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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?"

I entirely disagree with this. There's no martial controller anywhere in 4e, except some class that was added in Essentials almost 5 years after the fact. So there was NO attempt to 'fill the grid' and in fact that was stated by the devs, that they had no particular desire to make classes just because.

So it certainly isn't a 'fact'. It is an opinion you have of 4e, but its telling that this class is a primary and highly supported leader class that appears in PHB1, displacing either the Bard or the Druid. Someone wanted to fill that grid hole REALLY BADLY, eh?

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.

role/source is just a way of looking at classes, thematically and niche-wise. It isn't some sort of overriding design element that is the starting point for all else. When you design a class you consider what is it LIKE, and what does it DO? This was true in all other editions as well, except in 4e you had to actually describe it in terms of a role and a source. Its a way to insure that when you design a class it WORKS. I'd like to point out that 3.x barely has ANY well-designed classes, in fact in some sense you could almost say they ALL suck. 4e has almost no BADLY designed classes. People have nitpicks with them of course, you could probably perfect them more, but they're all really solid. Even the most 'horrible' of 4e classes, like the Binder, still WORK and can be played without real problems (the Binder does kinda stand out, but then it seems to have failed to achieve its role at all, even so its far better than 50% of the 3.x classes).

So 4e is not some game of filling niches. I suspect you really have no experience with it when you say that. You certainly don't sound like you've played with a 4e warlord at all. In fact I hear VERY few people that are on the objecting side that appear to have that much 4e experience. There seems to be a very skewed view of that system here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

The old "The numbers don't tell the story I want to hear, so they're just BS!" line. Its an oldie, but its a classic!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

That term never bothered me, for the record, though I think it could signal the sort of discussion you were having. Not always though, even 4e fans sometimes used it, usually to label some over-the-top fans maybe, but any of those terms nowadays do seem to carry a bit of the stink of the edition wars. Best left on old battlefields I guess.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Its a way to insure that when you design a class it WORKS. I'd like to point out that 3.x barely has ANY well-designed classes, in fact in some sense you could almost say they ALL suck. 4e has almost no BADLY designed classes.

Works in the sense of fits into a party, anyway.

But, it's unfair to say that all 3.x classes weren't that well-designed. The 3.x fighter was a paragon of game-design elegance, and the Sorcerer wasn't far behind. The Rogue was a big improvement over the traditional versions, too. The Scout was cool and innovative. The Knight & Bo9S classes promising experiments.

That a few 'Tier 1' classes devastated game balance can't be held against the many classes that were solidly designed, imaginative and/or innovative.

So 4e is not some game of filling niches.

Not from the designer's PoV, anyway. Some fans, and I'll cop to being one of 'em, did like the conceptual neatness of a 'complete' Source, though (and the Arcane, Divine & Primal Sources were all filled fairly early in the PH2 - Primal & Psionic both filled at their respective introductions). If there were any classes that were maybe a little forced to fill out their Source, and thus, maybe, a grid, they'd've been the ones in those quickly-completed Sources. The Barbarian had never before wielded so much magic, for instance. The Monk had never been Psionic before. That kind of thing. For classes like that you could debate 'grid filling' vs "looking at classes, thematically and niche-wise." But a class in the PH1 being conceived exclusively to 'fill a grid' that wasn't even arguably filled until HotFK (and even then, filled the 'martial' grid only by adding Primal powers)?

Sorry, no. You can't deduce that number given the data present.

It's inescapable. Anyone voting who was anti-warlord would not vote for the warlord. There were 77 such votes cast at the time I posted up-thread.

The old "The numbers don't tell the story I want to hear, so they're just BS!" line. Its an oldie, but its a classic!

But it really is a very small, self-selected, and, let say 'inefficiently conceived' poll. It's about as meaningless as a poll can get. I say that even though it's showing 3:1 support for the Warlord.

(And, it seems, the 'unvote' option is making it behave /very/ strangely, to boot...)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

hehehe, ouch! Actually, I think in respect of 'class design space' 5e is a pretty good system. Its classes DO cover a lot of territory in a pretty compact form. I don't like some things about how classes are implemented, but its an expressive enough system, you can DEFINITELY do a good warlord.

 

[MoonSong]

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

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.


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.

But the sorcerer is a distinct archetype form the wizard, it had to be reinvented because it left a hole in the game. I guess no designer so far has been a fan, going by the way they overlooked the obvious in 4e (playwise how do you know your caster is a wizard or sorcerer? because one of them is spamming the same spell over and over! it would have been very simple to give the 4e sorcerer the ability to cast any encounter she knew as long as she didn't reach the limit of 2-3, and the same with dailies.) and that the 5e team basically wanted to kill the class and give its stuff to the wizard -ok they gave its stuff to wizard and they decided to kill the class to cover for it-if not for fan outcry.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Which is of course why I pointedly addressed Mike Mearls by name a while back, he's the only person that has to be convinced to make an official warlord class. And yes, you can say "just kit bash your own stuff and stop complaining" but we KNOW everyone wants something from the developers of the game, for various reasons. This isn't about making up our own, you showed a perfectly good example. However, I think I'd like to see something playtested and vetted by people that get paid to do that, it generally makes a real difference in quality.

So Mike, still not reading?

 

[MechaPilot]

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

Primal powers are expressly magical, as stated on page 70 of the book you mentioned (which it turns out was on my bookshelf after all). The vast bulk of the hunter ranger's powers have the primal and not the martial keyword, making the class mostly magical. Calling the hunter ranger "martial" is like calling a Fighter 5/Druid 15 character a martial character.

 

[steeldragons]

This isn't about making up our own, you showed a perfectly good example. However, I think I'd like to see something playtested and vetted by people that get paid to do that, it generally makes a real difference in quality.

This comes up from time to time...and it still confuses me.

What is it people think "people who get paid to do that" are going to find/do with a class that you can't, on your own, with your group?

You want it playtested? Awesome! I'd LOVE it playtested! Take it to your group. Play a few games, try a couple of different subclasses in a party with other "official" classes, fight a few monsters, get some treasure, and let us know how everything all works out..

If you must, I'll let you can give ME money for it. It'll feel just like the "people who are paid to do this" classes. I promise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But the sorcerer is a distinct archetype form the wizard, it had to be reinvented because it left a hole in the game.

'Sorcerer' literally, means someone who deals with spirits, so the Sorcerer never really followed the literal meaning of it's name - much like the Warlord, Paladin, and, well, so many other D&D classes. The distinction from the wizard was mechanical: Spontaneous Casting. While mages who worked something like Sorcerers may vastly exceed the number who worked like 'Vancian' Wizards in genre, it doesn't follow the two are that different as archetypes. Many a book-learn'n mage from genre would know only a relatively small number of spells, not need his books to 'prepare' (let alone "memorize") or cast them, and cast them repeatedly.

IMHO, that was the great thing about the Sorcerer: it did much better, clearer, more evocative and more genre-appropriate builds-to-concept than the Wizard.

I guess no designer so far has been a fan, going by the way they overlooked the obvious in 4e (playwise how do you know your caster is a wizard or sorcerer? because one of them is spamming the same spell over and over! it would have been very simple to give the 4e sorcerer the ability to cast any encounter she knew as long as she didn't reach the limit of 2-3, and the same with dailies.)

The Elemental Sorcerer eventually came along and was a spammy Striker, very distinct from other arcane casters, even the Sorcerer.

and that the 5e team basically wanted to kill the class and give its stuff to the wizard -ok they gave its stuff to wizard and they decided to kill the class to cover for it-if not for fan outcry.

Neo-Vancian casting (not just Wizard but Druid, Cleric, even half- & 1/3rd- casters) does obviate Spontaneous Casting, yes, giving the caster the advantages of both 3.5 Spontaneous & Prepped casters. A sort of stealth power-up (versatility-boost) in 5e, to make up for the trimming of slots and nerfing of spells, perhaps.