D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Mistwell]

This is pretty indicative of the core problem I have with proponents of this class. Buzzwords like "bare minimum" for one. Why are you assuming what is currently present is a "bare minimum" and not "just right" for 5e's system paradigm?

What if "above and beyond what the battlemaster can do" makes it a thing too good? Because it seems what's already there is what the devs have determined is balanced? Too many folks lose sight of the fact that they want something they recall from a different system, but forget to filter it through what the current system deems appropriate and balanced. You can't just take the 4e warlord and port it into 5e. That's not how it works. The devs looked at the 4e warlord, gleaned the underlying concept and feel for the class, and placed what they felt was salvageable into the battlemaster, valor bard and a few feats.

But that's not enough. Guess what? That's the point. Because if its "enough" as some of you are demanding, it's "too much".


See, that right there. It's not that people want a warlord. Because in many eyes (including the devs) the warlord is already there. It's that a few people want more than that. They want better than balanced. They want it all. To heck with 5e's principle baselines and system assumptions.

Yes, the battlemaster grants off-turn actions (if they take that maneuver choice). Let me turn it around. Why is that not acceptable? Why is how the BM does it not good enough for you, as a pro-warlord proponent?

I confess I believe I already know the answer. Because I've seen this debate numerous times before. It won't be "acceptable" until you have a pure lazylord. And, frankly, I just don't think that's ever gonna happen.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of what Warlord fans want. They don't "want it all" and they don't want "Battlemaster+". They want a weaker direct combatant than a Battlemaster, but a stronger support component than what the Battlemaster offers. It's not "equal or stronger combatant and stronger support" but instead a balanced approach which subtracts and adds. If that's not for you, cool. But don't mischaracterize what Warlord fans are saying they want.

 

[Imaro]

You know thinking more on the entire concept of the Warlord... I realize I have another issue with the warlord as separate class... if the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat then doesn't the warlord (as separate class) step on the fighter's supposed mastery of battle... so it means the fighter is a master at physical fighting but isn't a master of strategy & tactics... thus re-enforcing the dumb fighter stereotype. It's another one of the reasons I'd like to see the warlord as a subclass of fighter.

 

[Hussar]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what a lazy lord is. But, even if what you say is 100% true, so what? I'm not telling you what to play. Why should you get to tell me I can't play this.

And, considering we've now had two iterations of Rangers and a kick at the cat for psionics, the idea that the game is "just right" doesn't hold a whole lot of water.

Why do you presume, before even seeing it that a warlord cannot be a balanced class?

To answer your question, the Battlemaster fails as a Warlord because he cannot heal and only grants very minimal actions that do not scale.

Hey, as I said earlier, a BM is a fair ways there. Just not quite far enough.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what a lazy lord is. But, even if what you say is 100% true, so what? I'm not telling you what to play. Why should you get to tell me I can't play this.

Never said you "can't play whatever the heck you want." Where are you getting that? Make and play a titan stormlord sumsuch and play that. I don't care.

And, considering we've now had two iterations of Rangers and a kick at the cat for psionics, the idea that the game is "just right" doesn't hold a whole lot of water.

And yet that's not what we've gotten. You are mischaracterizing what "we've had."

Why do you presume, before even seeing it that a warlord cannot be a balanced class?

Cuz I've yet to see one. Can show me one that is?

To answer your question, the Battlemaster fails as a Warlord because he cannot heal and only grants very minimal actions that do not scale.

Ah, but he can heal. So you are wrong. And you are stepping write into my point again. The actions he does grant are balanced within the 5e system paradigm. What you want is to exceed the limits of 5e's core design framework and action economy principles. There are reasons then lazylord is no more. Mechanical ones, not thematic.

Hey, as I said earlier, a BM is a fair ways there. Just not quite far enough.

I disagree. And presumably, given what was published, the devs do as well.

But, okay. Let's dig in and explore this chasm between us. So what would get the BM "far enough" in your eyes? How far is enough before you have the warlord you want? Please give examples of how you would alter the BM to suit what you deem a proper warlord to be.

 

[Mistwell]

You know thinking more on the entire concept of the Warlord... I realize I have another issue with the warlord as separate class... if the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat then doesn't the warlord (as separate class) step on the fighter's supposed mastery of battle... so it means the fighter is a master at physical fighting but isn't a master of strategy & tactics... thus re-enforcing the dumb fighter stereotype. It's another one of the reasons I'd like to see the warlord as a subclass of fighter.

And rogues can strike blows with higher precision. And Rangers can strike multiple foes better. Fighters not not "best at all things combat". They are just the best overall general combatants as opposed to a specialized type of combatant like the rogue and the ranger. Warlord is just another specialty, the type that supports other combatants well.

 

[Imaro]

And rogues can strike blows with higher precision.

In specific circumstances otherwise... no they aren't...

And Rangers can strike multiple foes better.

How is this possible since fighters can take two weapon fighting style, have maneuvers that can protect them from opp. attacks and get the most attacks of all the martial classes?

Fighters not not "best at all things combat". They are just the best overall general combatants as opposed to a specialized type of combatant like the rogue and the ranger. Warlord is just another specialty, the type that supports other combatants well.

Where did I say "best at all things combat"... I said they are supposed to be the masters at combat... which implies in a general sense and with all things being equal. With the classes you listed above they may outshine the fighter given very specific circumstances (and I'm still curious about how the Ranger does what you claim), but all things being equal the fighter is a better combatant. The thing is the warlord is not better then him in a specific circumstance, it is going to be better in general at combat strategy and tactics.

 

[mellored]

What Warlord class? There's no such thing in 5e.

exactly the problem.

Can somebody tell me what you don't like about creating a set of Feats...maybe 3 or 4...that recreate much of the class you want?

same reason you don't have 3-4 feats to recreate a rogue., why can't anyone backstab?
or 3-4 feats to make a cleric., why can't anyone pray?
or 3-4 feats to make a warlock, why can't anyone make a pact?
or....

to make a full and balanced martial tactician, you would need about 10 feats, 5 stat increases, 4 levels for a sub-class, and a capstone.
that said, nothing wrong with a few feats for wizars who want to dabble.

 

[El Mahdi]

This is pretty indicative of the core problem I have with proponents of this class. Buzzwords like "bare minimum" for one. Why are you assuming what is currently present is a "bare minimum" and not "just right" for 5e's system paradigm?

I guess the answer to that would depend upon whether there is a defined 5E system paradigm, and whether it is an objective fact that there's no room for expanding it - that is, assuming it needs to be expanded for a Warlord to fit.

Can you sum up the 5E system paradigm?

Can you objectively show that said paradigm - if it exists - leaves no room for the Warlord or expansion of the Battlemaster?

See, that right there. It's not that people want a warlord. Because in many eyes (including the devs) the warlord is already there. It's that a few people want more than that. They want better than balanced. They want it all. To heck with 5e's principle baselines and system assumptions.

Balance is a pretty subjective thing in 5E. One that even the devs have said was really not a concern as far as perceived relative power between classes.

They said they designed classes to do what people expected that class to do. Beyond that, classes just needed to work with a consistent set of rules.

Can you sum up for us what these "principal baseline and system assumptions" are?

I haven't heard any devs enumerate them, nor have I sussed out any such assumptions from reading the rules myself. I've seen other people talk about it and attempt to do the same; usually resulting in some very general assumptions. That's something that also tends to play into the inability to lock-down a really consistent encounter designer (CR's, etc.).

It seems a pretty flexible system to me, one that I highly doubt would be broken by anything proposed for a 5E Warlord.

 

[JohnLynch]

Cuz I've yet to see one. Can show me one that is?

As I've mentioned the Noble class from EN5ider looks pretty balanced to me. It doesn't have the direct firepower of the fighter and yet it's still able to contribute meaningfully in combat as a warlord-esque class.

The actions [the battlemaster] does grant are balanced within the 5e system paradigm. What you want is to exceed the limits of 5e's core design framework and action economy principles. There are reasons then lazylord is no more. Mechanical ones, not thematic.

The noble class I've mentioned allows for the lazylord archetype to be fulfilled and yet is no less unbalanced than it was in 4th edition.

Let's dig in and explore this chasm between us. So what would get the BM "far enough" in your eyes? How far is enough before you have the warlord you want? Please give examples of how you would alter the BM to suit what you deem a proper warlord to be.

It's not the BM that needs to be increased but instead the fighter that needs to be changed. Getting to make 3 attacks in one turn is not very warlord-esque. Nor is getting to second wind yourself or make 1 extra attack per short rest. Granting bonuses or allowing allies to attack in place of these extra attacks can be balanced against the fighter while still allowing a different style of character to be played. But these require changes to the fighter, not the battlemaster.

 

[El Mahdi]

You know thinking more on the entire concept of the Warlord... I realize I have another issue with the warlord as separate class... if the fighter is supposed to be the master of combat then doesn't the warlord (as separate class) step on the fighter's supposed mastery of battle... so it means the fighter is a master at physical fighting but isn't a master of strategy & tactics... thus re-enforcing the dumb fighter stereotype. It's another one of the reasons I'd like to see the warlord as a subclass of fighter.

I don't see it as the Fighter is a dumb fighter stereotype - I just see it as they've focused on a different area of combat.

Something like this: