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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9337967" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Ah, so we should eliminate Druids, because that's a narrowly-specific single-culture semi-priestly archetype which has <em>jack-all</em> to do with transforming into animals.</p><p></p><p>And we should get rid of Paladins, because "Paladin" derives from "a protector of the Palatine hill" (from Latin, via French) and has jack-all to do with keeping sacred oaths or bringing good and beauty into the world.</p><p></p><p>And we should get rid of Clerics, because "cleric" refers either to a specific type of leadership among priests, or to scribes (e.g. "clerical error"), which the in-game Clerics have absolutely no relationship to.</p><p></p><p>And we should get rid of the Monk, because it's narrowly specific to one single <em>subculture</em> of one single religion (specifically, Shaolin kung fu Buddhist monks).</p><p></p><p>And we should get rid of "Warlock," because in Wicca, that's a term for wicked people who use magic <em>specifically</em> for evil ends.</p><p></p><p>And we should get rid of Bards for the same reason as Druids, except worse because it's intentionally conflating two completely different concepts (Celtic priest-leaders and post-Celtic minstrel-entertainers).</p><p></p><p>And we should get rid of Rangers because that's literally just a ripoff of a character from a single series (Aragorn), which then got a whole bunch of other mechanics stapled to it for no reason (dual wielding, animal taming).</p><p></p><p>And we should get rid of Artificers, because not all fantasy settings have devices and magic and tinkering.</p><p></p><p><em>Finally</em> we'll be free of classes that have ridiculous over-specific commitments or unfortunate implications, left with only the ones <em>pure</em> enough to qualify as valid interests for players to play!</p><p></p><p>Or, y'know, we could recognize that what allows something to qualify as "a class" is not, and has never been, a logically-consistent thing. That there are classes baked into D&D's structure that would <em>never</em> have been acceptable if they were erased from existence and then proposed three editions later. That easily, <em>easily</em> half of all classes are things that the very same people who defend them to the hilt today as vitally necessary parts of D&D would scoff and dismiss them outright without the weight of tradition behind them.</p><p></p><p>The vast majority of opposition to a "Warlord" class boils down to, "It's not what I'm familiar with, so it doesn't fit." That's a craptacular excuse for why it shouldn't be allowed to exist, both because the "reason" is inherently self-serving, and because it creates, as I've said in may prior threads, a guaranteed catch-22 for creativity and innovation: it's unfamiliar so it should never be allowed, but things can only become familiar by being allowed.</p><p></p><p>Now, that doesn't mean <em>absolutely everything</em> should be added. I get that being profligate with game elements is bad. My point is not that we should become profligate; it is that we should avoid being <em>miserly</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9337967, member: 6790260"] Ah, so we should eliminate Druids, because that's a narrowly-specific single-culture semi-priestly archetype which has [I]jack-all[/I] to do with transforming into animals. And we should get rid of Paladins, because "Paladin" derives from "a protector of the Palatine hill" (from Latin, via French) and has jack-all to do with keeping sacred oaths or bringing good and beauty into the world. And we should get rid of Clerics, because "cleric" refers either to a specific type of leadership among priests, or to scribes (e.g. "clerical error"), which the in-game Clerics have absolutely no relationship to. And we should get rid of the Monk, because it's narrowly specific to one single [I]subculture[/I] of one single religion (specifically, Shaolin kung fu Buddhist monks). And we should get rid of "Warlock," because in Wicca, that's a term for wicked people who use magic [I]specifically[/I] for evil ends. And we should get rid of Bards for the same reason as Druids, except worse because it's intentionally conflating two completely different concepts (Celtic priest-leaders and post-Celtic minstrel-entertainers). And we should get rid of Rangers because that's literally just a ripoff of a character from a single series (Aragorn), which then got a whole bunch of other mechanics stapled to it for no reason (dual wielding, animal taming). And we should get rid of Artificers, because not all fantasy settings have devices and magic and tinkering. [I]Finally[/I] we'll be free of classes that have ridiculous over-specific commitments or unfortunate implications, left with only the ones [I]pure[/I] enough to qualify as valid interests for players to play! Or, y'know, we could recognize that what allows something to qualify as "a class" is not, and has never been, a logically-consistent thing. That there are classes baked into D&D's structure that would [I]never[/I] have been acceptable if they were erased from existence and then proposed three editions later. That easily, [I]easily[/I] half of all classes are things that the very same people who defend them to the hilt today as vitally necessary parts of D&D would scoff and dismiss them outright without the weight of tradition behind them. The vast majority of opposition to a "Warlord" class boils down to, "It's not what I'm familiar with, so it doesn't fit." That's a craptacular excuse for why it shouldn't be allowed to exist, both because the "reason" is inherently self-serving, and because it creates, as I've said in may prior threads, a guaranteed catch-22 for creativity and innovation: it's unfamiliar so it should never be allowed, but things can only become familiar by being allowed. Now, that doesn't mean [I]absolutely everything[/I] should be added. I get that being profligate with game elements is bad. My point is not that we should become profligate; it is that we should avoid being [I]miserly[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
Top