Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6717895" data-attributes="member: 996">Critical Failure!   er... I mean, 395.  Good luck digging it out of the mass of broken links on the WotC site.  I never really paid the EK any attention, but I believe it was fairly well-received at the time.Saying the Battlemaster is a Warlord is like saying the Arcane Trickster is a Wizard - if it had only 3 wizard spells on it's list and they were all 1st level. Not a PH1 class.I know, it wasn't /technically/ a class or even a sub-class.  You'd think it'd've rated at least a 'Wild Talent' feat or something in that case.  It'd also be reasonable to think it'd get in the line for the Advanced Game behind the Warlord, which was.  Anyway, it's in the pipeline now, so that's a good thing for psionics fans. No, they should put the Warlord in for that reason.A 'Class' was closer to Class Group in 2e or iconic class role in 3e or formal Role in 4e, yes.  Call it a technicality like Psionics.  In any case, the Assassin and Illusionist in 5e are, if anything, much more capable than their 1e versions.  The Illusionist has a much larger spell list, including up to 9th level spells, for instance.Neither was Camber of Culdi a religious fanatic calling for the murder of writers or other acts of terror against other civilians.  But we can still play Clerics.How the media chooses to translate the title of some lunatic has no bearing on what names we can use for classes in D&D.  But, unlike alternatives, like Marshal, doesn't imply a rank in a military hierarchy, nor legitimate authority.  Nor does D&D stick remotely to actual definitions of class names.  The Sorcerer doesn't conjure up spirits for instance.If they're going to present 5e as being for everyone who's ever loved D&D, they need to avoid the appearance of taking sides.  Including it might seem like 'catering to 4vengers' excluding it does seem like 'catering to h4ters.'  Thing is, is 5e supposed to be exclusionary or inclusive?  Including it as an optional class outside the Standard Game would seem a reasonable compromise. OK. The appearance WotC should try to avoid is of WotC, itself taking sides, not of edition warring among folks posting on the forum today (also a bad thing, of course), which they can't control - and have, coincidentally, distanced themselves from by giving up their own forms.  The edition war already happened, the Warlord was a favorite target of h4ters.  No matter how much or little we may raise the level of discourse, now, that's already happened.  And WotC shouldn't go giving a big high-five to the h4ters of 2008-12 by pointedly excluding the Warlord they h4ted so much from 5e forever.  2 or 3, yes, compared to over 300 for the Warlord.So less than <1% of the Warlord was nicked by the Battlemaster.  They could plausibly label it 'warlord free.' But, if you're trying to imply that means the game doesn't need a warlord, then you'd also have to assert that the Paladin removes the need for the Cleric, the Eldritch Knight the need for the wizard, the Arcane Trickster the need for the Bard, and so forth.  Because they all lift more than a few things from other classes.  Really, to that standard, you'd be down to Fighter & Magic-User as the only legitimate classes. At least, here we can agree:  a 5e Warlord would potentially have a lot /more/ to it than the original Warlord.  It's the case with a lot of 5e classes (and even sub-classes), like the a fore-mentioned Illusionist & Assassin, for instance.</blockquote>

Verification