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

[mellored]

OH! Well that's simple. It is systematically "just different" from other class ideas because it was created, quite literally, to follow/fill a systematic class grid that was completely artificial and developed for a different game.

Again, to be clear, that's not 4e bashing. That is just simple fact. Exactly what it was created for. They needed a "martial" "leader" to fit into their little boxes and said..."How 'bout this guy?"

So, yes. The warlord is "just different systematically" and, thus, does not fit/work to include in a non- class "role"/power source grid organization. 5e is not such a system.

I guess we're all done here then. That was easy. Someone shoulda just asked that on page 1.

So... You don't want a warlord because it was a 4e thing?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Since you find meaning in meaningless numbers, how about this one?

There are a lot of differing estimates as to how many people actually play D&D at least semi-regularly. I will go with one of the more conservative numbers I've seen lately. Approximately 2 million worldwide.

So the number of people we know want a warlord is (based on the poll as it is currently at the time of this posting)... 199:2,000,000.

And the number of people we know (probably) want the warlord excluded is the difference between that and the total number of respondents to the poll: 77.

77:2,000,000

Or, rather, 199:77, or 3-to-1 in favor of the Warlord. (Jumping strangely overnight - apparently, some people unvoted, as the total number of respondents dropped about 30.)

This is an 'error of small sample size.' You can't conclude anything from this poll. It's too small compared to the player base, it's self-selected (only people who actually care about the warlord), and it's poorly-formed, with a non-sequitur 'click bait' answer inviting anyone who just likes giving silly answers to polls to choose it, and it's undergoing some strange fluctuations, as well.
It's cute, it's spurring a conversation, but it's not a very valuable bit of data collection.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Emphasis mine... and yet the major reason cited for the Warlord not being a subclass of fighter is that the fighter possess too much combat prowess... so which is it? Must we exclude a certain level of prowess in one on one combat from the archetype or not?

Well, I'd have a couple observations there. You COULD make a warlord variation of the fighter, and battlemaster can dabble in that already. However its a lot like making an Eldritch Knight, you aren't a full caster because you're already a pretty good fighter. That doesn't mean I'm against such a build, but I'm not sure it removes all room for an actual warlord class, which presumably would be a less capable warrior (but probably still equal to or better than a cleric I'd imagine).

Wait so is a warlord a one on one combatant capable of standing with trained swordsmen and warriors... or is he supposed to be tactically adept but lesser in personal combat. THis is the problem with the archetype it's rarely if ever separate from the warrior.

I wouldn't say that, Arthur lets his knights fight his battles. He only enters the field when Modred has wiped out his army, and then only to fight a personal duel with Modred. He doesn't strike me as being PRIMARILY a face-to-face fighter, though the fact that his scabbard makes him virtually immune to wounds and he's got an artifact magic sword doesn't hurt when he DOES fight.

I'd say it's alot closer to the general public's idea of Conan than warlord....

But I don't need everyone to have the same perception. If we're only building a game to represent a few of the most basic archetypes, then again why not do away with things like druid, which are pretty obscure really?

He threw a torch into it and lit it on fire (at least in the movies). That's not inspiring hobits and disheartening a Nazgul... that's fighting. Are we really at the point where what happened in this scene is considered "warlording"... seriously?

In the book it is described much more as a I noted. Aragorn had a torch, but no sword wielded by a man could kill the Nazgul, they weren't afraid of the Shards of Narsil. They were intimidated by the Rightful King of Arnor and Gondor, a man possessed of eldar and divine lineage. They were also surprised by Frodo's resistance and use of his own sword, which WAS able to hurt them (although Aragorn stated later that Frodo's sword stroke missed). Its not even clear that there was any reason for the Nazgul to stay, they had pierced Frodo with a Morgul Knife. Only his extreme hardiness and determination allowed him to survive. Once he was dead he was theirs, so they just withdrew in the belief that there was no need to risk any further confrontation. That's how Aragorn describes it to Frodo later. Again though, nobody is disputing that Aragorn isn't a capable warrior, even a great warrior, but its not fighting that makes him special.

Nope, I'm good I like sword and sorcery alot more than LotR... the warlord would stick out like a sore thumb in most of those stories since the protagonists are assumed to be broadly capable and usually experts in their areas of expertise.

I don't think that's true. I think it is a perfectly good class, and I think 4e does some pretty good S&S, and it works well there. It was a VERY popular class, especially for use in DS, where clerics are non-existent.

 

[steeldragons]

Does anyone but you still use this term? I mean seriously it's only purpose is as a sly insult to those who didn't like 4e and as thinly disguised edition war rhetoric.

EDIT: I mean seriously you don't see anyone calling fans of 4e anything but "fans of 4e"... how about you return the favor??

In all fairness, I have used "4vengers" from time to time...not here/now. But in other threads...in the past.

Of course, I then normally get the same chastisement, if not rabid retorts, as being "[poorly] veiled edition warring," also. Which is rich since I was not around/part of this [or any other] forum when, apparently these "edition wars" happened. But, seriously, how cool are the Avengers? I don't see how it has any more meaning than "people that [perhaps, "avidly"] like/defend/want 4e-style things"...and what's wrong/to be insulted by about that?

But, I'm sick of getting chastised, so I just steer clear of it anymore.

 

[mellored]

This does not grok when you take into consideration the transcript I posted, in my thread here, on this very subject. Of the conversation between Mearls and Thompson discussing the difficulties (and contention) with the warlord class specifically.

The contention hasn't gone away...

Problem is still not solved.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OH! Well that's simple. It is systematically "just different" from other class ideas because it was created, quite literally, to follow/fill a systematic class grid that was completely artificial and developed for a different game.

The so-called 'grid' was not exactly artificial. It was based on the traditional roles of the Fighter (Defender), Cleric (Healer, dubbed 'Leader' to be less un-cool), and Wizard (Controller), and the less traditional 3.x role of the Rogue as damage-dealer (Striker). Similarly, the Sources in the PH had been with the game since the beginning.

Looking at it systematically like that probably did show some obvious gaps, true, but that's a good thing. Like the Warlord.

That is just simple fact. Exactly what it was created for. They needed a "martial" "leader" to fit into their little boxes and said..."How 'bout this guy?"

An interesting theory. One demolished by the lack of a Martial Controller in any of the PH's, however.

So, yes. The warlord is "just different systematically" and, thus, does not fit/work to include in a non- class "role"/power source grid organization. 5e is not such a system.

But, every other class in 4e was also designed to fit in 4e, even though they had worked in other editions in the past. Clearly any concept could be handled by 4e, and by prior editions. I refuse to believe that 5e is such an inferior system that it can't handle the Warlord concept.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sometimes, I think that's the single thing that enraged h4ters more than anything else. The lack of overwhelming caster supremacy in 4e.

Does anyone but you still use this term? I mean seriously it's only purpose is as a sly insult to those who didn't like 4e and as thinly disguised edition war rhetoric.

EDIT: I mean seriously you don't see anyone calling fans of 4e anything but "fans of 4e"... how about you return the favor??

It very clearly is 4e-bashing. The fact that you have to assert twice that it isn't, is just further proof that it's nothing but.

Ladies & Gents, if you cannot presume positive intent, stop responding and/or report the post, don't call them out on it. Umbran's already dropped a warning in the thread, so listen to it - keep it civil.

 

[Imaro]

An interesting theory. One demolished by the lack of a Martial Controller in any of the PH's, however.

Actually wasn't the Hunter Ranger in 4e a martial controller?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Does anyone but you still use this term?

I'm sure it gets used in that same sort of context at least some of the time.

I mean seriously it's only purpose is as a sly insult to those who didn't like 4e and as thinly disguised edition war rhetoric.

I don't think it was sly, at all, the edition war happened, you can even find old posts from it pretty easily, it would be disengenuous to imply that there was no edition war or never were h4ters and 4vengers going at it.
And, I was speaking of the edition war in that quote, of the reactions of the h4ter side of it, early in 4e's run. It was not in reference to this thread, and certainly not to you, personally. Usually I put in scare quotes, to further emphasize that it was a term linked to that time, but I forgot. I'll correct that.

EDIT: I mean seriously you don't see anyone calling fans of 4e anything but "fans of 4e"... how about you return the favor??

4venger was the corresponding term for fans of 4e. But, honestly, what would be the nice way of saying it? It's an identity that exists in opposition to something. They were not uniformly fans of one other edition, for instance.

Actually wasn't the Hunter Ranger in 4e a martial controller?

It was in Essentials, and it was a hybrid Martial/Primal class with very poor controller support outside of it's Primal utility powers, so, no it did not fill the imaginary 'grid' steeldragon was talking about.

His assertion was that the Warlord existed only to complete the Martial 'grid' with a Leader. The fact that said grid was bereft of a 'Controller,' undercuts the idea pretty dramatically. Not that a Martial Controller might not have been a great class. Just that there was not the impetus to 'fill' grids that he imagines there having been. Balancing classes to fit mostly within one role (and one secondary role or other, depending on build), sure, but not to strictly grid-fill the Source/Role intersections, tempting as it may have been to many a 4venger purist (myself among them - I ran the 'Martial Controller Underground' group on the WotC board, and agitated for just that, but it never happened - full disclosure & all).

 

[MechaPilot]

Actually wasn't the Hunter Ranger in 4e a martial controller?

I believe I don't have the book the 4e Hunter Ranger is in, so I can't say for certain. However, there was a group over on the WotC forums called the Martial Controller Underground, which was a place for fan-created martial controllers, I'm going to say the 4e Hunter Ranger was probably not a martial controller.