D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Barolo]

(...)

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?

I also find the name of the class barbarian quite dumb.

 

[cmad1977]

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...

And that's in a forum where every couple months the same few people flood the internet with 'warlord demands'.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Krachek]

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



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?

I play a warlord in 4ed. My best attack was to make attacking the elemental sorcerer. Fun at first, boring on the long run. But on the other hand I have a time as the leader of a small business of mercenaries.

I agree, Barbarian is better as background, and the class could have been a Fighter archetype, a sort of battle rager. Another Fighter archetype would be enough for the warlord.

 

[Jester David]

I also find the name of the class barbarian quite dumb.

Totally agree. It should be the berserker.

 

[Jester David]

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...

Nope.

This forum skews heavily to former 4e fans after the closure of the WotC forums and age of the site. Which is normally awesome, as there's a good legacy of cool posters here. Lots of history and knowledgeable folk. New people are starting to come and shift the demographics, but so far this site skews older than Reddit or Facebook. But, currently, if anywhere is going to get a lot of warlord love, it's here. Warlord discussion pops up on Reddit and Facebook occasionally, but never with as much traction.
And it's only getting 25%.

As I described elsewhere, WotC had access to the results of surveys from 175,000 D&D fans, which the 2000 people posting and lurking here in a good day would be 1% of. If a lot of people there cried for warlords, they would have considered it. After all, they completely changed their mind on the Mage class after feedback.
They also have the data from the Online Character Builder. They can see what classes and options were actually played at tables - through which characters were levelled slowly over time - rather than test builds. So they have an idea of the popularity of all the classes. If the warlord was really popular there, it might have also led to it being considered.

Looking at the DMsGuild offerings, there are 9 warlords I can see. Three copper sellers, one silver, and and 4 medal-less. Copper is around 50 sales, silver is 100, and electrum is 250. Give or take. So if we assume each is halfway to the next medal that's (25x4 + 75x3 + 175). Or 500. Which is gold.
The combined sales of every warlord option on the DMs Guild compares to the sales of the spellbinder class or the eidolist. And is half that of the shaman.

The warlord has a few ardent fans. But it's not so fantastically popular that WotC is likely to take a fourth crack at filling the role.

 

[Morrus]

lol I hope you dont intend to cite this as evidence of literally anything other than what enworld users who see this thread and bother to respond think about the issue.

Cite evidence to who? This isn't a court case, it's a conversation. Don't worry!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Cite evidence to who? This isn't a court case, it's a conversation. Don't worry!

People cite things as evidence in arguments, morrus, not just in court.

 

[Corwin]

I would have voted 3 & 4, but its not multiple choice. So I went with 3. I am fine with what D&D already has to represent the concepts. But I'm also fine with 3rd parties providing more for those that really want it.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I would have voted: "Nope. Definitely not needed."

I'm not trying to stop others from wanting/having a Warlord or any other class....I'm trying to stop WotC from adding ANY new Core Class. And yes, that includes Psionicist (or Psion, or Psychic, or Jedi or whatever the flerping name is for it nowadays). IMHO, 5e doesn't need any new Core Classes; the ones we have are MORE than enough to allow for DM's to create an archtype for any one of them. [[Edit: Core Class as in added to the default PHB]]

IF, and that's a ginormous IF, WotC felt the need to create some full-on new core class, I would have no problem with it being presented in a specific game-world campaign setting book/box. Take the Psionicist. A full 'new class' of Psionicist would be ok if it was part of a "Athas Campaign Guide". They could write up the whole thing and it would make perfect sense for Dark Sun.

You want a Warlord class? Have it be in some specific Campaign Guide in a setting where the class makes sense ("4e FR version" or whatever). Don't just toss a new class into the Core Rules. Because, as we've seen in the past, game companies adding new classes to the game, doing that is like smoking crack. Once you start, you just keep going...and before long you're stung out on classes with a Fighter/Warlord/Rogue/Sorcerer/Alchemist/Barbarian/Shape-Changer/Psion clutched in you hand as you sit there on the floor wondering how it all got so bad.

"New Classes. ... ... Not Even Once!"

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mercule]

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?

Barbarian definitely shouldn't have been a separate class. The battle-rage bit should have been a Fighter subclass and the totem stuff should have been put as a subclass under Ranger (or Druid).

My objection to Warlord is that it doesn't bring enough to the table to warrant a separate class. That same argument applies to Barbarian. Really, it might be more applicable to Barbarian. But... the thread is about whether or not we want to see a full-on Warlord class added to the game, not whether or not there are any classes we think are stupid to have included in the PHB, to begin with.