D&D 5E Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

CreamCloud0 · May 9, 2024

I'm A Banana said:
Aragorn calls upon a ghost army. It's not exactly out of pocket.

The ghosts aragorn summons are cursed to obey specifically his bloodline, gimli or legolas or even gandalf wouldn’t of been any good there, but aragorn he could’ve been a wizard or a druid or a paladin or even a peasant and it would’ve worked out the same, as they were basically a character specific backstory sidequest boon

Jadeite · May 9, 2024

It's fascinating how strongly some people dislike 4e and anything reminding them of it. 5e was supposed to bring players of all previous editions together, including 4e. If you don't like a certain class, you don't have to play it.
Pathfinder's 2e player base has become far less dismissive of 4e, despite the rivalry that existed during 4e's lifetime.

Minigiant · May 9, 2024

Paul Farquhar said:
There is no such thing as a "quick" combat in 5e. To be fair, it's not as slow as 3rd edition, but it's about ten times slower than 1st edition with it's high mortality that required henchmen as backup PCs

5e was designed to be quick. It was design to have a bunch of trash battles with attack spam and Cantrips spam.

Most tables don't do that. That is why 5e combats are quick and henchmen have been phased out

Paul Farquhar · May 9, 2024

Minigiant said:
5e was design to be quick. It was design to have a bunch of trash battles with attack spam and Cantrips spam.

Most tables don't do that. That is why 5e combats are quick and henchmen have been phased out

It’s not quick, that’s why most tables don’t bother with trash mobs. No point in putting the game into slo-mo unless the fight actually matters.

But nevertheless, it works okay, and lots more people enjoy this version of the game than any other.

Minigiant · May 9, 2024

Paul Farquhar said:
It’s not quick, that’s why most tables don’t bother with trash mobs. No point in putting the game into slo-mo unless the fight actually matters.

But nevertheless, it works okay, and lots more people enjoy this version of the game than any other.

But that goes to 5e not being designed for its audience.

5e is the best edition of D&D. But that's mostly because the other ones were designed for a totally different demographic.

Paul Farquhar · May 9, 2024

Minigiant said:
But that goes to 5e not being designed for its audience.

5e is the best edition of D&D. But that's mostly because the other ones were designed for a totally different demographic.

It doesn't matter what audience something was designed for, what matters is that people buy it. Chelsea Tractors weren't designed for driving in London, nevertheless there are loads of them, so I'm sure the manufacturers don't care.

And when it comes to D&D, I'm sure 1st edition wasn't designed for 12 year old school kids. Nevertheless, that's who bought it (or had it bought for them) and TSR wasn't complaining.

Minigiant · May 9, 2024

Paul Farquhar said:
It doesn't matter what audience something was designed for, what matters is that people buy it. Chelsea Tractors weren't designed for driving in London, nevertheless there are loads of them, so I'm sure the manufacturers don't care.

And when it comes to D&D, I'm sure 1st edition wasn't designed for 12 year old school kids. Nevertheless, that's who bought it (or had it bought for them) and TSR wasn't complaining.

My point was that few tables play as how 5e was designed to be played.

This is why combats are slow. Why turns are long. Why there is a martial/caster debate. Why the exploration rules are weird.

And
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E.

5e was designed for an audience different from who currently plays it.

Paul Farquhar · May 9, 2024

Minigiant said:
My point was that few tables play as how 5e was designed to be played.

And my point is, that doesn’t matter. WotC needs to lean into what sells best, irrespective of original intent.

Minigiant said:
This is why combats are slow. Why turns are long. Why there is a martial/caster debate. Why the exploration rules are weird.

And
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E.

This is false, 5e was never designed for a warlord.

But that is also irrelevant. If market research suggested that it would be a popular addition they would add it, irrespective of original intent.

EzekielRaiden · May 9, 2024

Minigiant said:
My point was that few tables play as how 5e was designed to be played.

This is why combats are slow. Why turns are long. Why there is a martial/caster debate. Why the exploration rules are weird.

And
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E.

5e was designed for an audience different from who currently plays it.

Eyup.

The fundamental problem with the "it sells, therefore it must be what people want" argument is that it is treating a bundle of things as though it were a single unit.

It is identical to something like "well European nations joined NATO in 1949, therefore those nations must approve of absolutely every foreign policy decision the United States ever made since then. I mean, if they didn't approve, they wouldn't engage in diplomacy with them, right?"

There are many, many things in 5e--and many things entirely outside it that nevertheless relate to it.

E.g. network effects for the latter. I don't play 5e because it's my favorite edition. It isn't--and if we're allowed to count offshoots like PF and 13A, it's not even in my top 5. I play 5e because I couldn't find anything else. And for the former, what if someone adores the Warlock and, I dunno, Paladin of 5e, but finds the Fighter boring and pines for a Warlord? It's possible (indeed, I would say extremely likely) to like, play, and even buy something that you aren't absolutely 100% perfectly in love with.

"It sells, therefore it must be right" is, simply, wrong. It's not a sound argument.

Paul Farquhar · May 9, 2024

EzekielRaiden said:
Eyup.

The fundamental problem with the "it sells, therefore it must be what people want" argument is that it is treating a bundle of things as though it were a single unit.

It is identical to something like "well European nations joined NATO in 1949, therefore those nations must approve of absolutely every foreign policy decision the United States ever made since then. I mean, if they didn't approve, they wouldn't engage in diplomacy with them, right?"

There are many, many things in 5e--and many things entirely outside it that nevertheless relate to it.

E.g. network effects for the latter. I don't play 5e because it's my favorite edition. It isn't--and if we're allowed to count offshoots like PF and 13A, it's not even in my top 5. I play 5e because I couldn't find anything else. And for the former, what if someone adores the Warlock and, I dunno, Paladin of 5e, but finds the Fighter boring and pines for a Warlord? It's possible (indeed, I would say extremely likely) to like, play, and even buy something that you aren't absolutely 100% perfectly in love with.

"It sells, therefore it must be right" is, simply, wrong. It's not a sound argument.

If you are a big company you have to sell what the greatest number of people want. Otherwise you don't survive.

But that's why 3PP is so important. Smaller companies cater to smaller, niche markets. Like people who like to play D&D in other ways. That is' why it's vitally important we support them. If you don't allow 3PP at your table YOU SHOULD. If you don't support this you are doing everyone a disservice.

D&D 5E Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.

Jadeite

Hero

Minigiant

Legend

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Minigiant

Legend

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Minigiant

Legend

Paul Farquhar

Legend

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Similar Threads