D&D 5E Sorcerer/Warlord - Is 5E SRD The Solution or AL The Problem?

[DEFCON 1]

Now that the SCAG has answered the question of "When will 5E see more support?" and the new 5E SRD has answered the question of "What's up with the OGL for 5E?"... the next largest issue here on the boards that it seems 5E needs to tackle for a lot of players is the perceived lack of workable Sorcerers and Warlords. Bring up either of these classes and there will be a lot of people who will make a lot of responses in the thread about what they feel are the faults of them (or the fact that WotC's Fighter workarounds aren't enough.)

Now whether or not their issues are justified is not the purpose of this thread, and indeed we have seen many threads already about it from both sides so there's no reason to do over it again here. But really, my question is this...

If we say for the sake of argument that WotC doesn't intend on creating a full Warlord class, or give more/varied spells to the Sorcerer to fill them out... is the idea that the DMGU might step in and "fix" both of these issues by creating just that, the "solution" to the issue... or is the fact that the Adventurer's League wouldn't allow said creations the real "problem" for people that won't be solved until WotC makes those design creations themselves (so they are AL legal?)

In other words... does WotC *have* to produce the Sorcerer fix and the Warlord class themselves for this issue to be ever be considered "solved", or are published creations from the DMGU enough?

 

[darjr]

We still don't know what if any of the dmguild material will be legal for AL. An announcement is supposed to come out soon.

 

[delericho]

Now that the SCAG has answered the question of "When will 5E see more support?" and the new 5E SRD has answered the question of "What's up with the OGL for 5E?"... the next largest issue here on the boards that it seems 5E needs to tackle for a lot of players is the perceived lack of workable Sorcerers and Warlords.

I might have gone for "when will we see PDFs?", but that's maybe a debate for another time...

If we say for the sake of argument that WotC doesn't intend on creating a full Warlord class, or give more/varied spells to the Sorcerer to fill them out... is the idea that the DMGU might step in and "fix" both of these issues by creating just that, the "solution" to the issue...

Potentially. Obviously, the Sorcerer can be done either with the OGL alone or with the DMguild. I'm not certain on the Warlord - it's obviously not currently open with OGL (though workarounds are obviously possible), and I'm a bit fuzzy on the question of what can and can't be used on DMguild - can setting-agnostic 4e material be done?

or is the fact that the Adventurer's League wouldn't allow said creations the real "problem" for people that won't be solved until WotC makes those design creations themselves (so they are AL legal?)

I guess it depends how the "I want a Warlord" crowd intersects with the "I play AL" crowd. I'm pretty sure both are a minority of 5e players, so my guess is that the intersection is itself small enough not to worry about.

IIRC, the AL are also working on some sort of response to the DMguild, so it's not impossible that some DMguild material does become legal at some point. If so, I'd expect a Warlord, in particular, to make the cut quite quickly - whichever (ex?) WotC designer first pushed the class would seem a likely candidate for filling that gap.

In other words... does WotC *have* to produce the Sorcerer fix and the Warlord class themselves for this issue to be ever be considered "solved", or are published creations from the DMGU enough?

As always, they'll be enough for some people and not enough for others.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guess it depends how the "I want a Warlord" crowd intersects with the "I play AL" crowd.

That's really the key question. Like the beastmaster ranger, everyone seems to want something a little different about what the warlord looks like.

The new SRD allows you to create one exactly how you want it. I be there will be a dozen or more varients of the warlord class in the near future. But the question becomes about AL compliant.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If we say for the sake of argument that WotC doesn't intend on creating a full Warlord class, or give more/varied spells to the Sorcerer to fill them out... is the idea that the DMGU might step in and "fix" both of these issues by creating just that, the "solution" to the issue... or is the fact that the Adventurer's League wouldn't allow said creations the real "problem" for people that won't be solved until WotC makes those design creations themselves (so they are AL legal?)

AL notwisthanding, there's a sense that fan-made and 3pp content is just not as meaningful as official. If you're emotionally invested in some past content seeing the light of day in the latest edition of your favorite game, a 3pp offering or homebrew or fan-published version isn't going to do anything but muddy the waters. As a DM, it might be a fine resource to drop into your own campaign or use as a basis for your own homebrew. As a player, you might be lucky enough to get to play it once or twice. But as a fan, you've still been 'snubbed.'

In other words... does WotC *have* to produce the Sorcerer fix and the Warlord class themselves for this issue to be ever be considered "solved", or are published creations from the DMGU enough?

Not only do they need to do both of those things, and come up with a definitive Ranger, and get Psionics into print. The longer the wait to do it, the more walks-on-water awesome each of those things will have to be. The Ranger and Sorcerer they can almost just leave-as-is, because they at least are there in the PH, at release, validating that they're legit concepts, and players & DMs can wrangle over improved versions. But the content that's just not there, be it classes or settings, has to be given it's due at some point, or 5e will have failed in it's re-unification-of-the-fanbase mission.

The definitive example we have to look back at is what Mike Mearls called "The Gnome Effect" - gnomes were probably the least popular race in the classic game, and yet their exclusion caused a major episode of nerdrage. They were almost immediately available as a playable 'monster race' in the MM, and became an official PC race in the PH2, only 9 months later, and it was already too late. Psionics and the last 'missing' classic class, the Monk, became available within two years in the PH3 (21 months in). 5e is in it's second year, 17 months in, with psionics showing up only in UA, and nothing to show in print but a few desultory sub-classes in SCAG.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That's really the key question. Like the beastmaster ranger, everyone seems to want something a little different about what the warlord looks like.

The new SRD allows you to create one exactly how you want it. I be there will be a dozen or more varients of the warlord class in the near future. But the question becomes about AL compliant.

I think that you've hit the nail on the head. Given that the warlord thread seems to have shown that there are several different, contradictory opinions on what the warlord should be/do, they are unlikely to try to create an official version that would be bound to be "wrong" to a lot of people.
Leaving it for each person to be able to come up with their own warlord that fits their vision of what it needs to be is probably the safest route.
For AL players its trickier: at the moment they are limited to playing 'warlords' using the class mechanics of other classes like Bards.

As always, they'll be enough for some people and not enough for others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm a bit fuzzy on the question of what can and can't be used on DMguild - can setting-agnostic 4e material be done?

No. 4e is covered by the much-more-restrictive GSL.

Given that the warlord thread seems to have shown that there are several different, contradictory opinions on what the warlord should be/do, they are unlikely to try to create an official version that would be bound to be "wrong" to a lot of people.

The range of what people want from the Warlord could easily be handled by a class as choice-rich and customizeable as the original - and there's no reason it couldn't be more-so in 5e, untethered from formal roles.

But, maybe the Warlord portion of this discussion should go into exile with the other Warlord threads, before it overwhelms this one?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?540-Temporary-Warlord-Forum

 

[DEFCON 1]

But the content that's just not there, be it classes or settings, has to be given it's due at some point, or 5e will have failed in it's re-unification-of-the-fanbase mission.

What happens if they do?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What happens if they do?

If they do come through with the content, they'll have at least done everything they could to succeed at the goal.

'Lead a horse to water' and all that...

 

[mach1.9pants]

Solved! http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170957/Warlord--Martial-Archetype One page, one dollar