D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Krachek]

They wont build an official class that rely too much on the presence or features of others classes.
They want us to bring any classes to adventurer league and have fun, even if the rest of the party is composed of wizards.
The Warlordy ability will remain secondary.

 

[mellored]

They want us to bring any classes to adventurer league and have fun, even if the rest of the party is composed of wizards.

I agree.

The Warlordy ability will remain secondary.

I disagree.

No reason why warlordy-abilities couldn't work with wizards. Attack granting isn't the full class. It's just one option in the class. Just like magic weapon is one of the wizards spells.

For example.
When you make an attack, choose one of the following.
*An ally can use their reaction to make a single attack against the same creature.
*The target of your attack has disadvantage on it's next saving throw until the start of your next turn.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Its still going to feel a lot like a spell if you use it at the beginning of battle and just let the buff ride out.

So, for you, would you say it is more important that the delivery mechanism of the benefits not feel too much like the delivery mechanism used by other character concepts than it is that the benefits delivered be directly comparable?

If yes, I feel I understand your point of view on warlord characters, as it sounds a lot like my point of view on psionic characters (the stuff needed for a psion style character is already doable with a warlock or wizard, but I'd rather psionics feel like a different sub-system from spellcasting or pact magic than have it exactly match what effects it can achieve to what warlocks and/or wizards can achieve).

 

[Hussar]

[Shrug] Perhaps. But, IMO, shouldn't it be incumbent on the person who chooses to use the ignore feature to put in the necessary effort? I mean, clearly if you put someone on it, you are choosing not to interact with them. Don't interact with them. That's simple enough. If a person simply can't stand to converse with me--so much so that they don't even want to *see* my posts--they should at least put the minimal effort to avoid quoting me. Since that, presumably, violates their own sensibilities.

And WRT the mobile "issue", if you are a user of the mobile app, and the ignore feature doesn't work on it, why are you even using the ignore feature in the first place? They get to see and interact with everyone's posts, but get to remain invisible to those they ignore? That's grimy in-and-of itself, IMO. Its an end-around.

Some of us use both the app and our computers. It's entirely possible to have more than one device for viewing the forums.

So, when I'm on my computer, I don't see some people's posts, but, when I'm on my phone, I do. And it works both ways remember - if you've blocked them, they don't see your posts if they're on a computer, but, they still see your posts if they're on their phone. (I think that's right).

But, yeah, if someone's on you ignore list, you still have to unhidden their posts to see them, so, yeah, it's a bit of a stretch to "forget" that you've blocked someone.

 

[mellored]

So, for you, would you say it is more important that the delivery mechanism of the benefits not feel too much like the delivery mechanism used by other character concepts than it is that the benefits delivered be directly comparable?

Yes.

Warlords should be making round by round decisions, adapting to the changes on the ground. Not cast-and-forget of haste, or the walking aura of paladin. Both of which we already have.
They won't get as many options as a bard (no polymorph or greater invisibility), but they have more flexibility in how they use each option they have. A move to that guy, an extra attack to finish off the wounded creature, and bonus AC to the one who is surrounded.

If yes, I feel I understand your point of view on warlord characters, as it sounds a lot like my point of view on psionic characters (the stuff needed for a psion style character is already doable with a warlock or wizard, but I'd rather psionics feel like a different sub-system from spellcasting or pact magic than have it exactly match what effects it can achieve to what warlocks and/or wizards can achieve).

Agreed. No point in making a yet another spell slot class. (though warlocks are nicely different).


Though i still think monk + psion could have fit in the same class. A bit late, but it would have worked well.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yes.

Cool. Then, if nothing else I planned to do today gets done, I can at least count gaining understanding of someone else's point of view as a thing I did today.

Though i still think monk + psion could have fit in the same class. A bit late, but it would have worked well.

That's a bit tricky. I'm glad to have monk (chocolate), and psion (peanut butter, left out of the core game because of common allergic reaction) separate so I can mix them to my own taste, rather than have monk (which I view as mastering martial arts to the point of supernatural prowess) and psion (which I view as possessing rare mental capabilities) presented to me in pre-mixed form (that would require me to redefine my view of the concepts behind both).

And that's with me liking both. I'm sure someone that likes one, but not the other, would be even more strongly opposed to the idea of sticking the two together as a default.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There's quite alot of assumptions going on here. I personally never saw a warlord played in 4e and I played home games and weekly encounters games with a changing roster of people... but I don't think that's any type of evidence on the popularity of the 4e warlord...

Oh and for the record I've seen Battlemasters, Valor Bards and the Rogue mastermind in actual play.

EDIT: I am actually finding it borderline incredible that you haven't witnessed any of the classes that have warlord-esque abilities (at least as defined in these numerous warlord threads) being played in 5e...

Wait... you think that Battlemaster, Valor Bard, and Mastermind Rogue are Warlord-like? Well that would be why you don't believe me. I've seen THOSE, though I've never seen anyone play a Battlemaster WITH the Warlardy bits, or play a Valor Bard or Mastermind rogue in any way that looks at all like a Warlord. I was thinking of the PDK or Bannerette, or whatever. Never seen it.

And I find it equally incredible that you played 4e and never saw a Warlord. I never saw a game without one.

You're right that there's assumptions going on. Like the assumption that it's an unpopular class. I find that assumption strange, considering how many people seem to be asking for it.

And I'm not even one of those people.

 

[Hussar]

We can't win for losing.

When WotC brings out rules that no one is asking for, like Mass Combat Rules, they're supporting a niche that needed to be filled. When they bring out rules TWICE for a class that people never asked for by name, they supporting a niche that needed to be filled.

But, when people ask for something by name, repeatedly, apparently there's no need to support that niche because there's just not enough people to warrant actually giving support.

 

[Jester David]

No one is complaining about mastermind's ability to help, battlemaster's commander's strike, or PDK's inspiring second wind. Everyone agrees that they are all very "warlord-y" abilities.

But those things are secondary things for those classes. People want those things to be the primary thing they do.

So what you're saying is we also need a Mastermind class?

Tanking is secondary to the fighter. Guess we need a tank class. Wild shape is limited to animals, so a shapesmith class is necasssary as well. There's no enchanting bard, so a mesmerism is needed. Plus the summoner.

That rabbit hole doesn't have a bottom.

 

[Imaro]

Wait... you think that Battlemaster, Valor Bard, and Mastermind Rogue are Warlord-like? Well that would be why you don't believe me. I've seen THOSE, though I've never seen anyone play a Battlemaster WITH the Warlardy bits, or play a Valor Bard or Mastermind rogue in any way that looks at all like a Warlord. I was thinking of the PDK or Bannerette, or whatever. Never seen it.

These classes are brought up consistently whenever the warlord is discussed... even in this very thread but I'll bite... what are the classes with warlord-esqu abilities in 5e if it's not these?

And I find it equally incredible that you played 4e and never saw a Warlord. I never saw a game without one.

Anecdotal evidence is... anecdotal evidence

You're right that there's assumptions going on. Like the assumption that it's an unpopular class. I find that assumption strange, considering how many people seem to be asking for it.

And I'm not even one of those people.

Unpopular and not popular enough to devote limited resources too... don't have to be the same thing. Just curious...how many people seem to be asking for it? ANd how many are necessary for it to be popular vs. unpoipular?