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: 6755546" data-attributes="member: 996">It is, but maybe not in quite the way you think.  It's not as simple as battle lines being drawn in the edition war and 5e gingerly walking through the no-man's-land in-between.  It's a matter of inclusiveness.  5e uses a very loose design philosophy, and leaves some key design choices up to the DM.  That does facilitate including many things, even 'controversial' things, from past editions, for precisely the reason that the system is open enough to use them if you want, and customizeable/optional enough to eschew them if you don't.  AEDU was a great design structure for keeping classes and encounters balanced, but, by definition, that's a problem for play styles to which balance is anathema (and there are, perhaps not surprisingly, a number of styles that developed through the game's history that are just that way, probably in part because it was such a very badly balanced game for so long).  If 5e was going to include such styles /and/ still provide balance, it couldn't do it with AEDU.  Instead, it went with DM empowerment.  The 5e DM can maintain balance among classes and in encounters - by fiat, in it comes to it, but mostly by spotlighting character contributions and adjusting encounters on the fly.  Strictly speaking, that makes 5e a 'bad game' that needs to be 'fixed constantly.'  But, it's recognizeably D&D, and it supports more styles that way.  So it's /good/ for 5e's goals.By the same token, you may think that a Mystic or Warlord or anything else you personally dislike is a 'bad option,' but having options is /good/ for 5e's goals.   All classes are optional - they're player options that may or may not be available depending on whether you're playing with just the Basic Rules, just the PH, or additional resources like UA - and depending upon what the DM decides to allow.  The DM needn't allow any one specific class, and a player will naturally limit his choices to classes he likes.  That's prettymuch the non-issue.  The OP's original question of why "don't like it, don't use it" isn't good enough.If you go to a game where the DM is running basic, getting him to let you play a Sorcerer would be an 'opt in' choice for him.  If he's running a standard game, convincing him that letting someone else play a Monk will ruin the game for you is asking him to make an 'opt out' choice.   If he's running AL, those choices have been made for him.   At this late date the Warlord would appear in a supplement, not the 'Standard Game' as defined by the PH, so it'll almost certainly be opt-in.</blockquote>

Verification