Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6717627" data-attributes="member: 996">Dragon. Even if you count sub-classes, there's no Warlord and no Psionics in the PH, both appeared in prior edition PH1s.  If you look /only/ at full classes in past PH1's being represented in the 5e PH, you could excuse the lack of Psionics (and the Illusionist & Assassin appearing only as sub-classes, since their only appearance in a PH1 was technically as sub-classes0, but the Warlord is still an issue.  20 months for the PH3.  I doubt we'll see psionics in print in less than 6 months, let alone the Warlord.  And, it's not like waiting on the Monk was creating an appearance of taking sides in the edition war.  Sure, and I'm not saying a promise was broken, just that stuff is missing and some of it still not yet on the horizon.  There was no promise at all that any specific class would be in the 4e PH, and the side-bar on Sources made it abundantly clear that 'missing' classes would be quickly forthcoming (and they were), but the nerdrage from the most vocal segments of the player base was overwhelming and hystrionic.  The call for Psionics, the Warlord, and other missing classes in 5e has been positively polite by comparison.   The Assassin and Illusionist are present as sub-classes, as they were in their only prior PH1 appearance, and the Assassin retains it's "inflammatory" murder-for-hire name.  They are both at least as capable as they were in their original appearance, arguably much more so. There's no need for a 'less inflammatory' name.  Heroes can have edgy career paths.  James Bond is an Assassin, John Carter is a Warlord.  In the context of the hobby, it'd be more inflammatory to exclude the warlord or put it under a different name than to include it, since doing so would create the appearance that WotC has, with an edition meant to bring fans of all prior editions together, instead, taken sides in the edition war.  Leaving the Warlord for the Advanced Game is a concession (and an very large one) to the contrary fear - that including it, and 'forcing' h4ters to 'opt-out' by banning it in their game - would create an appearance of 'excluding' taking the opposite side.  The Battlemaster is the 'complex fighter' option, not an expression of the Warlord.  Saying that the Battlemaster is the Warlord is like saying that the Arcane Trickster is the Wizard - if the Arcane Trickster only had 3 first-level wizard spells in it's entire list. The Battlemaster, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight all cast some wizard spells, and there are feats that nab bits of the Wizard's shtick, but that doesn't mean there's no need for a Wizard class.  The same is true of several other classes and sub-classes.</blockquote>

Verification