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: 7043540" data-attributes="member: 996">Ah, actually, it was evidence of hasty reading, as I didn't take a close enough look at what you said.  I missed 'dragon-blooded characters.'  Take two: You find something invalid about an analogy that compares the conceptual relationship between a sub-class of the fighter that has some mechanical aspects of another core class and that core class, itself, with a corresponding relationship between different sub-class of the fighter with similar mechanical aspects of a different core class, to that class, in turn?   No, it does not presume any such thing, it illustrates that fact by analogy.  An Eldritch Knight, though it casts some wizard spells, something like a Wizard does, is not a Wizard, and could not be construed as an attempt at providing all the concepts covered by the wizard in the past.   That's clearly analogous to the fact that Battlemaster, though it has a very few maneuvers that are similar to Warlord exploits, is not a Warlord, and could not be construed as an attempt at providing all the concepts covered by the wizard in the past.  Indeed, in that analogy, the Eledritch Knight is a much closer approximation of a Wizard than the battlemaster is of the Warlord, having access to far more than 3 wizard spells, and over 4 spell levels. OK, third read, finally got it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Yes, it is a bit like saying that a sub-class does not equate to a racial template.  Templates like the 3.5 half-dragon clearly have not been attempted in 5e, as yet.  FWLTW. Perhaps another way to flip it around would be to look at a case where a sub-class does cut it.  Consider, if you will, the Illusionist.  The illusionist first appeared as a sub-class of the Magic-user (which became the Wizard, it's erstwhile level-11 'Name Level' title, a sign of ultimate achievement, incidentally).  In subsequent Players' Handbooks it appeared as a sub-class (1e) or a specialty (2e, 3e), and, though it did not appear in a 4e PH, but did make an appearance as a 'school' under the Essentials Mage.  Now, in 5e, the Illusionist is once a gain, a sub-class or 'Tradition.'  It does quite a lot of what the original illusionist did - and, since there are no longer opposition schools, has quite a lot of additional options, as well.  I think the difference are clear.  The Illusionist was always a sub-class, the 5e Illusionist is not limited to a tiny sub-set of it's past abilities.  A full class might even be /worse/ as an attempt at a half-dragon template or dragonborn race or the like.    Would you mind terribly if you stopped doing so, then? You don't see how that implies that it shouldn't be tried again?  Really?  I get the feeling you are being intentionally disingenuous. That's not an accusation, it's feedback.  I expect you're not trying disingenuously, to imply things while claiming not to be saying them, nor to misrepresent the facts by claiming that there are three versions of a particular past-edition core class in 5e, when in fact there are none.  But you're starting to come off that way, and you should be aware of it, maybe do something to head off that impression.  I suggest that the error was in your attempt at encoding the message.  I'll accept that you didn't mean to argue, adamantly, against the inclusion of the Warlord.  But you should be aware that you have been saying things that are difficult to construe in any other way.Lack of threading really is an issue around here:</blockquote>

Verification