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

[doctorbadwolf]

Actually, that's an interesting digression. The build did seem unanticipated, but it was supported quite well in the martial power supplements. And, a core build of the Shaman in PH2 was given a similar attack-granting dynamic. Other subsequent leaders, like the Skald, also got a trick or two along those lines.

which is a bit if faint praise, really. There's a Paladin archetype that's about as defender as 5e gets, and a Barbarian, even.

But, it's not very defendery, and still full-bore striker.

They do canabalize your reaction, though.

Well, from 18th, when it finally gets past the reaction problem..

Man when did the wink emoji get so popular around here?

Anyway, no it’s a defender from level 3. Doesn’t need to break the games action economy to be a defender.

 

[Xeviat]

The concept is broader than the suppport-oriented 4e take, in particular it should go further into controller, and there are archetypes tgat fit defender.
Striker - the only role the 5e fighter credibly fills - is the only role it doesn't exactly scream... even then, attack-granting builds could enable striker-like DPR, however much it might've felt like support.

Maaaaaybe ...

Where as Fighter could be any role depending on subclass. [/quote] You'd have to completely re-build it from the ground up. As it stands, the 5e Fighter is hard-coded striker, not much wiggle-room.[/QUOTE]

Definitely! I'm speaking in theoretical concepts right now. Right now, I'm entertaining 2 requirements that a class needs before it can be it's own class: a significant number of concepts that can fit under the one umbrella, and that it isn't already under the umbrella of another class. At the moment, I feel like the fighter's umbrella is big enough to cover the warlord, even though the warlord's umbrella is big enough to cover multiple concepts. Those multiple warlord concepts could just be from choice of individual "powers" under a warlord subclass, but that could just be my 4E mind still being based around powers.

So would folding rogue, ranger, paladin & barbarian into it.

Hey now, no getting crazy! jk

I'm very open to being convinced. Recently, I convinced myself that the Sorcerer and Warlock should be combined, and I was sold on the Artificer being a separate class because it really didn't fit in with the Rogue or Wizard. So I'm open. Here's my thoughts on what the non-spellcasters are, which will help me to see where the Warlord might fit in.

Barbarian: A warrior who fights with rage and instinct rather than techniques.
Fighter: A warrior skilled with arms and armor who fights with learned techniques.
Monk: A warrior fueled by their mystical inner power.
Rogue: A trickster who fights with deception and other techniques rather than a stand-up fight.

Warlord: A warrior who, though tactics or inspiration, fights by making their allies better.

Okay, so the base concept is solid enough to differentiate it from the others. And there are warlord types, like the Noble, lazylord, or lead from the rear types, that wouldn't quite fit under the without subsequently making the Rogue bigger.

Clearly, something is making me hesitant. Likely, it's something about tradition.

I still think the Warlord and the Bard occupy too much of the same space. But then again, the cleric and druid, and the sorcerer and wizard occupy much of the same space too.

I'm nearly convinced.

How would you try to convince me that feeding the Warlord to the Fighter wouldn't improve the Fighter, without pointing out that the same could be done for the Barbarian or Rogue?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Definitely! I'm speaking in theoretical concepts right now.

Theoretically you could have ONE 5e-style class for each 4e-style Source, with some sub-classes leaning more towards one role or speciality than another.

Right now, I'm entertaining 2 requirements that a class needs before it can be it's own class: a significant number of concepts that can fit under the one umbrella, and that it isn't already under the umbrella of another class.

The 4 arcanist classes could be rolled under wizard, that way, certainly.

At the moment, I feel like the fighter's umbrella is big enough to cover the warlord, even though the warlord's umbrella is big enough to cover multiple concepts.

The 5e fighter's "umbrella" would not look out of place in a tropical cocktail.

How would you try to convince me that feeding the Warlord to the Fighter wouldn't improve the Fighter, without pointing out that the same could be done for the Barbarian or Rogue?

The 5e fighter couldn't handle it, it's too inflexible a chassis.

Hypothetically, though rolling the fighter and warlord together would improve the fighter tremendously - it'd also erase the fighter, which is just a generic beatstick - the result would be a de-facto warlord with a sub-class like the Champion filling in for the traditional fighter.

"Hero" would be a good name for such a martial catch-all class.

 

[Undrave]

But, I think working the Warlord into the Fighter would go a long way to giving the Fighter more depth.

Feels like something that should have been done from the get go. As Tony said though, it would effectively erase the 'basic simple fighter' everybody is always banging on about...Except maybe as one sublcass?

The original Fighting Man's progression included getting a keep and followers did it not? In a way, being the mundane leader of men, was always part of the Fighter's DNA but it's been ripped out from it, the same way non-weapon proficiencies were, and sacrificed at the altars of 'Simplicity' and 'Noob friendliness'.

Having the concept of the Warlord absorb the now nebulous Fighter (and possibly nebulous, self-referential, Ranger), and just taking its name probably would be for the best if not for the sacrosaint traditions getting in the way.

I wouldn't be opposed to it, because I don't care much for the way they built the 5e Fighter as a huge callback to the 3e "IT GETS MORE FEAT!" Fighter. I dunno if I mentionned it in this thread, but it feels like a lot of Feats were just Fighters class features that were 'too cool' to stay with the 'boring simple' Fighter and were instead put into the Feats section. Essentially the Fighter was forced to share their toys.

 

[Don Durito]

Amusingly in Dark Sun, the Gladiator class was pretty much better at fighting than Fighters. The reason to play a Fighter was that you got more followers.

 

[Garthanos]

In 2e the umbrella if you will was called Warrior and the fighter was the Weaponmaster/Tactician/Strategist in flavor who only had mechanics (aside from those followers) for his weapon mastery those other elements didnt start to show up till late 3e. The Paladin and Ranger were in the same Warrior group and I think the Barbarian too.

 

[Garthanos]

They do canabalize your reaction, though.

Well, from 18th, when it finally gets past the reaction problem..

Seems a problem for Warlords too the way 5e warlording functions get defined ... yes your character may be able to move attack move attack move attack move and similar but never gets to react even in simplified ways but once gunga din LOL. You even suck at being a rode block unless its a very very narrow road.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How would you try to convince me that feeding the Warlord to the Fighter wouldn't improve the Fighter,

No point. It isn't going to happen in this edition anyway.

You have to start from where you are, not from where you would like to be.

 

[Aldarc]

The term "Fighter" or "Fighting-Man" is almost idiomatically peculiar to D&D (and its fantasy heartbreaker derivatives). In many other games, the Fighter is generally called a "Warrior." But hey, we're talking about a game where Gygax thought that "Fighting Man" and "Magic-User" were somehow more appropriate names than "Warrior" and "Mage."

I would honestly not mind if D&D 5e (or a hypothetical 6e) reduced the barbarian, ranger, warlord, and various associated archetypes into a Warrior/Fighter class. I would arguably prefer it. The berserker would be a type of warrior. The ranger is a wilderness warrior. The warlord is a commanding, tactical warrior. The paladin is a smug holy warrior that no one likes. The "blademaster" is a type of warrior. That seems like a more robust architecture for the game than trying to devise subclasses for these more specialized archetypes.

 

[generic]

I really hate “FTFY” stuff. Please don’t change the text of my posts when you quote me, unless it’s to snip text not relevant to your reply.

It was just a joke in this case, but I won't do so.