Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6717995" data-attributes="member: 996">No, the Battlemaster does not, with 3 3rd-level-appropariate maneuvers do everything I'd want even a very basic warlord to be able to do.  For instance, it doesn't restore hps.  Just for one instance.  Less of a problem.  Sounds reasonable.Not in genre. It's the media translating a term, in both cases.  It has no bearing on D&D.D&D doesn't cleave to modern or ancient uses of class names when building classes.  The story it was adapted from was 'A Princess of Mars,' do you also conclude Princesses and Mars are evil?The whole name-based attack is nonsense.  If you didn't apply it selectively, we'd be left with nothing but the Fighter.  The edition war had already started.  Excluding a class explicitly to placate a single small faction of the group is very much taking a side.  /And/ it's against the tenets of a game meant to be inclusive, not exclusionary. Yes, it does.  D&D is an RPG, a kind of game that includes lots of option for players.  Denying options is a way of pushing people away from it.  Including options is not - if you don't like an option, you don't opt for it.That's really the bottom line.  Adding the Warlord to the 'Advanced Game' so that people who might want to play it can opt in, while people who object to it need never be exposed to it is perfectly reasonable and in keeping with the professed goals of 5e.  Excluding from the game entirely to validate the preferences of a few is antithetical to those same goals. It would not be in the PH.  Pretty simple, really.  UA > Playtesting > publication in some supplement would be the obvious path.  Also, presumably, it would not be adopted by AL.  This was something that they've been talking about since early in the playtest.  There's a Basic Game (free on-line), a Standard Game (contained in the core books, with no options chosen), and there's the Advanced Game (adding any of those options, plus anything outside of Core).  AL has gone and complicated it by flipping on options like Feats, but there's no reason to think they'd put a specific optional class in AL - unless demand for it was much higher than expected.It's compromise between Warlord in the Standard game & AL vs no Warlord ever.  No one uses ever speck of content every created for the game.  Any new content has that potential, since it may turn out better than expected.   Only 14 of them really emulate fighter exploits, so less.  And, yes, that's a valid argument.  The 5e fighter is a more-than-adequate expression of the 2e fighter, and leaves earlier fighters in the dust.  It is an inadequate expression of the 3.5 and 4e fighter.  There's a lot more that could be done there, either with more archetypes or new classes.  The Illusionist, as we already discussed, is 'only' sub-class, but does far more than the original Illusionist ever did.  No reason to think an expansive martial class couldn't encompass the Warlord and more.While a full class would be a symbol that the edition war really is over and even fans of 4e have a place at the 5e table, a sub-class that's as much better than the original Warlord as the 5e Illusionist is to it's original version wouldn't be anything to complain about.  And that greater class could have other archetypes that handle the 4e fighter and more of what the 3.5 fighter could be used to create.  It'd probably take a list of maneuvers with a pagecount to rival that devoted to spell in the PH, but that list could be leveraged the same way to produce more classes for more refined concepts.  A lot of potential there.  It'd be a shame to let lingering edition war resentment of one class close it all off.</blockquote>

Verification