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

[Guest 6801328]

God help you should you even look up the definition of "paladin" or some of the subclasses (e.g. champion) then.

any of the twelve peers of Charlemagne's court, of whom the count palatine was the chief.
a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry.

(...waiting for some consequence for which I need God's help...nothing happening...disappointed...)

At the time of the word choice, Paladin really was intended to be superior to other, mundane classes. Is that a mistake we should repeat?

This is kind of interesting:
Google ngrams: paladin, paragon, warlord

 

[Guest 6801328]

Although somewhat ironically, a lot of the abilities that the GW1 Paragon had got rolled into the GW2.... Guardian.

Maybe because they realized that "Paragon" is a terrible name for a class.

 

[Aldarc]

(...waiting for some consequence for which I need God's help...nothing happening...disappointed...)

It's an expression. Don't turn this into something worth breaking the Board Code of Conduct over.

At the time of the word choice, Paladin really was intended to be superior to other, mundane classes. Is that a mistake we should repeat?

You have already made a value judgment about the name then that I have not.

Maybe because they realized that "Paragon" is a terrible name for a class.

Don't project your problems with the name onto others. ArenaNet combined two pre-existing GW1 classes to create the GW2 Guardian class: the monk (a light-armored priest) and the paragon (a heavy-armored commander). In fact, if you do well enough in PvP in GW2 on a Guardian, you will even get the title "Champion Paragon."

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's an expression. Don't turn this into something worth breaking the Board Code of Conduct over.

???

Let's unpack this:
1) You used an exaggeration to suggest that a specific counter-example invalidates my assertion.
2) I used some sarcasm to suggest it did nothing of the kind.

In which direction do you see this going that would lead to a Code of Conduct violation?

You have already made a value judgment about the name then that I have not.

Oh, the "mistake" I'm referring to was both designing a class that was intended to be superior to others, and giving it a name that reflects that intent. That's what I don't think we should repeat.

In the case of Paladin I think it had a happy ending, but "paladin" is both a more obscure word than "paragon", and thus carried fewer connotations, and is less extreme than "paragon" even if you knew it's meaning. Being "renowned for chivalry and heroism" isn't as bad as "a perfect example".

 

[Aldarc]

???

Let's unpack this:
1) You used an exaggeration to suggest that a specific counter-example invalidates my assertion.
2) I used some sarcasm to suggest it did nothing of the kind.

In which direction do you see this going that would lead to a Code of Conduct violation?

Elaborating further accomplishes nothing. I'll just drop it then.

Oh, the "mistake" I'm referring to was both designing a class that was intended to be superior to others, and giving it a name that reflects that intent. That's what I don't think we should repeat.

In the case of Paladin I think it had a happy ending, but "paladin" is both a more obscure word than "paragon", and thus carried fewer connotations, and is less extreme than "paragon" even if you knew it's meaning. Being "renowned for chivalry and heroism" isn't as bad as "a perfect example".

So when does the Warlord get a happy ending then?

 

[Guest 6801328]

So when does the Warlord get a happy ending then?

At this point probably never, in my opinion. The term itself is a lot more loaded than Paladin (again, existing connotations and common use) plus it's already become a flashpoint of contention in the community.

It also...unlike the Paladin...has almost nothing to do with the class design. I think it could be fairly argued that those dictionary definitions of "paladin" bear some resemblance to the original class, and even the current class. Not so with "Warlord".

 

[Aldarc]

At this point probably never, in my opinion. The term itself is a lot more loaded than Paladin (again, existing connotations and common use) plus it's already become a flashpoint of contention in the community.

It also...unlike the Paladin...has almost nothing to do with the class design. I think it could be fairly argued that those dictionary definitions of "paladin" bear some resemblance to the original class, and even the current class. Not so with "Warlord".

I disagree, but I don't see anything productive coming out of arguing further on this matter.

 

[mellored]

I also want to address this whole side discussion about how the new Mystic represents a better way to design classes, in that even the base class is highly customizable, allowing for a much wider range of builds.

I agree that it's an interesting, flexible, fun way to create characters. But it's also a lot different from what I think of as the D&D approach.

It's pretty similar to D&D bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard.

I mean...

Bard core class abilities are spells, skills, song of rest, and inspiration dice.
Cleric core class abilities are spells, channel divinity, and divine intervention.
Druid core class abilities are spells, wild shape, and timeless body.
Sorcerer core class abilities are spells, spell points, and metamagic.
Warlock core class abilities are spells, pact boon, and invocations.
Wizard core class abilities are spells.

So literally half the classes are built around a modular design where you pick from a variety of things you can do.
So yea. It would be very D&D to have...

Warrior core class abilities are specialization, techniques, and maybe a ribbon ability or 2.

 

[Gradine]

At this point probably never, in my opinion. The term itself is a lot more loaded than Paladin (again, existing connotations and common use) plus it's already become a flashpoint of contention in the community.

It also...unlike the Paladin...has almost nothing to do with the class design. I think it could be fairly argued that those dictionary definitions of "paladin" bear some resemblance to the original class, and even the current class. Not so with "Warlord".

To add to this point; the term "Paladin", as originally defined, is fairly archaic; it's not particularly relevant. Meanwhile "Warlords", as originally defined, very much do still exist, today, and whose actions actually impact real people in the real world, and mark them as some of the very worst that humanity has to offer. One would hope that a heroic character in D&D would seek to avoid some of that baggage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At this point probably never, in my opinion.

I can't pretend that looks like an unrealistic expectation at this point. I'd just be disappointed if it ends up making a hollow, cynical lie of 5e's goal of inclusiveness, so I continue to look for indicators that might hold out some hope that this hasn't been the 'h4ter edition' all along.

The term itself is a lot more loaded than Paladin (again, existing connotations and common use)

Warlock, sorcerer, and even cleric in the context typically alluded to, come with comparable negative connotations in modern usage. Warlock and Sorcerer lack countervailing connotations in the positive column. Cleric has been used in a positive, though not heroic sense in the past, to mean a clergyman and in the form 'clerical' to denote paperwork. Warlord has been used positively for heroic characters, John Carter of Mars, for instance.

plus it's already become a flashpoint of contention in the community.

That can't really be used as a reason to exclude something, because it too easily becomes a reason to exclude anything. Want something excluded, just make the noise, and you make it 'controversial' and 'a flashpoint.' By that reasoning, exclusion always wins, there can never be a debate or a fair compromise.

For that matter, we can turn it around: the exclusion of the Warlord from 5e is a flashpoint of contention, therefor it must be restored to the game.

That 5e's stated goal is to include modular options and be for fans of each past edition, the latter invalid argument seems more reasonable than the former invalid argument.

It also...unlike the Paladin...has almost nothing to do with the class design. I think it could be fairly argued that those dictionary definitions of "paladin" bear some resemblance to the original class, and even the current class. Not so with "Warlord".

Warlords fight, and they lead or advise or inspire. There's more and more heroic-fantasy-specifics to them than the dictionary definition, and no requirement for the unpleasantness. The D&D Paladin heals by laying on hands, supernaturally protects his allies, casts spells granted by a deity from a polytheistic pantheon, and may or may not be a knight in service to a king. The Paladin's were Charlemagne's personal Knights, in direct service to him, they did not gain power from Pagan gods and probably would have faced severe consequences had they done so.

The D&D Sorcerer is also nothing like the dictionary definition, but for claiming to wield magical powers. And, of course, there's nothing heroic about the RL con-men preying on the superstitious, who are referred to as 'Sorcerers' in the media, today.