D&D 5E (2014) What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[mellored]

I did make the point that the zealotry focused on this one class seems odd, that's true, but that wasn't an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of a position.

I see it as about the same amount as the ranger. Or psion.

The thing that confuses me is why there's so much push back against the butler...

Sure, each of them get a "I'd rather see effort being put into an option I like instead of than one I don''t" argument. Which is fair. We each want our own options.
But there seems to be an extra layer of anti-warlord, that isn't there for those other 2. (psion get's some "too sci-fi" comments). Possibly because it had "leader" and "shouting" that attracted the a-holes, which is fair, but also completely fixable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1) When bringing the phrase "edition war" to the conversation makes what would otherwise read like a normal difference of opinion or continuation of discussion into something that reads like an implied accusation of condoning or attempting to start an edition war (which is what seems to happen most of the times I've seen someone bring up the edition war on this forum).

This is the paragraph it was snipped from:

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.

That's it.

2) When it's genuinely irrelevant. If I say "I believe should devote resources to housing the homeless." I've completely covered the point

And you haven't denied that homelessness exists.

A rift has two sides, and it closes a whole lot easier if both move.

Sure, there are compromised. There have been fans of the Warlord wanted it in the PH, obviously. Now, we're settling for an optional class, having waited over two years. That's more movement, more compromise, than ever happened in the first two years of 4e, and there's virtually no edition warring against 5e.

So, yes I think WotC been cut unprecedented slack on this issue.

And, y'know, if they ultimately decide they don't want to carry through with supporting all past playstyles, I might eventually give up on D&D, but I'm not about to start warring against it. Maybe that means the pragmatic decision is for WotC to cater exclusively to the h4ter side of that rift.

I hope not.

 

[Aldarc]

I suspect it's different reasons for different people, but honestly few of the possible reasons make a lot of sense to me.

E.g., I understand the appeal of the "tactical" mechanics, but then why the insistence that it meet all these other criteria (e.g. healing, no magic).

Playing a pure support class (what I gather y'all mean by "lazylord") I can see as a fun variant, especially for veterans who have played every flavor of damage-dealer. But, again, why the insistence that every aspect be non-magical?

Making low-magic campaigns more viable also sounds good on the surface, but temporary HP and tuning encounter difficulty/frequency would accomplish that, so the insistence that this solution isn't sufficient, given that D&D is a high-magic game, strikes me as...awfully demanding.

Some are probably just carrying baggage from the edition wars, and the Warlord is as symbolic for them as it is for the 4e-haters Tony describes.

And there might be others who really (if secretly) do want to play the "leader".

So I just don't know.

Would it help you then if I expounded a bit more on the whole "non-magical" appeal for the Warlord?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This is the paragraph it was snipped from:

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.

That's it.

Yeah, I know where it was snipped from. It was snipped from a statement in which you could have made the point you were making by saying WotC should bring support for the play and campaign styles supported by past editions because people want them. Your mentioning of the edition war, despite that you attached it with the relevance of 5e being aimed at being inclusive of all D&D fans, is entirely unnecessary - and distracts from the point, in this case specifically by creating an implication that can be read in your statement that to not include what is being asked for in the specific form being asked is to be continuing or re-opening the war.

And you haven't denied that homelessness exists.

Are you claiming that someone has denied that the edition war existed?

...cater exclusively to the h4ter side of that rift.

Calling people "h4ter", even in this completely vague sort of way, is edition warring.

 

[Aldarc]

So how does this argument contribute to a positive thread discussion? It seems all beside the point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I know where it was snipped from. It was snipped from a statement in which you could have made the point you were making by saying WotC should bring support for the play and campaign styles supported by past editions because people want them. Your mentioning of the edition war, despite that you attached it with the relevance of 5e being aimed at being inclusive of all D&D fans, is entirely unnecessary -

Since the rift was caused by the edition war, its entirely relevant. And, since people are actively arguing that 5e should exclude specific styles best supported by 4e in the past, it is certainly necessary to point out why that goal of inclusiveness exists.

distracts from the point, in this case specifically by creating an implication that can be read in your statement that to not include what is being asked for in the specific form being asked is to be continuing or re-opening the war.

You can read that into it, I can't stop you.

Are you claiming that someone has denied that the edition war existed?

I'm pointing out that demanding a relevant historical fact never be mentioned is denying the culpability of those involved, the consequence still playing out, and obstructing any attempt to resolve those consequences or avoid a repetition of the event.

So how does this argument contribute to a positive thread discussion? It seems all beside the point.

I felt like I needed to defend 5e from the implication that it couldn't be used to implement a full Warlord class not to provide support for the range of playstyles that 4e did. Seemed on topic, and, IDK, denying negativity, anyway.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not but the problem I see is the Warlord from 4th edition was a class that was built using the specific rules of that edition. You aren't going to get a carbon copy of that because the rules for 5th edition are a lot different that those of the previous edition so if the Warlord isn't performing like the one from 4th edition then nobody will be happy with it.

Wizards has already provided Warlord type subclasses that utilize the 5th edition rules.

 

[Corwin]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not but the problem I see is the Warlord from 4th edition was a class that was built using the specific rules of that edition. You aren't going to get a carbon copy of that because the rules for 5th edition are a lot different that those of the previous edition so if the Warlord isn't performing like the one from 4th edition then nobody will be happy with it.

Wizards has already provided Warlord type subclasses that utilize the 5th edition rules.

Welcome to officially being a warlord hater. Oh, what's that? You didn't think you were one? Don't worry, someone will be along any minute to 'splain it to you and assure you that you are.

 

[Imaro]

Welcome to officially being a warlord hater. Oh, what's that? You didn't think you were one? Don't worry, someone will be along any minute to 'splain it to you and assure you that you are.

It's h4ter @Corwin... if you don't spell it like that you are disrespecting those who gave up their lives during the great edition war and denying that the great edition war ever existed...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this

Going back to the playtest, yes, it's a veritable mantra.

. You aren't going to get a carbon copy

At this late date I don't think it's unreasonable to hope for something much better than a mere copy. Especially considering what 5e is like...

the rules for 5th edition are a lot different that those of the previous edition so if the Warlord isn't performing like the one from 4th edition then nobody will be happy with it.

The rules for spellcasting in 5e actually were too different to allow a 5e port of the 3.5 Sorcerer, but they still made the attempt, keeping both the name and concept and adding a unique sub-system to help differentiate it. It may not have been the stunning success I'd still like to hope the 5e Warlord could be, but it's certainly better than writing off such an innovative 3e class.

5e's class design philosophy is very open. Almost anything (other than tight class balance, I suppose) is possible.

Wizards has already provided Warlord type subclasses that utilize the 5th edition rules.

And they (and a number of other things, like Inspiring Leader, for instance), illustrate that there is nothing pernicious about the concept, nor mechanically impractical about implementing it.

Having seen a rudimentary maneuver system, morale- based hps (both temp & restored), instant non- magical healing, attack granting, etc, already working in the system, but clinging to the idea that a 5e can't build a better warlord is downright self contradictory.