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: 6821537" data-attributes="member: 996">Mearls chose it, FWIW, and it is decidedly symbolic of including fans of all editions.None so prevalent in genre as the heroic archetypes modeled by non-casters like the Fighter, Warlord, Rogue  or Barbarian, but mostly found in genre to some degree (if rarely as heroes).  All have been classes (if we include NPC 'classes' & PrCs), and all could stand with some treatment going forward.PH1 was where Mearls drew the line, and the Sorcerer was only in the 3e PH1, not the 4e PH1.  The Warlock and Warlord only appeared in a PH1 in 4e.   Sure, the Illusionist & Assassin, for instance, had always been sub-classes and were in 5e, too.Obviously there's no formal leader role in 5e, there's classes - Bard, Druid, Cleric, Paladin - that make a lot of support contributions, which map to that formal role, though they go far beyond it, as well.  The Warlord (strategic/tactical/inspiring &c) would naturally make those sorts of contributions, and, to be a viable class in 5e, would have to be more flexible, as well.Not to mention those who were just plain bad at it.  The combination of authority to lead /and/ the skills & talents to do so well often results in a 'great leader' or hero who stands out in history.  There's no PP or ED, but 5e does still go through Tiers, and the idea of higher level characters creating a Legacy that was floated in the playtest needn't be dead.  It might be years before some supplement comes out to expand upon it, but it could happen.</blockquote>

Verification