Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7319572">It's equally funny how for some people it has to be exactly one set of abilities, all in exactly one class, with the name &quot;Warlord&quot;.FWIW, I skipped 3e and 4e and returned during Next, both to the game and to D&amp;D forums.&nbsp; I'm one of those people who said &quot;WTF is a Warlord?&quot; I still don't get it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have zero baggage from this 'edition war' thing because I wasn't here for it.&nbsp; The idea of a class whose sole concept is that it gets to give orders, and/or that other characters naturally look up to it...and for which nobody can seem to come up with an accurate, obvious name...seems terrible.&nbsp; The requirement that it be 'non-magical' seems like a contrived demand in a game in which magic is omnipresent.I don't really need to argue my side on this: it's pretty clear the Warlord is simply not going to happen.&nbsp; But if the proponents would be open to acknowledging that maybe some of the &quot;hate&quot; is valid, and isn't just edition war baggage, maybe y'all could rethink what it is you want and why and start asking for something that might have a chance of happening.In all honestly I think the &quot;baggage&quot; is on the other side: the warlord proponents are feeling slighted about some of the things that changed in 5e and the Warlord is the <a href="https://local.theonion.com/marital-frustrations-channeled-through-thermostat-1819568218" target="_blank">rallying cry for all their disappointments</a>.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7319572"] It's equally funny how for some people it has to be exactly one set of abilities, all in exactly one class, with the name "Warlord". FWIW, I skipped 3e and 4e and returned during Next, both to the game and to D&D forums. I'm one of those people who said "WTF is a Warlord?" I [I]still[/I] don't get it. I have zero baggage from this 'edition war' thing because I wasn't here for it. The idea of a class whose sole concept is that it gets to give orders, and/or that other characters naturally look up to it...and for which nobody can seem to come up with an accurate, obvious name...seems terrible. The requirement that it be 'non-magical' seems like a contrived demand in a game in which magic is omnipresent. I don't really need to argue my side on this: it's pretty clear the Warlord is simply not going to happen. But if the proponents would be open to acknowledging that maybe some of the "hate" is valid, and isn't just edition war baggage, maybe y'all could rethink what it is you want and why and start asking for something that might have a chance of happening. In all honestly I think the "baggage" is on the other side: the warlord proponents are feeling slighted about some of the things that changed in 5e and the Warlord is the [URL="https://local.theonion.com/marital-frustrations-channeled-through-thermostat-1819568218"]rallying cry for all their disappointments[/URL]. [/QUOTE]

Verification