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: 7043579" data-attributes="member: 996">The best fit to include a core class in a new edition is clearly as a core class.  That doesn't seem arbitrary so much as obvious.  "I need a new car to replace my old one. It's worn out from my long commute.""How about wheelbarrow?""No, I really need a car.""How arbitrary!"Besides, it's been the approach 5e took with every other full class presented as such in at least one PH1.  They're all full classes in the PH, not even with names changed for 5e.  The two that only appeared as sub-classes are sub-classes in 5e.  Even classes that haven't appeared in the PH as such are in the pipeline as full classes.But, at the same time, 5e has been quite profligate in providing multiple ways to mix in aspects of a full class without actually taking that class.  (I assume, in part, to help make MCing truly optional in a practical sense.) Be aware that how you say something has meaning, too.  And that what you later claim you did or didn't mean, may carry a bit less weight and sound like intentional equivocation or evasion.   Or the temerity for asking for a fourth when you've already had three? No, I cannot do that, since I made no false accusation.  (See how much fun that is?)  <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, of course, lack of threading strikes again, so back up the pages we go: In the context of the thread, "give you just that" can only apply to a Warlord class (in the context of the post you're replying to, an official warlord class, in print).  The 'three offerings' can only refer to the three vaguely part-warlord-like sub-classes in print.  The BM in the PH, and the PDK & Mastermind in SCAG.  You are clearly saying that each of those sub-classes was meant to be an attempt at filling the desire for a Warlord class.  I have to stick with the judgement that you were mistaken in that assertion.  And stand by EK/Wizard BM/Warlord analogy to illustrate why they couldn't be construed as such by any reasonable person.(I also hope that you are mistaken in implying such monumental incompetence on the part of WotC's design team.) You said that they were three attempts at providing what was being asked for, which was a return of the warlord core class to the game.  Obviously you were wrong.  Presumably you didn't mean it exactly the way it came out, even if you remain unable to better articulate what you really meant. Sorry, I used jargon without thinking.   In signaling - including natural language - a message is encoded by the sender, and decoded by the receiver.  You seem quick to assume decoding error - 'misconstruing' - and exceedingly resistant to the idea of encoding errors - that is, saying something that doesn't quite mean what you meant it to mean.Now, when I misread you above, I readily admitted it and went back for another go.  So please don't get too comfortable assuming it's always may fault.  I'm try''n here.  <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=";)" /> Fair 'nuff.  I hope I've satisfied your curiosity, then.  Yeah, Zapp's a little hard to suss out, at times.  <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=";)" />..uh.. no offense, Cap'n... Magic items do have a very different role in 5e, being tools of DM Empowerment much more than class features or player build resources.  Adopting something more like a 3.5 make/buy system (which'd really help with the Artificer, you'd think that'd be an opportunity to tackle it), would probably entail completely new lists of make/buy qualified items that are less game-disrupting/'make you just better' than 5e items (possibly down to the level of 4e items, even).  Hopefully they'll do something like that at some point.  It could make a good part of an Ebberon sourcebook, for instance.  Artificer, 'new' magic item shopping lists.  Yeah.</blockquote>

Verification