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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 6750197" data-attributes="member: 12460">I actually did propose this, not with any expectation that it would be accepted, but that we could negotiate upwards from there, but the idea was literally laughed off as if I were joking. I would run a game using the Basic Rules if I could find a group who would play it. I've asked, and being an LC for D&D Adventurers League and a long-time member of San Antonio's geek community I know a lot of gamers. But the consensus seems to be that the Basic Rules are NOT an entire game, but rather training wheels for the "real" game. Back on topic though. I find it better when a "Core" rule book like the PH contains as few high fantasy, epic fantasy, or the bizarre and monstrous details. The warlord has never seemed a necessary archetype to fantasy gaming for me. It, and its predecessors such as the marshal, were born of attempts to do something new and different. That's fine, but I want it reserved for supplements. Should we get an updated PH in the future a la 3.5, I don't want to see the warlord in there. There's enough stuff I have to tolerate that I would rather not have in my game, and saying "you can't use this even though it is in the PH" seems to be a verboten with today's players. I once tried to run a 3rd edition game without level-based feats and static skill modifiers based on level, and that was balked at by players for the same reason. If you put it in the PH, it is hard to extricate it from any D&D game. So release the warlord as a supplement or in unearthed arcana, but don't make it a core option please.</blockquote>

Verification