Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7877075" data-attributes="member: 15700">Over the past 5 years, it seems to me:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">there has only been one new class since inception, the Artificer, and that was recent.&nbsp; So WotC seem very reluctant to introduce new classes (this also aligns with Jeremy's many statements on the topic of introducing new mechanics).&nbsp; And on the list of &quot;missing&quot; classes (artificer, psion, warlord, shaman, etc), it seems warlord is down on the list.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">we know WotC is not going to introduce new mechanics unless they have to.&nbsp; It goes directly against design philosophy and scope.&nbsp; Any new class would have to be setting specific</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">as mentioned, no one quite agrees with what a warlord should look like in 5e*.&nbsp; Being able to port over a 4e version just isn't going to work.&nbsp; In those various threads in the past, it looks like to do so, you've got the abilities of two full classes into one class, and that brings major balance issues</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">the number of people who really want it seem to be pretty few.&nbsp; I know people will disagree with that, but where is the data that shows a significant portion of the fan base really wants one (that can't be replicated via a combination of class/subclass/feats that already exist)?&nbsp; It's only the same half dozen very vocal people over the past few years on this forum at least.&nbsp; In a recent poll of what the next new class should be, the psion ran away with it.&nbsp; The warlord got very few votes.&nbsp; So in order to change my perspective on that, I need the data.</li>
</ul>So all that being said, while I absolutely think there is room for a warlord class, I don't see how it could be done to be both unique, and satisfy the fans of the warlord.&nbsp; And I don't think it's high on WotC's design team knowing that they are adverse to creating new classes unless that class is directly tied to a particular setting, essentially making the new class mandatory, like the artificer.* I'm gonna be honest.&nbsp; As a game designer myself, I wouldn't want to touch the warlord with a ten foot pole if I was working for WotC.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because I've seen the vitriol and angst among fans just in the threads of how it should look, and I just know that no matter what I did, it would upset people and not be good enough.&nbsp; And I don't want that drama.&nbsp; No thanks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7877075, member: 15700"] Over the past 5 years, it seems to me: [LIST] [*]there has only been one new class since inception, the Artificer, and that was recent. So WotC seem very reluctant to introduce new classes (this also aligns with Jeremy's many statements on the topic of introducing new mechanics). And on the list of "missing" classes (artificer, psion, warlord, shaman, etc), it seems warlord is down on the list. [*]we know WotC is not going to introduce new mechanics unless they have to. It goes directly against design philosophy and scope. Any new class would have to be setting specific [*]as mentioned, no one quite agrees with what a warlord should look like in 5e*. Being able to port over a 4e version just isn't going to work. In those various threads in the past, it looks like to do so, you've got the abilities of two full classes into one class, and that brings major balance issues [*]the number of people who really want it seem to be pretty few. I know people will disagree with that, but where is the data that shows a significant portion of the fan base really wants one (that can't be replicated via a combination of class/subclass/feats that already exist)? It's only the same half dozen very vocal people over the past few years on this forum at least. In a recent poll of what the next new class should be, the psion ran away with it. The warlord got very few votes. So in order to change my perspective on that, I need the data. [/LIST] So all that being said, while I absolutely think there is room for a warlord class, I don't see how it could be done to be both unique, and satisfy the fans of the warlord. And I don't think it's high on WotC's design team knowing that they are adverse to creating new classes unless that class is directly tied to a particular setting, essentially making the new class mandatory, like the artificer. * I'm gonna be honest. As a game designer myself, I wouldn't want to touch the warlord with a ten foot pole if I was working for WotC. Why? Because I've seen the vitriol and angst among fans just in the threads of how it should look, and I just [I]know [/I]that no matter what I did, it would upset people and not be good enough. And I don't want that drama. No thanks. [/QUOTE]

Verification