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: 7047804" data-attributes="member: 996">That was part of half of it, though I didn't mean to imply "chosen," as you put it.  There's two 'controversies' and the Warlord happens to be at a place where they intersect.D&D was briefly but brutally afflicted with the edition war, and has been perennially afflicted with a martial|magic double-standard. The rejection of 4e by a sub-set of fans already well-served by an open-source version of the game, and the entrenched expectation that casters should be held to much looser and more forgiving standards* of balance & realism than non-supernatural alternatives, are the sources of the controversy you're alluding to.The Warlord is a convenient focus for them, since it's a martial class that was very nearly balanced with casters, and was introduced by 4e, challenging one side, I guess you could say the 'establishment' side, of both controversies.Divorced of both issues - for instance, if appearing in a game not technically D&D, and/or in a form that wouldn't in any way challenge the dominance of magic - it would not be caught up in much, if any, controversy.   If were being fair 'bloat' was the D&D marketing strategy for a good 20 years.  5e's thankfully going at a slower pace, and it's crystal clear that the basic and standard versions of the game are all but set in stone.   Artificer, Psion, Binder, Beguiler, Shaman, and Warden have all gotten some air time.  But, yes the Warlord's the most significant, "missing' class not yet in the pipeline.  There's more demand for it, and it could do the most to expand the range of supported play & campaign styles, so, of course the calls for it are persistent.</blockquote>

Verification