Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7056806" data-attributes="member: 42582">For what it's worth, my prediction would be that there will be no 5e warlord beyond the Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight - at least, not in the near or even mid-term future. There seems little support for the idea from the publisher, and only mixed support from the player-base.I think the warlord puts particular pressure on a certain sort of approach to D&D. The warlord forces players to recognise that hit points are abstract and connected to skill, "staying power", etc. The warlord forces players to recognise that the action economy is abstract (and hence that one way to represent trying harder, or benefiting from guidance, is extra actions). The warlord forces players to recognise that the usage/rest economy is abstract (and so martial "powers" can be a thing).Many D&D players, by way of contrast, seem to want to think of hit points as correlating to "damage" (but not injury - a weird dichotomy I won't try and get into here); of the action economy as "real" (so the gameworld is vaguely stop-motion); of the rest and usage economy as "real" (so that daily powers correlate to magical spells memorised every morning).There are existing elements of the game that put pressure on these things (eg fighters' action surge and second wind; barbarian's rage; the lack of a damage spiral for hit point loss), but the general response to pointing out that the warlord is consistent with and builds on those existing elements is that they're necessary evils that need to be ignored, not valuable features of the game that should be embraced and expanded.I'm not saying this view is the totality of D&D players. For all I know it's not even a majority. But it's clearly a large, and vocal, and influential, group. Keeping the on the side of 5e is an important marketing concern from WotC's point of view.EDIT (for   [MENTION=6778305]Redthistle[/MENTION], [MENTION=61026]tuxgeo[/MENTION]):  "Keeping the on the side of 5e" should probably read either "Keeping them on the side of 5e" or "Keeping that group on the side of 5e". Hopefully the meaning was nevertheless clear despite the poor typing.And while I'm at it:   [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], you know what my view is on the warlord, the D&D asbtractions that 4e embraces and expands upon, etc. But in general it's a mistake to let desire lead belief.</blockquote>

Verification