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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6677006" data-attributes="member: 996">5e classes strongly resemble their earlier counterparts. The Wizard is still Vancian because he's always been Vancian (even in 4e), the Sorcerer is still Draconic because that background's been their since it's inception, and on down the line.  No 5e class has deviated meaningfully from it's original incarnation, nor quite entirely ignored the contributions of each past edition where it's made an appearance.  In the case of the Warlord, that past is the 4e Warlord, because there are no others.  A 5e Warlord that failed to live up to that legacy would represent a major break from 5e design philosophy, as well as disappointing warlord fans.Of course you are qualified to comment on 5e - we've all had a year to mull it over - and I never said you weren't.  But all you seem to know about the 4e Warlord is what you've heard, possibly 2ndd-hand, if you really weren't around for it under some other handle, from the edition war.  Either educate yourself more thoroughly than glancing through one class feature looking for a 'gotchya' to base a personal attack on, or trust those of us who do know & love the class to articulate what's needed to capture it's legacy.If you do care to focus on modeling the Warlord concept in 5e, rather than on rejecting, denying, and blocking it, you could even make useful contributions to a discussion.  But you really have to drop the edition war BS.I'm not going to respond further to you baseless personal attacks, or obvious edition warring, (though I will re-post refutations as I have time to dig them up). Instead, I'll just cross them out and respond to anything else relevant you have to say.Just from this thread:Al Mahdi was very patient in carefully and repeatedly refuting the idea that there's anything wrong with 'martial healing' and that the edition-war 'shouting wounds closed' sound byte you latched onto is in no way valid:[sblock][/sblock] Well, nothing else, this post.  Better luck next time. Keep trying, third time's the charm....</blockquote>

Verification