D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[mellored]

I havent checked Battlemaster but seems like it might be there.

The battlemaster has many of the pieces of a warlord, but it's only a sub-class.

To quote rodney tompson...
"The fighter archetypes are largely meant to be different flavors of the base class, in which most of the fighter’s combat strength lies."

To have a warlord, you need to make it a battlemaster a full power class (like getting 1 die per turn), and then have fighter be a sub-class.

 

[ZickZak]

The battlemaster has many of the pieces of a warlord, but it's only a sub-class.

Well I guess there was something wrong with the original Warlord - bland, op, up, w/e. Not to mention there is a bard to multiclass with. I guess I just cant really grasp what you guys want that isnt already there.

 

[mellored]

The Pacifist cleric has open to them the option to use deadly force of a highly effective nature.

If he had 8 str, 8 dex, 20 wis, carried no weapon and no damaging spells? How would they?

Pacifist clerics die by choice the lazy Lord that can't survive solo dies because he has no chance.

Lazylords also die by choice. By having 8 str, 8 dex, carried no weapon and took no attack maneuvers.

Granted, it's easier for a cleric to swap spells then a warlord to change sub-classes, but still a choice.

 

[mellored]

Well I guess there was something wrong with the original Warlord - bland, op, up, w/e. Not to mention there is a bard to multiclass with. I guess I just cant really grasp what you guys want that isnt already there.

Why do we need a wizard when there's an eldrich knight?

Because eldrich knight doesn't give you enough spells. Sure you can cast some, but only a few per day and limited effects. Your main power budget is still in hitting things.



Why do we need a warlord when there's a battlemaster?

Because battlemaster doesn't give you enough maneuvers. Sure you can use some, but only a few per short rest and limited effects. Your main power budget is still in hitting things.


It's not that the battlemaster maneuvers don't fit (or eldrich knight doesn't cast spells), it's the limited size and scope of what you can put into a sub-class.

 

[mellored]

Heck, rodney tompson said it himself.

"The fighter archetypes are largely meant to be different flavors of the base class, in which most of the fighter’s combat strength lies."

 

[El Mahdi]

Well I guess there was something wrong with the original Warlord - bland, op, up, w/e. Not to mention there is a bard to multiclass with. I guess I just cant really grasp what you guys want that isnt already there.

Why do we need a wizard when there's an eldrich knight?

Because eldrich knight doesn't give you enough spells. Sure you can cast some, but only a few per day and limited effects. Your main power budget is still in hitting things.



Why do we need a warlord when there's a battlemaster?

Because battlemaster doesn't give you enough maneuvers. Sure you can use some, but only a few per short rest and limited effects. Your main power budget is still in hitting things.


It's not that the battlemaster maneuvers don't fit (or eldrich knight doesn't cast spells), it's the limited size and scope of what you can put into a sub-class.

Everything Melored said, plus a Battlemaster can't revive a character at 0 HP. That was an essential part of the Warlord.

 

[Jester David]

This poll has made me realize that I'm now suffering from Warlord fatigue. A month ago, I was in the "it would be difficult, but knock yourself out" camp. At this point, I'm officially in the "warlord must die" camp.

That is one of the problems of these kind of discussions. They're so emotional and omnipresent that they take innocent bystanders and make them partisan on the issue. I think nothing has made me continually argue against the warlord more than endless threads and people making bad arguments for the warlord. (The good ones just slip by into background noise, but the bad ones just demand attention and retort.)

 

[ZickZak]

Why do we need a wizard when there's an eldrich knight?

Why do we need a warlord when there's a battlemaster?

Because battlemaster doesn't give you enough maneuvers. Sure you can use some, but only a few per short rest and limited effects. Your main power budget is still in hitting things.

It's not that the battlemaster maneuvers don't fit (or eldrich knight doesn't cast spells), it's the limited size and scope of what you can put into a sub-class.

Actually "Why do we need an eldritch knight when there's a wizard?" We don't - Arcane caster, Divine caster, Fighting man and Rogue are the main classes. Everything else is a mixture of these.

Having 4 (5,6) superiority dice per short rest is perfectly fine.
MC bard into 3rd lvl battlemaster and you get CHA "superiority dice" per long (5th lvl short) rest. That is like 7-9 per short rest. COME ON PPL!

Every special ability in 5e is limited. If you wanna disarm, trip or heal every round... I reckon you picked the wrong edition.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Everything Melored said, plus a Battlemaster can't revive a character at 0 HP. That was an essential part of the Warlord.

Essential? Getting double weapon specialization was an essential part of the fighter... Hating magic and refusing to use magic items was an essential part of the barbarian... Having an animal companion was an essential part of not just the ranger but also the druid...

That's the biggest flaw with your demand, IMO. Your claim is predicated on 4e class design. A different system with different expectations, different mechanics and different system paradigms. The more someone clings to previous edition(s) as a defense for what they want/need now, the less viable their argument, AFAIC.

Ask for something, of a proposed class in 5e, that makes sense organically for that class. Not just, 'cuz previous'. Just like the devs have done for all the other classes they put in the 5e PHB.

So how about "why"? Why does the warlord need to be able to revive someone who has been beaten unconscious? I've yet to see a decent argument in defense of this that didn't just boil down to, 'cuz previous'.

On a related note, I confess its been a long time since I cracked open a 3.5 book. Did the Marshal have the ability to revive a downed ally? I honestly can't recall. If so, in what way did it function?

 

[Remathilis]

On a related note, I confess its been a long time since I cracked open a 3.5 book. Did the Marshal have the ability to revive a downed ally? I honestly can't recall. If so, in what way did it function?

Nope. It didn't even grant temp HP unless you took a separate feat. Best it gave was 1-4 points of DR/- (as a major aura).