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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6660606" data-attributes="member: 59506">And this is where everybody keeps putting words into my mouth.  I don't disagree with anything anybody has said.  I have my own opinions, but I don't by default hold my opinions supreme to others.The only thing I disagree with is the lack of specificity.  That continued lack of specificity in favor of general complaining is what led me to my posited opinion concerning some poster's motivations.If you don't agree with my opinion, if you have alternative theories, then I would be interested in hearing them.  I know that a logical, rhetorical rebuttal is not beyond the ability of the prominent posters in this thread.And therein lies a significant piece of the problem.  "Too divergent" is non-specific and objective.  As concerns actually getting what one wants - which in this case is a Warlord that feels, smells, and plays like a Warlord - these kinds of statements are worse than useless.  They're frustrating and counterproductive.No, it's not hard to believe at all.  And I've never said or implied that I don't.  Assuming people don't believe that, or don't understand that, is likely a big barrier to achieving what you want.But, just to be clear, let's make sure those who want a Warlord really know what they want.Do you want a Warlord that feels, smells, and plays like a 4E Warlord?  Or do you want to continue limiting your options or approaches to providing that, by demanding it must be done as a separate class?  That any exploration outside of this is automatically subject to rejection because it simply is not its own class?Are you willing to accept a Warlord that works within the conceits and mechanics of 5E?  Understanding that because they are significantly different systems, an exact port simply is not possible...?If the answer to the first question is yes, then isn't limiting avenues of exploration, even if it means a subclass, counter to getting what you desire?None of these things are exclusive to it being a class.  The premise that this is fact is simply not true.</blockquote>

Verification