Tony Vargas
Legend
Hope springs eternal.Oh man, I sure hope that Tesla comes with a rocket-ride to Mars!
Mars-ish.
Hey, it could be called the "Warlord of Mars" special edition.
Hope springs eternal.Oh man, I sure hope that Tesla comes with a rocket-ride to Mars!
Mars-ish.
But that's never going to happen. To date, WotC has formally released zero new classes in their books. You might as well speculate when WotC is going to give away Tesla cars with their books.
In the 3 1/2 years of 4e, they've done two test classes, the artificer and the mystic (after first attempting the artificer as a wizard subclass). But the mystic was last updated a year ago, with a prior attempt in February 2016. And the artificer was last updated in January of 2017. The earliest they could see print would be November of this year, but if they were trying for that book we'd see another test of the class. So don't expect them before April 2019, if not later. That will be 2-3 years of testing for a new class.
If, through a combination of begging, bribery, fellatio, and extortion the warlord fans here convinced Mike Mearls to greenlight a warlord class with the first playtest article in April, we'd still be looking at 2021 before the class could see print. Possibly later. Because making stuff takes time, and they don't seem to have the free hours to really devote to that content.
After all, they've known the Beastmaster Ranger was problematic pretty much since launch and they still haven't managed to "fix" that.
So if they were going to do such a class, they'd already have started work on it and Mearls wouldn't be doing the podcast to give fans the design skeleton to work with.
There's never going to be an official warlord. It's not going to happen. If you really want one, you're going to have to either make one yourself or work with the community to make one. And if you can't work up the time and energy to make one, then that's a pretty good indication your game can function without one.
Hope springs eternal.
Hey, it could be called the "Warlord of Mars" special edition.
No, not change, merely have additional options added that open up playstyles and player options that were available in past editions (3.x & 4e, in my case, personally) that 5e has yet to offer adequate (or any, in some cases) support for. I do not wish to see the standard core of the game changed in any way to accomplish that (I also don't see /how/ that would happen in a practical sense, but if people are that terrified I'm trying to 'ruin' the game for them, I hope that's some re-assurance).The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes.
Thanks for helping me figure out my next pitch.The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes. They don't want to make a homebrew one because if they don't get exactly what they want then the people who disagree with them about how the game works would win.
No, not change, merely have additional options added that open up playstyles and player options that were available in past editions (3.x & 4e, in my case, personally) that 5e has yet to offer adequate (or any, in some cases) support for. I do not wish to see the standard core of the game changed in any way to accomplish that (I also don't see /how/ that would happen in a practical sense, but if people are that terrified I'm trying to 'ruin' the game for them, I hope that's some re-assurance).
Er, nope. None of that is required, or even implied.Tony Vargas said:To actually have gone there, they'd've had to at least consider consolidating the Fighter, Barbarian, non-casting Ranger, and/or Rogue or even Monk for that matter, not to mention actually changing the Fighter's name to something less suggestive of single-pillar-specialization and carried through with what that implied. We probably wouldn't have gotten all three of Warlock, Sorcerer & Wizard.
And you're completely misunderstanding my objections, and throwing out strawmen to argue against.You could've at least thrown in a "seems" there, or something, to acknowledge that you're not speaking as someone who wants the class, nor understands why anyone would want it.
What? The Fighter has already been implemented. What mechanics it has are largely irrelevant. The point of using Fighter as a starting point was the whole "veteran/warrior/skilled commander" part of the Warlord description. If the Warlord was a "student of history", who'd spent his life in the library learning how wars were won and lost, maybe it would be based on the Wizard instead (ignoring the whole magic thing for the sake of the analogy).Which is the major problem with the Warlord as Fighter sub-class. It focuses on mechanics - Extra Attack, Second Wind, Action Surge, d10 HD, etc, rather than on archetypes.
That's not a mechanical requirement, that's a thematic requirement. And that's not even the stated thematic requirement, as a Barbarian would fit that just as well. The quoted design element is a very strong match with the Fighter.For instance, the mechanical requirement that every warlord be a bad-ass whirlwind of destruction on the battlefield.
Then you don't appear to understand terminology. 'Non-magical' is mechanical. 'Support' is mechanical. They may be useful as identifying a conceptual space that hasn't been filled, or to describe a class in more abstract terminology, but they are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to define a desirable character class. And even if you did use them as the basis, they do not necessarily lead to the Warlord class. They could as easily lead to an Engineer or Artificer or Alchemist class (though the latter two are more commonly used in conjunction with at least some magic).Because it's a mechanical requirement? But, it references no mechanics, at all.I would assert that a warlord as a "non-magical support character" is a failed design starting point.
I maintain that if people really wanted a warlord for their games there'd be far more posts on threads designing warlords (like THIS one) with design advice and playtest feedback and fewer posts in threads where people just argue about what one could theoretically look like.
Warlord fans don't really want a warlord.
They want to argue about the warlord. They want to continue the ten-year-old debate of whether or not warlords should exist.
The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes. They don't want to make a homebrew one because if they don't get exactly what they want then the people who disagree with them about how the game works would win.