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: 6834088" data-attributes="member: 996">They prove degree of support for it.OK, that's what you intended to say.  So we're back to there being no problem with adding the Warlord.  Or are you pretending that exactly one possible set of maneuvers for a 3rd level battlemaster equals 30 levels of lavish support for the Warlord?  Those are certainly 'different.'  One is also certainly better than the other.  Both less and more.  It's not like having numbers of maneuvers comparable to those of spells would break the game.  But, while 4e classes had plenty of spells/maneuvers/etc to choose from, they actually got relatively few to use per day, and the power level was different, as well.  So a direct port would tend to be under-flexible and under-powered compared to other support classes (all of whom are casters, and most full casters), choice-rich as it might be compared to a Battlemaster from a chargen standpoint.The Warlord is a sort of poster boy for 4e, because it was the only class invented for that edition to appear in it's PH1.  You can't conduct a smear campaign against it without looking like a h4ter, and I can't campaign for it's inclusion without looking like a 4venger.  Nature of the discussion.  In your defense, your spurious objections to the class were not heavily used during the edition war, they're comparatively new.  I offer no defense.  I was a card-carrying 4venger and repudiate nothing.  And, while I'm happily running and openly supporting 5e (and even arguing how it's superior to 4e, right here in this thread), I still like a lot of what 4e had to offer, including something things that 5e doesn't offer yet.  Same goes for 3.5, actually.  I don't agree that different editions of the same game are different games.  They have differences, they have similarities.  Exactly, and 5e is trying to appeal to fans of each prior edition.  Adding a Warlord, in addition to adding a common heroic fantasy archetype I'd really like to see available in D&D again, and expanding the range of supported playstyles, should appeal to fans of 4e, and would send the message that 5e is not intentionally trying to exclude them.The former is both fine and inevitable.  The latter is a personal opinion about a hypothetical that, requires to players to act like jerks (MHO of what constitutes 'jerk' behavior, anyway) to even theoretically have a chance of happening.  It'd be just as easy to imagine such things happening with any combination of class & character concept, you just have to manufacture a concept hostile to a particular class.  Tend to agree, really.  I can't recall at the moment, does the 4e Cleric have a disclaimer that he doesn't have to proselytize or insist his allies worship the same deity?  Same sort of thing.  Not so much.  While it may seem like a big issue, here, in a temporary sub-forum dedicated to whingeing over the Warlord, in the grander scheme of the whole game, it's a pretty trivial consideration.  Inspiration already exists in the game in at least three, separate, unrelated sub-systems without any such explanations.</blockquote>

Verification