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

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

Let me elaborate for you. I very much like and enjoy the various warlord aspects already found in 5e. I think they do a great job of conveying the essence and feel of what a warlord represents. If someone wants to find a way to make a more warlord-y warlord, I'd gladly take a look and see if it passes the smell test. I think, however, that what some people here continue to demand is not viable in 5e. Those are the people I naysay. It's not my fault the most vocal proponents are advocating completely unbalanced, clunky, and/or wrongheaded ideas. That you either missed or forgot the posts where I helped work out potential warlord class features, or provided constructive criticism, for those genuinely trying is not on me. The threads are here. I strongly encourage you to go back and refresh your memory.

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.

...he says while looking to pick a fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] Maybe a Champion fighter looks like a 2e fighter but a Battlemaster certainly doesn't. Compare to an Essentials fighter and a BM is virtually a direct port.

Essentials and 5e both called back to the classic game as much as they could (5e obviously much more successfully), so the similarity is hardly surprising. Action Surge & Second Wind are, of course, obvious hat-tips to the Essentials Fighter(Slayer), and the BM's Maneuvers, a vestige of choice/agency experimented with prior to Essentials in 4e & Bo9S. Add to that the obvious fact that the Fighter(Slayer) was an intentionally-simplistic tough Striker and the 5e Fighter(Champion) is an intentionally-simplistic DPR Tank, and you're certainly not wrong about the superficial similarity.

But, the main thrust(npi) of the 5e fighter is its multi-attack-based DPR, and that's strongly evocative of the 2e fighter's best options, while the Essentials Fighters had no special access to multi-attacking.

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

In the 5e fighter's defense, that's mainly because the 2e fighter was so dramatically broken by double-specialization + TWFing. Well, and that AD&D monsters were maybe a bit short on hps.

 

[Hussar]

Nitpick - there's no double specs in 2e. Not a big deal.

But, I'm going to disagree with you that the 5e fighter leans on 2e here. Particularly when you add in things like Shield fighters granting disadvantage, and then feats granting all sorts of other effects - which, with bonus feats, is part of a fighter's schtick.

Can you make a pure DPS fighter? Sure, always could. But, 5e fighters are hardly limited to that. And, you're also fixating on levels 11+ where fighters gain their 3rd attack. For most of the game, there's functionally no difference between any of the fighter types - they ALL get two attacks. In 4e, you dealt bigger damage by tying in daily powers. 5e doesn't have that, so, let's focus on encounter stuff. BM manoeuvres and 4e encounter powers do line up pretty well, given the differences between the systems. Sure you don't get the push/pull effects to the degree you got in 4e, but, you DO still get maneuvering powers and powers which turn misses into hits, and reactive powers. Sounds a LOT like a 4e fighter and pretty much nothing like a 2e one.

I think you're fixating on the trees and not seeing the forest.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nitpick - there's no double specs in 2e. Not a big deal.

But, I'm going to disagree with you that the 5e fighter leans on 2e here. Particularly when you add in things like Shield fighters granting disadvantage, and then feats granting all sorts of other effects - which, with bonus feats, is part of a fighter's schtick.

Can you make a pure DPS fighter? Sure, always could. But, 5e fighters are hardly limited to that. And, you're also fixating on levels 11+ where fighters gain their 3rd attack. For most of the game, there's functionally no difference between any of the fighter types - they ALL get two attacks. In 4e, you dealt bigger damage by tying in daily powers. 5e doesn't have that, so, let's focus on encounter stuff. BM manoeuvres and 4e encounter powers do line up pretty well, given the differences between the systems. Sure you don't get the push/pull effects to the degree you got in 4e, but, you DO still get maneuvering powers and powers which turn misses into hits, and reactive powers. Sounds a LOT like a 4e fighter and pretty much nothing like a 2e one.

I think you're fixating on the trees and not seeing the forest.

There was multiple spec in some of the PO books. We tried it out and got rid of it. Was not used at most tables probably. 2E fighters with kits and specialization were a great class though, better relative to the other classes than the 3E fighter which was a low point of the fighter class.

Feats are also optional. the 5E fighter to me is more of a mix of the 2E one and 4E one over say 3E as the only class thing I see from there in the 5E fighter is more ASI/feats than the other classes.

The multiple attack thing, saves, 4 skills is mostly from 2E along with the archtypes (2E kits revamped). Action surge, second wind etc more 4E. Magic items are more AD&D/BECMI than 4E as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, I'm going to disagree with you that the 5e fighter leans on 2e here.

The 2e fighter achieved out of control DPR via multiple attacks - from spec & TWFing/Archery, specifically. The 5e fighter achieves high DPR via multiple attacks, regardless of archetype or style, though GWF & Archery can go out of control. They're doing the same basic thing, the 5e fighter it's just a matter of course instead of obvious/easy cheese.

Can you make a pure DPS fighter? Sure, always could. But, 5e fighters are hardly limited to that.

They are. Opting out of DPR is not a viable option. They can have a few skills from a background, layer some CS dice or spells on top of it, but they can't just trade the DPR in for something else, there's no meaningful alternative.

And, you're also fixating on levels 11+ where fighters gain their 3rd attack. For most of the game, there's functionally no difference between any of the fighter types - they ALL get two attacks.

Not helping. ;P Yes, fighters arguably maybe lacking in their advertised 'best at fighting' dominance outside of specific level ranges.

I think you're fixating on the trees and not seeing the forest.

Other way-round: DPR is the big picture, the meaningful/viable contribution that all fighters make to their party's success (or else the under-contribute). Choices that don't stack with or at least complement that are little more than ribbons, they may look nice, they may come in handy once in a while, but they're not class-defining, meaningful, nor a viable alternative to contributing DPR.

Sure, Styles and 5e-Big-Feats do let you do a few specific things 3.x/PF fighters can do, but that still doesn't give you the customizeability they enjoyed. Yes, the BM's few CS dice are a bit like encounter powers, rather like the Essential Slayer's Power Strike, but they fall far short of the Daily & Encounter powers - and role-support - the 4e fighter had.

There are a few such nods to the other stabs(npi) the game made at making fighters worthwhile in the past, but the main thrust(npi!) of the 5e fighter is DPR, and, in that, his claim to viability is the same as the 2e fighter's.

 

[Zardnaar]

The 2e fighter achieved out of control DPR via multiple attacks - from spec & TWFing/Archery, specifically. The 5e fighter achieves high DPR via multiple attacks, regardless of archetype or style, though GWF & Archery can go out of control. They're doing the same basic thing, the 5e fighter it's just a matter of course instead of obvious/easy cheese.

They are. Opting out of DPR is not a viable option. They can have a few skills from a background, layer some CS dice or spells on top of it, but they can't just trade the DPR in for something else, there's no meaningful alternative.

Not helping. ;P Yes, fighters arguably maybe lacking in their advertised 'best at fighting' dominance outside of specific level ranges.


Other way-round: DPR is the big picture, the meaningful/viable contribution that all fighters make to their party's success (or else the under-contribute). Choices that don't stack with or at least complement that are little more than ribbons, they may look nice, they may come in handy once in a while, but they're not class-defining, meaningful, nor a viable alternative to contributing DPR.

Sure, Styles and 5e-Big-Feats do let you do a few specific things 3.x/PF fighters can do, but that still doesn't give you the customizeability they enjoyed. Yes, the BM's few CS dice are a bit like encounter powers, rather like the Essential Slayer's Power Strike, but they fall far short of the Daily & Encounter powers - and role-support - the 4e fighter had.

There are a few such nods to the other stabs(npi) the game made at making fighters worthwhile in the past, but the main thrust(npi!) of the 5e fighter is DPR, and, in that, his claim to viability is the same as the 2e fighter's.

Actually they can. Higher AC over DPR is viable (sentinel feat+duelist vs GWM), the shield master feat tends to buff accuracy for your attacks and your party members attacks a swell via knocking people prone. Fighters get more feats than the other classes so using one of them for the healer feat is viable/useful as well and you will heal better than a low level cleric including the life cleric. A Battlemaster fighter with the healer and shield master feat is not a bad warlord sub in terms of support even if using sword+board.

He its like it is blending the 4E warlord and fighter even if you add in the sentinel feal. The math in 5E is a lto flatter as well so you do not need a 20 strength/dex and 16 is often good enough and I tend to cap at 18 as well as feats are often better than +1 to hit and damage.

Because you do not play 5E, have no intention of 5E and are an unreformed 4venger you keep trying to pin things on the 5E fighter that is more applicable to the 3E era fighter as fighters in 2E were often very very good due to weapon spec, kits and magic items.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually they can. Higher AC over DPR is viable (sentinel feat+duelist vs GWM), the shield master feat tends to buff accuracy for your attacks and your party members attacks a swell via knocking people prone.

That's still plenty of DPR thanks to action surge and extra attacks.

pin things on the 5E fighter that is more applicable to the 3E era fighter as fighters in 2E were often very very good due to weapon spec, kits and magic items.

Actually, I find the 5e fighter falls short of the 3e fighter's customizeability and elegance, as well. But, my point /was/ that it is very closely comparable to the 2e fighter. 2e fighter had good AC from heavy armor, good hps from d10 HD, 5e fighter has good AC from heavy armor, good hps from d10 HD. 2e fighter had crazy DPR from weapon multiple attacks, specialization & TWF/archery, 5e fighter has crazy DPR from multiple attacks, actions surge, GWM/Sharpshooter. 2e fighter had superficial customization from Kits specific to fighters, 5e fighter has superficial customization from Backgrounds available to everyone. Only place it really falls short of the 1e/2e fighter is in having 'bad' (non-proficient) saves.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - you just described EVERY FIGHTER EVER. Gaining damage from multiple attacks has been the raison d'être of every fighter in every edition, except 4e. 4e did an end run around the idea by simply making massive multipliers on fighter attacks with encounter and daily powers. There's a reason a 4e fighter was only half a step away from a striker.

 

[Zardnaar]

The 3E fighter was not that good at the multiple attacks but often got a cleave in at the same attack number as the primary attack.

 

[Hussar]

The 3E fighter was not that good at the multiple attacks but often got a cleave in at the same attack number as the primary attack.

I'd say that the 3rd and 4th attacks were often not very effective, but the second one certainly was. IME, the first attack virtually automatically hit, and the second one still had pretty good chances.