D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[Hussar]

Heh. Ok, I know, I know, but, hear me out. I've been cogitating this and I'm not sure if 5e has a space in it for a warlord.

First off, in 4e, in combat healing was a major element. The baddies and the PC's had roughly similar starting HP pools. Give or take, but, not too far off. Where the major difference lay was in the fact that 4e PC's could heal (and heal a LOT) in combat and could mitigate damage as well. And this was necessary - 4e combats were intended to be pretty lengthy affairs - 8+rounds wasn't all that unusual for a combat. In order to keep things going that long, you needed in combat healing. But, 5e doesn't work like that. Combats are much shorter and, generally, other than standing someone up from 0, in combat healing isn't much of a thing. How much healing do you really need when combats only last 3 or 4 rounds?

Secondly, battlefield movement is much less of a thing in 5e. Not because we don't use a battle map, at least, I certainly do. But, pushes and shifts are not such a big deal. You can dance around an opponent without drawing OA's and, even if you do draw one, it's usually not that big of a deal. Again, the monsters aren't dealing that much damage on single hits. Eating an OA doesn't radically change the combat too often. Granting bonus movement is also not such a big deal when PC's can move attack and then move again in a single round. IOW, just with the existing 5e rules, combat continues to be pretty fluid, featuring lots of movement anyway. Adding in a PC that adds to battlefield movement is largely just gilding the lily. Plus, since things like grappling and monsters dumping on status effects aren't anywhere near as big of an issue as well means that you don't really need to mitigate these effects either.

What's really left over? The more I play 5e, the less I think 5e needs a warlord.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Heh. Ok, I know, I know, but, hear me out. I've been cogitating this and I'm not sure if 5e has a space in it for a warlord.

... *sets torch and pitchfork down, where the former won't set something on fire*

Alright. I'll hear you out.

First off, in 4e, in combat healing was a major element. The baddies and the PC's had roughly similar starting HP pools. Give or take, but, not too far off. Where the major difference lay was in the fact that 4e PC's could heal (and heal a LOT) in combat and could mitigate damage as well. And this was necessary - 4e combats were intended to be pretty lengthy affairs - 8+rounds wasn't all that unusual for a combat. In order to keep things going that long, you needed in combat healing. But, 5e doesn't work like that. Combats are much shorter and, generally, other than standing someone up from 0, in combat healing isn't much of a thing. How much healing do you really need when combats only last 3 or 4 rounds?

Well...perhaps that experience isn't as universal as you might think. I haven't had a combat that lasted less than 4 rounds, and while I *have* had longer combats in 4e, my overall 5e experience has been that 5e combats are only very slightly faster than 4e ones (say, 20-40 minutes as opposed to 30-45). Perhaps it's because I played too cautiously, but 5e in-combat healing proved critical to making sure PCs weren't getting pasted every single combat.

Secondly, battlefield movement is much less of a thing in 5e. Not because we don't use a battle map, at least, I certainly do. But, pushes and shifts are not such a big deal. You can dance around an opponent without drawing OA's and, even if you do draw one, it's usually not that big of a deal. Again, the monsters aren't dealing that much damage on single hits. Eating an OA doesn't radically change the combat too often.

Yeah, again, this is nothing like my experience. OAs were terrifying, and eating one could easily knock you off your feet, especially if you didn't start the combat with full health. (Admission: we only just barely hit 3rd level.)

Granting bonus movement is also not such a big deal when PC's can move attack and then move again in a single round.

This, at least, I can unequivocally agree with.

IOW, just with the existing 5e rules, combat continues to be pretty fluid, featuring lots of movement anyway. Adding in a PC that adds to battlefield movement is largely just gilding the lily. Plus, since things like grappling and monsters dumping on status effects aren't anywhere near as big of an issue as well means that you don't really need to mitigate these effects either.

Eh, I dunno. Don't knock it 'till you've seen it. Mobility may already be good in 5e, but it's entirely possible that there's an idea for how to make it awesome, not merely good. And Grappling, Prone, and other things certainly happened quite a bit in my party's (relatively short) run. I definitely think, even if my experience is generally divergent, you're selling status effects waaaay short here.

What's really left over? The more I play 5e, the less I think 5e needs a warlord.

Personally, I think that means something utterly wonderful: the 5e Warlord needs to bring in other, not-strictly-combat-focused benefits to replace the ones that aren't so beneficial anymore. The whole "covert ops"-type Warlord, who is both a strategist and an infiltrator, capable of coordinating (not necessarily leading) a group when...discretion is the order of the day is the main example that comes to mind. Perhaps another could weave magic into the whole party, a sort of "spell-captain" (since classes with absolutely zero magic whatsoever aren't a thing in 5e) that can enhance the magical skills of her allies and add a touch of magic even to those who don't use it. That kind of stuff. If we can do that with the Warlord--make it the class that, for lack of a better term, "catalyzes" a certain kind of approach or behavior for the group--then that sounds like a hugely cool thing to me. It also would mean giving the Warlord a fat packet of non-combat features...something that's still pretty lacking among martial characters, even with the UA Fighter "kits."

 

[Hussar]

Thing is, the Mastermind already covers a LOT of what you need for the guy that helps out others. Help as a bonus action at 30 feet? That's pretty much all the buffing you will ever need outside of combat. Pretty much means you should have advantage on virtually every single skill check. Between that and the Guidance cantrip, "Helping people do stuff" is well covered.

Like I said, I'm just really sure there's anything left for a warlord.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

This is a good part of what I've been saying for quite some time.

 

[cmad1977]

Basically spot on.

 

[Eltab]

{ Carefully and visibly places "I-challenge-you-to-a-duel" glove in pocket }

Smaller parties could benefit from a Warlord.*
One who can tank himself -plus- call in a spare attack from the heavy hitter -plus- have Song of Rest / Inspiring Leader -level healing and remembers to use it.

Small parties can also benefit from wise / optimized choice of members, but in Convention play (for instance) you can't guarantee that your new allies will cover all the bases.

Warlords also appeal to those of us who are tactical technicians ... even if we're not very good at it.

* I already thought about 'small parties can benefit mightily from a few extra members' as Plan A.

 

[Hussar]

See, this is what bothers me most about taking this position. it puts me squarely in the camp with those that hate the warlord because it comes from 4e. So many of the arguments are couched in language that drips with hatred of all things 4e. And I really, really don't want to associate with that.

There is the other side of the equation. For those that want a warlord, existing options really aren't scratching the itch because the options have been smeared across half a dozen classes. I suppose that a class that buffs like a cleric, but does so through something like stances, might be a strong enough mechanical niche to fill.

IOW, I'm really reluctant to hold this position and I really want someone to show me where I'm wrong.

 

[tuxgeo]

Once somebody (not I!) puts up a really good 5E Warlord class on DMs Guild, we will then "need" an official Warlord class from WotC even less -- because then we will already have it.

 

[Hussar]

That's a good point. It's entirely possible that a "good warlord" is out there, just waiting in the wings.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's a good point. It's entirely possible that a "good warlord" is out there, just waiting in the wings.

That is, more or less, what I was trying to say: I think there are some really good ideas percolating beneath the surface of the pro-Warlord longing. Getting all/enough of the really good ideas concentrated into a single, not-broken, non-OP, non-garbage class will be the tricky part. But I really do think it can be done. Hence why I'm looking forward to [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]'s work. It's been a bit delayed--which I have no right to criticize anyone for, believe me--but given the amount of feedback he's collected, and the various ideas in play, I'm very curious to see what the draft looks like.