D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

All those content with diy and 3rd party are probably playing the game right now, instead of frequenting this forum.

And so I instead suggest that you Remathilis leave, instead of futilely trying to tell people what they should and should not discuss.

I would say the entire point of this temporary Warlord forum is to discuss precisely the fact WotC haven't given the Warlord fans what they want...
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Remathilis has been a good sport in these Warlord threads, and one of the more patient and open-minded ones. Suggesting that he leaves comes across as a bit harsh in that wider context of the discussion.

Overall, I would say that a problem still persists in regards to the Warlord. A lot of the right pieces are there, but not in a satisfying assembly. One cannot, for example, take both the Battle Master (and its associated support maneuvers) and the Purple Dragon Knight sub-class in order to be a more appropriate Warlord. And a number of Warlord proponents still feel that the Fighter chassis is inappropriate for the Warlord archetype.
 

Several people, in threads currently visible in this temporary subforum. IIRC, [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], for example, has said that the addition of martial healing would be a dealbreaker. If I'm misrepresenting your position, Jester, please correct me on this front.
Yet several people, in threads currently visible in this temporary subforum. IIRC, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], for example, has said that the absence of a warlord class is an insult to him and other 4e favoritists. If I'm misrepresenting your position, Tony, please correct me on this front.

Not really the intent, but alright. I was pointing out how some posters made an argument that seems directly controverted by the PDK's mechanics. My memory is a little fuzzy (just got up from a nap), but as I recall, you were one of the posters claiming that the Warlord does not fit in 5e because, at its root, it tells other people how to roleplay. If I am conflating you with another poster, I apologize--but I definitely know that at least one person on this forum made that argument, and I didn't see a single "anti-Warlord" poster comment on that argument being wrong, illogical, or inappropriate, from what I could tell. Perhaps it happened and I missed it.
Odd. As well, where were you earlier telling people you didn't believe the absence of a warlord was a direct slight against a "large swath of players"?

But no, your memory isn't all that bad. I have pointed out how that "bossy" class features are bad game elements.

Related tangent: Are you one of the various people going around pointing out how much the ranger sucks? That favored enemy/terrain is not very well designed, nor useful? I feel the same about agency-removing abilities that place one character over another. It's bad design.

I have no interest in a "boss other PCs around" feature. I have interest in attack-granting (and possibly other action-granting) features being present on a full Warlord class.
We've been asking for weeks for an example of martial/warlord action granting that does not involve giving orders, nor the receiver being described as admiring the greatness of the giver. What do we get? Crickets.

Haven't seen the PDK yet. Wanna bet there's verbiage in these relevant class features that describe one or both of these agency-robing sticking points?

If such a feature were added, it would appeal to neither my interest in the class (assuming it wasn't added to a full-class "Warlord," by that name or another), nor my interest in its features.
Welcome to the dark side. Here's the cookie we promised you.
 

Remathilis has been a good sport in these Warlord threads, and one of the more patient and open-minded ones. Suggesting that he leaves comes across as a bit harsh in that wider context of the discussion.

Overall, I would say that a problem still persists in regards to the Warlord. A lot of the right pieces are there, but not in a satisfying assembly. One cannot, for example, take both the Battle Master (and its associated support maneuvers) and the Purple Dragon Knight sub-class in order to be a more appropriate Warlord. And a number of Warlord proponents still feel that the Fighter chassis is inappropriate for the Warlord archetype.
That's OK Aldarc, I've gotten the implication that anyone who doesn't support a warlord full-throatedly is a h4ter, so I will again remove myself from the discussion. Suffice to say people wanting a full warlord class from WotC are probably waiting for Gadot at this point.
 

That's OK Aldarc, I've gotten the implication that anyone who doesn't support a warlord full-throatedly is a h4ter, so I will again remove myself from the discussion. Suffice to say people wanting a full warlord class from WotC are probably waiting for Gadot at this point.
Good thing for me then that Waiting for Godot is one of my favorite plays. ;)
 

Related tangent: Are you one of the various people going around pointing out how much the ranger sucks? That favored enemy/terrain is not very well designed, nor useful? I feel the same about agency-removing abilities that place one character over another. It's bad design

We've been asking for weeks for an example of martial/warlord action granting that does not involve giving orders, nor the receiver being described as admiring the greatness of the giver. What do we get? Crickets.
We've been asking for a support that doesn't have their agency removed. Like haste, bless, or bardic inspiration, where you put it on someone and it's entirely out of your hands.


How you buff an ally, without removing the agency from the support?
 

That's OK Aldarc, I've gotten the implication that anyone who doesn't support a warlord full-throatedly is a h4ter

You may not be reading at this point, but, there's a point to be made here for others in the warlord wars. Sorry to make an example of you, but this is important to understanding the dynamics of argument.

With respect, when you say things like:


I may be wrong, but I think the w4rlord as a separate class is now a thing of the past.

(emphasis mine) How do you *expect* people to take it? Really? You probably don't have much grounds to complain about being labeled a hater when you use snarky edition references. Clean up your expression first, and engage in *constructive* criticism, and maybe folks will think differently.


so I will again remove myself from the discussion. Suffice to say people wanting a full warlord class from WotC are probably waiting for Gadot at this point.

A final non-constructive potshot. There is nothing here that helps to try to make anything better. You are, intentionally or not, engaged in naysaying. So, again, after this, what kind of reception would you expect? What kind of reception would you *give*, if someone came into a thread about something you liked, and dumped all over it? "Gee, thanks, I would have never considered that, and that helps me a lot! You're very helpful, considerate, thoughtful, and an awesome person!"? Probably not.

Everyone is welcome to have an opinion, and to share it. But, with that right comes a responsibility - if you are not discriminating about when or how you share it, folks will get frustrated with you, just as you would with someone who did similarly to you. And rightfully so. Nobody likes being threadcrapped on.

If your negative input isn't configured to be useful, or constructive to the people you're giving it, what is the point in sharing it? You might want to consider re-framing, or even just going off to a thread where you can *make* something, rather than just tearing things down.
 

I have pointed out how that "bossy" class features are bad game elements.

I feel the same about agency-removing abilities that place one character over another. It's bad design.

We've been asking for weeks for an example of martial/warlord action granting that does not involve giving orders, nor the receiver being described as admiring the greatness of the giver. What do we get? Crickets.

I'm not sure what a Warlord is once you remove any kind of Leadership (inspiration) or giving orders/training (tactics)? That's the power source.

I have presented an opt-out build on the Command Point Warlord. It involves opting in as a trained ally to get the most benefit. If no one really wants to take orders then I guess the Warlord can BYOB (bring your own boss-ees).

IMO it only seems to be agency-robbing from a certain point of view. You can always not take the benefit, much like you can ignore the Paladin and his code. Or refuse to adventure with religious Clerics.

It just seems that all we have left if 'Leadership and Tactics' are removed from the table is "Martial Magic". Just re-fluff the Valor Bard or Cleric at that point. IMNSHO.
 

I'm not sure what a Warlord is once you remove any kind of Leadership (inspiration) or giving orders/training (tactics)? That's the power source.

I have presented an opt-out build on the Command Point Warlord. It involves opting in as a trained ally to get the most benefit. If no one really wants to take orders then I guess the Warlord can BYOB (bring your own boss-ees).

IMO it only seems to be agency-robbing from a certain point of view. You can always not take the benefit, much like you can ignore the Paladin and his code. Or refuse to adventure with religious Clerics.

It just seems that all we have left if 'Leadership and Tactics' are removed from the table is "Martial Magic". Just re-fluff the Valor Bard or Cleric at that point. IMNSHO.

what if we leave all that bossy agency robbing stuff you don't like in, and just add a sidebar "If people at the table don't like it, you need to find your own compromise."
 

Remove ads

Top