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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7682958" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Being one of the people who don't find the Battlemaster satisfactory (and consider the Valor Bard cromulent but far too magical), it's easy for me to cut that side some slack, and perhaps more than it deserves. However, I really do feel that you are doing the opposite--seeing that many ask for something more, but allowing all the different potential suggestions for what "more" *means* to blend together until ALL of them are implemented simultaneously--which I freely admit would probably end up broken. Honestly, I feel like that's what happened with magic in 3e. There were all the known complaints, but few to no people actually wanted every single one of those "problems" fixed. WotC did pretty much all of them though, and exacerbated it with later design choices and the unavoidable spell bloat--and as a result, magic was a stupidly big problem past the earliest levels (hence E6).Yes, people certainly want to see something that is "better," in the sense of "better at being a Warlord"--whatever "being a Warlord" is defined as, which fundamentally varies from person to person because (believe it or not) people conceive of the class as not being perfectly defined by its 4th edition mechanics.* I've seen people asking for "more," in the sense of "capable of electing to do, or support, more things than the 4e Warlord could." Note the "electing"--it's NOT "I can do absolutely everything a 4e Warlord could potentially do AND a bunch of other stuff too!" but rather "I can do a few things analogous to what 4e Warlords could do, and can give up doing more things like what 4e Warlords could do, so that I can do a different thing they couldn't do--or I can take an option that's more like the classical concept." Just like how a Shadow Monk gives up Quivering Palm and Wholeness of Body, classic core Monk abilities, to do things no baseline Monk could do before, but that are flavorful, appropriate, balanced, and cool--or the Monk can choose Open Palm and be the 5e equivalent of a "classic" Monk.If we take as mandatory absolutely every suggestion made by anyone who wants to see a 5e translation of a thing--be it a class, a feat, or whatever else--then I DO think it is a foregone conclusion that it's going to be broken. I just think it's unfair to argue that way, to lump absolutely every single suggestion and concept into one enormous amalgam and then declare that, because that amalgam is broken, all of its individual parts must be broken as well. And when structured that way, I see it as literally no different from saying that, because 3e-style Vancian casting was broken, all forms of Vancian-like magic are broken and cannot be used--which, plainly, people who play 5e consider false.*However, since the 3e Marshal was generally seen as a not particularly good class, while the 4e Warlord was--from all the data I've seen--both popular and competent (even broken, with heavy optimization and abusive synergies of items and abilities), you're basically guaranteed to see more people reference the 4e implementation of the concept for mechanical inspiration than the 3e implementation. Similarly, the 4e Dragonborn race is both more balanced and, for fans of dragon-men, possesses better fluff than the 3e "Dragonborn of Bahamut" racial template, so people are probably going to turn to the 4th edition implementation of that concept for inspiration before they turn to the 3e implementation. For contrast, Tieflings have existed since 2nd edition at least, and there are fans of both the "classic" Tiefling with a random tell or two (horns, or a tail, or a smell of brimstone, etc.) and the "Turathi" Tiefling with a uniform physiological and cultural origin, thus you'll see some people drawing on one more than the other for their inspiration.Simply put: We reference the 4e Warlord because it was a good implementation, not because it is the only implementation, nor was it the best. New edition inherently means new implementation, but just as the Monk both carries forward faithful translations of old mechanics while simultaneously providing new and exciting alternatives, so too could a "5e Warlord"--or whatever you want to call it--translate old mechanics into new forms, while providing additional alternative options as well.</blockquote>

Verification