D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Imaro]

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......

You're assuming that people don't want a warlord in the game... I'm ambivalent but I recognize there is a cost to adding the class and I'm unsure I want to pay it for something I know isn't going to see play at my table.

 

[Imaro]

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

Citation??

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.

I don't work at WotC so I can't answer this with any definitive knowledge... I've stated what my guess is... that WotC didn't find the Warlord was popular enough to warrant inclusion according to the CB information, the low production schedule, how well they want products to sell and so on (and yes this decision could very well take into account the polarizing nature of the class) .

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.

See here is where I disagree... I wager most people are ambivalent about a warlord class (and yes this poll does support that assertion) so if there was enough demand WotC would be silly not to publish it because of a vocal minority... however what I've noticed is that the only place the warlord class seems to be popular enough to flood the forums with numerous threads every so often is here... I frequent numerous sites and this is literally the only place I see that happen.

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, @Imaro, 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?

Well I can't see that thread I believe I'm blocked by the creator but I'd bet the first difference is there aren't numerous threads started about the "Weaponmaster" at one time... I also bet he's not demanding WotC create an official version, he's probably trying to solve the problem himself through homebrewing. But let me know if I'm wrong on this one.

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.

And... no other class floods the forums every so often... gets demands that only an official version will work... Ideas using the actual game are shot down in an often rude manner... and so on. I've noticed you tend to totally ignore the behavior that comes with the warlord fans and them wanting the class as a factor in how it rubs many the wrong way here.

It's not exactly hard to guess why.

Well I have my own guesses... but no I don't think guessing is hard.

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.

Disagree... again if there was enough demand the "butthurt" wouldn't matter in the bigger picture since ultimately it's about money.

 

[Aldarc]

I apologize for my absence. My personal life has been pretty hectic the past few days. Only good news, I assure you. But also in the interest of time, plus my personal distaste of the Wall of Text internet art form, I hope you don't mind if I summarize your points.

Everyone has completely different ideas of what a shaman looks like: mythology, anthropological, like Warcraft's, like the shaman from 4e (similar to the spirit shaman from 3e), like Pathfinder's, like the 2e kit, etc.
The warlord is a very different beast. When people design warlords, they're not designing based on a concept or archetype, they're designing basing on the mechanics of a class. It's not "how can I make a tactical commander class using the 5e rules?" or "how can I emulate a squad leader or Aragorn?" it's "how can I port these rules into 5th Edition?" There's going to be less variance as there's less reinterpretation going on. Mostly shuffling of when abilities are gained based on personal priorities.

The Warlord is a "different beast"from the shaman's rich multiplicity of expression, but it is not far removed from the similar origins of other classes. The sorcerer and the warlock leapt to my mind almost immediately when reading your point here. The Sorcerer, for example, was not really designed around a mythological or fantasy archetype, but, instead, more around the thought-experiment of a "non-Vancian spontaneous caster." It was essentially created only to be an alt-Wizard mechanic. It was only later that they slapped on the "magical bloodlines" justification. Even then it was just a one-line bit of speculation: "Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins," and that's it. The idea of magical bloodlines would then be expanded as a concept less so in 3E itself, but in the competing Pathfinder and 4th Edition (e.g., dragon and wild magic). The Warlock was also created in 3E not so much around fantasy concept but in terms of "what if we played with this mechanic?", namely at-will magical blasting. There was nothing stopping you from roleplaying your wizard or sorcerer as a "warlock" before in 3E.

I think in part because the inspiration is single mechanical expression of the class rather than a narrative concept or multiple mechanical expressions across multiple editions, there's less room for variance. More people are making ultimatums regarding the warlord than something like the shaman: the warlord has to heal real hit points; it can't be a subclass; it has to be called the warlord; it has to be in a hardcover book used for AL; etc. For a while it had to grant attacks as an at-will power. There's tension points where there can be no compromise.
It's not enough for there to be a class that fills the same hook and does similar things.

Do you not think that this contention may also stem from hardliners on the opposing side of the fence? E.g., the warlord should not heal for real HP! the warlord cannot boost morale as that would communicate "relation" that should be covered by RP! I do not think that it is fair for either camp to portray this as a problem stemming from only the pro-warlord camp. It does a tremendous disservice to the complexity of the issues surrounding a possible implementation of the warlord.

As a weekend designer, I find that frustrating. If you're going to design a "tactical leader" class and make it awesome, why shackle your design to a dead edition? Take the concept and make it better. Find some new mechanics that wouldn't have worked in the AEDU chassis.

The point isn't to appeal to the small subset of existing D&D fans who liked something how it was mechanically done half a decade ago and are dissatisfied by current implementations, but to appeal to fans of the concept as a whole and do it better than before.
In this case, to design a warlord that doesn't just appeal to the nostalgia of 15-25% of ENWorld posters but to anyone who likes the idea of a tactical leader class/ subclass.

You are assuming several things here, namely that people are not attempting to better the concept for 5E. I know that Tony Vargas, for example, has been a huge advocate for expanding in 5E the focus of the Warlord beyond its restricted role scope and the AEDU system of 4E. In 4E terms, he has asked why the 5E Warlord should be restricted to what 4E would regard as the "leader" role. As for myself, I never could get fully on-board with 4E, though I did play it for several campaigns and appreciated what the edition attempted in its ambitious project. So, in some respects, I would consider myself more closely aligned with what you describe in your final sentence here. The 4E Warlord primarily succeeded in whetting my appetite for a tactical support/utility/control martial class. It is not the Warlord fans who shackle the class to a prior edition, but, rather, it is those who hope that it drowns to its death alongside the dead edition. Warlord fans want to liberate the class from its shackles so that it may experience reinvigorated life in a new edition. It is certainly ironic that you would cite Warlord nostalgia as something to be decried as a negative in an edition that regards nostalgia of prior editions as something worth lauding.

The 4E Warlord provides perhaps the most realized form, at least so far, of what you have described as the "tactical leader" in any edition. I do not think that it is the only source of inspiration people have been using either. As you say, you want something that would work within the framework of the 5E action economy that's balanced, robust, and flavorful. And, indeed, there have been people who have looked to and cited other sources of inspiration. This has been performed in terms of editions (e.g. the 3E Marshal, the 3E Bo9S's maneuvers and stances, even the 4E psionic Ardent), other tabletop RP games (e.g. Dreamscarred Press's Warlord or psionic Tactician for PF, the Commander for 13th Age, the Iron Heroes' Hunter, Arcana Evolved's Ritual Warrior, etc.), and fantasy/history/mythology (e.g. Odysseus, Julius Caesar, Zhuge Liang from Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Matrim Cauthon in Wheel of Time, Croaker in Black Company, etc.).

On "half-assing" and "demanding" the Warlord in 5e:

And - as mentioned above - there are the assorted requirements being placed on the design of the class. It's not enough that it feels like a walord and is balanced, it also has to do very specific things.

This is a highly contentious point of opinion, and one that should probably not be masqueraded as if it were a fact, as it is here. There are a number of Warlord fans who clearly do not think that the PDK or BM feel like a warlord, and they have expressed that opinion well enough. There are a number of reasons why they may feel that way: e.g., it feels too much like a fighter (too strong of an offensive DPR chassis) while not providing enough support/tactical play options, etc. But, in short, a lot of these so-called "5e warlords" that warlord-detractors point out woefully fall short of the idea that you described much earlier as what should be the goal: i.e. creating a "tactical leader." That's one reason why a number of "tactical leader" fans regard these implementations as half-assed. They simply don't fill the desired niche playstyle as what people have been wanting.

Now, in the few threads that have started as discussions on designing the warlord arguments do break out. But it's unfair to just blame "usual suspects who want to destroy any warlord project". It takes two to argue. If everyone in the thread was just working on designing the warlord, then the one or two posters who pop in and say "the warlord sux!" would stand out against the otherwise positive and constructive tone.
Things fall apart when the warlord fans engage with the detractors. They feed the trolls. Because the best (if not only) real defense of the warlord class is "because I like it." But defenders of the class break out other arguments to defend their personal tastes in class. But as these reasons are all debatable they're… well, debated.

I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than fallacious blaming the victim.

 

[Mercule]

You're assuming that people don't want a warlord in the game... I'm ambivalent but I recognize there is a cost to adding the class and I'm unsure I want to pay it for something I know isn't going to see play at my table.

This. I don't care one way or the other about the Warlord. There was one played in our brief foray into 4E and it seemed to be a fine class, there. If one was published for 5E, I'd probably allow it, but wouldn't actively promote it (because I don't care).

What I do care about is that there are only so many top-level classes the system can reasonably include before the game becomes unwieldy, especially for newer/casual players. Yes, I allowed pretty much any Dragon Magazine class in 1E, but that still amounted to around 30 total character options. 5E has classes, sub-classes, and feats, which all serve the same general purpose as "NPC classes" did in 1E. Add to that the substantively more open multi-classing rules and that's a lot going on.

The reality is that D&D is, and always has been, a game that uses broad archetypes for character creation/management rules. It's not a generic or universal roleplaying system. If you want every combination under the sun, play Hero, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Fate, or something of that nature. While you're playing D&D, the question has to be asked: does this archetype offer enough to warrant a new class? It might provide enough value to make it a sub-class. But, it might only be distinct enough to prompt a feat or two, or maybe a class option (e.g. spell, invocation, maneuver).

I don't think the Warlord offers enough to warrant a top-level class. Most likely, it's a sub-class, probably Fighter. I don't actually have a problem with the Valor Bard as Warlord, though, because it's still the "leader" using inspirational words to do whatever he does, even if those abilities are listed as spells.

 

[mellored]

The reality is that D&D is, and always has been, a game that uses broad archetypes for character creation/management rules. It's not a generic or universal roleplaying system. If you want every combination under the sun, play Hero, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Fate, or something of that nature. While you're playing D&D, the question has to be asked: does this archetype offer enough to warrant a new class? It might provide enough value to make it a sub-class. But, it might only be distinct enough to prompt a feat or two, or maybe a class option (e.g. spell, invocation, maneuver).

The problem is all classes aren't made with the same amount of modularity.


Wizards are extremely open ended. There's literally 4 features in the base class, and all of them are "more spells".
Want a wizard to get illusion spells on your evoker? Easy. Take some illusion spells.
Want wall of ice on your enchanter? Easy.

You can have a party of 5 wizards that don't share a single spell in common.


Now look at the monk/fighter/barbarian/rogue.
70-80% of the options are hard coded. At this level, you get this maneuver. No choice (except fighting style).
Want to get shadow step on your assassin? You need to take 6 levels of monk.
Want uncanny dodge on your fighter? You need to take 5 levels of rogue.

In a party of 5 barbarians, they will all do pretty much the same thing.


This is why 3.5 has so many PrC's. Because all of the maneuvers where hard coded, and to get a variation, you needed a new class.

 

[Mercule]

The problem is all classes aren't made with the same amount of modularity.

...snip...

This is why 3.5 has so many PrC's. Because all of the maneuvers where hard coded, and to get a variation, you needed a new class.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing about some of the basic issues and/or solutions. I don't even disagree with your point about class modularity.

What I'm saying is, essentially, that the core structure of the game is such that it isn't really set up to effectively handle those problems without starting to collapse under its own weight. Whereas the Wizard gets to swap out spells, variations on most classes are, as you say, PrCs or even fully separate classes.

The only way to really fix that would be to substantively rework the way non-caster classes are structured. Something like Book of Nine Swords would work, but doesn't really suit the style a lot of folks would want. The other option that I can see would be to turn almost everything into a feat or feat tree. That would work, but would really remove some of the elegance of the system. The feats are one of the things that ultimately broke 3E. I'd rather not see the system centered around that.

D&D is a large-grain system. That's part of what you need to buy into when you start playing. Both 3E and 4E tried to fight that in their own way, with the level of success being somewhat debatable. Part of the "old school" concessions in 5E is to accept the large-grain nature of things and move on.

 

[Yunru]

The main problem with multiclassing to achieve a Warlord is the same as multiclassing Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and Druid to achieve a Wizard. Everything's there, but at far less power (in the Wizard's case, no higher spells, in the Warlord's features scale with class level).

 

[mellored]

D&D is a large-grain system.

Unless you're a caster.
Here's the wizard's options at first level...

Cantrips (0 Level)
Acid Splash (conjuration)
Blade Ward (abjuration)
Chill Touch (necromancy)
Dancing Lights (evocation)
Fire Bolt (evocation)
Friends (enchantment)
Light (evocation)
Mage Hand (conjuration)
Mending (transmutation)
Message (transmutation)
Minor Illusion (illusion)
Poison Spray (conjuration)
Prestidigitation (transmutation)
Ray of Frost (evocation)
Shocking Grasp (evocation)
True Strike (divination)

1st Level
Alarm* (abjuration)
Burning Hands (evocation)
Charm Person (enchantment)
Chromatic Orb (evocation)
Color Spray (illusion)
Comprehend Languages* (divination)
Detect Magic* (divination)
Disguise Self (illusion)
Expeditious Retreat (transmutation)
False Life (necromancy)
Feather Fall (transmutation)
Find Familiar* (conjuration)
Fog Cloud (conjuration)
Grease (conjuration)
Identify* (divination)
Illusory Script* (illusion)
Jump (transmutation)
Longstrider (transmutation)
Mage Armor (abjuration)
Magic Missile (evocation)
Protection from Evil and Good (abjuration)
Ray of Sickness (necromancy)
Shield (abjuration)
Silent Image (illusion)
Sleep (enchantment)
Tasha’s Hideous Laughter (enchantment)
Tenser’s Floating Disk* (conjuration)
Thunderwave (evocation)
Unseen Servant* (conjuration)
Witch Bolt (evocation)



Do you think the system might be starting to collapse under it's own weight?

 

[Yunru]

Unless you're a caster.
Here's the wizard's options at first level...

Cantrips (0 Level)
Acid Splash (conjuration)
Blade Ward (abjuration)
Chill Touch (necromancy)
Dancing Lights (evocation)
Fire Bolt (evocation)
Friends (enchantment)
Light (evocation)
Mage Hand (conjuration)
Mending (transmutation)
Message (transmutation)
Minor Illusion (illusion)
Poison Spray (conjuration)
Prestidigitation (transmutation)
Ray of Frost (evocation)
Shocking Grasp (evocation)
True Strike (divination)

1st Level
Alarm* (abjuration)
Burning Hands (evocation)
Charm Person (enchantment)
Chromatic Orb (evocation)
Color Spray (illusion)
Comprehend Languages* (divination)
Detect Magic* (divination)
Disguise Self (illusion)
Expeditious Retreat (transmutation)
False Life (necromancy)
Feather Fall (transmutation)
Find Familiar* (conjuration)
Fog Cloud (conjuration)
Grease (conjuration)
Identify* (divination)
Illusory Script* (illusion)
Jump (transmutation)
Longstrider (transmutation)
Mage Armor (abjuration)
Magic Missile (evocation)
Protection from Evil and Good (abjuration)
Ray of Sickness (necromancy)
Shield (abjuration)
Silent Image (illusion)
Sleep (enchantment)
Tasha’s Hideous Laughter (enchantment)
Tenser’s Floating Disk* (conjuration)
Thunderwave (evocation)
Unseen Servant* (conjuration)
Witch Bolt (evocation)



Do you think the system might be starting to collapse under it's own weight?

I regret to inform you that's not a complete list. Elemental Evils and Sword Coast Adventurers Guide both add even more to it.

 

[Eubani]

You're assuming that people don't want a warlord in the game... I'm ambivalent but I recognize there is a cost to adding the class and I'm unsure I want to pay it for something I know isn't going to see play at my table.

For someone who is ambivalent you are fighting awfully hard against it, so what else were we suppose to think?