D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Corwin]

lazy lords are not much different that buff sorcerers, or pacifist life clerics.

If those are in the party, he gets to be both.

 

[raleel]

I am pretty pro-warlord. I played a Bravura in 4e for quite a long time, and, without a doubt, one of my most favorite characters. It also tortured the crap out of the action economy, and you can tell in 5e there were very specific efforts to curtail that. I remember granting everyone another set of attacks multiple times on my reaction

Emulating the 4e warlord, one does have to look at the differences between 4e and 5e and deal with those differences. 4e warlords granted relatively unfettered extra attacks. This is because, by and large, the powers were relatively balanced against each other - what you could do with that attack was relatively close in power. I don't have enough 5e expertise yet to say if that is the case in 5e, but I can see there are some definite efforts in that direction.

I don't particularly think that allowing a warlord to grant regular attacks at will, even with a bonus from the warlord (charisma or int was common), is particularly off. I don't think the recipient really should have to spend a resource for it - the warlord already spent one.

 

[TwoSix]

I think depending on the optimization levels of the other players, what options (such as feats, magic items, etc.) are allowed, this hypothetical class could be not just strong but quite overpowered. I think being able to bring the most optimized ability to bear (given cost and effect) on a 1:1 basis is a much stronger contribution that many realize.

Well, I think that's the rub here. How much more is the best action worth than an average action? And how much better is it for the warlord to do it now, as opposed to waiting for the character who does have the ability to take that same action on their own turn?

 

[Imaro]

Well, I think that's the rub here. How much more is the best action worth than an average action? And how much better is it for the warlord to do it now, as opposed to waiting for the character who does have the ability to take that same action on their own turn?

I can't really answer the first question... I think it's highly dependent on the situation. However I don't see a reason that the Warlord would ever choose not to do the best action now...as opposed to a sub-par or just less effective action... especially since it's giving up an action for an action. Can you think of a situation where it even makes sense to wait for the next character's turn vs. using your action to create an optimal action? I can't...

 

[CapnZapp]

No, because they want to avoid making new classes, and they already made 3 attempts at the warlord. Battlemaster, Purple Dragon Knight, and Mastermind rogue.

All of which are about 1/3 warlord, but there is still too much of the power budget in the base class to make a full warlord.

Which is a good case for why the Warlord needs to be its own class.

We can just wish they didn't waste all that effort to "prove" subclasses of existing classes simply won't do the job.

Oh well, sooner or later they will have to face up to this and finally publish an official Warlord class.

 

[CapnZapp]

The fireball still burns the wizard's spell slot. And the warlord is still not doing a thing of their own.

Getting to double your action economy in the short run is infinitely better than 25% extra resources in the long run.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sure, but I have no problem with a "fifth-wheel" character being better at fifth-wheeling than other options. Being the best option for a subset of all party configurations is hardly the same as being the best overall class, period.

I completely agree.

I'm simply trying to persuade a poster that "doing X or Y or Z" is better than "doing X" or "doing Y" or "doing Z" (quite obviously so).

Nothing wrong with fifth-wheels. I mean, I'm a Warlord supporter too. Just let's not pretend getting to trade actions is an ability of "regular" power level when it's not.

 

[TwoSix]

I can't really answer the first question... I think it's highly dependent on the situation. However I don't see a reason that the Warlord would ever choose not to do the best action now...as opposed to a sub-par or just less effective action... especially since it's giving up an action for an action. Can you think of a situation where it even makes sense to wait for the next character's turn vs. using your action to create an optimal action? I can't...

Of course the warlord will take the best action now; my question is how much better is that action than an average action? And it that action is the best, how big is the benefit from the warlord using you to do it on his turn, rather than just waiting for you to do it yourself on your turn?

 

[TwoSix]

Nothing wrong with fifth-wheels. I mean, I'm a Warlord supporter too. Just let's not pretend getting to trade actions is an ability of "regular" power level when it's not.

Sure, but I also don't see why the assertion that the situational difference between X, Y, and Z is so great that (X or Y or Z) must be overpowered is obviously true. Especially if you could have made the choice to bring W instead.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's the point Imaro and others are getting at. And I agree. Unlimited access to such flexibility is just too good.

On the other hand, Wizards have given us absolutely zero access to this so far, so a little more relaxed limitations would sure be appreciated