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?
I don't just post here and lurk elsewhere. Across multiple platforms, I think I see more calls and design for witchers than warlords. There's so many witcher monsters online…
There's also lots of demand here for a vague "more". All those non specific complaints for far more regular splatbooks. Just more feats, more subclasses, more options. No specific needs, just more.
Anyhoo, some emphasis added above. The thing is, asking for a "class" is leading the discussion. It's not "how do we build a warlord?" which can include a combination of classes and feats. Instead, it's "we need this particular mechanical expression of a warlord."
I think few people ask for classes outright. Most players think characters and not classes. Threads are "how do I make a summoner?" or "how do I build a shapeshifter?" It's about an actual character being designed for play and not just a desire for something included in the game for a theoretical character.
Even when a new option is desired, I think a lot of players are happy with the idea of subclasses over classes. We no longer need a knight of Solamnia class or a defiler class or a gladiator class because what a class can do is no longer hardwired and limited. Because classes have built-in flexibility. The discussion of adding a concept might result in a feat or a subclass or something else.
Right now there's demand for the mystic/psion and the artificer because they're D&D tropes that you can't easily do. There's no "psionic" feat or "imbue magic item" subclass feature.
In contrast with the warlord where so much is in the game already. So there are fewer "how do I *build* a warlord character" threads as that's easy. Because of that it's mostly fans of previous editions who want an old favourite back and are setting ultimatums. It
has to be a full class and not a subclass. It
has to grant off turn actions. It
has to heal. It
has to be nonmagical and serve as a clerical replacement. It's a very different discussion.
Wait... what? What "another" warlord did we get? We haven't gotten ONE yet.
The Purple Dragon Knight
very clearly is designed to fill that role. Plus there is the Battle Master and Valour bard. There's the Healer and Inspiring Leader feats. It's a theme that has been done.
The mechanics are all in the game, they're just not codified in a single class explicitly with that name.
If a lot of people start requesting a ninja class - which has been a thing in the past - I'll equally protest. We have the assassin and the shadow dancer already filling in that niche.
You can make a strong argument for the ninja as a class. Popular occupation. Coolness factor. More weapon use than the monk, including martial weapons. No armour unlike the rogue. Lots of unique tricks. A range of supernatural abilities, but just as much potential for nonmagic. Like 4e, you could merge that with the actual assassin class, merging those two ideas. The 1e and 3e assassins received spells IIRC. And there's few shadow power classes or concepts in the game.
But we don't *need* a ninja.
If we had a new splatbook every month or even 2-3 a years I also would not protest. Because it's not taking away rare content. We can have that ninja and warlord and shaman and summoner and off-brand witcher. But books be rare. And that changes what content I'd like to see and what content I'll argue for or against.
How many pages of every class do we have so far? Between SCAG, UA and the PHB? Ten, fifteen pages per class?
10-15 sounds about right. A class can take 5-7 pages in the PHB with each sublass roughly being a page.
So making a warlord with as many options as the fighter means adding 1 new class with 4 new subclasses to the game, which appeals to people who like warlords. But, in that same amount of pages (6ish) there could be sorcerer subclass
and a barbarian subclass
and a warlock subclass
and a bard subclass
and a fighter subclass
and a druid subclass. So it's making warlord fans happy vs making sorcerer, barbarian, warlock, bard, fighter, and druid fans happy.
Because pages are finite, and adding pages for the warlord literally takes them away from other classes.
But not just that, as classes take far more time to design. So while it takes the same amount of pages as six subclasses, a warlord class would take far more time to write, test, rewrite, retest, and then publically playtest. That one class is coming at the expense of testing a good dozen subclasses. It's going to affect the quality of other content.
As I mention earlier in this post in a reply to another poster, there's a lot of people who want more. Who have a hole in their hearts that can only be filled by D&D accessories for the roleplaying game. Who want more.
A full warlord class isn't more. It's more of the same. It's options already in the game.
See my comment above on the scarcity of new content. With one book a year… with new class content every couple years… with a probably 100-150 pages of new class content at most this year (and very likely limited or no new class content until 2019 or 2020), devoting 10% of that content to a concept that's been done but just not done well enough to the satisfaction of every player is problematic and undesirable.
(
Especially as we're already losing that much space to redoing the ranger. We don't need to lose a fifth of the goddamn book to redesigning stuff we already have at the expense of entirely new content that supports character concepts you cannot even kludge together.)
And, again, I missed your criticisms when the UA monk, sorcerer and bard were released. After all, each of those pdf's are what, 4, 5 pages long. So, why weren't you up in arms about how much of a waste of time those articles were?
Did they add new options not currently in the game? Then I didn't complain.
Did they repeat content that already existed in some form? (Like the fighter subclasses) Then I complained.
Because the former isn't a waste while the latter is.
I don't see how the qualification of "identical" should be a prerequisite for the demand or right to self-existence of class. You cited previously, for example, the demand for a shaman class or the swordmage class, but even a cursory look on the various forums, subreddits, tumblr, etc. reveals that everyone has radically different ideas for what a shaman or swordmage/gish class would look like or their mechanics entail. And there appear to be much greater degrees of variance of mechanics and flavor between shaman or swordmage designs than there are between warlord designs. Furthermore, I am curious how things would turn out if we applied that criteria to classes in the PHB. If we told people to design a sorcerer or warlock for 5e, how would they compare?
I've often said that if you get a group of six geeks together and order pizzas, you'll end up with seven different requests for pizza. Possibly with one order in Klingon. We're an opinionated bunch.
Everyone has completely different ideas of what a shaman looks like: mythology, anthropological, like Warcraft's, like the shaman from 4e (similar to the spirit shaman from 3e), like Pathfinder's, like the 2e kit, etc.
The warlord is a very different beast. When people design warlords, they're not designing based on a concept or archetype, they're designing basing on the mechanics of a class. It's not "how can I make a tactical commander class using the 5e rules?" or "how can I emulate a squad leader or Aragorn?" it's "how can I port these rules into 5th Edition?" There's going to be less variance as there's less reinterpretation going on. Mostly shuffling of when abilities are gained based on personal priorities.
I think in part because the inspiration is single mechanical expression of the class rather than a narrative concept or multiple mechanical expressions across multiple editions, there's less room for variance. More people are making ultimatums regarding the warlord than something like the shaman: the warlord has to heal real hit points; it can't be a subclass; it has to be called the warlord; it has to be in a hardcover book used for AL; etc. For a while it had to grant attacks as an at-will power. There's tension points where there can be no compromise.
It's not enough for there to be a class that fills the same hook and does similar things.
As a weekend designer, I find that frustrating. If you're going to design a "tactical leader" class and make it awesome, why shackle your design to a dead edition? Take the concept and make it better. Find some new mechanics that wouldn't have worked in the AEDU chassis.
If designing a summoner, I wouldn't look at the 3e conjurer and/or 4e summoner wizard and say "this is the limit of my design". I'd look at the Pathfinder summoner. I'd look at Faust and Aladdin. I'd look at Final Fantasy. I'd throw my free time out the window and hit
TV Tropes.
Alternatively, it's a little like trying to design the fighter and then mandating things like "Weapon Specialization", "Bonus Feats", and certain abilities based on popular builds. "The best 4e fighter was sword-and-board as it was the best tank, so all fighters need Tide of Iron." Rather than innovating and creating new options (like Second Wind and Action Surge) that work with the fighter but fit the tenets of the edition, you're designing a 4e class that uses 5e math.
The point isn't to appeal to the small subset of existing D&D fans who liked something how it was mechanically done half a decade ago and are dissatisfied by current implementations, but to appeal to fans of the concept as a whole and do it better than before.
In this case, to design a warlord that doesn't just appeal to the nostalgia of 15-25% of ENWorld posters but to anyone who likes the idea of a tactical leader class/ subclass.
Indeed. I would like to eventually get around to designing a hypothetical warlord class - and there were some good ideas floating around on Reddit - but it's 1) a matter of precious time, and 2) recognizing my own limitations as a potential amateur designer.
If you're waiting for time to just appear it will never happen. If it's something you want to do, you have to
make the time. I write a lot of content for the Guild. I don't somehow have more free time that other people. I just prioritize writing and design over videogames or an hour of Netflix. Or I just neglect my son. Whatever's easiest.
Similarly, the way to combat those limitations as an amateur designer is to actually design. It's like anything else: it takes practice and failure to improve.
Thankfully, there's lots of warlords out there. Find one you like and use it. Or mash a couple together. It's quick and in doing so you'll learn some design tricks.
Flipping something around now:
In the long term, that would be ideal, but UA would at least show effort by WotC in creating warlord class and not just half-assed lip service.
A subset of the battle master and the purple dragon knight are hardly "half-assed". That's as much content the swashbuckler/ duelist trope received (also BM and a rogue archetype), which is a much, much more widespread trope for warriors (see
The Princess Bride,
The Court Jester and every Musketeer, pirate, or Zorro movie ever).
Demands? Expressing "I would like to see a warlord class in 5E" has suddenly become an imperative or a demand? When did this happen in the English language? I would say that your characterization of the warlord threads are disingenuous.
I used "demand" based on the tone of most of the discussions.
Why?
Well, firstly there are eleven subclasses in the
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. A very small handful, and the limit of all the content added to the game. One is the purple dragon knight. The only new class content people will see for two years.
When people start dismissing that new content as unacceptable - as "half-assed" - then it becomes somewhat demanding. "Nope. Fail. Go back and do it again as a full class."
And - as mentioned above - there are the assorted requirements being placed on the design of the class. It's not enough that it feels like a walord and is balanced, it also has to do very specific things.
WotC has given the warlord far more support and mechanics than most other former (non-traditional) classes. But it's still not enough.
Hence "demanding".
(And, really, designing a class based on the restraints that it has to do exactly what it did in previous editions is the definition of "half-assed design".)
There have been a number of warlord threads about discussions for making a warlord, but those threads - just about like with so many other warlord threads - often get derailed by the usual suspects who want to destroy any warlord project from even happening on the principle of opposing any warlord in the game. It's rare that any warlord thread gets the opportunity to brainstorm possible features, class design, or even a design by committee when everyone expends that much of their time and effort in (in)validating the existence of the warlord.
As I mentioned earlier, those often start as entreatments to WotC (which will never be read by WotC) for a warlord. Which are discussions and not meant for brainstorming, let alone actual design. And work under the flawed assumption that for the content to be valid and worthwhile it has to come from WotC.
For example, this thread isn't about designing a warlord or brainstorming features. It's solely about trying to prove that the warlord is popular. (As if something being popular makes it worthwhile.) It's not about getting the warlord onto people's tables, it's about warlord fans validating their opinions or proving a point.
Now, in the few threads that have started as discussions on designing the warlord arguments do break out. But it's unfair to just blame "usual suspects who want to destroy any warlord project". It takes two to argue. If everyone in the thread was just working on designing the warlord, then the one or two posters who pop in and say "the warlord sux!" would stand out against the otherwise positive and constructive tone.
Things fall apart when the warlord fans engage with the detractors. They feed the trolls. Because the best (if not only) real defense of the warlord class is "because I like it." But defenders of the class break out other arguments to defend their personal tastes in class. But as these reasons are all debatable they're… well, debated.
Even when the thread mostly stays on topic, design by committee never seems to get very far. Because everyone just outlines and brainstorms some ideas but no one really wants to do the work. They give their rough concept of a first draft of a warlord and then it just sits there never being refined.
I've pointed out the more successful swordmage and shaman classes on the DMsGuild, and I think one of the reasons they've been successful is the work put into them: formatting, cover art, and regular revisions. You can often tell the good DMsGuild products from the bad based on the number of revisions and updates. The warlord fans are very passionate about defending their class and spend hours posting about it online, but just seem unwilling to devote that same amount of time and energy designing a homebrew class and making the document look decent.
There 161 posts on this thread. And 95 on the "How much warlord?" thread. But only on 34 in the Quintis warlord thread that is mostly on-topic and non-argumentative. Because warlord fans here will spend three times as much time arguing rather than designing a class they claim to want.
One warlord thread did actually point me to a platinum seller on DMsGuild that had its own version of the Warlord. It's the "Heroes of the Orient" supplement, which has a Shogun class that the creator has explicitly said he saw a need for a Warlord-type class and designed the Shogun to create a Warlord-type class. I have not yet picked up the supplement to check it out, though the sheer volume of content does make it seem that it will be worth the $10 price tag. But this supplement also points out one of the potential shortcomings of DMsGuild as a metric for demand. It's a platinum seller. It offers its own version of the warlord. Should we take the popularity of its shogun class reflect a demand for the warlord? How much of its platinum sales comes from it simply being a Far Eastern supplement that has its own high demand?
I'd say that given the term "warlord" doesn't appear in the item description and the product doesn't appear in searches for "warlord" it's safe to say the book is instead selling based on its "oriental adventures" theme (bolstered by the professional design, the snazzy cover, and the amount of work put into the product).
