D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[Orlax]

I know lots of people liked the lazy lord and that's cool. What I'm talking about is like, this round, the warlord goes and shores up the front line (hangs with the fighter, gets some hits in, maybe averts some damage). Next round they back off the front and shore up the artillery, calling out a good shot maybe.

It's not strictly lazy lord. I came up with Vanguard. Something like "allies within 10 ft of you can take advantage of your Fighting Style, and you can also employ the fighting styles of any allies within 10 ft of you." This lets you go up and shield wall, fire off volleys, join a duel, and helps you help others when you team up.

Stolen!

 

[Staccat0]

Any thoughts on the Rogue Mastermind in Sword Coast? He kinda reminds me of the Lazylord.

 

[pemerton]

You are still talking about exact mechanical implementations of concepts that have existed and still do exist in the game. You even admit that the concepts have been there. You just happened to like the mechanical expression of it that was the 4e warlord.

I'm not quite following.

5e has characters who can heal (many spellcasters, plus the fighter's self-healing). It has characters who can grant extra actions (casters of Haste, plus the BM fighter, plus the fighter's self-buff with Action Surge). These are mechanical features of 5e as much as 4e.

But currently in 5e there is no non-magical character build who has doing this sort of thing as a primary shtick.

 

[mellored]

Healing is only part of it. The class was heavily tied to 4E mechanics and concepts such as the leader role and the AEDU power structure. Apparently there were also isses with the class in organized play (using other PCs as pawns with powers).

First, "leader" has been around since 1e as the cleric.

Second, the archetype existed in 3.5 as the Martial. You "motivated" and boost your "troops" and grant move actions. The only thing 4e did was include inspirational healing.

And i have yet to see anyone say that 5e warlords should have AEDU.

To make an accurate warlord faithful to the 4E version I suppose you would have to reintroduce things that people hated in 4E. 4E was not well received to put it mildly.

4e was a different game, yes. But hardly a bad game.

Calling it "D&D Tactics" would not be out of line.

The lazylord build also acted as a force magnifier. You get a class that is OK at healing but can drastically boost a parties damage per round. It looks innocent enough but then you realize the warlord is boosting whatever needs it the most.

The marshal could also do this. Boosting any stat as needed, but it was still very under powered.

4e lazylords where also slightly underpowered. The best warlord powers required the warlord to hit something himself, and they where a bit overpowered. Though it's easy enough to change +10 to hit into advantage.

Its also a reason why people probably find the Ranger underwhelming. In 4E it was the best striker by DPR, in 5E the hunter is decent enough but the beastmaster can't do that.

Your contradicting yourself here.
If people didn't like 4e, they wouldn't compare the ranger to 4e.

But yes, some people expect the ranger to be a spell-less striker. The ranger has changed a lot though the editions, and much of it's original identity (survival skills) is now a background. Personally i think pets is the most unique way to go with them.

The class also encourages a large amount of min/maxing. In the right party it is awesome in the wrong party not so much. The 4E Warlord and Ranger were very powerful though in that edition. The equivalent would be 3.5 players demanding the concentration mechanic should go and spells scale for free (damage dealing spells scaling for free did not break 3.5 though the main culprits were other spells).

No one is arguing for an overpowered warlord. Or an underpowered martial.

And every class encouraged min/max. Warlords where a lot more influential on the party level then on the individual level, but there was no more pressure then normal.

The warlord was only in one edition of D&D, most of the other classes were in several editions and even newer classes like Sorcerer and Warlock have been in 3 editions.

2 editions. Again, the martial. Though i'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Unfortunately for the warlord 4E was very different and to make a decent warlord you would need to bring back things people hated about that edition.

Like what?

You don't need a grid. You don't need 5 minute short rests. You don't need the bonus treadmill. You don't need inflated hit points. You don't need AEDU or uniform class structure.

Basically every warlord ability is already present in 5e. Commander's strike, inspiring leader, bonus action help, bardic inspiration, cutting words, rally, defensive style, maneuvering attack, distracting attack, ect... They are just scattered throughout other classes, rather then being the focus of a class.

The only one that's missing is inspirational healing (though inspirational THP exists).



It's fine to not like the warlord, but there's no reason to lie so much about it.
I expected better from you zard.

 

[mellored]

Its not the OP that is why he doesn't get it The designers decided on no Warlord its not to hard to figure out why.

The designers did try and included the warlord as the battlemaster.

However, like the ranger, many feel it misses the mark. Too much of it's power is in the fighter, not enough in support.

 

[mellored]

The AD&D/3E players who play 5E have already compromised on things like that.

Your right. I can't play a 3.5 martial.

We should add that to the game.

 

[Orlax]

Your right. I can't play a 3.5 martial.

We should add that to the game.

I'm definitely using the martial to influence my home brew that I'll be starting the drafting on tonight.

 

[Aldarc]

Unfortunately for you they have to be as smashy and invincible as fighters in this edition. Actually more precisely they have to be able to be run solo, like all of the other classes and builds (that aren't specifically built for uselessness via terrible spell selection) are able to.

I absolutely agree with your "more precisely" clause, and warlords should be viable solo. And I think that this hits upon something I would like to see for warlords. Casters primarily use their spell versatility and selection to fill in the party gaps, be self-sufficient, or to assume a party role. They can solo if need be, but they can also provide utility, control, support, or damage depending on party composition. Give the warlord their own set of options and selections. The battlemaster selects their known maneuvers, and its a limited, permanent set. Why not expand the list of (overlapping) combat maneuvers for the warlord and then let them 'prepare' maneuvers, strategies, or tactics per day? If the warlord then needs to be more support-oriented in a party, it can. If the party needs more control, it can. If the warlord needs to be more self-sufficient, it can. But such a design would give a martial class a similar sort of daily strategic choice and depth that has been mostly reserved for spellcasters.

 

[shadowmane]

I guess this will be known as the year of the great warlord debate. My personal opinion on this (and I know that don't have much weight beyond my own mind) is that the class should be made one of the new prestige classes.

As far as martial healing goes, I'm all for it. You should not have to seek out a magic user or a cleric to get healed. An herbalist should be able to heal, albeit at a slower rate. Of course, I'm of the opinion that the cleric class can be used for more than just a heal-bot, and should not be wasting spells on healing unless the party is in dire need.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"allies within 10 ft of you can take advantage of your Fighting Style"

Oh, wow. That's an interesting and simple idea.

I think you'd need to give the class multiple fighting styles but they can only pick one at a time.

I love the idea of four sword & board melee types all having Protection style.