D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[Yunru]

Simply put this is a poll which might hopefully count for something (sampling issues aside).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't really care.

What I think of when I think of the Warlord/Marshall from prior editions can already be done by the game as-is, so I'm not invested in inventing another way to achieve the same goal - but I'm also not so strongly opposed to creating new classes that don't have an extremely strong "thing" of their own as to try and stop others from getting what they think of when they think of the Warlord/Marshall from prior editions.

 

[Jester David]

When I hear "warlord" I still think of military juntas with drug addicted child soldiers. So, yeah, another name might be good.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am generally opposed to the proliferation of classes. I played AD&D for about a decade and the only class added in that time was the Psionicist, which had a unique niche that justified its creation. (I'm not counting the Gladiator because it was Darksun-specific.)

If one of my players wanted a Ninja class, I would point out to him that the 5E way of modelling a Ninja is a Shadow Monk. If you want to play a tactical fighter with tricky maneuvers, that would be either a high-Int fighter (of any type) who cleverly uses tactical options like Push and Disarm, or if you want built-in support for your concept it would be a Battlemaster.

There are Warlord-inspired variants that I kind of like (Steeldragons' Warlord on these forums, which is basically suited for leading large numbers of lesser creatures like hirelings and minions), but I still voted No on general principles. My mind could be changed if it were shown that the Tactician-or-whatever-you-call-it were bringing some unique value to the table that justified the increase in complexity from adding another class to the game, but my default is No.

 

[Jester David]

Simply put this is a poll which might hopefully count for something (sampling issues aside).

It won't.
There have been polls. It doesn't matter because regardless of the final outcome of the poll, the people who don't like warlords will argue against them, and the people who like warlords will argue for them, some participants will continue to use this as a proxy edition war, and the debates on the nature of hit points will continue.

Really, it's just another warlord thread clogging up this forum.

 

[Yunru]

It doesn't matter what the people argue, everyone only has one vote, so the numbers won't lie.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, it's a better poll than the "Yes, or Lemon Curry" one at least.

 

[TerraDave]

Well, it's a better poll than the "Yes, or Lemon Curry" one at least.

So its not exactly the same...ok.

 

[Mistwell]

So its not exactly the same...ok.

I'm trying to remain positive. I also could have said, "Well it's not a ranger thread".

 

[Yunru]

Speaking of the ranger, I'm very annoyed DnD doesn't properly represent them. None of them even come close to something for cooking food. What? That's a range? Oh. Well they still don't accurately represent a shed for animals. What do you mean that's a manger!?