Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9141273" data-attributes="member: 7023840">That's because the argument about the warlord isn't really about the warlord. To be clear- I am not saying that the arguments about the warlord aren't in good faith. People really liked the warlord class in 4e. But the repeated invocation of the &quot;warlord&quot; isn't about the warlord itselt, per se, instead it's a synecdoche argument (an argument where a part stands in for the whole). What the &quot;warlord&quot; argument is really about is two things-1. The &quot;warlord&quot; as a stand-in for the desire to have martials, generally, have powers that are equivalent to those of spellcasters. In other words, the argument about the warlord is a shorthand for, &quot;Why can't martials have abilities that let them do all the things that spellcasters do, but, like, martial?&quot;2. The &quot;warlord&quot; as a stand-in for argument that 5e should really be 4e. In other words, because the warlord was one of the signature 4e classes, it's just a rehash of the usual, &quot;Why doesn't 5e play the same way that 4e did?&quot; Note that you can tell that this is the argument, because we don't see the same ... enthusiasm ... for this argument when it comes to psionics, or other issues that 5e also doesn't fully mechanically support. To those who understand the 5e system, it's fairly obvious why 5e doesn't have a full &quot;Warlord&quot; class. In fact, there have been multiple attempts to create a warlord class, including here on EnWorld, and not only have they been a compromise (given 5e's system), but some of the same people who argue for a warlord class spent time torpedoing those efforts. Because it's not about trying to create a viable warlord class; it's about the systemic differences between 4e and 5e. Any &quot;official&quot; 5e warlord would necessarily fall short of what people are saying that they want, because 5e is not 4e. IMO, YMMV, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9141273, member: 7023840"] That's because the argument about the warlord isn't really about the warlord. To be clear- I am not saying that the arguments about the warlord aren't in good faith. People really liked the warlord class in 4e. But the repeated invocation of the "warlord" isn't about the warlord itselt, [I]per se[/I], instead it's a synecdoche argument (an argument where a part stands in for the whole). What the "warlord" argument is really about is two things- 1. The "warlord" as a stand-in for the desire to have martials, generally, have powers that are equivalent to those of spellcasters. In other words, the argument about the warlord is a shorthand for, "Why can't martials have abilities that let them do all the things that spellcasters do, but, like, martial?" 2. The "warlord" as a stand-in for argument that 5e should really be 4e. In other words, because the warlord was one of the signature 4e classes, it's just a rehash of the usual, "Why doesn't 5e play the same way that 4e did?" Note that you can tell that this is the argument, because we don't see the same ... enthusiasm ... for this argument when it comes to psionics, or other issues that 5e also doesn't fully mechanically support. To those who understand the 5e system, it's fairly obvious why 5e doesn't have a full "Warlord" class. In fact, there have been multiple attempts to create a warlord class, including here on EnWorld, and not only have they been a compromise (given 5e's system), but some of the same people who argue for a warlord class spent time torpedoing those efforts. Because it's not about trying to create a viable warlord class; it's about the systemic differences between 4e and 5e. Any "official" 5e warlord would necessarily fall short of what people are saying that they want, because 5e is not 4e. IMO, YMMV, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification