Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6740478" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Correct--at least on the healing and granting attacks (at fairly high level, for the latter). I haven't seen anything that suggests buffing--but I haven't been paying close attention to the thread either. What feature does that?At least in this specific thread, the general response from Warlord fans has been positive--or so it seems to me. Fully, absolutely, 100% satisifed? No, certainly not. But boiling it down to "happy: yes/no?" does a huge disservice to them (or perhaps I should say "us"?) I wouldn't expect them to be "happy" when one of the very core requests was, from the beginning, precisely what you said there, that it be a full class. It's not like it's a shifted goalpost--it's been the goalpost from the beginning. Maybe you didn't mean to, but this really sounds like painting "warlord fans" as petulant, which really can't help the conversation.Actually, the responses I've seen have by-and-large been "wait and see," with a fair amount of optimism. From both sides, even. What gives you the impression that the critics are notably unhappy?And I completely agree with you on that front. I had thought my previous post in this thread communicated precisely that. For example, when I said: "The PDK is a major step in the right direction, and (hopefully) both its mechanics and its thematics can help resolve deep disputes."Sure. But looking at things from a purely mechanical lens is something 5e and its designers have intentionally avoided, right? It could just as easily be that they wanted to go for iconically FR, and specifically Sword Coast, stuff--and even though I don't think I've ever actually roleplayed in a tabletop FR game, I *have* heard of the Purple Dragon Knights before. So arguments based purely upon function don't strike me as very convincing, when it's not only possible but likely that the form came first and function followed well after. Of course, this doesn't at all indicate that your argument is wrong. Merely that it's not particularly compelling to me, when a plethora of equally-valid explanations exist.My theory, in line with my "the Warlord accidentally slipped between the cracks of shifting mechanics over the playtest" argument, is that the PDK acted as a reasonable conjunction of opportunity, form, function, and simplicity. It's certainly possible (likely, even, given the recent tweets about the Storm bonus spells) that they're aware of the contentious issues, and furthermore the potential to reveal the community's response--but I think it casts WotC in an unfairly "mercenary" light to suggest that that is the causative reason for the PDK taking the form that it did.</blockquote>

Verification