Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6728059" data-attributes="member: 996">You misconstrued what I said.  The other classes that filled the healer/support 'leader' role in 4e have greatly expanded abilities, both in terms of daily resources and in terms of flexibility. The range of things the class can do is still similar, but the number of times, relative power, and choice of which of those things a PC does on a give day or round is greatly expanded.   If the Warlord were just ported over with the very limited AEDU resource mix, and the narrow confines of formal role, it would be under-powered and under-flexible, and a non-viable choice.   I think it's both too soon, and, even at this point, not entirely fair, to say that 5e has completely failed to enable the same styles of play that 4e did.  It has done a better job capturing classic playstyles (a wonderful job!), and, with optional rules and modules, manages 3e styles, as well, if some perhaps, a trifle muted, while having much less support for styles enabled by 4e.  But, things like overnight healing and the marking module do hint at a willingness to eventually support more of the styles of play that 4e did so well.It's also a very weighty accusation, as 5e was conceived with the idea of supporting more styles than past editions, not fewer.  Failure to cover styles that any past edition did would be a failure to meet it's most basic, existential goal.  Considering what the AD&D -> 3.0 conversion documents were like, I'm not holding out much hope.  The best way to convert among games or editions is generally just to start with the same character concept, and see what you can come up with.</blockquote>

Verification