D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Remathilis]

To be fair, it's not even a rough draft. It's an idea. All numbers are more examples than fixed. Just trying to get a Warlord out of the mechanics that exist.

 

[Zardnaar]

To be fair, it's not even a rough draft. It's an idea. All numbers are more examples than fixed. Just trying to get a Warlord out of the mechanics that exist.

I more or less posted a warlord with 3 subclasses using a variety of 5E mechanics not to long ago.

 

[Lanliss]

To be fair, it's not even a rough draft. It's an idea. All numbers are more examples than fixed. Just trying to get a Warlord out of the mechanics that exist.

I am working on a similar effort, but building off of a Monk chassis instead. I feel that the Ki points, and lower hit dice, will make it feel appreciably different from a fighter, while the Maneuvers will make it much different from a Monk.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm probably going to regret this...
Would this sort of Warlord satisfy anyone?

In a general way, sure. (A bit tanky, though, no need for d10 HD) BM as a starting point is pretty reasonable - add 'Higher Level' maneuvers & and more versatility among them, etc...

. Just trying to get a Warlord out of the mechanics that exist.

An interesting exercise, but all classes have some distinct mechanics, anyway.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's a ridiculous suggestion. That would be like saying making the Theurge means they admit that the Cleric is pointless (but in reverse).

OK, first, you can't say "this is just like..." and immediately follow up with "but in reverse" because that's contradictory. If it's the reverse, than it by definition cannot be "just like". :\

Secondly, the Theurge never replaced the cleric class, while a warlord class would replace and render moot the PDK.

So no, it's not a ridiculous suggestion, and in fact we see it all the time in every other industry.

 

[Remathilis]

In a general way, sure. BM as a starting point is pretty reasonable - add 'Higher Level' maneuvers & and more versatility among them, etc...

On a macro level, sure. However, I'm sure we'd disagree on exactly the scope and limits of such abilities. My initial glance at most BM maneuvers either affect the BM himself or a single ally. I'd wager "higher level" abilities would affect multiple allies, or combine effects.

An interesting exercise, but all classes have some distinct mechanics, anyway.

My initial thought was that auras (always on effects that effect the whole party and can be changed as a bonus action) would be the unique element. I guess you can draw a weak parallel to warlock invocations, but again the emphasis is on communal abilities rather than self.

Anyway, its a thought exercise, as I don't work at WotC and nothing short of an official warlord counts.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

OK, first, you can't say "this is just like..." and immediately follow up with "but in reverse" because that's contradictory. If it's the reverse, than it by definition cannot be "just like". :\

Secondly, the Theurge never replaced the cleric class, while a warlord class would replace and render moot the PDK.

So no, it's not a ridiculous suggestion, and in fact we see it all the time in every other industry.

Something absolutely can be "just like" and "in reverse" and you know it.

My obvious point was that once you have a Cleric (Class) and a Theurge (Cleric-like Subclass of another class) in the game, you have the same situation as having a Warlord (Class) and a PDK (Warlord-like Subclass) in the game.

If WotC felt that having one negated the need for the other, they wouldn't be trying out subclasses like the Theurge.

That is HARDLY the only example of that sort of thing, either, so don't bother pointing out my obvious blunder of using a UA subclass as an example. The same can be said for many a subclass.

Having a subclass that does some of the things that a full class can do does not make the full class redundant, or vice versa.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

... and you know it.

We can never count on that.

This poll will be public and I will only be tallying up votes with an actual name next to them and posting the totals in the thread...

Just as well, lurkers are people, too. (Well, not in 4e, they're monsters, but that's not the point.)

I'm also curious for those that favor 4e whether a dedicated warlord class would cause you to switch over to 5e as your primary (or even a secondary) game, please post below in the thread with your answer if you are inclined to. Thanks.

I suspect players who have opted to stay with 3.x/PF or 4e are attracted more by the sheer quantity of player options than any one specific one. The flip side of re-focusing on the classic game and having a slow pace of releases, I suppose.

Honestly, I don't know a lot of 4e players to have held-out, though. I know of several tables that are finishing out existing campaigns (30 levels takes a while), but most are also playing 5e or fully intend to going forward. One table I know migrated to 13A and hasn't looked back, that's about the only non-success story for 5e around here (1 out of the 7 tables we have most Wed nights).

Almost by definition, if you were a D&Der who liked 4e, it's because you're generally inclined to adopt the new ed, or at least give it a fair chance.

This poll is to get a rough gauge of the demand around a 5e warlord. I'm curious to know just how in demand this particular class is for players and DM's of 5e, as well as for players and DM's of 4e. For the purposes of this poll if you are a player/DM of 4e and if you have chosen not to play or run 5e whatsoever please identify as a 4e player/DM. If you play/run both please mark yourself as a player/DM of 5e with your corresponding opinion.

So, poll's closed, interesting results. A plurality don't care (not a big surprise), the dis-satisfied and satisfied (with official options) minorities are comparable in size (also consistent with past yes/no polls).

The minority satisfied by 3pp offerings is /really/ small, though. That's an interesting new data point.

But, most heartening of all, the vast majority of respondents identify as playing and/or running 5e. There aren't a lot of past-edition hold-outs bombing the forums like there were during the edition war. (And really, that's been obvious, there's no anti-5e edition war being fought, not even a desperate asymetric insurgency.)
That's progress.

Thanks for coming up with the poll, Imaro.
They're always unscientific here on ENWorld, but in spite of where some tangents of the discussion went (don't they always?), this one was, I think, overall a positive.

On a macro level, sure. However, I'm sure we'd disagree on exactly the scope and limits of such abilities. My initial glance at most BM maneuvers either affect the BM himself or a single ally. I'd wager "higher level" abilities would affect multiple allies, or combine effects.

The BM's maneuvers are designed to work with a multi-attacking DPR chassis, so all but a few would be of minimal appeal to a vanilla Warlord build (having access to them certainly wouldn't hurt, though) - kinda the same way a 1st level wizard probably wouldn't want to know the same spells as a 3rd level EK. The BM's maneuvers are also all available to be chosen at 3rd, they're in essence "1st level Maneuvers."

When maneuvers should roll to a new 'level' is an interesting question. There's no precedent of 9 levels like there is with spells, though that'd make it easy to gauge if power/versatility/effectiveness is on par or not. The 4e precedent of every maneuver having the level at which you gain it doesn't seem particularly applicable, either.
I think with Tier would be reasonable. Apprentice (Student? Disciple? - it wouldn't quite sound right for the BM to be an apprentice forever) maneuvers, Heroic maneuvers, etc...
Also, could the BM or other sub-classes with CS dice be able to benefit from the expanded maneuver list? It'd seem a shame to waste 'em.

My initial thought was that auras (always on effects that effect the whole party and can be changed as a bonus action) would be the unique element. I guess you can draw a weak parallel to warlock invocations, but again the emphasis is on communal abilities rather than self.

Auras have a bad taste from the Marshal, and 'sound magical,' but aren't really that different from Commanding Presence, in that they worked with Warlord just being there, and generally had some sort of distance or other qualifier.
Passively granting advantage is kinda blah. Enabling the ally to do something cool when they have advantage, maybe? That'd be closer to the feel of Commanding Presence's benefit on an Action Point. Keying it of spending a CS die would be intuitive, but the mechanic's still too little-used for that to be practical...

Anyway, its a thought exercise, as I don't work at WotC and nothing short of an official warlord counts.

Yep. That's all these things are, really, until WotC settles the issue with something official. then the tone of Warlord threads can drop down to the level of the occasional grousing 'bout the ranger and grous'n 'bout the sorcerer thread.
Yet another reason to want something official.

 

[Eltab]

I'm probably going to regret this...

Why would you regret offering a positive contribution?
(There are multiple-page-long arguments upthread that combined offer less than your one post.)

The plan you provide could construct my description of 'what a warlord should do' way back near the beginning of the thread.

 

[Corwin]

So can I take the Noble class to AL where I mostly get to play...

Yes*.






[*I'd say, as long as the AL DM is cool with it and none of the players have any personal objections, I fail to see how anyone would stop you.]