Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7885604" data-attributes="member: 15700">Ok, then let’s reset for a minute.Here are some points I’m trying time make that I hope will help<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don’t mind a warlord being in the game, and think there is room for it in the game. My main issue is I don’t know how that could be done in 5e and be unique enough.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Earlier you said that classes like the paladin and sorcerer have attributes similar enough that any arguments against the warlord are flawed. Two things to that. First, it’s my chocolate and rocky road analogy. Just because I like chocolate, and rocky road has chocolate, doesn’t mean I like rocky road.  So someone can approve of the paladin, but still not be a fan of the warlord. Secondly, if the warlord mechanics already exist and are that similar to existing classes/feats as you argued, then what’s the justification for the warlord?  By the nature of introducing a new class, it has to have enough unique features to justify it. Like adding marshmallows to my chocolate. No thanks. So those similarity arguments are flawed</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">it’s been argued that people who don’t want a warlord in the game are haters of the class. As I mentioned, this isn’t true. Some, sure. But most aren’t. Because there are many other reasons that aren’t driven by dislike at all. Like design scope. Or class bloat. Or it just doesn’t feel right. I’d bet most of the people who are against warlords are against several classes, not just the warlord. I.e, it’s not hate against the warlord, it’s preference for only the few core classes.  I’m sure there are aspects of previous editions that you’d not want to see in 5e. Doesn’t mean you dislike or hate them, you just don’t think they fit to your preferences.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">this is just a forum where people express opinions. No one to my knowledge has any special connection or power over the WoTC design team. Therefore, no one is preventing, or trying to prevent you from playing what you want. They aren’t protesting in front of WoTC headquarters. They aren’t petitioning WoTC to remove or eliminate the class. They aren’t forcing DMs Guild to remove 3PP versions. So no one is actively trying to do anything. They are just voicing opinion. There is no gate keeping going on. No one is going to your table and preventing you from playing what you want just like you aren’t going to my game table and forcing me to play a warlord.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">some people want their classes to have a literally precedence, but literary precedence is not required to justify a class. AFAIC, if enough demand is there, that’s justification. It’s a fantasy game, not a history emulation.</li> </ul>So when people start to classify those who don’t want a warlord as haters who just can’t see reason or logic, or accuse them of actively trying to prevent you from gaming how you want, I take issue with that. It isn’t true, and drives the conversation to unrepairable places. No one likes being accused of being a hater or unable to see reason, or to be accused of harming other players when they aren’t.  “It doesn’t feel right, or like it fits, or it’s not in scope” =/= “I hate or dislike that thing”We need to acknowledge there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone wouldn’t want a warlord in the game, and recognize that there are plenty of people and legitimate reasons to have a warlord in the game.</blockquote>

Verification