D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Imaro]

That accusation certainly applies to a few people, but certainly not all or even most. The indifference to the warlord polled in this thread is likely similar to some people's indifference to the monk, artificer, or psion/mystic. It's just something of a "different strokes for different folks" scenario. But that hardly calls for insulting the intelligence of others.

Emphasis mine: Oh I agree... on both fronts.

Okay. See for me, I did and I do. And I will admit that I am someone who has no use for rules on mass combat, but I'm not going to go around making empty statements suggesting that if WotC includes mass combat rules then other rules will be cut. And that certainly doesn't somehow erase the emptiness of your assertion.

What empty statements? I'm not ebven sure how you are using the word "empty" in this context can you clarify because you're loosing me here. I've explained the statement and I've yet to see you disprove what I am saying, and it feels like instead of doing that the tactic is now call it "empty" enough as a means to discredit it as opposed to address it.

My statement there was more of a reference to past preferred treatment of caster options, particularly in the 3E era. So I have grown wary, if not downright cynical, when it comes to books brandied as providing new character options, when those tend to favor casters via new spells.

Eh, I'm not really concerned about what happened in the 3e era, I don't play 3e.

 

[Aldarc]

What empty statements? I'm not ebven sure how you are using the word "empty" in this context can you clarify because you're loosing me here. I've explained the statement and I've yet to see you disprove what I am saying, and it feels like instead of doing that the tactic is now call it "empty" enough as a means to discredit it as opposed to address it.

It's an empty statement to say that if the Warlord is included other content may be cut from publication because it's essentially a platitude. Yes, there is limited content that can be published in a given publication with a limited page count. Yes, if the Warlord is included, then other things would be excluded. No one will challenge that assertion because it's obvious to the point of banality. That's what makes it an "empty" statement. It lacks substance. From this point onward, I can refer you to the potion of my post that you quoted earlier:

But we don't know what would or would not get cut by advocating for the Warlord. They rarely tell us what gets cut, and publishers would never frame the discussion in terms of "we wanted to include X, but we didn't because we included Y instead," but will, rather, simply say "we wanted to include X but we couldn't due to page count" without any sense or reference to any priority hierarchy. As such, suggesting that the unseen contents of Mystery Box X will get cut if the Warlord is included is something of an empty statement to make. The point is not about the unknown of what could potentially be cut but about the sincere desire for something to be included at all. Throwing out the "but if Warlord then not X" issue comes across as trying to kick the warlord-can down the line. "Oh no! If we advocate for the Warlord class, then our other favorite things that we want [whatever they may be] won't be included! Golly gee willikers, we better stop advocating for the Warlord."

I honestly don't know what more you want us to say, what deeper truth you want Warlord advocates to see. We know that page counts are limited. But the whole point for advocation of the Warlord class/archetype is so because we presumably regard it as worthy for inclusion among that page count. You don't. That's fine.

Eh, I'm not really concerned about what happened in the 3e era, I don't play 3e.

Okay, but I did. It's part of WotC's publishing legacy of D&D. It provides lessons learned and its own morality tales, of sorts. It has certainly impacted my experience and sensibility of D&D going forward, as has 4E and 5E.

 

[Imaro]

It's an empty statement to say that if the Warlord is included other content may be cut from publication because it's essentially a platitude. Yes, there is limited content that can be published in a given publication with a limited page count. Yes, if the Warlord is included, then other things would be excluded. No one will challenge that assertion because it's obvious to the point of banality. That's what makes it an "empty" statement. It lacks substance. From this point onward, I can refer you to the potion of my post that you quoted earlier:
I honestly don't know what more you want us to say, what deeper truth you want Warlord advocates to see. We know that page counts are limited. But the whole point for advocation of the Warlord class/archetype is so because we presumably regard it as worthy for inclusion among that page count. You don't. That's fine.

Easy I'd expect you to go against the assertion that people don't want a warlord because they like stepping on other's fun with the same tenacity... because honestly that's when I choose to pull out this line of discussion. Anytime I see the viewpoints of those who don't care or don't want a warlord presented in this simplistic and empty fashion I'd expect you to call out that empty statement as well... because otherwise i think it may be time for a reminder that it isn't as simple as denying someone their fun... there's a tradeoff.

Okay, but I did. It's part of WotC's publishing legacy of D&D. It provides lessons learned and its own morality tales, of sorts. It has certainly impacted my experience and sensibility of D&D going forward, as has 4E and 5E.

WotC? I'd say numerous options in the form of spells for spellcasters has been a hallmark of D&D... period. Even 4e gave more options to the spellcasters in the form of ritual casting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So 42 pages and counting boils down to "Not much".

30% of respondents is more than the 20% support Mearls speculated (in an L&L entitled "The Gnome Effect" IIRC) about gnomes having and thus it having been a mistake to leave them out of the 4e PH1.

More interesting, though, is the data the poll was looking for, whether the Warlord threads were being bombed by 4e hold-outs who never touched 5e, the way the forums would be inundated by 3.5/PF houldouts and OSR grognards who never touched 4e all through the edition war.

The answer is, 'no,' and I think that answer reflects very well on 5e's attempts to re-unify the fanbase. (It might also reflect the likely difference in attitude of 4e fans who would have been, almost by definition, those who were willing to give a new edition their support, or at least a fair chance.) We simply don't have an edition war scenario, here. We have fans of 5e asking for something they liked from a past edition to be included in it, not detractors of 5e trying to tear it down in violent nerdrage because of that lack.

Try this. The next time you want to play a caster, you can't. You are not allowed to. You can only play a half caster. After all, an Eldritch Knight or a Ranger should be good enough right? You get to cast spells. Full casters are just the munchkin option anyway. Only power gamers choose to play full casters. Real role players certainly don't.

Sucks wouldn't it? Being told that over and over and over again every time you even mention the idea of playing what you want to play?

I've heard it said that gamers tend to be an unempathic lot.

But, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], consider my comments above. For all that we have some lack of sympathy among 5e fans, we don't have 'outside agitators' stirring up nerdrage against it. The community has moved forward from the dark times of the edition war.
We just have to hope it keeps moving.

 

[Zardnaar]

30% of respondents is more than the 20% support Mearls speculated (in an L&L entitled "The Gnome Effect" IIRC) about gnomes having and thus it having been a mistake to leave them out of the 4e PH1.

More interesting, though, is the data the poll was looking for, whether the Warlord threads were being bombed by 4e hold-outs who never touched 5e, the way the forums would be inundated by 3.5/PF houldouts and OSR grognards who never touched 4e all through the edition war.

The answer is, 'no,' and I think that answer reflects very well on 5e's attempts to re-unify the fanbase. (It might also reflect the likely difference in attitude of 4e fans who would have been, almost by definition, those who were willing to give a new edition their support, or at least a fair chance.) We simply don't have an edition war scenario, here. We have fans of 5e asking for something they liked from a past edition to be included in it, not detractors of 5e trying to tear it down in violent nerdrage because of that lack.

I've heard it said that gamers tend to be an unempathic lot.

But, @Hussar, consider my comments above. For all that we have some lack of sympathy among 5e fans, we don't have 'outside agitators' stirring up nerdrage against it. The community has moved forward from the dark times of the edition war.
We just has to hope it keeps moving.

30% on a small board, with a total number of respondents in a very small poll of a select group. It would be like polling Californians, finding out most of them are democratic leaning and thinking that represents the USA.

Hell 30% is still a small minority. 127 people voting would be a very small kickstarter so try not to spin it more than it is.

At this point its basically edition warring since none of you seem willing to compromise or play a 3pp/homebrew WL since there is not an official one coming out any time soon that we know of. You can easily make one and even the one I posted got a lot of positive feedback and up votes for me. Its easy enough to designing a WL for 5E, 4E design structure did not really allow itself to design a 3.5 whatever. And the WL is kind of the poster child for everything wrong with 4E.

If you want to stake your entire D&D experience on the existence of a single class from a single edition (plenty of those around) there are other RPGs around or why not stick with 4E (assuming you can actually find players). Just do what we did when 4E was around, find or design something better to your tastes or stick with an older edition (we went to PF/clones and 2E).

Even if you think a stupid little poll actually matters do it somewhere more productive like Mearls twitter thing or Reddit.

 

[tuxgeo]

30% of respondents is more than the 20% support Mearls speculated (in an L&L entitled "The Gnome Effect" IIRC) about gnomes having and thus it having been a mistake to leave them out of the 4e PH1.

You don't "recall correctly": The threshold for inclusion was stated to be only 10% per The Gnome Effect, not 20%. Specifically, if only 1 player in 10 wanted to play a gnome, that meant one of every 2 gaming tables (of 5 players each). That's a massive proportion of the customer base.

More interesting, though, is the data the poll was looking for, whether the Warlord threads were being bombed by 4e hold-outs who never touched 5e, the way the forums would be inundated by 3.5/PF houldouts and OSR grognards who never touched 4e all through the edition war.

The answer is, 'no,' and I think that answer reflects very well on 5e's attempts to re-unify the fanbase. (It might also reflect the likely difference in attitude of 4e fans who would have been, almost by definition, those who were willing to give a new edition their support, or at least a fair chance.) We simply don't have an edition war scenario, here. We have fans of 5e asking for something they liked from a past edition to be included in it, not detractors of 5e trying to tear it down in violent nerdrage because of that lack. . . .

Agreed that they are wrong who say that any calls for a Warlord class in 5E ought to be viewed as being edition warring.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No skin in this fight whatsoever, but this isn't like to like at all. I don't know if you have a very nuanced view of the ninja trope in general, but the 5e Way of the Shadow Monk accomplishes pretty much all of the classic Ninja tropes (and it says its a Ninja on the tin as I know that matters to some folks). If you couple that with Rogue Sneak Attack/Expertise/Uncanny Dodge and the Assassination subclass (as you mention) you have pretty much all of the 1e OA Ninja (except sub spending ki for phasing through walls for darkness/silence/pass w/o trace as well as the base Monk stuff + at-will shadow jump + outright invisibility later) and 2e AD&D Ninja except a supercharged version with profoundly more (thematic) offense, (thematic) passive and activatable defense, (thematic) mystical utility, relative competency against obstacles faced. Altogether, you have significantly more agency in imposing your ninja archetype upon play.

And from a first principles perspective, you start with a coherent mechanical and thematic chassis with no wasted build components.

The Warlord, on the hand, is a martial support character. Coherently carving that out of the Bard chassis (arcane support character with tons of magical utility) or the Fighter chassis (martial multi-attacker) is rife with thematic or mechanical incoherency and wasted build components.

I think the analogy is very apt. Yes, 90% of what I want out of the ninja class (from previous editions) can be covered by a few classes in 5e. Just like 90% of what people want out of the warlord can be covered by other classes in 5e. In both cases, you'd have to mix-match classes and feats to get what want, and as you say, there would be in-coherency and wasted build components. And in both cases 10% just doesn't appear at all in 5e. For example, there is no 5e subclass where I as a ninja can change my tracks, hold my breath for long periods of time, walk on water, or other core ninja abilities from previous editions.

Before you say, "Yeah, but you're talking about what YOU want, and not the ninja in general", I'll point out that in all of these warlord threads, there is no consensus as to just what the warlord should look like, so again, the parallels are there (going by someone's personal preference as opposed to in general).

Ironically, what your post did was what has been pissing off the warlord fans for a long time: Someone coming in and saying, "You have your warlord in the game already, just pull bits from this class, and bits from that class, etc, etc"

*Edit* Personally, while I am not against a warlord class in the game, I personally have no problem with someone doing just that (what you just did) by saying, "You can pretty much get what you want by doing X, Y, and Z." It's a new edition, and will never match a previous edition's class exactly (impossible), and they won't be able to please everyone's ideal of what a ninja should include (also impossible), so I'm good with what has been put out already. It's why I haven't created a bunch of threads complaining about how I'm being forsaken because there isn't a ninja class in the game

 

[Tony Vargas]

You don't "recall correctly": The threshold for inclusion was stated to be only 10% per The Gnome Effect, not 20%. Specifically, if only 1 player in 10 wanted to play a gnome, that meant one of every 2 gaming tables (of 5 players each).

You're right, I was thinking of the number of tables affected, 20%. Sorry.

At the same time, though, I doubt the even distribution Mearls postulated in the Gome Effect applies to the Warlord (if, indeed, it ever applied to the Gnome). That is, at most tables, there's not likely to be one (or two, as 30% might imply) warlord fan and one warlord phobe - I'd guess (I have no evidence, but I feel it's intuitive) that they're much more likely to be concentrated among like-minded individuals, already.

A table where everyone habitually plays casters, for instance, isn't likely to have anyone who's been pining for a new non-caster option.

Agreed that they are wrong who say that any calls for a Warlord class in 5E ought to be viewed as being edition warring.

Calls for it should not be taken as edition warring /against 5e/ and I'm not sure I've ever heard of them being taken that way. I was pointing out that if complaints about the lack of the Warlord were couched not as desire to see it included, but rage over it's exclusion, that would be comparable to the kinds of things we saw in the edition war, and that it's a good sign that such has not much been the case.

The taint of 4e-era-edition-warring is inevitable, though, since the Warlord, like almost all aspects of balanced class designs, but particularly of martial class design, was a frequent target of the edition war, and any discussion of the warlord almost inevitably touches on some of those same talking points. That taint is unfortunate, but it can't be erased by pretending the edition war didn't happen, or wasn't a bad thing.

 

[Satyrn]

That is why I get..."ruffled"... when I see yet another Warlord thread. I was initially in the "I don't care one way or the other" camp. But now...I'm firmly against anything of a Warlord CLASS becoming "5e Core PHB" in the next printing. I don't want ANY more full-blown Classes. Arch-types are what distinguishes a character more than the Class. The Class is just the foundation. The bedrock. The skeleton. The Arch-type is what gives it fluff, flavour, and flash.

Huh. The poster who started this thread isn't a warlord fan. Several of the other threads in this vein have also been started by posters who aren't warlord fans. This thread and those others have felt like my likes being shouted down.

And now it looks like their ranting has worked on you.


Yay!

 

[Corwin]

Huh. The poster who started this thread isn't a warlord fan. Several of the other threads in this vein have also been started by posters who aren't warlord fans.

Maybe someone should put together a list of everyone who is "a warlord fan" and those who "aren't warlord fans" so we can keep track? Don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be caught fraternizing with the other side...