Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UnadvisedGoose445" data-source="post: 6743759" data-attributes="member: 6801700">To be fair, I think it is much more so that certain interpretations would then be forced on people as a whole. If an entire class is created in which we must accept all of these particular pre-suppositions that many do not accept, the class itself is narrowing the interpretations that a game that wants to allow that class can have. I think that is a core issue here. Though I think that is precisely why they worded the ability exactly as they did. Every healing ability of the possible Warlord class could be worded that way and it would be up to each individual table to interpret it as they will. Though again, I don't see it as a priority that would be happening anytime soon, if the attitude of the designers is anything to go by. For what it's worth, myself and my whole group of friends that game together were (and still are) major fans of 4e, had a warlord in our group, and loved the class, but I don't begrudge 5e designers for not including the specific class in the edition, nor does my friend who played one. No one can really know, but I suspect this is the most common, less vocal, response to the "issue". But again, no one will ever really know. None of my friends frequent this site and it is far from the majority (or probably even a relatively decent sample size) to give accurate feedback on fans as a whole. *shrugs*</blockquote>