Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6726167" data-attributes="member: 59506">Well, isn't that a clever little bit of circular logic and well camouflaged false authority and dogmatism.  My compliments.You've said before that the Warlord was really only a fleshed-out concept in 4E - so since the Warlord is only a 4E concept (according to you), and a 5E Warlord doesn't need to do anything that a 4E Warlord did (in your opinion) - then a 5E Warlord isn't necessary.That was adroitly done; except that you're ignoring that the majority of feedback from Warlord fans here at ENWorld - both 4E fans and non-4E fans - shows that inspirational recovery of real hit points is a fundamental part of the concept to them.So, No...just No.  It's part of the concept of a Warlord that Warlord fans want, and that's all that should matter.  A Warlord class is not for those that don't want a Warlord, it's for those that do want a Warlord.If the presence of a Warlord class cheeses someone off, then frankly that's their problem to deal with and not my concern.I won't, because I won't limit the narrative that way.  Nothing in the wording of inspirational recovery - whether in 4E, the 5E Battlemaster, or even in the ideas proposed in the Warlording the Fighter thread - explicitly state magical or non-magical.  That's the way it should remain.And it seems to me you may be under the false impression that I'm engaging in some kind of negotiation.  I'm not.  I'll discuss it all you want; however, I will not concede anything of the concept.  I'll explain, counter misconceptions, point out faulty logic, and generally try to win people over; but concede?  Absolutely No.Warlord fans do not need to concede anything of the concept just to make those who don't like Warlords feel more comfortable, and it certainly will not happen with the one we've been working on in the Warlording the Fighter thread.  If in the future WotC develops and presents a Warlord, but concedes to those who have issues with the Warlord, then they'll be doing exactly the thing they already did with the Battlemaster, and the very thing that initiated this current call for a real Warlord class.That would be a mistake.I find it amazing every time someone proposes an idea like this.  It highlights to me that people are discussing based on assumed premises rather than informed opinions of what we've been working on.In other words, all that anyone needs to do to know what we're positing is to actually read it in the Warlording the Fighter thread.I know you're aware of that thread, and the exact post where those ideas are presented - because I pointedly included a mention of you in it so you could peruse it.  Not to mention that I've included links to it in numerous other threads since.If you had read those ideas I don't think you'd be positing the idea you just did, as it's very similar to what we've already proposed and are working on...</blockquote>

Verification