D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Imaro]

Currently, if you're interested in making contributions other than DPR or expertise-based-skill-monkey, you must use magic. The Battlemaster can do a little support, but it's strictly inferior to the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, and even apparently-misbegotten Ranger in that regard.

So your first statement is false, irregardless of whether you feel that support is inferior or not to the other classes listed. Now I'm curious... and I honestly at this point don't know 100% but can any of the classes listed above actually grant another character an attack? Because the BM can... So I guess my next question would be what is the criteria being used to judge these classes so I can get a better understanding of why you consider the BM inferior, especially if he chooses to specialize/focus on support...

If we were removing the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard from the game permanently, and suggesting that the EK was all you needed, would that sound reasonable? No.

I am not sure what relevance this has to the post I made. I haven't suggested removing anything... what I am lookig at is whether the BM is viable as a warlord-esque character...

 

[mellored]

As a quick aside. I wonder if a fitting Rogue subclass would be the good base class for a Warlord.

I attempted that, and it wasn't bad.

Cunning action could help.
And you could use commander's strike at-will, except you add your sneak attack damage. (which counted as your 1/turn).

Closer then the BM but it wasn't quite good enough.

Though i didn't try to dipping battlemaster. That could make it passable, if not ideal.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Would you tell a wizard who cast haste on you to stop messing with your time?
Would you tell a cleric that you don't want the blessing of his god?
Would you tell the bard you don't appreciate his inspiration?

The "boss of me" issue, isn't a warlord issue.

You're right; it's a language issue.

I skipped 4e so didn't even know what a Warlord was until I started reading about it on the "Next" forums. And from the way people described it, and the imagery that was evoke, I knew I didn't want to play with that class. There were definitely some exceptions (I honestly can't remember now who they were) but the vast majority used the "officer" "giving orders" kind of language. HUGE turn-off.

I really don't mind the mechanics (I'm fine with the bard giving Inspiration); it's purely the fluff that bothers me. And to each person who says, "So change the fluff" my response is "No, you."

You may very well be an exception, but my strong sense is that most proponents don't want to play Jeeves, they want to play Genghis Khan.

 

[mellored]

Steeldragons has a pretty neat version over in the homebrew forums (post #24 in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?466579-Fiddling-with-Fighters/page3) as a fighter subclass which is built (AFAICT) around 1.) additional uses of the help action and 2.) leading by example, so that personal combat by the Warlord can help his allies/minions, e.g. a bonus action prone on a successful attack by the Warlord at mid-levels. I see you have a similar thread in the 5E forum, which looks promising. 5E is the kitbasher's edition.

That looks like it's on the right track.
I'm didn't expect to be the only person to come up with the idea.

 

[mellored]

You're right; it's a language issue.

I've not seen anyone who was attached to the name "warlord".

So we can agree on abandoning it.

You may very well be an exception, but my strong sense is that most proponents don't want to play Jeeves, they want to play Genghis Khan.

I've seen an even mix of both.

But again, i've seen paladins/rogues/wizards/fighters, (though not druids or monks) doing the same thing.
Both being the the passive "what do i do?" and the aggressive "this is what your doing" roles.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've not seen anyone who was attached to the name "warlord".

So we can agree on abandoning it.

It's the best name I've seen for the concept to date. Specific military ranks - or vague-sounding ones like Commander - are too narrow, Marshal has the additional issue of being suggestive of the old west, Hero is too broad.

Warlord sounds cool, doesn't imply formal/legitimate rank or authority (unlike Marshal, ironically, since Lanefan sites trouble with authority as a reason to prefer it), isn't too narrow and evokes genre.

So your first statement is false

Why do you say that? There are only 5 non-magic using sub-classes in 5e. All of them have high DPR as their primary contribution, and only the two rogue archetypes having significant non-combat contributions, as well. The remaining options are mostly casters (30 of 'em), or have some other magical abilities to call on. I suppose, at the outside, you could argue that the open-hand Monk's ki is supernatural-but-not-magical, the way psionics might be treated going forward, but, OK, 'not supernatural' if that's the problem.

Or are you talking the technicality of very minor contributions? Like, the help action is a support function, ergo non-casters can totally 'contribute' support? OK, is this clearer:

Currently, if you're interested in your character's primary contribution being something other than DPR, you must choose a sub-class that uses magic supernatural powers, preferably a full caster.

Now I'm curious... and I honestly at this point don't know 100% but can any of the classes listed above actually grant another character an attack?

I believe at least one of them directly, yes, but I don't have the spell lists memorized, either. Then there's all the healing & buffing &c. We could add the Wizard to the list, and thus be sure of Haste's attack-granting. The Wizard can be a fairly impressive support character, with the right spell choices that morning, even if it can't cover the critical hp-restoration aspect of a traditional band-aid-Cleric/Healer or formal Leader Role.

So I guess my next question would be what is the criteria being used to judge these classes so I can get a better understanding of why you consider the BM inferior, especially if he chooses to specialize/focus on support...

Number, availability and power of resources. The Battlemaster chooses 3 maneuvers from a list of 18 or so, that are all 3rd-level-appropriate in power, and can use a maneuver twice between short rests. Over his remaining levels, he chooses more maneuvers from that list, and gets a few more CS dice to activate them. Compare that to spell progression. Even a half-caster has massive resources to devote to support, by comparison - and greater flexibility in choosing whether/how to do so, as well.

I am not sure what relevance this has to the post I made. I haven't suggested removing anything... what I am lookig at is whether the BM is viable as a warlord-esque character...

It's called an analogy. If your assertion is that the BM adequately covers the Warlord concept, then it would be equally reasonable to say that the EK (or AT) adequately covers the Wizard. Since the later is very obviously false, the former is pretty weak.

The BM is no less viable than a Champion, and has a tiny hint of the 4e Fighter (15 maneuvers, instead of 400+), and a tinier hint of the Warlord (3 maneuvers instead of 300+), just as the EK is no less viable than the Champion, and has a somewhat more substantial taste of wizardly power (up to 4th level spells instead of 9th). So it's not that it isn't viable - it's a perfectly viable high-DPR character - just that it's support potential is window dressing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

At some point in 3rd edition, Charisma was introduced as a magic stat. That thought process persisted into 5th edition, but now you have no class that has high charisma without having spells. In Fact, the number of non magical classes is greatly less than the number of magical classes. That's a bit off kilter.

I may not like the "warlord" as a class in AD&D terms - we didn't need it back then, but its pretty clear 5th edition needs something like it. Man oh man... what are you guys gonna do if you enter an adventure with a Magic Dead Zone?

Excellent points about anti-magic and Charisma. Charisma used to control things like how many henchmen you could have and how loyal they were to you; for those who didn't care about followers it was a dump stat. In 5E it's a lot closer to an uber-stat, but common playstyles assume the absence of henchmen in favor of four PCs only. It's a weird reversal and it means that DMs who do allow pets, henchmen, etc. have to make things up out of whole cloth instead of having something built into the PHB tables, like AD&D had.

You can make Int/Wis/Cha more valuable with house rules (Wis for morale, int for predicting enemy tactics, Cha for loyalty rules) and some of those rules are in the DMG but there's nothing in the PHB.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Do you think a maneuver is the same power level as a spell?
Also, wizards and warlocks do get at-will spells.

Maybe warlock might be a better example for you to understand.

Warloocrd needs...

Martial Invocations.
2/short rest party wide buffs. (or 1/battle, like +Wis to initiative, and move 5' when rolling initiative).

They'd need to be significantly weaker than spells by virtue of being non-magic. This is true both from a fluff perspective and a balance perspective, because nonmagical things work in anti-magic zones (like the slave pits in Chapter 1 of Out of the Abyss!) and cannot be Counterspelled/Dispelled.

 

[mellored]

It's the best name I've seen for the concept to date. Specific military ranks - or vague-sounding ones like Commander - are too narrow, Marshal has the additional issue of being suggestive of the old west, Hero is too broad.

Warlord sounds cool, doesn't imply formal/legitimate rank or authority (unlike Marshal, ironically, since Lanefan sites trouble with authority as a reason to prefer it), isn't too narrow and evokes genre.

Warlord comes with plenty of it's own baggage as well.

But yes. It's probably better then barbarian, paladin, rogue, monk, or ranger.
About middle ground as far as names go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord comes with plenty of it's own baggage as well.

But yes. It's probably better then barbarian, paladin, rogue, monk, or ranger.
About middle ground as far as names go.

Sure. Really, if we got rid of every class whose name might have a wiff of offense or inappropriateness, we'd be left with the Fighter.

They'd need to be significantly weaker than spells by virtue of being non-magic.

That doesn't follow. A melee type's action can out-DPR a cantrip, in spite of the latter being magic, for instance.

Availability is more significant. Action Surge is pretty potent, for instance, but limited use. Most spells are powered by long-rest-recharge slots, so quite powerful.

This is true both from a fluff perspective and a balance perspective, because nonmagical things work in anti-magic zones (like the slave pits in Chapter 1 of Out of the Abyss!) and cannot be Counterspelled/Dispelled.

Also an availability consideration, but a fairly minor one. And, it cuts both ways: there are many things that only magic can deal with.