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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9340958" data-attributes="member: 6778210">In my experience, people grasp tactical combat fairly quickly and naturally. Like, "teamwork" is something people get and while it can take a little while to understand if there is some weird meta going on, people are fairly quick to get how they can help other people.What I find is way more complicated and a drag on things is spellcasting, particularly how spells are built. There isn't consistency from spell-to-spell and the data load for newer players (or hell, even veterans sometimes) can be too much.I mean, I typically think the "popularity" of fighters is more of a "I died and need a quick pickup character, here's a Human Fighter". Also I would wager that people honestly want more complexity, given the amount of time was put into developing things like Weapon Masteries.[ATTACH=full]362294[/ATTACH]At a certain point the limits of the general class structure become clear and you're kind of just trying to force things into a shape rather than letting them come about naturally. It's a very "All I have is a hammer, so all problems are nails" sort of thing. I'm not sure what "baggage" can come from making a new class when it doesn't seem like it'll fit into an archetype.This is a real big strawman: they just want a new class because they feel no archetypes really work with it and would lack the complexity. Like, would you say the same thing if there was no Monk class and someone didn't want it to be a Rogue subclass? That's not being too choosy, those are pretty basic desires. Rather, people are trying to create this idea of "Warlord people just want too much!" because it's an easier way to write it off the argument than engage with it.You talk about "It's not invalid", but your arguments towards these people are remarkably belittling.I find it to be a very very relative perspective. Creating explanations for why something is really isn't all that "cinematic", and I really don't think most of the martials play in a "cinematic" way. When I think "cinematic", I would argue more narrative-control games are closer because they let you create things more than be bound by the rules, and for all the talk of "rulings", 5E is still very much a game of rules. Heck, people talk about "Gridless theater-of-mind with 5E" but it's still a game with firm ranges, blast radii, etc. Just about everything is still measured in 5 foot increments. The only thing that it's lacking is using "squares". The difference is that people can just sort of wave-off things when you write about it with units of distance rather than creating your own unit.I would largely disagree, but I feel like people are really attached to the idea that Warlords are just too complex for the 5E system and would rather handwave that as a reason than engage with it in a more in-depth manner. Again, we're at a point where D&D is adding a whole bunch of complexity to its weapons, something that they were very against when the system was first designed. I don't really see creating a class that engages with teamwork to be more complex than most spellcasters.</blockquote>

Verification