...and that has only the littlest bit to do with what I was talking about, since my topic of choice was the "I want something officially released by WotC in print" part.
There's a lot of reasons to want that. One of them, like the reason to want to never see something officially released by WotC, in print, is validation. Some folks just need the stamp of officialdom, on a dead tree, to feel like their agenda has been served, and D&D is really their exclusive purview. Some people like that will be displeased with any reasonable decision, because they're not a united front, and have no room for compromise, either the game is all theirs, and everyone who disagrees with them is excluded, or it's not really the game anymore and they've been betrayed.
5e, of course, aims for the large excluded middle between those two extremes, though it has, among it's many playtest-articulated unrealistic goals, claimed that it wants to be as inclusive as it can, both in terms of being for fans of all past editions, and in terms of supporting more playstyles than past editions had individually. And coming through on that goal would mean finishing out the classes 'missing' from the PH. First and foremost among them, the only class from a prior-edition PH not included, by name, in the 5e PH, the Warlord. Now, the edition war was a thing, the very thing that prompted the whole touchy-feelie, kumbya playtest goals of 5e, and the opposition to the Warlord has painfully obvious, undeniable roots in that conflict, and including the Warlord is necessary (but not sufficient) to heal that rift. By the same token, the desire to see one of the best classes introduced by 4e included has obvious roots in the other side of that conflict. The exclusion of the Warlord from the PH was a huge compromise the h4ter agenda of exclusing all things 4e. The eventually re-introduction of the class as an opt-in option in some print supplement, is the absolute very least that WotC could do to plausibly offer a similar, if clearly subordinate, compromise to the other side. If it eventually happens, it'll hardly be a 4venger victory, 5e will still very clearly and unequivocally be a very traditionalist edition of D&D, with all it's beloved sacred cows peacefully grazing away - it'll just have a some plausible claim of inclusion. Not enough to satisfy the extremists on either side*, but perhaps enough to move on.
Instead of expressing that you want something you like the way works, for your replacement of three offerings that you don't like
There are in fact 0 versions of the Warlord in 5e. There are some backgrounds, a feat, and some sub-classes that incorporate bits of the Warlord concept, but that's at all the same thing as an actual attempt at the Warlord. There are feats, backgrounds, and two sub-classes (EK & AT) in the PH that offer bits of the Wizard class, there are other wizard(ish) options in SCAG & UA. They were in no way failed attempts at the Wizard, and neither obviate, nor or obviated by the presence of the Wizard in the PH. The Wizard is the most obvious example, but each class has at least a bit of it's mechanics or flavor lifted by a background or feat or impinged upon by another class.
The argument that
, you express that you want something that you like the way works made by people that have already tried and failed to give you just that.
They have not tried. They have so far pointedly avoided it. That creates an appearance of exclusion that is harmful to the goals of 5e. It should be resolved.
So people, myself included, ask why the "official" part seems higher priority to you than the "I actually like it" part
I hope that's clear now. It's important, to the 5e goal of healing the rift in the community, that a good-faith attempt at inclusion is seen to be made. The bar for that is startlingly low, compared to the demands of the edition war. An official class, in print, that is a worthy successor to the original - an optional class, in a supplement, that need never contaminate the play experiences of purists. That is a very, very reasonable compromise to ask for, far more reasonable than the violent detractors of the edition war ever were, far more reasonable than the naysayers opposing the Warlord, now, are being.
If you have any further confusion on the topic, I'd be happy to take it up with you in PM.
Use "us" as much as you like here, as more than one already qualifies, and you are definitely not alone.
PM Conversations can easily accomodate multiple people, now.
