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: 6728045" data-attributes="member: 996">That would not be a 'good' warlord, so, no, perfect is not getting in the way of good.   Rather, when warlord detractors have had all their spurious reasoning for excluding the class thoroughly refuted, they resort to proposing non-viable or unrecognizable (or both) version of the class as if that were somehow a 'compromise.'That is a false dilema.  A Warlord, simply to be viable along-side the existing support-oriented classes would have to do everything it did in 4e, and more, because those classes (all casters) are much more powerful and flexible in 5e than they were when they were balanced with the Warlord in 4e.  As far as 'more widely accepted,' more options are nice things for classes to have, a warlord that's true to concept, balanced, viable, playable, and customizable, like other 5e classes, would certainly garner a wider audience than one that failed to model it's concept, was under-powered, non-viable, and had coudn't be used to produce many distinct characters.   The Marshal is not the Warlord, was not even technically a D&D class, and was pretty terrible.  Some of the sorts of concepts the Warlord successfully models had been unsuccessfully modeled before.  The fighter becoming a 'lord' at 9th in classic D&D, or the Marshal, or the odd PrC, perhaps.  The Warlord, however was a 4e innovation.  I was referring specifically to:  "Its impossible to play a 4e-like fighter without extra rules (mark) and feats (sentinel). Its completely impossible to play a 4e ranger (martial striker)."Those are failings, there things you can't do in 5e. They can be corrected by adding more options to the game.I disagree, it could be much more faithful.  5e is not so limited in it's potential that it couldn't have done so.  If you count tiny things like individual spells, yes, maybe there are as many as a dozen bits from 4e included in 5e, I acknowledged that.  Likewise, there are lots of things that were in 4e and one or more prior editions - Sorcerer, Warlocks, tieflings, large swaths of d20 rules - that are also unsurprisingly in 5e.This has got to be the 7th time you've 'reconsidered' this 'support' for the Warlord that I've never actually seen you show.It's unlikely any one individual on one side of these silly internet debates will get exactly what he wants.  The point is, you were every bit as strident in demanding, uncompromisingly, everything you wanted from psionics in 5e, as anyone is being in wanting a Warlord.  You repeatedly said in the psionics threads that you wouldn't accept psionics that didn't live up to your standards, but you have, now that there's something in the pipeline.  I will also make the best of whatever Warlord comes down the line.  I didn't ragequit 5e when it came out without a Warlord, in fact I supported 5e, and continued to support its goal of being for all fans, including advocating for psionics, which I personally never cared for, because adding it was important to eventually achieving that goal.</blockquote>

Verification