D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[mellored]

I've got two answers to that question. Both short.

1) That's so open ended there is no way to answer it meaningfully.

And 2) Seriously?!?

I'm just trying to understand what part you don't think can be balanced?

 

[mellored]

If its good enough to allow my barbarian to be an inspirational leader, why is it not good enough for making a battlemaster (or whathaveyou) a "warlord"?

Same reason why taking ritual caster on an eldritch knight is not enough to be a wizard. Your still mostly a fighter.

I don't see why it's such a hard concept to graps...

 

[Gradine]

You could fake up most of them (I can't think of an example, but I'm sure there could be one you really can't, yet) as well or better than you could the Warlord. I get that it's a matter of priority for you, you don't care that others can't play the characters they want, yet, and are willing, on there behalf, for us to wait a very long time. I'm patient, but not quite as patient as you seem to want me to be. You'd need a lot more of them, too. The existing bits cover examples of the kinds of things the Warlord does, a little. Even all put together they're wildly inadequate. They just serve as 1) examples that prove those things can exist in 5e, and 2) options to make a character who's a little bit warlordy, but not really. 5e is full of options like that, you can kinda-sorta be a little bit any class with the right background or feat or whatnot. Some classes more than others - including some classes that don't exist yet.

You couldn't really fake any of the main classes I was talking about without heavy modifications. The closest is maybe Spellthief, but that's condensing an entire class concept into a single, extremely high level ability. As far as I'm concerned, Warlord is way better supported in 5e right now than Spellthief. I'm not trying to speak for anyone other than myself for why a dedicated Warlord class is low on my own personal wishlist. And my reason is that Warlords basically already exist, just in an unrecognizable form from the 4e version.

Which is the dirty secret about converting 4e classes to 5e; you can't. I mean, you can obviously, but in 5e terms you either have to give it full spellcasting, including cantrips, or you have to trim a whole hell of a lot out of it. Even taking into account subclasses (which account for, at most, an additional 4-5 unique abilities). 4e characters could simply do a lot more things, a lot more often, than 5e characters. This is why WotC will never be able to make Warlord fans happy, despite giving them the class twice (just under, frankly, better names) as fighter archetypes. It's the same thing with the spell-less Ranger. They're operating under an entirely different design philosophy; 5e characters simply do less than 4e characters do, and less often. Even spellcasters, really. Well, inside combat, anyway.

I only played three characters in 4e. Two were Fighters (a mobile Eladrin spear fighter, and a dwarven tank). The third? A Warlord. The character I would have the easiest time replicating in 5e? Honestly, my Warlord. Easily. Even with just the PHB I could create a character that covers his shtick way more easily than what either of my Fighters were doing. But nobody complains about recreating the 4e Fighter. Or Rogue. Or Barbarian.

Any new attempt at a 5e Warlord would either be a hodgepodge of what we already have, and it would still wouldn't be good enough, or, at best, a new set of abilities that still would represent a very limited amount of the things the 4e Warlord could do. At best, it would be an interesting class that would almost certainly get torn to shreds.

Personally, I'd rather see something new.

 

[mellored]

And my reason is that Warlords basically already exist, just in an unrecognizable form from the 4e version.

People recognize the parts of the warlord that exists, certainly.
But they are chopped up and spread out. A maneuver here, bonus action help action there, and inspirational healing over there, cutting words somewhere else. You can't get it all without going though other things like multi-attack, sneak attack, or spells.

It's like if you wanted to play an illusionist, but you needed to take burning hands, magic missile, fireball, cone of cold, and then you get to cast 1 illusion spell once per day. You're really an evoker.

in 5e terms you either have to give it full spellcasting, including cantrips, or you have to trim a whole hell of a lot out of it.

Why? Is there a rule I missed that say's you can only make classes that are similar to the current classes?
And what would you call the warlock?

4e characters could simply do a lot more things, a lot more often, than 5e characters.

You mean like giving several people a bonus to hit, to skills, and to saving throws?
Or letting someone move further, give them a bonus to AC, a bonus to saving throws, and grant them an extra attack?

Those abilities are already in 5e. Just as magic.

frankly, better names

Agreed. Now if we could only get them to change barbarian...

Personally, I'd rather see something new.

Like a support class that doesn't rely on spells? A non-magical class that can do a variety of things besides damage?
That would be new.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You couldn't really fake any of the main classes I was talking about without heavy modifications.

You didn't actually mention any, you just said 'other legacy classes.' Other classes besides the Warlord, from past-editions Players' Handbooks would include the Knight, Psion, Shaman, Avenger, Warden, Beguiler, Invoker, Ardent, Battlemind, and Duskblade, IIRC.

The Knight was a slightly sticky non-casting tank, a protection fighter fakes it reasonably well, add a Noble background for the non-combat. Psion could be the afore-mentioned GOO warlock. The Shaman was a nature-oriented Leader in 4e, the Druid covers that in 5e, not wonderfully well in terms of fluff, but better in functionality than a BM or PDK covers the Warlord. The Avenger... Acolyte Assassin gets the unarmored and divine aspects, but would be pretty short shrift, a Rogue sub-class might cover it, though. Warden is conceptually covered by the Oath of Ancients Paladin, but was a Shapechanger, which'd be Druid, maybe MC the two, but the Paladin at least is in the right ballpark, functionally. Beguiler, not familiar, don't see how an enchanter or other arcansist with the right spell choice would be far off. Invoker, the blasty alternative to the 4e Cleric, the 5e Cleric can be plenty blasty. Ardent? If you hate psionics = magic, about as bad off as the Warlord, otherwise re-skin the support caster of your choice. Battlemind... OK, nothing much resembling that, I'll grant. Duskblade, bladelock, I assume, or one of the other gishy sub-classes, Bladesinger or EK.

The closest is maybe Spellthief, but that's condensing an entire class concept into a single, extremely high level ability. As far as I'm concerned, Warlord is way better supported in 5e right now than Spellthief.

You are talking Core class vs complete adventurer oddity, there.

I'm not trying to speak for anyone other than myself for why a dedicated Warlord class is low on my own personal wishlist. And my reason is that Warlords basically already exist, just in an unrecognizable form from the 4e version.

OK, you're only speaking for yourself, but it's an odd context if you're merely indifferent, why aren't you boosting the class you'd like to see - like the Spellthief in the UA thread about Rogue subclasses - or did you, I can't confess much interest in that thread, so don't recall it too well?

Which is the dirty secret about converting 4e classes to 5e; you can't. I mean, you can obviously, but in 5e terms you either have to give it full spellcasting, including cantrips, or you have to trim a whole hell of a lot out of it.

Heh. Converting 4e classes verbatim would be problematic, as would be shooting for the same kind of balance as 4e achieved, sure. 5e simply doesn't approach class design that way, though. Look at how very different the 3.5 and 5e Sorcerer are, mechanically, for instance - or rather, how different all the other casters /aren't/ from the 3e Sorcerer, since they all cast spontaneously! That mechanical identity was gone, but they kept the whole power-in-the-blood thing, and at least made it a full class, even if they didn't have much to offer it in terms of uniqueness. It's design from the concept out, not build within a functional box. The Warlord concept was constrained in 4e by Role, in 5e, a lot /more/ could be done with it.

4e characters could simply do a lot more things, a lot more often, than 5e characters.

Well, than 5e non-caster characters. The reverse is true for casters, an Epic 4e Wizard would be dumbstruck by the power of a 5e wizard, even one half his level. More spells known, more spells ready, more spells per day, all of them more powerful, just /MOAR/. ;P The casters 5e tackled had traditional incarnations before 4e, and that's what 5e harkened too. Again, the Warlord concept isn't held back by any such baggage.

This is why WotC will never be able to make Warlord fans happy, despite giving them the class twice (just under, frankly, better names) as fighter archetypes.

See, that's just sad. The BM was a sad, failed attempt at a 'complex' 4e fighter. It's less a Warlord than an EK is a Wizard - a lot less. The PDK is a Cormyrean PrC.

5e characters simply do less than 4e characters do, and less often. Even spellcasters, really. Well, inside combat, anyway.

OK. 4e Wizard. Level 1. Knows two dailies, can prep one. Has 1 encounter. 2 attack cantrips. 5e Wizard, level 1, Knows 6 daily spells, can prepare 1+ INT mod of them, can cast 2 of them per day, including casting the same one twice (which the 4e wizard can't do until high level), and can recover one of them after a short rest. The gap only widens from there. Don't even get me started on the Druid. I was a big fan of the 1e Druid, the 4e Druid was a disappointment, the 5e an embarrassment of riches by comparison.

But nobody complains about recreating the 4e Fighter. Or Rogue. Or Barbarian.

Heck, I still wish 5e could handle the 3.5 fighters I liked. (I'll grant I couldn't care less about 4e Rogue or Barbarian, just not that into 'strikers,' myself.) But, the 4e Barbarian with his spirit connection just got a little more half-hearted support from UA. So it's not all bad on that front.

Any new attempt at a 5e Warlord would either be a hodgepodge of what we already have, and it would still wouldn't be good enough, or, at best, a new set of abilities that still would represent a very limited amount of the things the 4e Warlord could do. At best, it would be an interesting class that would almost certainly get torn to shreds.

IDK. Some of the classes in the PH were well done. They weren't all Sorcerers and Rangers. I can't pretend to have a lot of faith in WotC at this late date, but I'm willing to give them another chance. (Not a 'second' chance, mind, it's not like I'm even counting at this point.)

Personally, I'd rather see something new.

Like a support class that doesn't rely on spells? A non-magical class that can do a variety of things besides damage?
That would be new.

The Warlord was the newest thing in D&D since...

... I really don't know. D&D was so stodgy prior to 3e. Modular multi-classing or Feats, I guess? ...wow, that's kinda a depressing thought, really....

 

[Corwin]

People recognize the parts of the warlord that exists, certainly. But they are chopped up and spread out.

Almost like a rod of seven parts...

 

[Guest 6801328]

I only played three characters in 4e. Two were Fighters (a mobile Eladrin spear fighter, and a dwarven tank). The third? A Warlord. The character I would have the easiest time replicating in 5e? Honestly, my Warlord. Easily. Even with just the PHB I could create a character that covers his shtick way more easily than what either of my Fighters were doing. But nobody complains about recreating the 4e Fighter. Or Rogue. Or Barbarian.

Even though I never played 4e, I have gotten enough of a sense of what the classes were like to understand what you are saying.

So...yeah...why aren't people crying and screaming because 5e fighters can't do everything 4e fighters could do?

 

[Guest 6801328]

5e PH, p 46 5th paragraph under Barbarian. "For some, their rage springs from communion with fierce animal spirits."

Sounds pretty supernatural, unless you think spirits are mundane. Sure, you can make the argument that the spirits or superntaural, but the rage they inspire isn't. Wiggle room.

it continues: "Others draw from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain."

Sounds dramatic, but personal. Phrased slightly differently it could sound like the reservoir were something outside themselves. Wiggle room.

What that really says to me is that from the designers' point of view there isn't a clear distinction between "magic" and "not magic". That they just aren't worrying about that distinction. It doesn't seem likely that they would define a class in which a core ability is a completely different thing depending on which sub-class you choose, or what the player describes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So...yeah...why aren't people crying and screaming because 5e fighters can't do everything 4e fighters could do?

Some of us have. 5e fighters can't do everything 3.5 fighters could, either (nor could 4e fighters), and I've complained about that, too. The Battlemaster does fail the 4e fighter by a margin not nearly so wide as it fails the warlord, though. So you can play a 'more complex fighter,' even if it can't mark, it's 'combat superiority' is just about doing an extra die of damage, and it has fewer build options and fewer and less interesting/effective options beyond grinding out DPR in play. The omission of the Warlord isn't different in kind from that (well, it is, there's at least a class called Fighter in the PH1), just far worse in degree.

We've also heard complaints about the Ranger, obviously, and they've been addressed, if not in spectacularly successful fashion. And we've heard complaints about the Sorcerer that haven't been addressed.

What we haven't heard, happily. is much of the edition warring - the cacophony of illogic, malice, and outright lies that constituted 'complaints' about 4e. It's mostly much more constructive, this time around.

Except, of course, for the opposition to the Warlord, which smacks of the extremes and intellectual dishonesty of the edition war (which, I know, you personally missed out on - count your blessings!).

What that really says to me is that from the designers' point of view there isn't a clear distinction between "magic" and "not magic".

In the case of barbarian Rage, where they were trying to evoke both the classic, non-magical (and back then, magic-hating) D&D barbarian, and give a small nod to the 4e Primal-Spirit-based Barbarian, maybe. It still seems more plausible to me that that Rage obtained from communion with supernatural spirits is supernatural (thought not necessarily magic, sure, so there's some ambiguity for you), and the rage of the berserker the more traditional, extraordinary (as in 3.x 'EX' ability) but still natural rage.

I'm pretty sure things like sneak attack, combat style, and the like are still very clearly non-magical, and not even supernatural, even though they are limited to certain classes, while things like spellcasting and ki are explicitly magical.

[qipte] That they just aren't worrying about that distinction. [/quote] It's hard to speculate about their state of mind, but there was a lot of communication during the playtest, and I certainly don't recall blurring the definition of magic being a high priority. Rather the opposite, really, as a frequent complaint leading up to the playtest was that magic didn't feel magical enough.

OTOH...

It doesn't seem likely that they would define a class in which a core ability is a completely different thing depending on which sub-class you choose, or what the player describes.

There was a lot of talk about 5e allowing different styles of play, and even blue-sky meanderings about playing in the styles of different editions at the same table. There was also the clear decision to eschew jargon and embrace the ambiguity of natural language. And there was the very successful goal of DM Empowerment, which establishes the DM as the arbiter who interprets said ambiguity, and could rule on whether something was magical or supernatural or not. So, yeah, a class ability that could be personal, natural rage "at a world full of pain" but could also be obtained from supernatural spirits for a different character of the same class, seems completely in line with all that.

5e didn't do away with dispel magic, nor allow it to dispel mundane things (and no cracks about spells seeming mundane!), and it /did/ bring back magic resistance and anti-magic zones - also consistent with the calls for classic feel and more-magical-feeling-magic.


The point remains that there are classes that have features that are not in any way supernatural, that not just everyone can do. The Warlord would, indeed, be another such class. Nothing odd or game-breaking about that, though D&D admittedly has a poor and inconsistent track record when it comes to balancing classes without magic and designing good abilities for them.

 

[Barolo]

(...)

If its good enough to allow my barbarian to be an inspirational leader, why is it not good enough for making a battlemaster (or whathaveyou) a "warlord"?


(...)

One should be doing way more than just taking a feat to be honored as a "warlord". Otherwise, it is just self-entitlement.