*Sigh* Tony... If those past actions bothered you so much at the time...why didn't you trot the argument out?
Because it's completely bogus, Imaro. ...oh, yeah: "*Sigh*" ...
Reunification through Diversity... are you claiming that 5e doesn't support a variety of playstyles?
Not a /wider variety/, as the goal was stated, not yet. It does fairly neatly cover the styles most readily expressed in basic & AD&D, and at least reaches somewhat into the 3.x realm if you turn on enough optional rules, but not arguably enough to be satisfying to a hard-core 3.5 fan who has no appreciation for other styles, or who really wants a lot more empowerment on the player side of the screen...
That it doesn't offer a variety of player and DM options?
Player options, not so much, again, not compared to the other WotC era editions, nor, quite, to later 2e, though it's slowly getting closer. DM options, though, aplenty. And, via that it can be /open/ to a DM supporting an unsupported play style or adding player options. So points for the right direction, and not actually slamming the door.
Or that it doesn't incorporate elements of past editions as core or optional rules?
It certainly incorporates many elements - more, for instance, from 4e than most give it credit/blame for - often very small elements that don't mesh the same way they used to, but certainly plenty. It even has a unique way of including radically different elements in one single rule. HD are the shining example. They're HD, just like in 1e, and also a bit like surges in 4e.
5e also succeeds in including things that aren't exactly elements of a past edition, but deliver something a past edition did. The Bladesinger, for instance, is not TSR-era multi-classing, but it is a nominally elf-only option that feels a good deal like a classic Elf or elf fighter/magic-user.
Of course I don't see the warlord class as a necessity to fulfill any of these stated goals
Well, of course, you don't see it that way. If we only examine the things we want, we're not checking for overall diversity.
As to the second quote... Are you saying a 4th edition style character can't be created in 5e
Not just that, no. There's also 3.x style characters that cannot be created in 5e, even with Feats & MCing turned on. The ones that stand out to me are, of course, the one's I most enjoyed: carefully-crafted 3.x fighter builds, 3.x build-to-concept Sorcerers, and the topic of this thread, the Warlord - but, at release, 5e also lacked a psion, and still lacks one both in name and in print, and it still lacks PrCs and Epic-level play. With it's slow pace of release, though, it's not surprising nor unfair that it's taking it's time, especially with that last, as even at 5e's fast-combat/fast-levelling pace, it takes a while to not only hit 20th, but get bored with it!
there were far more 4e classes than the warlord...
The Warlord was the only unique-to-4e class in a PH1, so certainly needs to be first in line. There were not a whole lot of others. The Warden and Avanger, technically the Invoker (though the traditional Cleric prettymuch subsumes it completely). The Shaman, Swordmage, Artificer, Psion, Ardent, and Battlemind (under the name psychic warrior) have all been in other editions, and the Seeker & Rune Priest were prettymuch stillborn, and the Seeker was just 4e's bizzaro version of the traditionally magic-using Ranger, which (in its more classic form, obviously) 5e went with, anyway.
I hope they do create a warlord for those who want one, I don't have any real interest in it
Which is why you don't bomb warlord threads and attack anything it's proponents have say.
An additional relevant quote from that article:
Yeah, that one hasn't gone as well as the others. There was a lot of 'grandfathering' in vague concepts. The Ranger, Sorcerer, and Fighter all suffered from lack of a clear enough archetype/trope/whatever outside of D&D's traditions and class-history - the Ranger, in particular, suffering from it in lack of direction.
To actually have gone there, they'd've had to at least consider consolidating the Fighter, Barbarian, non-casting Ranger, and/or Rogue or even Monk for that matter, not to mention actually changing the Fighter's name to something less suggestive of single-pillar-specialization and carried through with what that implied. We probably wouldn't have gotten all three of Warlock, Sorcerer & Wizard.
The Druid, I have to admit, as delighted as I am with the 5e version, could as easily have been a Cleric sub-class (as it was, in name, in 1e, which was actually my favorite version of the class). My problem with that would have been that a sub-class in 5e can't be as different from the base class as it was in 1e. Indeed, the 5e Druid's casting is still not as distinct from the Cleric's as it was as a 'sub-class' in 1e.
I think that's one area where the goals were in conflict with eachother. Making D&D more grounded in genre and archetypes would have made it less D&D, and hurt it's ability to capture the feel & elements of each prior edition.
Much of the demands being made for the warlord rest heavily on the mechanics
People who don't want the warlord spend a lot of effort in articulating what those who do want, rather than listening to them. I'm just say'n. You could've at least thrown in a "seems" there, or something, to acknowledge that you're not speaking as someone who wants the class, nor seems to understand why anyone would want it.
The mechanics need to support the design, rather than the design be a paint of coat to describe the mechanics.
Which is the major problem with the Warlord as Fighter sub-class. It focuses on mechanics - Extra Attack, Second Wind, Action Surge, d10 HD, etc, rather than on archetypes.
A warlord as "a military leader, a skilled commander gifted with tactical genius, keen insight, an inspiring personality, or some other asset that convinces others to follow him or her into danger" is a solid basis for a design. However, it must toss aside any mechanical 'requirement'.
For instance, the mechanical requirement that every warlord be a bad-ass whirlwind of destruction on the battlefield.
I would assert that a warlord as a "non-magical support character" is a failed design starting point.
Because it's a mechanical requirement? But, it references no mechanics, at all. It's a critical part of the concept - it's not defined by using magic, unlike the Warlock, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger, and, apparently Monk & Mystic - and a general category of contribution to the party's success.
Put another way, a player isn't going to choose to play a warlord because it grants extra attacks.
But he's a lot more likely to choose it for that, than for /getting/ extra attacks.
A player will choose to play a warlord because he wants to be that tactical genius, or she wants to be that inspiring military leader that people follow. The mechanics must support the design, they do not define the design.
And, that requires there be benefits to having the warlord as that kind of ally, rather than the kind of ally people hide behind because he's tougher than they are.
From there, you ask, "How is a being a tactical genius expressed in gameplay?" Or, "What does it mean to inspire loyalty strongly enough for people to follow you?" You then create the mechanics that follow from those questions.
And, from there, your check back with your other goals, and go back and look at game elements that have expressed that in past editions. And, you find the Warlord, with 6 formal builds, two more de-facto ones, a score of Paragon Paths, and 300+ powers. (And, the Marshal, with a few passive auras. And 9th level fighter who builds a keep attracting bands of 0-level followers. Am I missing anything? from later 2e, perhaps?)
