D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[EzekielRaiden]

You want evidence of it? Just check out this thread, found right here on ENWorld: Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong if it had not been titled D&D, where the two voting options boil down to "yes, it's a good game it's just not D&D," and "no, because it's a bad game." I even said as much, and had someone directly retort with, effectively, that 4e was a bad game and the market ensured its swift demise.

I have no interest in continuing to participate in an interrogation. I honestly didn't want to clutter up El Mahdi's thread with this digression to begin with, hence why I said I didn't think it would meaningfully contribute to the thread's discussion earlier. Normally, I would offer to continue discussing this over PM so as to avoid cluttering the thread, but I really don't think the two of us should drag this out any longer than we have. Too much chance that I'd do something I would regret.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A lot of fan-made content, regardless of edition, are basically Mary Sue additions..

This is absolutely true. Which is why I found it odd that someone thought I was taking a dig at 4e by mentioning that. Especially since the comparison dig I was making was against my favorite edition. shrug, what can you do?

 

[MechaPilot]

I don't really want a cleric-replacement-without-the-magic mechanical implementation that many people seem to want. I was fine with it in 4e, but I'm not sure it really fits or is needed in 5e.

As I see things, a non-magical cleric-replacement probably fits about as well and is needed about as much as several of the optional things we've already been given. Of course, fit is a nebulous concept at best given the sometimes wide differences from table to table.

 

[Jester David]

I would like a really well done 3rd party warlord class that satisfies all fans of the class.

I want almost no new official classes beyond the psion/mystic and a theoretical artificer. And maybe a shaman.

 

[Umbran]

Although I shouldn't be surprised, because based on your posts, it seems you go out of your way to be offended at dang near everything. As evidenced by this very discussion.

....

Please don't ascribe positions to me I haven't made to you because someone somewhere said something you didn't like. That would be the very definition of looking to be offended.

Given the first bit there, don't you see a certain irony in the second?

Folks, once again, in big letters: DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL.

Please, address the content of the post, not the person of the poster. As soon as you make it about the other person, you are engaged in a battle of egos, rather than a rational discussion. We're not really here to see your ego battles. They aren't constructive or useful to the rest of us. So, please, let's get back to discussing things like mature adults, hm?

Thanks, all.

 

[MoonSong]

I would like a really well done 3rd party warlord class that satisfies all fans of the class.

I want almost no new official classes beyond the psion/mystic and a theoretical artificer. And maybe a shaman.

And what do you think of the one 3rd party class from En5ider?

 

[Jester David]

And what do you think of the one 3rd party class from En5ider?

I wasn't entirely sure of the balance and it really seemed to grant a lot of attacks. But it seemed decent.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, I take back my previous claim of there being one interesting "statistical" fact from the poll--they've swung closer together than the eight-to-eleven range I'd seen them hug so long. In fact, they're now close enough together that a 5% margin of error (which is probably being overly generous--given how rough and small the poll is it's probably much bigger) would mean they're indistinguishable. Though I hadn't realized you could vote for both things at once; that makes the game a little more...strange, since there are apparently a few people who voted for both things. Both methods of checking tell me it's at least two people, but could be as high as (lower number-1). (Minus 1 because I know *I* voted only-yes, and given the post responses, I find it highly unlikely that *nobody* voted only-LC.)

 

[Green1]

Well, what is keeping anyone who REALLY wants one to just tweak the at-will/ encounter/daily powers of the 4e warlord if this comes up in a game.

Just tweak each power on a case by case basis to be more in line with the lower numbers and conventions of 5e.

I mean, we can homebrew all we want. But, you can kind of, sort of do this with some combat maneuvers. Not the perfect reproduction of the genius the 4e warlord was, but still.

 

[Lanefan]

From what I can tell the Warlord class contains a lot of things I flat-out don't like about the newer editions: non-magical healing, healing by a fighter-y class, no-risk in-combat healing, push-pull-slide effects, and did I hear it makes lemmon curry too? But, there's no "no" option so lemmon curry it is.

Lan-"combat is for hurting, rest is for healing"-efan