aside, the Warlord is a much more natural addition to a D&D party than the oddball class you postulate.
Then it's up to that player whether to make a stink about it and possibly stomp on several other players' fun, seek a group with different interests, or tolerate those other players' fun and seek his own. That's not a unique quality of a hypothetical Warlord class, though. Paladins run up against that one big time, Clerics to a lesser extent, and Warlocks from the other end of the spectrum. Thieves & Assassins & Barbarians can have intra-party issues both IC and OOC. What you're describing is nothing to do with the Warlord, it's just part of playing an RPG.
Last edited:
