Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5270247" data-attributes="member: 82106">Mmmm, I'm not exactly sure we're talking about "grognardia" here. I think we're talking about a product where some choices needed to be made as to which elements were included. I'd observe that when I first started running 4e I sort of looked at the Warlord class and wondered "what exactly is the archetype this class is reflecting?" and I wasn't exactly sure what that was. I suspect the players in my game must have wondered the same thing. Now most of them are long time D&Ders, but I note none of them really considered running a warlord or really seemed terribly sure what sort of character this new class was. I think we all figured it out, but it was a bit of an unfamiliar concept. Now brand new players would probably not have this issue, but then again tradition is a strong element of the game and when faced with choices of which classes to include in Essentials there were a bunch of pre-ordained choices. There was going to be a cleric, paladin, ranger, rogue, wizard, and fighter. Druid also had a strong tradition. Warlock not so much, but it is still a pretty clear and concise archetype and I think they plain just wanted another striker in the mix more than they needed another leader.I don't think that "appealing to grognards" is the main reason there isn't an Essentials Warlord. I think the class mix (just like the races) adheres to tradition to a certain extent. I think realities of space limitations in the product and some lip service to D&D tradition simply put the warlord class lower in priority. Like I said before, if there was a budget for some more pages I'm relatively confident that warlord is a class that would have made the cut and I think it was probably seriously considered.Everything in life is a compromise. On top of that I think the 4e devs don't really compartmentalize Essentials from 4e 'classic' to anything like the degree that people tend to do on the forums. Consider that they have said over and over it isn't a separate game or edition of the game and they've never said they intended it to stand alone in contrast to the rest of 4e. Take that at face value and there's no need to invoke some kind of slavish subservience to "grognards" (which in any case I find to be a fairly stupid categorization of players, am I a grognard? I started playing before Basic D&D even existed, so what exactly is a "grognard" because I don't see any category like that which I personally fit into, nor any of my friends that I play with who mostly started playing back then too).</blockquote>

Verification