D&D 5E A WOTC 5e Warlord That Would Be Acceptable To Skeptics

[FormerlyHemlock]

Arguably, fighters DO have the most damage potential out of other classes (the math shows it, anyway), but it's not by much (20 points ain't nothin', but it's probably not overall very noticeable). Every comparison I've run so far as the fighter edging out the other classes when it comes to beat-down.

Polearm Master GWM Barbarians probably do more damage than even battlemaster fighters at low levels, in exchange for taking more damage--unless there is another source of advantage in the party (e.g. Faerie Fire), in which case the Battlemaster's Precision Strike dice will make him pull ahead. Even without Precise Strike, Trip Attack can be pretty good for granting advantage on subsequent attacks if the battlemaster is willing to nova, but I think barbarians come out ahead. The Rage bonus damage doesn't hurt.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

He only does four times the damage when he invests high-level spell slots, which he can only do a limited number of times per day.

Strictly speaking at 5th level...

Mr. Maul going balls to the wall (Str 18, with your advantage mechanic from the subclass) = 132 possible points of damage per day, via 12 attacks each made with advantage
Mr. Smiteypants (same Str, and using a maul too, why not!) = 109 possible points of damage per day, via 5 attacks and spending every single spell slot on a smite. A Vow of Emnity can give 3 of those attacks advantage, to boot!

We find that a smite is significantly less efficient than just having another attack. At 18 rounds per day (3 rounds per fight and 6 fights per day), Mr. Smiteypants spends about 27% of his rounds doing smitey stuff (presuming at least one of his attacks hits, he can smite during 5 of those rounds). Mr. Maul only spends 3 rounds surge-bursting (17% of the rounds), so maybe what we're looking at is less that you aren't performing as well, and more than you aren't performing as often (it's a little odd to think that the vancian character is doing less damage a little more often than the hypothetically "reliable" fighter, but there you have it!)? Plausible, at any rate.

Ultimately, the perception that the fighter is underperforming isn't really born out by the math. The fighter does not suck at doing damage.

Forgive me for being confused, but...what exactly is it that guarantees every attack for a round has Advantage? The only Battlemaster thing I can see that does that is Trip Attack, which requires a Strength saving throw; at level 5, that throw would be 8+3(prof)+4(18 STR) = 15. So you should really be factoring in the ~75% (at best, given how common 'strong' creatures are) rate of successfully tripping an enemy. I'm also not sure how you're getting all four attacks with Advantage, because either the monster comes after the Fighter initiative order, meaning it has an opportunity to stand up that same round, or it comes before the Fighter, meaning it has an opportunity to stand up next round, before the Fighter can attack.

I'm doing a bit of checking on your math, but the analysis is taking longer than I'd like for a quick one-off post, so I'll give it my full attention tomorrow after I wake. One bit I can say right away, though: if you look at only the "bonus" damage from this stuff, it skews the perception in the Fighter's favor. Even if all your other numbers are perfectly spot-on, both characters are doing over 300 damage per day purely from the 12 normal, unmodified rounds. Getting an extra 20 damage over the Paladin no longer seems like such a big deal when daily output is ~470 for the Fighter and ~450 for the Paladin (very rough numbers--subject to change as I do the real crunching).

This is assuming an average enemy AC of 13, which I have no idea if that's accurate or not (and if not, it's an easy fix, for the baseline damage). Each point of average enemy AC increase would reduce the "unmodified rounds" number by 5%, though the bonus damage would not be reduced (since both classes only get bonus damage added to hits, not to unresolved attacks). Even if the average is 15, the "baseline" damage is still over 250, and the total damage dealt (adding your numbers to mine) is still over 400--meaning the Fighter gets out maybe 5% more damage than the Paladin. At least from these preliminary, subject-to-change numbers, that doesn't seem like that dramatic an increase, especially since (AFAICT?) your numbers don't include uses of CD like Sacred Weapon or Vow of Enmity.

 

[mellored]

My point through all of this is that the fighter as "damage king" is a myth. Fighters aren't the damage kings - which is a shame since that's supposed to be a fighter's schtick. I should not have to laser beam focus a charop board fighter just to do the same damage as a paladin. It should be the other way around, if fighters are supposed to be the combat kings.

It doesn't take char-op laser beam focus to pick the feat that fits your fighting style (who get's 2 more then other people). GWM, polearm master, sharpshooter, are all pretty clearly labeled and all work as intended. (Savage attacker on the other hand... kinda a trap option).

And many char-op calculations, quite frankly, do it wrong. They assume the same number of ABI/Feats for the paladin and fighter, and completely ignore the other half of combat; defense. It's not the same opportunity cost.

Even if both Str to 20, take GWM and Polarm master, Fighter get's there earlier. But a paladin with 4 offensive feats leaves only 1 defense feat, probably used on Cha. Where as a fighter could get heavy armor mastery, resilience, AND +2 Con, making him much better at martial combat, and about the same on saves.

Also, the fighter can easily switch to a ranged attack. Paladin can't smite at range. And even the ranger's hunter's mark has a range limit of 60'. A fighter can deal full damage, including his nova, at 600' (with sharpshooter).


So yes, the fighter is best at fighting. Not massively ahead, but still ahead.

 

[mellored]

Forgive me for being confused, but...what exactly is it that guarantees every attack for a round has Advantage?

Precision strike is very good. Better then, and stacks, with advantage.

It doesn't add damage, but hitting > missing.
Particularly if you add in +10 damage from a GWM or sharpshooter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Forgive me for being confused, but...what exactly is it that guarantees every attack for a round has Advantage?

Your confusion is totally understandable - the particular fighter in question in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's examples is using a homebrew subclass that trades the Champion's extended crit for a 1/rest advantage on all melee attacks for a round:

[sblock]
Knight of Solamnia (Fighter sub-class)

Strength in Honor
At 3rd level, when a fighter chooses this path, he gains the ability to use the focus and knowledge gained from the Oath and the Measure and his honorable path to strengthen his resolve. As a bonus action, until the end of his next turn, the Knight has advantage on all Strength checks and Strength Saving Throws, as well as advantage on all Melee Attacks. He cannot use this ability until he has a short or long rest. At 7th level, he can do this twice before taking a short or long rest, and at 15th level, he can use it 3 times before taking a short or long rest.

Honorable Will
At 7th level, the Knight gains advantage on any saving throw to resist Charm or Compulsion effects due to his devotion to Honor and the Oath and the Measure.

Aura of Courage
At 10th level, the Knight becomes immune to all fear effects. In addition, all allies within 10 feet of the Knight gain advantage on any saving throw to resist fear effects.

Heroic Initiative
At 15th level, the Knight has advantage on initiative rolls..

Crown of Knighthood
At 18th level, the Knight gains advantage on all saving throws. In addition, he can focus on his devotion to Honor and receive resistance to piercing, bludgeoning and slashing damage for one minute. He can use this ability a number of times per day equal to his Strength modifier.
[/sblock]

He's not a battlemaster.

I'm doing a bit of checking on your math, but the analysis is taking longer than I'd like for a quick one-off post, so I'll give it my full attention tomorrow after I wake. One bit I can say right away, though: if you look at only the "bonus" damage from this stuff, it skews the perception in the Fighter's favor. Even if all your other numbers are perfectly spot-on, both characters are doing over 300 damage per day purely from the 12 normal, unmodified rounds. Getting an extra 20 damage over the Paladin no longer seems like such a big deal when daily output is ~470 for the Fighter and ~450 for the Paladin (very rough numbers--subject to change as I do the real crunching).

Yeah, that's fair. The small edge probably isn't clearly noticeable. I certainly trust [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] 's example of what high damage output REALLY looks like over my own back-of-envelope calculations. My major intent here is to show that the feeling of being "overshadowed" isn't coming from the class's performance. That the complaint of "I need FOUR ATTACKS to match the output of a smite!" isn't a point in favor of the fighter being inadequate.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't take char-op laser beam focus to pick the feat that fits your fighting style (who get's 2 more then other people). GWM, polearm master, sharpshooter, are all pretty clearly labeled and all work as intended. (Savage attacker on the other hand... kinda a trap option).

And many char-op calculations, quite frankly, do it wrong. They assume the same number of ABI/Feats for the paladin and fighter, and completely ignore the other half of combat; defense. It's not the same opportunity cost.

Even if both Str to 20, take GWM and Polarm master, Fighter get's there earlier. But a paladin with 4 offensive feats leaves only 1 defense feat, probably used on Cha. Where as a fighter could get heavy armor mastery, resilience, AND +2 Con, making him much better at martial combat, and about the same on saves.

Also, the fighter can easily switch to a ranged attack. Paladin can't smite at range. And even the ranger's hunter's mark has a range limit of 60'. A fighter can deal full damage, including his nova, at 600' (with sharpshooter).


So yes, the fighter is best at fighting. Not massively ahead, but still ahead.

Sword and board fighter in heavy armour. None of those feats work. Whose going to have heavy armour mastery AND a high enough Dex to use Sharpshooter effectively? (sigh, my autocorrect keeps wanting to switch out Dex for sex - I gotta clear my cache I think. )

And 600 feet? Really? Am I really so out of touch that I've never, ever seen a combat at that range? How many of your last ten combats started at further than 60 feet? I know none of mine have, with two different DM's. Never minding that if you want to use that sharpshooter thing, you better be pumping your Dex, which means no strength for you. You can be a ranged fighter or a melee fighter, you can't be both.

At what level does a fighter have three more feats than a Paladin? Sure, eventually he'll get there, but, for most of the campaign, that's not an issue.

Again, everyone keeps missing the point. It's not that a fighter can't do as much damage as a paladin or other fightery types. Sure, take the right feats, cheese the system enough, you can get there. But, if the class is supposed to be the combat master, shouldn't it be the other way around? Other classes have to work to catch up to the fighter? But, that's not the way it works. The only way the fighter stays competitive is if you start charop'ing the system. A sword and board fighter shouldn't be doing half the damage as a sword and board paladin. But, he is. Out of the six characters in the group, the only character that does less damage is the wild mage sorcerer who's focused on SoD effects. Even with that feat, my fighter is sucking hind by a whole pile, regardless of [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]'s back of the envelope calculations.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's not that a fighter can't do as much damage as a paladin or other fightery types....But, if the class is supposed to be the combat master, shouldn't it be the other way around? Other classes have to work to catch up to the fighter? But, that's not the way it works.

This points at your expectations being off. 5e classes are roughly balanced, which in part means that when used to deal damage, they do roughly the same amount of damage (like [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] pointed out, 20 points is a small part of your overall day's output). There is no one class that is "supposed to be the combat master" in terms of having better damage and AC than anyone else in the party. 5e fighters aren't meant to do significantly more damage any more than 4e rogues were meant to do significantly more damage than 4e warlocks. FWIW, I see this applying in other pillars as well - anyone can be a good explorer or talker by investing in the right stats and skills, with class features being a possible cherry on top.

The only way the fighter stays competitive is if you start charop'ing the system.

To leap from "because other classes can do the same amount of damage, the fighter isn't competitive" is a pretty big leap. That's essentially admitting that unless the fighter is overpowered, it's not good enough for you to consider it "competitive."

A sword and board fighter shouldn't be doing half the damage as a sword and board paladin. But, he is. Out of the six characters in the group, the only character that does less damage is the wild mage sorcerer who's focused on SoD effects. Even with that feat, my fighter is sucking hind by a whole pile, regardless of [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]'s back of the envelope calculations.

He totally should be doing half the damage on each attack when he gets double the attacks.

 

[mellored]

Sword and board fighter in heavy armour.

If your going to be a tank, 20 Str, 20 Con, shield master, heavy armor master, healer, inspiring leader, resilience, tough, sentient.... More then even a fighter can take.

A fighter can easily out tank a paladin. The paladins main feature is that he can share his defense with others. (lay on hands vs second wind).

But yes, there are no offensive sword&board feats, beyond proneing with shield master.

Whose going to have heavy armour mastery AND a high enough Dex to use Sharpshooter effectively?

A fighter.... you don't need 20 Str for heavy armor. Heck, have 8 Str, and take the mobility feat. You get DR, 20 dex, and you can easily escape melee to that way.

How many of your last ten combats started at further than 60 feet?

2.

The range get's easier to (ab)use when a wizard can cast flight on you.
Or are a birdman. (or however it's spelled).
Or if your in a flying tavern (cause someone needed to get hit in the back on a head by a party).

Not too helpful indoors.

You can be a ranged fighter or a melee fighter, you can't be both.

A fighter can be both. He has enough for both 20 dex, 20 Str, and a few feats. Not necessarily optimal, but still good.

Or you could take 20 dex dual weapon master and sharp shooter.

At what level does a fighter have three more feats than a Paladin? Sure, eventually he'll get there, but, for most of the campaign, that's not an issue.

Never 3.
He'll have 1 more feat at level 6.
And 2 more feats at level 14.

Sure, take the right feats, cheese the system enough, you can get there.

There's no cheese. The feats exists for the fighter to take. And they are balance around the fighter's multi-attack.
And you don't need any char-op. There are clearly labeled feats, no sneaky combo needed.

But, if the class is supposed to be the combat master, shouldn't it be the other way around? Other classes have to work to catch up to the fighter?

No. Classes should be balanced.
And the fighter is best at combat. He does all his damage without using spells or any kind of magic.

A sword and board fighter shouldn't be doing half the damage as a sword and board paladin. But, he is.

If your goal is to deal maximum damage while still holding a shield, then yes, the paladins win.
If you factor in defense, then the fighter wins.

Out of the six characters in the group, the only character that does less damage is the wild mage sorcerer who's focused on SoD effects. Even with that feat, my fighter is sucking hind by a whole pile, regardless of @I'm A Banana's back of the envelope calculations.

If you want a fighter that does more damage, then use a bigger weapon.... and take the big weapon feat...

If you chose the defensive option, don't complain about not also having damage.

 

[mellored]

But back on topic.

I'm leaning more in favor of a "Spell-less Bard" as an acceptable warlord to skeptics.

Since no one seems to have a problem with bards singing to give +moral bonus to hit.
But they do have problem with a warlord shouting advice to give +inspiration bonus to hit.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Asking "how many combats started at range" is kind of beside the point. In order to abuse ranged weaponry in 5E, you don't just passively accept whatever range combat happens to start at--you actively create it using things like party spacing, scouting, and Disengage/Dash maneuvers. So what if that makes combats take longer than the "three rounds" that Internet posters love to talk about? If it lets your first level party escape the eight quaggoths and a drow elite warrior that are chasing them, I consider that a win. No melee-centric party will ever be able to do that.