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

[MoonSong]

I'm one of the people who wants a warlord, but I have to say that I just don't see anything constructive in carrying on the argument about whether a warlord (or anything else for that matter) is wanted or needed. There are just too many warlord threads, and too many opinions are being inappropriately aggregated on respective "sides" of the discussion. I think the best thing for all parties is for this discussion to be replaced with people posting their respective warlords in the homebrew section.

Actually I think, it would be better for people who want a warlord to start a true campaign, with online petitions, hashtags (something like #wantawarlord or #Warlordgoback) and lots of tweets towards the designers. The site is already full of homebrewed ones, but what many want is an official version.

 

[Arnwolf]

I thought Battle Master was the new warlord.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I thought Battle Master was the new warlord.

It kinda covers the 4e pub warlord, but not satisfyingly. It's good for those who want a bit of warlord in their fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm one of the people who wants a warlord, but I have to say that I just don't see anything constructive in carrying on the argument about whether a warlord (or anything else for that matter) is wanted or needed.

It shows interest in the class, I suppose. If there weren't any discussion of the Warlord, the conclusion would be no interest, there shouldn't be one. Since there is a lot of discussion the conclusion is warlord fans are making too much noise, they shouldn't get one. ;P If they don't start a petition, they're not really serious. If they do, they're being too whiny and entitled.

There's always a negative spin to be spun.

 

[MechaPilot]

[MENTION=6689464]MoonSong(Kaiilurker)[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]:

I don't think a campaign for the warlord is going to work. It's painfully obvious at this point that WotC just doesn't care about the warlord, despite its popularity easily being the same as that of the tinker gnomes, which they effectively gave us in the PHB.

I think a more productive effort would be to encourage WotC to finally finish the licensing for 5e so a 3rd party can publish a warlord (and all the other stuff that people want, like brand new campaign settings, monstrous races, etc).

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not a campaign, it just happened. We got the Psion/Mystic and people stopped talking about it. Next most interesting thing: Warlord.

I hope though, that the campaign for 5e works. Y'know, the one where it was for everyone?

The Warlord's a litmus test for that. The last one, really.

And the longer they wait, the higher the bar gets.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I hope though, that the campaign for 5e works. Y'know, the one where it was for everyone?

All the options have been catered for in the rules - you just don't like them. Wizards aren't going to change anything despite your on going noise on the matter and quite right too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All the options have been catered for in the rules

Obviously not, or we wouldn't be having these conversations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I thought Battle Master was the new warlord.

Doctorbadwolf covered this nicely, but I thought I'd add:
The designers definitely said that they thought the Battlemaster alone was not enough, back when Specialties were still a Thing. Specialties are now gone. I, personally, think it's annoying and (mildly) unfair that to approach a 5e equivalent, you absolutely have to get at least one, and possibly as many as three feats. That means you cannot possibly get a Warlord-like experience before level 4 (ignoring Variant Human since I expect Warlords to be of many races), and possibly not until level 8...all the while, being much, much better at doing the things Fighters do (being personally very tough and doing lots of weapon damage).

I also believe that that feeling of annoyance and unfairness, coupled with the desire to see what else can be done with the concept in a new edition with different design parameters, is a perfectly legitimate reason to ask for the class to be made. Just like how you could model a Psion fairly easily with multiple classes (GOO Warlock, Knowledge Cleric, Diviner Wizard, especially with the 'spell point' variant rules), but it would annoy or be unfair to certain desires of Psion fans, and would fail to explore the new or alternative design directions available with this new edition. I felt the same way about the Jester class poll that went up recently.

Would I feel the same way about absolutely every suggested class? Probably not. But I would, at the very least, seriously consider whether there could be interesting new design directions for a requested/suggested full class. I would also consider one or more subclass options for current classes (whether as a "full" representative or merely a "dabbler," which is what I consider the ally-boosting variety of Battlemaster to be), and whether you could get just a "hint" or an "origin" out of the idea, to help fuel ideas for backgrounds. The last is because I believe backgrounds supplement, rather than replace, the needs/wants filled by classes and subclasses--just like how having an Entertainer background doesn't obviate the overall system need for a Bard, nor does Soldier obviate the need for a Fighter, nor Sage obviate Wizard, nor Outlander obviate Ranger, nor Acolyte obviate Cleric, etc. They provide context and a boost to a concept, not a complete concept on their own nor in combination with any particular class or subclass.

All the options have been catered for in the rules - you just don't like them. Wizards aren't going to change anything despite your on going noise on the matter and quite right too.

Seems very odd, then, that they feel there needs to be a "psion"-type class. If the game as-is is complete and needs no modification nor extension, why address things like player dissatisfaction with the Ranger? That's why they've said they're doing it, after all, because the Ranger consistently ranks lowest on their surveys of satisfaction with the various classes.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Obviously not, or we wouldn't be having these conversations.

You'd be having these conversations regardless - the evidence being your response when people have pointed out how to build up the character you describe. You say it's not good enough for you - fine, but you can't say it's not catered for.

[QUOTE="Doctorbadwolf]Seems very odd, then, that they feel there needs to be a "psion"-type class.[/QUOTE]The Psion is not, and will never be 'core'. The inclusion of it as an optional/supplemental Class was always mooted before.

If the game as-is is complete and needs no modification nor extension, why address things like player dissatisfaction with the Ranger? That's why they've said they're doing it, after all, because the Ranger consistently ranks lowest on their surveys of satisfaction with the various classes.

Unlike the Warlord or Psion, the Ranger is seen as a keynote 'core' Class. If it doesn't reach points of satisfaction, then Wizards will naturally want to sort it out.

The closest situation to this for the Warlord resides in the BattleMaster subclass - which was also highlighted as something Wizards' D&D team were looking at. As I have said on repeated times before, people would do much better suggesting constructive ways of improving that Subclass rather than endlessly petitioning - as a vocal minority - over a new Warlord Class that simply ain't ever going to happen.