D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Manchurian]

I struggle to understand the resistance to building a proper Warlord; I think its fan base is broader than psionic classes but I agree totally that the non-eldritch blast Warlock is really screwed. There may be balance issues that need to be covered by level limits to prevent dipping but the lack of options for every other cantrip is very annoying.

That's there attempt Trieing to balance the class out ...But there is so many high cr creatures nowadays.....And High classes is very unnecessary to penalize them....give them the Eldritch blast...with great power comes great sacrifice.....At One Point I Thought The tarrasque was the baddest....but man there is alot of contenders for that spot now .. way more than before.....I even freed up the artifacts of non cannon but core but that's only for my high level Campaigning....

 

[Manchurian]

That's there attempt Trieing to balance the class out ...But there is so many high cr creatures nowadays.....And High classes is very unnecessary to penalize them....give them the Eldritch blast...with great power comes great sacrifice.....At One Point I Thought The tarrasque was the baddest....but man there is alot of contenders for that spot now .. way more than before.....I even freed up the artifacts of non cannon but core but that's only for my high level Campaigning....

They left Warlord classes to be open for tailored character according to taste ....

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But I have no comprehension why warlord can not be a fighter archetype. Thematically and mechanically it fits well.

It already is, twice over: Battlemaster and PDK.

You can't make those subclasses more powerful, because that, added to inherent fighter abilities, would make the whole character too powerful (Battlemaster is already well above the curve). In 5e subclasses cannot remove features from the core class. If you wanted to make the "command" features more powerful, you would have to weaken the character in other ways - maybe d8 hit dice, no heavy armour proficiency, no Action Surge or Second Wind perhaps. And that would require a new base class since 5e doesn't allow things to be taken away by a subclass.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think its fan base is broader than psionic classes

That would be quite easily testable in a poll.

 

[Leatherhead]

In 5e subclasses cannot remove features from the core class.

They don't have to, they just need to offer an alternative use.

There are subclass powers that run off of Ki and Wild Shape and every other resource. By sucking up the resources from a class feature, you are effectively removing the resource without having to actually delete it from the class.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They don't have to, they just need to offer an alternative use.

There are subclass powers that run off of Ki and Wild Shape and every other resource. By sucking up the resources from a class feature, you are effectively removing the resource without having to actually delete it from the class.

That's exactly how the PDK works. But it's still a limitation on how powerful an ability can be. A spore druid can do something different with it's wildshape. But it retains the normal wildshape ability as well. That makes the ability more powerful than the basic form. If the situation calls for it the spore druid can still turn into a fish in order to breathe under water. A spork is more useful than either a spoon or a fork.

The reason the PDK's command abilities are so limited is because even with no-one to command it is still a fully functional fighter.

 

[Aldarc]

Thanks, but I got it.

Not really unless you squint. But sure, once you shift the goal posts by post hoc pretending that the inaccuracy pertained to your framing of it rather than the binary framing of the original post in question. So I stick by my original proposition that the post in question was an inaccurate representation of the various sides of the debate.

 

[Leatherhead]

That's exactly how the PDK works.

No.

The PDK just adds AoE to Second Wind, Action Surge, and Indomitable. Which is the primary reason that nobody likes it. It has nothing like the Spore Druid's Symbiotic Entity. The reason the PDK's "command" abilities are so limited is because they don't actually command. They just do the Fighter things, but other people get dragged along for the ride.

Look, the PDK didn't have a UA playtest cycle and it shows. Because it's possible to recreate every integral mechanic that the Warlord had with 7 abilities or less.

 

[Manchurian]

It already is, twice over: Battlemaster and PDK.

You can't make those subclasses more powerful, because that, added to inherent fighter abilities, would make the whole character too powerful (Battlemaster is already well above the curve). In 5e subclasses cannot remove features from the core class. If you wanted to make the "command" features more powerful, you would have to weaken the character in other ways - maybe d8 hit dice, no heavy armour proficiency, no Action Surge or Second Wind perhaps. And that would require a new base class since 5e doesn't allow things to be taken away by a subclass.

That's Not True.......Cause even the beast have that now.....You must not have looked at the bestiary.....or your party play at a very low level

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No.

The PDK just adds AoE to Second Wind, Action Surge, and Indomitable.

Thus giving it the ability to give allies extra attacks and heal without magic - Warlord abilities.

Which is the primary reason that nobody likes it.

They don't like it because it cannot do all the things a warlord can, or as frequently, or with as much power.

And it can't do those for exactly the same reason an eldritch knight can't cast ninth level spells - because it is also a fully functional fighter.

It has nothing like the Spore Druid's Symbiotic Entity.

It's exactly like the spore druid - it uses core class abilities to fuel it's subclass abilities. The only difference is there wasn't a previous spore druid class in earlier editions for people to complain it's not as good as.

I'm not particularly interested in a warlord, but if you are going to do something with anything like the power of the 4e class it CANNOT ALSO BE A FULLY FUNCTIONAL FIGHTER (or rogue or cleric or whatever).

Anything you tagged onto the fighter class could be, at best, 1/3 warlord, in the same way that an EK is 1/3 wizard.