D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Imaro]

I'm not fine with it at all. All WotC has done is prove that they COULD make a good warlord class, but that they stubbornly refuse to do so for reasons I cannot even begin to comprehend. That's insulting, and annoying as hell. I didn't ask for pieces of the warlord spread among a half-dozen classes and archtypes - i wanted a warlord. But i don't dare speak for other fans of the class.

Well I can understand it not meeting your specific desires... but then that's going to be the case with anything done with D&D, it'll never make the entire fanbase totally happy. However I don't think (and this is my opinion based on purely anecdotal evidence) the average warlord fan (not the hardcore minority) in anyway takes the type of offense from WotC concerning the warlord that you seem to, because they didn't meet your specific criteria for a warlord/warlord-esque class/classes. I think many/most are pretty happy with it, or happy enough that it isn't a major point of contention for them such as with [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas when making the choice to play 5e...

 

[Savevsdeath]

Well I can understand it not meeting your specific desires... but then that's going to be the case with anything done with D&D, it'll never make the entire fanbase totally happy. However I don't think (and this is my opinion based on purely anecdotal evidence) the average warlord fan (not the hardcore minority) in anyway takes the type of offense from WotC concerning the warlord that you seem to, because they didn't meet your specific criteria for a warlord/warlord-esque class/classes. I think many/most are pretty happy with it, or happy enough that it isn't a major point of contention for them such as with [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas when making the choice to play 5e...

Anecdotal evidence is not at all worth mentioning. WotC has given those who are happy with chopped-up warlord pieces what they like, now how about the rest of us getting what we want? Why is that so hard? Why are they/certain players so opposed to new classes they'll just ignore anyway if they don't like them?

As for Bladesinger: It's a gish class that has no unique playstyle or mechanics requiring a new class. Warlord is not. The two are not the equivalent as far as design space needed to make them functional goes, and thus the argument is irrelevant.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Anecdotal evidence is not at all worth mentioning.

Agreed.

WotC has given those who are happy with chopped-up warlord pieces what they like, now how about the rest of us getting what we want?

When you say, "the rest of us," what do you mean? How many is "us", do you think, just out of curiosity?

Why is that so hard? Why are they/certain players so opposed to new classes they'll just ignore anyway if they don't like them?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've just missed the numerous explanations and reasons given in these various threads on that very subject. Suffice it to say, it's not so simple as you claim.

As for Bladesinger: It's a gish class that has no unique playstyle or mechanics requiring a new class. Warlord is not. The two are not the equivalent as far as design space needed to make them functional goes, and thus the argument is irrelevant.

Interestingly, I think the bladesinger has potentially unique and interesting roleplaying and concept niche opportunities. Whereas the warlord is already covered in that regard by existing material.

 

[Imaro]

Anecdotal evidence is not at all worth mentioning.

Unless one of us has hard data... then anecdotal evidence is all anyone is discussing when speaking to... oh say... "the rest of us" and what they want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well I can understand it not meeting your specific desires... but then that's going to be the case with anything done with D&D, it'll never make the entire fanbase totally happy. However I don't think (and this is my opinion based on purely anecdotal evidence) the average warlord fan (not the hardcore minority) in anyway takes the type of offense from WotC concerning the warlord

I'm sure the average fan of 3.5 didn't take the kind of offense folks like you did, and go off edition-warring against it. Yet vocal minorities speaking up on behalf of various playstyles have their impact on the community and 5e is actively trying to be D&D for everyone. That means covering what past editions covered, especially, what they covered in their core/PH1/initial-release incarnations. It's trying to open up that big umbrella, but the exception that stands out is the only new class from the 4e PH1, the Warlord. It's exclusion creates an appearance of excluding 4e fans, whether many of them are so over-sensitive to that as to abandon or war against the edition like some 3.5 fans did against 4e, it's not a desirable thing to perpetuate.

5e needs the Warlord. It needs it to cover character concepts and to support playstyles that it can't as yet.
It needs it to finally put the negativity of the edition war to rest and heal the community.

We've seen the various bits that detractors insist would have wrecked the game included here and there, non-magical 'healing' and n/rest martial abilities, and so forth, without the game being wrecked. All that remains is to bring them together and flesh them out into a full class. The objections to doing so have largely been answered, what remains are lingering tatters of edition-war resentment. We need to get past that.

 

[Imaro]

I'm sure the average fan of 3.5 didn't take the kind of offense folks like you did, and go off edition-warring against it. Yet vocal minorities speaking up on behalf of various playstyles have their impact on the community and 5e is actively trying to be D&D for everyone. That means covering what past editions covered, especially, what they covered in their core/PH1/initial-release incarnations. It's trying to open up that big umbrella, but the exception that stands out is the only new class from the 4e PH1, the Warlord. It's exclusion creates an appearance of excluding 4e fans, whether many of them are so over-sensitive to that as to abandon or war against the edition like some 3.5 fans did against 4e, it's not a desirable thing to perpetuate.

I'm sorry you lost me at the first sentence...Earlier I was referring to the fact that you stated you didn't want to play (as opposed to run) 5e because none of the current classes interested you and if they brought the warlord you wanted into 5e then maybe you would play... I guess that all the warlord fans that now play 5e could take it to that extreme (not playing without the specific warlord they want) but somehow I doubt that's actually the case. From various threads on this site we've seen that some warlord fans are perfectly happy with options that are currently out, including those in SCAG... now what exactly are you referring to as far as my "edition warring" goes? Or is it that unless I get behind the desire to have the same "warlord" as you I must be edition warring... because that seems like a pretty common picture you try to paint on other posters...over and over and over again.

As for the rest... yes, yes... I have heard your reasoning for why there not being a warlord is an afront to current/former (not exactly sure which group you're speaking for) 4e players all over the world and you know... I find that argument as unconvincing as I did the first time I read it.

5e needs the Warlord. It needs it to cover character concepts and to support playstyles that it can't as yet. It needs it to finally put the negativity of the edition war to rest and heal the community.

No 5e plays perfectly fine without a warlord class...and 5e doesn't have to mechanically cater to each and every play style, that's what house ruling is for... 5e needs to reach as many fans of D&D as possible and be easily house-ruled for those playstyles it doesn't cover out of the box(and so far there's no evidence it hasn't succeeded in this). The warlord class being in 5e or not isn't, as you so often try to paint it, an edition war thing... It's a disagreement of preferences that are much more varied than 4e vs. all other editions. Things like what a mundane warrior in one person's game vs. another's should be able to accomplish... whether the archetype is a true archetype in and of itself or something nearly every hero does in genre... what does or doesn't break thresholds of what is believable in some games vs. others and so on. It's about play style and what the baseline conceits of the game should be... but you keep re-kindling and stoking those edition war coals and maybe you'll get the fire you're looking for.

We've seen the various bits that detractors insist would have wrecked the game included here and there, non-magical 'healing' and n/rest martial abilities, and so forth, without the game being wrecked. All that remains is to bring them together and flesh them out into a full class. The objections to doing so have largely been answered, what remains are lingering tatters of edition-war resentment. We need to get past that.

Well you keep working on that and I'll continue enjoying my 5e... that works perfectly fine (even for low/no magic games since I can house rule 5e pretty easily if need be.) for me. Have fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sorry you lost me at the first sentence... now what exactly are you referring to as far as my "edition warring" goes?

The edition war, in retrospect (and we both know we were there and on what side, no sense denying it). It was waged by a small minority even though most fans weren't nearly as upset or defensive, but it still happened, and it wasn't exactly ignored.

I have heard your reasoning for why there not being a warlord is an afront to current/former (not exactly sure which group you're speaking for) 4e players.

D&D fans who have stuck with the game through 4e & 5e, obviously, whether they were into prior editions or not. We've endured the anti-D&D onslaught of the edition war, and anything 5e does that might have the appearance of caving to the negativity of that unfortunate time could be seen as an affront. I'm more concerned with the appearance than who & how many really go too far in feeling offended. As long as the appearance is there, it only takes a very small minority to get the negativity rolling again. We've been lucky, so far...

No 5e plays perfectly fine without a warlord class...

It does, as far as it goes, but it could go farther...

and 5e doesn't have to mechanically cater to each and every play style, that's what house ruling is for...

One of the major reasons we got 5e was complaints that playstyles weren't being covered by the current edition, indeed, that each prior ed had it's own set of unique playstyles that other eds couldn't do, and thus the fanbase was fragmented. 5e was supposed to address that by having support for that much broader universe of styles, not just by going 'meh, house-rule it,' which you could have done in any edition, but by being flexible in its standard edition and having plenty of modules. The lack of a non-magical support currently under-supports certain styles of campaign.

5e needs to reach as many fans of D&D as possible and be easily house-ruled for those playstyles it doesn't cover out of the box.

And, so far it neatly covers the playstyles covered by 2e (though it's got a long way to go to cover the settings), covers 3.x-specific styles with some optional rules and the grid module (and a not insignificant shift in DM attitude), covers 1e & earlier with some other modules and perhaps banning a few things, and falls short of covering what you could do in 4e, in not insignificant part (though not nearly solely), for want of a non-magical 'leader' (support-contributing) class - the Warlord.

Well you keep working on that and I'll continue enjoying my 5e... that works perfectly fine for me.

Live-and-let-game suits me, too. It would've suited me in 2008.

 

[Imaro]

Just the edition war, in retrospect - it was waged by a small minority even though most fans weren't nearly as upset, but it still happened, and it wasn't exactly ignored.

Yeah comparing apples and oranges here... fans disliking the game (4e) as a whole is a much bigger deal than fans wanting their favorite class in the game. I mean 4e didn't include what many considered base classes (Druid, Bard, Barbarian, etc.) and base races (Half-Orc, Gnome, etc.) upon release... So yeah sorry if I find a single class missing far less of a deal than many fans not particularly liking the game as a whole...

It does, as far as it goes, but it could go farther...

Yes it could... I'm hoping for psionics next, some more monsters and hopefully some Planescape down the line and maybe even a brand new campaign setting. You see there are only X resources available to create/design Y things in a span of Z time and while I agree that 5e could go farther... the Warlord as a class wouldn't really accomplish that for me... it'd be something I'd probably never use, especially seeing as none of my players played one during our time with 4e...

One of the major reasons we got 5e was complaints that playstyles weren't being covered by the current edition, indeed, that each prior ed had it's own set of unique playstyles that other eds couldn't do. 5e was supposed to address that by having support for that much broader universe of styles, not just by going 'meh, house-rule it,' which you could have done in any edition, but by being flexible in its standard edition and having plenty of modules. The lack of a non-magical support currently under-supports certain styles of campaign.

Was that why we got 5e? I mean I remember inclusiveness being one of the goals of 5e, but I don't remember that being the catalyst for it. As to non-magical support... not seeing it. There are feats, like Healer, Ritual Caster (for low-magic vs. no magic), Lucky & Inspiring Leader... the Battlemaster, Banneret & Mastermind sub-classes... equipment such as the Healer's Kit, Antitoxin along with the fact that most debilitating conditions offer multiple saves (why Lucky helps)... I'd say 5e is perfectly capable of being used as a low-magic game, especially with a house rule or two...

Anyway, so is this about the Warlord class or some kind of vendetta because you feel there isn't enough 4e in 5e?

And, so far it neatly covers the playstyles covered by 2e, covers 3.x-specific styles with some optional rules and the grid module (and a not insignificant shift in the DM's role), covers 1e & earlier with some other modules and perhaps banning a few things, and falls short of covering what you could do in 4e, in not insignificant part (though not nearly solely), for want of a non-magical 'leader' (support-contributing) class - the Warlord.

What exactly are you talking about... what exactly could be done in 4e but not in 5e? Because if you're talking low magic/ no magic games that's false. If you're talking full tactical, mini(counter)-based, involved set piece battles... well you might have a point but then I don't see how the warlord factors into that. Again this is starting to feel like 4e sour grapes with a coating of "warlord" on top of it...

Live-and-let-game suits me, too. It would've suited me in 2008.

More sour grapes?

 

[Tony Vargas]

... fans disliking the game (4e) as a whole is a much bigger deal than fans wanting their favorite class in the game.

Rather the point, it's not that unreasonable to ask for a missing class (or few), compared to demanding the whole game be scrapped because you disapprove of it.

I mean 4e didn't include what many considered base classes (Druid, Bard, Barbarian, etc.) and base races (Half-Orc, Gnome, etc.) upon release...

But it did have them within the year - also 'apples & oranges' because 5e pace of releases is so slow, then again, it's just the one class that's missing, two if you stretch a point concerning psionics.

Yes it could... I'm hoping for psionics next, some more monsters and hopefully some Planescape down the line and maybe even a brand new campaign setting.

Psioinics is clearly in the pipeline, and I'm happy for the fans who were hoping for it on the basis of the 1e PH appendix, as much of a stretch as that may have been. Settings were never a big priority for me, but I don't begrudge anyone wanting their favorite setting to get some support at some point.

You see there are only X resources available to create/design Y things in a span of Z time

ATM, sure, but that could change. The better 5e does at healing the rifts in the fanbase, being inclusive, and rehabilitating WotC's image, the better the game will do, and the more resources may become available. It's not a zero sum calculation, you don't have to take away things others want in order to get what you want.

Was that why we got 5e? I mean I remember inclusiveness being one of the goals of 5e, but I don't remember that being the catalyst for it.

It was something Mearls harped on when it was announced, yes.

Anyway, so is this about the Warlord class or some kind of vendetta because you feel there isn't enough 4e in 5e?

No, I'm trying to be positive, here.
I want the Warlord both for purely selfish reasons (it would be an interesting/fun martial class to play, and I'm both sick of casters from decades of play in prior eds, yet find existing DPR-focused martial classes uninteresting), and for altruistic reasons (I want to see 5e succeed in both a practical sense of selling well, and in the sense of fulfilling it's goals of inclusiveness and re-uniting the fanbase, the Warlord would be a major symbolic milestone in accomplishing that goal, because it would mean the anti-4e vendetta had relented to some degree).

What exactly are you talking about... what exactly could be done in 4e but not in 5e? Because if you're talking low magic/ no magic games that's false ... There are feats, like Healer, Ritual Caster, Lucky & Inspiring Leader... the Battlemaster, Banneret & Mastermind sub-classes... equipment such as the Healer's Kit, Antitoxin along with the fact that most debilitating conditions offer multiple saves...

Low-/no- magic games worked very easily and smoothly in 4e. You chose martial classes, flipped the inherent bonus switch and it worked seamlessly. 5e, as you can see if you check out some of the Primeval Thule threads needs extensive re-working just to get close, even if you pull in optional feats, and those two GSC sub-classes. It's not just the lack of support contributions from the non-magical sub-classes, but the fact they're /all/ DPR focused, they lack the variety and depth to build a viable party.

If you're talking full tactical, mini(counter)-based, involved set piece battles... well you might have a point but then I don't see how the warlord factors into that.

It does, thematically, but that's what I was thinking of. Between a DM consciously making rulings to facilitate that kind of play, and the few modules in the DMG meant to enable it, you can get a fairly involved set-piece battle going. Works better with Legendary (Solo) creatures than with large groups of enemies, because of the way Bounded Accuracy impacts numeric advantages. 5e does not support that style as lavishly as 3.5 and 4e did, but it does make a credible attempt.

More sour grapes?

It is discouraging that even with 5e conceived as a more inclusive edition meant to heal the rifts in the fanbase, there is still so much negativity and spite afflicting the community.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


Interestingly, I think the bladesinger has potentially unique and interesting roleplaying and concept niche opportunities. Whereas the warlord is already covered in that regard by existing material.

I think the difference here, though, is you actually get a blade singer that apparently makes everyone happy. I haven't seen too many complaints about it from blade singer fans. No one is saying that the blade singer is only half the concept that is expected. OTOH, I think most people who want a warlord agree that currently, you only get about 60% of a warlord, no matter what you try to do in 5e. You just can't get a whole warlord, yet.

.......

As far as "no new classes" goes, well, psionics blows that out of the water doesn't it? WOTC has already shown that they are more than willing to add some new classes to the game. So, arguing that we can't get a warlord because of some notion of "no new classes" doesn't really wash. And, I'd argue that warlords are as different from base classes as psionics are. There are very strong reasons to fold psionics into core classes, and strong reasons not to. Very similar arguments can be and have been made for and against a warlord class.

........

PDK suffers the same issue as the Battlemaster. It's only about 60% of what a Warlord does. And, I think to non-warlord fans, especially to those opposed to the warlord on its face, there is a notion that that should be good enough. They look at the Battlemaster or the PDK and say, "well, that's doing most of the things that a warlord does, what's the problem?"

The problem is, it only does about 60% of what a warlord does. A warlord should not be a front line combatant. A PDK, and any fighter type, is very much a front line combatant. Why does a support class need four attacks per round? Why does a support class need weapon focus? Shouldn't a support class be doing it's thing most rounds? I mean, we have casters casting spells every single round now - there's virtually no reason for a sorcerer or a wizard to even carry a weapon anymore. So, shouldn't a class based around support be doing its thing at least the majority of rounds?

This is why the Battlemaster doesn't work. Sure, you can make a Battlemaster that grants bonus HP, grants attacks and grants movement. All very warlordy stuff. But, at say, 8th level, he can only do it 5 times per short rest. If you presume 10 rounds of combat per rest period (not an unreasonable assumption), at best he's doing warlordy stuff half the time. That's at best. More likely, he's blown through his dice in 3 rounds, and spends the next 7 being a sub-par fighter.

It is not unreasonable to expect a class to do it's schtick more than 50% of the time.