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

[mellored]

bonuses to damage

Combat Inspiration (valor bard)

ending conditions

There is no extra saving throws, but i don't see why there couldn't be.

condition immunities

I don't recall immunities.
But paladin aura's can make you immune to fear and charm.

granting re-rolls (attacks or saves)
forcing re-rolls (enemies)

I havn't seen any reroll ability of any kind in 5e.
And cutting words turns hit's into misses, which fills the same function.

Though i don't think there's a offensive bonus as a reaction for an ally. So that's 2.

marking (just marking, or marking on behalf of an ally - a related thing would be granting a conditional attack, like an OA)

You can take sentinel to 'mark' things yourself. Also panache from swashbuckler.

Though no directing attacks towards allies. So 3.

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.

Abilities are just too variable to have a general use case. Like how many ki is worth a warlock spell slot?

It just doesn't work without unified power structure. That one is just going to have to be lost.

(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.

Another one i don't see translating. They don't even have delay in 5e, so i don't think mid-battle initiative changes can make it across. Fun as it was as a player, it wasn't so fun as a DM.

At best, some start-of-battle initiative rolling boosting and/or delaying. Both exists.

...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...

I don't have DDI anymore, never had books, and was never a big warlord player.
I played a bunch of different classes instead.

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.

I agree.

The extra saving throw would require new wording, but it's reasonably possible.
The reaction to-hit bonus is plain obvious.
Marking for someone else is just taking panache and changing the person.


Just trying to get a list together. See what's missing, and what can fit into 5e.

Edit; Acutually there is a reaction boost to attack, with the war cleric. Though i'm not sure if channel divinity counts as "magic". Though at least it's not a spell.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is, [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION], even with what you've listed, is spread across two classes - a Valor Bard and a Paladin. Plus a feat. We're talking, at absolute minimum, a 6th level character just to get the basics of a warlord. Plus, you'd need a Battlemaster Fighter in there to grant extra attacks. Now we're talking a 9th level character, minimum. That's just not feasible. Players shouldn't have to wait 1/2 of a campaign (or more) just to play something. And before someone brings up things like Archmages and Grand Druids, those are NOT the same as a basic Warlord. That's what you become when you retire, not when you start out.

And, it's not really contested that the mechanics are in 5e that gives you something that's close to a warlord. Personally, I certainly don't need or expect a 1:1 conversion. Every class got some pretty major rewriting, so, I'd expect a 5e warlord to be a WHOLE lot less complex than a 4e warlord and a whole lot less finicky. Even the idea of removing status effects isn't really necessary. Not that many status effects actually exist in 5e, and most of them won't be seen in a given encounter. It's not like 4e where you could see six or eight status effects on a single target at the same time. By and large in 5e you might only have one or two. So, I wouldn't expect a 5e warlord to mitigate effects terribly much.

But, I think the baseline has to be that a warlord, that is recognisably a warlord, without a boat load of extra mechanics and flavour (a paladin and a bard come with buckets of both) that have nothing to do with actually being a warlord. I mean, why would a warlord have an Oath of any sort? There's no need at all. Never minding about why is my warlord a performer.

Yes, you can get something that looks kinda like a warlord using existing classes and whatnot, but, it's only an approximation. Considering the HUGE kerfuffle there was in 4e that you couldn't play an Archer fighter, I would think that people would be a LOT more understanding and sympathetic.

 

[mellored]

The problem is, [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION], even with what you've listed, is spread across two classes

Sure, and that's the problem. Not any individual feature is a problem.

Except the power recharging and mid battle initiative switching. I don't see those as working too well in 5e.
Well... maybe the mid-battle initiative switching.

 

[Marshall]

I think you could be right an here's what id do to make that a reality:

1.) Permit the Bard's Cutting Words & Combat Inspiration to be maneuvers that the Battlemaster can learn.
2.) Add or trade the Healer Feat for the 3rd level Student of War Feature.
3.) Take Inspiring Leader Feat that gives temp HP to the party.
4.) Add PDK's ability that permits an ally to attack when you use action surge (as a learnable maneuver)
5.) Add PDK's ability to transfer uses of Indomitable (as a learnable maneuver).
6.) Permit nearby allies to benefit from your fighting style (if they meet applicable conditions & prerequisites)

In this way, such a Battlemaster would be learning the maneuvers he'd actually be using in support (whereas, left as it is in the PH, you end up with some you just won't use if you're playing support). And it doesn't add any extra goodies beyond a standard Battlemaster (he's learning maneuvers out of the normal allotment & trading equivalent features).

Now, that's MUCH closer to acceptable for me. Might even do the job entirely (I'd need to play a few sessions to be sure), but it feels about right to me.

Trade attacks gained from Extra Attack to Superiority Dice per round and you can get something close. Elsewise, you've just got a Fighter with a few tricks.

 

[El Mahdi]

I didn't say anything about core.

Actually, you did. This started off with this post of yours:

Agreed.

Every part of the warlord, including inspirational healing, is in 5e.
The only problem, is that it's split up and diluted.

...which was a direct response to this:

At least the warlord concept made it to core.

Not to mention that the larger discussion has from the start, been about the Warlord being in the Core Game - at the least in UA, preferably an official core version usable for AL. If significant aspects of the Warlord aren’t accessible in the Core Game, then all of the Warlord is not in 5E.

Yes.

that's what I mean when I say it's split up and diluted.

That's good. So understanding that, you understand that the Warlord isn't all there in 5E if one can't actually combine all aspects of the Warlord that are in 5E...right?

If one can’t actually make and play a Warlord character, that’s not dilution, that’s inaccessibility.

Inaccessible is effectively, not present.

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

Saying that 4E has excessive bloat is a subjective opinion; not objective fact. All that matters is that objectively, 5E does not have everything that a 4E Warlord has.


For the record though, I am not advocating bringing every aspect of 4E to 5E, or even every 4E aspect of the Warlord to 5E.

I am not a 4E fan; I am a Warlord fan. However, the Warlord is largely defined by 4E.

The point I'm trying to make in this discussion with you isn't that I want every aspect of 4E translated to 5E (which I don't), but simply that the statement "Every part of the warlord, including inspirational healing, is in 5e." is simply not correct. Saying this also gives Warlord proponents the ammunition to say "See, we don't need a Warlord class." (which also isn't true)

That's the same as number 1.

No, number 1 was primarily about the DPK not being core, and ancillary concerning multi-classing. Number 3 was exclusively about multi-classing.

Though I'm unsure what this has to do with the subject?

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?

First off, SCAG does not count. No matter how much you may want it to be, it is not Core. If somebody has to buy an accessory/supplement other than the PHB, it is not Core. I do not have it. I can’t reference it. I won’t reference it. It’s not core, so it’s irrelevant.

As for aspects 5E is missing:

Inspirational in-combat recovery of real Hit Points. If WotC wants to put the DPK version of inspirational hit point recovery in Unearthed Arcana, then it’s in the core game. But, as I said before, I expect that the "wiggle room" you and others see in this could very likely disappear as soon as there’s a Sage Advice clarification on it. In which case, such in-combat inspirational recovery is gone for official play (AL), assuming one has actually bought the SCAG supplement in the first place (because again, it’s not core).

Inducing a Saving throw. Yes, Bardic Inspiration can give a bonus to saving throws, but most effects that characters would be able to use it for – specifically ongoing effects – only allow a save “at the end of the character’s turn.” Bardic Inspiration also can’t help with an immediate save for an immediate effect; unless the Bard’s player was prescient enough to give a pep talk in the last ten minutes. Exploits like Inspiring War Cry induce an immediate Saving throw, just like a real leader giving a sudden cry of warning or exhortation at the moment of danger.

Battlefield manipulation/movement of enemies. All 5E has is Pushing Attack (basically just 3E’s Bull Rush), and a knockdown in the form of Trip Attack. It’s missing things like: Pin the Foe (movement denial), Denying Smite (attack denial), Own the Battlefield (tactical forced movement), Warlord’s Gambit (baiting an enemy into a trap), and Break the Tempo (tactically intercept an enemy and disrupt their move).

Coordinate movement between allies. Yes, 5E has maneuvers that let you grant movement to an ally; but it doesn’t have exploits like Guide the Charge or Rabbits and Wolves that grant movement and allow coordination of that movement (simultaneous and tactically).

Demoralize/Incite enemies. There are no exploits such as Stir the Hornet’s Nest in 5E. While the 4E version just gives an attack and damage bonus, a 5E version should give the enemy disadvantage for being irrationally angry that affects not just combat, but also checks and saves – the real narrative spirit of the exploit. Another one is Force Retreat – which mechanically is just another forced movement exploit, but in 5E should be an enemy Morale check or an actual retreat (not just forced movement of a few squares).


And these are just from the 4E PH1, and only hits the high points. Since I’m being a stickler for Core, I’ll stick to just that one book to keep it fair.

I also won’t count against your claim, things that could/should be addressed in 5E that aren’t addressed in 4E, such as:
-Better/more-appropriate mechanics to represent/model the larger effects of actual Leadership.
-Maneuvers that affect Initiative.
-A real ability to gain tactical/strategic information (unlike the abysmally weak/virtually useless Know Your Enemy).
-Something that actually reflects being a Student of War (rather than only providing proficiency with one type of artisan’s tools).
-The ability to affect travel/marching speeds.
-Command functions for the Mass Battles supplement.
etc...etc...etc...


The Warlord is far from all there in 5E.

 

[oknazevad]

We do have non-magical effects like Song of Rest, Inspiration Dice, regeneration, non-magical HP restoration? Etc.

Something that's been bothering me about this conversation. Song of Rest and Bardic Inspiration are magical. The bard, by its very nature, is a magical class. That's what makes a bard more than just a wandering minstrel; a bard is someone whose songs are actually magical, and can affect the world. So Song of Rest, being a song, may not be a spell, but it is a feature of an arcane class that has a spell like effect. Same with Inspiration. So to say that they're existence is an example of a non-magical effect and therefore models for a theoretical, strictly non-magical warlord to have a similar class feature is to miss entirely the nature of the bard as a class.

 

[Bawylie]

Something that's been bothering me about this conversation. Song of Rest and Bardic Inspiration are magical. The bard, by its very nature, is a magical class. That's what makes a bard more than just a wandering minstrel; a bard is someone whose songs are actually magical, and can affect the world. So Song of Rest, being a song, may not be a spell, but it is a feature of an arcane class that has a spell like effect. Same with Inspiration. So to say that they're existence is an example of a non-magical effect and therefore models for a theoretical, strictly non-magical warlord to have a similar class feature is to miss entirely the nature of the bard as a class.

A matter of interpretation at best. Not everything a spell-casting class does is inherently magical. A cleric's attacks aren't. I don't find anything in the text that clearly delineates song of rest or inspiration as magical, spell-like, or whatever. Traditionally, bard songs WERE spell-like, and I wouldn't take issue with a DM ruling that they were for his game, but by default, I don't think they are.

 

[oknazevad]

A matter of interpretation at best. Not everything a spell-casting class does is inherently magical. A cleric's attacks aren't. I don't find anything in the text that clearly delineates song of rest or inspiration as magical, spell-like, or whatever. Traditionally, bard songs WERE spell-like, and I wouldn't take issue with a DM ruling that they were for his game, but by default, I don't think they are.

From the introductory flavor text: "The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their
spells and powers. ... Many bards prefer to stick to the sidelines
in combat, using their magic to inspire their allies.". Yep, they're magical powers.

 

[Bawylie]

From the introductory flavor text: "The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their
spells and powers. ... Many bards prefer to stick to the sidelines
in combat, using their magic to inspire their allies.". Yep, they're magical powers.

Ha! Alright. That same section talks about the magic of speech. The multiverse was "spoken into existence," and those Words of Creation have echoes, and THOSE echoes are what bards attempt to harness.

But that's all creation myth stuff. It doesn't and can't apply to every setting. And if it DID, then the objection to "shouting wounds closed" would necessarily be null and void. After all, Warlords are just harnessing the echoes of the Words of Creation spoken by the Gods when they created the multiverse.

This is the "everything is magic" argument, which some people fought ling and hard over when martial power was labeled "not magic in the traditional sense."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Abilities are just too variable to have a general use case. Like how many ki is worth a warlock spell slot?

It just doesn't work without unified power structure. That one is just going to have to be lost.

Another one i don't see translating. They don't even have delay in 5e, so i don't think mid-battle initiative changes can make it across.

I'm reluctant to concede that 5e's more open design philosophy leaves it unable to do certain things. Needing to do them in a more complicated or less consistent manner, sure, but not unable. 5e has cyclical initiative, using the same kind of check as 3.5 and 4e, it should be able to handle anything from a simple initiative bonus, upon-rolling-initiative triggers, to initiative-changing options. It might require unique language each time, but it can do it.

Likewise, lack of a common resource-recovery structure doesn't mean no commonalities among resource recovery. There are /lots/ of short-rest recharge abilities. It should be possible to let an ally recharge /one/. It may work out that it ends up being better for Warlocks than for Monks, but, hey, that's just a way they're different from eachother, per that no-common-structure design.

Edit; Acutually there is a reaction boost to attack, with the war cleric. Though i'm not sure if channel divinity counts as "magic". Though at least it's not a spell.

In another thread I'm A Banana 'proved' that it was (or wasn't, I can't recall). I think either it was the Cleric using magic or the deity intervening so it wasn't magic.... something like that. :shrug:

Either way, it's an example of an extant mechanic.

Just trying to get a list together. See what's missing, and what can fit into 5e.

There's definitely a lot missing in the sense of putting together a build. There's not a whole lot missing in the sense of mechanical precedents, though 5e doesn't really demand mechanical precedents, it's still very nearly exception-based, and very open in design philosophy. I don't think there's really anything you "can't fit" into 5e - there may be a few things that are redundant as class abilities, because they're trivially/universally available. Move-attack-move tricks, for instance. 3.5 had a significant feat tree to complete (Spring Attack) for that, numerous 4e powers were distinct, limited, variations on that. In 5e everyone can do it, by default. Conversely, in 5e there are a few distinct, limited ways to Charge, which all prior eds let anyone do.