D&D 5E The core issue of the martial/caster gap is just the fundamental design of d20 fantasy casters.

[Tony Vargas]

Part of the warlord argument always seems to ignore that most of the mechanics for a warlord already exist.

That's part of the problem. The mechanics exist, they're bad, and they're spread out across feats, optional inspiration rules, caster class features, and sub-class-locked features. It's scorched earth design space out there.

So on the one hand, you can argue, OT1H, "you can already play a BM or PDK or/and take Inspiring Leader and be a warlord" (a terrible one), and, OTOH, "oh, your 3pp/homebrew/hypothetical warlord is wildly OP compared to the BM's maneuvers, the PDK's abilities, the Bard's inspiration...."

So how can it be fine for my kobold to do that but a warlord can’t?

Kobolds are smarter than martials?

 

[ECMO3]

Kobolds have you covered. X times per day grant advantage to attacks against all enemies that can hear you. Not language dependent. Not magical. Bonus action too iirc. I might be wrong on that.

Enemies within 10 feet only and it is pretty darn OP in play.

 

[Hussar]

Enemies within 10 feet only and it is pretty darn OP in play.

No. It really isn't. I've seen it in play. It isn't OP at all. 4 times (ish) a day you can grant advantage to, let's be honest, two, maybe three enemies for a single round? In a game where the PC's hit generally 66% of the time anyway? It isn't OP at all.

Or, to put it another way, other than your gut, have you actually done the work to declare this OP? Have you seen it in play, tracked how much it actually makes a difference (as in being able to tell the number of times it turned what would be a miss into a hit?) I have. Fantasy Grounds lets me track all of that.

And I can categorically reject your "pretty darn OP" in play.

 

[Mort]

No. It really isn't. I've seen it in play. It isn't OP at all. 4 times (ish) a day you can grant advantage to, let's be honest, two, maybe three enemies for a single round? In a game where the PC's hit generally 66% of the time anyway? It isn't OP at all.

Or, to put it another way, other than your gut, have you actually done the work to declare this OP? Have you seen it in play, tracked how much it actually makes a difference (as in being able to tell the number of times it turned what would be a miss into a hit?) I have. Fantasy Grounds lets me track all of that.

And I can categorically reject your "pretty darn OP" in play.

For better or worse, getting advantage is pretty easy in 5e. Another instance of granting it is highly unlikely to be OP.

Example: a path of the wolf barbarian, while raging, grants advantage to allies melee attacks against all enemies within 5' of him (the barbarian).

I suspect the barbarians ability will equal or exceed the number of times advantage is granted (to allies) than the discussed ability - in most combats.

 

[Emberashh]

I think something that goes unnoticed re: surveys is that we live in a world where trolling is easy and has been weaponized.

When you open up surveys to the general internet with zero vetting, you fundamentally have to assume that at least some portion of your data is straight up manufactured.

And those portions only get bigger the more well known and mainstream you are.

Sure, WOTC has spoken to the idea that they're consciously intaking all this data, but that doesn't mean they're not being trolled.

Trolling isn't obvious like that, and given how WOTC publically speaks about the game and what they percieve as their audience's perception of the game is often wildly out of synch with any other verifiable source, it speaks to there being a problem.

Particularly when one considers its happened before. No one wanted simple Martials during Next, and yet out of nowhere WOTC pipes up saying that there were totally people who explicitly demanded that Fighters in particular be nothing but attacks while casters did everything else.

And you can see it too, when you read through the Next Playtest packets.

The Fighter was decently designed (and fulfilled more or less everything anyones ever wanted) right up to Packet 9 out of 10, and suddenly the entire design gets thrown out with no explanation.

 

[Hussar]

That's part of the problem. The mechanics exist, they're bad, and they're spread out across feats, optional inspiration rules, caster class features, and sub-class-locked features. It's scorched earth design space out there.

So on the one hand, you can argue, OT1H, "you can already play a BM or PDK or/and take Inspiring Leader and be a warlord" (a terrible one), and, OTOH, "oh, your 3pp/homebrew/hypothetical warlord is wildly OP compared to the BM's maneuvers, the PDK's abilities, the Bard's inspiration...."

Kobolds are smarter than martials?

Yeah, I get this. But, it baffles me the resistance to collecting these mechanics under a single umbrella. It's not like anyone is talking about how Mastermind Rogues are breaking their games. Or kobolds are so over powered that they're being banned at tables. Or Battlemaster fighters which do have a number of Warlord effects baked right in.

Heck, the Battlesmith Artificer in my current game grants disadvantage to attacks to a target who doesn't attack him when he successfully attacks. Non magical - it's not explained how this works at all. And it passes without comment. No one seems bothered by it at all.

But, ten years later, Warlords STILL have 4e cooties and must not be added to the game. :/ It's frustrating. It's not like we're asking for an entire new subsystem of caster that would require rewriting broad swaths of the Monster Manual like Psionics. It's a single bloody class. Ah well. As was mentioned, DM's Guild has this covered. It's been repeatedly proven that the Battlemaster isn't overpowered and can be created such that it answers almost all the criticisms.

Sigh. Maybe the 2034 revision will be far enough down the line to allow this. After all, it appears that 2e has been redeemed in the eyes of the fandom, so, I guess 20 years is the edition warring halflife.

 

[FallenRX]

I think something that goes unnoticed re: surveys is that we live in a world where trolling is easy and has been weaponized.

When you open up surveys to the general internet with zero vetting, you fundamentally have to assume that at least some portion of your data is straight up manufactured.

And those portions only get bigger the more well known and mainstream you are.

Sure, WOTC has spoken to the idea that they're consciously intaking all this data, but that doesn't mean they're not being trolled.

Trolling isn't obvious like that, and given how WOTC publically speaks about the game and what they percieve as their audience's perception of the game is often wildly out of synch with any other verifiable source, it speaks to there being a problem.

Particularly when one considers its happened before. No one wanted simple Martials during Next, and yet out of nowhere WOTC pipes up saying that there were totally people who explicitly demanded that Fighters in particular be nothing but attacks while casters did everything else.

And you can see it too, when you read through the Next Playtest packets.

The Fighter was decently designed (and fulfilled more or less everything anyones ever wanted) right up to Packet 9 out of 10, and suddenly the entire design gets thrown out with no explanation.

that isnt quite what happened tho, i have all those packets still and been reading.

The only thing that changed was they made the subclass system really, and used that to make a simple option, the final versions of that original fighter design and battle master arent that far from different.

 

[Emberashh]

that isnt quite what happened tho, i have all those packets still and been reading.

The only thing that changed was they made the subclass system really, and used that to make a simple option, the final versions of that original fighter design and battle master arent that far from different.

Look at Fighter 8 versus Fighter 9. A lot changed, and it wasn't just the addition of a subclass.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not like anyone is talking about how Mastermind Rogues are breaking their games. Or kobolds are so over powered that they're being banned at tables. Or Battlemaster fighters which do have a number of Warlord effects baked right in.
Heck, the Battlesmith Artificer in my current game grants disadvantage to attacks to a target who doesn't attack him when he successfully attacks. Non magical - it's not explained how this works at all. And it passes without comment. No one seems bothered by it at all.

Sure, those were the issues that were talked up in the edition war, but they're non-issues in 5e.
Now, we have the Martial/Caster Gap.

That's another problem, healing is not great in 5e, and support is very much a caster's game and comes with a big side of versatility/power.
Even a faithful take on the 4e Warlord as "leader" (Support) role would be strictly inferior to 5e renditions of Cleric, Bard or Druid. Because casters are no longer bounded by role, and neo-Vancian slot-casting is so flexible.

But, ten years later, Warlords STILL have 4e cooties and must not be added to the game. :/ It's frustrating. It's not like we're asking for an entire new subsystem of caster that would require rewriting broad swaths of the Monster Manual like Psionics. It's a single bloody class. Ah well. As was mentioned, DM's Guild has this covered. It's been repeatedly proven that the Battlemaster isn't overpowered and can be created such that it answers almost all the criticisms.

I've seen a few takes on Marshals &c, and they're not doin' it.

Sigh. Maybe the 2034 revision will be far enough down the line to allow this. After all, it appears that 2e has been redeemed in the eyes of the fandom, so, I guess 20 years is the edition warring halflife.

I wasn't aware 2e was ever hated by D&D fans. Just the Storyteller side of ROLL v ROLE crowd.

 

[Hussar]

I wasn't aware 2e was ever hated by D&D fans. Just the Storyteller side of ROLL v ROLE crowd.

Really? You weren't around when 3e came out? There was an entire forum, a very, very large forum, where 3e was a verbotten topic because of how rancorous the arguments were. There was a very good reason why 3e largely rejected all things 2e - the whole "back to the dungeon" schtick. It would be years before you could say anything good about 2e without getting dogpiled. Now, after 4e became the new whipping boy, 2e is finally out of the doghouse.