D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Valetudo]

The fact is there are a few stupid class names in dnd. The fighter should be called the warrior. The barbarian should be called the berserker. The monk should be called racist steriotype. You get my drift.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

(7) I don't want to see any more threads about warlords. Seriously, there are more than enough threads and polls already.

 

[Hussar]

Well, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], in your own poll, 25% of respondents say they want a new warlord class.

I'd say that's more than enough demand wouldn't you? Hardly a small number of people, despite claims to the contrary.

It would be interesting to see this exactly worded poll but with a small change - change warlord to, say, mystic or artificer. I would, at a guess, predict that the numbers would be virtually identical.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Well, [MENTION=48965]Hardly a small number of people, despite claims to the contrary.

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).

 

[Iain_Coleman]

(7) I don't want to see any more threads about warlords. Seriously, there are more than enough threads and polls already.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Sacrosanct]

People cite things as evidence in arguments, morrus, not just in court.

We have polls on this forum almost every day. Why did you feel the need to say that in this one, while not making the same "cautionary warning" in any of the other polls? We all pretty much know the value and context of forum polls already.

If I were to hazard a guess why, it's because you automatically want to dismiss any poll result that doesn't go in your favor. But that's just a guess.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We have polls on this forum almost every day. Why did you feel the need to say that in this one, while not making the same "cautionary warning" in any of the other polls? We all pretty much know the value and context of forum polls already.

If I were to hazard a guess why, it's because you automatically want to dismiss any poll result that doesn't go in your favor. But that's just a guess.

The last time we had a poll of similar purpose, it was used to "prove" that there was no coherent set of expectations for the ranger, and no demand for a magic using ranger. it was cited as evidence.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well it is, in the context of the sample size we're looking at. Forum polls do have value and merit, depending on what you're wanting to get out of them. You can't go around arbitrarily in polls where you don't like the result and poo poo the poll right off while ignoring most of them that come out the way you want. Heck, in this thread, you dismiss the poll, and also give XP to someone using the poll as justification for enough people wanting it. You can't say polls are bad when they go against your biases and good when they support them. Well, I guess if you're name is Trump you do, but it's not exactly something to strive for I don't think.

 

[Ratskinner]

I mean, if we're going along those lines, why do we have Barbarian as a class? Isn't Barbarian just a background? You can have a barbarian who's become a wizard, a barbarian who's become a cleric, so on and so forth. So should we remove that and just include that all in Fighter?

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.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Can't see or vote on my phone, but I wouldn't be unhappy with the class. I think Warlord is a terrible name, though and would rather see a class that does all the action granting and buffing and debuffing as it's core, and only uses the military-learder archetype of the "Warlord" as a subclass. Can't think of a good name for it, though.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app