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

[Miladoon]

It may not be a genuine problem in 5E since it was designed that way. There is rationale for a spell-less support class and I support this. But I think there is a logical gap when fans say they want a support class so warlord. But Brad nailed it. Make one bc we want one, please.

 

[El Mahdi]

Every part of the warlord, including inspirational healing, is in 5e.

The only problem, is that it's split up and diluted.

Not the only problem. Inspirational HP recovery, as is, provides only temporary hit points and can't revive a character from 0 HP.

And every part of the Warlord is not in 5E.

 

[mellored]

Not the only problem. Inspirational HP recovery, as is, provides only temporary hit points and can't revive a character from 0 HP.

PDK has inspiration HP recovery.
With wiggle room to read from 0 HP either way.

And every part of the Warlord is not in 5E.

What part is missing?

 

[El Mahdi]

PDK has inspiration HP recovery.
With wiggle room to read from 0 HP either way.

What part is missing?

One, the PDK is in an accessory and campaign specific, not the core rules. Yes, it can be adapted, but it shouldn't need to be adapted nor pieced together from multiple books - nor should it require buying a book one may likely have no interest in other than that specific class feature. And it's possible it's only wiggle room until it gets clarified in Sage Advice...

Two, the PDK is a Fighter archetype, which by the rules can't be multi-classed with a Fighter Battle Master archetype (there are no rules for multiclassing archetypes). So, you're stuck with one from column A OR one from Column B, and still cannot make a full Warlord.

Two, I'm not going to list the plethora of maneuvers and things that a 4E Warlord could do that a 5E Warlord can't; but you know that there are a lot, and there's no need for me to list them.

Three, 5E is missing a single class to fulfill the concept; rather than requiring a hodge-podge multi-classing that brings undesired baggage/extraneous features (and some can't be combined anyways - as with the DPK and the Battle Master).


So, as has been said numerous times, one can play a Warlord-ish character in 5E but not an actual Warlord.


I can't help but note that all of this has been discussed and enumerated before. You know this and I know this. I've read posts you've made as part of discussions about this. So I'm curious as to why you asked the question?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It seems to me, for some, the only possible acceptable solution is to use a time machine to go back and force WotC to put a 4e-style warlord into the core PHB. I'm not sure how to help those people.

 

[mellored]

One, the PDK is in an accessory and campaign specific, not the core rules. Yes, it can be adapted, but it shouldn't need to be adapted nor pieced together from multiple books - nor should it require buying a book one may likely have no interest in other than that specific class feature. And it's possible it's only wiggle room until it gets clarified in Sage Advice...

I didn't say anything about core.

Two, the PDK is a Fighter archetype, which by the rules can't be multi-classed with a Fighter Battle Master archetype (there are no rules for multiclassing archetypes). So, you're stuck with one from column A OR one from Column B, and still cannot make a full Warlord.

Yes.

That's what i mean when i say it's split up and diluted.

Two, I'm not going to list the plethora of maneuvers and things that a 4E Warlord could do that a 5E Warlord can't; but you know that there are a lot, and there's no need for me to list them.

4e has excessive bloat in the number of maneuvers, the majority where simply upgrades, mixes, or minor variations of other abilities.

Which actual ability is missing?

Three, 5E is missing a single class to fulfill the concept; rather than requiring a hodge-podge multi-classing that brings undesired baggage/extraneous features (and some can't be combined anyways - as with the DPK and the Battle Master).

That's the same as number 1.

So, as has been said numerous times, one can play a Warlord-ish character in 5E but not an actual Warlord.

It's diluted, yes.

I can't help but note that all of this has been discussed and enumerated before. You know this and I know this. I've read posts you've made as part of discussions about this. So I'm curious as to why you asked the question?

I don't think you understood my question.

OTHER THEN being split up and diluted...
what function can a 4e warlord do that is not exists in some fashion in 5e? (including SCAG).

granting attacks
granting movement
granting bonuses to hit / AC / save
inspirational healing

what else?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Two, I'm not going to list the plethora of maneuvers and things that a 4E Warlord could do that a 5E Warlord can't; but you know that there are a lot, and there's no need for me to list them.Three, 5E is missing a single class to fulfill the concept; rather than requiring a hodge-podge multi-classing that brings undesired baggage/extraneous features (and some can't be combined anyways - as with the DPK and the Battle Master).So, as has been said numerous times, one can play a Warlord-ish character in 5E but not an actual Warlord.

All true, but...

...5e does give us rather a lot of mechanics and gives DMs a free hand in how to rule on those mechanics. While you can't get close to playing a Warlord, the mechanics could conceivably be in place for everything WotC needs to design one. Non-magical hp-restoration? Check. Up from 0? Could be ruled that way. Forced movement? Check. Temp hps? Check. Action-granting? check. Granting bonuses to allies? Check. Etc...

I won't say I'm convinced it's really /all/ there, but it's not that far short. There's not but half a dozen of the hundreds of warlord exploits even arguably present in 5e, but the mechanics with which many of the rest might be designed are present. Maybe even all of them. Maybe.

 

[mellored]

I won't say I'm convinced it's really /all/ there, but it's not that far short. There's not but half a dozen of the hundreds of warlord exploits even arguably present in 5e, but the mechanics with which many of the rest might be designed are present. Maybe even all of them. Maybe.

Are there any you think are missing?

There was a few ways to recharge encounter powers, but i don't know if that really translates to 5e.
And guileful switch, but that probably causes too much confusion to be worth it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

granting attacks
granting movement
forced movement
granting bonuses to hit / AC / save
inspirational healing
granting temp hps

what else?

bonuses to damage
ending conditions
condition immunities
granting re-rolls (attacks or saves)
forcing re-rolls (enemies)
marking (just marking, or marking on behalf of an ally - a related thing would be granting a conditional attack, like an OA)

and

There was a few ways to recharge encounter powers, but i don't know if that really translates to 5e.

Warlord's Recovery and the paragon path utility Bolt of Genius as actions, No Gambit is Wasted as a reaction, and some others. In 5e it'd have to be something like 'gain one specific benefit of a Short Rest, within such-and-such parameters...' nothing like that exists that I'm aware of, so that's one, I suppose.

And guileful switch, but that probably causes too much confusion to be worth it.

(Take all the confusion out of the game and what would you have? A 1st level Champion Fighter, maybe.) ;P Seriously, though, from Combat Leader to Stall Tactics to Guileful Switch, messing with Initiative was definitely a possibility.

...and I'm sure there are others if you want to comb through all the exception-based tricks 4e came up with for the class...

Now a lot of those aren't hard to come up with. You didn't mention an damage bonus, for instance, and even if there isn't a martial buff-an-ally's-damage mechanic out there, it's not like it's a novel or problematic mechanic. It's a simple bonus.

Maybe not everything, but enough of the stickier mechanics it'd take to design a full warlord class have been tackled that actually going through with it should certainly be possible, even with such limited resources as they seem to be struggling with...

 

[Hussar]

You know we're talking about 5E, right? No one gets to play anything they want at 1st level, the apprentice levels are not "the class you want to play."



Again, you know this is 5E right? The WIZARD is just as good of a swordsman as both your strategist or the fighter. Why is he casting spells? What exactly did you think you were doing in 4E? You don't think you can achieve exactly what a cleric achieves with magic just by waving your pom-poms right? Call it non-magical if you want, it's dumb but you can call it non-magical spell casting.




Again... you realize this is 5E, right? 70% is FANTASTIC, the 5E fighter isn't even close to 70% of the 4E fighter. Where is my Come and Get It to non-magically slide enemies the rogue has knocked unconcious up into the air so I can hit them all? I can't even come close to replicating a 5E monk, rogue, fighter, anything... because 5E isn't 4E!!!

Sorry, but nothing you said even makes a lick of sense.

You can easily make a character that grants others attacks, heals people, does everything a 4E warlord can do except the things 4E had that 5E thankfully doesn't.

Yes, because Come and Get It was the defining characteristic of a 4e fighter. Perhaps, and just perhaps, you should actually play an edition before bagging on it? No, a 5e wizard is not as good of a swordsman as a fighter, he only gets one attack per round to the fighter's eventual FOUR, nor does the wizard gain any manoeuvres to add to his weapon attacks, nor does he get an increased crit range. On and on.

But, unfortunately, we are getting mired in yet another edition war crap. Can we please leave that on the table and not bring your personal edition war baggage to the conversation?