D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Corwin]

I don't see how you reached that conclusion, and I don't think that conclusion is justified by what I wrote...

You spoke as if it was not possible that the devs *had* considered what they felt was an acceptable level of warlord features, within the context of their desired system paradigm, and went with that. And so we got what we have *because* going further was beyond what they considered acceptable for 5e. If you do not believe that was the tone of your point, I apologize. But would humbly ask that you go back and read your post. Because that's how it came across to me.

...but I guess I don't need to. You are, after all, free to form your own opinions.

Awesome! Thanks!

 

[Tony Vargas]

You spoke as if it was not possible that the devs *had* considered what they felt was an acceptable level of warlord features, within the context of their desired system paradigm, and went with that. And so we got what we have *because* going further was beyond what they considered acceptable for 5e.

I think that's a possibility worth discounting, since it requires that either the devs be incompetent and their system inadequate (since 4e was able to handle so much more, obviously it's possible) or that their whole 'uniting the fanbase' was an outright lie, and the actual agenda is driving fans of 4e away, and catering slavishly to the other side of the edition war.

Not only are those extremely negative things to assume, they're even somewhat contradicted by the odd fact here or there. For instance, Mike Mearls /also/ worked on 4e it's whole run, so he was competent enough to deal with such things back then. For another, the game is filled with all sorts of little 4e-isms that, had the scorched-earth approach really been the intent, would also have been left out.

Worse case, I think it's fair to assume that they did go ahead and appease that one side of the 'rift' (and, for that matter, the old-school side further on that didn't care for a lot of 3e-isms) in leaving some significant things (like Feats and 3e-style MCing) optional, and a few things, like the Warlord, out of the PH but open to later, even 'more optional,' inclusion.

But, I could be wrong (I have been many times before in trying to divine "WTF is WotC thinking?").
Time will tell.
But, for now, benefit of a doubt.

I don't see how you reached that conclusion...

Well, you are posting an opinion, about game design, on a forum.

 

[tuxgeo]

You spoke as if it was not possible that the devs *had* considered what they felt was an acceptable level of warlord features, within the context of their desired system paradigm, and went with that. And so we got what we have *because* going further was beyond what they considered acceptable for 5e. If you do not believe that was the tone of your point, I apologize. But would humbly ask that you go back and read your post. Because that's how it came across to me.

I spoke as though Elfcrusher had not considered something. I didn't mention the devs at all in that post.

I do believe that the devs have considered many time more things than they have published, and that their design-and-development processes include a large measure of winnowing out the considered-but-rejected ideas.

 

[cbwjm]

I would vote for Butler in a heartbeat. If the "leader" fluff were swapped out for "loyal servant" my objections would evaporate. I'd probably play one for my next character.

Plus...for me this is a crucial test...if you told a first-time player the word "Butler" they would immediately grasp the concept. Unlike "Warlord".

I would hate a class called the butler. Why would I want to play someone who is a servant to the other players. That is just as bad as the complaints people have about the warlord leading others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would hate a class called the butler. Why would I want to play someone who is a servant to the other players. That is just as bad as the complaints people have about the warlord leading others.

As bad, and, I suppose, as inconsiderate of how other people might want to play the game. Sure, /butler/ isn't a very genre-appropriate class name. But, um... oh, 'Retainer' or 'Partisan' could work, for instance... the faithful servant who plays a significant part in the hero's success is not an unknown trope in heroic fantasy (I should probably stop harping on this, someday, but: certainly more common in genre than the pious armored guy who stands behind the hero and lays healing miracles on him every six seconds).

Samwise Gamgee has been mentioned - he was a servant, Frodo's gardener. If Frodo had had a Butler*, he'd've outranked Sam six ways to Sunday.

























* And I don't think JRRT would've been above such an anachronism.

 

[Corwin]

I spoke as though Elfcrusher had not considered something. I didn't mention the devs at all in that post.

Really? The part I quoted earlier, here?:

Here's one factor you may have missed: It isn't just the presence of specific features that the Warlord fans want; but more than that, it's the ability to use those features as much as can be fit into 5E. A Fighter subclass won't ever achieve that "as much as can be fit into 5E" criterion because a Fighter has too many other built-in features that accomplish other things (hit die size, Extra Attack, etc.), and those cut into the room for a Warlord-y subclass of the Fighter to do more Warlord-y things without becoming way overpowered in the process of building it that way.
For the people who want to do Warlord-y stuff as much as can be fit into 5E, the offerings to date in that direction don't go as far as they would like; and they think that a full-class version would necessarily be able to go farther in that direction.

This doesn't speak to what the game has thus far provided WRT warlord-y stuff and that it's "not enough"? And that there should be more? And that the devs should provide more?

Because, I gotta ask, who will be determining "as much as can be fit into 5E" (your words)? And who decides what constitutes "more Warlord-y things without becoming way overpowered in the process of building it that way" (again, your words)? Who gave them "the offerings to date in that direction [which] don't go as far as they would like" (once more, your words)? And who is being asked to provide "a full-class version [that] would necessarily be able to go farther in that direction" (you guessed it, your words)?

Aren't all those questions answered by, "The devs"? Which brings us back around to my original response to you.

 

[Corwin]

For instance, Mike Mearls /also/ worked on 4e it's whole run, so he was competent enough to deal with such things back then.

Richard A. Teague, who gave us both the '75 AMC Pacer & Gremlin also designed the iconic '83 Jeep Cherokee.

For another, the game is filled with all sorts of little 4e-isms that, had the scorched-earth approach really been the intent, would also have been left out.

I'm genuinely pleased to finally see you admit that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Richard A. Teague, who gave us both the '75 AMC Pacer & Gremlin also designed the iconic '83 Jeep Cherokee.

Obscure, but interesting.

But as an analogy it seems tenuous, perhaps inverted. The point isn't that a designer can do both good and bad work at different times (obviously), but merely that having done good work in the past tends to contradict the assertion that doing as well again is impossible.

I'm genuinely pleased to finally see you admit that.

Heh. I'm glad to see it finally registered. ;P

 

[tuxgeo]

I'm going to interpolate answers where they belong.

Really? The part I quoted earlier, here?:

(see Corwin's post for what he quoted me saying.)

This doesn't speak to what the game has thus far provided WRT warlord-y stuff and that it's "not enough"? And that there should be more? And that the devs should provide more?

Of course the devs would have to provide it, if they choose to -- but I was not addressing them in the post.

Because, I gotta ask, who will be determining "as much as can be fit into 5E" (your words)? And who decides what constitutes "more Warlord-y things without becoming way overpowered in the process of building it that way" (again, your words)? Who gave them "the offerings to date in that direction [which] don't go as far as they would like" (once more, your words)? And who is being asked to provide "a full-class version [that] would necessarily be able to go farther in that direction" (you guessed it, your words)?

Aren't all those questions answered by, "The devs"? Which brings us back around to my original response to you.

Ah, yes: your original response to me, in which you stated that it sounds as though I thought I know more than the devs. That was an incorrect interpretation, because I was actually saying that Elfcrusher might not have considered a point of view.

In the context of my post, it should be clear that all of my comments were addressed to Elfcrusher, not to the devs.

Of course it is clear that we cannot know how much different stuff the devs have developed but not released -- because they haven't released it yet. And because that much is clear, it must also be clear that I wasn't saying that the devs have not developed such stuff -- because we cannot know how much they have developed but not released. Since "we" cannot, that includes me: "I" cannot. Since I cannot know that, such an interpretation could not rightly have represented what I was saying.

What I was saying was that Elfcrusher might have missed the notion that some Warlord-fans wanted a more thorough Warlord class -- "as much as can be fit into 5E" -- but I was addressing Elfcrusher when I said that. I wasn't addressing the devs; and since I wasn't addressing the devs, I cannot have been saying that I think they know less than I do.

Furthermore, we can guess (but not know) that the devs are getting summaries of the discussions on the forums; so it's likely that they know all the reasons people have previously stated. If that is indeed the case, then the devs already know about the desires of posters for a fuller Warlord class, and all of the posted reasons for those desires. Again, if the devs know all that, the only thing I can hope to do with such a post is to inform another poster, who might not have seen (because of the Ignore function, or for other reasons) some of the stated reasons.

Of course the devs do the developing. We also know that they play their cards close to their chests, so I don't know how much they know. What I do know, in this thread, is that Elfcrusher was stating a lack of understanding about possible reasons for wanting a full Warlord class. I was attempting to provide a further understanding of the reasons. I was most certainly not stating that I know any more than the devs. That's one of the reasons I didn't address them in the post: they're "third-person" to the discussion, not "second-person."

That is as clear as I can possibly be about the subject.
If you want to discuss it further, you will be discussing it with other people, not with me, as I believe I have already been as clear as I can.

 

[Corwin]

In the context of my post, it should be clear that all of my comments were addressed to Elfcrusher, not to the devs.

Ah. This is the problem with white knighting. It gets things murky. When you defend a point, or champion one in this case, it is generally fair to expect you to also hold such beliefs. Its also not been my experience to see devil's advocating be so thorough and involved. You put a lot of effort into something you, yourself, do not hold as evident. Which is what threw me off.