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: 6729027" data-attributes="member: 996">No. The Warlord needs the same sorts of non-magical abilities he's always had - and presumably more due to niche-protection being loosened up - just with greater availability and flexibility, to remain balanced with the other 4e "leader" classes in their 5e incarnations.  Not only in the sense of fulfilling the traditional 'band-aid'/support role, but in the sense of reaching beyond that or the 'Leader' role the way those classes have, as well, but in different directions because the Warlord concept is so different from them.  It would be silly to give the Warlord spells or spells with the serial numbers filed off. There's already enough duplication of class abilities via multiple classes all casting the exact same spells, as it is.Before it makes sense to argue specifics of how a class will be implemented, I feel you'd have to acknowledge that it should be implemented.   Always holding "then NO WARLORD!" as a bludgeon to veto any specifics is not conducive to a polite discussion of specifics.The design philosophy of 5e is /more/ expansive than that of 4e, not less.  You do not have to expand a design philosophy that has, as it's purpose, supporting /more/ styles than any one prior edition did, in order to encompass one of those prior editions.  To suggest that 5e's design philosophy is more limited than 4e's, alone, would be to judge 5e an abject failure, which I hope, is obviously not the case.Which was a spin-off. And whether you want to disgrace 3e by making it claim a class as bad as the martial or not, I can't acknowledge it as anything but one of several failed attempts to accomplish just a fraction of what the Warlord finally did, and did very well.  JMHO, I guess.It does create an appearance that 5e is failing in it's goal of being for fans of all past editions, by choosing sides in the edition war to appease h4ter, and thereby exclude 4e fans, yes. That's a bad thing, and WotC needs to combat that appearance - especially when people start holding it up as 'proof' the edition favors their side of an argument.The 4e wizard remained 'Vancian' to a small degree, marking is a 5e module, so those are bad examples.Aside from that, your reasoning amounts to "anything not already in the 5e PH is anathema to 5e," and that's manifest nonsense, and would mean you couldn't have psionics, at all. And 5e has even less accommodating design aesthetics?  No.  5e design aesthetics are broader and more open to designing classes to concept than 4e's.  OK, we can go there, but you're missing (or ignoring) the point of mentioning the similarity of your stance on psionics to mine on the Warlord...That's not annoying fluff, it's entirely contrary to the class concept.  No Warlord (or failed warlord predecessor, since you seem intent on bringing those up) was ever magical.  In contrast, psionics has been presented as magic or not-magic or take your choice in past editions, and as unexplained, trained, Wild Talent, or the result of Far Realms influence in different editions.  There's a basis for covering all those if at all possible.  There's no such basis in prior versions of the class for making the Warlord magical.  None.  Now, while I don't care for psionics as either sci-fi bit nor lovecraftian freakiness, and while I'm a card-carrying 4venger and the Far Realms/psionics connect was a 4e thing (and now 5venger, as I've had to defend the current ed from equally spurious criticism, if happily in greatly reduced volume), and in spite of the way you've been coming off in these Warlord threads, I'm still advocating for the Far Realms origin to be softened: pushed off to a side-bar and phrased as speculation (the always convenient 'some say...') not as default fluff.And, yes, by the same token, if there were some nifty side-bar 'some say that reports of warlord rallying badly-wounded troops can only mean they are tapping some magical power of words...' I'd shrug and be OK with it, because it has no mechanical consequences behind it to ruin my experience when I play one, while leaving a rationalization open to any players at the table who find cliched genre tropes like the ones the warlord models unsatisfying or unrealistic or whatever, and needs to think of them as somehow magical.Sound fair?</blockquote>

Verification