There are going to be a lot of people disappointed.

[enrious]

The trouble though is that sometimes including stuff diminishes the things you like.

The Warlord, for instance, by including him, you're are saying the Fighter now has a very limited role, rather than being the leader of men he was portrayed as in D&D/1e (where he eventually got to rule over a castle with followers), he's just a got that never talks and hits things with a sword (or axe).

Beyond that, it reduces the role of role-playing. Players should be leaders, not their class.

Why does a campaign have to include him?

Beyond that, in 3e there was a divide between a soldier and a leader. Same with 4e.

Indeed, the only thing that marked a leader-type fighter in 1e was the automatic followers at what, 9th level. But then, that was true of most classes, as I recall.

 

[FireLance]

The trouble though is that sometimes including stuff diminishes the things you like.

The Warlord, for instance, by including him, you're are saying the Fighter now has a very limited role, rather than being the leader of men he was portrayed as in D&D/1e (where he eventually got to rule over a castle with followers), he's just a got that never talks and hits things with a sword (or axe).

Beyond that, it reduces the role of role-playing. Players should be leaders, not their class.

From: A Primer on 4e Terminology

"The leader role in 4e does not imply that the character leads the party (say, in the sense that Gandalf led the Fellowship of the Rings). It means a character whose abilities are mostly centred around helping his fellow party members to recover from injuries and conditions, and to perform better in combat and non-combat challenges. To take a Dragonlance example, Goldmoon the cleric of Mishakal, had a leader role (healing), even though Tanis Half-Elven was considered the party leader."

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

A "core" is a compromise. A compromise means all sides are equally unhappy.

Well, this bit is only true in a perfect compromise. Most often, you will find an imperfect compromise where one side is more unhappy than another. In the case of this attempt to mold the multiple sides into one polyhedron I think they will be satisfied if it doesn't roll one side up every time.

Every edition of the game has had changes I really liked, and lost things I missed.

My one fear of the modular approach is that instead of Edition Wars, we will end up with Module Battles fought at the game table level as players argue about which sets of rules to include or not.

 

[enrious]

My one fear of the modular approach is that instead of Edition Wars, we will end up with Module Battles fought at the game table level as players argue about which sets of rules to include or not.

A DM with a straight-razor solves this problem.