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: 6759483" data-attributes="member: 996">Not quite how I remember it.  There were grognards who did say some pretty silly things about 3e being grid-dependent and 'not really role-playing' or whatever, but they never took over a forum the way the actual edition war did.  But, hey, the main difference probably had more to do with the state of the internet back then, not the level of nerdrage.  So if we retroactively call it an edition war, and they were ranting unfairly against PrCs /and/ you repeated some of those rants, then sure, congratulations, you'd be retro-warring.I was there, and on UseNet for the Roll v Role debate, for good measure.   Gamers were always nerdraging about something, but the edition war was a whole 'nuther level of awful.  Though, sure, mainly a matter of degree rather than kind.  That doesn't mean re-cycling role v roll BS or fighter SUX threads to attack 5e or potential additions there to isn't just as lame as re-cycling edition war rhetoric to attack it or potential additions like the warlord.  Maybe the wounds aren't as fresh.Well, no, not most of 'em:  5MWD, LFQW, excessive magic items - those were all perennial issues that 3e just didn't fix (maybe made worse), not problems it caused.  Even CoDzilla was a result of trying to address problems with the classic D&D cleric being nothing but a 'band aid' class.  And, y'know, those were real issues, many of them brought up by 3.5 fans familiar with the system, not just hold-outs nerdraging in ignorance.  They'd be more analogous to the problems 4e had with Skill Challenges, MM1 elites/solos, or feat taxes (probably the best example since they weren't an entirely new problem) - things even loyal fans wanted addressed, rather than flimsy excuses for hating and rejecting it out of hand.You'd be off-base.  There's nothing much to indicate that 5e PrCs would suffer from power-creep (hasn't been much of an issue in 5e so far), and even MCing is optional in the first lace, so they needn't impact any campaign that doesn't want 'em. I'm sure if you worked at it you could join the ranks of semi-mythical 'h4t3r5' who just want to burn WotC D&D to the ground, and live in the TSR era forever.  It's not like the 4e warlord did anything unreasonable - it was balanced, and the 4e leaders that made it into 5e are all got pretty substantially upgraded.  A 5e Warlord that was little more than a direct port of the 4e version would be under-powered & under-versatile compared to those classes.  If 5e is going to expand to support the character concepts and playstyles that the Warlord opened up, it'll need a viable version of the class.</blockquote>

Verification