NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9340933" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's a genre limitation, sure. The genre D&D trucks in includes heroes who can sustain life-threatening injuries and then mostly sleep them off or shrug off long-term effects (even if your HP isn't meat, you can still nearly die from losing it, and then be fine after a night's sleep - there's no lingering trauma or anxiety or existential crisis). If that's too fantastic/unrealistic for your "badass normal" characters, then that character isn't a good genre match for what D&D currently supports, at least without tweaking HP a bit from the expansive official perspective.It's legitimately hard to play a 20th-level pig farmer or a 20th-level merchant or a 20th-level captain of the town guard or a 20th-level general in D&D. And I don't think it's unfair to blame that to a large degree on spellcasters! It's fun to have a powerful spellcaster, so rather than nerf mages and clerics so that they're more down-to-earth "normal people with subtle power," D&D chooses to lift up martial characters so that they can hang with the resurrection and the wish granting and the world-hopping. If you want a game that doesn't involve that kind of high level wahoo, D&D ain't it out of the box. These are all strategic design decisions with good support for a game that's seeking a broad appeal. Like, leaning more deeply into tactical combat comes with a big barrier to entry and a higher skill floor and leaves out players who just don't have fun in tactical combat. So D&D chose to have combat that's faster, more cinematic, and without a requirement for grids or minis. D&D isn't averse to interesting tactical combat (there's plenty of interesting decisions to make in a D&D combat), it's just averse to sacrificing those things to deepen its commitment to tactical combat further.Complexity comes with some of the same problems. Fighter's the most popular class, I'd argue, in part because it's not juggling resources like a caster has to.Creating new classes comes with a lot of baggage, too.So if you're requiring a warlord to be a new class with a lot of complexity who utilizes deeply tactical combat, and anything below that is insufficient, it's not surprising you're unsatisfied. It's like the woman with the dating profile who only wants a guy above 6'0", who makes at least $200k/year at a job that allows them enough free time to take long vacations, who isn't on social media, who owns their own home, who volunteers at least twice a month, and who is between the ages of 35 and 37. And then she's complaining that it's so hard to find a good man out there. Well, yeah, if you set the bar high and you are uncompromising in your requirements, you're not going to find your needs easily met! So I can see that list of culprits and also see that one answer to why there's no warlord equivalent in 5e is because the people who want it tend to be very precise and uncompromising in what they want out of it. Which isn't to say it's invalid! Want what you want! But also, maybe don't expect the universe to just give it to you exactly the way you like it. 50+ warlord homebrews and a prominent presence in things like PF2 would indicate that at least some of the warlord fans are doing their best to put in the work.</blockquote>

Verification