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

[Tony Vargas]

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?

It's a matter of degree. People say 'game X' doesn't 'support' their playstyle. Sometimes they mean it's non-functional under their style or outright impossible (unlikely) on the other extreme they can just mean it doesn't over-reward or force that playstyle over others, perhaps more reasonably, they could mean that the game runs smoothly and seamlessly under the style, neither punishing nor rewarding it.

While it's certainly not impossible to do, 5e doesn't rise to the level of merely functional, let alone seamless, with an all-martial party or a low-/no- magic setting. Adding the Warlord would help it get to there. Some more alternatives to the existing, DPR-focused, non-magical sub-classes would also be in order to really support those styles and get it to a seamless play experience. But even functional would be a something.
No need to go over-rewarding or forcing those styles, nor degrading the game's playability under other styles.

Also you realize that painting everyone who didn't like 4e with the broadbrush of h4ter serves no purpose

'H4ter' only refers to those vocal edition warriors who nerdraged against 4e on-line, not to more level-headed fans who merely disliked it and stuck with 3.5 or moved on to Pathfinder or whatever without resorting to such excesses. Similarly, everyone who happily played 4e without paying attention to the edition war was hardly a 4venger. Those of us who participated in the edition war, OTOH, know full well what labels applied to us at the time, and face a choice in how we conduct ourselves going forward.

... so why keep professing to want to move on from the edition war while continuously bringing it up for no reason?

Moving on doesn't mean forgetting. To move on we must learn from the mistakes of the past, we can't do that by pretending it never happened.

 

[oknazevad]

Or you could just drop the stick and stop fighting the war. Continuing to use the same derogatory terms, acting sorrowful and lamenting the division yet still making the same arguments and presumptions is still fighting the war. You say you want the fractures to heal, yet not forget the past. There's a big difference between remembering something and continuing to relive it. You're doing the latter. And it's detrimental to your stated goals. Which, honestly, makes me doubt your sincerity.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or you could just drop the stick and stop fighting the war. Continuing to use the same derogatory terms, acting sorrowful and lamenting the division yet still making the same arguments and presumptions is still fighting the war. You say you want the fractures to heal, yet not forget the past. There's a big difference between remembering something and continuing to relive it. You're doing the latter. And it's detrimental to your stated goals. Which, honestly, makes me doubt your sincerity.

Moving on usually requires that you not completely forget what happened. Particularly when it continues to happen, and current trends provide a form of "legitimacy" or "justification" that is both unwarranted and toxic.

 

[Imaro]

Moving on usually requires that you not completely forget what happened. Particularly when it continues to happen, and current trends provide a form of "legitimacy" or "justification" that is both unwarranted and toxic.

You mean legitimacy or justification for using terms like h4ter that are both unwarranted and toxic? Or were you referring to something else?

 

[Imaro]

It's a matter of degree. People say 'game X' doesn't 'support' their playstyle. Sometimes they mean it's non-functional under their style or outright impossible (unlikely) on the other extreme they can just mean it doesn't over-reward or force that playstyle over others, perhaps more reasonably, they could mean that the game runs smoothly and seamlessly under the style, neither punishing nor rewarding it.

I was asking what you meant when you claimed 5e didn't support an all martial party... a question that's seeming very hard to get a straight answer to.

While it's certainly not impossible to do, 5e doesn't rise to the level of merely functional, let alone seamless, with an all-martial party or a low-/no- magic setting. Adding the Warlord would help it get to there. Some more alternatives to the existing, DPR-focused, non-magical sub-classes would also be in order to really support those styles and get it to a seamless play experience. But even functional would be a something.
No need to go over-rewarding or forcing those styles, nor degrading the game's playability under other styles.

Again a vague reply with no specifics... let me try this again. Why is 5e not functional for an all martial game? specifics please, otherwise I have to assume you're just stating an opinion without anything to back it up... you know that same behavior you claim was a big (and negative) part of the edition wars...

'H4ter' only refers to those vocal edition warriors who nerdraged against 4e on-line, not to more level-headed fans who merely disliked it and stuck with 3.5 or moved on to Pathfinder or whatever without resorting to such excesses. Similarly, everyone who happily played 4e without paying attention to the edition war was hardly a 4venger. Those of us who participated in the edition war, OTOH, know full well what labels applied to us at the time, and face a choice in how we conduct ourselves going forward.

This sounds like... h4ter equates to anyone who voiced dislike of 4e publicly while the "more level-headed fans" refer to those who just went their separate ways and didn't make a fuss... yet the behavior of the pro-warlord crowd seems much more in line with what you claim defines the "h4ters"... is there some nuance I'm missing here or does that about sum it up?

Moving on doesn't mean forgetting. To move on we must learn from the mistakes of the past, we can't do that by pretending it never happened.

You referring to people as h4ters or 4vengers... years after the edition war teaches what exactly? IMO, you choosing to refer to people with derogatory terms used in the past isn't helping people remember anything, it's just you using a paper-thin justification to indulge in one of the worse aspects of the edition wars, separation and tribalism, especially since you continue to use the word (would say words but you seem to use h4ter alot more than 4venger) to refer to people in the present tense.

 

[Remathilis]

You referring to people as h4ters or 4vengers... years after the edition war teaches what exactly? IMO, you choosing to refer to people with derogatory terms used in the past isn't helping people remember anything, it's just you using a paper-thin justification to indulge in one of the worse aspects of the edition wars, separation and tribalism, especially since you continue to use the word (would say words but you seem to use h4ter alot more than 4venger) to refer to people in the present tense.

Clearly, Our Notions Concerning Edition Rivalry are Negative. Try Reducing Oppressive, Limiting Language.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You mean legitimacy or justification for using terms like h4ter that are both unwarranted and toxic? Or were you referring to something else?

I mean things like saying, even in a clearly joking way, "But his hand didn't grow back. Now I'm being a little ridiculous." Because that actually was a major point in the edition wars. Hearing a designer reference it, specifically when talking about what a Warlord-type character could or could not do, was extremely disheartening for me, and many other fans (both of Warlords specifically, and of 4e). And it absolutely was used by people to legitimize arguments that 4e "wasn't D&D," that the Warlord had no place whatsoever in a D&D-type game (an argument that has resurfaced in this subforum, albeit on a different tack), and other toxic, exclusionary, unhelpful, and frequently spiteful comments.

The (accidental or intentional) justification or legitimization is a thing WotC employees can do, or avoid doing. Only relates to what others say in the sense that they can offer it up as "evidence."

As for "does 5e support an all-martial party"? Not anywhere near as well as 4e did, and arguably worse than 3e did too--at least that had Wands of CLW. I've played several sessions now with a party where nearly everyone has some kind of healing magic available...and we still get pasted by even fights (and nearly TPK'd to a fight that "should" have been barely Hard). An all-martial party is going to have little to nothing they can do in the face of such challenges; a radical alteration of playstyle on the players' side (almost never fighting anything, taking long rests whenever possible) and extremely careful selection/creation of enemies (made more difficult by 5e's approximate/loosey-goosey monster design) would be critical to avoid a string of PC deaths/TPKs.

You have the freedom to choose to play three-to-five Fighters, Rogues, or (I guess) Barbarians...as you always did in any version of D&D, since WotC never puts enough mind-control dust on the books. But both the players and the DM must make substantial, non-trivial, and quite possibly fun-sapping changes to how and what they play in order to make it functional over any meaningful span of time. It also means anyone who likes intricate procedures of play (what is often called "complexity" in a positive sense) but dislikes overtly-magical-based-on-spells options is just SOL.

Or, in short: As always with D&D, you can try to play all-martial. I don't envy the workload that involves in 5e, nor your chances of success.

 

[Sadras]

5e has a user friendly chassis, arguably easier that recent prior editions. You want to play an all martial-party with a little bit of healing on the side, add a Fighter maneuver that does some healing (self/ally/mass/whatever) and allow the Battlemaster to spend superiority die for said maneuver. From my point of view WoTC might not have created the 4e Warlord class, but they certainly littered their handbook and guide with enough hints & clues for the tinkerers. And as I see it most of us tinker with the rules in one way or another.

There seems to be far too much fuss over nothing.

 

[Imaro]

I mean things like saying, even in a clearly joking way, "But his hand didn't grow back. Now I'm being a little ridiculous." Because that actually was a major point in the edition wars. Hearing a designer reference it, specifically when talking about what a Warlord-type character could or could not do, was extremely disheartening for me, and many other fans (both of Warlords specifically, and of 4e). And it absolutely was used by people to legitimize arguments that 4e "wasn't D&D," that the Warlord had no place whatsoever in a D&D-type game (an argument that has resurfaced in this subforum, albeit on a different tack), and other toxic, exclusionary, unhelpful, and frequently spiteful comments.

The (accidental or intentional) justification or legitimization is a thing WotC employees can do, or avoid doing. Only relates to what others say in the sense that they can offer it up as "evidence."

What does this have to do with [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas referring to people in a derogatory manner with the term "h4ters"??

As for "does 5e support an all-martial party"? Not anywhere near as well as 4e did, and arguably worse than 3e did too--at least that had Wands of CLW. I've played several sessions now with a party where nearly everyone has some kind of healing magic available...and we still get pasted by even fights (and nearly TPK'd to a fight that "should" have been barely Hard). An all-martial party is going to have little to nothing they can do in the face of such challenges; a radical alteration of playstyle on the players' side (almost never fighting anything, taking long rests whenever possible) and extremely careful selection/creation of enemies (made more difficult by 5e's approximate/loosey-goosey monster design) would be critical to avoid a string of PC deaths/TPKs.

What level is your party? I ask because getting pasted by even fights and nearly TPK'd by fights that should have been barely hard is something that only happened to my PC's between levels 1-2... possibly 3 (currently they are level 10)... but after that it became a challenge to even threaten them with even encounters and a barely hard encounter wasn't much of a speed bump either. As to whether a martial party can handle damage (which is essentially what you're claiming the problem is)... Just off the top of my head for damage mitigation by martial characters there is the Rally maneuver, hit dice, Second Wind, Potions of Healing (Greater, Superior, Supreme)... Healer's Kits...Antitoxin...Healer Feat...Inspiring Leader...Lucky (to mitigate save effects)...Durable (mitigate low hit point gains during short rests)...Potions of Vitality... Martial Adept feat (so others can get Rally)...and so on.

You have the freedom to choose to play three-to-five Fighters, Rogues, or (I guess) Barbarians...as you always did in any version of D&D, since WotC never puts enough mind-control dust on the books. But both the players and the DM must make substantial, non-trivial, and quite possibly fun-sapping changes to how and what they play in order to make it functional over any meaningful span of time. It also means anyone who likes intricate procedures of play (what is often called "complexity" in a positive sense) but dislikes overtly-magical-based-on-spells options is just SOL.
Or, in short: As always with D&D, you can try to play all-martial. I don't envy the workload that involves in 5e, nor your chances of success.

What substantial changes? What workload?... allowing feats and magic items? Let's just say I totally disagree with your premise and conclusion for why see above. Running an all martial party in 5e is trivialy easy if the only thing you're trying to compensate for is damage mitigation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was asking what you meant when you claimed 5e didn't support an all martial party... a question that's seeming very hard to get a straight answer to.

While it's certainly not impossible to do, 5e doesn't rise to the level of merely functional, let alone seamless, with an all-martial party or a low-/no- magic setting.

Why is 5e not functional for an all martial game?

5e makes a number of assumptions around which the game is tuned, a critical one is encounter/day, which are supposed to 6-8 moderate-hard encounters per day, on average. To handle that kind of 'day' the party needs hp resources, and to handle D&D-style combats it needs in-combat hp restoration, damage mitigation, and other forms of support contributions. An all-martial party, as it stands, can't have those resources, because there are only a few martial-only sub-classes, and they're all focused on DPR as their primary in-combat contribution.

This sounds like... h4ter equates to anyone who voiced dislike of 4e publicly while the "more level-headed fans" refer to those who just went their separate ways and didn't make a fuss...

Voicing dislike is one thing, and you did, rarely, see someone just mention that they didn't care for 4e, and move on. Even more rarely, you'd see constructive criticism. Neither of those generated the sheer volume of vitriol that marked the edition war. It's the hostility, the negativity, then inability to see or even tolerate other points of view, and the uncompromising need to force the official game to take sides, just to name a few, that marked edition warring.

5e tries to get away from that. It's meant to be a more open and inclusive game, with something for everyone, not a prescriptive One True Way that enshrines one style or appreciation of one prior edition as right. To do that it should avoid even the appearance of validating or appeasing one side of the edition war.

yet the behavior of the pro-warlord crowd seems much more in line with what you claim defines the "h4ters"...

Not remotely, no. What could possibly make you think that. So we want a great class from a past edition included in a game meant to be inclusive of past editions. That's not attacking the game, it's just wanting more from it - more of what it's goals aspire to. That the game so far lacks what that class offers is easily corrected by adding the option. Doing so wouldn't take away from the styles already supported. There's nothing negative or malicious about that.

You referring to people as h4ters or 4vengers... years after the edition war teaches what exactly?

I'm not referring to people, today, as h4ters or 4vengers.

especially since you continue to use the word(s) to refer to people in the present tense.

That's not my intention, maybe I've banged out some poorly-constructed sentences, or perhaps you're just reading that into what I'm saying.

What level is your party? I ask because getting pasted by even fights and nearly TPK'd by fights that should have been barely hard is something that only happened to my PC's between levels 1-2...

That's when support contributions can be the most critical, and sub-class features and feats that represent most of the tiny amount of support that a martial character might contribute with the extant options kick in at 3rd or 4th level. One of the reasons only a full class will do.

5e has a user friendly chassis, arguably easier that recent prior editions.

It's been successful in selling DM empowerment and the acceptability of homebrews, module & variants to the community in a way the last two eds completely failed to do. Which is great. It doesn't mean that the game can't be improved by adding official options, but it does mean that those who have the time & talent can take up the designer's mantle and add anything they can imagine to the game.

You want to play an all martial-party with a little bit of healing on the side, add a Fighter maneuver that does some healing (self/ally/mass/whatever) and allow the Battlemaster to spend superiority die for said maneuver. From my point of view WoTC might not have created the 4e Warlord class, but they certainly littered their handbook and guide with enough hints & clues for the tinkerers.

There's enough redundancy among the existing classes that WotC could have cut several of them, and left it to DMs to design replacements or players to cobble together substitutes via MCing, backgrounds, & feats. They could have cut the Sorcerer and let fans of the 3.5 class re-skin a wizard for it, for instance. They didn't. The Sorcerer was in a PH1 and, even though it's mechanical shtick was given to Vancian casters, they found another that was an implied aspect of the concept and presented a full class. Maybe not the best-executed in the game, but at least they tried. It's not like the Sorcerer is critical to play styles or the functionality of the game, it doesn't make contributions that different from those of a Wizard, for instance, it opens up concepts that would be awkward to re-skin a wizard for, but that's about it. It's not vital to making the game work, but, it was vital to acknowledging the contributions of 3.5 to the game. Only classes that appeared in a PH1 were up for inclusion in the 5e PH, and the Sorcerer was unique in being the only new class introduced by 3.5, in it's PH1. It wasn't as conspicuous as the Warlord, which was, similarly, the only new class introduced by 4e in it's PH1, but then, no one was warring /against/ 3.5 and demanding it's total exclusion from 5e. But, had it been absent, I'm sure we'd be seeing very nearly as much interest in finally getting it into the game, just we saw for psionics.

So, really, it's just a matter of including fans of past editions and supporting styles that past editions supported, and avoiding the appearance of 5e coming down on one side of the edition war. Adding the Warlord to 5e is in accord with all of 5e's goals, and the spirit in which it was conceived.