tyrlaan
Explorer
I'm sorry but if they starting creating classes from level 1 through 10 then I will quit this edition. Most peoples games "that actually took the survey" might suggest this but we have no numbers on how many people didn't take the survey and who's games go all the way to 20. If you are going to compare classes then you compare all levels.
While this makes me chuckle because this sounds a lot like threats Americans like to drop "I'll move to Canada", I'm really curious why this bothers you so much? You know there are perfectly functional games with less than 20 levels, right? 13th Age has 10. Earthdawn started with ONLY EIGHT and later went up to 13. I've yet to play any 13th Age, but I ran the crap out of Earthdawn back in the day and, you know what, it was a damn good time.
But more on point for the thread. I wrote the following earlier...
There's a very lengthy thread on this very forum that goes into this debate. In fact, you were an active participant. So I'm really not sure why you need this new thread. Or, perhaps you have started this thread for a different purpose?
And I notice you haven't really addressed this. Is it fair to assume the point of this thread is that you wanted to pick a fight? Please inform me if I'm mistaken.
People need to understand The 4e Warlord just isn't going to happen in 5e. And that is because the Warlord would twist the action economy and bounded accuracy of 5e around it's pinky finger and break the entire system worse than wishing for more wishes can.
I don't really know why you are so convinced. Really I see three possibilities:
- WotC puts one out and action economy suffers as you predict it would
- WotC puts one out but re-imagines the class to support the constraints and tenets of 5e. In other words, a warlord can still be a warlord without being an exact replica of it's 4e incarnation.
- The OGL finally happens (heh) and someone else puts out a warlord
[MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], this may come as a shock to you, but your sig is awesome.