D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Eubani]

OK ladies and gents let us get away from this derailment and get back to discussing Warlord demand or this will get closed down as is the agenda of some.

 

[Imaro]

Sigh. I didn't accuse you of that. You and I got into a discussion when you replied to a comment I made regarding others who did. Specifically I was talking about inclusiveness, and you felt the need to comment. Feel free to go back and look at it.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

You are right sir, and your point about a discussion not necessarily having two sides is correct as well. I misunderstood your original point and I apologize for that.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You are right sir, and your point about a discussion not necessarily having two sides is correct as well. I misunderstood your original point and I apologize for that.

Thank you. One should absolutely be able to dissent without retaliation, as long as one is reasonable.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Imaro]

Nevermind... not worth it.

 

[Jester David]

I think discussing any aspect if gaming just because someone feels like discussing it is the whole point if this board. Anyone who doesn't want to discuss whatever it is can just go to a thread they are interested in.

Exactly.

If someone wants to just present their argument for the warlord but doesn't want any discussion, arguments, or counterpoints then they should write a blog and not a forum post.

I'm sorry but you do not get to pick or tell other people what they talk about regardless of what you think about the topic. If you don't like Warlord threads don't read and if you do not like other people discussing it here well that is something you will just have to suffer.

Well, just because you can post something here, doesn't mean you should. There's far, far more warlord topics than is necessary, and they're pushing other topics off the front page.

There's also something naive about posting here and expecting any kind of official response. ENWorld gets read occasionally, but not regularly. Nothing said here has any impact and will not sway Mearls or Crawford in the least. All the warlord discussion might as well be taking place at http://screamintothevoid.com/

Because in a perfect world with unlimited resources and books of unlimited page count and that cost nothing to publish... we would all get what we want, but enough of us know that's not the case... a warlord class being created has an opportunity cost associated with it and unlike 3e or 4e... 5e's publishing schedule is limited and there is enough in the game for many that hasn't been fleshed out or given attention that warlord is just low on their list of wants for 5e. That's the case for me, it's not that I am against a warlord but there are way more other things I'd rather they devote resources to at this point in the games lifecycle especially with the limited number of published products we've gotten so far...

This^

Doing *another* warlord feels like devoting page count to a variant sorcerer or bard or monk. While they might be useful and fix actual problems and make the game better, it's just not the best use of very limited page space.

A class takes up 5-7 pages. That's a good six subclasses giving support to half the classes in the game that would be lost to provide the warlord and a couple subclasses for it.
Or they could double the feats in the game with that same space.
It's literally the wants of the few vs the wants of the many.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The Warlord embodies all of the things that caused people to drop 4th edition

This statement is wildly inaccurate.

I dropped 4th edition for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the warlord (or at least, no more to do with the warlord than to do with any other class).

You should try not to use sweeping generalizations like this, because it can make everything else you are saying in the same post look erroneous by association even if it is spot on accurate.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This statement is wildly inaccurate.

I dropped 4th edition for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the warlord (or at least, no more to do with the warlord than to do with any other class).

You should try not to use sweeping generalizations like this, because it can make everything else you are saying in the same post look erroneous by association even if it is spot on accurate.

I also know ppl who love 4e but dislike the Warlord, and people who didn't like 4e who want a 5e warlord.

And people who would be fine with a close facsimile under a different name, but can't get past the dumb name.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I also know ppl who love 4e but dislike the Warlord, and people who didn't like 4e who want a 5e warlord.

And people who would be fine with a close facsimile under a different name, but can't get past the dumb name.

Yup. There's all kinds.

Also, I bet there are people who currently think the class shouldn't exist who would turn around if WotC came out with a good one.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

The problem I'm having here is the sort of "meta" nature of the question.

Essentially, at least to me, it seems that the idea is that WotC should focus its attention on things that are popular. Seems like a pretty decent idea. Give the fans what they want. And, if no one wants something (or at least not enough people want something), they should focus their attention elsewhere. Again, it's pretty straightforward and I don't think anyone would really disagree with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] or [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] on this point.

However, there's two problems here.

1. We actually don't know how popular different things are. We can speculate all day long, start polls, examine old polls, look at things like the old DDI, which actually did track this information, whatever, but, at the end of the day, that's all it is, speculation. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] might be 100% correct, and it's a tiny number of people who are disproportionately represented. Could be. I don't know and neither do you. I suspect that it might be mistaken and there is more demand that what he apparently thinks there is, but, at the end of the day, we're both just reading the entrails of a chicken.

Which brings me to problem number 2.

2. The argument is awfully convenient and the agenda here is pretty transparent. I mean, we've had two version of a Favored Soul already - a class that appeared in a 3.5 splatbook that, AFAIK, no one actually asked for in 5e. Have you seen any threads or comments saying, "Gee, I really wish 5e had a favored soul class"? I certainly haven't.

Yet, for all that, there's no complaint that WotC has spent significant time - twice in fact - producing a Favored Soul sub-class. I mean, if you seriously believed that WotC should be focusing on what is popular, then where are the threads and polls talking about how WotC is just wasting its time banging out something that no one actually wants? New Ranger? Well, fine, people are certainly asking for that and have been since 5e was released. Fair enough. But new Favored Soul? New Kensei? Really? That's what needed to be updated to 5e?

So, yeah, color me pretty skeptical of the agenda here. It's awfully convenient that the only class that sees this kind of argument - WotC shouldn't waste its time on something no one really wants - just happen to coincide with a class that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] doesn't like. I mean, come on here. It's not exactly hard to connect the dots is it?

I'd have a LOT more sympathy for this line of argument IF it were applied to things other than what people happen not to like. But, when "Well, we don't really need this because no one wants it" just magically coincides with "I don't like this", well, disingenuous is probably the most appropriate word.

*cue wide eyed look of hurt innocence in 5... 4... 3...*

 

[mellored]

A class takes up 5-7 pages. That's a good six subclasses giving support to half the classes in the game that would be lost to provide the warlord and a couple subclasses for it.
Or they could double the feats in the game with that same space.
It's literally the wants of the few vs the wants of the many.

Like what?

I see demand for psionics, Artificer, ranger, and warlord. In roughly that order. But I don't see any other class.

For subclasses, there's a defender fighter, defender barbarian, a generalist wizard, and shaman. Not even 6 total. Most of which have gotten UAs.

I don't see many people clamoring for feats. Maybe a few to make differentiate weapons (push with a maul), but doubling them just for the sake of doubling them is not a good idea.

All of that can fit into 1 book with plenty of space for fluff. So what else is in demand?