D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Crimson Longinus]

What's really missing is all the movement and save manipulation.

Agreed!

 

[Zardnaar]

That's because the argument about the warlord isn't really about the warlord.

To be clear- I am not saying that the arguments about the warlord aren't in good faith. People really liked the warlord class in 4e. But the repeated invocation of the "warlord" isn't about the warlord itselt, per se, instead it's a synecdoche argument (an argument where a part stands in for the whole). What the "warlord" argument is really about is two things-

1. The "warlord" as a stand-in for the desire to have martials, generally, have powers that are equivalent to those of spellcasters. In other words, the argument about the warlord is a shorthand for, "Why can't martials have abilities that let them do all the things that spellcasters do, but, like, martial?"

2. The "warlord" as a stand-in for argument that 5e should really be 4e. In other words, because the warlord was one of the signature 4e classes, it's just a rehash of the usual, "Why doesn't 5e play the same way that 4e did?"

Note that you can tell that this is the argument, because we don't see the same ... enthusiasm ... for this argument when it comes to psionics, or other issues that 5e also doesn't fully mechanically support. To those who understand the 5e system, it's fairly obvious why 5e doesn't have a full "Warlord" class. In fact, there have been multiple attempts to create a warlord class, including here on EnWorld, and not only have they been a compromise (given 5e's system), but some of the same people who argue for a warlord class spent time torpedoing those efforts. Because it's not about trying to create a viable warlord class; it's about the systemic differences between 4e and 5e. Any "official" 5e warlord would necessarily fall short of what people are saying that they want, because 5e is not 4e.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

Yup. I'm not really wedded to any previous editions examples of whatever as the ultimate one true way.

I don't miss much at all from 3E for example in class design. Maybe the Bard, decent class wrong edition.

I like AD&D multiclassing, the 2E priest was about as interesting as it got but you don't see me screaming they should bring that back.

Alot of the warlord stiff is just screaming why 5E isn't 4E and everyone knows why it got buried and we can see the results of 5E for that decision.

I don't think you can really fix martial-magical disparity at least at highest levels. The damage dealing spells are essentially junk past level 3 spells and most of them are junk level 1-3 as well. Damage dealing wasn't even broken hasn't been since 2000 if not 1989.

They haven't really addressed the main cause of magics problems since 3E broke the game. 4E tried creating new problems and got rejected.

You can either rewrite magic or make defenses scale better vs it. Pick your poison.

Mr Fighter starts looking good when Mrs Mindflayer turns up with 90% SR.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The Aberrant Mind has literally every feature of a Psion except the name and working off spells it doesn't share. It is much much more a Psion than the Battlemaster is a warlord.

Sure. It is perfectly good psion. People again just aren't happy because it doesn't have the exactly same mechanics than some older edition, except here they can't even decide which edition's mechanics it should have.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure. It is perfectly good psion. People again just aren't happy because it doesn't have the exactly same mechanics than some older edition, except here they can't even decide which edition's mechanics it should have.

Thats a problem with Psion and Ranger from previous editions.

Sort of been a wilder rogue since 2E and side helping of archer since 3.5.

 

[Minigiant]

It's ok

That's because the argument about the warlord isn't really about the warlord.

To be clear- I am not saying that the arguments about the warlord aren't in good faith. People really liked the warlord class in 4e. But the repeated invocation of the "warlord" isn't about the warlord itselt, per se, instead it's a synecdoche argument (an argument where a part stands in for the whole). What the "warlord" argument is really about is two things

Nah.

Why doesn't 5e have a psion
Or a full Beastmaster
Or a elementalist
Or a plant race
Or chain weapons
Or no European weapons

Because "they don't work on 5e" or "they are too powerful if allowed". Because the speaker doesn't want really in D&D nor have to "look bad" by banning them.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. It is perfectly good psion. People again just aren't happy because it doesn't have the exactly same mechanics than some older edition, except here they can't even decide which edition's mechanics it should have.

The aberrant mind would be the butt of the "we don't need a psion class, we have a perfectly good psion back home" joke meme.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's ok


Nah.

Why doesn't 5e have a psion
Or a full Beastmaster

There is the ranger subclass. It is bad, but I do think that conceptually is makes most sense as a part of the ranger. Let's hope 2024 version improves it!

Or a elementalist

There definitely shouldn't be even more caster classes with weak differentiation,. There are already too many. Could easily be a subclass of some of them though, and given how bland some of the subclasses are, this would be welcome.

Or a plant race

Are there people who want this? Then again, I'm surprised that there isn't one, considering that there are approximately seven thousand races. Should be easy to add though.

Or chain weapons

Good. They're mostly painfully stupid.

Or no European weapons

I don't think we need the sort of exoticisation. Most of them are just regional names for existing weapons, such as katana merely being a Japanese longsword. Granted, there are probably some that could use their own profile, such as boomerang.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are so many times that I agree with you. Then you speak about psionics and say things like this, and I have to rethink every positive thing that I thought about your opinions elsewhere. It's so utterly heartbreaking.

As I see it the problems of the Psion for Psion fans are threefold:

• 5e Psionics are connected to the Far Realm
• The 5e Psion is a subclass named the Aberrant Mind, not a full class in its own right (or called Psion) - which is entirely 100% relevant to this conversation given that warlord fans are being asked to accept not even a subclass but a tiny handful of subclass options from the second most generic fighter subclass to substitute for a class
• The Aberrant Mind doesn't come with a list of Psionic Spells that are exclusive to it, just a unique spell list.

And it is that final one that isn't going to happen within the bounds of 5e unless Matt Mercer does his thing the way he did with Dunamancy. If you can fit the iconic psionic spells you want into about four sides there's a chance. But more than that? Not really. (And before someone says that the Wizard has more they are both a PHB class and notorious creator's pets - no one else will get that).

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's ok


Nah.

Why doesn't 5e have a psion

They've tried to thin it down

Or a full Beastmaster

Because, like "gish" they've spread the pets around. Beast Master Ranger, Wildfire Druid, Battle Smith Artificer. It works better IMO although they do need a non-magic version.

Or a elementalist

#define Elementalist. There's no agreement as to what - or even whether an earth and an air elementalist should share mechanics.

Or a plant race

Here I have no answer. A race takes what? Half a column.

Or chain weapons

Because silly.

Or no European weapons

Scimitar! Blowpipe! Being more serious tradition, potential accusations of exoticism, and that e.g. the Katana is a type of versatile sword rather than needing its own stats. There are few genuinely unique weapons across cultures.

 

[Aldarc]

As I see it the problems of the Psion for Psion fans are threefold:

• 5e Psionics are connected to the Far Realm
• The 5e Psion is a subclass named the Aberrant Mind, not a full class in its own right (or called Psion) - which is entirely 100% relevant to this conversation given that warlord fans are being asked to accept not even a subclass but a tiny handful of subclass options from the second most generic fighter subclass to substitute for a class
• The Aberrant Mind doesn't come with a list of Psionic Spells that are exclusive to it, just a unique spell list.

And it is that final one that isn't going to happen within the bounds of 5e unless Matt Mercer does his thing the way he did with Dunamancy. If you can fit the iconic psionic spells you want into about four sides there's a chance. But more than that? Not really. (And before someone says that the Wizard has more they are both a PHB class and notorious creator's pets - no one else will get that).

Keep in mind that I have said that I would personally be fine with a spell list for the psion that utilizes the pre-existing magic spells across the different spell lists (plus some possible unique ones). I don't think that it's appropriate, however, for the psion to have the sorcerer's spell list plus some thematic bonus spells and then calling it a day.