D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[UnadvisedGoose445]

Actually, I'm not. I'm not splitting the Unconscious condition at all. As with Hit Points, the Unconscious Condition is vague; purposely vague so as to support the multitude of views that D&D fans hold. That vagueness supports many tropes all on its own - it doesn't require me to justify it. D&D's rules already support the Warlord. The splitting is coming from those that insist on limiting what interpretations are "officially" allowed.

To be fair, I think it is much more so that certain interpretations would then be forced on people as a whole. If an entire class is created in which we must accept all of these particular pre-suppositions that many do not accept, the class itself is narrowing the interpretations that a game that wants to allow that class can have. I think that is a core issue here.

Though I think that is precisely why they worded the ability exactly as they did. Every healing ability of the possible Warlord class could be worded that way and it would be up to each individual table to interpret it as they will. Though again, I don't see it as a priority that would be happening anytime soon, if the attitude of the designers is anything to go by.

For what it's worth, myself and my whole group of friends that game together were (and still are) major fans of 4e, had a warlord in our group, and loved the class, but I don't begrudge 5e designers for not including the specific class in the edition, nor does my friend who played one. No one can really know, but I suspect this is the most common, less vocal, response to the "issue". But again, no one will ever really know. None of my friends frequent this site and it is far from the majority (or probably even a relatively decent sample size) to give accurate feedback on fans as a whole. *shrugs*

 

[Imaro]

By definition, we are all fans of the same class.

Classes can be implemented in various ways... Fans of the ranger class don't all agree on the particular implementation of the ranger they like...

Sure, one fan who really like lazylords is really concerned about action-granting, and one who favors bravuras will want bonus-action riders while still attacking every round - they have different priorities. The Warlord was quite acceptable to both of them, and a 5e Warlord could be, too - if it has enough going for it, and is sufficiently customizeable.

Just as the Battlemaster or PDK could be for a warlord fan who wanted to have a more direct role in combat... or the Mastermind for one who wanted more skill monkey in the mix...

EDIT: You and some of the other posters are acting like the 4e warlord is the one and only true way to represent the tropes of fantasy genre inspiration and command (IMO that makes you a fan of the 4e warlord but not necessarily a "warlord" fan)... but it's not and D&D has never had a problem re-purposing, re-inventing or totally changing a particular class from one edition/verion to the next.

Trying to cover everything the Warlord could (let alone /should/), with fighter & rogue archetypes and PrCs would require dozens of 'em - more effort and page count and added complexity than even a highly customizeable/flexible full class.

Unless of course you are re-imagining/re-inventing what the class is... it's been done across editions with others such as the Ranger, Paladin, and Bard. 5e's "warlord" does not have to be the same implementation as 4e's... yet it could make some warlord fans more happy than the 4e version did.

 

[El Mahdi]

If an entire class is created in which we must accept all of these particular pre-suppositions that many do not accept, the class itself is narrowing the interpretations that a game that wants to allow that class can have.

Nothing about the Warlord says that other interpretations, or other mechanics/classes derived from those interpretations, are no longer valid (narrowing interpretations). It simply says that these interpretations are valid also, and these are the interpretations that this class is predicated upon. The interpretations are narrowed only for that class, not the game itself. Every class does this. Nothing in the rules precludes you from ignoring that class, and with it those pre-suppositions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Classes can be implemented in various ways... Fans of the ranger class don't all agree on the particular implementation of the ranger they like...

The Ranger design has, by the designers own admission, lost its way. There have been multiple versions of the ranger, ranging (npi) from non-caster to casting from low level on, and from personal-combat focused to 'pet'-focused, and that's just scratching the surface. A fan of the 1e Ranger may want a Ranger very different from what a fan of the 3e would want, while a fan of the 4e ranger would expect something completely different.

Not the case with the Warlord, which has had only one incarnation - even though it was rather broad in the concepts it could do, it did all of them.

Just as the Battlemaster or PDK could be for a warlord fan who wanted to have a more direct role in combat... or the Mastermind for one who wanted more skill monkey in the mix...

They're about equivalent to an Knight or Slayer or Thief with the Student of Battle feat in Essentials+. Fans of MCing a tiny bit of Warlord into their eFighter or eRogue might appreciate them (honestly, I've never seen anyone do that, but I'm sure someone, somewhere, must have done so for some build). Fans of the actual Warlord, not so much. If you want to play the full class, tiny fragments of it aren't very satisfying.

You and some of the other posters are acting like the 4e warlord is the one and only true way

It is the only version of the class in a past edition of D&D that 5e can use as a model and goal for what the 5e Warlord should be like, in general and at minimum. That's as far as it goes. There's certainly potential for doing more with the class, over and above that.

D&D has never had a problem re-purposing, re-inventing or totally changing a particular class from one edition/verion to the next.

It's certainly run into problems doing that in the past. Problems like the edition war.

5e's "warlord" does not have to be the same implementation as 4e's... yet it could make some warlord fans more happy than the 4e version did.

Both true. In fact, we have every right to hope for that. But it hasn't happened yet, and it's not going to get there by failing to model the concepts the Warlord has handled, nor failing to make the same sorts of contributions to the party's success that it could.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

Nothing about the Warlord says that other interpretations, or other mechanics/classes derived from those interpretations, are no longer valid (narrowing interpretations). It simply says that these interpretations are valid also, and these are the interpretations that this class is predicated upon. The interpretations are narrowed only for that class, not the game itself. Every class does this. Nothing in the rules precludes you from ignoring that class, and with it those pre-suppositions.

What exactly is similar to this though? What other class causes... this? The difference with some of those things is broadly hand-waved with "because magic" because that works. It's a central theme of the entire game and the genre in which the game exists (mostly). The big sticking point here is the Warlord says, "No! No magic because I don't need magic to do magic stuff!" and it's just a weird shift for the majority of people, the rules, and the framework for the rules as a whole. It's just a very sticky situation and it's like some people want to downplay that as if acknowledging it is somehow going to ruin the chances of the class ever being made.

 

[Remathilis]

Unless of course you are re-imagining/re-inventing what the class is... it's been done across editions with others such as the Ranger, Paladin, and Bard. 5e's "warlord" does not have to be the same implementation as 4e's... yet it could make some warlord fans more happy than the 4e version did.

This is something that I think gets lost in the translation ALOT.

In 1988, there was only one ranger and bard class. In 1989, 2e released versions that weren't like the 1e ones. The ranger went from 2d8 HD to 1d10. Favored Enemy, Weapon Specialization, Magic Spell access, all of that changed. The bard was a whole new class rewritten to be playable from first level. It switched from druidic magic to wizard and its abilities were radically downsized. Third Edition's translation of both was a travesty, so much so they were both re-written for 3.5 (and by 3pp before that). In 4e, rangers lost magic and bards became full casters. Today, a bard or a ranger in every edition is different than the one in the edition before it. Yet aside from a few grognards, I don't see people demanding rangers cast wizard spells and use crystal balls or that bards have access to the full wizard and druid lists for spells, despite the fact both are in their classes DNA.

(Heck, that doesn't even begin to discuss how monks should have divine spellcasting and assassins have access to shadow magic, but two examples is fine for now...)

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be fair, I think it is much more so that certain interpretations would then be forced on people as a whole.

I know there's a lot of noise made about that, but none of it's justified. The Warlord wouldn't change any 'interpretations' that already work with 5e in it's core or Standard or AL modes. If they're going to change how the game works, anyway, declining to opt out of some non-core class is hardly a terrible burden.

If an entire class is created in which we must accept all of these particular pre-suppositions that many do not accept, the class itself is narrowing the interpretations that a game that wants to allow that class can have. I think that is a core issue here.

I don't think it's an issue, at all. Because the Warlord doesn't do that - in fact, it broadens available playstyles, so it's doing the opposite.

Though, of necessity, including any class means broadening the campaign to accommodate it. If you want to narrow the interpretations of the game, you'd want to reduce the number and variety of classes, not increase it.

For what it's worth, myself and my whole group of friends that game together were (and still are) major fans of 4e, had a warlord in our group, and loved the class, but I don't begrudge 5e designers for not including the specific class in the edition, nor does my friend who played one. No one can really know, but I suspect this is the most common, less vocal, response to the "issue".

I doubt you'd be all upset about the Warlord returning, either, given that. Most fans are a lot less vehement than what gets expressed on-line. That goes for the Warlord, now, for the edition war over the past 7 years, for Fighter SUX rants back to 2000, and the infamous Role v Roll debate in the late 90s. A small minority of fans nerdrage against something, others rise to the bait, and, absent dependable data about what anyone wants in a positive sense, the unfortunate folks trying to make a living off the hobby often end up just placating the rage - often only to incite yet more rage from another quarter.

The big sticking point here is the Warlord says, "No! No magic because I don't need magic to do magic stuff!"

That's not the case, at all, it's just another tired edition-war-era strawman. The Warlord never cast spells, it doesn't 'do magic stuff.' No 4e martial class did.

4e balanced the martial source with other sources, including the tradtionally-spellcasting divine and arcane sources. It was rough balance, and still slightly disfavored the martial source, but it was done better than it had been before. That's as far as it went.

A 5e Warlord needn't be constrained by tight balance or Role considerations, anyway.

 

[Imaro]

The Ranger design has, by the designers own admission, lost its way. There have been multiple versions of the ranger, ranging (npi) from non-caster to casting from low level on, and from personal-combat focused to 'pet'-focused, and that's just scratching the surface. A fan of the 1e Ranger may want a Ranger very different from what a fan of the 3e would want, while a fan of the 4e ranger would expect something completely different.

Not the case with the Warlord, which has had only one incarnation - even though it was rather broad in the concepts it could do, it did all of them.

Actually it's arguable that the marshall was also an incarnation of the warlord by another name in a different edition... same basic premise different implementation.

Putting that aside for a moment why do you presume that the 4e warlord satisfied all fans of the warlord? You can be a fan of something and still believe it can be improved, changed, etc. to better matchup with your preferences so your argument of there being only one incarnation does not then logically lead to... every fan of the "warlord" was satisfied by the 4e implementation of the warlord...

They're about equivalent to an Knight or Slayer or Thief with the Student of Battle feat in Essentials+. Fans of MCing a tiny bit of Warlord into their eFighter or eRogue might appreciate them (honestly, I've never seen anyone do that, but I'm sure someone, somewhere, must have done so for some build). Fans of the actual Warlord, not so much. If you want to play the full class, tiny fragments of it aren't very satisfying.

Totally disagree with your comparison. That feat allowed you to use inspiring word 1x a day... to heal you or one ally. All of the archetypes I listed can do one or more of the following... heal, debuff, buff, etc. numerous times in a day.

Again you're speaking for "fans of the warlord" as if you or even those on this site are an accurate representation of the majority of warlord fans when you aren't... how about you just stick to what Tony finds satisfying??

It is the only version of the class in a past edition of D&D that 5e can use as a model and goal for what the 5e Warlord should be like, in general and at minimum. That's as far as it goes. There's certainly potential for doing more with the class, over and above that.

So?? At some point in time there was only one version of every class in an edition of D&D, that didn't stop the classes from changing. You have hit one thing on the head (though I disagree with it being a "minimum")... the 4e warlord should be nothing more than a loose model that 5e can use as a general idea for it's own incarnation of the "warlord"... whether that be an individual class or as sub-classes of other full classes.

It's certainly run into problems doing that in the past. Problems like the edition war.

Eh... and yet here we have a class that would have never existed if D&D hadn't run into those problems being advocated for by it's proponents...

Both true. In fact, we have every right to hope for that. But it hasn't happened yet, and it's not going to get there by failing to model the concepts the Warlord has handled, nor failing to make the same sorts of contributions to the party's success that it could.

You mean hasn't happened for you... unless you now claim to know what every fan of the warlord is thinking at this moment. You know I could actually take your arguments more seriously if you didn't try to speak for all of warlord fandom and just kept it focused on what you actually know.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I doubt you'd be all upset about the Warlord returning, either, given that. Most fans are a lot less vehement than what gets expressed on-line.

You're right! I wouldn't, honestly. I'm just saying, there are reasons the designers aren't all over the idea, just the same as many fans. I highly doubt the designers really feel that passionately about these "issues" or that it is something that they feel need be addressed over other things. Indifference is typically a much more deadly foe than hate. I honestly and legitimately wish you good luck on overcoming that indifference in others and actually leading to something productive.

That's not the case, at all, it's just another tired edition-war-era strawman. The Warlord never cast spells, it doesn't 'do magic stuff.' No 4e martial class did.

4e balanced the martial source with other sources, including the tradtionally-spellcasting divine and arcane sources. It was rough balance, and still slightly disfavored the martial source, but it was done better than it had been before. That's as far as it went.

A 5e Warlord needn't be constrained by tight balance or Role considerations, anyway.

Man, if I had a nickel for every time I read the word "strawman" on this site....

Anyway, you're kinda twisting my words a little, don't you think? Healing people in the middle of combat, at range, is a magical effect. I mean, we can really get down to brass tacks and start arguing YET AGAIN about how you might disagree with that, and the inspirational healing thing, and yada yada, but the point is... It's a hangup for a lot of people. So much so that I'm valid in using wording like "doing magical things without magic". Whether it's possible, or appropriate in this game, is a grander argument. But my language in using that doesn't need to be twisted into a strawman, nor brushed aside as ludicrously false as it pertains to the perception of many others.

Also, just as a side discussion, aren't "sources" no longer really a thing? Why would there be a need to balance sources? I understand the desire to be able to do a more "low magic" setting and campaign, but other than that I don't see much need or use for dividing things up as coming from sources. Nothing wrong with it either, just that maybe that's why it's not a major consideration of the "balance" between them.

 

[El Mahdi]

What exactly is similar to this though? What other class causes... this? The difference with some of those things is broadly hand-waved with "because magic" because that works. It's a central theme of the entire game and the genre in which the game exists (mostly). The big sticking point here is the Warlord says, "No! No magic because I don't need magic to do magic stuff!" and it's just a weird shift for the majority of people, the rules, and the framework for the rules as a whole. It's just a very sticky situation and it's like some people want to downplay that as if acknowledging it is somehow going to ruin the chances of the class ever being made.

That's not the what the Warlord says.

The Warlord says "I don't need magic to do extraordinary stuff." Other classes also do extraordinary stuff without magic.

Recovering Hit Points is not inherently magical; that is unless one considers Rests, Second Wind, and the Healer Feat/Healing Kits as magical also.

I believe the big sticking point is this fundamental misunderstanding.