D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Sacrosanct]

Probably not the response you're looking for, but I'd happily "demote" barbarian from class to background (or maybe race?) Make "Brute" or "Rager" some kinda fighter subclass if needed.

Of course, I'm also of the line of thought that Ranger and Paladin could/should have been Fighter subclasses as well. So I'm a bit of an outlier in this regard.

Not too much of an outlier, as I would do the same. Especially for barbarian. That's a cultural background, not a primary occupation. I mean, we don't have a class for "civilized urbanite" do we? The class never sat well with me for this reason. Also a reason why I liked the 2e Complete barbarian's Guide because it illustrates how many of the "barbarian" cultures had nothing to do with raging.

 

[Blue]

There must be some sort of demand, as there are 4 Warlord threads all in the top 10 at this moment. For me? Between battlemaster and feats, I'm good with how it is now.

Now sort for the same people opening up new threads. It's easy to have a vocal minority.

 

[Hussar]

Perspective is important.

From this poll, at the time of my posting, we can see that 41 people want a dedicated warlord class. That's a small number of people, considering the total number of people playing the game numbers in the hundreds of thousands (if not higher). But it is a portion of the respondents to the poll that is not insignificant.

What we can't see from this poll is whether the sample group is actually indicative of the full population's desires or not. WotC has a better idea of that information, and have chosen not to provide a dedicated warlord class for some reason (which I shall not pretend to know. It could be that most folks don't want or don't care about warlords, but it could also be that WotC just hasn't figured out how such a class would work within the edition's design paradigm, or they just plain don't feel like making it).

Personally, I think it's option 4 - they won't do it because the midden will hit the windmill as a very vocal group of players will have a massive hissy fit if an actual warlord ever graced the pages of the game.

But, again, you can't simply dismiss a poll because you don't like the results. I mean a bit of Googling turns up the following polls:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467928-How-many-fans-want-a-5E-Warlord - 549 respondents, 48% yes
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469401-Yes-No-Warlord - 378 respondents, 42% yes
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...est-A-Non-Vancian-quot-Leader-quot-in-the-PHB - 113 respondents, 68% want a warlord
and a blast from the past during the Next days:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?316916-Core-Classes-What-and-how-many - 269 respondents, 41% wanted a warlord (funnily enough, far eclipsing a Psion)

I'd say there is a pretty darn consistent trend there.

The purpose of this thread was to provide evidence that the reason we don't have a warlord is that only a small minority of gamers actually want one. Well, I'd say that the opposite, if anything, was shown. When somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1/4 to 1/3 of gamers would like to see a warlord, I'd say there is pretty darn strong desire for one.

 

[Zardnaar]

Personally, I think it's option 4 - they won't do it because the midden will hit the windmill as a very vocal group of players will have a massive hissy fit if an actual warlord ever graced the pages of the game.

But, again, you can't simply dismiss a poll because you don't like the results. I mean a bit of Googling turns up the following polls:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?467928-How-many-fans-want-a-5E-Warlord - 549 respondents, 48% yes
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469401-Yes-No-Warlord - 378 respondents, 42% yes
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...est-A-Non-Vancian-quot-Leader-quot-in-the-PHB - 113 respondents, 68% want a warlord
and a blast from the past during the Next days:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?316916-Core-Classes-What-and-how-many - 269 respondents, 41% wanted a warlord (funnily enough, far eclipsing a Psion)

I'd say there is a pretty darn consistent trend there.

The purpose of this thread was to provide evidence that the reason we don't have a warlord is that only a small minority of gamers actually want one. Well, I'd say that the opposite, if anything, was shown. When somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1/4 to 1/3 of gamers would like to see a warlord, I'd say there is pretty darn strong desire for one.

Polls to small, the bigger polls WoTC had very low support for the WL as a favourite class (it was under 10 if not 5% IIRC).

The Wizard won at 15% support IIRC.

 

[Aldarc]

Polls to small, the bigger polls WoTC had very low support for the WL as a favourite class (it was under 10 if not 5% IIRC).

The Wizard won at 15% support IIRC.

Didn't the Warlord get approximately the same amount of "low support" as classes that either made to the core rulebook or have been given test materials in UA?

 

[Yunru]

When the Wizard wins at 15%, "under 10%" is not a big thing.

 

[Blue]

Barbarian definitely shouldn't have been a separate class. The battle-rage bit should have been a Fighter subclass and the totem stuff should have been put as a subclass under Ranger (or Druid).

The fighter chassis even before subclasses is pretty strong. Action surge, 3 attacks, lots of ASIs, etc. I don't think you could add in the defining abilities of the barbarian on top of what the fighter base offers and have ti be balanced. Think at 3rd levels, you'd be adding rages & reckless vs. the Champion critting on a 19-20.

You could redo the fighter chassis to take things out and move them to the subclasses, a bit like they did with the UA revised ranger where extra attack is not part of the class, but with more features.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I really don't care about a warlord. I do however believe a fighter subclass would do it along with a fighting style. I am still thinking bladesong could ve a fighting style too.

Warlord style: whenever you second wind, you take the attack action, you may forgo an attack and have an ally spend a reaction to attack instead with a bonis equal to half your int modifier (stolen by phb beastmaster) Also whenever you second wind, you may iforgo gaining hp and an ally regains hp as if he spent a hit die+your cha bonus+your level.

Bladesong: whenever you wield a long sword in your main hand and nothing in the offhand, at the beginnig of your turn you may gain a +2 bonus either on attack rolls or AC until the start of your next turn or you stop wielding your longsword in your one hand or your other hand is not free except for material components. You gain a cantrip from the wizard list.

If you want you can add paladin, ranger or barbarian weapon styles.
Paladin should be somwthing smitey and protective on second wind. Barbarian should be a rage like ability, ranger could add skills and favoured enemy ability, maybe just grant hunters mark once per short rest.

 

[Alexemplar]

The fighter chassis even before subclasses is pretty strong. Action surge, 3 attacks, lots of ASIs, etc. I don't think you could add in the defining abilities of the barbarian on top of what the fighter base offers and have ti be balanced. Think at 3rd levels, you'd be adding rages & reckless vs. the Champion critting on a 19-20.

You could redo the fighter chassis to take things out and move them to the subclasses, a bit like they did with the UA revised ranger where extra attack is not part of the class, but with more features.

I always thought a Berserker subclass that uses their Action Surge to enter a bloodthirsty Rage would be cool. Also the option to give up extra attack options in favor of one big attack.

I always personally felt that a Barbarian's rage should be this huge tide turning event rather than something the character does nearly every-single-time they fight. It should be like the Cleric's Channel Divinity.

 

[cmad1977]

I always thought a Berserker subclass that uses their Action Surge to enter a bloodthirsty Rage would be cool. Also the option to give up extra attack options in favor of one big attack.

I always personally felt that a Barbarian's rage should be this huge tide turning event rather than something the character does nearly every-single-time they fight. It should be like the Cleric's Channel Divinity.

I think the main advantage on rage is the damage mitigation. If it were as 'rare' as channel divinity I think barbarians would drop like flies(relatively speaking). Historically my feeling is that 'beezerker' types were known more for feeling no pain than or doing lots of damage.


Edit: the beezerker, warrior who channels the power of bees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk