D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

How much demand is there for a dedicated warlord class??

  • I am a player/DM of 5e and would like a dedicated warlord class

    Votes: 61 26.3%
  • I am a player/DM of 4e and would like a dedicated warlord class

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • I am a player/DM of 5e and am satisfied with WotC's current offerings for a warlord-esque class

    Votes: 67 28.9%
  • I am a player/DM of 5e and am satisfied with the current 3rd party offerings for a warlord class

    Votes: 6 2.6%
  • I am a player/DM of 5e and I don't care whether WotC designs a warlord class for 5e

    Votes: 94 40.5%
  • I am a player/DM of 4e and I don't care whether WotC designs a warlord class for 5e

    Votes: 2 0.9%

  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, here I am replying to myself again. . . .

. . . 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.

Correcting my earlier mistake: OKAY, I got the name wrong: Mike Mearls called it "the gnome effect," not "the gnome problem." My error.

Here is a link to the appropriate post (by EN World user Iosue) in a previous thread, wherein Iosue quotes a "Legends & Lore" article which apparently can no longer be found on wizards.com.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

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

I can't imagine what relevance that could have to a discussion of whether there should be a warlord class. In order to be relevant, we would need to have similar information on the desire of the same sample of people, or a very similar one, to have a warlord class.

Since such information was never even solicited, the knowledge that lots of folks want Sorcerer subclasses means exactly nothing for or against a warlord class.
 

I can't imagine what relevance that could have to a discussion of whether there should be a warlord class. In order to be relevant, we would need to have similar information on the desire of the same sample of people, or a very similar one, to have a warlord class.

Since such information was never even solicited, the knowledge that lots of folks want Sorcerer subclasses means exactly nothing for or against a warlord class.


Go back and read the post by Hussar... that's who brought up Artificers, Favored Souls, etc... in a thread about warlords.

EDIT: One thing we do know is that WotC had the information from the DDI CB on players and warlords... having said information they chose not to even include them in the poll.
 
Last edited:

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

Ok, then what does "not many" mean? Or whatever phrase you're using to describe the lack of Warlord supporters?
 

Go back and read the post by Hussar... that's who brought up Artificers, Favored Souls, etc... in a thread about warlords.

EDIT: One thing we do know is that WotC had the information from the DDI CB on players and warlords... having said information they chose not to even include them in the poll.

Yup, and at the time, they mentioned that warlords were one of the most commonly played classes outside of the core 4.

And, let's keep it in context. Your argument boils down to "We don't have a warlord because there isn't enough interest in the warlord". I pointed out that we've gotten updates for a bunch of stuff that there really wasn't much interest for, sometimes twice, like Mass Combat rules for example, and, yes, Favored Souls (which make a come back as a sorcerer subclass instead of an actual class unto itself).

Now, they used the favored soul to answer demands for more sorcerer goodies. Fair enough.

But, they won't even ask on a poll if anyone actually wants a warlord? Why the omission? I asked this one before and I think it got lost in the scrum. Wouldn't asking resolve the issue either way? If they ask what classes we'd like to see updated and include the warlord and it's bottom of the heap, then fair enough. OTOH, if there is significant demand, then WotC could justify updating the warlord.

Only thing is, doing so would be stupid. Far, far too many people are far too willing to open up edition warring salvos if WotC actually goes either direction. They can't win. Heck, you want a perfect example, on the first page of this forum right now is the following thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...nmaster-needs-in-5e-and-how-to-make-it-happen

It's four pages in and a rather interesting discussion. Yet, for all of that, there isn't a single comment about how we don't need a Weapon Master, how there is no demand for a weapon master, no polls gauging demand, not a single meta-comment. Not one. I mean, if you, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], are so concerned with WotC expending its limited resources chasing niches, why aren't you starting polls? After all, the whole point of this poll is to shut down conversation about Warlords isn't it?

After all, if you show that there isn't enough demand, you can just tell anyone who starts a conversation, "Don't bother, no one wants it anyway". But, funnily enough, that only seems to apply to warlord conversations. No other class or discussion about adding subclasses or new full classes draws this kind of attention.

It's not exactly hard to guess why.

So, yeah, I can totally see why WotC has zero interest in a Warlord. Has nothing to do with the class itself and everything to do with marketing. Far, far too much butthurt regardless of which way they decide. So, it's better for them that they do nothing.
 

Yup, and at the time, they mentioned that warlords were one of the most commonly played classes outside of the core 4.

....

After all, if you show that there isn't enough demand, you can just tell anyone who starts a conversation, "Don't bother, no one wants it anyway". But, funnily enough, that only seems to apply to warlord conversations. No other class or discussion about adding subclasses or new full classes draws this kind of attention.

If it will help, I can start an Assassin class thread. :D

I mean, between the "Assassin" subclass, stealthy-stabby warlock builds, Underdark Stalker Ranger, and Shadow Monk, they've come close a few times, but still no actual Assassin, imo!
 

If it will help, I can start an Assassin class thread. :D

I mean, between the "Assassin" subclass, stealthy-stabby warlock builds, Underdark Stalker Ranger, and Shadow Monk, they've come close a few times, but still no actual Assassin, imo!
Okay, but I'll start the Ninja thread next.
 


How does I don't want a class in the game equate to there is not much demand for it? That is the vibe many are giving off but do not want to come out and say. I would prefer it if a pi chart was used because pie always has demand yum pie......
 
Last edited:

Ok, then what does "not many" mean? Or whatever phrase you're using to describe the lack of Warlord supporters?

If you mean what would I consider enough popularity to warrant WotC definitely publishing a warlord class... well I would say Roughly 35-50%. This is of course taking into consideration the polarizing nature of the warlord. Note, I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I am not claiming my thoughts on the matter are fact or anything similar... they are just my thoughts on the subject.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top