D&D 5E I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.

[Tony Vargas]

Many 4e powers where simply upgrades to already existing powers. Come and get it, and warriors urging are the exact same ability. One was just "at higher level" (1d8 extra damage, and a 5' bigger area).

There are some examples of that, sure. But even if every Paragon and Epic Tier power in the entire game had been just an upgrade, and you thus cut the numbers by 2/3rds, you're still talking 142 -> 17 for Weaponmaster -> Battlemaster, vs 146 -> 215 for the Wizard. 88% loss vs 47% gain.

I mean in 4e you could (with a large amount of char-opping) grant an opportunity attack, a free action attack, and a reaction attack, with a +int (10) bonus to-hit all on the same turn.

To be clear, you're talking about a ridiculously optimized high-Epic (~30th?) level character.

In 5e the same warlord could grant 1 reaction attack, with +int (5) bonus to-hit. And each attack would deal only 50% of most characters (past 5). That's ~75% normal damage.

That's a very hypothetical Warlord. ;P

Prone to being overpowered is probably the correct way to say it.
And still not nearly as OP as wizards/clerics/druids where in 3e.

Sure, 3.5 'Tier 1's were notoriously OP.
4e was notorious for being more tightly-balanced than other editions. The Warlord was integrated into that tight balance. CharOp would go crazy with some real or imagined loophole, and it'd be closed in the next errata "update" - until they stopped updating so much with Essentials, and a few were left open.

5e just isn't balanced the same way 4e was, though. It's not a neat, numeric, balance, but a DM-arbitrated sort of 'spotlight' balance. Sometimes the DM creates a situation where a caster who has the right spell prepared and chooses to use a slot to cast it, will really shine (and any caster in the party might step into that spotlight). Other times he creates a situation where a melee type dishing out massive DPR will really shine (and the fighters, barbarians, paladins &c get their chance). Still others, he'll create situations where a character able to get an ally back in the fight, and boost his offense at a critical moment will shine (and the Bard, Cleric, Druid or Warlord step up).

 

[ZickZak]

Losing 96% of your stuff is pretty brutal, even if other folks lost 99%.

Battlemaster and ranger both know 9 "spells" at lvl 15. That is "brutal" only if you compare systems, not classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Battlemaster and ranger both know 9 "spells" at lvl 15.

The Battlemaster has no spells. Spells are significantly more varied and flexible than maneuvers.

That is "brutal" only if you compare systems, not classes.

It was a comparison of the past version of the sub-class, the Weaponmaster, to the current version of the same sub-class, the Battlemaster. So, yes, by definition, that is comparing systems, not classes. Comparing how relatively screwed different classes may be is tangential - but does illustrate that non-casting classes were screwed awfully hard - by the numbers, which, honestly, only counts for so much in 5e...

 

[ZickZak]

Comparing how relatively screwed different classes may be is tangential - but does illustrate that non-casting classes were screwed awfully hard - by the numbers.

Yea, well, you get 1-3 more attacks than the casters. So non-casting classes are, possibly, "screwed" only in "variety and flexibility".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yea, well, you get 1-3 more attacks than the casters. So non-casting classes are screwed only in variety and flexibility.

Yes.

Casters who are casting, by definition, are making no attacks at all, so 1-4 more attacks, easily - plus action surge, when available. Cantrips, the casters' answer to making attacks do scale in damage with level, but that doesn't entirely make up the difference. Fighter (and Paladin & Barbarian, &c) DPR does get very impressive, and gives them a chance to shine relative to casters in 5e's balance scheme. Like I said, numbers - whether the versatility & flexibility of number of choices, or the total number of hps ground out each round of multi-attacking - only count for so much. The DM puts you in situations where your character's class can shine, you get some spotlight time, he lays off those for an extended period, you fade into the background. Caster flexibility lets them shine in a wider variety of situations - but it also sets them up for the frustration of not being able to take full advantage of a situation because they don't have the right spell prepared. FWIW.

To slide back along this tangent to the point of intersection with the topic, though, the upshot is: There's no appreciable risk of a 5e Warlord being so OP that it would actually mess with 5e's style of balance. It'll can't help but be lower DPR than the other non-casters, and less versatile than the casters.

 

[Jester David]

Would you be opposed to a Warlord feature that converted unused THP into real HP following either the cessation of combat or as a result of a short rest?

That gets tricky. It still doesn't work well with people who want meatier hp. And since the thp become hp tracking the separately just becomes bookkeeping. It just seems like it'd be too complicated and problematic.

***

Temporary hit points expire at the end of the next long rest. That's the default rule.

Yup. Don't see a problem there. Lots of classes and options violate default rules. That's pretty much all class features do, really.

As such, the temporary hit points granted by the warlord shouting and the "real" hit points provided by the bard dancing at you have identical effects. There is no point in calling them by different names. They do the same thing.

Other than the fact temporary hit points don't stack and cannot be healed but allow you to exceed your maximum.
The latter effect is key. Temporary hp are useful when facing a high damage opponent that might knock you down even when at max. And they're also preventative. So you have the effect of the warlord shouting and inspiring before combat - the standard rallying cry seen in fiction before a battle. Temporary hit points are a great representation for the warlord psyching people up and allowing them to fight longer than they would otherwise.

So the cleric sits around after combat healing injuries, while the warlord shouts at allies at the start of combat or gets them up again after a big hit.

Oh, and it also means if you have a cleric and a warlord in the party their abilities complement each other instead of competing. There's a reason to have both and not just one or the other.

And I suspect the people likeliest to have a problem with that are not the warlord fans but the people who insist that whatever it does has to be inferior to magical hit point restoration.

This:
a) presumes people are either warlord fans or hate martial healing. That's a no true Scotsman logical fallacy.
b) presumes temporary hit points are inferior. They're not.
c) presumes the intent is to make martial healing inferior to magic. It's not.

Regaining hit points and temporary hit points each have their strengths and weaknesses. They're situationally stronger and weaker. But there are situations when it's better to have temporary hit points.

And it's not about making martial healing inferior. It's about making it different, making it more than magical healing with "magic" crossed out and "martial" written in its place. So in a game where magic is rare then martial healing is good, in a game that uses second wind rules modules then martial healing still functions, and in a game where healing is slow and hp are meat the warlord is still is a viable class to play.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Prone to being overpowered is probably the correct way to say it.

Fair enough. Given the "extreme balance" with which 4e was designed, that's extremely telling in-and-of-itself.

And still not nearly as OP as wizards/clerics/druids where in 3e.

Not sure why that's relevant. We aren't talking about 3e. We are talking about a broken 4e class being desired in 5e.

Plus, most of the already OP things the warlord had in 4e have been solved with bounded accuracy and tighter action economy.

Thanksfully so. So why ruin that by breaking BA and the action economy?

I mean in 4e you could (with a large amount of char-opping) grant an opportunity attack, a free action attack, and a reaction attack, with a +int (10) bonus to-hit all on the same turn. And given that a basic attack was ~80% of your normal damage, that's ~480% normal damage.

IMO, at-will action granting would be broken in 5e as well. As you just explained, BA and action economy is at work keeping things in check. Blowing it up leads to broken.

In 5e the same warlord could grant 1 reaction attack, with +int (5) bonus to-hit. And each attack would deal only 50% of most characters (past 5). That's ~75% normal damage.

What warlord? And what power are you referencing? That's just partially realized, stretch assumption of what the warlord (when-and-if it ever exists beyond what already does) could and would do. Especially if some of the more vociferous, zealous and adamant advocates here keep pushing their unyielding agenda for a Kitchen Sink class. I do not believe they would accept your proposed class feature as good enough.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That's a very hypothetical Warlord. ;P

See, mellored?...

CharOp would go crazy with some real or imagined loophole, and it'd be closed in the next errata "update" - until they stopped updating so much with Essentials, and a few were left open.

Imagined? Heh. Not sure how much 4e you played, but the various broken warlords I saw in actual play would beg to differ with your downplaying.

As for errata closing loopholes, like what and how? What do you consider to have been "fixed" such that warlords were made "no longer broken" (your own admission, evidently)?

 

[ZickZak]

There's no appreciable risk of a 5e Warlord being so OP that it would actually mess with 5e's style of balance. It'll can't help but be lower DPR than the other non-casters, and less versatile than the casters.

Possibly where the Battlemaster/Bard is. It doesn't have this and doesn't have that and has this and shouldn't have that and doesn't have 200 options, but that is 5e. For everything.

What warlord?

Rekt

 

[Aldarc]

That gets tricky. It still doesn't work well with people who want meatier hp.

As it is now, you can full rest your intestines back in over night. I think there is room for THP to become HP during a rest as a sort of 'minor second wind' that allows characters to marshal onwards. It's as 'meaty' as a rest.

And since the thp become hp tracking the separately just becomes bookkeeping. It just seems like it'd be too complicated and problematic.

How is that any more complicated or bookkeeping than THP and HP already co-existing? You are technically supposed to be tracking them separately since THP does not stack, so you have to keep track of the THP you have to prevent THP stacking.