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

[Hussar]

I would return the warning. You can't on one hand tell people you like 5e and want a 5e-ized warlord, and on the other hand expect a faithful-to-4e-ported warlord.


Approximate to what?

I dunno. I've been told numerous times that I can make something that looks and acts like a warlord in 5e therefore I don't need an actual warlord class.

I outlined pretty clearly what the niche is for a warlord imo. So can I do that in 5e using existing mechanics?

I don't expect the class to be a direct port. I don't think anyone does. No one is arguing that. What is wanted is a warlord that looks like a warlord. The 5e fighter is very different from earlier edition fighters. It's probably closest to 4e mechanically but still quite different. But it does capture a fighter's niche - guy who hits stuff hard and can take a hit - pretty well.

That's what I expect for a 5e warlord. A guy that helps the party resolve scenarios by synerging with the party rather than directly confronting scenario elements.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I dunno. I've been told numerous times that I can make something that looks and acts like a warlord in 5e therefore I don't need an actual warlord class.

That is absolutely correct. But only if you stop thinking in 4e-based systems and move to a 5e class framework. Just like all the other classes had to do.

I outlined pretty clearly what the niche is for a warlord imo. So can I do that in 5e using existing mechanics?

Sure. Again, if you stop thinking in 4e-based systems and move to a 5e class framework. Just like all the other classes had to do.

I don't expect the class to be a direct port. I don't think anyone does. No one is arguing that.

You'd be surprised.

What is wanted is a warlord that looks like a warlord.

If only you lot could agree on what that is...

The 5e fighter is very different from earlier edition fighters. It's probably closest to 4e mechanically but still quite different. But it does capture a fighter's niche - guy who hits stuff hard and can take a hit - pretty well.

Using such a broad umbrella, applied similarly to a warlord, I would again argue it can already be done in 5e. Now, do you want it all and at 1st level? Of course not. What class gets that? Not in 5e, anyway.

That's what I expect for a 5e warlord. A guy that helps the party resolve scenarios by synerging with the party rather than directly confronting scenario elements.

Artificially generated niches need not be realized for any system with which they were not intended.

Look, I'm sure there are other aberrant concepts that don't really fit the 5e paradigm. Not that you can't play those odd characters anyway, just that we can't very well expect WotC to cater to the narrowest of margins. That's something you would/should have to develop on your own. Or get from a 3PP if you're lucky enough to find one that has what you are looking for.

But I get why WotC isn't interested in spending their efforts creating a class that does not interface with the game elements, but rather asks others to do it for them. Do you?

 

[jacktannery]

Maybe. But, you can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand tell Warlord fans that they already have everything they need to make a warlord in 5e, simply use the multi classing rules, and then on the other hand complain that the things that make something a warlord are so over powered and bad that they shouldn't be in the game.

Which is it? Can I make an approximate warlord in 5e or not? And, if I can, then obviously it's not a problem for all these elements to exist in a single character. Thus, creating a class devoted to those things wouldn't be a problem. It's simply streamlining a process and cutting away cruft that shouldn't be added onto the character (why is my warlord singing? why is my warlord a better swordsman than the paladin or ranger? why is my warlord casting spells? why does my warlord have a divine oath? etc)

I started this thread to try to identify the niche that warlords can fill. I'd say that the following niches aren't really necessary:

• Forced movement - just not a real thing in 5e
• In combat healing - it was never really necessary for a warlord to be a healer anyway, IMO
• Status mitigation - so few monsters have ongoing effects, that it's just not that needed to have a class focused on dealing with it.

However, I do see several niches that a putative warlord can work with:

• Action economy management - adding actions/attacks. This already exists in the game and can be easily balanced. Both Battlemasters and Beastmaster Rangers provide the mechanics - give up an attack to allow an ally to make an attack with some bonus.
• Out of turn actions - this is a big one. Being able to allow another character to do something out of turn is a primary focus of a warlord class
• Buffing the party - easy one to balance. If clerics/druids can cast Guidance/Resistance at will and grant a d4 to skills and saves, then another class doing the same thing, or perhaps granting advantage, isn't breaking anything.

Those three elements are enough to hang a class around. I'd probably go with a rogue chassis, replacing sneak attack which increases every other level, with a small suite of at will effects which increase, probably on a similar curve. The two subclasses focus on Int or Cha respectively and the Int warlord focuses on adjusting action economy while the Cha warlord focuses more on buffing.

I'll have to spend some time writing this up.

I think this post really sums up for me what a 5e martial support class could and should be. It moves away from porting a 4E warlord directly into 5E, and instead focuses on creating a 5E-mechanics martial support class. I think it is viable, I would love to play with it, and I think 5E is a good enough game system to be able to include it without damaging anything. I'd love for a martial support class like this to be created by the developers in some fashion.
[MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson[/MENTION], I don;t understand why you are so adamantly against this entire notion. I fully understand that you don't feel a 4E warlord is appropriate for 5E, and Hussar expressed similar reservations in the OP. However, that's not what he's talking about in the post I've quoted above. He's articulating a 5E martial support class. And it would be optional, not reverse-engineered into the DMG/PHB so it would never affect those groups who don't want it; only create opportunities for those who do want it. Surely this is good for 5E and D&D.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

[MENTION=6667121]jacktannery[/MENTION], you are incorrect in your assessment of my opinion. I have repeatedly stated, for the record in numerous threads, that I would love to see a balanced, 5e-appropriate take on one. Now, what I have also said, repeatedly, is that I have yet to see one. And am skeptical that it can even be done in such a way that it would satisfy the extreme contingent here. That what some folks here are really after is not capable of fitting in 5e's core system framework and design parameters. And so what ends up being proposed fails to meet those requirements.

I welcome [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to move from just a rough wish-list, and instead present a 1st-draft mock-up of his idea for this proposed class. And then I recommend he brace himself for all the fervent criticism his fellow warlordists will level against it for not meeting their own personal take on what a real warlord has to have in order to be acceptable.

Because therein lies the rub.

 

[jacktannery]

[MENTION=6667121]jacktannery[/MENTION], you are incorrect in your assessment of my opinion.

Fair enough, I accept that I likely misjudged you. I actually agree with the main point of your post directly above (that a martial support class must come from a 5E place, not from 4E port).

However, it strikes me that the ideas Hussar has put forward here in this thread are very reasonable, are 'capable of fitting in 5e's core system framework and design parameters' and are 'balanced and 5E apt'. I think this is a direction you should encourage and get behind. Whilst he has not constructed an entire new class (as of yet), I don't think that was the point of his thread. I think he is articulating what such a class could achieve within a 5E paradigm. This is exactly the sort of approach that could include you.

Nor do I see other proponents of a 5E martial support class, such as Mellored, etc., 'fervently' or 'extremely' criticising Hussar's ideas. The only person who could be interpreted as doing that is you, but I realise you are critiquing because you genuinely care about the issue, and that critique is not meant to be negative. I don't think there is a strong 'pro-warlord' contingent out there trying to do damage to this sort of genuine attempt to encourage a 5E-centred martial support class.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Nor do I see other proponents of a 5E martial support class, such as Mellored, etc., 'fervently' or 'extremely' criticising Hussar's ideas. The only person who could be interpreted as doing that is you, but I realise you are critiquing because you genuinely care about the issue, and that critique is not meant to be negative. I don't think there is a strong 'pro-warlord' contingent out there trying to do damage to this sort of genuine attempt to encourage a 5E-centred martial support class.

That's because he hasn't presented any actual class write-ups. I can guarantee you that a goodly portion of the hardcore warlord advocates that have frequented these boards will not accept a full warlord class that does not include in-combat healing. Something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said could be excised. And to a lesser extent the other two items on his "does not need" list (forced movement and status mitigation). But don't take my word for it. I highly recommend you go back to any of the large debate threads in this very subforum and read for yourself. Some of the most vocal warlord fans here are quite adamant about the things [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seems not to need.

 

[jacktannery]

I have already read them all. I'm seeing passion, excitement, and a willingness to experiment from the 'hardcore warlord advocates'. Just as I'm seeing passion and realism from yourself.

I am not seeing negativity, anger nor strong disapproval of each-other's ideas from the 'hardcore warlord advocates'.

I think we should be building on the passion that yourself, Hussar and other contributors to this sub-forum clearly feel on the subject, and try to make this 5E-based martial supporter happen.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not like the concept was so obscure that no one would ever think of it. Heck I've been trying to play "leader of men" since very early 2e. Just never had a class that fit.

Which is largely why I want a warlord in 5e.

If you'd started in 1e, you could have built a keep and attracted a body of low-level followers. ("...and there was great rejoicing...")

D&D has often tried to capture what you were going for. 'Name level' in 1e, CHA, henchmen & hirelings, a Leadership feat in 3e. It just didn't succeed until 4e and the Warlord.

5e, as in all other things harkening back to the classic game, repeats that longtime failure.

I don't expect the class to be a direct port. I don't think anyone does. No one is arguing that.

A direct port would be decidedly underpowered, non-viable if the existing support-oriented classes are available in the campaign, though perhaps adequate in their absence.

What is wanted is a warlord that looks like a warlord. The 5e fighter is very different from earlier edition fighters. It's probably closest to 4e mechanically but still quite different. But it does capture a fighter's niche - guy who hits stuff hard and can take a hit - pretty well.

The 5e fighter is really quite similar, functionally, to the 2e fighter. It makes multiple attacks to stack up lots of damage. It does so in a more hard-coded, harder to mess up sort of way, but it's very much in keeping with the 2e (and post-UA 1e) fighter, as far as it goes. It doesn't go so far as having magic item tables weighted in it's favor or being virtually guaranteed to make saving throws at high level, but it does evoke the sheer cuisinart of doom that was the 2e fighter.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have repeatedly stated, for the record in numerous threads, that I would love to see a balanced, 5e-appropriate take on one. Now, what I have also said, repeatedly, is that I have yet to see one.

For someone who claims interest in a 5e warlord, you don't seem interested in anything but naysaying. Fourteen pages here, two threads of your own, and who knows how much more text dedicated to essentially 'nuh uh, can't be done.' It's almost as if you're more interested in getting a rise out of warlord fans and perpetuating a flame war than making any kind of contribution to the community, the game, or the hobby.

You've effectively challenged Hussar to write up the warlord that he wants; maybe it's time you put your money where your mouth is, and write up your own. Or you could continue picking fights with fellow gamers.

Your choice.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] I'm going to disagree with you. Maybe a Champion fighter looks like a 2e fighter but a Battlemaster certainly doesn't. Completely different class and approach. BM's can simply do things that a 2e fighter can't. I'm not seeing the similarities.

Additionally a 5e fighter is nowhere near as powerful as a 2e one. Not relative to challenges anyway.

Compare to an Essentials fighter and a BM is virtually a direct port. It's an at will and encounter power fighter without marking.