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

[Li Shenron]

I dislike the character concept. You can already represent one of them in many ways. I am against class bloats. Ergo...

 

[aramis erak]

This threw me off. What do any of those limitations have to do with nostalgia. Earlier editions of D&D were ALL ABOUT homebrew. In fact, it was sort of the point, and one of the biggest nostalgic things about it

Lots of groups, however, rules-lawyered the hell out of Rules-as-Written. I bounced one guy, Ray, from a 2E game because he wouldn't stop with the rules lawyering. He took 3 players with him. (One who later got sick of him and returned.)

I tend to play 5E by "selected rules as written"- in my home game, it's rules as written within the scope of which rules I've selected to use from the PHB & DMG. One player was whinging about the use of the lingering injuries rule... but I pointed out that the only reason it was affecting players more is that PC's are doing more damage per hit, and up 'til now, have been one-shotting or two-shotting most NPCs/Monsters, rendering the lingering effects nearly meaningless on them. Especially since they concentrate fire.

I know a number of people who run home games as much rules as written as their reading level allows. (For AD&D 1E, that causes a lot of problems, between rules hidden in weird places, and the generally verbose and erudite linguistic choices of Gygaxian-brain-spew... AD&D 1E was bloody hard to run Rules as written. Holmes and Moldvay basic were far easier games to run. No Gary-spew, no erudition.)

If a warlord class is added in UA, my home group gets to vote on it. I'll let them. (One's planning on multi-classing into Psionicist... with much group approval.) I don't personally plan on playing one, and won't have to face it in AL play unless it goes into a forthcoming league-approved book, so I only have to worry if it appears in AL sources for that mode.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't know why you're making a big deal about Healer costing a feat. Feats ARE class abilities, especially the fighter's bonus feats.

When your Feats have to be spent on a specific feat in order to make the game playable, rather than being able to use your feats to simply make the character you want, then there's a problem.

It's called a Feat TAX.

 

[El Mahdi]

You wanna have fun? You don't need permission from WOTC unless we're talking Adventurer's League, and honestly the person who wants to do Adventurer's League with a Warlord and refuses to cobble them together from feats and other things is a preeeeetttttyyyyy narrow demo.

Whether narrow or not, it's a legitimate desire. One that can only be fixed with an Official version.

Maybe I'm just being flippant... I dunno.

My Magic 8-Ball said: "Better not tell you now."

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

Somebody who wants a Warlord they can play in Adventurers League...

 

[Mephista]

5e doesn't have save or die,

It doesn't?

 

[Imaro]

When your Feats have to be spent on a specific feat in order to make the game playable, rather than being able to use your feats to simply make the character you want, then there's a problem.

When did the game become unplayable without the Healer feat? If you want a warlord-esque character with non-magical healing... aren't you spending your feats on the character you want?

Now if we are speaking to a non-standard campaign with no magic... well then the DM should be adjusting the game (like giving the feat out for free) if that's the type of campaign he wants to run...

It's called a Feat TAX.

No... it's not.

It's called spending a (bonus) feat to get the type of character I want. A martial character who can heal without magic.

 

[Imaro]

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.)

You realize you can also vote multiple times in the same poll without signing in on different devices or even in different browser windows...
We also can't see who exactly voted for all we know either side could be a few posters who have voted over and over again...
In other words trying to draw any type of concrete conclusion from this poll is pointless...

 

[Imaro]

Whether narrow or not, it's a legitimate desire. One that can only be fixed with an Official version.

The question is whether there is enough desire for WotC to spend the effort and resources creating it. This poll could have offered a (admittedly limited) snapshot of what the desire vs. those who don't care or don't want a warlord looks like, which IMO would have been far more interesting for discussion... but instead it doesn't really show anything.

 

[El Mahdi]

When did the game become unplayable without the Healer feat?

It didn't; but your question shows that you haven't followed the whole thread.

This line of discussion started with talk of a non-magical game; no healing spells, no healing potions...no magic.

In a no-magic game, without the presence of a class with mundane healing - healing they can use on other characters, and not just temporary hit points (which can't heal a character at 0 HP), the Healer Feat is essential.

A Warlord Class helps facilitate a non-magical campaign.