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: 6749112" data-attributes="member: 996">Rather the point, it's not that unreasonable to ask for a missing class (or few), compared to demanding the whole game be scrapped because you disapprove of it.  But it did have them within the year - also 'apples & oranges' because 5e pace of releases is so slow, then again, it's just the one class that's missing, two if you stretch a point concerning psionics.Psioinics is clearly in the pipeline, and I'm happy for the fans who were hoping for it on the basis of the 1e PH appendix, as much of a stretch as that may have been.  Settings were never a big priority for me, but I don't begrudge anyone wanting their favorite setting to get some support at some point.ATM, sure, but that could change.  The better 5e does at healing the rifts in the fanbase, being inclusive, and rehabilitating WotC's image, the better the game will do, and the more resources may become available.  It's not a zero sum calculation, you don't have to take away things others want in order to get what you want.It was something Mearls harped on when it was announced, yes. No, I'm trying to be positive, here.  I want the Warlord both for purely selfish reasons (it would be an interesting/fun martial class to play, and I'm both sick of casters from decades of play in prior eds, yet find existing DPR-focused martial classes uninteresting), and for altruistic reasons (I want to see 5e succeed in both a practical sense of selling well, and in the sense of fulfilling it's goals of inclusiveness and re-uniting the fanbase, the Warlord would be a major symbolic milestone in accomplishing that goal, because it would mean the anti-4e vendetta had relented to some degree).Low-/no- magic games worked very easily and smoothly in 4e.  You chose martial classes, flipped the inherent bonus switch and it worked seamlessly.  5e, as you can see if you check out some of the Primeval Thule threads needs extensive re-working just to get close, even if you pull in optional feats, and those two GSC sub-classes.  It's not just the lack of support contributions from the non-magical sub-classes, but the fact they're /all/ DPR focused, they lack the variety and depth to build a viable party.  It does, thematically, but that's what I was thinking of.  Between a DM consciously making rulings to facilitate that kind of play, and the few modules in the DMG meant to enable it, you can get a fairly involved set-piece battle going.  Works better with Legendary (Solo) creatures than with large groups of enemies, because of the way Bounded Accuracy impacts numeric advantages.  5e does not support that style as lavishly as 3.5 and 4e did, but it does make a credible attempt.It is discouraging that even with 5e conceived as a more inclusive edition meant to heal the rifts in the fanbase, there is still so much negativity and spite afflicting the community.</blockquote>

Verification