D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Aldarc]

Wrong... it leaves it open to 3rd party and amateur developers and homebrewers who can customize and personalize their warlord to taste and then offer it to those who need or want a warlord in their game. That's far from "sabotage"...

Then why offer additional classes, subclasses, or new mechanics at all? Where is my wizard designed to taste? Or is the presence of the wizard in the PHB meant to oppress 3rd party and amateur developers and homebrewers from customizing and personalizing their wizards to taste?

 

[Imaro]

Then why offer additional classes, subclasses, or new mechanics at all? Where is my wizard designed to taste? Or is the presence of the wizard in the PHB meant to oppress 3rd party and amateur developers and homebrewers from customizing and personalizing their wizards to taste?

I didn't say anything about oppressing, do you want to actually address what I was responding to? An accusation that by choosing not to produce an official warlord class WotC is "sabotaging" the warlord class. I said they weren't sabotaging... do I really need to post the definition of sabotage? Quick note...sabotaging something is actively working against it. Opening your IP up, and giving others a platform to produce their own warlord clas (as well as offer it to other players and even make a few bucks on it) is not "sabotage" in any sense of the word. Or are you disagreeing here?

EDIT 2: The post I was responding to is exacty what I am talking about when I say a poorly designed warlord wouldn't quiet anything. By choosing not to design a specific class for their game... WotC is now sabotaging said class... Uhm ok.

EDIT: How does there being an official wizard class in any way stop you from creating your own customized and personalized wizard class to suit your taste? You can even offer it to others via DM'sGuild. As to why WotC produces new stuff in general... I would assume to make money from selling it... the same way you can with a warlord you design... if enough people want it.

 

[Aldarc]

I didn't say anything about oppressing, do you want to actually address what I was responding to? An accusation that by choosing not to produce an official warlord class WotC is "sabotaging" the warlord class. I said they weren't sabotaging... do I really need to post the definition of sabotage? Quick note...sabotaging something is actively working against it. Opening your IP up, and giving others a platform to produce their own warlord clas (as well as offer it to other players and even make a few bucks on it) is not "sabotage" in any sense of the word. Or are you disagreeing here?

That's actually not entirely true. One can unintentionally sabotage a thing.

 

[Corwin]

What baffles me though, is why this same argument doesn't apply to everything else. I mean, how many people want an Artificer? How many want Psionics in the game?

Maybe its as simple as those are more popular or in higher demand?

 

[Imaro]

That's actually not entirely true. One can unintentionally sabotage a thing.

Okay pedantry around definitions and word usage acknowledged... were you going to answer any of the actual questions though?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

And I very greatly doubt there are as many people who would stop playing 5e over it, as there are people who want it, or people who don't care, or people who don't want a warlord but would roll their eyes and play on, anyway.

 

[cmad1977]

So a quarter of voters want the Warlord, and the voters only represent the vocal minorities on either side, and that's not enough?

How many players wanted the Wizard in a previous mentioned poll? 15%.

If you think a quarter of the fraction of the most passionate fan base here on the internet is a sufficient demand to form a solid customer base...

The warlord simply isn't that popular. Certainly not enough to spend such limited resources supporting. An unfortunate casualty of business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you think a quarter of the fraction of the most passionate fan base here on the internet is a sufficient demand to form a solid customer base...

The warlord simply isn't that popular. Certainly not enough to spend such limited resources supporting.

Yeah, gotta save those resources for...more redundant fighter archetypes!

And also ignore the fact that they have used those resources three times already to try and make a satisfying warlord as a subclass. The problem can't possibly be that they are unsatisfying exactly because they are subclasses, and subclasses don't have enough meat to do the concept justice.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, gotta save those resources for...more redundant fighter archetypes!

And also ignore the fact that they have used those resources three times already to try and make a satisfying warlord as a subclass. The problem can't possibly be that they are unsatisfying exactly because they are subclasses, and subclasses don't have enough meat to do the concept justice.

Unsatisfying? Unsatisfying to who and more importantly how many 5e players/DM's?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Unsatisfying? Unsatisfying to who and more importantly how many 5e players/DM's?

As far as I can tell, unsatisfying to everyone. Have you seen any of those subclasses in play? Because I haven't and I play upwards of three times a week with AL (mixed in with my regular group). So I get a pretty decent cross-section of players.

I don't personally care if they make a Warlord or not, for the record, but I do believe there is more than enough demand that if they DID make a good one, it would get used.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app