Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6724637" data-attributes="member: 996">Sure.  That's all accurate enough.  There are 12 classes, with a Psion in the pipeline, add the Warlord and that's 14 classes.  4 or 5 of them make decent support classes, the warlord would take that up to 6.  Even if the Warlord were exactly as popular as other classes (and detractors seem to think it's wildly unpopular), what's the chance that one of the 4 or 5 other players at your AL table will be playing a Warlord?  What if there's already a support class - for instance if you're already playing a Cleric or Bard or the like?  It's really pretty unlikely you'll be confronted with the intollerable horror of the Warlord, even were it permitted in AL.  And, really, many folks have a class or two they don't care for, quite possibly one that's availble in AL play.  They cope.  So it really would be a relatively minor inconvenience. Or a fighter that reprised the 4e fighter as well as the existing fighter does the 2e version.  Or a class or classes that could be used to create concept builds the way you could in 3.5 with the fighter & other non-casting classes.  Or, really, anything that's not primarily about DPR and the least bit original. I completely understand the choice they made with 5e to, use the Basic & Standard games to really re-establish and sew-up the feel of the classic game.  They did a great job with that, but the timing was just wrong for me, personally.  If they'd done it 10 or 12 years ago, when I was still feelling nostalgic for the classic game, I'd've been delighted with it.  But, for me personally, that ship has sailed.  There's nothing much that'd've ever appealed to me, that I could now do with a character in 5e that I hadn't already done (or seen done) so much in the 80s and 90s that I got bored with it and switched to Storyteller and Hero System.  But, 5e is supposed to be for fans of all editions, and 3.x and 4e /did/ bring more variety and interest to the game in their days, so, while I understand that 'classic feel first' strategy, I've had to wait for more options, and I'm still waiting.  But, communication is a two-way street, so I can't just sit silently and wait, I do need to be open about what I hope to get from the game going forward.Not without using a Vancian class.  Heck, I wouldn't even need to MC, just play a concept I've always found faintly ridiculous (the Bard) or one that I genuinely liked, but played to death back in the day (the Druid).  I did try the latter in the playtest, and it was fun - for a couple hours, then it got old again.  I most certainly am /not/ applying a double-standard.  I get that I'm in essence a demographic second-class citizen, and, it's just in the context of a game, so I can live with the things I want coming later in the development cycle.   And, I totally get that inclusion of classes that clash with one's design aesthetic can impact your enjoyment of the game.  The Drow (matriarchal = evil?  really?), Monks (orientalism), psionics (sci-fi), Kender (no explanation needed, I trust), and a few other odds & ends do that for me to varying degrees.  But, I respect & defend the right of other players to get the things they want /too/, because I'm NOT about to apply a double-standard or tell other people how they should play the game.  I'd like that, too.  So much of the edition war then, and the stonewalling of the Warlord, now, consists of people claiming they speak for 'a majority' or 'most' or 'the typical' or whatever arbitrary greater-number, or even quote murky sales statistics to 'prove' that what they want is what WotC should do, or not doing what they want caused WotC to 'fail.'  I, too, wish we could put that kind of sophomoric pseudo-utilitarianism behind us, and just be accepting and considerate of eachother.Personal preferences are just that, personal.  My personal disappointment with all 12 classes in the PH - personal.  I don't begrudge anyone enjoying any of those classes.</blockquote>

Verification