D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Tony Vargas]

Tieflings weren't core in 3e? I could have sworn they were but then it has been a while since I've flipped through the books.

Pretty sure they and Aasimars first showed in a MM as the 'planetouched,' then got LA'd & PC-ized along with a /lot/ of other things in 3.5 - I could very easily be wrong, though, I paid little attention to Planescape. They certainly weren't in a PH1 prior to 4e. But, they were also preceded by other lower-plane mixed races like the Cambion and Alu-Demon.

Aasimars were in 3e, and completley non-PC-playable 'Devas' were around before then, but 4e introduced a Deva PC race that was barely like the Aasimar and nothing like the Planetars & Solars and other Devas of earlier eds. Similar things preceded it, but AFAIK, it was a 4e thing. Likewise, the Marshal was a 3.0-compatible Miniatures Handbook class released at the same time as 3.5, and bore very little resemblance to the Warlord that 4e would later introduce, while even back in 1e Fighters were becoming 'Lords' and attracting followers at 9th level.

 

[Remathilis]

Tieflings first appeared in the Planescape box set in 2e. The infamous "custom power table" was in Planeswalker Handbook. They were in 3e in the Monster Manual, and PC'd in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and saw reprinting in the Player's Guide to Faerun, 3.5 MM, Planar Handbook, and Races of Destiny. (Aasimar with them each time).
So if you count them being a monster in 3e, they were core.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In fact, my own players argue that too much of 4e is in 5e.

It's hardly surprising that a group of people who openly disliked something would find anything related to it, even vaguely or far removed, to be a "sufficient" amount. Using that as our baseline for comparison would seem to make things openly biased: "people who dislike 4e get to decide/influence how much of it gets included, but people who dislike 3e/1e/2e/etc. don't get to decide/influence how much of them gets included." When we compound this with the simple fact that any 4e-related stuff will now be guaranteed to be supplemental material, and thus safely separated from any home campaigns that don't want it (AL is another story, but has its own ways to get around the problem), it's a little hard to see why "don't add things we would never use and dislike the thought of" carries much weight.

You missed the point. 'Save' doesn't mean the same thing in 5e that it did in 4e. A 5e 'save' is like an inverted attack roll against a defense that may or may not scale with level. It's not only possible, but likely, to have 5e save DCs that are very hard or very easy to make. 4e 'saves' were virtual coin-tosses, 55% chance of success in most cases. Repeating a nearly impossible or virtually certain save every round is very different from repeating a 50/50 save every round.

Another way to put it: 4e-style saves really only came back in the form of Death Saves, which are (AFAICT) truly identical between the two editions. All "effect" saves have a variable and typically scaling DC (based on PC or spell level and ability scores), which flat-out didn't, and (IIRC) couldn't, happen in 4e. The similarity is pretty remote, especially compared to the similarity between 5e's saves and those in 3e--the latter two have nearly identical structure to their saves, 5e just calls for them more frequently, an important balance consideration but hardly what I would call a meaningful nod to 4e design. (The superficial similarity between Healing Surges and Hit Dice is quite similar, IMO: both are healing-related mechanics, so it's tempting to call them related, but they aren't and in fact serve partially opposite functions. HS worked to limit healing and thus the length of an adventuring "day," allowing the DM to set a pace; HD work to extend the length of the adventuring "day," filling in what gaps aren't taken care of by other, less-limited modes of HP restoration.)

 

[Sadras]

"people who dislike 4e get to decide/influence how much of it gets included, but people who dislike 3e/1e/2e/etc. don't get to decide/influence how much of them gets included."

How is the above related to me? Do you think I get to influence or decide how much of 5e gets included?

When we compound this with the simple fact that any 4e-related stuff will now be guaranteed to be supplemental material...(snip)

Feats are supplemental.

Another way to put it: 4e-style saves really only came back in the form of Death Saves, which are (AFAICT) truly identical between the two editions. All "effect" saves have a variable and typically scaling DC (based on PC or spell level and ability scores), which flat-out didn't, and (IIRC) couldn't, happen in 4e. The similarity is pretty remote, especially compared to the similarity between 5e's saves and those in 3e--the latter two have nearly identical structure to their saves, 5e just calls for them more frequently, an important balance consideration but hardly what I would call a meaningful nod to 4e design.

I find this hilarious: When the 4e players desired to find similarities between 4e and previous editions, they went out of their way making all sorts of rational explanations with examples but with 5e they find all sorts of excuses and reasons not to identify similarities.
The save per round against conditions was used in 4e. It is used again in 5e and due to a different chassis the DC is higher. Attempts to obfuscate this similarity doesn't change that fact.
One needs to keep in mind that in 4e conditions were quite common and easy to put into affect (hence the standard DC). It is easy to 'forget' that fact when one is biased in not admitting the similarities between the two systems.

(The superficial similarity between Healing Surges and Hit Dice is quite similar, IMO: both are healing-related mechanics, so it's tempting to call them related, but they aren't and in fact serve partially opposite functions. HS worked to limit healing and thus the length of an adventuring "day," allowing the DM to set a pace; HD work to extend the length of the adventuring "day," filling in what gaps aren't taken care of by other, less-limited modes of HP restoration.)

A different system like 5e required an evolution of the Surge Mechanic, hence the HD, but that doesn't mean HD did not derive from the Healing Surge. Therefore it is a 4e inclusion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I find this hilarious: When the 4e players desired to find similarities between 4e and previous editions, they went out of their way making all sorts of rational explanations with examples but with 5e they find all sorts of excuses and reasons not to identify similarities.

There are a lot of 4e fans and former-4e-now-5e-fans. We don't all get together to compile approved talking points so that we never contradict eachother.

Then there's matters of extremes. If someone says "nothing from 4e can ever work in 5e" that's a pretty extreme position, and the tattered fragments of 4e that exist in 5e stand (or flop about weakly) as clear counter-examples to it. The other extreme, "everything you could want from 4e is already in 5e" is equally absurd, and the same examples conclusively contradict it.

The save per round against conditions was used in 4e. It is used again in 5e and due to a different chassis the DC is higher. Attempts to obfuscate this similarity doesn't change that fact.

Save every round with a bonus based on stat/class/level vs specific spells was introduced in 3.5 and and is used by many more spells in 5e. Save every round at ~50/50 regardless of stat/class/level for death saves and for virtually any condition with a duration other than 1 turn or all combat long, was a 4e-ism. 5e uses it for death saves, only. Really, 3.5 introduced a mechanic, 4e took it much further, and 5e dialed it back most of the way. There's a lot of that in 5e, often, it even dials stuff back from 3.5, like feats and multi-classing, both explicitly op-in for the Standard Game.

One needs to keep in mind that in 4e conditions were quite common and easy to put into affect (hence the standard DC). It is easy to 'forget' that fact when one is biased in not admitting the similarities between the two systems.

That just highlights a difference in attempting to establish a similarity. Self-defeating, that.

Yet there's a much clearer similarity in Death Saves.

A different system like 5e required an evolution of the Surge Mechanic, hence the HD, but that doesn't mean HD did not derive from the Healing Surge. Therefore it is a 4e inclusion.

Sure, it's a partial inclusion of the idea of surges. Their nature is similar, but their function in the game is very different. Depending on what you (dis)liked about Surges, you can find HD to be an insultingly bowdlerized parody of Surges, or an intolerable contamination of 'real D&D.' And, HD are also still what they were back in the day: what you rolled to determine your character's hps. So they're not an evolution of Surges, more a hybridization of surges with old-school HD.

Yet, as dissimilar as HD and Surges are, HD do let you quickly (1 hr is quick in this context) recover hps without magic.

A much stronger example: overnight healing and heal-up-from-0 was taken straight from 4e to 5e. Heal-from-0 in 5e can easily be seen as a rare actual 'evolution' from 4e, in that 4e, like 3.5 & AD&D tracked negative hps, while 5e has dropped that vestige of the earlier systems in favor of being purely heal-from-0. Another example (the only other example I can think of atm) would be Advantage, which is a clear evolution from 4e Combat Advantage and various roll-twice & re-roll mechanics. Combat Advantage consolidated more complex modifiers and loss-of-DEX-bonus conditions into a single one, and Advantage further consolidated CA and other bonuses with roll-twice/re-roll mechanics, /and/ consolidated penalties & roll-twice/re-roll mechanics into Disadvantage.

 

[Sadras]

You missed the point. 'Save' doesn't mean the same thing in 5e that it did in 4e. A 5e 'save' is like an inverted attack roll against a defense that may or may not scale with level. It's not only possible, but likely, to have 5e save DCs that are very hard or very easy to make. 4e 'saves' were virtual coin-tosses, 55% chance of success in most cases. Repeating a nearly impossible or virtually certain save every round is very different from repeating a 50/50 save every round.

I believe you 'forgot' that conditions were fairly common and easy to impose in 4e, hence the 50/50 coin toss. As I said the systems are different, but like 4e, 5e dealt with the save or suck by having this once per round saving throw.

So you're saying I should be arguing for more inclusion, and that because I should be arguing for more, I'm asking for too much? Weird.

I'm saying WoTC actually did a great job with its inclusion of 4e mechanics (even if they evolved to suit the system) and that those stating that the exclusion of the Warlord is not some show of bad faith will never be satisfied.

That's the point. We need the Warlord at least as much as we needed the Sorcerer, and we have the Sorcerer.

You're actually equating the D&D concept/mythos of the Warlord to the Sorcerer?

And we should. There's good reasons to do so

Let us investigate those.

- it opens up currently un-supported and under-supported playstyles

Which ones?

and it's inclusive in a positive way.

You believe 4e players who haven't switched to 5e already, will switch after they see a 5e warlord? Really, cause I strongly disagree.
Those sticking to 4e - love the system not a singular class. If a class is the only reason people are not switching to 5e then those people are very much like those who said that if the tiefling/dragonborn, warlord, DoaM./..etc was included they would not buy 5e.
The community could do with less hard-liners on either side.

I also prefer not to read that intent into the Warlord being the only class that was in the PH1 to be excluded from the 5e PH. Unfortunately, that exclusion ongoing resistance among fans unwilling to embrace 5e's vision of inclusiveness, does create the appearance of exactly that negative intent. That appearance is corrosive. It makes 5e look like "D&D: The H4ter Edition." Perpetuating that appearance is bad for both the game and the community.

I believe your continued dismissal and watering down of 4e innovativeness within 5e is bad for the community. I believe posts like this, where you say "It makes 5e look like "D&D: The H4ter Edition" is bad for the community.

There's lots of little bits taken from 4e, as there are from every prior edition, but they don't add up to enough support for those character concepts and play styles that 4e supported for the first time.

Out of interest how did you measure that?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm saying WoTC actually did a great job with its inclusion of 4e mechanics.

It did what it set out to do well. That meant continuing to improve on some mechanics (heal-from-0 for instance), while rolling back some for the sake of familiarity over functionality (non-AC attacks back to saves), and making others optional (feats). No matter how they mixed detail-level mechanical bits from various editions, they still ended up with an overall feel that was more like one than others - that one was 2e. FWIW.

You're actually equating the D&D concept/mythos of the Warlord to the Sorcerer?

Their relative prevelance as concepts or archetypes in genre, and their similar status as introduced-by-a-PH1 'poster children' for their respective editions, sure.

You believe 4e players who haven't switched to 5e already, will switch after they see a 5e warlord?

Not really. I think 4e fans were mostly those who were inclined to give new eds a chance in the first place, and are already playing 5e. I just don't believe we deserve to be punished for that. 5e is meant to be inclusive, WotC shouldn't have to be blackmailed into inclusiveness with threats of boycotting or pie-in-the-sky predictions of improbable new sales.

I believe posts like this, where you say "It makes 5e look like "D&D: The H4ter Edition" is bad for the community.

The appearance is bad for both the product line and community, as it perpetuates the divisions of the edition war. The sooner that's corrected, the better. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Denying it doubles-down and creates not only the appearance that 5e is the H4ter Edition, but that there are still h4ters who trying to keep it that way.

 

[tuxgeo]

<snip> . . .
Feats are supplemental.
. . .

"Optional," right? I would have said, "Feats are optional," rather than saying, "Feats are supplemental."

To me, "supplemental" means "appears in a supplement, not in the Player's Handbook." (Fifth Edition feats, of course, first appeared in the Player's Handbook, not in a supplement.)

Is that not how you meant to use that word?

 

[Sadras]

"Optional," right? I would have said, "Feats are optional," rather than saying, "Feats are supplemental."

To me, "supplemental" means "appears in a supplement, not in the Player's Handbook." (Fifth Edition eats, of course, first appeared in the Player's Handbook, not in a supplement.)

Is that not how you meant to use that word?

True, you are correct. I meant optional.

 

[Sadras]

No matter how they mixed detail-level mechanical bits from various editions, they still ended up with an overall feel that was more like one than others - that one was 2e. FWIW.

I personally agree with this, perhaps because I am a fan of 2e, but more so because the system is not as heavy as 3.5e, and not as fixed/complete as 4e.

I think 4e fans were mostly those who were inclined to give new eds a chance in the first place, and are already playing 5e. I just don't believe we deserve to be punished for that. 5e is meant to be inclusive, WotC shouldn't have to be blackmailed into inclusiveness with threats of boycotting or pie-in-the-sky predictions of improbable new sales.

I don't believe you are being punished. 5e is meant to be all inclusive. Was I thrilled about the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn? No, I admit I'm more of a traditionalist. Personally I would have preferred they create the Warlord class/subclass instead of including those two races. Not everyone is 100% satisfied, but the options are there for all of us to include and exclude what we like.

Those that prefer the 2e Tiefling can and will change.
Those that prefer no +x weapons/armour will remove them.
Those that prefer no Ability Boosts or Feats may remove them.
Those that prefer a Battlemaster with an Aura or Healing can do so.
Those that prefer save or suck for some monsters (yellow mold thread) can include them.

But I think you take it too far - Just listen to your language, speaking of punishment / blackmailing / edition wars / 5e = H4ter Edition...etc

WotC did an amazing job, the tools are very much there for many of us. Is it perfect for the die-hard 4e players? Not by a long shot. Those that love 4e will stick to 4e. But they certainly paid a nod towards that edition and I'm talking from experience, not as some 4e-hater. I played and DMed 4e.

I wouldn't mind the Warlord as a class/sublclass - whatever, it doesn't bother me. We would certainly allow the class at our table, more so than the monk which is perma-ban. But to spew edition-venom doesn't strengthen your case, it just makes me wonder when will such a person be satisfied with WotC's 4e contribution to 5e.