D&D 5E Warlord - Is 5E SRD/DMsGuild a Solution? Is AL a Problem?

Tony Vargas

Legend
I also don't see any reason to keep daily powers. That just doesn't make sense.
Arbitrary times/Day limits have been an unintuitive & counter-genre feature of D&D from the very beginning, garnering a lot of criticism early on and leading to endless alternate 'mana' systems. But it's also a feature that has the weight of tradition on it. The Warlord could slip free of that tradition pretty easily as a relatively new class. Though per-rest limitations on many things it might do could make sense, in the context of whether allies have rested...
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Ah, thread necromancy of a three-year-old thread to respond to a post from four months ago. Priceless.
 


TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Ah, thread necromancy of a three-year-old thread to respond to a post from four months ago. Priceless.
To be fair, I think [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] took a pretty long break from here, so I imagine there's a backlog of notifications to go through.
 



G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I didn't when I asked, 3 years ago (wow, I was so determined to stay hopeful back then), but, yeah, I guess it's become clear enough.

Fascinating. This is a reference to:
Why do you think WotC is more concerned with catering to the negativity of h4ters than carrying through with the idea of 5e being for all D&D fans?

Question 1: Is that statement about more than (absence of) the Warlord? Honestly curious. I realize that 5e has a lot fewer character options and tactical complexity than 4e. Is that part of the sentiment that 4e fans are being ignored? Or is it the relative paucity of (and/or hope-fueled misinterpretation of) "options" in the game?

Question 2: Do you (and others) really believe that WotC is "more concerned with catering to the negativity of h4ters..."? Are they really that...petty and malicious? Is it at all possible that they, for example, genuinely think that the Warlord would be a poor addition to the game, and not that they are "catering to negativity"?
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Fascinating. This is a reference to:

Question 1: Is that statement about more than (absence of) the Warlord? Honestly curious.
Obviously, that was the context, 3 years ago. But, no - and it was a question, not a statement.

Question 2: Do you (and others) really believethat WotC is "more concerned with catering to the negativity of h4ters..."?
The original question was about the reasons for one commenter's beliefs. Those beliefs were not at issue.

At the time, I challenged said belief because I did not share it, and hoped it was mistaken.

I still don't choose to /believe/ such is the case, but I have come to accept that it's most likely true.

Are they really that...petty and malicious?
They don't need to be, they just need to fear that enough of their customers may be.

Is it at all possible that they, for example, genuinely think that the Warlord would be a poor addition to the game, and not that they are "catering to negativity"?
No.

I may not have the highest opinion of the design team, but I don't see the game they produced as being so profoundly inferior to prior eds that it simply can't handle the same range of characters.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top