Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9343609" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Adding a Warlord would be a helpful way to bring back some of the playstyle offered by 4e. Wasn't that one of the specific things 5e's designers told us it was about? Bringing together fans of every edition. 4e was included in that list. Mearls himself has even openly spoken about how he struggles to understand why 4e fans would feel excluded from it.If the addition of literally one class, pushing the boundaries just a little bit and otherwise striving to stay within the structures of 5e, actually did manage to offer that olive branch and bring in a little bit of the magic that made 4e fans love it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be fulfilling the mission statement and ethos behind 5e?If 5e's design as it is genuinely doesn't offer anything like that playstyle, isn't that a reason to pursue adding that playstyle, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof, rather than one to just throw up our hands and say it's impossible?Because I fully agree with you. 5e is, for good and for ill, a better-made version of everything 3e tried to be. And one of the things 3e tried to be was &quot;ruthlessly optimize yourself, your own contributions, above all else. You are not a team. You are 4-6 individuals who happen to adventure in the same place at the same time.&quot;But I don't think it is exclusively that. There are things which buck that trend. Wolf Totem Barbarian, for example, is one that I have personal and recent experience with. If there can be little touches like that, which buck the trend of ruthless personal optimization, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable or even all that unusual to suggest that a whole class, designed toward that end, could actually manifest a goodly chunk of that play-feel again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9343609, member: 6790260"] Adding a Warlord would be a helpful way to bring back some of the playstyle offered by 4e. Wasn't that one of the specific things 5e's designers told us it was about? Bringing together fans of every edition. 4e was included in that list. Mearls himself has even openly spoken about how he struggles to understand why 4e fans would feel excluded from it. If the addition of literally [I]one[/I] class, pushing the boundaries just a little bit and otherwise striving to stay within the structures of 5e, actually did manage to offer that olive branch and bring in a little bit of the magic that made 4e fans love it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be fulfilling the mission statement and ethos behind 5e? If 5e's design as it is genuinely doesn't offer anything like that playstyle, isn't that a reason to [I]pursue adding that playstyle[/I], or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof, rather than one to just throw up our hands and say it's impossible? Because I fully agree with you. 5e is, for good and for ill, a better-made version of everything 3e tried to be. And one of the things 3e tried to be was "ruthlessly optimize yourself, your own contributions, above all else. You are not a team. You are 4-6 individuals who happen to adventure in the same place at the same time." But I don't think it is [I]exclusively[/I] that. There are things which buck that trend. Wolf Totem Barbarian, for example, is one that I have personal and recent experience with. If there can be little touches like that, which buck the trend of ruthless personal optimization, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable or even all that unusual to suggest that a whole class, designed toward that end, could actually manifest a goodly chunk of that play-feel again. [/QUOTE]

Verification