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: 7043390" data-attributes="member: 996">Why not?  It seems extremely clear and valid, to me.  In both cases, we're talking about a concept, and contrasting the optional inclusion of small aspects of that concept in characters of other classes, with the presentation of a full class embodying that concept.  What's the logical flaw in that? True, and I think that's forced by the exigencies of cleaning up after the edition war.  I don't think it's a terribly unreasonable presumption, though, especially in the case of a full core class in a past PH1.   The draconic bloodline is a sub-class of a full Sorcerer class.  If it were a Wizard Tradition or Bard School, I could see the analogy holding.   It's something.  Fans of a past edition tend to see the things from editions they loved and hated most clearly.  I see 5e as very much like 2e, the edition I probably liked least.  I've read reviews where 2e fans rave about how much 5e evokes that edition, too.   Yes, it does, to my perception of a fan of 4e (though, honestly, among other editions), mostly in mechanical details 4e also shared with 3.x, or in forms transparently bowdlerized/limited (like Second Wind) and/or re-labeled with a veneer of the classic game (like HD).  But the fact they're there is worth noting.   They are, yes.  They're positive signs.  Reasons not to have not rejected 5e out of hand as the h4ter edition the moment it hit the shelves, and resumed the edition war at full intensity.  Indicators that there's every reason to expect /more/ iconic 4e material going forward.   My very point is that 5e's goal was not a scorched earth policy, the above being examples of that.  Purging the Warlord from the game for the whole run of the edition is thus inconsistent with both the stated goals, and the things done so far that we agree are in support of those goals - just as it would be entirely consistent with the hypothetical 'scorched earth policy.'  Clearly, there are still some folks hoping for as much scorching of 4e earth as may yet still be possible. I can imagine no reasonable expectation that the Warlord be 'exactly as it was in 4th edition.'  No class in 5e is quite exactly what it was in any one other past edition.  Some are quite a bit better in specific ways - the casting of the Cleric, Druid, & Wizard are less restricted and more flexible than ever before in the game's history, the Druid, while not a carbon-copy of the 1e Druid has all it's toys again, unlike the chopped-up version 4e came up with.  Are you unconvinced that an official Warlord would end calls for an official Warlord? ('Cause I don't blame you, there's always some unsatisfied hold-out, somewhere - the edition war was fought bitterly by such.)  Or are you still convinced that you have reason to oppose the inclusion of the Warlord?  Because, while I'd love to convince you of the necessity of the Warlord, even if you don't personally want it, I'd settle for convincing you that there's no reason to actively oppose it.  Have I at least cleared up some of your confusion?  It'd be nice if you didn't have to ask those questions again in other warlord threads.</blockquote>

Verification