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

[Tony Vargas]

I personally agree with this, perhaps because I am a fan of 2e

It seems fans of a given edition see more of what 5e has for other editions while taking the things it includes from theirs for granted if not overlooking them entirely. You're doubly in luck for preferring the ed that 5e treats as a sort of first among equals, and in being able to see & appreciate it rather than deny it and obsess over this or that fragment of some other edition.

I don't believe you are being punished.

I not ready to accept that is the intent, yet. But, that's the implication of "will including the warlord bring back fans of 4e" - that if I'm not willing to withhold support for the new edition (and can't get a big enough boycott going) until they've carried through with their promise of inclusion, I don't deserve to be included. I'm cynical enough to see that, but I'm choosing not to go there.

5e is meant to be all inclusive.

It is meant to be, but it's not nearly there yet, I'm trying to remain positive in the hope that it will be. But, there are posters here who seem intent on preventing that, and that's the impetus for some of these conversations.

Not everyone is 100% satisfied, but the options are there for all of us to include and exclude what we like.

Not all the options needed, not yet...

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

I do consider the language I'm using. I think it's sadly necessary language at the moment. I look forward to the day when it won't be.

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.

I still think you misunderstand that side of the fandom. Fans of 4e were, for the most part, just fans of D&D embracing the latest edition (some others were entirely new to the hobby, of course). Most of us also embrace 5e. Some would just like to see 5e rise to the level it aimed for, and one place it's falling short of that mark is in failing to support things that you could do for the first time with 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.

Why then, do you feel the need to badger me for wanting the Warlord? Why not support it in that spirit of inclusion?

 

[Remathilis]

I do consider the language I'm using. I think it's sadly necessary language at the moment. I look forward to the day when it won't be.

This is where you are dead wrong.

If you think inflammatory language will win people over to you case, you're failing. Creating "us vs them" dynamics only deepens the divide rather than seek compromise, and vaguely insulting language destroys the receptors towards your cause. D&D is not religion or politics, there is no need to couch discussion of it with toxic rhetoric. Because to be honest, it makes you sound less like a person interested in discussing the current version of D&D and more like a bitter edition warrior who cannot abide that his edition lost.

You want to keep fighting with terms like "h4ter" and "blackmail", go right ahead. But don't question why nobody takes what you say seriously.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Creating "us vs them" dynamics only deepens the divide rather than seek compromise

Opposition to the Warlord and re-cycling edition war talking points in general creates (or, rather, refuses to give up) that us-vs-them dynamic.

 

[Remathilis]

Opposition to the Warlord and re-cycling edition war talking points in general creates (or, rather, refuses to give up) that us-vs-them dynamic.

So anyone who has opposes the warlord (either in concept or execution) is edition warring. And you think you're being the reasonable one?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So anyone who has opposes the warlord (either in concept or execution) is edition warring.

Of course repeating edition-war talking points, whether in opposition to the warlord or to exclude anyone or anything else from 5e, is edition warring.

And, yes, opposition is, by definition, creating an us-vs-them dynamic. We're all D&D fans, that's an 'us' that doesn't require a 'them.' We all want different things from the game, many of them we have in 5e and we can pick and choose the ones we want to use - some things, though, we don't have in 5e yet. Wanting more of what the game used to do added to 5e doesn't create a 'them,' opposing that appeal for inclusiveness does.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course repeating edition-war talking points, whether in opposition to the warlord or to exclude anyone or anything else from 5e, is edition warring.

And, yes, opposition is, by definition, creating an us-vs-them dynamic. We're all D&D fans, that's an 'us' that doesn't require a 'them.' We all want different things from the game, many of them we have in 5e and we can pick and choose the ones we want to use - some things, though, we don't have in 5e yet. Wanting more of what the game used to do added to 5e doesn't create a 'them,' opposing that appeal for inclusiveness does.

Two problems with that train of logic.

1.) Any criticism can be construed as "edition warring" by the criteria you set out. For example: I don't think Prestige Classes need to be in 5e. I think they might have had a design place in 3e, but subclasses have generally filled that niche in 5e. By your own standard, some diehard 3e fan can accuse me of being a "hat3r" because I dislike Prestige classes which were an integral part of 3e?

2.) Execution matters. For example, I might like the concept of a warlord, but not need it as full class. That's not edition warring. I might think it doesn't need full-on cleric-level healing. That's not edition warring. Its a difference of opinion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Two problems with that train of logic.

1.) Any criticism can be construed as "edition warring" by the criteria you set out. For example: I don't think Prestige Classes need to be in 5e. I think they might have had a design place in 3e, but subclasses have generally filled that niche in 5e.

I think that's a pretty weak argument (sub-classes are only available to the one class, while PrCs might be available to many), but, OK, for the sake of an example...

By your own standard, some diehard 3e fan can accuse me of being a "hat3r" because I dislike Prestige classes which were an integral part of 3e?

Was there an anti-3e edition war? Sorta: there was some unwarranted criticism from grognards but it never rose to that level of vitriol.
Are you're recycling anti-PrC rhetoric from that sub-edition-war-level grognardism? Not any that I recall off hand.

Would that be opposing something that others want and that you'd be under no obligation to use, yourself, that happened to be in only one prior edition? Yep. So even though there were never Hat3rs or a full-on anti-3e edition war, you would be missing the point of 5e inclusiveness in doing that. Hypothetically.

2.) Execution matters. For example, I might like the concept of a warlord, but not need it as full class. That's not edition warring. I might think it doesn't need full-on cleric-level healing. That's not edition warring. Its a difference of opinion.

'Not need' and 'oppose' are two different things. I could see psionics working as a couple of sub-classes, you needed a full class. I didn't campaign against what you wanted.

But, yes, execution does matter. The more different things people want/need/fear from a concept, the more flexible it has to be in execution, so that it can cover what people want from it - and allow people who don't want specific things to choose alternatives to those things.



Edit: Seriously, PrCs are an awesome 3e-era concept that could work very well in 5e (when MCing is already in use), and it's hard to imagine anything being more opt-in optional than a setting-tied, RP-prerequisite, MC option.

 

[Hussar]

Two problems with that train of logic.

1.) Any criticism can be construed as "edition warring" by the criteria you set out. For example: I don't think Prestige Classes need to be in 5e. I think they might have had a design place in 3e, but subclasses have generally filled that niche in 5e. By your own standard, some diehard 3e fan can accuse me of being a "hat3r" because I dislike Prestige classes which were an integral part of 3e?

It depends. Are you repeating over, and over again, the same tired arguments that were being recycled three or four years ago? Are you bringing up, yet again, outside arguments that have been beaten to death (HP as meat as an example)? Are you comparing anything to board games or video games in a negative way in order to present 3e as not a "real" role playing game?

If the answer is no, then, no, you are not edition warring. But, in the case of the warlord discussion, all of the above is an emphatic yes and you can find examples of all of this just in this thread, never minding EVERY SINGLE other Warlord thread.

That would largely be the difference.

2.) Execution matters. For example, I might like the concept of a warlord, but not need it as full class. That's not edition warring. I might think it doesn't need full-on cleric-level healing. That's not edition warring. Its a difference of opinion.

And again, fair enough. There's a difference between, "I think this works better as a subclass" and "I refuse to even consider playing at a table where this is used and since this might be used at a table I sit at (such as an Adventurers League table), then you shalt not have this class!!!"

There's a difference between "I think it shouldn't heal as much as a cleric" and "Martial healing completely breaks the game for me and no class should ever have it (despite the fact that in 5e EVERY class does in the form of Hit Dice)".

Surely you see the difference.

If all we had was a difference of opinion, we wouldn't be relegated to this forum ghetto. I'd say that the edition warriors have gotten exactly what they wanted. Make sure that any conversation is shut down as fast as possible, and, failing that, make sure that any conversation is convenient to ignore by shuffling it off to the side.

 

[Remathilis]

Was there an anti-3e edition war? Sorta: there was some unwarranted criticism from grognards but it never rose to that level of vitriol.
Are you're recycling anti-PrC rhetoric from that sub-edition-war-level grognardism? Not any that I recall off hand.

Would you opposing something that others want and that you'd be under no obligation to use, yourself, that happened to be in only one prior edition? Yep. So even though there were never Hat3rs or a full-on anti-3e edition war, you would be missing the point of 5e inclusiveness in doing that.

Oh, there was a full-on 3e edition war. I remember the name "3tard" tossed around alot, Hate of d02 knew no limit, Dragonsfoot, RPG.net's "d20 Ghetto", all these things happened before 4e. As someone who hung out on Noah's boards, the WotC message forums (and the listserv's before that) and here, I saw plenty of 3e hate from earlier players, other RPGers, etc. I mean, Batman Wizard, CoDzilla, Magic Item Christmas Trees, Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard, etc all came from comparisons to AD&D, right?

 

[Remathilis]

Edit: Seriously, PrCs are an awesome 3e-era concept that could work very well in 5e (when MCing is already in use), and it's hard to imagine anything being more opt-in optional than a setting-tied, RP-prerequisite, MC option.

So if I say Prestige classes are a mechanic that encourages cherry-picked Frankenstein PCs who exploit the multi-classing rules while offering straight up power-creep compared to those who remain in base-classes (all common complaints about 3e PrCs), I guess I'm being a hat3r? Maybe if I combine it with hating warlords, I can be a h4t3r? Man, that's some l33t sk1llz!

Surely you see the difference.

At this point, is there anyone (aside from Chris Carson) who is straight up fighting against "no martial leader/healer evar!!"? I haven't seen much of that since the discussion got moved to its its own little forum. It really does feel though that the discussion is "I want a full warlord class that did everything the 4e warlord did and then some, and if you don't agree you're a h4ter" is the vibe here.