D&D 5E Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

[Minigiant]

I mean, it doesn't help that a contingent of anti-fans is always eager to come out of the woodwork and tell people who like Warlords that they should sit down, shut up, and enjoy the table-scraps they're so graciously given because their preferences are wrong, invalid, unfit, not really a class, or some other variation of "it's not for me therefore it's not for anyone."

Actually, I would say it helps... if we're discussing why and how this thread is so alive and vibrant

Ultimately.

The Warlord threads go long because there is a percentage of D&D fans, some in design positions in official and 3rd party publishing, who are vehemently against having additional subsystems than spells, feats, and magic items

And some against the last 2 as feats and magic items were optional in 2014 D&D.

And the Warlord either requires
1) a fully scaled subsystem for combat
Or
2) a core combat options for attack that isn't just damage

The fact that Disarming is an alternate optional rule in 5e tells you everything.

In core 5e, 3 ability scores do not factor in combat at all without magic: Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma.

 

[Mephista]

Stupid tablet erased everything. One minute.

We have warlords at home.

Really, it's not being gatekeepy to the people who like it. it's pushing back against people who think we should settle. Most people who think the battlemaster and sword bard are warlord enough don't really grok what the warlord was, as commander's strike and a heal are not the whole of what the class was.

The problem I have is this. Its objecting to gatekeepy by being even more gatekeepy. "My way is the only way to Warlock" is bad for all sides. Can we agree to that?

It most certainly is about pure personal performance, though.

I admitted it was selfish - you're not saying anything I didn't admit at the top there.

Because in order to do what you describe, you must do one of two things:

1. Remove class features with a subclass, so that doing what the base class was designed to do isn't clearly the superior option anymore.
2. Create new features, or new uses for existing features, which are better than the existing ones, so people have a reason to do something other than beat things over the head.

I like the following
"At level 3, this subclass allows you to use your Second Wind, Indomitable, and Action Surge on others."

Boom. They're no longer selfish and now party buffs. It used a bit of power budget, but not a lot, because its already using existing resources. Might need to use a bonus action or a reaction, which would lower the power budget cost even more.

Under 1dnd, I would probably make a new Weapon Mastery you can apply to a weapon and grant bonuses to other PCs on anyone you hit as well. But there's other things we can do as well.

Neither of these options is acceptable. The former is not supported by 5e's structure (no class has a subclass that removes existing features), and the latter is OP.

Why is not acceptable? Why is it OP? Hm? That's the same argument people have been saying about new warlorlds - "ITs OP!!! RAWR!"

That's just SAYING its OP and rejecting this out of hand. This is my objection to you, EzekielRaiden. Rejection of anything that's not your way out of hand. Others are saying the same thing about any new Warlord class - its going to be OP because it'll be as healy as the cleric, allow as much movement as the various bards like Glamour and Dance, and deal as much damage as the Rogue. That's just as wrong.

Your division into "selfish but not strictly about damage" vs "strictly about damage" is irrelevant.

Words mean things. If you say "its all about BIG DAMAGE" that's a provable lie. Because these non-damaging features are all things a warlord wants to do with others. More actions, more healing, more resistances.

The base Fighter chassis is too much. Actually putting the options necessary for the character to fulfill the Warlord concept WOULD be overpowered. That's why every attempt they've made has felt weaksauce and incomplete--it is, intentionally so.

Says you. I disagree. I say that every attempt was made early on in the game and they didn't understand the game as well as now, so they err'd on making things underpowered. Especially for martial classes.

 

[Mecheon]

aaa where the heck did these 17 pages show up while I was at work. Hades 2 had its EA launch, there's a Warcraft patch, everything's happening

Face, explorer, tricks/traps, exploration, ranged .....

I mean, the lion's share of the book is allocated to how to fight people so I'd argue these are really supported roles. Regardless

Doesn't have any real mechanics tied to it outside of one stat. The face always tends to just be 'whoever has highest CHA to win the rolls', let's be honest. There's no real social mechanical support outside of a simple roll, no real minigame
Locked to one class and not essential, limited mechanics
We've had dozens of threads about how the game really doesnt' support this with meaningful mechanics
Ranged is just DPS.

They replaced the whole bardic music system from 3e with a handful of class features in 5e. Why would the warlord get more than that? Fundamentally, 5e always aims for a simplified action economy. All that White Raven Tactics stuff is just very un-5e-like.

The biggest complaint about 5E is folks wanting to poke more into the system and make it more complicated, a lot of people consider that a plus. Level Up makes stuff more complicated (and has its own Warlord) for example, and is well known and regarded for that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I like the following
"At level 3, this subclass allows you to use your Second Wind, Indomitable, and Action Surge on others."

Boom. They're no longer selfish and now party buffs. It used a bit of power budget, but not a lot, because its already using existing resources. Might need to use a bonus action or a reaction, which would lower the power budget cost even more.

But you're ignoring the rest of the class when you do that. Action surge used on yourself, as a Fighter, is almost always better than using Action Surge on someone else. Indomitable is kinda meh overall, so honestly I don't think that factors in much, but since you get so few uses of it, you'll run out long before you can do much. Second Wind is a hilariously inadequate healing feature--the Banneret already did better than that (giving HP equal to your Fighter level to up to three other targets!) and it was nowhere near enough.

Under 1dnd, I would probably make a new Weapon Mastery you can apply to a weapon and grant bonuses to other PCs on anyone you hit as well. But there's other things we can do as well.

Okay. That might be the start of one single mechanic that could be useful. I'm not seeing how that covers an entire class worth of stuff--nor how this would ever be in any way the better option than just using your own strong features. Which, again, is precisely the problem. The Fighter's base features are already so good, the option of giving them to someone else is mostly pointless.

Why is not acceptable?

The former is unacceptable by demonstration; the designers could have actually deleted class features via subclasses, but they never, ever have. Hell, they don't even like doing errata, even in places that sorely, direly need it like the PHB Sorcerer subclasses or the Beast Master.

Why is it OP? Hm? That's the same argument people have been saying about new warlorlds - "ITs OP!!! RAWR!"

Because none of the things you suggested are BETTER than just using those features (Action Surge, Second Wind, Indomitable) on yourself. In fact, using them on other people is essentially always inferior. But if you make using them on others better than using them on yourself--when using them on yourself is already powerful--then you will have crossed the line into OP.

That's the catch-22 here. Change nothing except adding sharing, and you've added a worthless option that will never be used because it isn't better than just...not using it. Change things so it's more than just sharing, and you've now made something OP, because you have a floor of "be a strong Fighter who already does competent damage," which you can then exceed by using your features on allies instead.

That's just SAYING its OP and rejecting this out of hand.

No, it isn't.

This is my objection to you, EzekielRaiden. Rejection of anything that's not your way out of hand. Others are saying the same thing about any new Warlord class - its going to be OP because it'll be as healy as the cleric, allow as much movement as the various bards like Glamour and Dance, and deal as much damage as the Rogue. That's just as wrong.

Again, no, it isn't. If the so-called "Warlord Fighter" is simply adding the choice of being allowed to use their selfish features on others, they will still be used selfishly because it is essentially categorically true that using them on yourself is better than using them on anyone else, unless you intentionally and overtly slant the example. If you don't do that, if you actually change the features so that they really are better if given to others, but you can still use them on yourself, then you've just made something OP. It won't be as OP as the thing you just described, but it WOULD be OP, I recognize that and don't want that.

And the only other option is to DELETE the ability of the "Warlord Fighter" to use those actions on themselves, something that 5e's rules do not support doing and never have.

Says you. I disagree. I say that every attempt was made early on in the game and they didn't understand the game as well as now, so they err'd on making things underpowered. Especially for martial classes.

Oh, no, no. They knew exactly what they were doing. Well, sort of. They knew exactly part of what they were doing, and that part was intentional.

That's why Mearls "joked" about shouting hands back on when he dismissed Warlord as a class concept. That's why they kept pushing out any 4e rules as belonging to the "tactical combat module," which was total vaporware (and most 4e fans could see that literally a year before release). That's why they explicitly said it would be "3e rules with 4e streamlining." This was very intentional. That intentional effort was intensified by various mistakes, I don't deny that. For example, their critical fumble on the Specialties system, where they went absolutely all in on a system they later abandoned, and instead of attempting to fix the issue, they just stopped talking about martial healing. But make no mistake: there were never any bones about this being an intentional effort.

 

[Pauln6]

Take the Purple Dragon Knight / Baneret and, instead of proficiency in diplomacy, give them 1d6 superiority dice and access to the manoeuvre that improves your cha checks plus a couple of the warlord style manoeuvres. It's a minor tweak but one that gets you part way there alongside appropriate feats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Take the Purple Dragon Knight / Baneret and, instead of proficiency in diplomacy, give them 1d6 superiority dice and access to the manoeuvre that improves your cha checks plus a couple of the warlord style manoeuvres. It's a minor tweak but one that gets you part way there alongside appropriate feats.

Characters should not have to take feats in order to get their basic subclass competency.

Imagine if Wizards had to take feats in order to actually get their subclass features. People would riot.

 

[ECMO3]

No it's not. The Champion works on a very simple principle: BIG numbers are GOOD, small numbers are bad. That's it.

This isn't it at early levels though, that is why a fighter is more difficult. They don't have spells, they don't understand how to do other things in combat.

At higher levels when mutli-attack is online attacking with your weapon against resistance is still often the best course of action. It becomes simpler in this regard because 50% of 2d8+6 is still better than using oil or caltrops or alchemists fire or something like that, but that isn't really true or isn't as true at low level.

That's just a lack of conveyance from the DM not teaching the player their attack does nothing. This is simpler than Pokémon and billions of people have played Pokémon.

The DM told him several times that it was splitting because of his hits and he never went to his flask of oil (even after others did) or an unarmed strike.

It went like, well maybe eventually it will start working.

Are there any monsters that actually resist bludgeoning damage, on it's own and not as part of mundane damage resistance, because otherwise it's clearly the best damage type.

If by that you mean Bludgeoning and not Piercing or Slashing? The answer is yes but not as many as are resistant to the one or both of the other two and I don't think any are immune to bludgeoning. Also more enemies are vulnerable to Bludgeoning than the other two at low level.

This makes Bludgeoning weapons more effective if you are a strength based character at low level, but the number of Greatswords and Longswords exceed the numbers of Mauls and Warhammers by a factor of 10. It is a rare very and usually very experienced player that recognizes this and selects a Warhammer at 1st level.

 

[Remathilis]

In light of Pathfinder 2E putting out a playtest for a Warlord-like class, the Commander, I can't help but wonder why such a wildly popular class concept has not been introduced to 5E.

A number of abilities in the spirit of the Warlord are available throughout 5E, including the Battle Master Fighter's Commander's Strike and Manuevering Strike, the Commanding Rally (a superior Bonus Action alternative to Commander's Strike) feature granted from the Squire of Solamnia and Knight of the Crown feat tree, and the Mastermind Rogue's Master of Tactics feature, but as it stands the game lacks a clear battlefield commander class with multiple options. This is especially odd when a number of monsters, like the Duergar Warlord, have features like Call to Attack that fit this conceptual space that PCs currently cannot.

5e isn't granular enough to do it.

The 4e warlord works because 4e was built on stacking micro bonuses and grid movement. 5e is not. 5e rolled dozens of +1 and +2 situational bonuses into advantage and opted for TotM movement. That took much of the warlord's toolkit out of play. Coupled with Bounded Accuracy making needing exceptionally high numbers less necessary, and the warlord essentially has no real options. He is giving an extra attack, healing a few HP, and granting advantage every round. Maybe give some extra move speed or extra damage or something. That's your play loop for 20 levels.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh, no, no. They knew exactly what they were doing. Well, sort of. They knew exactly part of what they were doing, and that part was intentional.

That's why Mearls "joked" about shouting hands back on when he dismissed Warlord as a class concept. That's why they kept pushing out any 4e rules as belonging to the "tactical combat module," which was total vaporware (and most 4e fans could see that literally a year before release). That's why they explicitly said it would be "3e rules with 4e streamlining." This was very intentional. That intentional effort was intensified by various mistakes, I don't deny that. For example, their critical fumble on the Specialties system, where they went absolutely all in on a system they later abandoned, and instead of attempting to fix the issue, they just stopped talking about martial healing. But make no mistake: there were never any bones about this being an intentional effort.

I don't think it was intentional. Or at least it was not planned as vaporware.

WOTC severely underestimated the diversity of D&D fans even before the pandemic boom and they wasted to s of time attempting to find consensus instead of making hard choices early

 

[FrogReaver]

Your division into "selfish but not strictly about damage" vs "strictly about damage" is irrelevant. The base Fighter chassis is too much. Actually putting the options necessary for the character to fulfill the Warlord concept WOULD be overpowered. That's why every attempt they've made has felt weaksauce and incomplete--it is, intentionally so.

I agree the fighter chassis is a bad basis.

Yet, anytime I’ve seen anyone produce a balanced warlord it gets shouted down by warlord fans. Then they point to obviously overturned warlords and say they are balanced.

The takeaway is that the power budget to produce fan approved warlord is higher than would be balanced in 5e.

The funny thing is I want a warlord too but not all the overturned ones, an actually balanced one (which will mean it can’t do everything a 4e warlord did)