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="Sadras" data-source="post: 6756694" data-attributes="member: 6688277">I disagree, the correlation is very strong in fact. If memory serves me, unlike 3.x, 4e applied the saving throw per round for everything - not just Hold Spells. It was very much part of the 4e system going against the save vs suck, which is very much 5e's philosophy. 3.x was still very much burdened with save or suck.   The point being they were very much ported in from 4e and evolved for the system of 5e.  When in 3e's lifetime? In 4e they were in the first PHB - which is something you give credit for the Warlord being in 4e's first player's handbook but gloss over this for the tielfing and dragonborn included in both the 1st 4e and 1st 5e PHB.Yes, but Bo9S was very much a later evolution of 3.xWhereas the Warlord and his powers were very much in 4e's 1st PHB as are the 5e Maneuvers in the 1st PHB. I think we can safely say the reason they are in  the 5e PHB is more to include the 4e crowd than that of the Bo9S fans. Sure we could, but I would continue to mitigate your watering-down of 4e's inclusion in 5e in your discussion about 5e's lack of 4e inclusion (only to push for the agenda of a Warlord).This reminds me of when the 4e fans who would argue with the anti-4e crowd that the AEDU system was not really new and that it was very much part of the previous D&D systems - just reflected differently and with different "refresh rates" for the powers/abilities. In fact I have seen @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779" target="_blank">Hussar</a> mention on more than one occasion, and I agree with him on this, that part of 4e's downfall was due to its representation. It was essentially 'alien' to much of the fan-base and they were not able to indentify the similarities between the editions unless it was pointed out (myself included).Actually given the roll-out of 4e and how they broke up traditional classes and races over at least the first two PHBs - I would argue that there could be more you could be arguing for to be included within 5e. And that is my point - at what point would enough be enough?I'd argue, using your thinking about the Sorcerer and other classes that seem to duplicate one another, that the 4e Warlord is just an evolution of 3.x Fighter-Bard. Do we really need one for 5e? Is it really that much of a poster child? Perhaps it was the 4e chassis that was really different that allowed the Warlord to flourish and not necessarily the class itself.In my opinion - It was the Surges, the treatment of Hit Points, the refresh rates of powers, the AEDU, the universal round-by-round saves which allowed for effects/conditions to be imposed, the various defenses....etc The Warlord was just a class that naturally complemented the new-system and hence termed "poster child"In 5e, a Warlord class is not needed. Could we add one? Sure. But it certainly doesn't reflect that 5e cared for less about 4e or did the 4e fans a disservice by not including the Warlord. I don't buy that thinking. In fact, my own players argue that too much of 4e is in 5e. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

Verification