D&D 5E What's a Warlord? Never heard of this class before.

[Neonchameleon]

More unfamiliarity with the lengthy debate and those in it. I've repeatedly expressed a dislike for lazylording. That's a specific thing. And I'm not the only one here, and elsewhere, pointing out the anathema to RPG play that it is. I get that "princess build" is your shtick. So obviously your opinion runs counter to mine. That's life. We see it differently. There's no harm in agreeing to disagree and moving on.

And two more clean misses from you.

The first clean miss is that you think I like playing the lazylord. My taste in warlords, as I have mentioned, starts with the Bravura Warlord - with the Lazylord being something I might play in preference to a 4e Slayer - or in other words right at the bottom of the list of PCs I want to play. But I want it there because it vastly expands the range of characters that can be played without dragging the table down or having someone play The Load.

The second is that you seem to take your personal refusal to accept endowments (in the improv drama sense) or compels (in the Fate sense) as something that defines where the boundaries of roleplaying should be. To me all you are doing is demonstrating in large neon letters just how limited and solipsistic a power fantasy your tiny subset of roleplaying actually is. There's nothing wrong with indulging in this solipsistic power fantasy from time to time - but for a more emotionally engaging experience roleplaying I find that accepting things from other players within limits makes for a much much more immersive game from all perspectives. This is because I do not suffer under the delusion that I choose what I feel - merely how I respond to that. And for precisely this reason I do not demand that my PCs are inhuman and able to be moved by me as minatures in a tabletop wargame. When you talk about anathema I see a set of self-imposed limits by you (that are admittedly common in the D&D community) that hinder actual roleplaying in favour of a wargaming variant.

 

[mellored]

they have not given some of you the warlord you think you want.

In that we agree.

At best, we can get 50% of a warlord. But it's not due to lack of features in the game, just the distribution of those features.

I can make a pacifist cleric, a chearleader bard, an non-violent wizard, and a buff-only sorcerer.
But no option to do that for a martial class.

On the other hand, I encourage you to feel free to homebrew the heck out of whatever warlord kitchen-sinker you want. I just recommend you don't require everyone else to like and take it with out criticisms. Especially should you decide to post it on a public forum for mass consumption.

I have no problem with criticism.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I have no problem with criticism.

I apologize for not clarifying the "nonspecific you". My comment was supposed to cast as a more general commentary. I'm aware, and respect that, you are not one of those around here who cannot handle such things.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I apologize for not clarifying the "nonspecific you". My comment was supposed to cast as a more general commentary. I'm aware, and respect that, you are not one of those around here who cannot handle such things.

Of course anyone opposed on principle to the idea of something on the grounds that it's BadWrongFun puts themselves in a position where giving constructive criticism is almost impossible. And should expect to have their approach that prevents people playing characters that are fun and broaden the game (and allow it much deeper into the realms of Sword & Sorcery) treated accordingly.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Of course anyone opposed on principle to the idea of someone having a different opinion for what constitutes a viable mechanic puts themselves in a position where receiving constructive criticism is almost impossible. And should expect to have their need to play characters that are broken or disruptively damages the game (and forces it much deeper into the realms of Board Gamery) treated accordingly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Of course anyone opposed on principle to the idea of someone having a different opinion for what constitutes a viable mechanic puts themselves in a position where receiving constructive criticism is almost impossible. And should expect to have their need to play characters that are broken or disruptively damages the game (and forces it much deeper into the realms of Board Gamery) treated accordingly.

All of which has nothing to do with the arguments you are raising.

The Warlord does not get to alter reality on a whim, unlike e.g. the Wizard. Which means it is possible to create a broken warlord but that's entirely in the implementation. Anyone claiming "broken" at this point is clearly worried about something else.

The Warlord is not inherently disruptive. Plenty of us have played in games where warlords haven't been disruptive. The warlord is also not an archetype that is automatically against the interests of the party (see the Kender for details - or the 1e Paladin).

On the other hand you seem to have a need to circumscribe the fun of others. And so, by your own logic, you should have your needs to boss others around and control the games of others all while maintaining your solipsistic PCs treated accordingly.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Or... maybe you are just wrong. <shrug>

 

[ZickZak]

On the other hand you seem to have a need to circumscribe the fun of others.

http://shamenun.com/

 

[mfc]

I want buy Warlord but in my opinion World of Warcraft has ended at TBC :/
In Warlord all is simple and easy.

 

[Uchawi]

Even with Warcraft the classes are still fun to play, but I agree the content has become stale. Just like people complain about the 5E release schedule is not enough to maintain interest. But even using Warcraft as an example all the classes work within the same framework to have meaningful choices. With 5E you see magic classes as the top of the pyramid and there is a lot of bias to maintain martial classes at the bottom based on realism when the game is all about fantasy.