Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7704762" data-attributes="member: 996">The Knight sub-class includes that mechanic, but you could already play a Knight without it - using existing sub-classes & backgrounds, no problem.  People who don't like that 'style' shouldn't object to the added option, because there's no need for them to opt into it as a DM, nor avail themselves of it as a player, even if their DM does include the Knight as an option. OTOH, people who have been missing that style now have a non-casting alternative to the Oath of the Crown Paladin.They gain.  You lose nothing.  Why do you object?  Actual fact.  Every class that appeared in the PH1 in any edition was in the 5e PH, /except/ the Warlord, which was the only such class introduced by 4e.  Now, I could give a litany of similar slights that'd dwarf the mostly-imagined grievances of edition-war h4ters, and I could hold that omission against 5e forever, because, short of a half-edition and PH re-print, it's un-fixable as stated, condemning anything as 'too little too late,' like the h4ters started doing in 2009.But I'm not.  I just want to see the best bits of 4e that 5e hasn't included a worthy take on, yet, added.  Opt-in optional as it must be at this point.  It'll be nice to have more interesting player options.  And, on topic, the Knight's a step in the right direction, better than I'd've thought could be done with just an Archetype.  I hope it makes it into print in good shape at some point.  If not as much as I hope for a good Warlord... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification