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

[Tony Vargas]

hmmm duplication vocation

So, like "key copy operator?"

They weren't just talking about the warlord in that post, but the core design structure of 4e in general: daily powers, everyone has magic powers, lots of non magic healing, etc. And said no one cared about those. Which isn't true, as we know looking back at what happened.

OK, sorry, have to call you on that one. In 4e, there were 4 of 8 classes in the PH, encompassing 8 of the possible 18 builds, that had NO magical powers.

Furthermore, in 5e every single class has magic powers and it's a non-issue.

So, really, what you're on about is the exact opposite of what you said. 4e was unacceptable because it had too many balanced, viable player options that eschewed magical powers, while 5e has become acceptable again by shifting that balance back in favor of magic.

Sorry didnt separate them out the first was just yes do this
I was getting specific on this part, yes definitely cotimed team action (common in 4e) -> but the idea and the important part was "impairing enemies. " ... like your fancy maneuvering slows enemy movement rate or sends the enemies into sudden retreat. In effect Warlord Controller powers.

No need to limit Warlords to the roles that 4e locked down

In general, 5e classes aren't locked down to anything as consistent as a 4e Role, some sub-classes are pretty firmly committed to the equivalent of Strikers, but, even then, they have a spin on it, like tankyness or sneakiness or whatever. Most classes, though, can change role as readily as they change spells - very readily, indeed, for the Class Tier 1 neo-Vancian set - but more readily for all involved if the recent UA versatility increases are kept in some form.
A big part of that shift is concept-first design. The concept of the Warlord, as you point out, readily encompasses 'controller' role support, out-maneuvering, provoking, deceiving, and 'psyching out' enemies to the party's advantage (potentially in and out of combat, for that matter).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, but, the reason they left the game was because of the 4E ruleset as a whole, not the fact that the Warlord existed. Or, are there people who loved 4E, but left the game because they couldn't stand the Warlord?

Hmm...

To be more specific, this was the quote I was talking about:

Let us not have all classes with magical abilities - then all classes were given magical abilities and no one cared.

So I suppose this is what @lowkey13 was talking about. Someone says something (as you can clearly see they did) and another person on "the same side" tells me I'm not being truthful and am wrong about the game. Man, I'm not saying 4e all had magic powers, someone else did. The person I quoted. This is why lowkey13 expressed the frustration earlier about these kinds of conversations. It's just a bunch of disingenuous behavior, to claim no one made an argument they clearly did.

Also, not all 5e classes have magic powers. Fighters don't. Rogues don't. Just because some subclasses do, doesn't mean all of the classes do. It's the common fallacy: Some dogs are brown, therefore all dogs are brown.

To the greater point, while 5e has options that were listed as parts of 4e (non magical healing, daily powers, disassociated mechanics, etc), it's not mandatory. 5e also has plenty of options for people to play who don't want those things. And I think that's why 5e has enjoyed much more success.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Man, I'm not saying 4e all had magic powers, someone else did.

There was an allusion to a demand that the next (5e) edition not give all classes magical power. Not the same thing.

Also, not all 5e classes have magic powers. Fighters don't. Rogues don't. Just because some subclasses do, doesn't mean all of the classes do.

12 out of 12 classes and 35 out of 40 sub-classes in the 5e PH have magical powers. There's no way around it, it's quite explicit - spells, rituals, Ki, are all magical, every class gets at least one sub-class with at least one, if not a number, of such magical powers. Every 5e class, all 13 of them, now, have magical powers.
Even if there's a Warlord class, it likely will get some spell-casting sub-class(es), too. The 5e sub-classes in the PH that don't have magical powers are one-note DPR machines. Magic, in 5e players' options, is almost as pervasive as it is indispensable.

It's a profoundly limiting aspect of an otherwise pretty customizable edition (third after 3e & 4e, maybe, arguably, tied with 2nd, but I'd give 5e the nod, perhaps, admittedly, out of dim of memory of 2e & lack of familiarity with later 2e....). If you can't work magical powers into your character concept, you're denied the vast majority of options, and limited to modest variations on a single mode of contribution to the party. It stifles playstyles that were only briefly viable.

To the greater point, while 5e has options that were listed as parts of 4e (non magical healing, daily powers, disassociated mechanics, etc), it's not mandatory.

Non-magical healing (second wind), daily powers (spells, obviously, the odd bit like Indomitable) & dissociated mechanics (all over) can all be found in the standard PH1 classes. Now, nothing is mandatory in any edition of D&D, because the DM can always ban or change it, but those things are not opt-in optional, like Feats or MCing or Artificers, in 5e.

5e also has plenty of options for people to play who don't want those things.

That may be part of why it's suffered so much less unfounded criticism. Though how much such 'controversy' really impacts the economic success of a product like D&D is debatable.

 

[Don Durito]

Sacrosanct the post you keep referring to has been explained several times now.

Don’t call me disingenuous because you’re not keeping up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sacrosanct the post you keep referring to has been explained several times now.

Don’t call me disingenuous because you’re not keeping up.

Threads mov'n pretty fast and there are several of us saying similar things in different ways, with emphasis on different points.
Some confusion is understandable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sacrosanct the post you keep referring to has been explained several times now.

Don’t call me disingenuous because you’re not keeping up.

I'm not calling you disingenuous. And you can keep your insults to yourself, please. I'm calling it disingenuous for someone (a 4e fan, in this case you) making a statement like "all classes are magical", me quoting you saying that, and someone else on your "side" telling me I'm being dishonest because 4e does not in fact have every class magical. It's disingenuous to infer I'm lying when I wasn't the one making the claim. And double disingenuous for telling me (who doesn't have hardly any experience in 4e) I'm the one who should be held accountable for sharing false information from someone who is experienced in that edition. That's a load of bullpucky right there. How am I supposed to know what a fan of an editions says that isn't true or not of that edition if I don't play it? And somehow I'm the one at fault for repeating what said fan said?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm calling it disingenuous for someone (a 4e fan, in this case you) making a statement like "all classes are magical", me quoting you saying that, and someone else on your "side" telling me I'm being dishonest because 4e does not in fact have every class magical.

To be fair, there was no quotation. No attribution, no quotation marks. And you were, as per the usual polite assumption, merely mistaken.
Threads cycle, this one's moving fast, I'm sure you were trying to type the gist of something from memory....

But, to be fair: "Let us not have all classes with magical abilities..." is clearly not an assertion of fact, but a somewhat tongue in cheek allusion to a past demands, in a context that was painting those demands as inconsistent. Which, y'know, they turned out to be.

It's disingenuous to infer I'm lying when I wasn't the one making the claim. And double disingenuous for telling me (who doesn't have hardly any experience in 4e) I'm the one who should be held accountable for sharing false information from someone who is experienced in that edition.

FWIW, you did happen to change the meaning. It was an easy mistake to make once the quote is a couple posts back. I suppose you could have asked for clarification?

But, also, it's not like there's any obligation for two people you care to label as being on the "same side," to make the same points, in the same contexts, in some sort of unified front (it'd be a little weird, actually).

 

[Don Durito]

I certainly don’t consider myself to be on anyone’s “side”.

 

[generic]

I certainly don’t consider myself to be on anyone’s “side”.

I'm only on my own 'side', and sometimes, I'm not even on that!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm only on my own 'side', and sometimes, I'm not even on that!

Which side?
Aebir ...
or Toril?