*sigh* I should've known. Ok. Let's to it, then...
The sorcerer has only been around since 3E, which was the same time for both the warlock and the marshal (the spiritual predecessor of the 4E warlord). The warlord has legacy. It's time for people to admit they dislike the warlord because of its close association with 4E's legacy as opposed to the actual merits of the warlord and its legacy.
No. It's time for people to admit, even the 3e material, has only been around for 15 years. Anything pre-3e has 25-30...gods, all the way to the beginning is over 40 years. The point is, all the whining crying and gnashing of teeth about the 3e stuff and 4e stuff is not going to miraculously make those classes 30-40 years old. Not yet.
And don't get me started on the creation/existence of the sorcerer as a class...We'll be here the rest of our lives.
/frustrated guy who does not see what the point of claiming to be a 'frustrated logician' is meant to accomplish
The logician is frustrated because of people's outright refusal to acknowledge that no matter what you do or how much you like something, you are not going to change reality. You are not going to somehow make a 3e version or 4e creation "as important" as something that has 2 decades of legacy ON TOP OF whatever else is good about the class. The logic is frustrated because saying "But Paladin gets to be it's own class"
does not equal "So Warlord deserves to be its own class." That is not logical. They are not the same. They do not carry the same weight simply because "I like this thing also or better." That's the reality and yet it is shooed away in a way that defies logic and reason. Thus, someone looking for logic...is frustrated by the repeated ignorance of the facts of history and reality as some kind of defense or justification for their argument. It doesn't work.
And, of course, by ensuring that only the things that already have legacy are allowed to gain any more legacy, you can ensure that the things you don't want never get into the game. It's the "fresh member of the workforce" catch-22: you can't get a job until you have experience, and you can't get experience until you have a job.
But I didn't say anything like that. I said, people who say "Why do we have a Paladin then" as a defense for the "need" of a Warlord KNOW THE ANSWER to that question and that answer is legacy. The paladin will ALWAYS have more legacy than the Warlord...by 35ish years. You can not change that. I can not change that. No matter how much anyone LOVES the warlord (or the system that spawned it, since that seems to be continually brought up as a distraction to what is actually said) the warlord will never have the heritage in the game that the Paladin/Ranger/Bard have. Everyone knows that. To propose and proceed as if realityis not sois illogical, at
best. To equate them is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
Which is why this "logic" is a line of BS.
No sir. That logic is irrefutable. Facts are not a matter of opinion.
Are you seriously saying that D&D is such a closed system, so completely immune to growing or changing, that it now cannot bring in new ideas that can germinate, change, evolve, and eventually develop their own legacy?
I said NOTHING of the kind. I am not saying/did not say D&D can't have warlord characters in it (I would say that about sorcerers, but again a digression none of us want to journey down...trust me).
I said a warlord is not the same as the paladins and rangers because they have more legacy.Yes, they will ALWAYS have more legacy. That is the fact. That is reality. People don't like that. I get it. But there's nothing I nor any one of us under the sun can do about that [without developing reliable time travel]. Saying that is not discounting any other differences or saying they don't or shouldn't exist. Yet again the rousing lack of reading comprehension and [possibly deliberate?] misinterpretation/reading between non-existent lines rears its five colored dragon heads.
If so, why does 5e have the Warlock (legacy only goes back to mid/late 3.5e--just like the Marshal)
I'd say cuz this one actually has some flavorful meat on its bones, definitely more mytho-historic legs for a fantasy archetype, and interesting character possibilities than a sorcerer.
or the Dragonborn (debatable whether the legacy goes back to late 3e or core 4e)?
Because WotC likes to pat themselves on the back and force what they've "added to the game since they took it over" down our throats...and allegedly the fanbase liked them.
Why does it have the Sorcerer, which definitely never existed before late 2e?
Ya got me here. I have no friggin clue. Legacy [of what WotC has "added" to the game] there too, I suppose. They have nothing else going for them than they're older than some other arcane-based classes we coudl have used instead (an arcane-half-caster Swordmage type to complete the triad of half-casters comes to mind).
Why isn't there a separate thief-acrobat from the baseline thief, with 1e through 3e giving those treatment equivalent to things that are subclasses in 5e (like the Eldritch Knight)?
Again, got me. I have thought an Acrobat rogue subclass is a no brainer [or "archetype", rather, since 3e+ hasn't considered any class a "subclass" of any other group until now].
Where's the 1e Bard that later became the Fochlucan Lyrist, with its Fighter, Thief, and Druid features, which again has 1e and 3e (can't find evidence in 2e) to support it?
Again, don't know. It totally/always should have been in my opinion...I didn't design the game. They made a whole lot of mistakes as far as I'm concerned.
I don't at all question the idea that an (not the, only an) important reason we still have both Paladins and Clerics, or Bards despite the Rogue and Wizard, or Rangers despite the Druid and Rogue, is that these things have developed a legacy.
Then WTF is this whole response for/about other than to be argumentative or baiting?
But to say that new things cannot be admitted specifically because they don't have legacy strikes me as not only impossible for anything to meet, and inconsistent, considering that every edition (except, possibly, 5e--and that's with a big "yet" attached) has added its own new classes and concepts.
and...again...I said NO WHERE that "5e can't have nice [new] things."
Heck, even the "legacy" standard doesn't, on its own, justify the existence of the Paladin. Wasn't the 1e Paladin just a Fighter variant that got some extra early features, an alignment restriction, and priest spells instead of followers at high levels? The Paladin "legacy" hasn't even been consistent about whether it's a standalone class or a modification of some other class.
The legacy is not that they've been "the same" through the whole game. Goddess knows, none of the classes have been. But that it has been in the game longer. See above. Yes. It always will have more legacy. That is not up for debate. It is indisputable. A paladin will always be 35 years older a class in the game called D&D than a warlord. Always. Whether or not is SHOULD have been or not or whether it should be, now, a fighter subclass or not are completely DIFFERENT issues/conversations to be had.
If the new classes from 3e were getting lots of concern from people defending the historical status quo of D&D; if the decision to base classes like the Bard and Ranger on the 3e version rather than earlier ones wasn't obvious; if a bunch of other decisions to go with the 3e way even when that deviated from earlier versions hadn't been made; well, maybe there'd be a point in gate-keeping for the "Traditional D&D Way!"
But those aren't the choices made, and it's still not enough for the people who demand their way must be supported and that other ways must not.
I'm....really not sure what you're trying to say here or how it refutes what I posted. If 5e hadn't included 3e-originating stuff...it's not enough for demanding people...? I just am not following this... and what "gate-keeping the Traditional D&D Way" is supposed to mean or apply to what I said/am trying to get across.