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

[Corwin]

I'd just be disappointed if it ends up making a hollow, cynical lie of 5e's goal of inclusiveness,

You can keep trying to write this narrative. But the only thing hollow remains that sentiment. They've included the things you claim they haven't. You just didn't like they way they included them. Well, welcome to the party. Nobody, not one person, got everything they wanted in 5e. And that even includes the devs.

so I continue to look for indicators that might hold out some hope that this hasn't been the 'h4ter edition' all along.

I'm fairly certain you've been told numerous times that derogatory buzz terms like that are detrimental to you being taken seriously. Yet you continue to use them. Sad.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've never seen 'sorcerer' used to refer to modern day con-men if any kind. Or at all. I've never seen sorcerer used in a modern day context, outside urban fantasy novels.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think "inclusiveness" has always meant everybody could get a taste of something they liked from previous editions, and more to the point, I don't think they have ever implied otherwise. Delicate sensitivities aside, I think it is pretty hard to argue that a taste of things has been provided, albeit sometimes just a taste and sometimes you had to get a taste of something else when you took the bite.

The "major mechanical expansion" could easily be moving from a taste to a whole appetizer.

 

[Garthanos]

I've never seen 'sorcerer' used to refer to modern day con-men if any kind. Or at all. I've never seen sorcerer used in a modern day context, outside urban fantasy novels.

Its one of those weird bits like kids being called Witches in Africa ...

http://nypost.com/2016/12/27/red-bearded-isis-executioner-orders-beheading-of-sorcerer/


OR Saudi Arabia

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18503550/

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm fairly certain you've been told numerous times that derogatory buzz terms like that are detrimental to you being taken seriously. Yet you continue to use them. Sad.

Yes, I have been told to STFU, many times. But, no matter how tempting it may be to pretend it didn't, the edition war happened, and 5e is trying to heal the rift it caused. And we can't do that without acknowledging that rift, and what the game would have to look like after it's healed. Hint: it can't be just one side of the rift, with the other side gone. That's not healing, that's mutilation.

We have to acknowledge the bad, and avoid repeating it, to work towards the good.

I've never seen 'sorcerer' used to refer to modern day con-men if any kind. Or at all. I've never seen sorcerer used in a modern day context, outside urban fantasy novels.

'Sorcerer' is used by the media to refer to unscrupulous people who prey on the beliefs of superstitious people, offering ineffectual treatments, or engaging outright extortion. It's used in place of the various local names, rather like how Warlord is used in place of 'khan,' in reports from Afghanistan. It's not as high-profile as "Cleric issues fatwa," but it's a thing out there in the media.

 

[mellored]

I'll just chime into say i don't think warlord is a good name, but also, I don't care what it's called. I extremely rarely use class names in games, except when telling other's what I'm playing.

I'll happily switch to calling it by it's new name as soon as it get's one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll happily switch to calling it by it's new name as soon as it get's one.

Nuth'n else to do, at that point, really. The Mystic v3 has a sub-class that is transparently the Ardent (has 'Mantles' and everything), but called it "Order of the Avatar." If I'm going to discuss it, I'm going to use that name, if they stick with it, so be it. Once it's in print, it'll be that much harder to go back, and there might even be some folks really wanting "The Ardent" and others wanting a separate "Order of the Avatar" - 6e (may it be decades in the future) could have both.

 

[Corwin]

Yes, I have been told to STFU, many times.

Have you? That sucks. Not by me, though*. So this is either a strawman or a non sequitur.

But, no matter how tempting it may be to pretend it didn't, the edition war happened, and 5e is trying to heal the rift it caused.

Oh, hey. Check it out. You brought up your edition war again.

And we can't do that without acknowledging that rift, and what the game would have to look like after it's healed. Hint: it can't be just one side of the rift, with the other side gone. That's not healing, that's mutilation.

I see this rift of yours as a spoon...

We have to acknowledge the bad, and avoid repeating it, to work towards the good.

Its one thing to acknowledge past bads. Its another to actively effort to relive them, constantly dragging them to the fore before any old potential wounds could even have a chance to heal. You are the only edition warrior left. That must be hard for you.



[*I guess you can count mods here telling you to stop using inflammatory buzz words, or even instructing you to stop contributing to a thread as "STFU". But again, not me. And probably for the best. After all, it their forum.]

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

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.

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.

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.

For the record, my "probably never" was in reference to the word "Warlord" and whether it would ever be as acceptable a class name as "Paladin" is. That was not a prediction about whether the class would happen in 5e, or whether that class would be called "Warlord".

To the larger issue, the fact that every class name is a noun with non-D&D meanings, and some of those meanings have negative connotations, does not automatically make Warlord acceptable. I think we could all agree that some nouns will never be acceptable (Necrophiliac, Pedophile, Murderer...) so clearly there is some kind of spectrum. Our opinions of which words fall at what points on that spectrum, and where the threshold of acceptability is, will vary of course.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

'Sorcerer' is used by the media to refer to unscrupulous people who prey on the beliefs of superstitious people, offering ineffectual treatments, or engaging outright extortion. It's used in place of the various local names, rather like how Warlord is used in place of 'khan,' in reports from Afghanistan. It's not as high-profile as "Cleric issues fatwa," but it's a thing out there in the media.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything here, but...can you give any examples? I watch rather a lot of international news media, and I've never heard sorcerer used in the context you're talking about. Even the article [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] posted uses it (along with wizard) to refer to a person suspected of practicing magic, and that is the only context I've ever seen it used.

Far as I can tell, Anyone who believes that the person in question is a con man, rather than just a guy being randomly accused of witchcraft to stir up a mob, calls them a con artist, or a synonym thereof, whereas sorcerer is reserved for someone that the speaker genuinely believes is performing miracles via magic, and even that is *extremely* rare in a modern context.


I mean, it's tangential to the discussion, so no big deal, it just struck me as odd.

IMO, when you use the term sorcerer amongst non nerds, they think medieval/ancient miracle men/wizards, and/or someone possessed by spirits/devils, or someone who consorts with spirits/devils, and gains supernatural powers from that.

I'd say the DnD sorcerer fits just fine into that. Of course, so does the warlock.