Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Tony Vargas]

It's a nice quip, but doesn't it miss a key point?

Clerics, bards etc have a degree of flexibility - especially because of the way spells work in 5e - to shift between tanking, damage dealing and support.

That's in part because the different subclasses of bard, cleric, paladin, etc are designed to allow it to fill different roles and make different types of character.

No, it really is mostly because spellcasting is so flexible. You can cast Cure Wounds a lot, or can belt out offensive spells.

But the difference between fighter subclasses is complexity. They're not designed to allow the fighter to fill different roles, but fill the same roles with different degrees of resource management.

That's one way of putting it. The Fighter's main contribution, DPR, is baked into the class, the sub-classes build on it a little, but can't trade it in for something else, so a fighter sub-class just isn't a suitable vehicle for re-introducing the Warlord. The BM & PDK prove that rather conclusively, even as they set precedents for the sorts of things the Warlord might do.

And the fighter can turn extra attacks into support through manuvers, pushing enemies to get them in the right area, knocking them prone

The Battlemaster's maneuvers layer a little extra on top of attacks (as well as a little extra DPR), so they're pretty trivial, in addition to being very limited due to CS dice., or granting allies attacks.

And they can use their Action Surge to do things such as the Help action rather than making multiple attacks.

That would be a very silly thing to do.

The fighter is diverse and more flexible than some other classes, like the rogue or barbarian.

Those are the two other heavily DPR-focused classes that lack much diversity and flexibility. Even so, I can't agree, the fighter really is at the bottom of the heap in that regard.

So, the 1,000,000 gold piece question is: what is support?
Let's do a quick defining of terms here.

It's nothing new or unfamiliar: Mitigating damage with defensive buffs, restoring hps, removing conditions, & buffing offense would be the high points. It can shade into control (debuffing the enemy, for instance), as well.

The point is you are asking for a pure support class when no such class currently exists in the game.

Meaningful/adequate support functions are among the many options lacking from the small set of existing non-casting/magical sub-classes in 5e. That the Warlord would address that omission does not imply that it would be limited to /just/ doing such things. Afterall, as you point out, no existing support-capable class is limited to just support.

You're looking at it backwards, when it comes to the point I was trying to make. The idea is to keep the inspiration (or tactical skill) without the rank/authority.

Nod. There's no need to bake rank or authority into a class, since both are readily available via existing Standard-Game Backgrounds.

There's also no great need to avoid it. The Paladin implies knighthood, for instance, and the Cleric & Druid (at least) imply positions of religious leadership, which, depending on the society, can include quite a lot of hierarchical rank and/or authority.

Bardic Inspiration does cause the same disconnect.

The difference is if I want to role-play my character as a music hater I only lose +1d6 to my roll and the Bard can always use it on other characters.

The Warlord... That's all he has..

Actually, the Warlord had several other builds. Tactical, Resourceful, Insightful. In 4e, they all used 'Inspiring' Word because of the way 4e implemented Roles (but could also re-skin it if they really hated the idea of being inspiring, I suppose, thanks the way 4e handled fluff text), but 5e needn't have that issue. A given hypothetical 5e Warlord PC might be a curmudgeonly tactician who's not in the least inspiring, for instance. The better done the class, the wider the range of past and potential concepts it could handle.

Look, I don't like the Warlord, but I recognize that others do like them. So go ahead and include it, but it needs to be optional.

5e is so DM-empowered that absolutely everything is optional. The most-nearly-non-optional things are what constitute what Mike Mearls called the 'Standard Game' - the rules presented in the PH that way. So, for instance, feats are optional. The character classes in the PH, are as close to being mandatory as possible. New classes, like the Mystic or a hypothetical Warlord would be optional, be definition.

It's a non-issue.

 

[pemerton]

why do you sneer at the idea that magical inspiration carries fewer implications about how the PCs relate to each other than mundane inspiration?

In my case, I don't think I've sneered. But I don't see that magic has this vast contrast. Unless you are saying that magical inspiration is mind control that just overrides the emotions and commitments of the target - which I think, for those who are worried about the relationship between PC abilities and PC/player agency, would be just as big an issue.

 

[jayoungr]

Unless you are saying that magical inspiration is mind control that just overrides the emotions and commitments of the target - which I think, for those who are worried about the relationship between PC abilities and PC/player agency, would be just as big an issue.

No, it's more that magic can affect the body without having to pass through the mind or feelings. For example, with magic, a PC can hear a Bard's song and fight harder while actually thinking the bard is a contemptible worm undeserving of respect. Mundane inspiration has to affect the PC's feelings in order to take effect, no matter how you flavor it.

 

[Jester David]

No, it really is mostly because spellcasting is so flexible. You can cast Cure Wounds a lot, or can belt out offensive spells.

But would you?
If you're playing the tank paladin/cleric you certainly have the option of preparing those spells, but you're likely to memorize spells that help you do your role. The tank or healer or CCer can just decide to go full offence one day and prep different spells, but then the party is down a character of their role, and the PC's feats, gear, and related character choices are being un-optimally used. A life cleric makes a pretty poor blaster.

That's one way of putting it. The Fighter's main contribution, DPR, is baked into the class, the sub-classes build on it a little, but can't trade it in for something else, so a fighter sub-class just isn't a suitable vehicle for re-introducing the Warlord. The BM & PDK prove that rather conclusively, even as they set precedents for the sorts of things the Warlord might do.

That's your opinion and repeating it every chance you get doesn't make it true. Really, it just demonstrates what abilities you find memorable and noteworthy in the fighter.

Fighting style is both defensive and offensive. Second Wind is defensive. Action surge can be used for any action, and so is neutral. Ability score improvements and feats can be spent on anything, and so also role neutral. Indomitable is defensive.
Only the extra attack is purely DPR. So it's really akin to saying that because paladins get smite their main contribution is DPR.
As fighters have two defensive features compared to the one pure offence, you could make an equally strong point that fighters' main contribution is tanking. Just because you have the opinion that a fighter using Action Surge for something other than attacking

would be a very silly thing to do

does not mean there are not valid uses. A tank could use Action Surge to Ready or Dodge.

There's plenty of design space for maneuvers that encourage other uses for Action Surge including tanking or support, such as the PDK granting attacks via the power.
And, really, a support character making attacks via another character is pretty darn DPR. Whether or not you're personally dealing the damage or doing it via casting "rogue" at the dragon is functionally irrelevant if the damage is done using your resources on your turn.

The Battlemaster's maneuvers layer a little extra on top of attacks (as well as a little extra DPR), so they're pretty trivial, in addition to being very limited due to CS dice., or granting allies attacks.

Have you even seen a battle master in action?
Maneuvers see more use than they do on paper. At mid-levels (7+) you have five dice that recharge every short rest, so you can use a couple each combat (fewer in a longer series of encounters, more with spread out encounters). That's hardly trivial. And since combats are over quickly, there's only a couple useful times to use a particular maneuver, times when they wouldn't be wasted.

In my experience maneuvers can get used just as much as non-cantrip spells (unless a caster is trying for a 5 minute workday).

It's nothing new or unfamiliar: Mitigating damage with defensive buffs, restoring hps, removing conditions, & buffing offense would be the high points. It can shade into control (debuffing the enemy, for instance), as well.

Other than removing conditions, the battle master or PDK can do all of those things. And even a theoretical full warlord class would be unable to remove most conditions. The 4e warlord couldn't do much to lasting conditions.
They can't do them each and every round. But, I can't think of any class that can do any of those at-will.

Meaningful/adequate support functions are among the many options lacking from the small set of existing non-casting/magical sub-classes in 5e. That the Warlord would address that omission does not imply that it would be limited to /just/ doing such things. Afterall, as you point out, no existing support-capable class is limited to just support.

Given there's no class in the game that has no magic (if you consider "rage" a magical power) I don't see why this is an issue. D&D is not the best game to use for a low magic game without heavy modification. The d20 system can do it just fine, but you generally need to rework all the classes.

The warlord might be a good idea for a 5e version of Iron Heroes but that's not really the baseline.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


I can hear the sarcasm in your voice with the italics and extra a's in "magic," but why do you sneer at the idea that magical inspiration carries fewer implications about how the PCs relate to each other than mundane inspiration?

Because it's so hypocritical. As I pointed out, people will bend over backwards to ignore the inconsistencies in their own arguments. It's okay for me to tell your character how to act and believe, because magic. I can force you to take extra actions, heal, hit better, take less damage, and a multitude of other things, despite the fact that it makes little sense in the game world, and it's okay because its magic. The character that hates music still gets inspired by the bard. The character that's diametrically opposed to your beliefs still gains HP. And, note, the argument is that people don't want other players telling them what to do. So, when that wizard hits you with Haste and grants you extra actions, he's telling you what to do. But, that's okay because... altogether now ... magic.

Like I said, if the argument was at all consistent, then I'd be a lot more sympathetic. But, it's not. A cleric with an at-will cantrip that granted an ally an attack when cast would pass muster without a comment, regardless of the alignment or beliefs of the ally. Heck, as it stands, clerics (and druids) already have a cantrip that grants buffs on any skill checks. Doesn't matter what your deity is or what your deity is about, drop a Guidance spell and someone gets a +d4 on a skill. My Cleric of War can buff your History check for some reason... oh right.... maaaagic. But, apparently, a warlord doing exactly the same thing but without casting a spell is completely unbelievable.

So, yes, this is why I sneer at the arguments being dropped here. They're about as consistent as a wet cardboard box. And hold as much water. For some reason, we don't see constant, daily agitation to change clerics, druids, battle masters, bards and Mastermind thieves. They don't apparently rate high enough as an issue to get their own forum ghetto, exiled out of the mainstream conversation by constant, never ending, thread crapping by people who have made it their mission in life to prevent any 4e elements from polluting the wonderment of 5e.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

...people who have made it their mission in life to prevent any 4e elements from polluting the wonderment of 5e.

I agree those people (if they existed) would be unproductive. Not sure what the point of your rant was though.

But as for me? I, for one, love all the 4e elements that made it into 5e. <shrug>

 

[Hussar]

I agree those people (if they existed) would be unproductive. Not sure what the point of your rant was though.

But as for me? I, for one, love all the 4e elements that made it into 5e. <shrug>

Then what's your beef with Warlord? I mean, good grief, it's been months now that you've been beating this horse. What's your issue with the class? If it's not a 4e thing, and it's not because of the flavor, and it's not because of the mechanics, then why on earth are you spamming thread after thread after thread telling all and sundry that we must not have a warlord in 5e?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But would you?

Sure. It's often an at least viable strategy for given Cleric, Druid, or whatever who has some support spells on his list to choose a different strategy and different spells in a given day where he might expect it to be more effective. Part of the power/challenge of playing a caster is making decisions like that.

If you're playing the tank paladin/cleric you certainly have the option of preparing those spells, but you're likely to memorize spells that help you do your role.

5e, as you've pointed out, no longer has set roles.

The tank or healer or CCer can just decide to go full offence one day and prep different spells, but then the party is down a character of their role, and the PC's feats, gear, and related character choices are being un-optimally used. A life cleric makes a pretty poor blaster.

Maybe sub-optimal, but quite possibly still viable, if you find yourself in a situation that calls for it. And certainly nowhere near as sub-optimal as using Action Surge for the Help action or to Dodge or Ready...

Just because you have the opinion that a fighter using Action Surge for something other than attacking does not mean there are not valid uses.

They're valid. They're just not viable compared to the more conventional alternatives.

That's your opinion and repeating it every chance you get doesn't make it true. Really, it just demonstrates what abilities you find memorable and noteworthy in the fighter.

The irony of your choice of words aside, just look at the abilities that all fighters get, before folding in archetypes. Whatever choices a fighter makes, his extra attacks will give him some serious DPR, and his Action Surge can double that for a round. You can optimize around that, or you can pick a style like Protection and optimize in a different direction - but you'll still be hitting things a lot and toting up some DPR, because you're a fighter, and you're 'best at fighting.' It's your thing.

Fighting style is both defensive and offensive.

There are 6 fighting styles. The majority are offensive. 1 is defensive (+1 AC), another aids allies.

Second Wind is defensive. Indomitable is defensive.

They're neither very potent, though, a small fraction of what the class does. d10 HD is also tanky, as is being able to use any sort of armor. But most character can manage good AC and have d8 HD. 1 more hp per level on average isn't all that major.

Action surge can be used for any action, and so is neutral.

Laughable. The fighter has a strong selection of weapons, Fighting styles that improve offense - and the few that don't have no synergy with Action Surge - and, Extra Attack - and nothing much else that just every Tom, Dick, and Kobold can't do. Even if we give the fighting styles equal weight, 2/3rds of low-level fighters have a style that helps offense, so makes attacking with Action Surge that much better, and as soon as they hit 5th level, Extra Attack makes using Action Surge for anything but attacking a waste.

Ability score improvements and feats can be spent on anything, and so also role neutral.

They can be, but feats synergize really well with certain fighting styles - GWF/GWM & Archery/SharpShooter arguably a little too well. So, in theory, sure, optimally, though, you build on what the fighter has.

Only the extra attack is purely DPR. So it's really akin to saying that because paladins get smite their main contribution is DPR.

Paladins get Smite and Extra attack, DPR is a very real option for them. They just have more alternatives than the fighter. They can spend slots on spells, instead of Smite - spells are a /lot/ more versatile and high-impact than the everyman actions a fighter could take instead of using Action Surge effectively, to attack. So, yeah, the Paladin /is/ a DPR class, it's also a modest support class and has versatility from spellcasting. The fighter, conversely, is a DPR class. Both can 'tank' (stand up to melee a bit longer than the next guy).

As fighters have two defensive features compared to the one pure offence, you could make an equally strong point that fighters' main contribution is tanking.

You'd have to willfully ignore the relative power of the Extra Attack & Action surge vs Second Wind & Indomitable, but you could. Tanking arguably includes DPR, though, as the low-DPR tank can be safely ignored, anyway.

There's plenty of design space for maneuvers

Possibly, and the Battlemaster could certainly do with more and more varied (and some higher-level-appropriate) maneuvers. There's plenty more design space beyond that for an actual Warlord, too.

And, really, a support character making attacks via another character is pretty darn DPR.

Any sort of offensive buff could be seen that way, yes.

Have you even seen a battle master in action?

Yes. I do run 5e, remember. With CS dice adding a boost directly to their damage on demand, they're pretty effective, too.

Maneuvers see more use than they do on paper.

How little use do they see on paper. On paper, you can expect a short rest every other encounter, which is essentially x3 the number of CS dice per day vs no short rests. Not every campaign hits that benchmark.

Other than removing conditions, the battle master or PDK can do all of those things.

Every possible battlemaster plus a PDK can do those things. Any given one of them can do a couple of those thing, infrequently & not too impressively.

And even a theoretical full warlord class would be unable to remove most conditions. The 4e warlord couldn't do much to lasting conditions.

They could grant or add bonuses to saving throws, which is still a legitimate way to remove conditions in 5e, if not quite as universal as it was in 4e.

They can't do them each and every round. But, I can't think of any class that can do any of those at-will.

The Resistance cantrip buffs saving throws and Guideance other ability checks. Though I'm not sure about the at-will obsession - are you just assuming that no martial class can ever have any sort of managed resource, like Second Wind, Action Surge, or CS dice?

Given there's no class in the game that has no magic (if you consider "rage" a magical power)

Even if you do, 4 sub-class exist in the PH, alone, and a few more in SCAG and UA.

I don't see why this is an issue. D&D is not the best game to use for a low magic game

That is exactly the issue. At least one prior ed of D&D could be used for low-/no-magic campaigns (or even just no-caster parties) relatively seamlessly, while 5e currently isn't up to supporting that style of play. One of the justifications for having 5e at all was that prior editions didn't support a wide enough range of 'styles,' and it was another stated (by Mearls, in L&L) goal of 5e to do so.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Then what's your beef with Warlord?

Nothing at all. Not only did I enjoy them in 4e, I've seen several played in 5e already. What's your beef with the 5e warlord? That its not a 4e warlord? I know that. But there's a very simple way for you to play, and continue to enjoy, a 4e warlord. Wanna guess what that is?

If it's not a 4e thing, and it's not because of the flavor, and it's not because of the mechanics...

Your glaring lack of knowledge of my opinions and beliefs on the subject speaks multitudes to why you are asking all the wrong questions.

...then why on earth are you spamming thread after thread after thread telling all and sundry that we must not have a warlord in 5e?

This very thread speaks to your clumsy strawman tactics and blunt mischaracterizations. I realize its a popular thread (on its 16th page!), but I strongly recommend you go back and read my OP before making any further ridiculously wrong claims such as this.

 

[Hussar]

Funnily enough, I did go back and read the OP. You're basically saying that because the options for warlords are included in a number of different classes, we don't need an actual warlord.

So, the issue for playing a warlord isn't mechanical (you have no problems with the mechanics existing in other classes), isn't conceptual (you have no problems with the "leader of men" being played, so long as we use existing classes) and, apparently isn't grounded in a dislike of 4e.

Again, what's the issue then? Why is it okay for my Mastermind thief to grant Advantage to an ally on attacks, an ability that is not magical and is not limited per day, but, apparently a Warlord doing the same thing is a nonstarter? Why is it okay to play a Battlemaster/Mastermind that not only grants advantage on an attack, but also grants extra attacks during combat (albeit a limited number of times per short rest) but a Warlord based on similar mechanics with a healing ability cribbed from the Healer Feat is a no go?

Like I said, if it's not the mechanics and it's not the flavour, then what's the problem?

Start a baseline character class called warlord. At 2nd level he gains some sort of "healing word" effect that grants healing to allies a limited number of times per short rest. At 3rd level, you branch off into two (or three) subclasses - Inspirational focuses on buffing with a minor in action granting and Tactical focuses on action granting with a minor in buffing. Poof, end of problem.

Granted, I don't know how the Bravura warlord works, I didn't have that book, and, frankly, I don't care. Someone else can deal with that one.

After months of agitating and threadcrapping, what is your goal here [MENTION=6801216]ChrisCarlson[/MENTION]? What do you want to see or not see happen? If your goal simply you don't want to see warlords in the game, then fine, don't play one. Easy peasy. Why are you spending all this time telling people what they shouldn't play?