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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6751696" data-attributes="member: 996">5e makes a number of assumptions around which the game is tuned, a critical one is encounter/day, which are supposed to 6-8 moderate-hard encounters per day, on average.  To handle that kind of 'day' the party needs hp resources, and to handle D&D-style combats it needs in-combat hp restoration, damage mitigation, and other forms of support contributions.  An all-martial party, as it stands, can't have those resources, because there are only a few martial-only sub-classes, and they're all focused on DPR as their primary in-combat contribution.  Voicing dislike is one thing, and you did, rarely, see someone just mention that they didn't care for 4e, and move on. Even more rarely, you'd see constructive criticism.  Neither of those generated the sheer volume of vitriol that marked the edition war.  It's the hostility, the negativity, then inability to see or even tolerate other points of view, and the uncompromising need to force the official game to take sides, just to name a few, that marked edition warring.  5e tries to get away from that.  It's meant to be a more open and inclusive game, with something for everyone, not a prescriptive One True Way that enshrines one style or appreciation of one prior edition as right.  To do that it should avoid even the appearance of validating or appeasing one side of the edition war.   Not remotely, no.  What could possibly make you think that.  So we want a great class from a past edition included in a game meant to be inclusive of past editions.  That's not attacking the game, it's just wanting more from it - more of what it's goals aspire to.  That the game so far lacks what that class offers is easily corrected by adding the option.  Doing so wouldn't take away from the styles already supported.  There's nothing negative or malicious about that.  I'm not referring to people, today, as h4ters or 4vengers.  That's not my intention, maybe I've banged out some poorly-constructed sentences, or perhaps you're just reading that into what I'm saying.  That's when support contributions can be the most critical, and sub-class features and feats that represent most of the tiny amount of support that a martial character might contribute with the extant options kick in at 3rd or 4th level.  One of the reasons only a full class will do.It's been successful in selling DM empowerment and the acceptability of homebrews, module & variants to the community in a way the last two eds completely failed to do.  Which is great. It doesn't mean that the game can't be improved by adding official options, but it does mean that those who have the time & talent can take up the designer's mantle and add anything they can imagine to the game.There's enough redundancy among the existing classes that WotC could have cut several of them, and left it to DMs to design replacements or players to cobble together substitutes via MCing, backgrounds, & feats.  They could have cut the Sorcerer and let fans of the 3.5 class re-skin a wizard for it, for instance.  They didn't.  The Sorcerer was in a PH1 and, even though it's mechanical shtick was given to Vancian casters, they found another that was an implied aspect of the concept and presented a full class.  Maybe not the best-executed in the game, but at least they tried.  It's not like the Sorcerer is critical to play styles or the functionality of the game, it doesn't make contributions that different from those of a Wizard, for instance, it opens up concepts that would be awkward to re-skin a wizard for, but that's about it.  It's not vital to making the game work, but, it was vital to acknowledging the contributions of 3.5 to the game.  Only classes that appeared in a PH1 were up for inclusion in the 5e PH, and the Sorcerer was unique in being the only new class introduced by 3.5, in it's PH1.  It wasn't as conspicuous as the Warlord, which was, similarly, the only new class introduced by 4e in it's PH1, but then, no one was warring /against/ 3.5 and demanding it's total exclusion from 5e.  But, had it been absent, I'm sure we'd be seeing very nearly as much interest in finally getting it into the game, just we saw for psionics.So, really, it's just a matter of including fans of past editions and supporting styles that past editions supported, and avoiding the appearance of 5e coming down on one side of the edition war.  Adding the Warlord to 5e is in accord with all of 5e's goals, and the spirit in which it was conceived.</blockquote>

Verification