Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Warlord [New Class]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6706276" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>*sigh* I should've known. Ok. Let's to it, then...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. It's time for people to admit, even the 3e material, has only been around for 15 years. Anything pre-3e has 25-30...gods, all the way to the beginning is over 40 years. The point is, all the whining crying and gnashing of teeth about the 3e stuff and 4e stuff is not going to miraculously make those classes 30-40 years old. Not yet. </p><p></p><p>And don't get me started on the creation/existence of the sorcerer as a class...We'll be here the rest of our lives.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The logician is frustrated because of people's outright refusal to acknowledge that no matter what you do or how much you like something, you are not going to change reality. You are not going to somehow make a 3e version or 4e creation "as important" as something that has 2 decades of legacy ON TOP OF whatever else is good about the class. The logic is frustrated because saying "But Paladin gets to be it's own class" <strong><em>does not equal</em></strong> "So Warlord deserves to be its own class." That is not logical. They are not the same. They do not carry the same weight simply because "I like this thing also or better." That's the reality and yet it is shooed away in a way that defies logic and reason. Thus, someone looking for logic...is frustrated by the repeated ignorance of the facts of history and reality as some kind of defense or justification for their argument. It doesn't work. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>But I didn't say anything like that. I said, people who say "Why do we have a Paladin then" as a defense for the "need" of a Warlord KNOW THE ANSWER to that question and that answer is legacy. The paladin will ALWAYS have more legacy than the Warlord...by 35ish years. You can not change that. I can not change that. No matter how much anyone LOVES the warlord (or the system that spawned it, since that seems to be continually brought up as a distraction to what is actually said) the warlord will never have the heritage in the game that the Paladin/Ranger/Bard have. Everyone knows that. To propose and proceed as if realityis not sois illogical, at <em>best</em>. To equate them is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No sir. That logic is irrefutable. Facts are not a matter of opinion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I said NOTHING of the kind. I am not saying/did not say D&D can't have warlord characters in it (I would say that about sorcerers, but again a digression none of us want to journey down...trust me).</p><p></p><p>I said a warlord is not the same as the paladins and rangers because they have more legacy.Yes, they will ALWAYS have more legacy. That is the fact. That is reality. People don't like that. I get it. But there's nothing I nor any one of us under the sun can do about that [without developing reliable time travel]. Saying that is not discounting any other differences or saying they don't or shouldn't exist. Yet again the rousing lack of reading comprehension and [possibly deliberate?] misinterpretation/reading between non-existent lines rears its five colored dragon heads.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd say cuz this one actually has some flavorful meat on its bones, definitely more mytho-historic legs for a fantasy archetype, and interesting character possibilities than a sorcerer.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because WotC likes to pat themselves on the back and force what they've "added to the game since they took it over" down our throats...and allegedly the fanbase liked them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ya got me here. I have no friggin clue. Legacy [of what WotC has "added" to the game] there too, I suppose. They have nothing else going for them than they're older than some other arcane-based classes we coudl have used instead (an arcane-half-caster Swordmage type to complete the triad of half-casters comes to mind).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, got me. I have thought an Acrobat rogue subclass is a no brainer [or "archetype", rather, since 3e+ hasn't considered any class a "subclass" of any other group until now].</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, don't know. It totally/always should have been in my opinion...I didn't design the game. They made a whole lot of mistakes as far as I'm concerned.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then WTF is this whole response for/about other than to be argumentative or baiting?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>and...again...I said NO WHERE that "5e can't have nice [new] things."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The legacy is not that they've been "the same" through the whole game. Goddess knows, none of the classes have been. But that it has been in the game longer. See above. Yes. It always will have more legacy. That is not up for debate. It is indisputable. A paladin will always be 35 years older a class in the game called D&D than a warlord. Always. Whether or not is SHOULD have been or not or whether it should be, now, a fighter subclass or not are completely DIFFERENT issues/conversations to be had.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm....really not sure what you're trying to say here or how it refutes what I posted. If 5e hadn't included 3e-originating stuff...it's not enough for demanding people...? I just am not following this... and what "gate-keeping the Traditional D&D Way" is supposed to mean or apply to what I said/am trying to get across.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6706276, member: 92511"] *sigh* I should've known. Ok. Let's to it, then... No. It's time for people to admit, even the 3e material, has only been around for 15 years. Anything pre-3e has 25-30...gods, all the way to the beginning is over 40 years. The point is, all the whining crying and gnashing of teeth about the 3e stuff and 4e stuff is not going to miraculously make those classes 30-40 years old. Not yet. And don't get me started on the creation/existence of the sorcerer as a class...We'll be here the rest of our lives. The logician is frustrated because of people's outright refusal to acknowledge that no matter what you do or how much you like something, you are not going to change reality. You are not going to somehow make a 3e version or 4e creation "as important" as something that has 2 decades of legacy ON TOP OF whatever else is good about the class. The logic is frustrated because saying "But Paladin gets to be it's own class" [B][I]does not equal[/I][/B] "So Warlord deserves to be its own class." That is not logical. They are not the same. They do not carry the same weight simply because "I like this thing also or better." That's the reality and yet it is shooed away in a way that defies logic and reason. Thus, someone looking for logic...is frustrated by the repeated ignorance of the facts of history and reality as some kind of defense or justification for their argument. It doesn't work. But I didn't say anything like that. I said, people who say "Why do we have a Paladin then" as a defense for the "need" of a Warlord KNOW THE ANSWER to that question and that answer is legacy. The paladin will ALWAYS have more legacy than the Warlord...by 35ish years. You can not change that. I can not change that. No matter how much anyone LOVES the warlord (or the system that spawned it, since that seems to be continually brought up as a distraction to what is actually said) the warlord will never have the heritage in the game that the Paladin/Ranger/Bard have. Everyone knows that. To propose and proceed as if reality[B][/B]is not sois illogical, at [I]best[/I]. To equate them is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY. No sir. That logic is irrefutable. Facts are not a matter of opinion. I said NOTHING of the kind. I am not saying/did not say D&D can't have warlord characters in it (I would say that about sorcerers, but again a digression none of us want to journey down...trust me). I said a warlord is not the same as the paladins and rangers because they have more legacy.Yes, they will ALWAYS have more legacy. That is the fact. That is reality. People don't like that. I get it. But there's nothing I nor any one of us under the sun can do about that [without developing reliable time travel]. Saying that is not discounting any other differences or saying they don't or shouldn't exist. Yet again the rousing lack of reading comprehension and [possibly deliberate?] misinterpretation/reading between non-existent lines rears its five colored dragon heads. I'd say cuz this one actually has some flavorful meat on its bones, definitely more mytho-historic legs for a fantasy archetype, and interesting character possibilities than a sorcerer. Because WotC likes to pat themselves on the back and force what they've "added to the game since they took it over" down our throats...and allegedly the fanbase liked them. Ya got me here. I have no friggin clue. Legacy [of what WotC has "added" to the game] there too, I suppose. They have nothing else going for them than they're older than some other arcane-based classes we coudl have used instead (an arcane-half-caster Swordmage type to complete the triad of half-casters comes to mind). Again, got me. I have thought an Acrobat rogue subclass is a no brainer [or "archetype", rather, since 3e+ hasn't considered any class a "subclass" of any other group until now]. Again, don't know. It totally/always should have been in my opinion...I didn't design the game. They made a whole lot of mistakes as far as I'm concerned. Then WTF is this whole response for/about other than to be argumentative or baiting? and...again...I said NO WHERE that "5e can't have nice [new] things." The legacy is not that they've been "the same" through the whole game. Goddess knows, none of the classes have been. But that it has been in the game longer. See above. Yes. It always will have more legacy. That is not up for debate. It is indisputable. A paladin will always be 35 years older a class in the game called D&D than a warlord. Always. Whether or not is SHOULD have been or not or whether it should be, now, a fighter subclass or not are completely DIFFERENT issues/conversations to be had. I'm....really not sure what you're trying to say here or how it refutes what I posted. If 5e hadn't included 3e-originating stuff...it's not enough for demanding people...? I just am not following this... and what "gate-keeping the Traditional D&D Way" is supposed to mean or apply to what I said/am trying to get across. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Warlord [New Class]
Top