D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[Hussar]

I suppose one area that hasn't been covered is the short rest recharge. Perhaps the warlord could let you spen hit dice outside of taking a short rest. Perhaps other powers could be recharged as well. Maybe grant the warlord a pool of d4s that he can grant that recharges on a short rest and then allow him to spend from that pool to recharge other characters as well.

Maybe there is a space here. It would be quite mechanically different from 4e but still serve a similar function.

 

[mellored]

Thing is, the Mastermind already covers a LOT of what you need for the guy that helps out others. Help as a bonus action at 30 feet? That's pretty much all the buffing you will ever need outside of combat. Pretty much means you should have advantage on virtually every single skill check. Between that and the Guidance cantrip, "Helping people do stuff" is well covered.

Like I said, I'm just really sure there's anything left for a warlord.

The main issue isn't the abilities. It's the balance.

I can play a pacifist cleric, a support bard, and even a damage-less druid. However, i cannot play a pacifist martial character. Not enough dice for battlemaster. Bards are heavily reliant on spells.

Mastermind doesn't scale. You get advantage for a full round at level 3, then only half the round at level 5 (unless your helping firebolt).

Compared bless to foresight. It scales. You can't have mastermind's ability scale because too much is placed into the base class, and evasion is not support abilities.


Do we "need" a warlord? No. There are plenty of classes we don't "need".
Is there room for a warlord? Absolutely. It's much more unique then say... a sorcerer, ranger, paladin, or barbarian.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See, this is what bothers me most about taking this position. it puts me squarely in the camp with those that hate the warlord because it comes from 4e. So many of the arguments are couched in language that drips with hatred of all things 4e. And I really, really don't want to associate with that.

There is the other side of the equation. For those that want a warlord, existing options really aren't scratching the itch because the options have been smeared across half a dozen classes. I suppose that a class that buffs like a cleric, but does so through something like stances, might be a strong enough mechanical niche to fill.

IOW, I'm really reluctant to hold this position and I really want someone to show me where I'm wrong.

I missed where you actually explained a non-h4ter reason for finding the Warlord unnecessary?

 

[Zardnaar]

Even I do not care that much if a warlord exists I just did not want one in the PHB. My main concerns with it are purely about balance and right now I don't think you can make a balanced one 9(the BM fighter being the "best" one).

The support classes give up a lot of damage for magil haling or whatever and valor/lore bards are not that good at dealing damage. The warlord would be good at damage (indirectly) via granting attacks which seems to be what people want from the class. Granting attacks is a daily spell resource or short rest battlemaster dice in 5E.

Granting at will attacks with healing and other support abilities on top of that by default can't be balanced. It worked in 4E becuase of powers and at will attacks were generally weaker than say at will let alone encounter powers (excluding splat book material and essential classes).

A clerics damage for example with weapons is usually a bit meh although they get an extra dice of damage at level 8. A warlord would lack htheir spells but some classes like the Barbarian and maybe hunter ranger will be broken with a warlord in the party especially if it can grant multiple attacks and heal.

It gets even worse if feats are used with the GWM, sharpshooter and the healer feat in particular. Assuming the warlord has a decent amount of healing (Druid levels maybe not life cleric levels), takes healer feat and grants attacks to allies is an out right cleric replacement on steroids. And clerics do not exactly suck in 5E.

I have seen Battlemaster fighters in action (its the best fighter across all levels IMHO beaten at the highest level by the EK and that is a maybe). Even that Noble class that went up on EN5sider was a little crazy if you built your party around it. Most of the classes are good at something though but even if you got a warlord that was right in some parties it would be broken as hell and in other parties somewhat useless.

 

[Hussar]

I missed where you actually explained a non-h4ter reason for finding the Warlord unnecessary?

I thought I had. . Most of the elements that made the 4e Warlords niche have either been passed off to other classes or don't really need to be in 5e. Tactical movement forex. In 4e, that's a major element. You couldn't move-attack-move in 4e. In 5e it's pretty easy to be highly mobile on the battlefield without any help. 4e had a bajillion status effects. Having a warlord that could mitigate or remove them was a big deal. 5e largely doesn't have that as much. No marking, creatures rarely have ongoing effects, that sort of thing. It's not as big of a deal.

In combat healing is largely not required unless someone drops. It's much more like Adnd where healing is done afterwards. And since everyone can burn HD on a short, you don't really even need a dedicated healer in the group. Paladin or Ranger can cover a lot of that.

So what's left? If you don't need tactical movement (partially because area effects are much more rare in 5e), and you don't need in combat healing, and mitigation of status effects aren't as important, what's left?

I rather hope, actually, that a 5e warlord is based on the flavour- tactical/inspiring leader, but I think mechanically, you can't bring much of a 4e warlord forward into 5e.

Look, I adore the concept and warlord is one of my favourite all time classes. I lurve me the warlord. I'm just not sure what's needed to express the concept in 5e.

 

[Pickles III]

First off, in 4e, in combat healing was a major element. The baddies and the PC's had roughly similar starting HP pools. Give or take, but, not too far off. Where the major difference lay was in the fact that 4e PC's could heal (and heal a LOT) in combat and could mitigate damage as well. And this was necessary - 4e combats were intended to be pretty lengthy affairs - 8+rounds wasn't all that unusual for a combat. In order to keep things going that long, you needed in combat healing. But, 5e doesn't work like that. Combats are much shorter and, generally, other than standing someone up from 0, in combat healing isn't much of a thing. How much healing do you really need when combats only last 3 or 4 rounds?

Secondly, battlefield movement is much less of a thing in 5e. Not because we don't use a battle map, at least, I certainly do. But, pushes and shifts are not such a big deal. You can dance around an opponent without drawing OA's and, even if you do draw one, it's usually not that big of a deal. Again, the monsters aren't dealing that much damage on single hits. Eating an OA doesn't radically change the combat too often. Granting bonus movement is also not such a big deal when PC's can move attack and then move again in a single round. IOW, just with the existing 5e rules, combat continues to be pretty fluid, featuring lots of movement anyway. Adding in a PC that adds to battlefield movement is largely just gilding the lily. Plus, since things like grappling and monsters dumping on status effects aren't anywhere near as big of an issue as well means that you don't really need to mitigate these effects either.

What's really left over? The more I play 5e, the less I think 5e needs a warlord.

It may be that the warlord symbolises all of those things I found fun about 4e combat that are no longer there in 5e & that rather than wanting a warlord I really just want a return to that rich experience.


OTOH & from a very opposite perspective it exasperates me that a real world archetype cannot fit into this game of elves. The wargame Squad Leader, a near contemporary of D&D, is essentially a tribute to warlords. I want to be the James Mason at the end of Cross of Iron rallying my fleeing buddies. Maybe the scale is wrong as these guys lead armies not bands of desperadoes & D&D is too simplistic to cover morale well - it's either buffs or in HP & the meat people hate that.

Mind you healing does not feel core to warlords. It was core to them in 4e as it was core to leaders but their support is more what makes them them.

You never "need" a class but we have sorcerers who have all there stuff stolen by wizards. Not LG paladins who sound a lot like clerics (though 5e & 4e differentiate them well). Warlocks who are a mish mash of trying to be different design & lots of terrible options.

& we have no "clothy" priests (not a success in 2e I suspect) who noone has ever mentioned is even missing...

 

[Neonchameleon]

What's really left over? The more I play 5e, the less I think 5e needs a warlord.

A viable all-martial party that can handle standard adventures is the big thing.

 

[TwoSix]

Thing is, the Mastermind already covers a LOT of what you need for the guy that helps out others. Help as a bonus action at 30 feet? That's pretty much all the buffing you will ever need outside of combat. Pretty much means you should have advantage on virtually every single skill check. Between that and the Guidance cantrip, "Helping people do stuff" is well covered.

Like I said, I'm just really sure there's anything left for a warlord.

The knight NPC in the Monster Manual also has a martially themed bless ability, which could also be used for a warlord/mastermind type character.

 

[Hussar]

A viable all-martial party that can handle standard adventures is the big thing.

Well, I'm about to test that out once my Primeval Thule campaign gets off the ground. About the only healing, outside of potions, might be a ranger since I'm not allowing any classes/races with at-will spells. I know our current Dragonlance campaign, which has only a paladin and a ranger (out of 6 PC's) for healing has been doing fine and dandy up to 9th level now. So, I'm not really convinced that an all-martial party isn't viable.

 

[cmad1977]

Well, I'm about to test that out once my Primeval Thule campaign gets off the ground. About the only healing, outside of potions, might be a ranger since I'm not allowing any classes/races with at-will spells. I know our current Dragonlance campaign, which has only a paladin and a ranger (out of 6 PC's) for healing has been doing fine and dandy up to 9th level now. So, I'm not really convinced that an all-martial party isn't viable.

An all martial party is totally viable.