Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8795081" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes, it does. Because 5e is all about fat sacks of HP that can kill you in two rounds if you aren't incredibly careful. Unless, of course, you go for "Medium" combats, at which point damage never mattered to begin with because you effectively can't die....it's...I mean, it's "better" at that in the sense that it might sometimes do that, sure. But the purpose of healing is not to prevent unconsciousness. It's to prevent death. Which 5e is--as I have been assured both by others' reports and my own experience--absolutely full of. Especially at low level."Great, you mitigated that hit. Now, two battles from now, when I'm literally actually dead, all that mitigation doesn't make a damn bit of difference, does it?"Missing one turn is unfortunate. Death is a problem.You didn't say "doesn't have to be." You specifically said, "I don't agree that the spirit of the class is even to be a support class." It explicitly was the spirit of the class, from the very beginning. That's literally what being a "leader" class means.....so....you want to offer something called a "Warlord," while completely pissing on anything people actually liked about the thing called "Warlord" in the past. That doesn't seem like a particularly friendly or effective position to start from, and makes it hard to understand why you wouldThen you are going to produce something that, straight-up, isn't a Warlord in any way that would please fans of the 4e Warlord. That's a pretty bad-faith starting point when you're asking other people why it is they want the Warlord to do or be certain things.Nothing should ever be "translated directly." That doesn't mean the translation should not be as close as possible. A translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War that just reads, "Fight smart" would technically be correct, and yet completely useless because the whole point of the book is to give specific instructions on how to "fight smart." Capturing, as much as possible, the meaning and structure of the original text is an incredibly important part of any form of translation--and mechanical translation fits in there just as much as linguistic translation.And IMO the game is better when we ensure that the class definitely can fill one role, with other things as fun opt-in benefits where they can be made to work. Otherwise, we end up with stuff like the 3e Monk.Hence why I have been so explicit about IN-COMBAT support. You don't raise dead IN COMBAT. My wording was specific fore a reason.Absolutely not. It is a reason to be specific about what kinds of support it absolutely needs to provide, and what kinds are optional.You cannot see it because you refuse to consider past mechanics as a reason for things. Mechanical expression matters. The past is not some irrelevant technicality that can be brushed aside. If you call something a "Wizard" in D&D, people are going to expect magic missile and fireball--and that fireball better be potent. If you call something a "Paladin" in D&D, it better be able to smite things in some way and "lay on hands." Why are these mechanics important? Because they're part of the identity, the spirit, of the classes involved. These elements need to be respected, and translated as faithfully as possible within the limits of the new system.So...you want to give up what it has done in the past. And you want to give up the name as well. And you want it to be basically a Fighter except that it's got actual "leadership" features that somehow aren't making it support-focused. Why even ask about Warlord stuff then? Why even make a pretense of trying for conciliation and compromise when you not only don't want what other people want, you want to avoid what other people want?It does if it's going to be called a "Warlord" or bill itself as something that Warlord fans should appreciate and value.Okay. Can you then recognize that a lot of other people wouldn't be fine with that, and that that wouldn't-be-fine-with-it is rooted in their past positive experiences with previous incarnations of this concept? Further, that many of the people who do like this are really, really wary about so-called "compromises" given the way they were treated during the D&D Next playtest and how things actually cashed out in the edition that resulted from it?Why do I need more than "because that's how it was before," "because that's what I like," and "because without those things it doesn't actually act as a support-focused class as I would define the term"?No, we don't. This isn't theorycrafting. I've had multiple groups collapse because of unexpected (but completely predictable...) TPKs. It's a major issue.Why not? They're both the capacity to do something, and yet that capacity is completely irrelevant to the context and fiction, even contradicting that context or fiction at times.</blockquote>

Verification