Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6732475" data-attributes="member: 37579">There's a few reasons. The first is that not everyone who is pro-warlord is pro-martial healing and there's warlord fans who want a class they can play, rather than one they'll have to ban. The warlord audience is kinda fractured. There's people who want an update of the 4e warlord as it was, the people who see the lazylord (aka the "princess build") of the warlord as the default - despite that not being an official build - and there are the people who want to see the warlord receive the same update and revision all the other classes got. The second is that not everyone likes to say "no" to their players as that creates tension at the table, especially if the players bought the book. The third is that it takes a lot of time and energy and space to design a class. Classes needed to be playtested and revised and affect far more of the game than any other element, potentially seeing play from level 1 to level 20. That's a lot of time and energy being spent on something a LOT of people don't want. Time that could spent making dozens of subclasses or feats. The fourth is that adding a class that assume martial healing means that martial healing is an assumption of the game. It's the rule. Even omitting the class doesn't change that. Just like you can remove monks as  a class but ki is still part of the assumptions of D&D, and there are monastic monsters.</blockquote>