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

[Imaro]

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.

I just looked in my Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms book and it most definitely is a controller

 

[MoonSong]

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.

The warlord was filling a grid, in the same way the original sorcerer filled a mechanical need (to justify the phb having lots of spells that otherwise would be for a single class). That says nothing of how they uncovered something that wasn't there before, but was needed, and in the end let people play some cool archetypes, the sorcerer is now here to stay, despite basically being underpowered and undersupported on all editions it has showed up. I don't see how the warlord would be different.

 

[steeldragons]

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

No. I do not care about warlords. I was answering the question. The warlord [that allll of these pages of threads are arguing over how to implement] is different than other classes because it is made for/comes from 4e. That is reality.

I have made [and shared] warlords as a fighter subclass. I have made [and shared] them their own class with 4 varieties/subclasses of their own. I have made [and shared] a feat that makes anyone a "warlord...not that I use those either, but we probably don't want to open those worms here... I can refluff a warlord from a bard [the "but music!" argument just baffles me...if you're refluffing, obviously, you take out the music!] without even trying.

So if you want one, there's a few for you...just from ME! There must be dozens of homebrew versions to be found, on EN world alone, by now!

Let's just spare the "4e players are oppressed" sad violins bit, 'k?

And, when all's said and done, I have no qualms about saying "No" to anything at my table for any reason. So if I don't want a warlord there, official, homebrewed, feat-based or otherwise, there won't be one...It's D&D, it really IS that simple.

Ultimately, none of this matters. None of us are going to be "right" to anyone but ourselves and those that agree with us. None of us are going to change what the "other side" wants or change the way anyone else plays. What you do at your table does not matter to mine and vice versa. What WotC puts out or not does not, necessarily, matter to either of ours.

I mean, everyone gets that, right?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I just looked in my Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms book and it most definitely is a controller

Controller, yes, but not filling any "Martial Controller Grid." It was Martial + Primal, the controller support not being that great, and mostly being in the Primal powers it had (some of which were pretty potent for low-level utilities).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

Sorry, no. You can't deduce that number given the data present. It's proving a negative. There is (conveniently) no "do not want" option in the poll. So the number of people here who do not want one is an unknown value.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Never seen it, so I cannot comment. But I would note that statements of the form "Mike Mearls couldn't do it so..." get about ZERO traction with a lot of us these days. There seem to be many limitations to what Mike can or is willing to do.

I mean 5e in general is a perfectly nice game, I just don't like Mike's aesthetic, and he surely didn't 'get' 4e AT ALL, despite helping to write it. Nor have any of the objections people have here made any real impression on me in terms of thinking it would be a fine addition to the game. My guess is that whatever Rodney/Mike discussed had to be along the same lines. Its just not a line that I'm buying. A warlord IS possible, it CAN be thematic, and its really not any more controversial than any other class when you get right down to it.

 

[steeldragons]

C'mon now, [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong(Kaiilurker)[/MENTION]...You know there's no defending sorcerers with me. Baiting's not nice/good form.

Get back to the warlord schmaltz.

 

[Imaro]

Controller, yes, but not filling any "Martial Controller Grid." It was Martial + Primal, the controller support not being that great, and mostly being in the Primal powers it had (some of which were pretty potent for low-level utilities).

Pedantry knows no bounds...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Never seen it, so I cannot comment.

Mearls let slip some egregious anti-warlord comments in an unrelated podcast. A bit controversial at the time.

Pedantry knows no bounds...

It was like the non-casting Ranger thing in reverse. There were complaints that the Ranger had lost its companion and spellcasting. The Beastmaster appeared in martial power, but that and an all-primal bow-using Seeker didn't make a dint in the complaints, so the Scout & Hunter were both given Primal powers in Essentials, also to no avail.

For the Hunter to serve as support for the theory that the Warlord was added to the PH for the sole purpose of filling out the Martial 'grid' as a Leader, the Hunter would have to have also appeared in that book (that is, the Ranger would have to have been a controller). Otherwise, there's no way to infer intent to fill the martial grid in the PH, since /no/ Source/Role grid /was/ filled at that time. There were even 4 martial classes in the PH, but they didn't fill the grid, because two were Strikers, so it's not like the Controller role was cut for space.

The warlord was filling a grid, in the same way the original sorcerer filled a mechanical need (to justify the phb having lots of spells that otherwise would be for a single class).

What?

The Sorcerer seemed so obviously an answer to the constant chorus of complaints about Vancian casting at the time. (And, an answer that wasn't as broken as spell point or mana systems had tended to be.) I'd never even thought it might be a stalking-horse to give the Wizard an extra-large helping of spells. Especially the way 3.0 spells were listed, without regard to class or level.

That says nothing of how they uncovered something that wasn't there before, but was needed, and in the end let people play some cool archetypes, the sorcerer is now here to stay, despite basically being underpowered and undersupported on all editions it has showed up. I don't see how the warlord would be different.

The Sorcerer was essentially(npi) re-invented for 4e (because AEDU meant no depending on Spontaneous Casting as a raison d'etre), post-Essentials (daililess Elemental Sorcerer), Next (caster that turned melee type as it expended it's spells, quite unique, really), and 5e.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Never seen it, so I cannot comment.

Here's the link.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469026-For-the-Record-Mearls-on-Warlords-(ca-2013)

It's fallen to page 2 now. But it had a little traction. I will bump it for your convenience.