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

[ChrisCarlson]

As I've mentioned the Noble class from EN5ider looks pretty balanced to me. It doesn't have the direct firepower of the fighter and yet it's still able to contribute meaningfully in combat as a warlord-esque class.

The noble class I've mentioned allows for the lazylord archetype to be fulfilled and yet is no less unbalanced than it was in 4th edition.

Dunno. I'm not joining just to see this class you speak of. Give me bullet-points or something?

It's not the BM that needs to be increased but instead the fighter that needs to be changed. Getting to make 3 attacks in one turn is not very warlord-esque. Nor is getting to second wind yourself or make 1 extra attack per short rest. Granting bonuses or allowing allies to attack in place of these extra attacks can be balanced against the fighter while still allowing a different style of character to be played. But these require changes to the fighter, not the battlemaster.

Subjective. My vision of a warlord is one who can definitely hold his own and excel at fighting while also being able to inspire and empower. Lead from the front. Lead by example. Rather than, 'do as I say not as I do.' Not dictate from the back. Do you consider your ideal of a warlord more correct than mine?

A battlemaster who spends his maneuvers on the various ally-bolstering options, and his feats on warlord-esque features (inspiring leadership, healer, even martial adept for more choices and dice), will fall behind the fighter who has chosen to focus on being better at fighting. The latter is spending his ABI/feat options on stats or personal fighting prowess. He's either a champion or his battlemaster maneuvers are for increasing his own effectiveness. He is better. While the warlord battlemaster has fallen behind on matching the other fighter, he's great at doing the things he wants: warlord stuff. But through a 5e system filter. So no, you aren't going to hand out attacks at will. Not viable. No you aren't going to heal like a cleric. Again, not viable.

The thing people like to pretend doesn't exist, is the fact that lazylords would get the best of both worlds, just as they did in 4e. They can dump their physical combat stats which means their class features will be even better because they can focus solely on those other stats. Yet, when it comes to combat they will still hit like a barbarian. Or rogue. Or paladin. Or warlock. Or whatever PC ally gets the biggest bang for the buck in the moment. That flexibility and build lopsidedness is never gonna fly in 5e. Its broken. And, BTW, why it was so popular with certain player types in 4e.

 

[mellored]

The actions he does grant are balanced within the 5e system paradigm. What you want is to exceed the limits of 5e's core design framework and action economy principles. There are reasons then lazylord is no more. Mechanical ones, not thematic.

The actions the BM grants are balanced around everything else the fighter has. Like action surge, second wind, and 4 attacks.

The same reason why the eldrich knight doesn't have 9 spells.

 

[Aldarc]

I would disagree with your final statement pretty strongly. We've seen pretty consistently what people want from a warlord:

• Non magical healing above and beyond the bare minimum provided by the 5e feat
• The ability to grant additional actions to other PC's or characters, again, above and beyond what the 5e Battlemaster can do.
• The ability to non-magically grant buffs to the party, again, above and beyond what the 5e battle master can already do.

That pretty much covers it. IOW, the existing mechanics gets you about 60% of the way there. We just want the other 40%.

Personally, I'd add in some non-magical buffs for skills as well. But, that's just me. I certainly don't expect it. Maybe even some bonuses for down time activities like construction or what not. Just spit balling here. But, the above list is pretty much the bog standard list of demands for a 5e warlord. And, I'd say that people have decided.

It should probably also be designed with 5E in mind though, so maybe not granting extra actions all the time, but may grant advantage to allies and impose disadvantage on foes.

You know thinking more on the entire concept of the Warlord... I realize I have another issue with the warlord as separate class... if the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat then doesn't the warlord (as separate class) step on the fighter's supposed mastery of battle... so it means the fighter is a master at physical fighting but isn't a master of strategy & tactics... thus re-enforcing the dumb fighter stereotype. It's another one of the reasons I'd like to see the warlord as a subclass of fighter.

That's just silly. Both the paladin and cleric effectively exist as holy crusaders who step on each others' toes. One is more oriented towards support and one is more oriented towards fighting. Is the paladin less holy than the cleric? Why the double-standard for the warlord? It's simply a matter of emphasis.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It should probably also be designed with 5E in mind though, so maybe not granting extra actions all the time, but may grant advantage to allies and impose disadvantage on foes.

That's just silly. Both the paladin and cleric effectively exist as holy crusaders who step on each others' toes. One is more oriented towards support and one is more oriented towards fighting. Is the paladin less holy than the cleric? Why the double-standard for the warlord? It's simply a matter of emphasis.

But the existence of the Paladin doesn't suddenly make the Cleric seem like a "dumb Priest." Imagine if Paladin had an ability called "Assist With Dogma": "By pointing out flaws in a Cleric's theology, you help him achieve greater understanding of his god. His next spell is cast one level higher."

 

[JohnLynch]

Dunno. I'm not joining just to see this class you speak of. Give me bullet-points or something?

Here's a summary of it, although it's not enough for you to judge how balanced the class is. Short of reproducing the text there isn't much I can do about that though.

Subjective.

Agreed.

My vision of a warlord is one who can definitely hold his own and excel at fighting while also being able to inspire and empower. Lead from the front. Lead by example. Rather than, 'do as I say not as I do.' Not dictate from the back.

That explains why you think the battlemaster is acceptable then. It fits what your looking for in a warlord.

Do you consider your ideal of a warlord more correct than mine?

Your warlord sounds great for people who are looking for what you have described. It's not so great for those looking for something different. It isn't a matter of being correct but simply personal preference. There is nothing wrong in the Battlemaster for those whose itch it scratches. For me it's a great attempt at getting 4th ed fighter encounter powers, not quite what I'm looking for in a warlord though.

you aren't going to hand out attacks at will. Not viable

This is where we disagree. I have seen nothing that demonstrates why this would be terribly unbalanced (unless your taking the route that it was always unbalanced in any D&D game).

The thing people like to pretend doesn't exist, is the fact that lazylords would get the best of both worlds, just as they did in 4e.

If you felt this was unbalanced in 4th edition then it stands to reason you'd think it unbalanced in 5th edition. That's a fine stance to take and you do have a point to a degree. Although I feel the requirements of using people's reaction is a great balancing factor. It's cool if you disagree though.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The actions the BM grants are balanced around everything else the fighter has. Like action surge, second wind, and 4 attacks.

The same reason why the eldrich knight doesn't have 9[th level] spells.

That is correct. I' not sure what your point is, however.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

This is where we disagree. I have seen nothing that demonstrates why this would be terribly unbalanced (unless your taking the route that it was always unbalanced in any D&D game).

I tried to go into some depth as to why I believe this. I'm sorry you did not respond to that portion of my post. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my explanation?

If you felt this was unbalanced in 4th edition then it stands to reason you'd think it unbalanced in 5th edition. That's a fine stance to take and you do have a point to a degree. Although I feel the requirements of using people's reaction is a great balancing factor. It's cool if you disagree though.

In some of the lazylord homebrew classes I've seen, where at-will action granting is a thing, often the removal of the reaction expenditure was snuck in there. Or the receiver of the action is getting their full compliment of attacks. Stuff like that. All broken.

If I ever saw an action-granting class that I felt was balanced, I'd be willing to entertain it. I've yet to see one. Toying with 5e's tight action economy is a delicate thing. Almost universally breaking it in the trying. At least, by the vast majority of armchair game designers who haven't even bothered to extensively playtest their creation before pronouncing it as the answer to everyone's prayers.

And at some point I'll take the time to peruse the link to that homebrew class in question.

 

[Aldarc]

But the existence of the Paladin doesn't suddenly make the Cleric seem like a "dumb Priest." Imagine if Paladin had an ability called "Assist With Dogma": "By pointing out flaws in a Cleric's theology, you help him achieve greater understanding of his god. His next spell is cast one level higher."

I'm not sure how the existence of a warlord makes the fighter a "dumb warrior." The warlord is simply a martial class more focused on team support, tactics, and strategy than honing his technical combat prowess. Should we then complain that the fighter's existence would simply relegate the stereotype of the "weak Warlord"? Should we complain that the battlemaster's existence relegates the champion to a "dumb Fighter"? Again, it's simply a matter of their respective emphases as classes or even sub-classes. But in your analogy, don't you have the roles reversed? After all, the cleric is the more support-oriented class and not the fighter. So I would see the support cleric use their ability "assist with dogma" regarding the more action-oriented crusading paladin.

 

[JohnLynch]

I tried to go into some depth as to why I believe this. I'm sorry you did not respond to that portion of my post. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my explanation?

As I said, I do not believe it to be unbalanced UNLESS your belief is that it was unbalanced in it's pre-5e iterations. You've made it clear you believe it was, therefore you see it as imbalanced.

If I ever saw an action-granting class that I felt was balanced, I'd be willing to entertain it. I've yet to see one.

Given your stance on the 4th edition lazy lords I doubt there is a functional class that relies on this shtick that could meet your standards of balanced (not that 5th edition was ever designed to be perfectly balanced anyway). There's nothing wrong with that. There is much in RPGs that some people consider balanced while others view it as horribly imbalanced. It's simply preferences and potentially different ways of playing the game.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

As I said, I do not believe it to be unbalanced UNLESS your belief is that it was unbalanced in it's pre-5e iterations. You've made it clear you believe it was, therefore you see it as imbalanced.

Given your stance on the 4th edition lazy lords I doubt there is a functional class that relies on this shtick that could meet your standards of balanced (not that 5th edition was ever designed to be perfectly balanced anyway). There's nothing wrong with that. There is much in RPGs that some people consider balanced while others view it as horribly imbalanced. It's simply preferences and potentially different ways of playing the game.

This is all skirting awfully close to claiming I'm arguing in bad faith. Not a fan of that. If you think that's the case, why are you bothering to respond to me at all?

And I didn't just say, "it's unbalanced because I think so...". I said it was unbalanced in 4e, and the same could result in 5e, based on reasons which I took the time to spell out. Reasons you avoided quoting or responding to.