Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6718071" data-attributes="member: 996">The Warlord hasn't been excluded yet, it just wasn't in the Standard Game, and hasn't appeared in the Advanced Game, as yet.&nbsp; So there's, at worst, an appearance of exclusion at the moment.&nbsp; 2e, on the heels of said hysteria, removed the 'evil' Assassin class, and changed the names of Demons &amp; Devils, and avoided having quite as racy art-work, among other things.&nbsp; No, not much more evidence.Psionics.&nbsp; The Monk.&nbsp; I'm fine with it.&nbsp; I advocated for the addition of the Psion right here.&nbsp; Because, while I find it a horribly counter-genre sci-fi bit, that's no reason to exclude it from the game when others love it.Well, I certainly wouldn't mind having a class worth playing available in AL, but, /if/ opposition is as strong as you seem to believe, it would be a reasonable compromise to give both fans and detractors of the Warlord some of what they want.Outside of AL, DMs are free to opt in or out of whatever they want, so a Warlord is no problem for anyone who doesn't want one - they just don't use it. I've already given up being able to play a Warlord for over a year, and conceded to never being able to play one in AL.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;In 5e, that class could be the Warlord, and you'd have nothing to complain about.Like I said above, whether you can prove it is or isn't, the appearance of it is there, and that will keep the edition-war toxicity from dissipating.The edition war never needed to happen, fans of earlier editions were more than welcome in 2008.&nbsp; But WotC created this impression that they were showing contempt for them, and *boom.*&nbsp; Here's an exercise:&nbsp; Try continuing your participating in this thread without repeating any arguments that had already been made during the edition war.&nbsp; The Warlord had 339, the fighter over 400, the Ranger and Rogue, not many fewer.&nbsp; You could probably consolidate them down to just a hundred or two, though, between 5e's looser style letting one stand in for several, and the duplication among the separate class lists (not nearly as much sharing as among spells, but not trivial).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6718071, member: 996"] The Warlord hasn't been excluded yet, it just wasn't in the Standard Game, and hasn't appeared in the Advanced Game, as yet. So there's, at worst, an appearance of exclusion at the moment. 2e, on the heels of said hysteria, removed the 'evil' Assassin class, and changed the names of Demons & Devils, and avoided having quite as racy art-work, among other things. No, not much more evidence. Psionics. The Monk. I'm fine with it. I advocated for the addition of the Psion right here. Because, while [i]I[/i] find it a horribly counter-genre sci-fi bit, that's no reason to exclude it from the game when others love it. Well, I certainly wouldn't mind having a class worth playing available in AL, but, /if/ opposition is as strong as you seem to believe, it would be a reasonable compromise to give both fans and detractors of the Warlord some of what they want. Outside of AL, DMs are free to opt in or out of whatever they want, so a Warlord is no problem for anyone who doesn't want one - they just don't use it. I've already given up being able to play a Warlord for over a year, and conceded to never being able to play one in AL. In 5e, that class could be the Warlord, and you'd have nothing to complain about. Like I said above, whether you can prove it is or isn't, the appearance of it is there, and that will keep the edition-war toxicity from dissipating. The edition war never needed to happen, fans of earlier editions were more than welcome in 2008. But WotC created this impression that they were showing contempt for them, and *boom.* Here's an exercise: Try continuing your participating in this thread without repeating any arguments that had already been made during the edition war. The Warlord had 339, the fighter over 400, the Ranger and Rogue, not many fewer. You could probably consolidate them down to just a hundred or two, though, between 5e's looser style letting one stand in for several, and the duplication among the separate class lists (not nearly as much sharing as among spells, but not trivial). [/QUOTE]

Verification