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

[Corwin]

But as an analogy it seems tenuous...

Sorta like how you keep trying to relate 4e with 5e? You started it... ;p

"Tenuous" or "inverted", huh? Try this on for size: Do you imagine Mr. Teague sat down to design that Cherokee by considered how he could incorporate as much of the Gremlin and Pacer into it as he possibly could? Should he have? Do you think, once he turned in his Cherokee design, people should have asked him how much of the Gremlin and Pacer he managed to incorporate into it, and if he could manage to squeeze in even more?

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Tenuous" or "inverted", huh? Try this on for size: Do you imagine Mr. Teague sat down to design that Cherokee by considered how he could incorporate as much of the Gremlin and Pacer into it as he possibly could?

That's one reason it's a poor analogy. Mr. Mearls came right out and said during the playtest that 5e was going to incorporate aspects of past editions, and be 'for' fans of all past editions. So, if you have an analogy about an engineer working on the New Beetle, or something, that might work out a little better.

Do you think, once he turned in his Cherokee design, people should have asked him how much of the Gremlin and Pacer he managed to incorporate into it, and if he could manage to squeeze in even more?

Also makes for a poor analogy, since you were asserting that a desirable feature of a past version was impossible in a new version, which necessarily makes the new product inferior in that sense, while in your analogy, the contrasted designs were different products.

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.

While I in no way want to impersonate a professional game designer, let alone one with greater skills than those who're working on 5e, it does seem to me, ardent and long-time fan that I am, that "as much as can be fit into 5e" is a whole lot.

5e has a much loser structure than 4e did. There's no Role cobby-holes. Source isn't nailed down. A Druid or Cleric could be a support caster one day, and a blaster the next, just by prepping different spells, nevermind choose a subclass, the Druid could, the same day, shape-change and hold the line. In 4e, the Druid had to be chopped into 3 mutually-incompatible sub-classes (and, arguably, the Warden class broken out from it) to more than hint at all that without breaking the 4-'Role' structure. In 5e, it's just all there. (Now, I may be a tad biased, since I loved the 1e Druid, and had been disappointed to varying degrees by every subsequent version until 5e.)

Now, speaking as a Warlord fan, I would hope to see not just "a more thorough Warlord class" comparable to that of 4e, but one that goes above & beyond that in area's where 4e's design philosophy limited it or otherwise failed to realize the full potential of the concept.

 

[Corwin]

That's one reason it's a poor analogy. Mr. Mearls came right out and said during the playtest that 5e was going to incorporate aspects of past editions, and be 'for' fans of all past editions.

The Cherokee incorporated certain aspects of the Gremlin and Pacer as well. Four wheels. An internal combustion engine under the hood. Rear hatch. Brakes. Glass windows. An ashtray. I'm sure there are plenty of others. No doubt there were also fans of the Pacer and Gremlin that ended up being fans of the Cherokee. Seems my analogy is holding just fine. What else you got?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Cherokee incorporated certain aspects of the Gremlin and Pacer as well. Four wheels. An internal combustion engine under the hood. Rear hatch. Brakes. Glass windows. An ashtray. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Things a great many cars have in common, sure. I can't imagine that there were Gremlin fans clamoring for any missing features in a jeep, though, since the latter was in no way a successor of the former, so, again, your analogy fails.

It's just a bad analogy. Try another one.

The assertion you made, up thread, in case we've lost it, was that 5e and/or it's designers /couldn't/ include any as Tuxgeo put it "more thorough Warlord class," implying that either system or designer or both were /inferior/ to the last set of designers. I disagreed with that implication, and pointed out that, among other things, some of the same designers, including the current lead, were working on the system when it did deliver a very thorough warlord, indeed, and it's odd to think they've lost that capability.

The analogy you replied with, though, now that I think of it, does apply to refuting your own implication, as it is like asserting that there was no way to design a Cherokee with as much interior space or towing capacity as a Gremlin, when the design parameters of the former, as an 'economy car' limited those qualities.

See, that maps. You're saying 5e, the game that doesn't bother so much about balance and has a loose class design philosophy and structure, can't come up with even as good (I say it can do better!) a Warlord as 4e, the balance-first (and second, and possibly 4th and 7th) design-philosophy game that chopped up classes to fit their severed bits into it's convenient Role boxes. And that is rather like saying a Cherokee could never be designed to out-tow a Gremlin.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

He might have simply been trying to clarify. You'll note that he isn't actually championing either side, or defending or advocating any points. Simply providing a summary of some of the arguments to someone who had said that they didn't entirely understand them. Its not a display of agreement: simply of enough intelligence and empathy to understand an argument, even if you disagree with it. It would be unfortunate if forums got so polarised that there was no place for middle or neutral viewpoints.

So, as you say: White-Knighting: seeking to engender peace through understanding to prevent actual war breaking out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It would be unfortunate if forums got so polarised that there was no place for middle or neutral viewpoints.

I would hate to see that happen again.

 

[Corwin]

The assertion you made, up thread, in case we've lost it, was that 5e and/or it's designers /couldn't/ include any as Tuxgeo put it "more thorough Warlord class,"

Nope. Strawman. I never claimed any such thing.

Also, I love how you are straining so hard to drag my analogy away, kicking and screaming, just so you can then point to it and yell, "It's not even close!". Nice effort. It continues, however, to relate to the notion that, just because someone was involved in something in the past, doesn't mean they should bring more of the older thing into the new thing than they are comfortable doing. Which was exactly you point. Because the assertion you made, up thread, in case we've lost it, was that MM worked on 4e, so he should be capable of handling incorporate more of its style into 5e. Thus my apropos analogy. Which, for some strange reason, you especially dislike and are working tirelessly to discredit. I wonder why...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nope. Strawman. I never claimed any such thing.

You made a claim that required such a thing be assumed as fact.

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.

This assertion requires an inability of the dev to fit the "thorough warlord class" Tuxgeo alluded to into the 5e framework, or an inadequacy of that framework to handle it - or both.

I deny those assumptions are valid. The devs should be competent to create a full-class worthy successor to the Warlord, and 5e's more open design parameters and less balance-constrained system should not only be able handle that, but allow them to do /more/ with it.

It continues, however, to relate to the notion that, just because someone was involved in something in the past, doesn't mean they should bring more of the older thing into the new thing than they are comfortable doing.

'Comfortable?' I'm sorry, what line are you drawing between 'comfortable' and 'capable,' and how much difference is it supposed to make to the folks disappointed by the failure?

As for 'should,' yes, WotC should bring support for the play and campaign styles supported by past editions, such was invoked as a big part of the reason for 5e, in the first place, to heal that edition-war rift.
The Warlord is one of the bigger remaining opportunities to fill in missing support, especially if we assume the Mystic is, indeed, going to see print in some form well before it, as seems likely.

Which was exactly you point. Because the assertion you made, up thread, in case we've lost it, was that MM worked on 4e, so he should be capable of handling incorporate more of its style into 5e.

An approximation of one fact consistent with the point I was making, which is the above: That the devs are neither incompetent, nor 5e hopelessly flawed and limited. That MM worked on D&D throughout 4e, including helming the last two years, is a fact that argues against him being incapable of duplicating past accomplishments - it's not proof, or anything, just an example.

 

[Corwin]

You made a claim that required such a thing be assumed as fact.

Nope. Sorry. Still got a strawman there. That was tuxgeo who did as you say. My whole post was in direct response to tuxgeo to illustrate the *possibility* of something *might* be true that disproved *tuxgeo's* claim. I strongly encourage you to go back and read it *in context* and *in its entirety* before inadvertently mischaracterizing my original point further. 'Preciate it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My whole post was in direct response to tuxgeo to illustrate the *possibility* of something *might* be true that disproved *tuxgeo's* claim.

Nod, I caught that. But, in order for it to be true, it'd require the system be dysfunctional or it's designers incompetent, so I considered a *possibility* not worthy of consideration.