D&D 5E Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter

[DEFCON 1]

The person who wants to do X has a desire that they've had D&D meet before, and they expect D&D to continue to meet. And if D&D doesn't meet that desire, what reason do they have to continue to play D&D?

You mean "what reason do they have to continue to play D&D 5E?" If they got what they wanted before, they don't need to leave D&D altogether... they can just continue to play the edition that gives them what they want.

But if you *want* to now play 5E for whatever reason-- friends, only game available, it's current, you like the rules better, you want new support, any other reason etc. etc.-- then you play what you have in front of you. Which means the game as it's currently constituted, or you go ahead and change the game to suit your needs like the DMG tells you to do. And if that *still* isn't good enough for you... then sure, keeping commenting here and on other boards "You know, it'd sure be nice if WotC gave rules for X". Maybe you'll eventually get it. But in the mean time, the rest of us will also keep commenting that maybe it's not the game that is the issue... maybe it's you.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Yes it is important to remember that 5E was designed to cater for more fans than just those of the previous edition…and that some people didn’t actually like Warlords as a Class. Some people felt that:

a) It undermined the scope of the Fighter and trod on their shoes in terms of Class speciality a bit. Fighters ought to be able to make the best generals and strategists if they want to.
b) It created a Class that had a nominal ‘rank’ above other PCs.
c) The title ‘Warlord’ was a misnomer - the term is largely a pejorative one - but no-one could think of a better name. In an archetypal sense it was a non-Class.

So, the Battlemaster subclass addresses those concerns somewhat. Regarding the other issues mentioned, I tend to switch off after the umteenth offhand rejection of ‘why can’t you use the optional rules’….

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes it is important to remember that 5E was designed to cater for more fans than just those of the previous edition…and that some people didn’t actually like Warlords as a Class. Some people felt that:

a) It undermined the scope of the Fighter and trod on their shoes in terms of Class speciality a bit. Fighters ought to be able to make the best generals and strategists if they want to.
b) It created a Class that had a nominal ‘rank’ above other PCs.
c) The title ‘Warlord’ was a misnomer - the term is largely a pejorative one - but no-one could think of a better name. In an archetypal sense it was a non-Class.

So, the Battlemaster subclass addresses those concerns somewhat. Regarding the other issues mentioned, I tend to switch off after the umteenth offhand rejection of ‘why can’t you use the optional rules’….

so do you believe that it would harm your play style if they built a better warlord for those of us that want them?

 

[Sailor Moon]

so do you believe that it would harm your play style if they built a better warlord for those of us that want them?

As long as they kept it to a few options in a side book I would see no problem with it. If they began integrating it into the standard rules as the game went along then I would have a problem with that because the class would bring about stuff I hated from 4th edition.

 

[TrippyHippy]

so do you believe that it would harm your play style if they built a better warlord for those of us that want them?

Yep. They were incongruous to the game’s sensibilities, for all the reasons outlined above. Whatever you want to argue about individuals or groups doing it their own way, is simply a house rules argument. If you want to do it your own way, then fine, but the common set of rules has to be for everybody. It’s no different to saying we didn’t want Kender in the core rules either, albeit for different reasons.

EDIT: And before anybody personalises it, I am only stating the views of plenty of others that were stated during the playtest, as evident by the actual result that there is no ‘Warlords’ Class in 5E, and they were effectively replaced by the Battlemaster subclass. These aren’t new arguments, or ones that are exclusive to me. This is simply the outcome of a democratic playtest process at work.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't see any problem if they added a few BM maneuvers that were more inspiration based (like the examples myself and other posted upthread). What I do see a problem is if people want a 5e version of the warlord that is on par with 4e. In 5e's rules, such a class would be way overpowered. You'd have the best traits of a fighter and the best traits of some clerics (re: buffing and healing). You can't have both folks. It is fundamentally flawed to compare 5e's classes with any previous edition without taking into account the difference in overall game context.

For example, you couldn't take the 1e thief as is and compare him or her to a 5e class because said thief would be woefully underpowered, but in 1e (the game it was designed for), it was just fine*.



Yes it was! Don't even think of saying otherwise

 

[I'm A Banana]

You mean "what reason do they have to continue to play D&D 5E?"

I left it deliberately broad because it applies to things beyond 5e. Whatever the D&D they have available is, if it's not the kind they want, they're not going to play it, and that doesn't mean they're unreasonably stubborn. D&D is a voluntary activity, after all, only one of limitless ways you can spend fun times with your friends. It needs to deliver some bang for its relatively high commitment cost.

If they got what they wanted before, they don't need to leave D&D altogether... they can just continue to play the edition that gives them what they want.

But if you *want* to now play 5E for whatever reason-- friends, only game available, it's current, you like the rules better, you want new support, any other reason etc. etc.-- then you play what you have in front of you. Which means the game as it's currently constituted, or you go ahead and change the game to suit your needs like the DMG tells you to do. And if that *still* isn't good enough for you... then sure, keeping commenting here and on other boards "You know, it'd sure be nice if WotC gave rules for X". Maybe you'll eventually get it.

The point I'm making is that someone who has to choose between an ineffective character and a character that doesn't match the character they want to play is not going to play D&D. They'll choose to do something more fun with their time. That's why forcing that choice isn't the most constructive advice. If it's the only thing available, they will just go do something else entirely. No one has to play D&D.

But in the mean time, the rest of us will also keep commenting that maybe it's not the game that is the issue... maybe it's you.

And that "the game doesn't have an issue, if you want a more 4e-like warlord then you must have some issue!" attitude is part of what will drive them away. If they agree with you, they'll write off the game as hopelessly not what they're looking for and go do something else with their time that they don't have "issues" with (and then not pay much attention when the D&D Tactics book comes out because 5e just isn't that kind of game). If the disagree with you, they'll think 5e fans are narrowminded jerks who can admit no wrong with their favorite game and go do something else with their time that involves less jerks. Either way, they won't be here making the game better, and that's not the result we're hoping for.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Kamikaze Midget,

My genuine experience at clubs, group sessions and gaming discussion (on and off line) is that for every 4E fan put off by the rules of the current edition, there are at least three other players attracted to play D&D again for the first time in years.

 

[PaulO.]

I played a little bit of Warlord in 4E, and think you can still capture some of the unique versatility of the class in 5E with the Fighter class and several feats.

I'm fiddling with a build right now that by level 10 I'll be able to do the following basically at-will:

1) Reaction
- When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.
- If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw

2) Bonus Action
- You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, Hide action, Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, use your thieves’ tools to disarm a trap or open a lock, or take the Use an Object action (i.e. Healing Kit to tend to a creature and restore 1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature’s maximum number of Hit Dice. The creature can’t regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.).
- If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield, either to knock it prone or push it away from you.

3a) Use Action to Support
- You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one saving throw of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the saving throw. The spell then ends.
- You touch one willing creature. Once before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to one ability check of its choice. It can roll the die before or after making the ability check. The spell then ends.
- Use the Help action granting advantage

3b) Use Action to Damage
- Two attacks, ranged or melee: +7 to hit and 1d6(javelin) + 3 + 2d6(sneak attack)
- Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
_______________________________________________

That's every round. One round you might give an enemy disadvantage, knock another enemy prone, stab it with a javelin with advantage and sneak attack damage, then push it away. The next round you might give an enemy disadvantage, heal an ally, and toss two javelins at that mage in the back. I'm playing a Fighter1/WarlockX build in another game and am surprised by how much mileage I get out of Protection. It is really, really strong.

This doesn't include all the stuff this build can do after rests: Maneuvers, one casting of Bless, Inspiring Leader, Action Surge. To me, this feels very much like a Warlord. If someone gets a nasty spell lingering on them, toss them a bonus to saves via Resistance, then Action Surge, then use the Help action or cast Bless. Clerics can't do that.

Anyway, here is my build for a Warlord-y Fighter:

15 STR, 13 CHR, 13 DEX, 12 CON, 10 INT, 10 WIS
Human - Variant rule, +1STR, +1CHA, Bonus Feat (Healer)
Hermit (Medicine, Religion)
L1 - Fighter1 - Protection, Second Wind, Skills (Athletics, Intimidation)
L2 - Fighter2 - Action Surge
L3 - Fighter3 - Battle Master (Rally, Feinting Attack, ?)
L4 - Fighter4 - Feat (Shield Master)
L5 - Fighter5 - Extra Attack
L6 - Fighter6 - Feat (Magic Initiate - Resistance, Guidance, Bless)
L7 - Rogue1 - Sneak Attack (1d6)
L8 - Rogue2 - Cunning Action
L9 - Rogue3 - Roguish Archetype (Thief - Fast Hands), Sneak Attack (2d6)
L10 - Rogue4 - Feat (Inspiring Leader)
L11 - Fighter7 - Know Your Enemy, +2 Maneuvers
L12 - Fighter8 - +2 STR
L13 - Fighter9 - Indomitable
L14 - Fighter10 - d10 Superiority dice, +2 Maneuvers
L15 - Fighter11 - Extra Attack
L16 - Fighter12 - +2 STR
L17 - Fighter13 - Indomitable (two uses)
L18 - Fighter14 - Feat (?)
L19 - Fighter15 - Relentless (1 die at start if out)
L20 - Fighter16 - Feat (?)

 

[Joe Liker]

The point I'm making is that someone who has to choose between an ineffective character and a character that doesn't match the character they want to play is not going to play D&D. They'll choose to do something more fun with their time. That's why forcing that choice isn't the most constructive advice. If it's the only thing available, they will just go do something else entirely. No one has to play D&D.

I don't think it's healthy to expect designers to cater to the desires of a person or group of people who self-define as being completely unwilling to compromise.