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

[El Mahdi]

Piggybacking off of the Warlording the fighter thread, and since we're gathering feedback on ideas for a potential "official" 5E Warlord (seeking feedback here and here ), I thought it might be helpful for the cause to see just how many 5E fans want a 5E Warlord.

(P.S.: I'm giving guaranteed XP to anyone that reads the ideas in the "Warlording the Fighter" thread, and leaves feedback.)

If you don't want a 5E Warlord, feel free to post also - it will help keep the thread bumped so people will see it.

The poll is multiple choice, but pointedly does not have a choice for "Do not want." Instead, just click "Lemon Curry" and then post your position.

Have Fun and Thanks for your feedback - and give your feedback over in the other thread also.

 

[Azurewraith]

Warlords are something i was never keen on as it made a putting all your eggs in one basket approach and then just having the warlord swing that character like some sort of nuclear weapon as all resources where dumped into him causing one man show kind of feel.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not against it, per se, but most everything I've read about how the class would look, and it screams special snowflake to me. I.e. it seems people want it to be better than any other class. It actually reminds me of many of the custom ninja classes in the 80s lol. The warlord is the new ninja?

I think part of the problem though is that people want it to do what it did in 4e, which just doesn't balance well in a 5e context with the rest of the classes.

So for me, in my humble opinion, if I wanted a warlord in 5e, I'd just play a battlemaster fighter with the inspiring leader feat and it covers the role pretty well.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't care.

A well done warlord class (and by well done, I'm speaking of the Herculean task of making one that appeals to 4e players without getting caught in all the metagame traps that anti-4e players disliked) would be a boon, but if 5e never does get around to doing it, I don't feel the game will be poorer for its lacking.

So yeah, Lemon Curry.

 

[Imaro]

Meh... I don't feel strongly about it either way. I'm not against there being a Warlord... but it's not a concept or class I have a real desire for in 5e either (which is exactly how my players and I felt about the class in 4e as well). IMO the Battlemaster is close enough especially if feats are used where I'd rater see development/design work go towards other things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I found the concept of the Warlord in 4E as fun and interesting... but that was mainly due to how their mechanics worked for the 4E game. They had some unique ways to affect the 4E game with mechanics that none of the other 4E classes could do. So that was cool.

That being said... the need for the fluffier aspects of the class I never found to be necessary that they be unique. A martial character that can restore hit points non-magically just as much and as well as magical characters can... I don't find particularly needed in the game. If 5E was short on classes that could heal, then sure, that part of a warlord would be a welcomed addition. But when clerics, druids, paladins, bards, and rangers can ALL heal hit points (and all of them doing so magically via spells) I don't feel the need for there to be another class that does it WITHOUT spells. The fluff of a non-magical healer just doesn't feel like it's a missing part of the game.

And a lot of the other aspects of what a Warlord does (inspiring people, commanding them to act etc.) can all be accomplished in the game as it is with the Bard and the Battlemaster (or a multiclass of the two). So an entirely new class that replicates the results of the Bard and Battlemaster mechanics while necessitating completely NEW mechanics to accomplish said results (to justify the need to make a Warlord its own complete class) I just don't find necessary.

And when you add in the fact that I have no problems with editing classes/subclasses (bringing in and replacing parts of one class with parts of another-- a la the Spellless Ranger) and have no issues with wiping away class fluff I don't want (IE using the spellcasting mechanic slot tree and just not calling it "magic"), I can make my own functional Warlord for a player using the game system as it stands without issue.

 

[KingsRule77]

Completely unnecessary. But whatever

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd definitely like to see 5e try to tackle the Warlord, and several other aspects of 4e that I feel were neglected, ignored, given lip service, or Totally Not Promised (e.g. the "tactical combat module," which made a pretty inarguable transition from "advertised feature" at the start to "vaporware they can't truly disavow" by launch).

Of course, I'm...skeptical to say the least, both about WotC trying, and about them succeeding. Particularly in light of sentiments like Sacrosanct's, not meaning to pick on you specifically. I just find that the discussion of the Warlord is dominated by people who (seem to) dislike (or even "hate") the class, the edition it came from, or (most commonly) both.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'd definitely like to see 5e try to tackle the Warlord, and several other aspects of 4e that I feel were neglected, ignored, given lip service, or Totally Not Promised (e.g. the "tactical combat module," which made a pretty inarguable transition from "advertised feature" at the start to "vaporware they can't truly disavow" by launch).

Of course, I'm...skeptical to say the least, both about WotC trying, and about them succeeding. Particularly in light of sentiments like Sacrosanct's, not meaning to pick on you specifically. I just find that the discussion of the Warlord is dominated by people who (seem to) dislike (or even "hate") the class, the edition it came from, or (most commonly) both.

Conversations like this would probably be a lot more productive if people like yourself would stop taking any commentary about 4e that doesn't praise it as some sort of personal attack against you or the game. Saying that a class that does what it did in 4e wouldn't work well in 5e doesn't mean in any way that I dislike 4e. Just that it's different. "Being different" =/= "hating on it". It's entirely reasonable to point out that 4e and 5e are two very different games, and thus emulating something the way it worked in 4e wouldn't necessarily work in 5e is an entirely reasonable statement to make that doesn't make it hating. Just like if I said I wanted a class in 5e that worked exactly the same as a caster in 3e wouldn't balance well. Or if I said I wanting a 5e class that worked just like a 1e thief would be problematic. It doesn't mean I'm hating on those other editions.

I'll also note that 5e does have a lot of tactical elements in it. What specifically do you want added from 4e, and can you explain how that could be done without changing the core of the game completely? There are a lot of things pulled in from 4e; certainly as much as any other edition. So comments like yours that imply 4e fans are forsaken always make me raise my eyebrows.

 

[Imaro]

I'll also note that 5e does have a lot of tactical elements in it. What specifically do you want added from 4e, and can you explain how that could be done without changing the core of the game completely? There are a lot of things pulled in from 4e; certainly as much as any other edition. So comments like yours that imply 4e fans are forsaken always make me raise my eyebrows.

[MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION]... I'm pretty interested in the answer to this question myself.