Paul Farquhar
Legend
I think warlord is actually a good example of a "storyless" class. It's purely an artefact of 4e game mechanics, any fictional/historical "warlords" can be build as well or better with standard classes.
If you consider overpowered and disruptive to play "amazing" then it's amazing.
But fantasy depends on archetypes (general use, not D&D rules use) for it's narrative power. That doesn't mean it has to draw on earlier editions, but it does have to tug on something from the collective unconscious.
la la la la warlord la la la la la la la
Actually, while I know that the warlock mugged the class, I really would love to see the Binder make a comeback just because, outside of warlords, it's my absolute, 100% favoritest class.
Now, I need to see if I can convince my DM to let me use that 3rd party Binder book.
This archetype is not overpowered,
You mean the class my and many other tables ban for being too disruptive?and no more disruptive than the Wild Soul Sorcerer.
Fantasy does not depend on archetypes.
but even the archetypes you so dearly rely on were pulled out of someone's ass once upon a time.
Its time for us to create new stuff, not endlessly repeat Berserkers, Champions, and Hunters for the rest of human existence.
Having a feature that can be easily fixed in the final version (as UA often are) does not damn the entire archetype.
We have much different groups and circles we hang out in, since I've never seen a Wild Soul issue.
No it doesn't.
You're ignoring a whole lot of fantasy authors who make up their own stuff. Sanderson, Tolkien (his elves are nothing like aelf), Dunsany, Morcock, and so on.
You're twisting a quote to prove an argument that's already failed. Saying "Well nothing ever is new" is trying to use a faux-truism and not understanding what new means.
If your next post has points as thin as these I'm not going to respond to it.
You're twisting a quote to prove an argument that's already failed. Saying "Well nothing ever is new" is trying to use a faux-truism and not understanding what new means.
You didn't actually "respond" to my previous post, apart from with unsubstantiated insults.If your next post has points as thin as these I'm not going to respond to it.
Tolkien would be the first to tell you his elves where not "pulled out of his butt". And the reason they are not like Aelf is he made the Aelf into dwarves.
As for the others, I haven't read Sanderson or Dunsany, but I have studied lots of other fantasy literature. You can always trace the origins of ideas back. And pretty much all fantasy writers openly acknowledge this. If you know any who claim otherwise, I would like to see a quote from them as evidence.
"New" means putting a fresh coat of paint on something old. The same as it has always done.
In what way am I "twisting" the quote? It's meaning is perfectly clear. It means what it says it means.
You didn't actually "respond" to my previous post, apart from with unsubstantiated insults.