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

[MoonSong]

[MENTION=6689464]MoonSong(Kaiilurker)[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]:

I don't think a campaign for the warlord is going to work. It's painfully obvious at this point that WotC just doesn't care about the warlord, despite its popularity easily being the same as that of the tinker gnomes, which they effectively gave us in the PHB.

I think a more productive effort would be to encourage WotC to finally finish the licensing for 5e so a 3rd party can publish a warlord (and all the other stuff that people want, like brand new campaign settings, monstrous races, etc).

There is a published 3rd party warlord class already. But it can't be legally called that. And it has been mostly ignored, just like every other warlord homebrew in the forums. Players just want an official one. WotC may not care, but they are still a company, if they get enough from the customers they will eventually release something. If they don't care, I prefer to think is they don't know player want/need one.

Now, WotC is clearly not going to produce a Warlord class. The only real hope for one is that a fan or a 3rd party develops one that is satisfactory (or, dare I hope, even really good).

Awww

 

[Aldarc]

So your argument for the Warlord's inclusion boils down to 'if we can't have it, we should throw out every other Class and everything else in the game'?

Forget it. Get over it. The Warlord isn't happening. And the vast majority of D&D players, new and old, don't care.

Ah, but I thought the warlord had already happened? I guess not then. So is the Warlord a part of the game or isn't it? Is it the Battle Master or is it not? And what would you do if Wizards decided to add the Warlord class to the game or felt that the need does exist?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Ah, but I thought the warlord had already happened? I guess not then. So is the Warlord a part of the game or isn't it? Is it the Battle Master or is it not? And what would you do if Wizards decided to add the Warlord class to the game or felt that the need does exist?

The reason why the Warlord - as a Class - isn't happening is because it is already catered for by the Battle Master SubClass. Keep up.

Don't be rude. Please keep up with the rules. Thank you. -Lwaxy, EN World Mod

 

[Aldarc]

The reason why the Warlord - as a Class - isn't happening is because it is already catered for by the Battle Master SubClass. Keep up.

If that were truly the case, then I doubt all the Warlord threads would be so common place. You may not agree, but I tend to think that the truth is not dependent on your scathing hostility towards the warlord class and its fans.

 

[TrippyHippy]

If that were truly the case, then I doubt all the Warlord threads would be so common place. You may not agree, but I tend to think that the truth is not dependent on your scathing hostility towards the warlord class and its fans.

The only reason why there is an abundance of threads about this topic is because the vocal fans on this thread won't take no for an answer and continue to perpetuate the debate on this forum. Even on your own manipulated polls you can't even muster a majority result in favour of them, either. For the D&D hobby at large, however, it's an irrelevance.

I turn up and run Adventurers' League games every week as I have since 5E kicked off - there are about 50 registered players. Not once has it been a topic of conversation around any gaming table at the club at all. I'd imagine much of the same is true around the rest of the D&D community. If the lack of having a Warlord Class was such a sticking point, then why has 5E sold so well without them?

That said, the one avowed 4E player who did turn up once said he refused to play D&D5E and left, giving no explanation beyond that. Maybe he was the Warlord fan you were looking for?

In any case, the likelihood that Wizards - who spent the best part of two years developing D&D5E, and who lost market share during that time to do so - returning to the Player's Handbook anytime soon just to insert a divisive Class back into the game is negligible.

 

[Aldarc]

If you don't mind me asking, if the desire of the Warlord's presence was truly that negligible then your posting would not be anywhere as vitriolic in opposition as it has been in the Warlord threads. If it was negligible, then why not just ignore the Warlord threads? Why persistently pop into threads to tell people "no!" instead of letting the threads be? Why stir up the debate further? Would the threads be as long or as many if the warlord's opponents didn't keep stirring the hornet's nest? If there is little chance for the Warlord, why are you so hostile to people making sincere requests for a Warlord? What do you get out of these discussions? That's why I find your attitude to fly in the face of discursive common sense.

I have participated in AL as well, though not running it as you have. People have discussed the Warlord. Some were disappointed that it was not there, but just wanted to game. Many did not register - against the common assertion of many warlord detractors - that the battle master was somehow supposed to be the Warlord. Some wanted the Warlord and discussed it. There were others who wanted the Warlord but were harassed by other players at the table who used the Warlord as a chance to take shots at 4th edition, and those Warlord fans stopped coming to AL. It turns out that no one wants to play with hostile jerks, and I'm sure you would not find that surprising given your experiences. I would like to see the Warlord in 5th edition so that there is a place at the gaming table for everyone.

 

[TrippyHippy]

If you don't mind me asking, if the desire of the Warlord's presence was truly that negligible then your posting would not be anywhere as vitriolic in opposition as it has been in the Warlord threads. If it was negligible, then why not just ignore the Warlord threads? Why persistently pop into threads to tell people "no!" instead of letting the threads be? Why stir up the debate further? Would the threads be as long or as many if the warlord's opponents didn't keep stirring the hornet's nest? If there is little chance for the Warlord, why are you so hostile to people making sincere requests for a Warlord? What do you get out of these discussions? That's why I find your attitude to fly in the face of discursive common sense.

I have participated in AL as well, though not running it as you have. People have discussed the Warlord. Some were disappointed that it was not there, but just wanted to game. Many did not register - against the common assertion of many warlord detractors - that the battle master was somehow supposed to be the Warlord. Some wanted the Warlord and discussed it. There were others who wanted the Warlord but were harassed by other players at the table who used the Warlord as a chance to take shots at 4th edition, and those Warlord fans stopped coming to AL. It turns out that no one wants to play with hostile jerks, and I'm sure you would not find that surprising given your experiences. I would like to see the Warlord in 5th edition so that there is a place at the gaming table for everyone.

The answer is simply because in an open forum one can express their views as they see fit. Why go on these forums and point out these things? Because if people didn't present the counter argument, and stay out, then the guys who keep demanding these things would just convince themselves that everybody agrees with them. This was actually happening on this thread and was the initial spur why I joined in - I remember somebody saying that there was no great opposition to Warlords and people would, at worst, be mildly indifferent to see them reinserted into the game. There is an opposition to them returning - and these posts are a reminder of that.

EDIT: With regards to tolerance of different forms of RPG, I would point out that the same club also has several Pathfinder games running too. Indeed, many players play both quite happily and we've never seen any conflict. The 4E is generally unpopular it has to be said, but there has been no cases whatsoever of people bullying or harassing any individual who wants to play any game. I also run Traveller and Call of Cthulhu games through the same venue too. The general rule is if you are prepared to run it, and people want to play it, then go ahead. I have played D&D4th several times too - and it was fun as a game in and of itself, but it didn't capture the essence of D&D for me. D&D5, however, does and I'd like it to stay that way.

 

[Mecheon]

The answer is simply because in an open forum one can express their views as they see fit. Why go on these forums and point out these things? Because if people didn't present the counter argument, and stay out, then the guys who keep demanding these things would just convince themselves that everybody agrees with them. This was actually happening on this thread and was the initial spur why I joined in - I remember somebody saying that there was no great opposition to Warlords and people would, at worst, be mildly indifferent to see them reinserted into the game. There is an opposition to them returning - and these posts are a reminder of that.

EDIT: With regards to tolerance of different forms of RPG, I would point out that the same club also has several Pathfinder games running too. Indeed, many players play both quite happily and we've never seen any conflict. The 4E is generally unpopular it has to be said, but there has been no cases whatsoever of people bullying or harassing any individual who wants to play any game. I also run Traveller and Call of Cthulhu games through the same venue too. The general rule is if you are prepared to run it, and people want to play it, then go ahead. I have played D&D4th several times too - and it was fun as a game in and of itself, but it didn't capture the essence of D&D for me. D&D5, however, does and I'd like it to stay that way.

"No" is not decent opposition (Unless we're talking Elder Scrolls universe and you are Numidian, but in that case that's because you're a giant robot using the souls of a race as your skin and your existence breaks reality so hard every time you've been activated the god of time has broken)

I mean, try your methodologies on say, a thread about Greyhawk or the like. Tell them about how they should just be happy with FR and stop asking for the return to the world they like. Because "No you can't have it" is not decent opposition, and applying it to things is just rude and obnoxious.

At least arguing about martial healing and screaming limbs on is better criticism. So far the one you've given is something I asked you the question of "So why doesn't this apply to bards?" and didn't seem to get a reason. Hmmm.

 

[TrippyHippy]

"No" is pretty definitive opposition where I come from, and don't try to suggest that people haven't given justification after justification, time and time again. I'm not going to repeat them all again - there's been enough circular argumentation on this topic already.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you don't mind me asking, if the desire of the Warlord's presence was truly that negligible then your posting would not be anywhere as vitriolic in opposition as it has been in the Warlord threads. If it was negligible, then why not just ignore the Warlord threads? Why persistently pop into threads to tell people "no!" instead of letting the threads be? Why stir up the debate further? Would the threads be as long or as many if the warlord's opponents didn't keep stirring the hornet's nest? If there is little chance for the Warlord, why are you so hostile to people making sincere requests for a Warlord? What do you get out of these discussions? That's why I find your attitude to fly in the face of discursive common sense.

It may have something to do with the difference between Enworld and WotC. An Enworlder might reasonable think the probability of WotC inserting a Warlord into 5E is negligible, and yet still be concerned enough about the possibility of Enworld conventional wisdom turning toward "Clearly the Warlord is a popular and needed class" to want to register his viewpoint. I.e. he doesn't want to be marginalized within the Enworld community, and perceives the Warlord threads as attempts to marginalize him. Since the Warlord fans also perceive themselves as being marginalized, and these threads are their attempts to demarginalize themselves, it's a situation ripe for conflict--even if WotC has no intention of allowing Enworld to influence their plans for 5E one way or the other.

It's a social problem. The fact that the threads are set up as polls just makes the problem worse, because a poll is tacitly claiming to represent conventional wisdom. I'd conjecture that a simple Warlord thread will see less conflict than a Warlord poll for that reason.