Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.

Tony Vargas · Mar 6, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
Or that they threw 3.5 fans "under the bus" by not having high ability score provide additional spell slots, or by making feats a one-and-done prospect rather than a collect-three-to-finally-feel-its-worth-it one.

Wait, do you mean 5e throwing them under the bus? Wow, right after 4e threw them under the bus, and 3.5 threw 3.0 fans under the bus. Darn, that poor busdriver's insurance premiums must be prohibitive...

...and he'll probably be laid off come Christmas, too.
Must be tough, driv'n the WotC bus.

Remathilis said:
Do you have the version that lacks dragonborn, devil-tieflings, healing word, unlimited cantrips, the warlock class, hunter's quarry, commander's strike, the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Elemental Chaos, legendary actions for monsters, eladrin and the Dawn War deities in the DMG, and a slew of other 4e-inspired ideas in it?

I get the impression that was part of the irony Hussar intended, there. H4ters are still fighting tooth and nail to block and the Warlord, when so much of 4e has already made it in - including small examples of each of the hot-button things they were so exercised about the Warlord getting in the first place.

Hussar said:
To be honest this is what baffles me.

You're absolutely right. Everything that makes up a warlord already exists in the game. So why the resistance to a warlord Class? I've never been able to understand that one.

Does it really baffle you. You were here for the edition war. Has that much changed on that side of the equation?

AaronOfBarbaria · Mar 6, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
Wait, do you mean 5e throwing them under the bus? Wow, right after 4e threw them under the bus, and 3.5 threw 3.0 fans under the bus. Darn, that poor busdriver's insurance premiums must be prohibitive...

I think you've missed the boat on this one. I can't unpack what you are actually asking me. I can, however, rephrase my statement in hopes that it helps you understand it in case the reason I don't understand your reply is rooted in you not understanding me:

Accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 4th edition fans liked because a specific manifestation of an idea is not present is as ridiculous as accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 3.5 fans liked because a different example of a specific manifestation of an idea is not present.

Tony Vargas said:
I get the impression that was part of the irony Hussar intended, there. H4ters are still fighting tooth and nail to block and the Warlord, when so much of 4e has already made it in - including small examples of each of the hot-button things they were so exercised about the Warlord getting in the first place.

I get the impression that some folks fought so hard and so long in the war that they can't help but see the enemy everywhere they look.

So they see any disagreement with their opinions, or any difference of desires and interests, as enemy attacks and plots.

Tony Vargas · Mar 6, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
I think you've missed the boat on this one.

I think I missed the bus. Which is good, there was no chance to throw me under it!

Y'see, 4e came out, and it was all 'no gnome!?' WotC threw us under the bus! (Really, it was announced, and it's like /another edition/ really, soaking us again, huh?)
So, yeah, D&D fans. They complain. A lot. You may've noticed.

Accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 4th edition fans liked because a specific manifestation of an idea is not present is as ridiculous as accusing 5th edition of malicious dis-inclusion of things that 3.5 fans liked because a different example of a specific manifestation of an idea is not present.

Fair enough. There's no Warlord, Avenger, Shaman, or Warden in 5e, though all were in 4e PHs. And there's no Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight, or Beguiler full class in print, yet, in 5e, though all were in the 3.5 PH2. Those are vaguely comparable. It'd be nice to see most of them included, eventually. Prefferably in PH order. Warlord, only one of those from a PH1, first.

I get the impression that some folks fought so hard and so long in the war that they can't help but see the enemy everywhere they look

And some are still fighting it.

Just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you, y'know.

AaronOfBarbaria · Mar 6, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
There's no Warlord, Avenger, Shaman, or Warden in 5e, though all were in 4e PHs. And there's no Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight, or Beguiler full class in print, yet, in 5e, though all were in the 3.5 PH2. Those are vaguely comparable. It'd be nice to see most of them included, eventually. Prefferably in PH order. Warlord, only one of those from a PH1, first.

Some of those things you say there aren't, there are - they just aren't exactly like their prior iterations. But nothing in 5e is exactly like a prior iteration, so there really isn't anything wrong with that.

Those few things in this impromptu list that aren't in 5e, maybe they will be once the "big book of crunch" finally hits shelves.

Tony Vargas said:
Just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you, y'know.

Don't forget that the inverse is true, too - someone being out to get you doesn't stop you from being paranoid.

Tony Vargas · Mar 6, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
Some of those things you say there aren't, there are

Nod. Some in UA, some in sketchy ways, others in all but name. But any lack can be enough for someone to claim bus-tracks.

Those few things in this impromptu list that aren't in 5e, maybe they will be once the "big book of crunch" finally hits shelves.

The Knight is in the pipeline, as a fighter sub-class (and it was so very fighter-like in 3.5, and an actual fighter sub-class in Essentials, I don't see that as a major sticking point), the Warden (not a class that much grabbed me, I have to admit) has a conceptual cousin in the Oath of Ancients but not really, the Avenger (likewise, it always seemed superfluous to me, but a number of players at my table over the years loved it) not at all, Shaman's been rumored but nothing yet, other than the Knight I don't know enough about the original forms of the 3.5 PHII classes to judge, really.

Don't forget that the inverse is true, too - someone being out to get you doesn't stop you from being paranoid.

Just 'cause I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get me!

AaronOfBarbaria · Mar 6, 2017

Tony Vargas said:
But any lack can be enough for someone to claim bus-tracks.

Doesn't make the claim a reasonable one, though.

SkidAce · Mar 6, 2017

cbwjm said:
On a somewhat warlord-related note. I read Transformers comics by IDW. Megatron has repented, joined the autobots and now refuses to fight, but he can direct a battle like nobody's business and now makes for a classic lazylord style character.

It's a trap!

Guest 6801328 · Mar 6, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
I get the impression that some folks fought so hard and so long in the war that they can't help but see the enemy everywhere they look.

This is certainly what it feels like whenever I discuss my aversion to the Warlord, which has absolutely nothing to do with 4e or philosophy about hit points or whatever.

The reactions tend to be (loosely paraphrased):
1) You are 100.0% wrong. There is not a single iota of worth to your arguments.
2) You are selfish and arrogant for trying to deprive other players of something they like.

SkidAce · Mar 6, 2017

I know I am (apparently) a minority, however;

I liked 4e well enough. I am not an edition warrior (too many scars from 1e to 2e).

I just don't care for a warlord class (or the Marshall from 3.0/3.5).

---

Disagreement, even firm "No Sir, I don't like it"

and then explaining why, is NOT edition warring.

Sacrosanct · Mar 6, 2017

Elfcrusher said:
This is certainly what it feels like whenever I discuss my aversion to the Warlord, which has absolutely nothing to do with 4e or philosophy about hit points or whatever.

The reactions tend to be (loosely paraphrased):
1) You are 100.0% wrong. There is not a single iota of worth to your arguments.
2) You are selfish and arrogant for trying to deprive other players of something they like.

I'm sort of the inverse. I don't like 4e at all. Doesn't fit what I like in D&D. And yet, I have no problems with the Warlord if they really wanted to include it. I don't like bards, and the answer is "I don't play them.". Pretty simple.

I find most of those arguments to be strawmen at best. There are a lot of reasons why people want the warlord, and a lot of reasons why people don't. To paint anyone who doesn't want it as a "h4ter" or being completely irrational is simply lazy, and it certainly doesn't endear me to your point.

Looks like it's time for a Warlord Sub-Forum Again...somehow.

Tony Vargas

Legend

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

Tony Vargas

Legend

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

Tony Vargas

Legend

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

SkidAce

Legend

Guest 6801328

Guest

SkidAce

Legend

Sacrosanct

Legend

Similar Threads