D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Hussar]

Wow! There is just no pleasing some people. In thread after thread there just seems to be a lot of complaining about what 5E doesn't have. When ideas are floated they're all bad. No compromise is acceptable at all, working within the system is intolerable, and the one's complaining don't actually offer ideas of their own.

Makes me wonder if the problem is simply that 5E is not 4E...

Hang on a tick. Look at the artificer threads. Look at the psionics threads. You'll see no difference. Now how about parking the edition war crap somewhere else?

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure if fighter subclass is off the table. Battlemasters do their DPS through specific exploits. Barring those powers, a battlemaster isn't really a damage machine.

So if you replace damage exploits with healing and status effect exploits, as well as action granting, it's not a bad compromise.

 

[Obryn]

Wow! There is just no pleasing some people. In thread after thread there just seems to be a lot of complaining about what 5E doesn't have. When ideas are floated they're all bad. No compromise is acceptable at all, working within the system is intolerable, and the one's complaining don't actually offer ideas of their own.

Makes me wonder if the problem is simply that 5E is not 4E...

Um. Everyone's clearly stating why all of the "just use an X in 5e" suggestions were rejected, and myself and others have floated ideas about what a Warlord should include.

So I don't know what thread you've been reading.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Wow! There is just no pleasing some people. In thread after thread there just seems to be a lot of complaining about what 5E doesn't have. When ideas are floated they're all bad. No compromise is acceptable at all, working within the system is intolerable, and the one's complaining don't actually offer ideas of their own.

Makes me wonder if the problem is simply that 5E is not 4E...

It's not that there is no pleasing some people. It's simply that people are bored stiff when people offer PRATTs that are the very first thing that people suggest when they try to create a warlord in 5e. Especially when it has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that the Fighter is set up to be a martial DPR character and that is simply not the warlord. It's pretty well known why the fighter fails miserably as a warlord.

Fortunately taking the time to demonstrate exactly how wrong your idea is has ended up with a potential solution.

So, this is what I see so far concerning "Warlording" a Fighter:

Within the constraints of 5E (a system without an extensive "Powers" mechanic), a 5E Warlord would not be able to have as many options for any given build as a 4E Warlord would.

As has been pointed out at length, this is a complete irrelevancy. The number of powers doesn't matter. The fact that the fighter can not handle the archetype does. Indeed various class features of the fighter actively go so far as to undermine the approach used by the warlord.

The best approach for a Warlord is as a Fighter class Martial Archetype.

The fighter's core features like Second Wind, Action Surge, and Multiple Attacks actively undermine their ability to be a warlord. When you have action surge, second wind, weapon mastery (although this is easily tweakable) you are best off handling any combat yourself. And you personally shine in combat. The warlord makes other people shine.

Actually now I come to think of it, this proposes its own fix.

The L3 ability for Warlord allows you to use Second Wind and Action Surge on one ally instead of you - and to hand out all attacks beyond the first each round as extra attacks for one of your allies.

And now we add new weapon masteries.
Lazy: You may hand out your first attack to one of your allies. If you hand out all your attacks to a spellcaster they may use it to cast any cantrip.
Bravura: You may choose to take Disadvantage against all incoming attacks. If you do so, your allies gain Advantage against all enemies adjacent to you until your next turn.

The Battle Master is already a fairly decent Tactical Warlord within the constraints of 5E.

The Battle Master is a barely acceptable port of a 4e Fighter. As a warlord it falls flat, and even as an archetype it only covers a very narrow sliver of the range covered by a 4e Warlord. Fighters are about being great, warlords about making other people great. Unless you use the subclass features to radically invert the fighter and let others in the party use the abilities that make them formidable, as I have indicated, then the fighter not only doesn't cover the archetype of the warlord but is a long long way away from it.

My question is: Why can't one simply convert some of the Inspiring Warlord's Powers from 4E as maneuver options for the Battle Master archetype?

Because your class isn't about your round-to-round tricks. It's about how you approach the world. And the fighter as it stands in no way approaches the world like a warlord. A rogue would make a better base class for a warlord than a fighter does unless you subvert the fighter's abilities as indicated.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't think asking for the warlord to be its own class qualifies for "there's no pleasing some people" does it?

I think that demanding only a separate class is unreasonably limiting and more than a bit antagonistic and self-entitled.

 

[Eric V]

I think that demanding only a separate class is unreasonably limiting and more than a bit antagonistic and self-entitled.

"Limiting?" But if the warlord is it's own class, there can be more subclasses for it. How is having more options "limiting?"

"Antagonistic?" To whom? WotC, the only people warlord fans are asking for the class from? To non-warlord fans? Seriously, to whom?

Look, honestly, if you're one of those guys that gets upset when other people get something they ask for but it's not something you like, then the antagonism problem isn't found in the "warlord-as-its-own-class" people.

"Self-entitled" would be demanding it be made as official as the other PHB classes; by definition, that can't happen. Asking for it in Unearthed Arcana, you know, like the Mystic we just got, does not meet the definition of "self-entitled."

 

[El Mahdi]

Hang on a tick. Look at the artificer threads. Look at the psionics threads. You'll see no difference. Now how about parking the edition war crap somewhere else?

I'm not edition warring; I'm calling out edition warring.

 

[Umbran]

Makes me wonder if the problem is simply that 5E is not 4E...

They don't like your suggestions... so you make it an edition war? Yes, *you* did it, not them.

The implication is that *your* suggestions are so good that the only way people wouldn't like them is if they are unreasonably attached to the prior edition.

That's a tad over-the-top, you know, and a bit suggestive that they aren't the (only) ones being unreasonable. Next time, please leave room for your suggestions not being *quite* so perfect for everyone on the planet, and for reasonable people to just want something else.

For everyone else - don't engage on this. Thanks.

 

[El Mahdi]

Um. Everyone's clearly stating why all of the "just use an X in 5e" suggestions were rejected, and myself and others have floated ideas about what a Warlord should include.

So I don't know what thread you've been reading.

The point people keep ignoring is that all of the "just use" suggestions have covered every possible approach - including making a separate class (just not officially made by WotC).

Despite this, everything posited has been rejected with only general expressions as to why. Yes, ideas have been floated by those complaining - vague, general ideas lacking in specifics. Why are those who want a Warlord, not providing specifics or working together to make one themselves? Even if the main reason is simply that they want WotC to do it (for whatever reason), providing specifics or making their own, even if only experimental and unofficial, would likely inform any official version WotC would make. (I find it highly unlikely that WotC would ignore the product of such an endeavor...)

But those complaining don't/won't do this...

So, in the words of Arthur Conan Doyle (slightly paraphrased): Once you eliminate all options, whatever motivation remains, no matter how improbable or contentious, must be the truth.

Near as I can tell, all reasons for continuing to reject every attempt at making a Warlord have only one possible, common motivation left. One which I have already stated. One which certainly raised the ire of some, but also - pointedly - did not generate rebuttals, just denials.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't think asking for the warlord to be its own class qualifies for "there's no pleasing some people" does it?

Yes, it does... because the Warlock was specifically called out as not worth bringing forward. It would be like adding a goalkeeper to gridiron footy... not good for the game as it's played, and either special snowflaked to be able to pull it off, or nerfed to lack of utility...