D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Imaro]

Like the Mess Mass Combat UA?
I know what I'd pick out of more options for players and that nonsense any day, even if I hated the specific options.

No I was actually thinking about the rules expanding on traps which will see much more use in my game than a warlord would...

 

[Yunru]

No I was actually thinking about the rules expanding on traps which will see much more use in my game than a warlord would...

Ah but that's assuming they would of focused on that instead of a Warlord, rather than, say,
...
I'm actually struggling to think of something less productive than mass combat. Step by step minutiae on brewing potions maybe?

 

[Imaro]

Ah but that's assuming they would of focused on that instead of a Warlord, rather than, say,
...
I'm actually struggling to think of something less productive than mass combat. Step by step minutiae on brewing potions maybe?

I get it you don't like mass combat, me personally I'd use them if they were a tight and functioning rules set because in the Primeval Thule setting I'm planning on running players can start the game with followers. The Warlord on the other hand was never played by anyone in my group during our time with 4e so it would serve absolutely no purpose for me... I cna think of a ton of stuff I want ahead of a Warlord, so different strokes for different folks and all that... but at the end of the day if the demand for a warlord isn't there why should WotC waste resources producing it?

 

[Alexemplar]

I am missing the "I am a player/DM of 5e and actively do not want WOTC to create a warlord class".

No more dissection of the warrior archetype into smaller and smaller chunks. Warlord is something characters can do at high level. As such it should be handled outside the class structure--get a castle? get an army. Run around conquering things and warlord-ing it up.

EDIT: voted "don't care" but that is a lie. I do care. I actively don't want a warlord class.

Meh. We already have over half a dozen variants on "I wear little to no armor and cast spells". I think DnD warriors could use some variations and more defining.

 

[Alexemplar]

From Wikipedia :
"A warlord is a leader able to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state due to his ability to mobilize loyal armed forces. These armed forces, usually considered militias, are loyal to the warlord rather than to the state regime. Warlords have existed throughout much of history, albeit in a variety of different capacities within the political, economic, and social structure of states or ungoverned territories."

I don't see the need of a class to play or role play this. Maybe a feat to allow a character of any class to recrute armed force.
Otherwise some people want the warlord to play specific combat feature:Move ally, make ally attack, non-magical healing.
That was good in 4ed, but in 5ed it is clunky.

Come on. This is like typing "Druid", "Paladin", "Bard", "Monk", or "Barbarian" into a dictionary. None of those classes in DnD resemble their real world namesake and all had preexisting baggage until DnD's popularity redefined them within the nerd lexicon.

99% of people who don't play fantasy games think druids are silly new age tree hugging hippies, bards are foppish lute players, and that monks are like Friar Tuck unless you specify Buddhist monks, in which case they think of folks who look lIke the Dalai Lama, or specify Shao Lin monks, which brings them closer to the DnD version bit then makes them think "Wtf is this guy doing in a psuedomedieval fauxEuropean setting?".

 

[Yunru]

I get it you don't like mass combat, me personally I'd use them if they were a tight and functioning rules set because in the Primeval Thule setting I'm planning on running players can start the game with followers. The Warlord on the other hand was never played by anyone in my group during our time with 4e so it would serve absolutely no purpose for me... I cna think of a ton of stuff I want ahead of a Warlord, so different strokes for different folks and all that... but at the end of the day if the demand for a warlord isn't there why should WotC waste resources producing it?

They shouldn't, but the dwmand is there, so they should.

 

[Krachek]

Come on. This is like typing "Druid", "Paladin", "Bard", "Monk", or "Barbarian" into a dictionary. None of those classes in DnD resemble their real world namesake and all had preexisting baggage until DnD's popularity redefined them within the nerd lexicon.

99% of people who don't play fantasy games think druids are silly new age tree hugging hippies, bards are foppish lute players, and that monks are like Friar Tuck unless you specify Buddhist monks, in which case they think of folks who look lIke the Dalai Lama, or specify Shao Lin monks, which brings them closer to the DnD version bit then makes them think "Wtf is this guy doing in a psuedomedieval fauxEuropean setting?".

The requests for a warlord are asking too much technical feature.
I want to play a character that make attack its ally. A kind of corner coach, who yell "strike him hard".
It lack depth to build a character.

I put the definition to open up the debate of what is a "warlord". Any classes can be a warlord.
It is a role a character can assume in an adventure. It open to mass combat, politics, strategy, deals,
But have no meaning for a standard fight in a game.

 

[Imaro]

They shouldn't, but the dwmand is there, so they should.

Any proof as to the demand being worthwhile enough for WotC and their new publishing strategy?

Note: As of this post the poll is showing less than 25% of 5e fans want WotC to create a warlord...

 

[Mecheon]

The requests for a warlord are asking too much technical feature.
I want to play a character that make attack its ally. A kind of corner coach, who yell "strike him hard".
It lack depth to build a character.

Had enough depth for 4E. Has enough depth for about 5 variants on the DM's Guild

I put the definition to open up the debate of what is a "warlord". Any classes can be a warlord.
It is a role a character can assume in an adventure. It open to mass combat, politics, strategy, deals,
But have no meaning for a standard fight in a game.

I mean, if we're going along those lines, why do we have Barbarian as a class? Isn't Barbarian just a background? You can have a barbarian who's become a wizard, a barbarian who's become a cleric, so on and so forth. So should we remove that and just include that all in Fighter?

 

[Alexemplar]

And Barbarians have very little beyond, "Hulk smash!". And if you gave Nature Clerics wild shape as a spell/domain power, Druids would be on life support. And Sorcerers have been struggling for a unique and meaningful mechanical identity in every edition since their conception in order to justify their existence.

But the Warlord has existed in plenty of fantasy games, mostly other d20 games. There they usually call it the Noble class. Decent in combat but excels at buffing allies, debuffing foes and being a party face. Usually comes with a disclaimer that a member of the Noble class is not always literally a person with noble rank in society just like a Cleric isn't always a functionary in an organized religion or a Barbarian refers to the class and not every person from a barbarian society has levels in the Barbarian class.

In DnD, players have had to make do rolling up a Rogue class and trying to ignore all the stuff about picking locks, disarming traps, and being a thief/assassin.