Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7370570" data-attributes="member: 996">A deal-breaker in the core game is bad for the game.&nbsp; The deal is D&amp;D or not D&amp;D?&nbsp;&nbsp; A deal-breaker in an option is just a matter of taste, the deal is opt-in or opt-out of one thing.&nbsp; NBD.C&amp;GI as a new maneuver in some Bo9S style supplement, for instance, who cares?&nbsp; If you're horrified by the very possibility of interesting martial characters, you were never going to glance at it, anyway, not beyond making a sign to ward off evil as you pass the shelf...&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;Ironically, telling you to go play 4e because 5e can't deliver what you want /is/ essentially a dig at 5e:&nbsp; if you only way you can play a balanced, fun character you've played in D&amp;D before is by abandoning 5e to go back to a system that hasn't been updated in 6 years, that paints a pretty ugly picture of 5e.&nbsp; Undeservedly so.&nbsp; 5e has all the pieces in place, it just needs to get over the legacy of the edition war enough to put 'em all together into a worthy iteration of the only PH1 full class it has excluded from it's own PH.&nbsp; And, really, what's to compromise at this late date?&nbsp; Compromise would have been only having 2 of the 8 de-facto warlords from 4e in the PH, even though the wizard go all 8 of it's.&nbsp; Actually, that's not true, compromise would have been every PH class having 2 sub-classes, Cleric, Warlord &amp; Wizard included.&nbsp; If the compromise is &quot;wait 4+ years before the class you want even enters development&quot; on one side, then &quot;get exactly the class you want, and then some&quot; needs to be on the other side.&nbsp; And the longer the wait, the higher that bar.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7370570, member: 996"] A deal-breaker in the core game is bad for the game. The deal is D&D or not D&D? A deal-breaker in an option is just a matter of taste, the deal is opt-in or opt-out of one thing. NBD. C&GI as a new maneuver in some Bo9S style supplement, for instance, who cares? If you're horrified by the very possibility of interesting martial characters, you were never going to glance at it, anyway, not beyond making a sign to ward off evil as you pass the shelf... ;) Ironically, telling you to go play 4e because 5e can't deliver what you want /is/ essentially a dig at 5e: if you only way you can play a balanced, fun character you've played in D&D before is by abandoning 5e to go back to a system that hasn't been updated in 6 years, that paints a pretty ugly picture of 5e. Undeservedly so. 5e has all the pieces in place, it just needs to get over the legacy of the edition war enough to put 'em all together into a worthy iteration of the only PH1 full class it has excluded from it's own PH. And, really, what's to compromise at this late date? Compromise would have been only having 2 of the 8 de-facto warlords from 4e in the PH, even though the wizard go all 8 of it's. Actually, that's not true, compromise would have been every PH class having 2 sub-classes, Cleric, Warlord & Wizard included. If the compromise is "wait 4+ years before the class you want even enters development" on one side, then "get exactly the class you want, and then some" needs to be on the other side. And the longer the wait, the higher that bar. [/QUOTE]

Verification