D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)

[cbwjm]

I don't think WotC is against the warlord concept, I just think they would prefer not to make a warlord class. Barbarian, bard, fighter, and rogue have subclasses that provide a flavour of warlord abilities (disregarding any spells that do the same), that is enhancing or helping allies. I personally think this is the better way of representing a warlord type giving players multiple paths for a leader/support type character.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[SkidAce]

Heck, in my game right now, I have a sorcerer that casts uses Intelligence because the player hates being a Charismatic character and the party "face". It keeps him happy and doesn't unbalance things.

Now thats what I'm talking about...!

 

[Hussar]

Couple of quick thoughts.

Number 1 - spells don't take 6 seconds to cast. They take one action (unless otherwise stated). Meaning it takes no longer to cast a spell than swing a sword. So, right off the bat, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example of the warlord allowing 12 seconds of actions in 6 seconds is directly countered by the actual rules.

Number 2 - I had never really considered allowing Warlords to allow casters to cast two spells. I honestly think it's probably too powerful. There's no way you could allow that many castings and keep game balance. And, since warlords never had this ability, I'm not sure why it's a problem.

Number 3 - for myself, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I'm not dismissing your criticisms, I just find them so illogical. You don't have an issue with the fact that every single Warlord ability is already in the game, but, you vehemently oppose a warlord class because it doesn't fit with your sensibilities. I mean, what would you do if I insisted that my bard was non-magical? That I sit down and say that my bard is 100% non-magical, and that my inspiration dice are just that - inspiration that makes your character so happy that that character does a better job.

Would that be acceptable?

Number 4 - EVERY single poll that we've done on this shows warlords to be in the top three most wanted class. Every time. Well, every time that they have included warlords on the list. It's pretty frustrating to see WotC talk about class popularity of former edition classes and then leave warlords off the poll. But, at the end of the day, warlords top (or show up near the top) of every single poll. It's frustrating to see this year after year and still get absolutely no movement on the issue, mostly because the discussion gets so poisoned and toxic by edition warring rhetoric, even years after the fact.

IOW, we're not going to get a warlord because edition warring has so poisoned the well that WotC simply refuses to come anywhere near an attempt.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Couple of quick thoughts.

Number 1 - spells don't take 6 seconds to cast. They take one action (unless otherwise stated). Meaning it takes no longer to cast a spell than swing a sword. So, right off the bat, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example of the warlord allowing 12 seconds of actions in 6 seconds is directly countered by the actual rules.

Agreed. I've backed away from this...illustration...a couple of times already.

Number 2 - I had never really considered allowing Warlords to allow casters to cast two spells. I honestly think it's probably too powerful. There's no way you could allow that many castings and keep game balance. And, since warlords never had this ability, I'm not sure why it's a problem.

Number 3 - for myself, [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I'm not dismissing your criticisms, I just find them so illogical. You don't have an issue with the fact that every single Warlord ability is already in the game, but, you vehemently oppose a warlord class because it doesn't fit with your sensibilities.

Oh boy. I JUST re-explained this...again...to Aldarc.

I don't love those other abilities you are talking about. If we ever had threads discussing them I would probably chime in. But having them dispersed makes them less offensive. The classes they are in have concepts much larger than those abilities.

It's the idea of concentrating them all in one class that really bugs me.

To improve on the already wonderful analogy I gave Aldarc: a few things I dislike are rapiers, dual-wielding, Dexadins, and Drow as player characters. But somehow I struggle through each day anyway. If we were discussing a new Paladin sub-class that was restricted to Drow and had abilities designed around dual-wielding rapiers I would be pretty vocally opposed.

I mean, what would you do if I insisted that my bard was non-magical? That I sit down and say that my bard is 100% non-magical, and that my inspiration dice are just that - inspiration that makes your character so happy that that character does a better job.

Would that be acceptable?

Far more so. It might get tiring whenever you keep insisting that your Bard is non-magical (because your insistence on "non-magical" I find just as illogical as you find my stance on Warlords) but it would be far, far better than a whole class designed around non-magical inspiration. Fluff matters to me.

[quoteNumber 4 - EVERY single poll that we've done on this shows warlords to be in the top three most wanted class. Every time. Well, every time that they have included warlords on the list. It's pretty frustrating to see WotC talk about class popularity of former edition classes and then leave warlords off the poll. But, at the end of the day, warlords top (or show up near the top) of every single poll. It's frustrating to see this year after year and still get absolutely no movement on the issue, mostly because the discussion gets so poisoned and toxic by edition warring rhetoric, even years after the fact.[/quote]

Every poll done on Enworld? You...you do realize what a skewed sample set that is, in so many ways. I mean, even ignoring the probable concentration of the kind of people who miss 3.5e and 4e, relative to the (new, much larger) D&D population as a whole, there's also the reality that probably everybody who could care less about Warlords sees yet another class poll and rolls their eyes, ignoring it like the plague because they know it's going to be another debate about Warlords. Meanwhile the Warlord proponents think, "Yes! Another opportunity to blind people with the shining Light of Truth! Count me in!" (Or something to that effect). I would have skipped this poll except the "None...D&D is already perfect in every way" was so irksome and biased that I had to jump in.

IOW, we're not going to get a warlord because edition warring has so poisoned the well that WotC simply refuses to come anywhere near an attempt.

The only reason I have these debates about Warlords is in the hope of getting some of you to realize that there's a simple, non-conspiracy-theory explanation: there's an aspect of the Warlord concept that is different from every other class, and some people think we shouldn't go there.

I may find myself unable to resist coming back in, but with that I'm going to try my best to exit this particular debate. Happy gaming.

 

[Jester David]

Number 4 - EVERY single poll that we've done on this shows warlords to be in the top three most wanted class. Every time. Well, every time that they have included warlords on the list. It's pretty frustrating to see WotC talk about class popularity of former edition classes and then leave warlords off the poll. But, at the end of the day, warlords top (or show up near the top) of every single poll. It's frustrating to see this year after year and still get absolutely no movement on the issue, mostly because the discussion gets so poisoned and toxic by edition warring rhetoric, even years after the fact.

A poll of the <2000 people who regularly frequent the ENWorld forum, of which 273 people voted on the polls, of which a third wanted the warlord.
Of the 9,000,000 people who play D&D. We are not representative of the audience.
Even if you count the total 200,000 people membership list of ENWorld—of which only 1% post regularly... or at all— that's still only 2% of the people who play the game. We are not representative of the player base.

 

[mellored]

Haste and Dissonant Whispers are daily resources, not at will. Whispers is unreliable and haste has a very big drawback.In both cases a daily resource and limited. I'm not opposed to extra attacks just at will. A potential warlord could have dice like the BM fighter but perhaps get more of them (up to 50%?) and do other things like heal or grant tempray hit points/have an aura.

Here you go.
A full warlord class, with limited-per-short rest attack granting, and none of the "commander" flavor.
Scaling more or less the same as what a support caster could do.

Tactican.

 

[Satyrn]

Is the unarmed/unarmoured fighting the defining feature of the monk? or is it their role and capabilities as a highly mobile and resilient melee combatant with good control abilities? To me, Satyrn's name of 'Martial Artist' wasn't helpful in defining what they were after.

So I asked.

Perhaps I should apologize slightly for brushing off your question earlier.

I'm still not really inclined to answer - and especially not in this thread - because I feel like I would just be providing ammunition for someone to shout down my like, details to be nitpicked apart so someone can argue that D&D doesn't support my preferences.

Not that you did that.

Still, that was just not a direction I wanted to carry any conversation. I'm happy discussing the "martial artist" as a blend of how we probably all picture it - a class that feels like it's using fantasy versions of the world's many martial arts. The details don't matter to me as much as the feel of it.

Oh. I can answer you "fighter?" question better now, too: "Berserker Barbarian"

If I'm aiming to make my martial artist an unarmed combatant, the battlemaster could handle it okay if I choose the right maneuvers, but I'd have to wait till 4th level to pick up Tavern Brawler to feel like my strikes are reasonably effective, or be a variant human.

The lousy thing about taking fighter for this, though, is that unless I wear armor, none of the fighting styles apply. So I think I'd go with barbarian so I get to go unarmoured without picking up any wasted features . . . so long as the DM doesn't rule against unarmed strikes as a "melee weapon."

 

[Slit518]

I just wanted to let you all know that I have stepped away from this thread since page 12.

I am surprised at the amount of attention this thread has gotten, and wanted to thank you all for letting it continue.

As of now, 1/20/2018 it seems the 5 most popular class options are:

1) The Artificer with 120 votes
2) The Warlord with 99 votes
3) The Mystic with 77 votes
4) The Shaman with 73 votes
5) The Alchemist with 59 votes

As of now, 1/20/2018 the least popular 5 class options are:

1) The Ninja with 20 votes
2) The Pirate with 16 votes
3) The Prophet with 11 votes
4) The Samurai with 9 votes
5) The Jester with 8 votes

 

[Aldarc]

A poll of the <2000 people who regularly frequent the ENWorld forum, of which 273 people voted on the polls, of which a third wanted the warlord.
Of the 9,000,000 people who play D&D. We are not representative of the audience.
Even if you count the total 200,000 people membership list of ENWorld—of which only 1% post regularly... or at all— that's still only 2% of the people who play the game. We are not representative of the player base.

Didn't the Warlord fare well in the initial polls that WotC did for most popular classes back during the testing of D&D Next? It was not as high as the usual heavy hitters (e.g., fighter, wizard), but I recall that it fared better than a number of the classes that made the PHB.

 

[Arilyn]

Didn't the Warlord fare well in the initial polls that WotC did for most popular classes back during the testing of D&D Next? It was not as high as the usual heavy hitters (e.g., fighter, wizard), but I recall that it fared better than a number of the classes that made the PHB.

I believe so. Warlord came off of the Commander class, which appeared late in the 3.5 run, but was well received. The Warlord in 4e was also popular. There is a Commander class in 13 True Ways, a supplement for 13th Age. Also popular. EN' s Noble class in A Touch of Class seems to be one of the more popular choices in that book, and its very commander like. So yes, I think that there is an appetite for the class. Wouldn't call it Warlord, though. I think of a tyrant in black spikey armour wearing a huge horned helmet as a warlord.