D&D (2024) No Appendix N Equivalent?

[Voadam]

I mean, I have nothing against the Warlord as such (my 4E character was a Warlord! It was fun!), but it does feel very...combat grid oriented?

It had a lot of combat power options that slide people around but a lot is not grid movement based.

Healing, attacking in ways to inspire others with a buff, giving someone else an attack with a buff, are all core warlord and can be done theatre of the mind seamlessly.

Out of combat they were set up to be either smart or charismatic leaders for role playing purposes.

 

[Morrus]

Oh, come on @Morrus. That's a bit disengenious don't you think? The reason we had a warlord sub-forum is every time someone tried to talk about warlords on this board, a very vocal group of posters would do nothing but threadcrap endlessly and turn every conversation into a giant argument that had nothing to do with the warlord itself but was constant proxy edition warring, making sure that anything overtly 4e was excised from the game.

@Parmandur - I'd kinda agree with you except for the fact that every single warlord mechanic actually appears in 5e, just not gathered under a single class. But all the mechanics are there. Plus the fact that if you go on something like DM's guild, there are fifteen warlords ready to go. If 5e couldn't handle the warlord mechanically, we could show that. But, the reverse is true and has been proven repeatedly.

The primary reason we don't have a warlord in 5e is because it would demonstrate that 5e is mechanically not that far from 4e, and that cannot possibly be allowed.

I’d agree except for the “offend someone” in quote marks. These days “offence” is a charged word, and it’s not related to game mechanics.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I’d agree except for the “offend someone” in quote marks. These days “offence” is a charged word, and it’s not related to game mechanics.

Well, I was using "offend someone" in a different context. As in "someone gets upset that they're getting D&D wrong" instead of the "your way of existence angers me" way. Apologizes for misunderstanding the context/using the wrong word.

 

[Hussar]

I’d agree except for the “offend someone” in quote marks. These days “offence” is a charged word, and it’s not related to game mechanics.

Fair enough. Giving it a bit more thought, yeah, "offended" is probably the wrong word.

 

[Hussar]

It had a lot of combat power options that slide people around but a lot is not grid movement based.

Healing, attacking in ways to inspire others with a buff, giving someone else an attack with a buff, are all core warlord and can be done theatre of the mind seamlessly.

Out of combat they were set up to be either smart or charismatic leaders for role playing purposes.

Like I said, if it was too hard to do, why are there fifteen warlords on DM's Guild right now? Why do virtually all of the effects that a warlord did (save the movement - although that's still there with Battlemasters, to a much lesser degree) still exist in 5e?

But, yeah, this is an old argument and it's never going to get anywhere. I lost this argument a long time ago.

 

[MNblockhead]

I think the difference between you two highlights (one of?) the reasons for its removal.

Nerd rage is a real big problem for companies like WotC. No matter what they put in a new Appendix N, someone will be angry. Include too many new things, people will complain there's not enough of the classics. Include a lot of old stuff, people will use it to say they're stuck in the past. If an older author is problematic (like, for an example that shouldn't be controversial to call problematic, Lovecraft), it will become a point of contention. But if someone like Lovecraft was in Appendix N before and is now removed, that will also be a point of contention. And if a modern author got exposed as problematic while books were in print, that's yet another issue to deal with.

Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play. FWIW, as a customer I would love a new Appendix N, but if I were an editor there I'd probably cut it out, too.

Well they are not escaping the rage of nerds angry for keeping it out. But I think it is mostly us older players who want it for keeping to tradition. Not that I personally care too much either way, but I do like the nolstalgia hit it the 2014 book gave me for including it.

If I were an editor, I would just make it a list of offical D&D books, both classic and recent. Just to anger everyone. ;-)