D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Hussar]

/snip

Sorry folks. Didn't realize how far back my quote was going. Nothing to see here. My bad.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 5e, Extra Attack is not a striker feature outside of the Fighter. Every other warrior uses some other feature on top of EA to attain “striker” damage.

That first Extra Attack does seem to be valued low, even a wizard (Bladesinger) can scoop it up as though it were little more than a ribbon.

So, yeah a Warlord sub-class or two that are particularly aggressive, like the Bravura, could do likewise. Not for the class chassis, though.

Extra attack is there to create a similar damage baseline to cantrips.

The similarity is obvious, but Extra Attack is the whole thing - make 2-4 attacks per round vs just a 2-4d attack, for 6-8 encounters and pull even with caster's slot-powered blasting - if you have Extra Attack you apparently can't be allowed the versatility a support character needs.
Though, beyond simple DPR, that whole balance scheme doesn't hold up well, anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That first Extra Attack does seem to be valued low, even a wizard (Bladesinger) can scoop it up as though it were little more than a ribbon.

So, yeah a Warlord sub-class or two that are particularly aggressive, like the Bravura, could do likewise. Not for the class chassis, though.

The similarity is obvious, but Extra Attack is the whole thing - make 2-4 attacks per round vs just a 2-4d attack, for 6-8 encounters and pull even with caster's slot-powered blasting - if you have Extra Attack you apparently can't be allowed the versatility a support character needs.
Though, beyond simple DPR, that whole balance scheme doesn't hold up well, anyway.

it holds up fine, and yes it belongs in the class, not subclasses. Otherwise it ends up with most subclasses having it, and 1 or 2 not, which is bloody weird.

As for the rest, yes, an Extra Attack class has plenty of room for support. Firstly, the Paladin can easily be built to focus on support. Second, the base class doesn’t have to have any other features that are about dealing damage directly.

That is where a Vanguard can focus more on damage than other subclasses. With secondary damage features.

 

[Tony Vargas]

it holds up fine, and yes it belongs in the class, not subclasses. Otherwise it ends up with most subclasses having it, and 1 or 2 not, which is bloody weird.

Out of 6 or 8 builds, only the Bravura shaded into the fighter's bailiwick enough to yoink some of its mechanics, it's the only sub-class that should definitely have one extra attack, as not much more than a "yeah, we bad" ribbon, really.

Firstly, the Paladin can easily be built to focus on support. Second, the base class doesn’t have to have any other features that are about dealing damage directly.

The Paladin has silo'd support features, it cant easily be built not to. But it can easily fall into being mainly tanky DPR, like the Fighter, and just provide basic support from those silos. That's the wrong emphasis for the Warlord, personal asskickery needs to be strictly secondary, if it's to come through a faithful rendition.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, yeah a Warlord sub-class or two that are particularly aggressive, like the Bravura, could do likewise. Not for the class chassis, though.

I'm not convinced a "striker" warlord is justified. Isn't that just a fighter? It seems to me that a "tank" warlord would be more appropriate - it's a front-liner, but it is focused on controlling the battlefield, not doing damage itself. And it's not something fighters do all that well.

I would still give it extra attack - which I would definitely NOT make a core warlord ability (see how it got removed from the core artificer, because it was basically a useless ability for some of the subclasses).

 

[Garthanos]

Allow trading out the multi-attack dynamically choice of maneuvers some cost 2 attacks or even 3 attacks problem of level gating and also "just a striker" solved in one fell swoop (or maybe its a way of using Battlemaster as the chassis). Let the fighters/warlords role be bloody versatile based on choice. Those who concentrate on or usually use maneuvers that do their awesome other ways will rarely ever be doing multi-attacks directly even though they are in the core class... Casters can decide what their role is via spell selections let the Warlord do it via maneuvers / tactical gambits and which they employ

 

[cbwjm]

The artificer has its cantrips to fall back on which is also improved at level 5 unless the artificer has a subclass that puts them in midst of the fray.

The warlord should also have some kind of damage scaling ability as part of its core class feature, extra attack at level 5 fits as it is the way that the warrior classes get their damage bump at 5th level. They'd also need something else at 11th, not necessarily a 3rd attack but something, just like every other class. They shouldn't be all support all the time.

People really want to crowd source a warlord? We can't even agree on this one basic ability to boost their combat effectiveness.

 

[Garthanos]

People really want to crowdsource a warlord? We can't even agree on this one basic ability to boost their combat effectiveness.

I think it has been tried on here many times actually

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I'm not sure a crowd sourced based design is the way to go. Probably better would be to have a few different complete attempts and then people can pick the ones they like. IOW, exactly the way all the other 5e classes have been designed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The warlord should also have some kind of damage scaling ability as part of its core class feature, extra attack at level 5 fits

It is essential for the warlord to justify it's existence as a separate class rather than a fighter subclass that it not get the same abilities as a fighter at the same level as a fighter. If (and I don't think it does) need a damage boost, it needs to find a different way to do it.

That first Extra Attack does seem to be valued low, even a wizard (Bladesinger) can scoop it up as though it were little more than a ribbon.

Not all extra attacks are of equal value. on a bladesinger extra attack action is competing with cast a spell action, and most of the time cast a spell is better. Add to that that they can't use 2H weapons - an extra attack with a 2H sword is a lot better than an extra attack with a poxy rapier. When you add in abilities that buff damage per attack (and the warlord under 5e rules would be able to buff themselves) extra attack would be even stronger.

As a support class a warlord's damage should be comparable to clerics and bards. If they can damage like a fighter their buffs can't be better than a fighter. Given martial weapon proficiency and the ability to use warlord buffs on yourself the base warlord should be adequately able to stand up for themselves without extra attack.