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: 6758838" data-attributes="member: 6688277">I personally agree with this, perhaps because I am a fan of 2e, but more so because the system is not as heavy as 3.5e, and not as fixed/complete as 4e.I don't believe you are being punished. 5e is meant to be all inclusive. Was I thrilled about the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn? No, I admit I'm more of a traditionalist. Personally I would have preferred they create the Warlord class/subclass instead of including those two races. Not everyone is 100% satisfied, but the options are there for all of us to include and exclude what we like. Those that prefer the 2e Tiefling can and will change.Those that prefer no +x weapons/armour will remove them.Those that prefer no Ability Boosts or Feats may remove them.Those that prefer a Battlemaster with an Aura or Healing can do so. Those that prefer save or suck for some monsters (yellow mold thread) can include them.But I think you take it too far - Just listen to your language, speaking of punishment / blackmailing / edition wars / 5e = H4ter Edition...etcWotC did an amazing job, the tools are very much there for many of us. Is it perfect for the die-hard 4e players? Not by a long shot. Those that love 4e will stick to 4e. But they certainly paid a nod towards that edition and I'm talking from experience, not as some 4e-hater. I played and DMed 4e.   I wouldn't mind the Warlord as a class/sublclass - whatever, it doesn't bother me. We would certainly allow the class at our table, more so than the monk which is perma-ban. But to spew edition-venom doesn't strengthen your case, it just makes me wonder when will such a person be satisfied with WotC's 4e contribution to 5e.</blockquote>

Verification