D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[FitzTheRuke]

The assertion I am talking about is you finding it strange for some people to think it's an unpopular class... Your reason for this assertion was that you see plenty of people asking for it. At that point I asked how many is "plenty"...



No but if you are basing your assertion on the opinion that the warlord is not a popular class on seeing plenty of people ask for it... I'd like to know what, even in a rough sense, is plenty?



I'm not trying to be... just asking you to expound on your previous statement... maybe I'm missing something here but I see (outside of what I believe to be a vocal minority in this forum) little to no demand for a warlord in 5e.

Nah. I'm done. You just keep accusing me of doing everything you yourself are doing.

You claim my evidence is anecdotal (when I never suggested otherwise) and yet you use anecdotal evidence.

You keep asserting that people don't want a Warlord and if I suggest it doesn't look that way to me, you tell me I need to show numbers. (While we are on a thread made by people who want it.)

And so on.

No matter what I say, you circle it around, just like earlier, when you claimed I was telling you you couldn't say you didn't want a Warlord when I was saying that people should be allowed to discuss wanting one when someone else tried to stop them.

Essentially every time I say anything, you accuse me of doing the exact thing you yourself are doing. It's really not worth my time.





Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Imaro]

Nah. I'm done. You just keep accusing me of doing everything you yourself are doing.

You claim my evidence is anecdotal (when I never suggested otherwise) and yet you use anecdotal evidence.

Both of us are using anecdotal evidence... I haven't claimed mine is anything other than that.

You keep asserting that people don't want a Warlord and if I suggest it doesn't look that way to me, you tell me I need to show numbers. (While we are on a thread made by people who want it.)

And so on.

No... I've asserted that I don't think the warlord is popular enough to warrant resources being diverted from other things WotC could give us. That has always been my stance

Uhmmm, also... I'm the creator of this thread... I don't care if we get a warlord. I created it because of an offhand comment in a different thread saying it would be interesting to have this... a comment made by someone who actively didn't want a warlord.

No matter what I say, you circle it around, just like earlier, when you claimed I was telling you you couldn't say you didn't want a Warlord when I was saying that people should be allowed to discuss wanting one when someone else tried to stop them.

No this is different, but I did man up to making that mistake and apologize... I don't feel like I'm making a mistake now. We have different views, I am questioning the parameters (what plenty actually means) you are using to come to yours...

Essentially every time I say anything, you accuse me of doing the exact thing you yourself are doing. It's really not worth my time.

If you are referring to anecdotal evidence... well that's all any of us have but using a word like "plenty" is so vague as to be useless for conversation. I am asking for clarity... does plenty roughly equate to half, a quarter... maybe 10% or what of D&D 5e players and DM's?





Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app[/QUOTE]

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip the major bulk of the post >

If you are referring to anecdotal evidence... well that's all any of us have but using a word like "plenty" is so vague as to be useless for conversation. I am asking for clarity... does plenty roughly equate to half, a quarter... maybe 10% or what of D&D 5e players and DM's? . . .

If you don't mind, I'll try to address that last question a bit, in the following way:
With the release of 4E, WotC diverted the Gnome race from the PHB and stuck it into the MM, replacing it with the Tiefling in the PHB. They experienced outrage from fans of D&D, and they wondered why -- after all, their extensive market research showed them that only about 10% of players ever played a gnome, and they thought that was a low enough bar for them to get away with leaving it out -- because 10% is a really low fraction, isn't it? They wouldn't be affecting very many players, would they?

They thereby discovered what they later called "The Gnome Problem": if each playing table has five players, then every two tables (on average) has ten players -- and that means one person who would eventually like to play a gnome at every one of two tables. This means that 50% of the tables were affected, and would hear about the complaints of their one player who suddenly couldn't play a gnome even if wanting to right then.

Based on their experience with "The Gnome Problem," WotC declared that they thereby learned that 10% is effectively enough of the player base to indicate that a pre-existing feature of the game is wanted enough for WotC to need to include it in the game. That was in 2008-2009, and I don't have a link handy. Searching on the web might show evidence of that experience.

 

[Barolo]

(...) "The Gnome Problem" (...)

I guess I have experience some of that, though in a very different sense.

 

[Satyrn]

For me the Warlord class typifies an era when D&D ‘went tactical’, the game board was expected, the focus had moved from the minds of the group, onto a grid and a list of powers. It represents a specific style of gaming that I am glad 5E broke away from. I’m not keen on the Battlemaster archetype for exactly the same reason. But I do try to stick to my ‘pick anything from the WotC hardbacks’ mantra, so I’m not going to remove it – though I may just stick to running lower level games so that the number of tactical options the class has is more limited.

I just want to assure you that the high level battlemaster is unlikely to interfere with your prefences. The tactical decisions I need to make with my gnome battlemaster are quick to consider. It's pretty clear which one I should use at any moment - I'm gonna use the push if my foe is near a cliff! and I'm gonna Parry as often as possible - its come to the point where my only difficult decision is if I shouod spend a Superiority Die at all, and you as the DM can cut that decision making time down real quicky by just moving on.

And all he maneuvers I have - including Push - can easily be handled without a grid.

It's a very fast playing character for me.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not the one who made the assertion...



And this seems like a simplistic view when one considers the realities of a roleplaying game with limited resources devoted to it, a finite pagecount of books, a slower publishing schedule, etc... but I could be wrong.

The irony is strong here. He's "wrong" for asserting "plenty" with absolutely no actual evidence, but, you're apparently "right" for asserting not enough people want a warlord, despite having no actual evidence beyond circumstance and coincidence.

So, which is it [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - does if he has to provide strong evidence of "plenty" why don't you have to do the same?

 

[Hussar]

I missed this earlier but here's some excerpts from the WotC polls concerning Favored Soul, Artificer and some other classes...



So I guess consistently people are asking for sorcerer bloodlines... and thus the Favored Soul



So it looks like the Artificer as well as the shaman and alchemist are popular as well...

As for Psionics well I have no problem with it because, outside of me personally wanting it, it's necessary for Dark Sun and Eberron... two of WotC's most popular settings... it's a no-brainer even if they expect you to use older edition setting material (and we aren't sure they won't be revisiting either of these settings) you still need 5e rules for it.

You do realize that they left Warlord off these polls right? That they've consistently left warlord off the polls as an option? Why do you think they would do that? And, what reaction do you think Warlord fans have to seeing that option left off of every single poll?

 

[Imaro]

The irony is strong here. He's "wrong" for asserting "plenty" with absolutely no actual evidence, but, you're apparently "right" for asserting not enough people want a warlord, despite having no actual evidence beyond circumstance and coincidence.

So, which is it [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - does if he has to provide strong evidence of "plenty" why don't you have to do the same?

I didn't say he was "right" or "wrong"... And I said both of us had anecdotal evidence... my question was centered around what "plenty" of people meant. Please go back and re-read the exchange

 

[Imaro]

You do realize that they left Warlord off these polls right? That they've consistently left warlord off the polls as an option? Why do you think they would do that? And, what reaction do you think Warlord fans have to seeing that option left off of every single poll?

That doesn't change it being evidence people want these things...

 

[mellored]

Well let's look at this poll...

About half the enworld goers want a warlord.
Approximately half the warlord fans (25% of the enworld goes) do not think the current offering are enough.

We can conclude there is some demand or a full class warlord.

Beyond that, there's no good evidence of anything either way.