D&D 5E (2014) Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Imaro]

The Warlord is needed for a number of reasons, for some of them, like being an adequate primary or sole source of support functions for a party (to enable an all-martial or low-/no- magic campaign, a playstyle that is not currently well-supported) that means needing to exist at 1st level, yes. The idea is that Warlord as a class name has been, and should remain, descriptive rather than indicating position or profession. If a character's talents are primarily in leadership skills, tactics, and the like, then Warlord is appropriate, from 1st level. The class doesn't imply position, authority or past accomplishment. Of course, a Background can provide those elements if they're desired - a Soldier has past experience in the military and holds a rank, a Noble has a position in society that comes with some authority.

You do realize that an all martial or low/no magic campaign is not one of the playstyles (default) D&D 5e is meant to address... right? Given that I can see why the warlord is a low to non-existent priority and why houserules are necessary. The fact is that 5e is pretty upfront about this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm sure they tried many times to put psionics into sub-classes first.

They are doing it, but very reluctant.

It probably isn't your intent, but this comes across very strongly of confirmation bias. Evidence against the claim is suspect, or even somehow serves to support your claim. In the end, all we can say is that most of what they have chosen to do thus far is subclasses, but they have explicitly committed to psionics having its own class for several months now. And, if I recall correctly (which might not be the case), while they had originally been on a distinct kick of "condense EVERYTHING" in the early-mid playtest e.g. the "Mage" was going to absorb Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, and Psion, that track was abandoned pretty quickly because it led to excessively uniform, indistinguishable characters--the first good evidence that they've planned, since well before release, to give psionics its own class.

Plus, they were perfectly willing to consider creating an entirely new, playtest Ranger class as part of its ongoing re-assessment. I really don't see them as "very reluctant" to create new classes. Sure, they probably prefer making subclasses for a number of reasons (by leaving out the core class info they might drive sales of PHBs; subclasses have a much smaller design footprint and thus aren't as difficult, etc.) But that doesn't mean that they're intentionally avoiding creating new classes as a sort of secret principle which psionics got a special and unique exception to.

In fact, I'd argue that the "subclasses are smaller and thus easier to design" explains the vast majority of it. It's the same thought process as "eh, I'm not going outside today and nobody's coming over, I'll just wear my pajamas" vs. "A friend/date/family member is coming over, I should look presentable." It's not that I can't do those things, nor that I have any opposition to them (far from it, in fact). But when I know I'm going to be on my own for a whole day with no outside commitments, I see little point in dirtying a full set of regular clothes when I could just as easily wear pajamas. Should a need to properly dress arise--and it's both easy and natural for such events to occur, e.g. "crap I forgot to get milk, better go get some"--I'm perfectly happy to do so.

What if the WotC design team sees things in a similar way? Nothing to do with "reluctance" to create full classes, and merely favoring the easier subclass path whenever it would be sufficient to the task. For Psionics, they had already more or less determined it wasn't going to be. If we go a speculative step further, and assume that something similar to my "the Warlord was fully intended from the start, but fell through the cracks by accident" argument, then it would make a lot of sense that they haven't quite determined whether or not they'll give it a full class yet; even as late as August 2013, with only 3 months of public playtesting (and ~6-8 months of any playtesting) left to go, the Warlord(-Fighter) still had martial healing, at least according to Mearls' tweets. If things changed enough in those last few months specifically for that subclass (as the Fighter overall took a terribly long time to hammer out), it's entirely possible that they are only now reaching the point of deciding, "Hmm, maybe it really does need its own class." The Psion took nearly as long, and that was without jury duty sapping their strength or the demands of regular publication distracting them from creating new designs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You do realize that an all martial or low/no magic campaign is not one of the playstyles (default) D&D 5e is meant to address... right?

What makes you think those play styles must be intentionally excluded? They were well-supported by 4e, and 5e is meant to support /more/ playstyles than 4e did.

Nothing to do with "reluctance" to create full classes, and merely favoring the easier subclass path whenever it would be sufficient to the task.

Whatever the reasons, be it inclination/reluctance, catering to a specific segment of the fan-base, design efficiency, IP integrity, or lack of resources & pragmatic expediency, 5e has a slow pace of releases and has yet to add a new official, published class, while it's added several sub-classes. Even though the Mystic appeared in UA, empirically, the evidence still weighs against it ever seeing print. It's that much worse for any other additional classes the game needs that haven't even entered the pipeline yet.

For Psionics, they had already more or less determined it wasn't going to be. If we go a speculative step further, and assume that something similar to my "the Warlord was fully intended from the start, but fell through the cracks by accident" argument, then it would make a lot of sense that they haven't quite determined whether or not they'll give it a full class yet; even as late as August 2013, with only 3 months of public playtesting (and ~6-8 months of any playtesting) left to go, the Warlord(-Fighter) still had martial healing, at least according to Mearls' tweets. If things changed enough in those last few months specifically for that subclass (as the Fighter overall took a terribly long time to hammer out), it's entirely possible that they are only now reaching the point of deciding, "Hmm, maybe it really does need its own class." The Psion took nearly as long, and that was without jury duty sapping their strength or the demands of regular publication distracting them from creating new designs.

Sure, there's reason to hope. I find more reason in the professed goals for 5e than in their actions of the last year or so, which, is not, I guess, very convincing.
But hope doesn't need solid proof.

 

[Imaro]

What makes you think those play styles must be intentionally excluded? They were well-supported by 4e, and 5e is meant to support /more/ playstyles than 4e did.

Well not supporting 1 style that 4e did support... does not necessarily equate to supporting less play styles than 4e did. But for why I believe this particular playstyle is not supported by 5e out of the box...

"Few D&D adventures happen without something magical happening..."

"In the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, practitioners of magic are rare, set apart from the masses of people by their extraordinary talent. Common folk my see evidence of magic on a regular basis, but it's usually minor- a fantastic monster, a visibly answered prayer, a wizard walking through the streets with an animated shield guardian as a bodyguard."

"For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold."

"Magic is also a favored tool of villains. Many adventurers are driven by the machinations of spellcasters who are hellbent on using magic for some ill end. A cult leader seeks to awaken a god who slumbers beneath the sea, a hag kidnaps youths to magically drain them of their vigor, a mad wizard labors to invest an army of automatons with a facsimile of life, a dragon begins a mystical ritual to rise up as a god of destruction- these are just a few of the magical threats that adventurers might face. With magic of their own, in the form of spells and magic items, the adventurers might prevail."

This tells me a few things about magic in default D&D...

1. Magic is a part of default D&D (Note this doesn't preclude S&S campaigns, it just means they'll be more Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser or Elric and Corum than Conan)

2. This is where the healing and support that martial character's need to survive comes from (My play experiences so far tend to support this as it's much better in 5e for a caster to heal or buff a martial then to end up needing healing or running headlong into something themselves while buffed, especially with concentration).

3. Great magic is rare... minor magic is common (Out the box this speaks to more Tolkien based, for high fantasy... or Moorcockian based, for S&S games, where even those considered martial have some magic... as opposed to Conan or GoT)

4. Magic is a tool for heroes and villains

5. D&D out of the box isn't meant to be a no-magic setting... that's just not really D&D...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry that I have to acknowledge the reality of the edition war, below, but the goals of 5e were influenced by the rift that travesty created among D&D fans, so, unpleasant at is it may be, I can't really go into one of those goals without it coming up.

Well not supporting 1 style that 4e did support... does not necessarily equate to supporting less play styles than 4e did.

It really does. The goal isn't just to support more styles, in total numbers (good luck even defining styles precisely and consistently enough to count them!), but to support styles that past editions did. Failing to support a style that 4e handled well would be failing in that goal, and failing in a way that creates an appearance of taking sides in the edition war, rather than trying to heal the rifts caused by it. I'm not ready to accept that 5e is meant exclusively for h4ters.

But for why I believe this particular playstyle is not supported by 5e out of the box...

No argument, there. 5e currently doesn't support low-/no- magic or martial-focused play-styles, and clearly hasn't tried very hard to do so, as yet. Rather than declaring that a failure and unforgivable betrayal and nerdraging against them the way h4ters overreacted to 4e by starting the edition war, however, I choose to hope that they'll get around to supporting more playstyles in the coming years, and accept, until conclusively proven otherwise, that 5e's declared goals were sincere, even if they haven't all been met yet.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry that I have to acknowledge the reality of the edition war, below, but the goals of 5e were influenced by the rift that travesty created among D&D fans, so, unpleasant at is it may be, I can't really go into one of those goals without it coming up.

It really does. The goal isn't just to support more styles, in total numbers (good luck even defining styles precisely and consistently enough to count them!), but to support styles that past editions did. Failing to support a style that 4e handled well would be failing in that goal, and failing in a way that creates an appearance of taking sides in the edition war, rather than trying to heal the rifts caused by it. I'm not ready to accept that 5e is meant exclusively for h4ters.

No argument, there. 5e currently doesn't support low-/no- magic or martial-focused play-styles, and clearly hasn't tried very hard to do so, as yet. Rather than declaring that a failure and unforgivable betrayal and nerdraging against them the way h4ters overreacted to 4e by starting the edition war, however, I choose to hope that they'll get around to supporting more playstyles in the coming years, and accept, until conclusively proven otherwise, that 5e's declared goals were sincere, even if they haven't all been met yet.

Again... more does not mean all... and even 4e didn't support an all martial/no-magic play style until later in it's life cycle. The core books certainly didn't. I'd also correct you in that an all martial party can be played in 5e. Does the game do anything special to facilitate that... nope, but it doesn't hinder one either... 5e also does low-magic fine... Arguably the only thing 5e doesn't do is non-magic... which if I remember correctly 4e didn't do until Dark Sun came out with inherent bonuses, 2 years after the core books were released and after numerous releases of other material beforehand...

Also... I see no reason, you had to bring up edition wars, and/or use the word h4ter, it adds nothing to your post above...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again... more does not mean all... and even 4e didn't support an all martial/no-magic play style until later in it's life cycle. The core books certainly didn't.

4e's bizarre definition of 'Core' aside, an all-martial party was playable from the PH1, just not a no-magic-items-at-all campaign at higher level. That was enabled by inherent bonuses in the DMG2, a little over a year after initial release - about where we are now in the 5e timeline. So, yes, well-supported, early in the life cycle.

I'd also correct you in that an all martial party can be played in 5e.

You could play a party appropriate to any style in 4e, as well, but that didn't satisfy people who felt their styles were 'unsupported.' Supporting a style is more than just, you can roll up the characters appropriate to the style (but the game will suck horribly if you try to play them in that style), apparently a /lot/ more from the edition-war era complaints about styles not being supported /enough/ in 4e.

Also... I see no reason, you had to bring up edition wars, and/or use the word h4ter...

The idea of including fans of all editions, healing the rift in the fan base, and supporting the full range of play styles possible under past editions, was made necessary by the virulence of the edition war. It's not just WotC that has to learn from the excesses of the edition war, by creating a broader, more flexible, more inclusive version of the game, it's the fans who must be on guard against repeating the reactionary negativity that started the edition war and made it so virulent.

It's all to easy and tempting to go off and nerdrage against a new edition. Change is never easy, and a new edition will necessarily be less 'complete' than the last, there's always something to freak out about if you're so inclined. Simply lacking or wanting a class can be blown out of proportion and treated like a personal betrayal of the fans or an existential threat to the game. I believe we're mostly avoiding that sort of thing this time around, and I'm determined not to become as bad as the h4ters were, even if I find myself in a similar (or much worse) position. That means not forgetting the lessons of the edition war.

 

[Imaro]

4e's bizarre definition of 'Core' aside, an all-martial party was playable from the PH1, just not a no-magic-items-at-all campaign at higher level. That was enabled by inherent bonuses in the DMG2, a little over a year after initial release - about where we are now in the 5e timeline. So, yes, well-supported, early in the life cycle.

And an all martial party is playable using just the PH1 of 5e. Also inherent bonuses officially came out over 2 years later Dark Sun was released in Aug of 2010... the PHB was released in June of 2008. I also thinks it's a little skewed when just looking at timeframe... how much other stuff was covered before WotC decided to enable a no-magic campaign? Tons... thus my point... even 4e didn't prioritize this playstyle above things like psionics, PH3 was released first.

You could play a party appropriate to any style in 4e, as well, but that didn't satisfy people who felt their styles were 'unsupported.' Supporting a style is more than just, you can roll up the characters appropriate to the style (but the game will suck horribly if you try to play them in that style), apparently a /lot/ more from the edition-war era complaints about styles not being supported /enough/ in 4e.

Eh, most of the complaints I saw were about play styles that 4e's rules hindered... such as resource management play or multiple combat attrition.

The idea of including fans of all editions, healing the rift in the fan base, and supporting the full range of play styles possible under past editions, was made necessary by the virulence of the edition war. It's not just WotC that has to learn from the excesses of the edition war, by creating a broader, more flexible, more inclusive version of the game, it's the fans who must be on guard against repeating the reactionary negativity that started the edition war and made it so virulent.

It's all to easy and tempting to go off and nerdrage against a new edition. Change is never easy, and a new edition will necessarily be less 'complete' than the last, there's always something to freak out about if you're so inclined. Simply lacking or wanting a class can be blown out of proportion and treated like a personal betrayal of the fans or an existential threat to the game. I believe we're mostly avoiding that sort of thing this time around, and I'm determined not to become as bad as the h4ters were, even if I find myself in a similar (or much worse) position. That means not forgetting the lessons of the edition war.

This in no way explains the necessity of using a derogatory term for those who disliked 4e (as well as using it again above) while continuously professing to be better than those you continue insulting... That's real classy...

 

[Tony Vargas]

And an all martial party is playable using just the PH1 of 5e.

In the sense you can roll one up, sure, in the sense you'll get a functional play experience out of it, no.

Also inherent bonuses officially came out over 2 years later Dark Sun was released in Aug of 2010

Nope, DGM2, Sept 2009.

Eh, most of the complaints I saw were about play styles that 4e's rules hindered... such as resource management play or multiple combat attrition.

Most of those complaints were also exaggerated or flat-out wrong, thanks to the excesses of the edition war. 4e gave everyone resources to manage, so it could hardly be said that it hindered resource-management, and attrition across multiple combats was also a feature of the edition. But supporting a style is more than just it being possible, it must also be functional, viable, and even familiar to some extent. It must satisfy those who profess the style.

5e hasn't come close to clearing that bar yet with regards to all-martial parties, low-/no- magic campaigns, or other styles that 4e supported so well. Not as close as 4e came to supporting the TotM, CaW, resource-management & attrition based styles that h4ters attacked it for.

And, where h4ter attacks were purely defamatory and counter-productive offering no way for 4e to be adapted to those professed styles, the addition of the warlord would be a big step in the direction of adding those styles to those already supported, without getting in the way of said existing styles.

This in no way explains the necessity of using a derogatory term for those who disliked 4e (as well as using it again above) while continuously professing to be better than those you continue insulting...

Pretending there were no h4ters attacking 4e, no 4vengers defending it, and no edition war wouldn't help. Acknowledging those things shouldn't be insulting, either, because (hopefully) they're all in the past and we can avoid a repeat of it going forward. Part of avoiding a repetition is staying aware of the excesses of the past.

 

[Imaro]

In the sense you can roll one up, sure, in the sense you'll get a functional play experience out of it, no.

What exactly is missing from a functional play experience?

Nope, DGM2, Sept 2009.

You're right, not sure why I thought they came out in the Dark Sun book...

Most of those complaints were also exaggerated or flat-out wrong, thanks to the excesses of the edition war. 4e gave everyone resources to manage, so it could hardly be said that it hindered resource-management, and attrition across multiple combats was also a feature of the edition. But supporting a style is more than just it being possible, it must also be functional, viable, and even familiar to some extent. It must satisfy those who profess the style.

Wait so are you sayig 4e did support those styles... or that the complaints were exaggerated and/or wrong? In one breath you claim one then go on later to insinuate that support is more than just making something possible (especially when pointing to 5e)... which is it?

5e hasn't come close to clearing that bar yet with regards to all-martial parties, low-/no- magic campaigns, or other styles that 4e supported so well. Not as close as 4e came to supporting the TotM, CaW, resource-management & attrition based styles that h4ters attacked it for.

Let's just agree to disagree here... Also you realize that painting everyone who didn't like 4e with the broadbrush of h4ter serves no purpose to but to trivialize people's opinions of the game that don't align with yours... so why keep professing to want to move on from the edition war while continuously bringing it up for no reason?

And, where h4ter attacks were purely defamatory and counter-productive offering no way for 4e to be adapted to those professed styles, the addition of the warlord would be a big step in the direction of adding those styles to those already supported, without getting in the way of said existing styles.

Again your bias is showing under that thin veneer of pretending to want to put the edition wars behind... Who are you to decide whether people's complaints were purely defamatory and counterproductive... from where I'm sitting it got me 5e, a game much more in line with what I want out of D&D... I'm sorry it didn't do the same for you but 4e is still available and even in PDF format now, so there's no reason you can't continue to play it if it fits your style better...

Pretending there were no h4ters attacking 4e, no 4vengers defending it, and no edition war wouldn't help. Acknowledging those things shouldn't be insulting, either, because (hopefully) they're all in the past and we can avoid a repeat of it going forward. Part of avoiding a repetition is staying aware of the excesses of the past.

I don't know what a h4ter or 4venger is... I've seen the term used only in a derogatory manner for the marginalization of the opinions of others... and even now that's all I'm seeing it being used for in your posts... so please define them for me so I have a better grasp of what exactly you mean when using them...