Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6718040" data-attributes="member: 37579">That doesn't mean D&D should choose to name their character classes after people who give prepubescent children addictive drugs and then send them off to fight with automatic weapons. This assumes that the warlord was excluded "placate a single small faction of the group" and not for other reasons. There is no evidence whatsoever that the editon war played any part in the decision not to make the warlord its own class any more than the D&D hysteria of the '80s was to blame for the assassin not being its own class in 5e.What's an option you hate? Gunslinger? Cavalier? How would you feel if WotC spent six months making that instead of the warlord? Instead of content you want to use. That's the problem. Time spent making content for 25% of the fans means content that 75% of the fan cannot use. It's inefficient at best. And when said option is a class, the time spent on that class is coming at the expense of dozens of subclasses.That's your personal definition and does not seem to be reflected at all in how the game is being presented or sold. Advanced doesn't really exist beyond using the DMG and customizing via rules modules. "Standard" and "Advanced" seemed to be internal design terms limited to Legends & Lore with no impact beyond that. It seems highly unlikely WotC is going to invest the time and resources it takes to make a class only to exclude it from the Adventurer's League. The only content banned from the AL is DMG options and the aarakokra. None of which likely involved intensive playtesting over months. It's very likely that most of the content from the SCAG will also be open for AL play, at least for a season or two. Because they want people to buy their books. Content that people are not encouraged to buy and play is a poor business decision and inevitably leads to someone showing up at an AL game with a character they cannot play. And, really, other than the AL - which has no impact on the majority of player's - there's no real way to distinguish "Standard" content from "Advanced" as both are incorporated into the same rulebook. It's funny how in your compromise you still get exactly what you want without giving up anything. Didn't LFR? And wasn't that the intent of the "everything is core" design of 4e?I remember hearing about a heck of a lot of "kitchen sink" games in 4e and many currently for Pathfinder. My own game is pretty content inclusive with even some 3PP allowed. I've only banned a single book and class. The edition war is over. 4e fans are more than welcome. I'll play with anyone. And the DM of my 5e game is a HUGE 4e fan who still partly wants to play that edition. And I've likely spent 2x as much on 4e as on 5e. Heck, I likely spent more on DDI alone than 5e. It's only not over for people who don't want to let it go. But the fight's over. It sucked. No one one. It was our Nam. We all need to let it go.I can't even begin to think of enough maneuvers to fill five pages, let alone 20+.Heck, I tried to think of more maneuvers for my homebrew commander subclass and could only think of a half dozen. A page count to rival spells? That's unneeded bloat right there. But it's not lingering edition war resentment. That's a fallacious argument. It's the bastard child of a false dilema and no true scotsman, by arguing that:a) you can either be a fan of the warlord or hate 4eandb) no real 4e fan would hate the warlord It's perfectly reasonable to be just fine with 4e but hate the warlord. Or hate the warlord but be generally neutral or even ignorant of 4e. The edition war is completely, 100% irrelevant to the current discussion. Any problems people have with the warlord they have with the warlord. In the same way people can hate the 3e cleric or druid (CoDzilla!!!) while still liking the edition itself.</blockquote>

Verification