Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6717858" data-attributes="member: 37579">Can you be more specific? There's a lot of Dragon out there and searching the WotC website is not exactly easy.The warlord is there, it's just folded into the battlemaster. Far more than the 3e knight. Psionics in 1e wasn't a class. It was just a group of optional powers you could give to existing classes. And if you include the Unearthed Arcana articles, 5e produced a psionic class faster than any other edition (excluding 3.5e which just updated & reprinted).So…. they should put a class into the game they're not excited about and many people don't want just so they don't *appear* to be taking a side on a fan-centric war they're not involved in?Realistically speaking, all the 5e staff worked on 4e. And many were involved in its creation. Mearls was brought into WotC to help work on 4e. He just wasn't the lead, but as his first official work at WotC, so much of it probably has a huge soft spot in his heart."Subclass" meant something very different in 1e. It was more narrative. Pretty much for the attack and saving throw tables IIRC. They received full write-ups in the PHB. John Carter wasn't a real person who existed in the present day committing atrocities against civilians and children. Tell people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Burma, Libya, and Congo that "warlords" are just "edgy" and capable of being heroes. You might as well call a class a "eugenicist". Or use the term "dictator" or "tyrant" because of the respective original Roman and Green meanings of the terms rather than the current usage. Warlord is a hugely problematic name. It's "barbarian" but somehow worse and not grandfathered into acceptability.  Aside from the ugly modern implications, by definition a warlord has command over both a military and civilian populace. It implies authority. Like "president" or "general". That's not a great term for an independent adventurer who might be unaligned with any nation and only bosses around a group of two to five dudes. I don't need WotC to prove they're not taking a side on the edition wars. They don't owe me anything. I don't need them to bring back Prestige Classes or the dragon shaman to prove their allegiance to 3e fans. Really, if anything, releasing a class for those reasons would feel more like pandering. It would seem like they're actually paying attention to edition warriors (the f4ns or 4vengers or whatever the eff they're called) calling for the warlord. Or ignoring the people who don't want said class. That would only cause more tension.It's almost better to just ignore the whole drama.Plus, I reject the whole "opposing the warlord equals edition warring" argument. I can separate my feelings and opinions for the warlord from my feelings and opinions of 4th Edition as a whole. Any overlap comes from discussing 4e and the warlord at the same time. Which, during 4e, happened all the time. But now, it's very possible to discuss the warlord as a concept all its own without edition warring. Just like it's possible to discuss the sorcerer without criticising 3e or the assassin without hating on 1e.Just because you don't like the implementation of a class does not mean it ceases to be the intended presentation of that class. I'm not entirely sold on the 5e bard. The valour bard isn't much of a bard. The bard is a dabbler not a full caster. And the lore bard can do some interesting things with its free choice of spells, but - by its design - they're not bardic choices but options other classes. And bardic inspiration is a funky overly dissociative way of handling the bard's morale boost, and until it recharges on a short rest it's really not worthwhile. But I'm not going to say that there's no bard in the PHB.The battlemaster has several warlord-esque maneuvers. It fills the mechanical role. There's also the healer feat and the (shudder) valor bard. It killed the warlord and took its stuff. Is there room for a manuever master class that doubles down on the battlemaster's schtick like the wizard to the EK? Sure. That might be cool. Other posters sold me on that class concept earlier and I'm not opposed to it. The warlord could totally work within the framework of that class. But that might not necessarily *be* the warlord either. That kind of class would be able to do all kinds of things, in the same way that the wizard can do so very much more than the EK. Taking that broad class and focusing on a single option of the battlemaster would be taking the class in the opposite direction in terms of flavour and flexibility.</blockquote>

Verification