D&D 5E What is a Warlord [No, really, I don't know.]

[Orlax]

The warlord should be able to deal as much damage as any other class.

i.e.
If a rogue can deal 20 damage with sneak attack, the warlock deal 20 damage with his spells, the necromancer deal 20 damage though skeletons, then the warlord should be able to grant 20 damage worth of attacks.


And i'll point out that the 3.5 warlord (marshal) was very underpowered.

But that isn't at all how anything works, the rogue deals more damage with a singular attack than anyone else. If the warlord can hand out two attacks they handed one to the rogue and one to the paladin who uses a smite the warlord has now dealt more damage than anyone else can in one turn.

 

[Guest 6801328]

All I know is that if I'm playing a Half-orc Barbarian with a Great Axe and there's a Diviner Wizard with Hold person in the group, a Warlord with the ability to grant a full Action is my best friend. Holy moly!

 

[Orlax]

That's because you are treating these two options as equivalent positions, and I doubt anyone could reasonably see them as such. Reflavoring a warlord as magical requires little to zero mechanical adjustments. The reverse, however, is not true. You cannot simply reflavor a cleric to be non-magical when you are casting spells and spell-like abilities that can be negated by (and whose power is designed around the assumption of) anti-magic.

And yet they want capabilities that work like magic, with a similar power capability, but aren't able to be interrupted in a similar manner... You see why that is a problem right.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's because you are treating these two options as equivalent positions, and I doubt anyone could reasonably see them as such. Reflavoring a warlord as magical requires little to zero mechanical adjustments. The reverse, however, is not true. You cannot simply reflavor a cleric to be non-magical when you are casting spells and spell-like abilities that can be negated by (and whose power is designed around the assumption of) anti-magic.

I don't understand. You just write new flavor text for each 'spell' and say 'it's not a spell, it's inspirational'. You don't have to re-write every spell, just the ones that you want your Warlord to use that fit the character concept you have.

Why is that hard?

P.S. And, again, I am not saying 'this solves the Warlord problem' because I think re-fluffing is an unsatisfying solution to...well, anything. I'm merely asking those who tell me to reflavor it why, if reflavoring is such a simple fix, they aren't just reflavoring Cleric.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And yet they want capabilities that work like magic, with a similar power capability, but aren't able to be interrupted in a similar manner... You see why that is a problem right.

I can see why when you define magic as "Anything that can't be done by an average schlub" then wanting people to have capabilities that work like magic that aren't magic is a problem. That, however, is due to how you define magic.

One of the direct counters to your case is that no one is asking for a warlord that can change the spells they prepare every day. No one's asking for the sheer flexibility of a spellcaster in terms of defying physics.

 

[mellored]

But that isn't at all how anything works, the rogue deals more damage with a singular attack than anyone else. If the warlord can hand out two attacks they handed one to the rogue and one to the paladin who uses a smite the warlord has now dealt more damage than anyone else can in one turn.

The paladin using smite on the warlords turn means he doesn't use it on his turn. It's resource is used either way.
Also, 2 attack from 1 paladin = 1 attacks from 2 paladins.


The rogue is an issue. Which is why i currently favor something more like haste then like commander's strike.

"when an ally takes an attack action against the target, they can make 1 additional attack against the target".
Then sneak attack won't stack.

 

[mellored]

All I know is that if I'm playing a Half-orc Barbarian with a Great Axe and there's a Diviner Wizard with Hold person in the group, a Warlord with the ability to grant a full Action is my best friend. Holy moly!

Same effect if you replace the warlord with a sorcerer, and they cast haste on the barbarian.

 

[Aldarc]

And yet they want capabilities that work like magic, with a similar power capability, but aren't able to be interrupted in a similar manner... You see why that is a problem right.

Of course I see that as a problem, and it would be if that was what the majority (not necessarily the most vocal) of warlord fans want. So let's take healing. Most warlord fans want abilities that allow for quick, in-combat healing, but most - much in the fashion of 4e - don't want its healing to be as potent as a cleric, bard, or druid's. But to play in support, you need a modicum of comparative, albeit not equivalent healing abilities for certain situations in and outside of combat. The 0 hp debate often finds itself at the epicenter. And alternative methods of healing, of providing 'real HP,' have been proposed by warlord proponents (and non-proponents for that matter). One of my favorite suggestions was that the warlord could grant 'inspiration dice' - much as a bard - to players that operated as bonus HD that they could use for healing. It also alleviates a problem raised about the warlord inspiring on command or "I'm not inspired." Well, if you provide inspiration dice, then the player granted healing HD can decide when they are inspired to heal. Their subconscious could even potentially kick in telling them "to get up," or they could say that it's actually a non-warlord player who they heard getting up. "Inspiration" should not be equated to "admiration" when it may very well simply be "inspiration" in the vein of "artistic inspiration" or "something they said (unintentionally) gave me an idea." Roleplay that healing inspiration HD as you see fit.

I think many, if not most, warlord fans in these threads would prefer if the warlord provided more offensive support and alternative healing methods (e.g. granting resistance, imposing disadvantage, etc.).

(Also, I would not be opposed to having some of the warlord's abilities interruptible. In fact, I recall suggesting that some warlord maneuvers should even require concentration to maintain and operate the same.)

 

[Aldarc]

One of the direct counters to your case is that no one is asking for a warlord that can change the spells they prepare every day.

To be fair, I kinda did. One of my suggestions has been giving the warlord the ability to prepare their combat maneuvers every day much as a spellcaster does with spells. But this was meant as a means to 1) further distinguish the battlemaster from the warlord, 2) to develop the warlord as a martial class with option to make strategic choices similar to spellcasters, and 3) to provide the warlord enough flexibility so that they can be played solo or provide a range of party support as needed.

 

[El Mahdi]

So... You are mad because I didn't read it.

No. You're making an assumption. Nobody here - including you - is worth getting mad about.

I don't know what fans want. That is why I asked you.

Yet despite that information being freely available throughout the Warlord threads, and links to the pertinent posts conveniently provided in multiple places, you keep asking instead of reading - even when the answers are explicitly given...

Instead you wrote 600 words when 30 was needed and I bet there is no answer anyway.

What makes you think you have the right to dictate the form in which an answer is provided? That's rather arrogant.

Not to mention that treating the answers with dismissiveness and snark is being rude and disrespectful.

Why would anyone want to continue a conversation with someone that treated them that way?

I don't care about warlords. What I care about is to know how is it not buildable and so far when I ask what you ppl miss it's always "It's about concept man! Like there is no concept! The conceptual Warlord had a concept for a reason! ...unlike these MC without a concept."

There has been so much said about the Warlord in these few thousand posts - so many explanations, analysis, and proposals made - many of them very explicitly and comprehensively - that if one hasn't been able to garner what the concept of a Warlord is by now or understand what is missing from 5E, one probably won't or can't.

Understanding first requires a legitimate desire to understand. Then it requires conscientious effort to look past one's own biases, and explore with an open, objective mind. To purposely look outside one's own paradigms. Yet sometimes that isn't enough. Sometimes one may simply lack the conceptual experience necessary to understand - lack the perspective for comparison. There's nothing wrong with that - it simply is. But it's something that can only be addressed by the person seeking understanding. Understanding can't be handed to you. Nobody can impart it. Sometimes it just takes time and experience - something there is no shortcut for.

I've given you all I can, the rest is up to you.

Good Luck.