D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

You know I see this stated in D&D/rpg circles... but that's about it. Anywhere else that hit points are used... mainly in videogames which reach and influence the perception of way more people... I have never seen this narrative of loss of hit points as something other than wounding. I've never seen where a character looses hit points but the game doesn't show him/her being physically hit or wounded. I have to wonder if the majority of people, regardless of what D&D claims, are going to regard hit points as physical in nature because that's the perception they've encountered everywhere else...

So for example a 10 point sword hit would kill most 1st level PC and pretty much any 0 level schmoe. It would be a devastating wound, chopping through major parts of the body. So a 10th level fighter with 101 HP can take that exact same hit ten times then since it represents the same amount of tissue damage? Or you can stab him 25 times for max damage with a dagger, 4 points, and he's still up? I'd have to wonder if people in D&D just bleed less and have fewer vital organs if that is the case. going back to 1e HP have always meant toughness, luck, skill, rolling with most of the hit, etc. Just like a higher AC doesn't make you harder to hit as much as harder to damage. A 17 attack roll on a guy in plate just bounces off the armor, not misses entirely. Its an abstraction.

 

[El Mahdi]

I mean come on, you couldn't have included "I don't want this" in your choices?

No, because it's irrelevant - just as irrelevant as Lemon Curry.

People not wanting the Warlord is not a good reason for denying those that do. Just as WotC doesn't ask what people don't want in their polls, they only ask what they do want. So, it's irrelevant data that can only do more harm than good.

 

[Mistwell]

No, because it's irrelevant - just as irrelevant as Lemon Curry.

People not wanting the Warlord is not a good reason for denying those that do. Just as WotC doesn't ask what people don't want in their polls, they only ask what they do want. So, it's irrelevant data that only do more harm than good.

It's not irrelevant. And WOTC offers a LOT of choices in their polls so they can get a bead on the things most desired and least desired - they never ask "do you want X, answer yes or don't answer" - you need some means to measure the pool of respondents and their relative desires against other options, otherwise you're polling in a vacuum. Also, game content has an impact on games, both the good content and the bad. I can go over why it has that impact, but I am not sure you care about those arguments. So the bottom line is even if it's irrelevant to you, it should be apparent by now, based on responses you've gotten in this thread, that it's important to many of your peers. It does less harm to ask an "irrelevant" question from your end than the good it does to give people an option they want in your poll - sort of the same argument you're making right now.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, because it's irrelevant - just as irrelevant as Lemon Curry.

People not wanting the Warlord is not a good reason for denying those that do. Just as WotC doesn't ask what people don't want in their polls, they only ask what they do want. So, it's irrelevant data that can only do more harm than good.

I think it is relevant, because it allows you to get an idea of the % of gamers that want it. For instance, if I created a poll that asked "Do you want tomatoes in your ice cream" and only gave the option of choosing yes, it would be pretty bad data to come to the conclusion that because some people voted yes, that means it's a good idea to spend the time and resources to make tomato ice cream. If I included a "No I don't want that" option, I might be able to see that the vast majority don't want it, and thus it's not worth doing (not saying this is the case with Warlords, but to reflect the error in this type of polling).

 

[El Mahdi]

It's not irrelevant. Game content has an impact on games, both the good content and the bad. And even if it's irrelevant to you, it should be apparent by now, based on responses you've gotten in this thread, that it's important to many of your peers. It does no harm to ask an "irrelevant" question from your end, but it does a lot of good to give people an option they want in your poll - sort of the same argument you're making right now.

It's good to make the argument in posts. That at least has the potential to change minds. Gauging the numbers of people who don't want something - which by the way, as I said, is something even WotC doesn't do with their polls - can only be irrelevant at best, most likely contribute to cementing people's positions, and at worst possibly harm the goal of this in the first place. That goal being: getting WotC to take notice - in a respectful way* - in the hopes that they'll revisit the possibility of making an Official Warlord.

If people want to participate in a poll so they can vent/express their dislike of the Warlord, they can make their own.

Oh...wait a minute...they did ...




*(...not doing so disrespectfully, like accusing them of lying, not being able to read, etc...that some here like to - and are allowed to - indulge in...)**

**(this part wasn't about you, mistwell; but others...)

 

[Imaro]

So for example a 10 point sword hit would kill most 1st level PC and pretty much any 0 level schmoe. It would be a devastating wound, chopping through major parts of the body. So a 10th level fighter with 101 HP can take that exact same hit ten times then since it represents the same amount of tissue damage? Or you can stab him 25 times for max damage with a dagger, 4 points, and he's still up? I'd have to wonder if people in D&D just bleed less and have fewer vital organs if that is the case. going back to 1e HP have always meant toughness, luck, skill, rolling with most of the hit, etc. Just like a higher AC doesn't make you harder to hit as much as harder to damage. A 17 attack roll on a guy in plate just bounces off the armor, not misses entirely. Its an abstraction.

I think you totally missed my point... in D&D it's explained as an abstraction, and that's ok because the fiction is being imagined by those at the table and thus they can imagine it that way... but in say Elder Scrolls, Legend of Zelda, Neverwinter, WoW, etc... you see your character get hit evey time hit points are subtracted... so it's not an abstraction, it's what's actually happening in those games... Which leads me back to my original point... for many coming into the hobby, a character taking multiple physical blows from a weapon and surviving is just how fantasy is...

 

[Gadget]

As I see things, a non-magical cleric-replacement probably fits about as well and is needed about as much as several of the optional things we've already been given. Of course, fit is a nebulous concept at best given the sometimes wide differences from table to table.

The problem is that this is more of a mechanical hole to fill rather than a character archetype to fill. The reason why it worked so well in 4e is that it countered the (perceived) problem of 'somebody has to play the cleric' that has plagued D&D since its earliest manifestations. Without that cleric, or copious healing potions, or wand of 'cure X' and someone to use it, the game was completely different. 5e largely alleviates this by with the default healing mechanics, short rests, second wind, and the fact that clerics, druids, bards, & paladins are all pretty decent healers (if built right) and are more than enough to get the job done. Sure a cleric focused on healing will get you farther, but it is not clear that a character who focused on making the opponents deader faster wouldn't suffice just as well.

So I would say that this particular mechanical implementation of the Warlord is much less needed this edition, and is not in and of itself enough of a fantasy archetype to require replication just to ape the mechanics of a previous edition.

 

[Minigiant]

I more want a "nonmagical mental hero" than a 5e warlord. The warlord could be a subclass of "nonmagical mental hero".

Its sad that really only mages really benefit from high Inyelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.Its a shame after 30 years and other games which copy D&D have them and D&D doesn't.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think you totally missed my point... in D&D it's explained as an abstraction, and that's ok because the fiction is being imagined by those at the table and thus they can imagine it that way... but in say Elder Scrolls, Legend of Zelda, Neverwinter, WoW, etc... you see your character get hit evey time hit points are subtracted... so it's not an abstraction, it's what's actually happening in those games... Which leads me back to my original point... for many coming into the hobby, a character taking multiple physical blows from a weapon and surviving is just how fantasy is...

I guess I did miss your point.

 

[MechaPilot]

The problem is that this is more of a mechanical hole to fill rather than a character archetype to fill.

How is that a problem? Are not the DMG's fear, madness, sanity, honor, hero points, facing & flanking rules, etc. mechanical hole fillers that we have already been given?