D&D 5E Would you prefer warlord or psion as a new class?

[Maxperson]

Coincidentally, I was fairly lukewarm on the Warlord until the same debates put me firmly into the Pro-Warlord side due to how disrespectful I felt others were being towards the pro-Warlord side. Funny how perspective can change things. But you know, how many years after that joke and the pro-Warlord people are still waiting for the class in 5e? I guess you should be happy that other people's fun is soured.

I can say that I really dislike non-magical healing, so I'm personally against the Warlord and it won't see the light of day in my games. However, I'm not at all against it being in the game, because unlike some here, I'm not against other people having their fun and wouldn't try to see that it never makes it into 5e. It would be petty of me to act that way.

 

[Anoth]

Why not both the sorcerer and wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not both the sorcerer and wizard.

Because neither class is capable of being what a Psion is.

 

[Anoth]

Because neither class is capable of being what a Psion is.

Well. I disagree. That’s why I say make one for everyone. Psion class. Sorcerer and wizard archetypes. Etc. very few will be happy with what they do. They never were in any edition. Might as well give everyone the options to choose what is best for them.

 

[Gradine]

Hey, did you know there was an Edition War(tm) once? Don't worry if you forget about it here, there's a couple of posters who are dedicated to making sure you will always remember.

Never forget

 

[Gradine]

In any case, yeah, Psion has the more pressing case, in terms of history, settings and world building, and in terms of gameplay/character-archetype niche.

The trick with Warlord is that it was designed specifically with its own edition's combat system in mind. It's probably the only core class that isn't an adaptation. That is why it is, understandably, THE class of 4e. It was perfect because it was the exemplar of what the designers were attempting to (and, imo, succeeding to) develop.

The Warlord would be a disappointment in 5e for exactly the same reason it was incredible in 4e; it would be a pale adaptation in a system that no longer catered directly to their specific gameplay niche. I would argue that this has, in fact, already happened; twice, in fact, with the Battlemaster and the Purple Dragon Knight. These were 5e adaptations of the Warlord. The designers wisely renamed them because:
a) honestly Warlord was a pretty bad name, but more importantly,
b) they knew it would be disappointing to the most hardcore of fans of THAT was the Warlord they got, so left the door open for themselves to try again (and again...)

In my opinion, the PDK is the 5e Warlord. I feel like anything more than that would either fail miserably in capturing the spirit of the original or have little to nothing to offer to the non-combat tiers.

What bothers me even more is that would reinforce the worst thing 4e brought to the game: the slavish devotion to "power sources" to the extent that a significant portion of the fanbase refuse to re-flavor classes/abilities or insist that anything be "canonically" nonmagical.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Shouting an arm back on is hyperbole, not a strawman. Why? Because while the % may vary, HP does very much represent physical wounds. And that’s what a lot of people have issue with. Having a PC get clubbed upside the head for 20 points of damage from the ogre, and then have all of that instantly get healed through non magical methods. So comparing it to cure wounds is not an equal equivalence, because cure wounds is very much magic.

So when someone makes a comment of the warlord shouting an arm back on, it’s wrong to completely dismiss it because the point isnt literally regenerating an arm (because core D&D doesn’t have limb loss), but to use hyperbole to illustrate non magical instant healing of serious wounds.

 

[Maxperson]

Well. I disagree. That’s why I say make one for everyone. Psion class. Sorcerer and wizard archetypes. Etc. very few will be happy with what they do. They never were in any edition. Might as well give everyone the options to choose what is best for them.

They already made wizard psionic subclasses. To be a Psion, there needs to be unique Psion class abilities. Lack of those = not a Psion class. There also needs to be a lack of component use as Psions have no components. It's literally impossible to use Sorcerer and Wizard to be a Psion, because both use components and they lack unique Psion class abilities. All classes have unique abilities.

 

[Argyle King]

They already made wizard psionic subclasses. To be a Psion, there needs to be unique Psion class abilities. Lack of those = not a Psion class. There also needs to be a lack of component use as Psions have no components. It's literally impossible to use Sorcerer and Wizard to be a Psion, because both use components and they lack unique Psion class abilities. All classes have unique abilities.

What unique thing would you like to see Psion do which would set it apart from other classes?

 

[Aldarc]

Shouting an arm back on is hyperbole, not a strawman. Why? Because while the % may vary, HP does very much represent physical wounds.

sigh Whatever the case, it's a ridiculous argument. Why? Because a cleric can't simply heal an arm back on a person with a simple +HP spell. It typically requires a specialized spell like Regenerate, as you admit. So it presents an intentionally dishonest case about the warlord and its capabilities.

Having a PC get clubbed upside the head for 20 points of damage from the ogre, and then have all of that instantly get healed through non magical methods. So comparing it to cure wounds is not an equal equivalence, because cure wounds is very much magic.

Except there are no called shots or anything of the like really in 5e D&D. One can't shoot a creature's arm or head. So where does the club hit? To what extent does the club hit? This is very much an abstract quality of D&D's combat system. So the idea that a character is healed by the warlord from the ogre's direct hit to the head is far more concrete than what D&D supports in its actual combat system. And someone can hypothetically "healer's kit" someone up from being clubbed upside the head for 20 points of damage as well, so that exists. Or a fighter can use their Second Wind to reattach their arm back on. It's not as if we are short on non-magical healing that can happen in the midst of combat. So what makes the Warlord's non-magical healing so offensive?

So when someone makes a comment of the warlord shouting an arm back on, it’s wrong to completely dismiss it because the point isnt literally regenerating an arm (because core D&D doesn’t have limb loss), but to use hyperbole to illustrate non magical instant healing of serious wounds.

Okay, we don't have to completely dismiss it, but we can dismiss most of it. Better?