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: 6727778" data-attributes="member: 996">We want a 5e Warlord to be a Warlord, so it must, like every other 5e class, evoke the past versions of that class.  For other classes, that was complicated by different editions having subtly or even decidedly different versions of the same class.  But there is only one Warlord to model a 5e version on.I /do/ want a 5e version of the Warlord, not a "4e Warlord" inserted into 5e. The 4e Warlord would be under-powered and wildly under-versatile compared to other 5e versions of 4e 'leader' classes.  It would also be unnecessarily narrow in the concepts it could model and the contributions it might make.  For just one instance, the 4e Warlord had few and relatively modest abilities that modeled tactically out-maneuvering and out-witting enemies to get them into a poor tactical position, because that kind of 'battelfield control' was the province of a different formal Role.  5e, between the abstraction of TotM and having no need to niche-protect a formal 'Controller' role, would be able to include a more such options.True, those are failings of the Standard Game in its current state, but they don't meant that 5e /can't/ do any of those things, only that so far it hasn't.  The system is well-able to handle a faithful version of a 4e or 3.5 fighter or a Warlord.  It just hasn't done so, yet.   Claiming that 5e isn't good enough to handle implementing something that 4e handled easily, even though 4e also easily handled every class 5e has tackled so far, is, IMHO, entirely unfair.  5e is a very open system in terms of design, it can easily handle a wide range of classes and more specific game elements, as well as of more nebulous ideas, like 'flavor.'  That 5e initially excluded the Warlord and focused more on the 'flavor' of classic AD&D, has created the appearance that 5e has knuckled under to the 'h4ter' side of the edition war and intentionally excluded fans of 4e.  The creation of a good 5e Warlord, would help counter that unfortunate appearance. Well, of course, it needs all that and more to be a competitive support/secondary-melee type class in a game that already includes War Clerics, Valor Bards, Moon Druids and Paladins.  A warlord that didn't even live up to the constrained capabilities it had in 4e would be a strictly inferior class, non-viable even unplayable.  Obviously, that sort of de-facto exclusion would only exacerbate the existing appearance of exclusion.  I could, but, fortunately 4e fans aren't asking that the 4e version of every class take precedence in 5e.  The Warlord only existed in 4e, so there are no other versions to assert primacy over.  It's a simple, slam-dunk, to create a worthy 5e version of the class.  There is no reason for controversy, because no other edition's vision of the Warlord is being compromised.   Sacred Flame is pretty close. Not something it could do in 4e.Not something it could do in 4e.  In fact, 5e wizards can throw a lot more fireballs than 4e wizards could.  Wizards, or any casters, really, in 5e, have far more dailies than they ever did in 4e, and much greater flexibility in what those spells can be, day to day and round to round.  That's one of the big reasons a '4e Warlord in 5e' is not what any Warlord proponent wants.  We'd like a class that's actually viable.  To get there, it would be trivially easy to have it do everything the 4e warlord could - it's just that it would need /more/ than that to be a worthy addition to 5e.I'm surprised you're having a hard time remaining sympathetic, since we did go through a very similar thing with psionics not so long ago.  I seem to recall you being similarly adamant about the form psionics should take in 5e, even though there have been many different versions of it through the editions.  There had to be a full Psion class, it had to be explicitly not-magic, it mustn't come from the Far Realms, and so forth.  Psionics didn't lose my support then, even though you absolutely rejected new (let alone re-skinned existing) sub-classes as a way of handling psionics in the interim or as a fall-back should resources or a full class not be practical, and were as strident about it as you're being now in your opposition to the desire for a Warlord.  A request that is, when you think about it, much more straightforward than that for a specific vision of psionics, since past editions have no competing visions of the Warlord.  I'd like you to think about how the prospect of never having psionics in the game felt to you, and how you stuck to adamantly promoting your vision of it, even though there were multiple competing visions from different editions, and ask yourself if you're being entirely fair in your attitude towards those who, similarly, want the only vision of the warlord to appear in a prior edition to finally appear in 5e.</blockquote>

Verification