D&D 5E Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

[TwoSix]

By the way... now that we've reached page 37 it seems about time for us to move over and talk about why WotC hasn't made a Psion yet.

Page 19. What sort of monster doesn’t set the “posts per page” value to maximum?

Do you like having to load pages more often???

 

[Cadence]

Page 19. What sort of monster doesn’t set the “posts per page” value to maximum?

Do you like having to load pages more often???

Wait!?!? There's a posts per page value?

 

[Pedantic]

Wait!?!? There's a posts per page value?

Right?! I'd resigned myself. I'd do a 100 post print view if possible.

 

[Cadence]

Right?! I'd resigned myself. I'd do a 100 post print view if possible.

Found it! (Your Account > Preferences)

 

[TwoSix]

Right?! I'd resigned myself. I'd do a 100 post print view if possible.

It maxes out at 20, sadly. I understand why it isn't higher, but yea, I'd totally make it 50 or 100 if I could.

 

[Mephista]

I never, ever said it was impossible in general.

I said it was impossible if it must be shackled to the Fighter as a subclass.

That's a world of difference.

The world of difference being that its fine to mock anyone who thinks it is possible to make a warlord subclass for Fighter and say its impossible. When the convo was about the Fighter subclass in the first place. Talk about twisting words.

That is the point. And no, Strategies are not spells. There would be a new list of them. That was kind of the point of specifying that. They would differ by not scaling as spells do...as you say, that's the whole point of warlock spells, which Strategems are not. They would simply be following the overall mechanical model.

You've said they're not. But its unclear how they're not. How are they not spells? Because so far, they do very much sound like spells to me. So... how are they different besides the name? Its looking like a duck, and quacking like a duck so far.

This is a serious question, not a mockery.

Nope.


Perfectly well. Sword-and-board might be Vanguard or whatever one chooses to call the "front-line attacker" Warlord subclass. Bows would be an option for any of them, but would work best with those that emphasize stealth or ranged attacks, I'd presume.

I mean, some might, but I'd expect most of that stuff to be right out the gate.

That is dodging the question. "How does it fit in" is not asking "how well does it fit in" its asking for the methodology it is fitting in. What are you doing to enable these kinds of play styles? Is it just "you get proficiency at first level?" You've been clear that Extra Attacks isn't something you like for your warlord. Then, how is this going to work?

But we design the game for all the people who play. Not just the people who think that anyone who ever cares even the tiniest bit about being effective at what they do is a dirty filthy optimizer.

When your only problem is that its "its more effective to do it yourself" on a build meant for support, then yes, that's an optimization question. Its easy to make other PCs that out damage a fighter when the fighter isn't being geared for damage.

You're assuming that fighters are always going to be the top damage dealers in the party, when that's not a given. Not at the level we're talking about (level 3). At this point, a hunter ranger with two swords will out damage a Fighter thanks to Nick, Two weapon FS, and hitting a target with a Hunter's Mark already up. A rogue with a potential 4d6+DEX seems to be stronger than a Fighter at that level too.

As a fighter levels, they'll get Extra Attacks. But then, so do Barbarian and Paladin and Ranger. The Fighter gets more feats, but if there are more support feats, the

Haven't even touched higher level subclass abilities and what they might offer, so at best we can look at level 6 fighter versus level 6 others.

I will not do so, specifically because what you are suggesting is WORSE than the Banneret--I already showed how that was the case with Second Wind. If your suggestion is worse than something you already say was badly made, how can we take your suggestion seriously?

Because you haven't shown anything. You've only said it was, and compared it to banneret, which is doing things differently than I suggested.

Unsurprisingly its a bad comparison, since Banneret's only ability at level 3 is a twist on Mass Healing Word, which is a niche ability meant for when everyone is down but you. Its not even Second Wind - its a new ability that takes Second Wind uses. Meanwhile, I've suggested tweaks to at least four different abilities at the same level, with possibility for more.
The two are using their power budget wildly differently.

You must give people a mechanical incentive to do the behaviors you want them to do (or, if necessary, a mechanical incentive to avoid behaviors you don't want them to do, but carrots are better than sticks by far.) If you don't, then most players won't do that thing.

Agreed. And that's what I'm doing. That's why i suggested new Masteries for the attacks taken. And taking feats that are meant to work with a warlord build instead of a damage focused on. You are directly trading increased damage for support abilities. Taken as a whole, every mechanic would give an incentive.

Using second wind on a teammate who's down to get them back on their feat is effective. Using your Indomitable on someone who failed a Hold Person spell to shrug off the spell is effective. Action Surge is only more effective on yourself if the Fighter is being geared for dealing damage and ignoring taking other support abilities for their Masteries, feats, etc.

Except you aren't. You haven't changed one thing about how the ability works. You've simply allowed its utterly unchanged effect to be applied to someone else. That is not OP. It is, as I have repeatedly said, completely insufficient, for exactly the same reasons that the Banneret is completely insufficient.

You're being contrary here. "You haven't changed it." And "allow ... apply to someone else" are mutually exclusive sentences. Changing something from Distance: Self to ... lets say Distance: 30' is a change. A small change, but a change nonetheless.

I've also changed the Weapon Mastery this subclass would have, though the exact abilities are tenative at the moment. Hit a monster with a sword, which... lets say it lowered the AC of the monster. Then use your Action Surge to grant the Rogue an action. The rogue deals slightly more damage than the fighter at level 3, and the attack now has more accuracy.

This is a net gain, and I don't think its really OP considering there are similar abilities elsewhere.

At level 7, there would be new, different abilities.

My apologies. I'm not designing for Mephista's table. I'm designing for the typical table,

No, you're designing for your table, with your table's expectations. That's the thing. We all design for what we'd like to see at our own tables.

I'm not interested in discussing your tirade against people who care about effectiveness. You've made your point that you think anyone who cares about that is a dirty filthy optimizer sullying the game.

And yet, you keep bring it up. Hm.

When he explicitly and openly mocks something with known edition warrior rhetoric, it's not stupidity and it's not an accident. Whether or not he was joking does not matter. He used those words. He insulted things I care about, and he did so knowing that it pisses people off.

So, you're admitting to taking a joke about a game personally and consider it an insult, even when you don't know that was the intent. People can be critical of something, even make a joke about something, and still enjoy it. The two aren't mutually exclusive, mate.

Because it is useful to have a point of negative comparison--as I did above, where I showed that your idea of letting the Fighter give someone else her Second Wind is woefully inadequate because the Banneret gets something (significantly!) better than merely transferring the Second Wind effect to someone else...and you openly admit that the Banneret is bad!

The Banneret is bad for multiple reasons, and the first ability isn't giving Second Wind to others - its giving a twisted version of Mass Healing Word, a spell that has a niche use. Its no surprise that a niche spell isn't going to be seen as a good ability.

I am not doing the same thing, and I am doing -more- things at the same level, which changes the dynamics incredibly.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You've said they're not. But its unclear how they're not. How are they not spells? Because so far, they do very much sound like spells to me. So... how are they different besides the name? Its looking like a duck, and quacking like a duck so far.

This is a serious question, not a mockery.

Serious answer: They're not because they're not magical. The problem with design in 5E is that anything more complicated that "Attack plus a minor effect rider" can only be a spell is an incredibly confining design principle. The better question to ask is "Why is anything that is slightly complex suddenly a spell?", because that is the far more important question.

 

[ECMO3]

e, because 3 fire without proficiency to hit vs. 9 piercing (+1 short sword, 20 Dex) with +3 proficiency, even in the face of 5 regeneration, as actually more damage.

You are not talking about a low level game here (i.e. newbies).

Oil is 5 fire, not 3. Alchemists fire is 1d4 per turn if you hit. Acid is 2d6, Holy Water is 2d6 (against Undead and Fiends).

6.5 piercing with a +5 attack against something resistant is going to drop it to 3.25 and that is substantially worse than 5 damage from oil or 2d6 with Acid with a +3 to hit or usually worse than 1d4 damage per turn from alchemists on a +3 to hit.

2d6 Radiant with a +3 attack is generally better than 6.5 Piercing with a +5 attack against a Zombie or something else with Undead Fortitude.

As you level up your PB goes up, your damage goes up and this no longer stays true.

We never fought creatures vulnerable to piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, radiant, thunder, lightning, acid, poison or force. We did fight many creatures (oozes and a devil) where force was almost the only thing that would work, which is why my Wizard was an all star.

Bludgeoing works on most oozes

At no time was there any weapon that was any better than any other.

Well then you didn't face any of those monsters. There are two pages of monsters on DNDBeyond that are vulnerable to Bludgeoning, that includes ordinary Skeletons

Also some Ozes (which you did fight) have outright immunity to slashing weapons but not others.

 

[pawsplay]

I think it's a big problem when people are complaining about the balance of martials versus casters, and arguing the Champion Fighter and Battlemaster fighter are somehow underpowered. I don't think it's possible to satisfy someone whose ideal Warlord is going to match a Cleric having their best day. Fighter is a strong class, and it has a few open levels to give it what any subclass gets; a few signature powers. If you want to give a Warlord a full suite of abilities equivalent to spellcasting, look at the Eldritch Knight; its level-based class features are meager to make room for spellcasting.

It's pretty easy to make the Fighter more warlord-like. Give them options to donate their attacks to party members. Add some auras. Fundamentally, they aren't going to be much different than the Battlemaster Fighter with Inspiring Leader and teamwork-friendly maneuvers. But you could do it.

It's certainly possible to make a Fighter subclass that is more warlord-like. Use the EK as a chassis, and come up with some subsystem that gives you ranked and limited teamwork powers instead of spells. Just invent non-magical versions of Bless and Healing Word and so forth.

Or you can make a whole class. Base it on the cleric. Probably bake in a second attack. Come up with a whole subsystem of warlord powers, roughly equivalent to spells.

What you can't do is recreate the 4e warlord. A 5e Warlord isn't going to resemble a 4e Warlord any more than a 5e cleric resembles a 4e cleric. They are completely different creatures.

 

[pawsplay]

Serious answer: They're not because they're not magical. The problem with design in 5E is that anything more complicated that "Attack plus a minor effect rider" can only be a spell is an incredibly confining design principle. The better question to ask is "Why is anything that is slightly complex suddenly a spell?", because that is the far more important question.

Spells in 5e are generally not complex. OTOH, a Mad Berserker Barbarian using frenzy is quite the beast, mechanically speaking.