D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Prakriti]

"No one bloody well cares about one man's difficulty when it would lead to the enjoyment of many" - Some renowned Brit or somesuch

Heh. You make it sound like an official warlord is a human right or something. Let's try to remember that this is a game we're talking about. I think it should be designed one way, you think it should be designed another way. Neither one of is, or even can be, "right," we can only be satisfied or dissatisfied. And my dissatisfaction, if the warlord were included in D&D, would be just as real as your dissatisfaction over the fact that it's not. You might just as well argue that the warlord belongs in the game of chess, and insist that all chess manuals in the future should be printed to include the warlord piece. You can see how that would negatively impact my chess-playing experience, can't you?

That's not getting what you want, that's you demanding others be deprived of something they want.

Not really. You are depriving me of "my" D&D by injecting an official warlord into it just as much as I am "depriving" you of your D&D by keeping the warlord out of it. Whether our preferred changes are additive or reductive is immaterial. We both want different things, and only one of us can get it.

 

[generic]

Heh. You make it sound like an official warlord is a human right or something. Let's try to remember that this is a game we're talking about. I think it should be designed one way, you think it should be designed another way. You could just as well argue that the warlord belongs in the game of chess, and insist that all chess manuals in the future should be printed to include the warlord piece. You can see how that would negatively impact my chess-playing experience, can't you?

What utter trollery. An essential element of D&D is being able to change the game to suit your needs.

The comparison is not one which can be made, and your self-centered argument still shines through the veil of 'it's just a game'.

What utter and complete rubbish.

By the way, feel free to quote me without actually engaging with any of my arguments.

 

[Prakriti]

What utter trollery. An essential element of D&D is being able to change the game to suit your needs.

Then why aren't you satisfied with a 3PP warlord?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let's try to remember that this is a game we're talking about. I think it should be designed one way, you think it should be designed another way.

Not at all, how it's been designed has already been decided for 5e. It's got classes, backgrounds, races & sub-classes. It's got spells & slots, overnight healing and maneuvers. BA and Adv/Dis. It's DM-centric and DM-side customizeable.

That affects how a given class might be implemented in the game (rather a lot, actually), but it's no bearing on whether there should be a given class, at all.

You are depriving me of "my" D&D by injecting an official warlord into it just as much as I am "depriving" you of your D&D by keeping the warlord out of it.

Strange, because I was never deprived of my AD&D because there was a psioncs appendix in 1e, or a psionicist class in 2e. I just didn't use 'em. It was dreadfully easy on me, compared to making everyone else create their own takes of psionics.

Then why aren't you satisfied with a 3PP warlord?

Maybe, if there were exactly one 3PP Warlord, and it was from Paizo or another very well-regarded 3pp, and it was generally acclaimed and broadly endorsed, it could be adequate. If I were only concerned as a DM, it wouldn't even take that, as DM, I have tremendous latitude, and if there were a good Warlord out there, I could take the time to find it rather than make one myself. But, that's not the case, there's more than a couple, and they're none of 'em that well-regarded.

As a player, it's worse. You're not guaranteed to get to play the character you want, even if everything you need for it is 100% PH official, and not tagged optional like, say, feats or MCing. 3pp is getting pretty out there, the effort involved in finding the best 3pp option out there for you what you want is, itself, daunting, convincing a given DM to even look at it, kinda a long shot. "Settling" for a 'mere' option, rather than getting a PH-official class is already a big compromise from the player PoV - and it's a compromise with an unreasonable position, to begin with.

Contrast that to, as a DM or Player, declining an official option you don't want: as a player, you play something else you do want, possibly, if other players aren't open to catering to your distaste, and alternate groups not readily available, putting up with someone else playing one.
As a DM, you ban it from your table. Done.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

You might just as well argue that the warlord belongs in the game of chess, and insist that all chess manuals in the future should be printed to include the warlord piece. You can see how that would negatively impact my chess-playing experience, can't you?

If I came across someone who was incensed at the idea a chess manual might include some fairy chess varients along with the standard rules, and was petrified that their fellow players may want to play one of those varients instead of the standard game, I would think them eccentric at best.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If I came across someone who was incensed at the idea a chess manual might include some fairy chess varients along with the standard rules, and was petrified that their fellow players may want to play one of those varients instead of the standard game, I would think them eccentric at best.

Hmm... there's actually already a General and Marshal in chess variants...

 

[Garthanos]

*im sure you’ve seen people pedantically point out that everything is technically natural? IMO you’re doing the same thing, here.

Well it is! and everything is also made of chemicals (or is that chemakills). And the artificial things are the ones we actually have a better idea what is in them etc etc. etc. Oh that isn't what you were going for.... carry on.

 

[Garthanos]

Hmm... there's actually already a General and Marshal in chess variants...

I hated the variant chess's I tried argghhhh adding random naughty word in them even if they were interestingly thematic really mucked with well their "chess-ness"

Now variant Risk those kind of rock.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No. I don't mean that. I mean that since 2015, these threads are a bad joke that ends up with nothing but troll bait and eventual moderation, because they aren't about the Warlord (as in, actual solutions about a Warlord class). They are about validation for the edition war; that's why you seem the same people, and the same points, in each thread.

To sum up:

The Warlord has to be called the Warlord, for reasons.
The Warlord has to be official, because no 3PP.
The Warlord has to be tactically interesting, just like, well, just like the Warlord used to be.

And all of these points go into their own rabbit hole of sub-arguments, and we end up at the same results. Here- go back in any thread for the last three years, or so, on the Warlord and you'll see the exact same resolution:

1. You'll see people saying "The other side is arguing in bad faith," and variations of, "I made these points, therefore I win."

2. Someone (often the same someone) will always say, "5e said it was going to be big tent, for everyone, and it will never be big tent without the Warlord!"

3. People arguing about the complexity of martial options in 5e, and about the fighter.

What should a person learn from this? It's not about the Warlord. Now, maybe it is. Maybe it really IS about the Warlord, and therefore someone can make a lot of money with a successful 3PP.

Or maybe it's about something else, and the Warlord is just a way of arguing about it.

Either way, I hope people get what they want. I always do. But like I explain to clients all the time, "Civil courts award money, not justice. You're in the wrong place if you're looking for justice." WoTC will never go to you and say, "Hey, thanks for supporting us through 4e. We really appreciate that you went out there and enjoyed our product and defended us from trolls. So we are going to officially thank you for all that you did on the intertubez. K! You are the best!"

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe life does work that way. Maybe Moby Dick is really just a book about a whale. Maybe this thread will just be reasonable people discussing how to adapt Schwalb's warlord, even though that was brought up, what, 450+ comments ago?

I gotta stop overthinking these things. Carry on!

Here's the thing. I'm not arguing that Moby Dick is a book about a whale, I'm arguing that it tells a revenge story, and because there's more to it than that, you're telling me that I'm wrong.

And we discussed Schwalb's warlord. Briefly in this thread, and back when it was released. It...just isn't an interesting class, IMO. The Noble published by enworld is a better option, but much like the artificer, for many of us, discussing 3pp versions just isn't that interesting. It's also been a while since I looked at it in depth, but I recall that it didn't do it for me. At some point I'll just make a Captain class, and use that until or unless wotc publishes something, but even then, I'll still be interested in the idea of the class as an official option.

If you don't get why it being official matters, or if you think it's just "bc edition wars" or whatever, I'm not going to try to run in circles in order to make the point understood. It matters, and I don't give a naughty word about the edition wars, and haven't for several years.

And, yes, these threads get heated. Any thread in which something that some folks want and care about is dismissed and the desire to see the thing in the game is spoken of with condescension and exclusionary gatekeeping language is going to get heated. Justifiably.

It would be nice to be able to discuss the class concept and it's hypothetical implementations without people threadcrapping, but it is literally impossible to do so. Then we get troll threads like this one, making bad faith calls to "change my mind" that, yes, we all should have just ignored.

Now, for at least one person on these forums, it is partly about the edition wars. That is unavoidably obvious. But I ain't him, and neither are most of us who argue for the class being included. But even Tony also just wants to play a good 5e warlord. He also wants magic to be less prevalent, and doesn't view 5e as balanced at all, but hey, we all have things we're wrong about. Doesn't make us any less right when we're right.