Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6145190" data-attributes="member: 17106">I get what you're saying, but I think you have it backwards. The claim was "Within the context of D&D, that is pretty easily achieved, as 4e has shown". I'm not the one who brought it up. To make that point convincing, someone would have to do similar sourcing to show that it worked. Saying "4e did it, ergo it works" is a pretty ludicrous statement.This is true. The warlord is a nexus point of several controversial and radical shifts in direction, and it also is a somewhat bizarre island in the world of rpgs; there's really no precedent for it in fiction or in other games (i.e. no built-in fanbase). Who would miss it if was gone? A few posters in this thread, but is there anyone else? But I don't claim to know exactly how unpopular it is, merely that it is controversial, and that the claim that it worked (as above) or is essential (as in the OP) is thus dubious and requires some support.By that logic, we need THAC0 and weapon vs armor tables and resurrection chances and every other mechanical element that has existed in D&D needs to be included. Rather than saying that everything needs to be in for it to be "inclusive" I think it's more appropriate to look at 5e as a "greatest hits" album. That is, you'd look at every edition and take the things that worked the best. I think that approach would exclude the warlord.</blockquote>