Dragonlance What do you want from a Dragonlance 5e?

[Stormonu]

Yes, I understand this perfectly well. However, it's not at all the same. Steel is as cheap as dirt compared to gold, and now, you're making too many assumptions to be reasonable. Really? If you have to justify your currency system through a sudden loss of knowledge on how to create steel, your currency may be flawed.

And, on the topic of steel shortages, those just don't happen. But, if they did, would the governments use steel as currency? Real world governments have consistently made their currency out of two things: valuable metals and metals which they have in surplus. Steel would be neither. And, the factor of making weaponry out of something complicates this.

steel pennies were issued by the US in 1943 due to copper shortages. The more I think about this, the more I wonder if this might have been the inspiration point.

Anyways, I’m fine with steel currency in Dragonlance, and think it is a fine bit of wonder that sets it apart from other campaign worlds.

 

[generic]

steel pennies were issued by the US in 1943 due to copper shortages. The more I think about this, the more I wonder if this might have been the inspiration point.

Anyways, I’m fine with steel currency in Dragonlance, and think it is a fine bit of wonder that sets it apart from other campaign worlds.

Yes, I am aware of the introduction of steel pennies. However, as you noted, this was because of a copper shortage, not a steel shortage. Your points contradict each other.

So what is it? Is steel too valuable, or not valuable enough? Is it the standard of currency, or a weak replacement?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Urriak Uruk]

What did y'all do to my beautiful Dragonlance thread...

If we must take about what to call a Warlord, at least call it Dragonlord or Dragonrider (shortened from the Dragon Highlords) to actually fit Dragonlance. Plus those names are actually good.

EDIT: Also, before the Warlord was called the Warlord, it was the Marshall. That name actually fits its role better, making me think that General or Commander is a better name for such a class. Though honestly, I don't think these fit well as a unique class at all, and should just become subclasses...

 

[Tony Vargas]

What did y'all do to my beautiful Dragonlance thread...

...bwahahahaha! … yeah, I need to work on that villain laugh, really not up to snuff...

(it's funny, I wasn't expecting so much response)

EDIT: Also, before the Warlord was called the Warlord, it was the Marshall.

They were really quite different classes. But, yeah, post-Essentials, every real class was also a presumptive sub-class of itself, the Wizard was the Archanist, the Fighter the Weaponmaster, and the Marshal name was re-used as the Warlord sub-class.

That name actually fits its role better, making me think that General or Commander is a better name for such a class.

Marshal, General & Commander are all military ranks, implying authority as part of a hierarchy, which is much narrower - and grates on specific issues some folks have with the class.

If we must take about what to call a Warlord, at least call it Dragonlord.

Would that be one that led/controlled Dragons? Or that was a 'lord' because it had draconic allies?

 

[plisnithus8]

DL would be a major disappointing announcement to me.
I’ve read the novels and enjoyed the narrative but really don’t understand the appeal as a setting.
Besides some NPCs, organizations, and a few IMHO minor changes to races, it seems the story could be set fairly easily in the FR.
Barovia, Ravnica, and Eberron all have significant thematic and mechanical differences.
I’d love to hear what the appeal is.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

They were really quite different classes. But, yeah, post-Essentials, every real class was also a presumptive sub-class of itself, the Wizard was the Archanist, the Fighter the Weaponmaster, and the Warlord got a Marshal sub-class. Marshal, General & Commander are all military ranks, implying authority as part of a hierarchy, which is much narrower - and grates on specific issues some folks have with the class.

Would that be one that led/controlled Dragons?

This is true, but the name "warlord" has its own problem, in that the definition of a warlord is "a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy." Which is not really what a PC Warlord would actually be doing, as he's ordering around a handful of PCs (the class is really more of a Captain or Squad Leader in what it actually equates to).

Plus, when you search Warlord on Google images, you get an assortment of images evoking barbarians and fighters, which is not the Warlord either in rules terms.

Back to Dragonlance, the Dragon Highlords were military generals, each of whom commanded a different color army. The two most famous were Verminaard of the Red Dragon Army, and Kitiara of the Blue Dragon Army.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is true, but the name "warlord" has its own problem, in that the definition of a warlord is "a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy."

That's /a/ definition, yes. Others include "a leader of a military group who is not officially recognized" or "a leader in control of a region within a state, often one with a weak or ineffectual government" or "a leader able to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state due to their ability to mobilize loyal armed forces"

Which is not really what a PC Warlord would actually be doing

The key difference between Warlord definitions and Captain/Marshal/General/etc is that the Warlord's position is not one of authority, especially not legitimate authority. The Warlord pulls together a band of fighters, and that gives him power - Robin Hood, gathering his Merry Men and taking de-facto control of Sherwood Forest, for instance, fits the definitions of a Warlord.

Back to Dragonlance, the Dragon Highlords were military generals, each of whom commanded a different color army. The two most famous were Verminaard of the Red Dragon Army, and Kitiara of the Blue Dragon Army.

The abilities of the Warlord class were appropriate to characters like that, though those sound like Paragon if not Epic examples - a Paragon Path, or in 3e terms, a Prestige Class, on top of Warlord abilities.
...5e seems to want to handle PP/PrC concepts with archetypes...

 

[Urriak Uruk]

That's /a/ definition, yes. Others include "a leader of a military group who is not officially recognized" or "a leader in control of a region within a state, often one with a weak or ineffectual government" or "a leader able to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state due to their ability to mobilize loyal armed forces"

The key difference between Warlord definitions and Captain/Marshal/General/etc is that the Warlord's position is not one of authority, especially not legitimate authority. The Warlord pulls together a band of fighters, and that gives him power - Robin Hood, gathering his Merry Men and taking de-facto control of Sherwood Forest, for instance, fits the definitions of a Warlord.

The abilities of the Warlord class were appropriate to characters like that, though those sound like Paragon if not Epic examples - a Paragon Path, or in 3e terms, a Prestige Class, on top of Warlord abilities.
...5e seems to want to handle PP/PrC concepts with archetypes...

The Robin Hood example kind of exemplifies the problem with the warlord, in that if I asked a group of D&D players what class would be Robin Hood's, they would say "ranger," not "warlord."

The word "warlord" makes people think of tyrannical leaders of soldiers, like the daimyo of Japan or the more modern examples in the Middle East. It is not exactly a word that fits well with people's conception of a D&D character.

Now to be clear, I actually don't care much for the warlord and believe it's main role of boosting the ability's of its peers (in fluff explained through tactical prowess) is not one that merits its own class, but instead make good additional benefits in the forms of subclasses. So thinks like Strategist, Tactician, Raider, Warpriest, Battlemind, Inquisitor, all make good names for subclasses with warlord-traits to the current slate of class options.

Back to the Dragon Highlords, yes they make more sense as Epic path things. It's kind of the paradox of a warlord, that it doesn't really sound like something a level 1 PC is supposed to be.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Robin Hood example kind of exemplifies the problem with the warlord, in that if I asked a group of D&D players what class would be Robin Hood's, they would say "ranger," not "warlord."

D&Ders, maybe, because they've been hearing 'Ranger' for 40+ years. For other folks, Robin Hood would /be/ the Archetype. They'd more likely say 'Archer,' 'Outlaw' or even 'Bandit.' And, if you insist on definitions, Warlord fits, too: he's got his band of armed followers, and a territory he's carved out of a state with a weakened government.

But, the ranger really only became a remotely appropriate Robin Hood, in terms of being a good archer later, in it's first two incarnations DEX was one of the few stats it didn't have a minimum for, getting a high-DEX ranger who might actually hit a little better'n average with a bow was a pretty wild stroke of luck.

The word "warlord" makes people think of tyrannical leaders of soldiers, like the daimyo of Japan or the more modern examples in the Middle East. It is not exactly a word that fits well with people's conception of a D&D character.

Or it makes them think of John Carter, Warlord of Mars. Or the 'evil' warlords Xena was always fighting. It's the kind of class name that flows in a fantasy milieu - unlike Fighter (which conjures images of boxers) or Cleric. Even if warlords can be badguys in some of those sources - so can Warlocks, Sorcerers, Wizards ("evil" fits naturally in front of those even moreso than it does warlord). It sounds archaic, and connotes rebellion or at least independence, rather than legitimate rank, authority or position - especially compared to things like Captain or Commander or General. And Marshal - it makes Americans think of old-west lawmen. C'mon!

Back to the Dragon Highlords, yes they make more sense as Epic path things. It's kind of the paradox of a warlord, that it doesn't really sound like something a level 1 PC is supposed to be.

Hey, Wizard was an 11th level magic-user back in the day Gandalf & Merlin hardly scream 'first level,' Paladins were Peers of Charlemagne (the dozen highest-ranking/most powerful nobles in his empire), Druids were revered elders, priests & lawgivers in a tribal society often held in higher esteem than 'kings.' It's a completely spurious objection that applies to just about every concept getting the D&D zero-to-hero treatment. "Warlords" though, even by the modern definition, can range from leading little more than a gang of bandits to virtually ruling a country.

5e does lack anything like Epic Destinies/Paragon Paths or Prestige Classes, you get a Background, at first, and a sub-class no later than 3rd. That's it. There's no high level distinguishing options or story/setting tie-ins like 3e & 4e had.

Prestige Classes would be helpful in bringing any setting to life, giving players ways to buy-in to the setting and forge ties with organizations, societies, cultures, or traditions within it - and could be used for high-level distinctions like the old name-level threshold.