D&D 5E Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter

[DEFCON 1]

Interesting that many people's reply was simply "play a magical support class and refluff it." Personally, that's too far over the line for me - having to justify all the powers of a Bard or Cleric as coming from a martial source seems difficult, and avoiding the most "magical" spells (it's hard to refluff Hold Person or Spirit Guardians as nonmagical) seems like you'd be gimping yourself. I'd rather play an explicitly magical character then try to refluff it as a martial one. That said, if it works for you and your table, go for it!

Well, a player can't have it both ways. They either play the type of character they want (and sometimes not take the theoretical "best" choices because they don't fit that type), or they maximize their character at the expense of playing the specific "type". If they want to play the character a certain way... then play it. And sod the idea that the PC isn't maxed out with the "best" choices.

That's always been one of the most irritating arguments to me that people have made here on the boards. That if a supposedly "superior" choice exists you HAVE to take it even if you don't want it, and shame on WotC for giving it to us because we're now losing out on possibly more flavorful options we would have taken instead. But you know what? That has nothing to do with WotC... that has everything to do with the player's *ego*. The player wants to be able to play a specific character type (taking flavorful options that help get there) *plus* have the satisfaction of designing the VERY BEST character of that type from the options available.

So rather than building the character they want by taking options that fit the concept and purposely ignoring options that might be really good but don't necessarily fit (see the 4E "Weapon Expertise" feats)... they want WotC to design or remove features that don't have those better options AT ALL so that they don't HAVE to make that choice. Their ego just can't handle the idea of not always taking the most optimal choice, so they want WotC to take the choice away from them altogether. Which, honestly, is the ultimate in the fragility of mind.

If you want to play a cleric refluffed as a warlord and thus don't want to take Hold Person because it doesn't thematically fit as a spell / combat maneuver that you can justify as potentially "non-magical"... then stand up for your choice and accept the restriction you are placing upon yourself to play the type of character you want. Don't bemoan the fact that WotC is *forcing* you to "play poorly" in order to to do it. That's not their job to make you feel better about yourself.

 

[raleel]

The problems with the warlord concept translating directly from 4E to 5E is that warlords were pants-on-head crazy powerful when used correctly and synergized with a team. Action point novas would wreck encounters in a heartbeat. I think they toned down the abilities because they were crazy good; not because they wanted to change the concept of the class. (In my 5 year 4E game, I had a warlord from 1 to 20 in a party of six people. I ended up banning the essentials classes because they were bananas with warlords due to the reliance on basic attacks. Still, that warlord was insanity pants)

I think the problem with off-turn actions is that it slowed down combat immensely; that part I think was a conscious decision to remove.

I do think they could use superiority dice being refreshed at 1/round; because of the limitation on them, people are afraid to use them. Or make them a daily resource at like cha mod + fighter level per day. The current refresh is just too inconsistent to make them as useful as they should be.

Or perhaps make them more like the Bardic Inspiration dice, and at later levels they refresh more frequently.

but, to your point about 4e warlords, I played one. He was a monster Bravura type. At a certain point (around level 5-7) we started noticing serious combat slowdowns. I started timing our turns by person. My Bravura was part of that problem because he wrecked the action economy pretty hard. One time, through a serious of events, he was able to pull half a dozen or so attacks out of one reaction.

and so, yea, much of folks want in here they aren't going to get what they want because 5e hard-capped the action economy. And, honestly, I don't think it was a bad thing at all

I still do miss that warlord. he was just nuts.

 

[peterka99]

+1 to initiative

d&d 5e doesn't like static + like +1 . + proficiency, + ability modifier are better. Why not adding new maneuvers to the battlemaster ?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The problem with a Warlord-esque character in 5e is that the 4e Warlord was, to a large degree, about moving other PCs around on the battlefield and giving them (mostly) small bonuses to attacks. I mean, sure, they had some big guns here and there, but a typical encounter power would be "deal 2W damage and move an ally that's already adjacent to the target to another square adjacent to the target" or "deal 2W damage and your allies gain +1+Charisma modifier to damage against the target for a round."

These are two aspects that 5e is moving away from: multiple small modifiers, and fiddling with exact movements on the game board (sure, there are rules for the latter in the DMG, but it would be hard to build a class around optional rules).

People seem to handle bless, bardic inspiration, etc well. The extra dice is a handy reminder. Shield of Faith is just a straight up AC bonus. Eldritch blast shoves 10' with the correct invocation. Not sure why adding making the effect martial suddenly causes the benefit to be too fiddly or too hard to remember. I'm not looking to go back to the spreadsheet required math gak of 3rd edition either, but I fail to see why what's good for the magic stick waving goose isn't good for the sword waving gander.

 

[koga305]

Well, a player can't have it both ways. They either play the type of character they want (and sometimes not take the theoretical "best" choices because they don't fit that type), or they maximize their character at the expense of playing the specific "type". If they want to play the character a certain way... then play it. And sod the idea that the PC isn't maxed out with the "best" choices.

That's always been one of the most irritating arguments to me that people have made here on the boards. That if a supposedly "superior" choice exists you HAVE to take it even if you don't want it, and shame on WotC for giving it to us because we're now losing out on possibly more flavorful options we would have taken instead. But you know what? That has nothing to do with WotC... that has everything to do with the player's *ego*. The player wants to be able to play a specific character type (taking flavorful options that help get there) *plus* have the satisfaction of designing the VERY BEST character of that type from the options available.

So rather than building the character they want by taking options that fit the concept and purposely ignoring options that might be really good but don't necessarily fit (see the 4E "Weapon Expertise" feats)... they want WotC to design or remove features that don't have those better options AT ALL so that they don't HAVE to make that choice. Their ego just can't handle the idea of not always taking the most optimal choice, so they want WotC to take the choice away from them altogether. Which, honestly, is the ultimate in the fragility of mind.

If you want to play a cleric refluffed as a warlord and thus don't want to take Hold Person because it doesn't thematically fit as a spell / combat maneuver that you can justify as potentially "non-magical"... then stand up for your choice and accept the restriction you are placing upon yourself to play the type of character you want. Don't bemoan the fact that WotC is *forcing* you to "play poorly" in order to to do it. That's not their job to make you feel better about yourself.

Wow, that's a harsh critique. I disagree with you, however, in that I don't think my dissatisfaction in playing a Cleric as a nonmagical Warlord comes from an enlarged ego. I think most players (including myself) are quite willing to pick effects that are on-theme but less powerful. For example, I'd willingly play a Beast Master ranger (which seems rather underpowered to most) in order to have a beast companion - while the Hunter is cool too, I really like the idea of having a trained eagle even if it's not the most powerful in battle, and I can still get the Help action every turn from it at level 7 which is pretty sweet.

However, I think the reflavoring problem for the Cleric comes from the Cleric's powers being an ill fit for the Warlord class. If I'm justifying my Turn Undead as a special intimidation ability that (for some reason) only works on undead, or curing poison instantly with lesser restoration as a special healing technique, or spiritual weapon as really being an ally's extra attacks even when I'm rolling the dice, eventually things start to feel pretty awkward. And yes, you can ignore the stuff that doesn't quite fit, but at that point it's less "ignoring some options" and more "you're not playing half the class." And there's still no good way to reposition allies on the battlefield or give extra attacks to another player, both of which the Battlemaster fighter (like the 4E Warlord) can actually do. The Bard might be a better fit, but there's a similar problem - some abilities like Countercharm and many of the spells are kind of weird for a purely martial character to have access to, and ignoring them means you're missing out on a ton of what the class has to offer.

5E is pretty great about making characters of all power levels fun to play along with each other, but it does assume that every character is making use of the abilities available to them. Imagine if you played a low-level Fighter, but simply chose not to use Second Wind or Action Surge, or a Rogue that never used Sneak Attack. You'd feel pretty overshadowed in combat compared to a baseline Barbarian that was Raging every few fights, or a Dragon Sorcerer blasting away with the occasional Burning Hands and Chromatic Orb. It's not just about ego - it's about feeling like you're contributing effectively to the party.

 

[Cybit]

Wow, that's a harsh critique. I disagree with you, however, in that I don't think my dissatisfaction in playing a Cleric as a nonmagical Warlord comes from an enlarged ego. I think most players (including myself) are quite willing to pick effects that are on-theme but less powerful. For example, I'd willingly play a Beast Master ranger (which seems rather underpowered to most) in order to have a beast companion - while the Hunter is cool too, I really like the idea of having a trained eagle even if it's not the most powerful in battle, and I can still get the Help action every turn from it at level 7 which is pretty sweet.

However, I think the reflavoring problem for the Cleric comes from the Cleric's powers being an ill fit for the Warlord class. If I'm justifying my Turn Undead as a special intimidation ability that (for some reason) only works on undead, or curing poison instantly with lesser restoration as a special healing technique, or spiritual weapon as really being an ally's extra attacks even when I'm rolling the dice, eventually things start to feel pretty awkward. And yes, you can ignore the stuff that doesn't quite fit, but at that point it's less "ignoring some options" and more "you're not playing half the class." And there's still no good way to reposition allies on the battlefield or give extra attacks to another player, both of which the Battlemaster fighter (like the 4E Warlord) can actually do. The Bard might be a better fit, but there's a similar problem - some abilities like Countercharm and many of the spells are kind of weird for a purely martial character to have access to, and ignoring them means you're missing out on a ton of what the class has to offer.

5E is pretty great about making characters of all power levels fun to play along with each other, but it does assume that every character is making use of the abilities available to them. Imagine if you played a low-level Fighter, but simply chose not to use Second Wind or Action Surge, or a Rogue that never used Sneak Attack. You'd feel pretty overshadowed in combat compared to a baseline Barbarian that was Raging every few fights, or a Dragon Sorcerer blasting away with the occasional Burning Hands and Chromatic Orb. It's not just about ego - it's about feeling like you're contributing effectively to the party.

I got a chance to test out the "warlord" build; it's actually pretty good. Nothing will ever match the sheer level of insanity that 4E warlords could do; but the 5E warlord is still a) very, very effective in the context of 5E and b) can actually hold their own a lot better - meaning less reliance on an optimal party. Once you add the extra feats that the fighter gets into the mix and build towards a warlord - I do feel 5E does as warlord about as well as a straight "warlord" would do in 4E when you add in the context of 5Es design philosophy (blend more towards simple, faster combat, cut down on synergistic builds leading to exponential power growth, etc). While the math involved is fuzzy to a large degree; the benefit a warlord fighter build can provide is on par with a support class once you add in that the character is still a full leveled fighter with Extra Attack, Action Surge, and all that jazz. Assumption being, however, that short rests are in some what common supply. IIRC; the math of the class doesn't break if you let them get 1 superiority dice per round back - they didn't do that because the playtest data came back in overwhelmingly against it (I think. Remember hearing that somewhere during a panel).

 

[DEFCON 1]

5E is pretty great about making characters of all power levels fun to play along with each other, but it does assume that every character is making use of the abilities available to them. Imagine if you played a low-level Fighter, but simply chose not to use Second Wind or Action Surge, or a Rogue that never used Sneak Attack. You'd feel pretty overshadowed in combat compared to a baseline Barbarian that was Raging every few fights, or a Dragon Sorcerer blasting away with the occasional Burning Hands and Chromatic Orb. It's not just about ego - it's about feeling like you're contributing effectively to the party.

If you were a Rogue and made the choice not to use Sneak Attack for whatever reason (fluff or otherwise)... then you've done it under the full realization you aren't using the full suite of the class's abilities. So any overshadowing in combat should not come as any surprise-- to you or to the rest of the party. Likewise... if you choose to be a necromancer cleric for example and you tell your party "I don't have healing spells"... you are making that choice based upon the character type you are choosing to play. And the rest of the party has to accept it. But if they somehow browbeat you into taking healing spells anyway, then that's your ego that is making you acquiesce to their demands. Which... don't get me wrong... is *fine* if you personally decide you'd rather put the party's needs before your own character's (and many times that leads to more successful adventuring)... but my point is that WotC doesn't need to produce additional options in the books just so you don't have to make that change in the first place.

So can you play a War Cleric where you purposeful only ever use say 1/5th of the spells on the Cleric's list because those are the ones that map to the most "non-magical" abilities so that you can refluff yourself as a Warlord instead of a divine warrior? Sure, if that gives you the powers you want to use. But just because you also have access to Lesser Restoration due to it being on your spell list, doesn't mean you then have to make it available to the party. We don't get mad at the Wizard who doesn't go out and fill up his spellbook with every single other spell out there-- we accept he only has a certain number at his disposal. We don't get mad that the Battlemaster only has a few of the Maneuvers in his arsenal and not all 14. Same way we accept that Bards and Sorcerers only have a few Spells Known. So if you play your "Warlord" Cleric the same exact way... where you only have a certain number of spells/combat maneuvers you "know" (IE only the ones you'll prepare every day), then that's they way your character is, and you and the party should be comfortable with that. And if anyone's not... then stand up for your choice and defend it.

You're not "gimping" your character if you are choosing the abilities that are most right for the character you are playing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you were a Rogue and made the choice not to use Sneak Attack for whatever reason (fluff or otherwise)... then you've done it under the full realization you aren't using the full suite of the class's abilities. So any overshadowing in combat should not come as any surprise-- to you or to the rest of the party.

would it be ok if a more then 0% of the players wanted this, for those players to go online and say "Gee I hope WotC comes out with a non sneak attack rogue"

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're not "gimping" your character if you are choosing the abilities that are most right for the character you are playing.

If the choice is
a) I play the character I want and, as a result, I am not as effective in the game as the other players, or
b) I am as effective as the rest of my party, and, as a result, I cannot play the character I want to play

This is not a choice that a player should have to make. It is choosing which kind of crappy experience you want, the crappy experience of not being awesome, or the crappy experience of not being the character you want. That is a non-choice. I'm just gonna choose not to play that character/that game.

Assuming the character isn't out of context, it should be entirely possible to do both.

So advice that boils down to, "if you want to be in character, ignore your character's abilities" is not greatly useful. It's like saying "Would you like to be punched in the eye, or in the throat?" There's gotta be an option not to get punched at all, or else why that person doing this?

 

[Iosue]

If the choice is
a) I play the character I want and, as a result, I am not as effective in the game as the other players, or
b) I am as effective as the rest of my party, and, as a result, I cannot play the character I want to play

This is not a choice that a player should have to make.

But that's not really the choice that has to be made. Not choosing a few spells because they are tough to refluff as martial powers doesn't mean you are now less effective than the other players.