Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9339217" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>This whole bit of the convo started because I said that martial exploits and magical spells aren't actually mechanically very distinct and that a lot of spells could work pretty easily as martial exploits. Showing that to be true means showing that, for instance, the distance between <em>circle of power </em>(the paladin spell) and <em>circle of power </em>(the warlord exploit) is a matter of a few largely aesthetic choices that are easy enough to change. So, it sounds like you basically agree with my point: that the distinction between a daily martial exploit and a daily magical spell is mostly that one is not described as magic and the other is. </p><p></p><p>So you can see why I'd disagree with this:</p><p></p><p>It sounds like you agree that essentially writing "it's not magic" next to a spell doesn't mean changing it so significantly it would be barely recognizable. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, we can define whatever "should" we want, but this all increases the barrier to "official creation." Maybe that's not really the goal, in which case, let's go HAM, but the question in the OP is: "Why is there no warlord equivalent in 5e." Is part of the answer, "Because a true warlord equivalent would require a separate class?" Because then we can talk about why 5e just doesn't want to add new classes in general and why the warlord is required to be one and why the Fighter, Rogue, and Cleric are eating everyone's lunches and making more classes difficult to implement because of their conceptual broadness. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Aragorn calls upon a ghost army. It's not exactly out of pocket. We just had a whole thread about how we should allow martial characters remarkable powers, too. It's also not intrinsically magical on the part of the warlord. We don't have to limit warlords to "shout heal good" any more than rogues need to be limited to "skill check good." </p><p></p><p>But I think you're smart enough to see that the idea of "I summon these angels with divine magic" and "I summon these angels because I am a legendary commander of armies and the hosts of heaven are glad to serve at my call" are very similar effects, mechanically, which is the meat of the point - that the mechanical distinction between magical and not magical is not all that deep of a valley, and can be crossed fairly trivially, even when it comes to summoning angels.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 9339217, member: 2067"] This whole bit of the convo started because I said that martial exploits and magical spells aren't actually mechanically very distinct and that a lot of spells could work pretty easily as martial exploits. Showing that to be true means showing that, for instance, the distance between [I]circle of power [/I](the paladin spell) and [I]circle of power [/I](the warlord exploit) is a matter of a few largely aesthetic choices that are easy enough to change. So, it sounds like you basically agree with my point: that the distinction between a daily martial exploit and a daily magical spell is mostly that one is not described as magic and the other is. So you can see why I'd disagree with this: It sounds like you agree that essentially writing "it's not magic" next to a spell doesn't mean changing it so significantly it would be barely recognizable. I mean, we can define whatever "should" we want, but this all increases the barrier to "official creation." Maybe that's not really the goal, in which case, let's go HAM, but the question in the OP is: "Why is there no warlord equivalent in 5e." Is part of the answer, "Because a true warlord equivalent would require a separate class?" Because then we can talk about why 5e just doesn't want to add new classes in general and why the warlord is required to be one and why the Fighter, Rogue, and Cleric are eating everyone's lunches and making more classes difficult to implement because of their conceptual broadness. Aragorn calls upon a ghost army. It's not exactly out of pocket. We just had a whole thread about how we should allow martial characters remarkable powers, too. It's also not intrinsically magical on the part of the warlord. We don't have to limit warlords to "shout heal good" any more than rogues need to be limited to "skill check good." But I think you're smart enough to see that the idea of "I summon these angels with divine magic" and "I summon these angels because I am a legendary commander of armies and the hosts of heaven are glad to serve at my call" are very similar effects, mechanically, which is the meat of the point - that the mechanical distinction between magical and not magical is not all that deep of a valley, and can be crossed fairly trivially, even when it comes to summoning angels. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
Top