Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.
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: 6727099" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>It doesn't weigh /against/ it, the two are in perfect accord. A good 5e version of the Warlord /will/ help combat the appearance that 5e is actively excluding 4e fans, bringing more of them back to the game, /and/ it will see use by those fans, by existing 4e fans already playing the game, and by new fans, and by other current fans who haven't been unalterably prejudiced against it by the edition wars. </p><p></p><p>The other important point is that the class should be designed for those fans who will, in fact, use it. Not to somehow appease those who won't.</p><p></p><p>You don't know that it's all that 'niche' - there is a real danger that a well-done Warlord could bring people currently opposed to it around. In any case, as in any table that has mixed opinions about something, mutual respect will have to prevail - something that's apparently much easier in person than on-line.</p><p></p><p>There are 5 or 6 magical support classes already, there are non-magical support classes, and one extremely poor support archetype that's non-magical. There is no need for another magical support class. There is a need for the non-magical Warlord.</p><p></p><p>Every extant game element that doesn't have a specific alternative module in the DMG is already in the category of "don't like it, ban it.' </p><p></p><p></p><p>The concept of the warlord, and it's past implementations have all been magical. It would be starkly contrary the 5e's design philosphies to do a 180 from that. The disadvantage of a very ambigous presentation is that it undermines the concept of the class and breaks with it's past appearances, effectively destroying it. You lose fans who actually want the class, in the hopes of bringing in a few who specifically want a magical warlord.</p><p></p><p>But it seems implausible that anyone really wants to play a magical Warlord - they'd just play a Valor Bard. </p><p></p><p>OTHO, a compromise that wouldn't sabotage the concept, but still allow anyone genuinely troubled only by a few features functioning 'mundanely' would be to stay true the class, but offer an alternate interpretation: A side bar that opens the door to some characters /believing/ that the Warlord's abilities are magical would be a 'compromise' that wouldn't unduly damage the class, but removes the objections that it's abilities are too much for a 'mundane' character.</p><p></p><p>Something like:</p><p></p><p><em>Sidebar: Some attribute the extraordinary abilities of famous Warlords to a divine heritage or blessing, or some supernatural connection to primal forces of conflict, or even simply to luck or fate. Some say that there must be more than just charisma or brilliance behind a Warlord's string of improbable victories. Most Warlords would agree, there is something greater than them that deserves the credit for those victories: their allies.</em></p><p></p><p>How is this different from a nominally neutral 'maybe warlords or magical or maybe not: you decide?' Well, for one thing, it still supports the class concept. For another, it has complete deniability. If one player decides his Warlord is the son of the God of War, and another says he's just like anyone else, there's no way for one to 'prove' he's right. OTOH, if with the maybe-magical language, the DM is essentially encouraged to rule one way or another, and change the mechanics to suit, undercutting the class concept. </p><p></p><p>Leaving open /beliefs/ about the class, means two players with different opinions about the class /can/ play at the same table, without necessarily wrecking the game for eachother. (Really, they should just have the mutual respect to do so without needing a side-bar in the class description, but, hey, if it helps, it's probably less than a column-inch, well worth it.) Presenting them with a binary option invites repeating the arguments we have here at the table, and, once the decision is made (probably a DM ruling), leaves one of them disappointed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6727099, member: 996"] It doesn't weigh /against/ it, the two are in perfect accord. A good 5e version of the Warlord /will/ help combat the appearance that 5e is actively excluding 4e fans, bringing more of them back to the game, /and/ it will see use by those fans, by existing 4e fans already playing the game, and by new fans, and by other current fans who haven't been unalterably prejudiced against it by the edition wars. The other important point is that the class should be designed for those fans who will, in fact, use it. Not to somehow appease those who won't. You don't know that it's all that 'niche' - there is a real danger that a well-done Warlord could bring people currently opposed to it around. In any case, as in any table that has mixed opinions about something, mutual respect will have to prevail - something that's apparently much easier in person than on-line. There are 5 or 6 magical support classes already, there are non-magical support classes, and one extremely poor support archetype that's non-magical. There is no need for another magical support class. There is a need for the non-magical Warlord. Every extant game element that doesn't have a specific alternative module in the DMG is already in the category of "don't like it, ban it.' The concept of the warlord, and it's past implementations have all been magical. It would be starkly contrary the 5e's design philosphies to do a 180 from that. The disadvantage of a very ambigous presentation is that it undermines the concept of the class and breaks with it's past appearances, effectively destroying it. You lose fans who actually want the class, in the hopes of bringing in a few who specifically want a magical warlord. But it seems implausible that anyone really wants to play a magical Warlord - they'd just play a Valor Bard. OTHO, a compromise that wouldn't sabotage the concept, but still allow anyone genuinely troubled only by a few features functioning 'mundanely' would be to stay true the class, but offer an alternate interpretation: A side bar that opens the door to some characters /believing/ that the Warlord's abilities are magical would be a 'compromise' that wouldn't unduly damage the class, but removes the objections that it's abilities are too much for a 'mundane' character. Something like: [i]Sidebar: Some attribute the extraordinary abilities of famous Warlords to a divine heritage or blessing, or some supernatural connection to primal forces of conflict, or even simply to luck or fate. Some say that there must be more than just charisma or brilliance behind a Warlord's string of improbable victories. Most Warlords would agree, there is something greater than them that deserves the credit for those victories: their allies.[/i] How is this different from a nominally neutral 'maybe warlords or magical or maybe not: you decide?' Well, for one thing, it still supports the class concept. For another, it has complete deniability. If one player decides his Warlord is the son of the God of War, and another says he's just like anyone else, there's no way for one to 'prove' he's right. OTOH, if with the maybe-magical language, the DM is essentially encouraged to rule one way or another, and change the mechanics to suit, undercutting the class concept. Leaving open /beliefs/ about the class, means two players with different opinions about the class /can/ play at the same table, without necessarily wrecking the game for eachother. (Really, they should just have the mutual respect to do so without needing a side-bar in the class description, but, hey, if it helps, it's probably less than a column-inch, well worth it.) Presenting them with a binary option invites repeating the arguments we have here at the table, and, once the decision is made (probably a DM ruling), leaves one of them disappointed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Open Interpretation Inspirational Healing Compromise.
Top