Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7043346" data-attributes="member: 996">Those are not irreconcilable. Again, let me use the Wizard, since it's not such a target of the edition war, as an analogy:The Wizard, is, indisputably, an attempt at the Wizard (and seemingly, controversy over cantrips & spontaneous casting aside, not an intolerable one for many fans).The EK, AT, Sage Background, and Magic Initiate feat - among others - could all be used to build a clearly wizard-like character.  But, were there no wizard in the game, they couldn't be construed as a failed attempt at the Wizard.  So, yes, there are bits in 5e that could be used to add mechanics or conceptual aspects to a character that are consistent with the Warlord.  But, even the most significant of them, the PDK, for instance, are not plausible attempts at presenting a Warlord class.  Those are both true statements.  They are both reasons the Warlord should finally be brought back into D&D.That's something 5e hashed out for itself in the playtest.  It was going to try to avoid pointedly excluding anyone, it was going to heal the rift of the edition war, not apply a scorched earth policy to one side of said rift.  It needs the Warlord to see that through, if only symbolically.  That's why, ironically, even a badly done, strictly inferior to caster support options, Warlord in name only, published in an actual official dead-tree book, would be enough* - while an awesome, 3pp or DMsG 'Commander' or something wouldn't be (not that I've seen any danger of such a thing so far).     * to end the call for an official warlord, anyway.</blockquote>

Verification