Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6657036" data-attributes="member: 15700">It's about how the BM falls short for 4e expectations.  You can't compare 4e to 5e.  We saw all this in the other thread I linked to earlier.  What people wanted was basically a class that* fought as effective as a fighter* had all the maneuvers and more of a BM* had the healing and protec ability of a clericSo when you've got what comes down to all the stuff two or three subclasses have in one class, you don't have to do the math to know it's broken.  You've got to give up something.  It would be like saying I want a fighter class that does everything the BM does AND what the assassin sublcass for the rogue does, but without needing to multiclass.  So if you don't to give any of that up and want a class exactly like the 4e warlord?  Stick with 4e.The bottom line is that Mearls never promised they would put the warlord in 5e.  Speaking of links GMfPG, do you have one where he says that?  They did say the would pull inspiration from every edition, and they did it.  Just because they didn't do it close enough to your preferences doesn't mean they didn't do it.  They didn't put in Save or Die, so does that mean I can say they ignored all us AD&D players, and they didn't pull anything from 1e?  Of course it doesn't.</blockquote>