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

[Mouseferatu]

As long as enough fans want a warlord that WotC will profit from giving or selling a warlord class to those fans, they should do it. That doesn't have to mean a large percentage of fans. It could potentially be as low as five or ten percent.

It's actually not that simple. Consideration goes beyond "Will WotC profit from selling a warlord?" It has to include "Will they profit more by doing something else?"

Let's say a full-fledged class requires 6,000 words of work. (I'm not saying that number's accurate; I'm just using it for illustration purposes.) 6K of words has a fixed cost: X for the writing, Y for the editing, Z for the accompanying art, etc.

The question is not, "If we spend X, Y, and Z on a warlord, will the book sell?" The question is, "If we spend X, Y, and Z on a warlord, will the book sell better or worse than if we spend them on [psionics/wardens/new feats/whatever]?"

And that's just the measurable costs. Things like "What fits best into 5E as we see it?" or "What fits best into our plans for this year?" must also be taken into consideration.

I'm not saying the warlord will necessarily come out second-best in such considerations. I don't know. I don't have access to WotC's research, nor do I have a dog in the warlord race. I'm just saying, it's not nearly as simple as "Does some of the audience want a warlord?"

 

[MechaPilot]

It's actually not that simple. Consideration goes beyond "Will WotC profit from selling a warlord?" It has to include "Will they profit more by doing something else?"

I get that (I am an accountant, after all). I simply meant that profit is a far more accurate analysis of whether the warlord should be created by WotC than the popularity of the class.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

Interesting demo. I've heard it said many times that internet fan site populations (and forumites in particular) are a lousy demo when trying to establish a norm or baseline across the greater population. Has anyone else heard that or know what I'm referring to? Its always rung true to me at least. Kinda makes sense if you think about it.

Anyway, I'm basing my experience on the hundreds of hours and hundreds of players, in Organized Play (RPGA) here at the three large gaming conventions I help run every year in SoCal. As well as the tons of private games and FLGS events I've participated in throughout the 4e run. It was very popular out here for years. In fact I got back into RPGA when it was released because I was unhappy with the 3e living campaigns.

<shrug>

Many things are local to some level.
For example where I am RPGA is a non existen thing as is orginised play.
Also found out online that pathfinder is a big thing to many people as here it is seen as just one of hhe many d20 licenced products and hardly played.

but when it comes to the warlord on 4th you have to keep in mind that 4th asumes al parties to have at least 1 leader type.
In my experiance here the distribution was about Cleric 40% warlord 30% bard 15% others 15%

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As long as enough fans want a warlord that WotC will profit from giving or selling a warlord class to those fans, they should do it. That doesn't have to mean a large percentage of fans. It could potentially be as low as five or ten percent.

As long as they don't turn other fans into ex-fans in the process. It is possible to make things worse by releasing more product. Fortunately the 5E designers are savvy to this reality.

 

[Hussar]

What? I think we may be drifting into the weeds. WotC's own surveys more closely mirror my experience with the popularity of warlords. That they weren't all that. If someone states that their experience indicated that they were widely loved and popular, I'd suggest that maybe that local area has like-minded individuals that perhaps tended towards a particular bent. Have you heard of confirmation bias or clusters? Or even "birds of a feather..."? There are a lot of reasons why an individual may experience something locally they think to be widespread but which is in fact not the case. That's all I said.

And my extensive experience still runs counter to the claim that they were ever widely popular. That's not going to change.

Umm, pardon? WOTC's own surveys placed warlords ahead of barbarians and sorcerers and on par with psions and monks. IOW, warlords hit pretty much the middle of the pack.

 

[Aldarc]

What? I think we may be drifting into the weeds. WotC's own surveys more closely mirror my experience with the popularity of warlords. That they weren't all that. If someone states that their experience indicated that they were widely loved and popular, I'd suggest that maybe that local area has like-minded individuals that perhaps tended towards a particular bent. Have you heard of confirmation bias or clusters? Or even "birds of a feather..."? There are a lot of reasons why an individual may experience something locally they think to be widespread but which is in fact not the case. That's all I said.

And my extensive experience still runs counter to the claim that they were ever widely popular. That's not going to change.

The WotC surveys showed that warlords were more "that" than the barbarian, sorcerer, and warlock, which were all classes that became core classes in 5E. Fact. Deal thyself with that. Or were the playtesting polls simply "local phenomenon"?

 

[Imaro]

Umm, pardon? WOTC's own surveys placed warlords ahead of barbarians and sorcerers and on par with psions and monks. IOW, warlords hit pretty much the middle of the pack.

I find it interesting that the classes that were lower or equal to the Warlord are the classes WotC chose to hold back in 4e for later releases... and we all know that supplemental books tend to get bought and used exponentially less than the core 3. I wonder how much of that lack of popularity was due to the fact that there was no Barb, Sorc or Monk in the 1st PHB...

EDIT: I also remember the Warlock being pretty polarizing as well when it was determined it would be in the 4e 1st PHB... so the Warlock being low isn't all that surprising.

 

[Imaro]

The WotC surveys showed that warlords were more "that" than the barbarian, sorcerer, and warlock, which were all classes that became core classes in 5E. Fact. Deal thyself with that. Or were the playtesting polls simply "local phenomenon"?

The playtesting polls don't necessarily represent what the majority of players feel about the classes... Most of the players I know don't even go to the WotC site. It's a singular data point and one of the reasons I think the data from the CB, on what was actually played would be infinitely more valuable as a metric.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

They didn't just say "we're working on something like that, and we might include it". They said something like "be patient, we're going to include a tactical module that will meet all your needs and answer your objections." and then never produced even a playtest of such a module. I don't think they 'lied' per-se, they were just very cavalier with their promises. I would never trust any of them to do what they say they will do at this point, only a fool would. If those weren't promises, then what is?

If that is the case, I don't follow developers on twitter or stuff like that so I didn't know much about 5e until I bought the PH since I had skipped 4e entirely, I would still say plans change. No point in getting that worked up about it IMO. If they put out something that makes the game more 4e'ish then do they have to support both in published materials? I just don't see them adding in optional materials that totally change the nature of the game, which will probably then lead to fans of that optional book angry that the newest modules and AL play doesn't include it. I guess we will see. I personally don't care if they do or don't put in a Warlord, but reading over the 4e class it seems its very suited for a game with that tactical miniatures base to it and they seem to have scaled back buffing in 5e compared to the last 2 editions. Hope someone makes something that will work for your game though if they ever get 3rd party straightened out.

 

[Jester David]

Umm, pardon? WOTC's own surveys placed warlords ahead of barbarians and sorcerers and on par with psions and monks. IOW, warlords hit pretty much the middle of the pack.

The WotC surveys showed that warlords were more "that" than the barbarian, sorcerer, and warlock, which were all classes that became core classes in 5E. Fact. Deal thyself with that. Or were the playtesting polls simply "local phenomenon"?

This would be the Legends Lore poll, right? Which would likely be as representative as a week-long poll here at ENWorld.
Or did they release some data points from the actual playtest surveys that I'm unaware of?

Of course, they also tried to remove the warlock and sorcerer. So it's not like they just automatically approved all the other classes.