NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6744029" data-attributes="member: 22779">There's a slight difference though.  Illusionists in 1e were an extremely weak class that was not very popular.  Yes, yes, you in the back, I KNOW you played one, but bear with me.  Illusionists were badly, badly in need of up gunning and 2e did that.  And, once they did that, then tweaking things back and forth didn't seem to be a bad idea and, and this is the important part, no one complained about it.  Have you seen any calls for a return to the idea of illusionists being a separate class from wizards?  I can't recall any.  It's certainly never been a big issue.Granted, that might happen that we see the warlord folded into the fighter.  Although, it baffles me how critics of the warlord mechanics are perfectly happy to see virtually all of the problematic warlord mechanics replicated in the Battlemaster (sans, perhaps healing) yet balk at the idea of an actual warlord class.And, as Umbran mentioned, there is one important difference.  You can still PLAY an illusionist in 5e and in every other edition of D&D.  You cannot play anything called a warlord at the moment.  And names and traditions are important.  Good grief, look at all the hoopla in 4e over "I can't play my X", despite the fact that you could create X 99% of the time, just under a different named class.  One would think that there would be a fair bit more sympathy for 4e players who want to play a class that isn't replicated in 5e.  Me, I'm still kinda bummed that a "conjurer" wizard can't summon minions.  My favourite 3e class doesn't exist in 5e.  And, to be honest, I'm kinda hoping I don't have to wait ten years before I can actually play a warlord in D&D again.  :/</blockquote>

Verification