D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[El Mahdi]

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.

As a base fighter, and especially with the Champion archetype, a fighter is most definitely designed for DPR; but it is not restricted to that.

With non-damage dealing maneuvers, ones that are tactical or inspiration based, the main contributor to the fighter's DPR - specifically multiple attacks - becomes an action economy resource rather than a damage dealing mechanic. (@Hussar said the same thing)

...

What I don't understand though, is the people here talking about the Warlord are for the most part, very well versed in design aspects such as this.

This is why I wonder if there is another core reason...the one I mentioned earlier...that's truly at the heart of this.

I guess another possibility is simply that some are having trouble switching their paradigm; merely a mental block that keeps them from seeing the Fighter as nothing but a damage machine. Personally, I don't believe this is true simply because of the level of understanding in game mechanics presented by the most vocal in these discussions; but maybe that's my own inability to see past my paradigms...

 

[El Mahdi]

"Limiting?"

Overly limiting options for creating a Warlord character build in 5E. It's adopting an all-or-nothing attitude. An either-or fallacy.

 

[El Mahdi]

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...

Isn't this both mind-reading as to what WotC was thinking concerning the Warlord, and drawing a line in the sand?

Near as I can tell - though I'll admit I don't know everything said by WotC - they never said the Warlord was "unworthy" of being included in 5E.

Demanding that the Warlord be a class, and demanding that be the only form acceptable, especially if the reason is because one feels they were slighted by the exclusion of their favorite (your words, not mine) seems counter productive. A pursuit destined for disappointment.

 

[El Mahdi]

So here's an idea. Right here, right now, all in one place, list your ideas for the Warlord.

No approach is automatically rejected. Keep an open mind.

If one believes something won't work, provide specifics as to why, and alternatives.


Some questions to maybe get it started:

Should a Warlord have the same Hit Dice as a Fighter? More? Less?
Should a Warlord have multiple attacks?
Should a Warlord have the same Weapon and Armor proficiencies as a Fighter? If not, what should they be?
What 4E Warlord powers are most iconic, most crucial to defining a Warlord, that they need to be included in a 5E Warlord?
What class abilities does a 4E Warlord have that a 5E Fighter doesn't?
If a 4E Warlord class ability is incompatible with a straight port to 5E, how would you change it to make it compatible?
What backgrounds work best for a Warlord?
Is their a need for some new Feats?

Any other considerations?

Let's compile all of the considerations in one place...?


@Tony Vargas , @Neonchameleon , @ everybody who wants a 5E Warlord

 

[Eric V]

Demanding that the Warlord be a class, and demanding that be the only form acceptable, especially if the reason is because one feels they were slighted by the exclusion of their favorite (your words, not mine) seems counter productive. A pursuit destined for disappointment.

No, that's not it. The demand for it to be a separate class is because making it a subclass of fighter really doesn't match the warlord-experience. It really doesn't, especially the 5e DPR king fighter.

Hence, the need for it to be its own class. People want to try to recreate the experience as closely as possible, and making it a fighter subclass doesn't do that.

Why NOT make it its own class? That's the part I don't get. Why does that bother people so much?

 

[Eric V]

Ok, so if the goal is to replicate as closely as possible the previous warlord experience, the answers to your questions would be:

Less HD.
No to multiple attacks, but granting them to allies->yes
Martial weapons and medium armour
I need time to list them...but there are several, and they include action-granting, defensive stuff, move-granting, tactical considerations, and healing
All the stuff I mentioned above...and as a bigger effect than a couple of maneuver dice.
Honestly, it works better for grid-players than TotM, but that isn't an insurmountable obstacle.
Not sure
Probably, yes.

 

[El Mahdi]

The demand for it to be a separate class is because making it a subclass of fighter really doesn't match the warlord-experience.

This is the part I don't get.

Why is a subclass inconsistent with the warlord-experience?

People keep saying this, but provide very little specifics as to why. The only one that seems to stand out is "a fighter is based on DPR"; which while true, it's been shown that the DPR mechanics become action economy mechanics when used for a Warlord.

So, Why? With specific reasons please. I really want to understand this. Help me understand this...

 

[El Mahdi]

No to multiple attacks, but granting them to allies->yes.

Is multiple attacks as an action economy resource okay? In other words, multiple attacks as multiple actions (not necessarily for actual attacks) for use with Warlord maneuvers (powers)...?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Demanding that the Warlord be a class, and demanding that be the only form acceptable, especially if the reason is because one feels they were slighted by the exclusion of their favorite (your words, not mine) seems counter productive. A pursuit destined for disappointment.

On the other hand pointing out that every existing class is a miserable failure at being a warlord and it would take radical surgery to the point of effectively being a new class on any of them isn't the same thing at all.

So here's an idea. Right here, right now, all in one place, list your ideas for the Warlord.

I've already given two entirely different suggestions - the first being how to make them their own class, and the second being the sheer amount of radical surgery you would need for a fighter.

If one believes something won't work, provide specifics as to why, and alternatives.

No. Just provide specifics. Criticism is a different skill to design.

Should a Warlord have the same Hit Dice as a Fighter? More? Less?

No more than the fighter. Possibly less. This is largely irrelevant.

Should a Warlord have multiple attacks?

This question is putting the cart before the horse. Multiple attacks are simply one large at will DPR mechanic. On the other hand they are needed for damage to scale properly - all the classes without multiple attacks either have an escalating sneak attack or an escalating cantrip. On the gripping hand multiple attacks are the fastest form of damage scaling. If you scale a warlord's attacks the way a valorous bard's attacks scale this wouldn't be a problem.

Should a Warlord have the same Weapon and Armor proficiencies as a Fighter? If not, what should they be?

Mu. Warlords with the right options should be capable of wearing the best armour. Warlords without shouldn't.

What 4E Warlord powers are most iconic, most crucial to defining a Warlord, that they need to be included in a 5E Warlord?

None and all. The only warlord power all warlords share is Inspiring Word.

What class abilities does a 4E Warlord have that a 5E Fighter doesn't?

And again you are looking at the trees rather than the forest.

Better would be "What defines the warlord that the 5e fighter can't do"

The simple answer to that is "The fighter hits you with their axe. The warlord hits you with the Barbarian."

And that is where you start. You need to build a class that is skilled at hitting the monsters with the fighter, the barbarian, the rogue, and other PCs. They should be able to range from a Leonidas-style solid melee combatant, leading from the front and giving other people openings to a lazylord who never actually makes an attack roll.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the core issue is that the 5e fighter is designed for:

DPR
or
"Tanking".

The core features are Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style, Indomitable, and Extra Attack 2&3. This combination of features are Too Strong to allow for much change via subclasses.

Its like trying to make a swordmage from the wizard class. The core features are too powerful to allow anything drastic.