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

[MechaPilot]

That's weird. So what do you make of the various pro-warlord posters who eagerly touted the meaningfulness of the poll numbers when I dared to bring them up?

Incorrect is incorrect, it doesn't matter who said it.

 

[steeldragons]

I believe we call that 'confirmation bias.' My reading of this thread has not shown your conclusions to be true.

/frustrated even better logician

It's not "my" conclusions and you don't have to read the thread...Just the poll numbers at the top. Have you done that? Or is that some other fact of reality the pro-warlord crowd chooses to ignore?

We'll just leave aside the fact what you are asserting/attempting to dispute my comment with is not logic. Whether you do or not is not really my concern. Back on the ignore list you go before I say something to regret.

Have a nice day.

 

[Yunru]

At the very least, if nothing else, this thread has shown -consistently, nearly from the beginning to now- that the number of people that do not want and/or don't care about the warlord outnumber the number of folks that do.

A majority isn't "imagined" if there are actually more of them than others...then they are actually a majority.

402 votes from 281 people, where the only options are mutually exclusive? Yeah no, it don't prove nothing.

In fact if you consider that no-one who doesn't want a warlord would choose the first option, the inflated votes must therefore be against the Warlock. Reducing those inflated votes leaves us at, out of 281, roughly a 2/3rds majority for.

 

[Aldarc]

With the years of open playtesting and player-base input, do you really think the devs would leave a class out of the game if it was as popular as you would like to think it is.

If anything, perhaps your love of the class is the real "confirmation bias" here?

I believe that the 'warlord' was the ram sacrificed to appease 4E haters - thereby committing a terrible injustice to those who played the 3E Marshal and 4E Warlord - and I have seen little evidence here and in other 'warlord' threads that you have any interest in discussing the 'warlord' in good faith. These warlord threads, if anything, demonstrate how contentious it was to leave the warlord out of 5E. Setting aside your own derision for the class, you should probably reflect on why there is still interest in a 'warlord' class despite the existence of the battlemaster. Mind you, saying that people should be satisfied with the battlemaster as the warlord is akin to saying that wizards should be happy if they only had the eldritch knight. The battlemaster is a warlorded fighter, but now we need an actual warlord.

It's not "my" conclusions and you don't have to read the thread...Just the poll numbers at the top. Have you done that? Or is that some other fact of reality the pro-warlord crowd chooses to ignore?

We'll just leave aside the fact what you are asserting/attempting to dispute my comment with is not logic. Whether you do or not is not really my concern. Back on the ignore list you go before I say something to regret.

Have a nice day.

Did you read the poll? Because I saw an option that says 'lemmon curry.' I also saw that it was possible for someone to vote for both the 'warlord' and 'lemon curry.' I was not aware that 'lemon curry' was a vote for 'no.' That must be a shortcoming of my own inferior logic.

Have a nice day, indeed.

 

[Ohillion]

Let's deal with yet another class that isn't in 5e yet...the Warden (correct me if I missed it). Any Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Druid/Monk/Cleric with the Sentinel feat is pretty much just asking to fill this role. WotC gave us class specific featuers with each class and then feats to tighten it up. But is that the true intention of the feat system? Do we call a character with the feat a 'Warden'? Or are we, as the players, making more of it than we should? IMHO, let's steer further from 4.0 as much as possible. I liked it, but in truth, it was a different game with a D&D theme. But it wasn't D&D to me. It was...something else.

But I digress...I would answer the question of the thread in this manner: Instead of a large variety of classes with specific paths and abilities defining the subclass at level 3, why not allow customization of these classes using feats? PHB is a bit feat poor if you ask me. I know this was the intent for the PHB but it's a tad lackluster. To keep things simplified the WotC wants, it wouldn't be too difficult to keep the classes generic and get specific with the feat system.

Just my .02 electrum.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I believe that the 'warlord' was the ram sacrificed to appease 4E haters

That's just conspiracy theorist silliness, to be blunt.

you should probably reflect on why there is still interest in a 'warlord' class despite the existence of the battlemaster.

I have. And posted my thoughts on the matter several times in the various threads going currently. That you gloss over or ignored them because you don't like what I had to say is more indicative of you having blinders of your own.

Mind you, saying that people should be satisfied with the battlemaster as the warlord is akin to saying that wizards should be happy if they only had the eldritch knight.

False equivalency.

The battlemaster is a warlorded fighter, but now we need an actual warlord.

Disagree. And so do the devs, clearly. The battlemaster is the actual warlord. A 5e-ified version. That along with a feat or two and you have what you need to play all the aesthetics of that class. Or you can go valor bard as well if you prefer. Or even mix-and-match a bit of both. That's the beauty of 5e's flexibility. I sure do love this edition.

It's funny, to me at least, but at some point there will no doubt be an AU article with some kind of juiced up warlord style set of ideas to appease the vocal minority. Just like the ranger decriers who never bothered to actually play one. I'm sure your time will coming someday as well. And I feel a little guilty, but I can't help but feel like I'm gonna relish that day because all the fanatical warlord-philes will come here to denounce it as "still not good enough". Or "not what they wanted". Or whatever.

<shrug>

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Because it's a completely different topic, a separate reply:

Did you read the poll? Because I saw an option that says 'lemmon curry.' I also saw that it was possible for someone to vote for both the 'warlord' and 'lemon curry.' I was not aware that 'lemon curry' was a vote for 'no.' That must be a shortcoming of my own inferior logic.

Do you believe anyone voted for both though not wanting a warlord? Or that some may have voted only for lemon curry yet want a warlord? Is that the impression you are trying to make without stating it outright?

 

[MechaPilot]

Didn't say it was of the whole D&D population.

Just to be clear, neither did I. I said it was not representative.

But it is irrefutable that the majority of people that have come here [and voted in the poll], for the past 18 days & 71 pages of thread, straight through...the whole time.

Possibly, I don't feel like going back to check the posts.

If we assume WotC has some survey/marketing/whozits info of their own, and it would be foolish to not think so...it's not that huge a stretch to think,hmm, maybe that majority who doesn't want one/doesn't care isn't "imagined", but actually this poll is a snapshot of the larger general community.

Let's be clear about something, a majority is meaningless. This is not a matter of law or governmental representation where the majority's wants dominate because all have to live by the law or face punishment. This is a matter of optional material that people can freely choose to use or not use at their personal discretion. Requiring majority approval of a warlord, or of inspirational healing, is like requiring majority approval for releasing a film. We don't do that because there is already a solution in place: if you don't like that kind of film, just don't go see it.

The only thing that matters is economic feasibility, i.e. can the warlord material recoup the cost of development and production.

Also, I vaguely recall something about WotC stating they had a 10% threshold. If I am recalling that correctly, that's a significantly lighter burden for inclusion than having majority approval.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Let's deal with yet another class that isn't in 5e yet...the Warden

The warden is another example of a mechanic in need of a home. There was a class for every stat. Except constitution. So thus was born the warden. Warlord was born of similar questionable origins.

This is one of the reasons why these two classes didn't make the cut. And Mearls has said as much.

 

[Ohillion]

The warden is another example of a mechanic in need of a home. There was a class for every stat. Except constitution. So thus was born the warden. Warlord was born of similar questionable origins.

This is one of the reasons why these two classes didn't make the cut. And Mearls has said as much.

Thanks for saying so. I'm still trying to get to all the resources that clarify rules and discuss classes and what is/isn't going to make it into future publishings. I have found Unearthed Arcana though. It seems to be fairly informative.