D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Tony Vargas]

Not saying you are wrong, because I really have no idea, but how is it that you know how the developers feel?

Mike Mearls has come right out and expressed disdain for the concept of the Warlord, and responded to some fan comment with something to the effect that the BM was the warlord - /before/ the PDK had appeared in SCAG (maybe before it was even in development, my memory of the timeline is fuzzy). So he's said some stuff, but he's also shown some flexibility.

Hussar thinks it's all some sort of master plan by which Mearls will slowly pull the Warlord into 5e bit by bit, like a series of inoculations to build up tolerance in the fanbase.

 

[Corwin]

Do we really want to go over that again? With a closed poll at the top of the page that shows 30% dissatisfaction with that coverage?

Yes, apparently we do need to go over it again. Because your statement is irrelevant to my point. Or, perhaps, a red herring or strawman?...

I said the devs feel they've addressed warlords sufficiently already. I am asserting that they believe they've covered the essence of what the warlord brings to the game with several classes/subclasses, and at least one feat. Do you disagree?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I said the devs feel they've addressed warlords sufficiently already. I am asserting that they believe they've covered the essence of what the warlord brings to the game with several classes/subclasses, and at least one feat. Do you disagree?

Consider that Mike Mearls made a statement like that, /before/ they got around to the PDK. If such statements were absolute and not subject to better judgement later, we wouldn't have the PDK.

So, no, I don't deny that some comments along those lines have been made (note that I pointed it out to Fitz, above), but neither am I overly discouraged by them.

If they ever do go to the trouble of collecting some hard numbers on Warlord demand, I suspect they won't find them too radically different from what we've consistently seen here. And, that's not satisfaction with sub-classes & feats when a full class is called for.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A wizard does not do everything an EK can do. I'm not even talking about the fighter core features, I'm talking about the subclass itself. Based on the feedback what people want of a Warlord, the features of the PDK are fundamental to the warlord class (plus a bunch of other stuff). Therefore, if there were to be a warlord class (and subsequent subclasses), it would not only completely replicate what the PDK subclass can do in every way, but probably do it better.

See the difference? There is no class in the game right now that does exactly what another subclass does.

*Edit* Also, if a warlord class came out without a fighter-type subclass, people would lose their marshmallows more than they already have. Especially if you told them, "We didn't need a frontline combat warlord, because a fighter PDK does that already." I know this for a fact, because that's what the PDK was supposed to do anyway and just look at how warlord fans reacted to it.

I have no idea why you imagine that a Wizard doesn't do everything that an EK does (Cast Wizard spells? Yes it does.) but that a Warlord would necessarily have to do everything that a PDK can. (It wouldn't have to if the designers didn't want it to.)


Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

Of course a Warlord would be need to be a better Warlord than the PDK. Just like the Wizard is a much better Wizard than the EK.

The Warlord, OTOH, wouldn't get Action Surge or Second Wind, so it's abilities wouldn't be exactly the same as the PDKs warlordish ones. They'd presumably be a lot better at support, not nearly so good at tanking and DPR.

Does that really need to be spelled out for anyone?

C'mon, it's April 3rd.

 

[Corwin]

If they ever do go to the trouble of collecting some hard numbers on Warlord demand,

You say that like you do not believe they already have such data. I believe they do. Plenty of it. And it has guided them to where we are now.

I suspect they won't find them too radically different from what we've consistently seen here.

We've already repeatedly discussed how EN World in particular seems to be the hotbed of Warlord fanaticism. And that it might skew any results seen here. And that it does not appear to be as big an issue elsewhere in the online world. So all of that is to say that I wouldn't bet on your theory.

And, that's not satisfaction with sub-classes & feats when a full class is called for.

As wild a speculation as all that is, my assessment, equally wild in its speculation admittedly, does not match yours.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have no idea why you imagine that a Wizard doesn't do everything that an EK does (Cast Wizard spells? Yes it does.)

Can a wizard make one weapon attack as a bonus action after casting a spell?

Can a wizard make a creature he or she just hit with a weapon suffer disadvantage on the next spell the wizard casts at it?

Can a wizard teleport 30ft by using action surge?


Maybe you have some special limited edition single print of the PHB, but the one I have doesn't have the wizard doing that. Therefore, no imagination is necessary. The wizard cannot do everything an EK does.

On the flip side, if a warlord became a class, would it be able:

heal allies via an inspiring mechanic

be extra persuasive/inspiring

grant an ally an attack

grant a bonus to an ally's saving throw

Judging by all these threads, it appears that basic features of a warlord class would include all of those. In fact, be better at all of those than a PDK is. So yeah, a warlord class would replicate everything a PDK brings. And if it didn't, people would throw a fit because a core aspect of warlord was missing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You say that like you do not believe they already have such data.

There was never a playtest poll on the subject, nor has there been a UA one. So who knows?

We've already repeatedly discussed how EN World in particular seems to be the hotbed of Warlord fanaticism.

As I understand it, there /is/ more anti-4e and anti-Warlord sentiment here than in some other corners of the web, yes.

As wild a speculation as all that is.

The unscientific poll at the top of this page is a small (very small) step up from any wild speculation about the existence, let alone results, of research WotC may or may not have done, but for some reason kept strictly secret from their fanbase.

 

[Corwin]

Of course a Warlord would be need to be a better Warlord than the PDK. Just like the Wizard is a much better Wizard than the EK.

I have no idea why you imagine that a Wizard doesn't do everything that an EK...

This constant, disingenuous attempt to relate EKs with wizards has gotten so old. They are nothing alike. They flimsily cross over in one aspect. One. That the EK uses the wizard's spell list (and for the majority of their career, only a tiny fraction of it at that). That's it. So please stop muddying the waters with terrible comparisons that do nothing for your argument other than cause eye-rolling.

 

[Corwin]

As I understand it, there /is/ more anti-4e and anti-Warlord sentiment here than in some other corners of the web, yes.

Did you intend to misrepresent what I said? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as the last edition warrior, that you accidentally twisted what I said into the opposite of itself. So as to get a chance to speak to this imagined war on 4e you perceive everywhere.