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

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I'm fine with a purely mundane martial PC and accept that that is what people want even if they experience diminishing returns as the game progresses. I'm equally fine with a purely supernatural martial class out the gate who can match a caster across the board. My two big nos are classes that start "mundane" and arbitrarily become supernatural at high level, and the "this ability resembles magic, but it's mundane so it's not limited in the same ways magic is" answers. If you want mundane, be mundane. If you want supernatural, be supernatural. But don't be supernatural and call it mundane.

RED: If no class is allowed to transcend from mundane to non-mundane then you can never have a character who becomes absurdly strong, because this character must at some point transcend from not being absurdly strong to being absurdly strong. The exception is, of course, if they start from absurdly strong and then grow to godlike strength as they level up.

GREEN(?): This also seems quite impossible. Here you are saying that no no ability must resemble magic without having the limitations of magic, but that means that it needs to be magic, and this is absurd. If I say that Bob is so strong that he can lift an elephant, will you argue that is magical and must therefore be subject to the same limitations as magic? Can it be counterespelled? Does it stop working in an anti magic field?!

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe some archetypes are reserved to be later with new special game mechanics. For example the shaman like a druid's cousin is harder to be sold, but if the new shaman is a mixture of recycled version of vestige pact magic and incarnum totemist then they can sold a different class.

If the warlord was only a no-magic paladin then lots of players would say it is not necessary, but if the warlord is a martial adept focused more in the maneuvers of the school of the White Raven, then they could offer something different.

 

[Remathilis]

RED: If no class is allowed to transcend from mundane to non-mundane then you can never have a character who becomes absurdly strong, because this character must at some point transcend from not being absurdly strong to being absurdly strong. The exception is, of course, if they start from absurdly strong and then grow to godlike strength as they level up.

GREEN(?): This also seems quite impossible. Here you are saying that no no ability must resemble magic without having the limitations of magic, but that means that it needs to be magic, and this is absurd. If I say that Bob is so strong that he can lift an elephant, will you argue that is magical and must therefore be subject to the same limitations as magic? Can it be counterespelled? Does it stop working in an anti magic field?!

Red: This is in reference to the notion that at some arbitrary high level, the "mundane" hero no longer is confined to doing mundane things, but he is still not considered "magical". For example, the hero upon reaching 11th level can now jump miles at a time, throw things multiple times their weight, force enemies into doing nonsensical actions by Will alone, or other even more outlandish abilities (like flying, or cutting mountains in half) all while arguing the ability is not magical in origin, merely the result of being "high level".

Green: This is when classes like the hypothetical warlord gets martial abilities that mimic spells (Inspiring Word vs Healing Word) that act like spellcasting for effect purposes, but lack the restrictions of spellcasting (VSM components, antimagic susceptibility, etc). This is a specific callout to that style of build, when people try to do 1:1 polarity with casters by giving them a sword strike that does 8d6 weapon damage to everyone within 20 ft (save for half).

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Red: This is in reference to the notion that at some arbitrary high level, the "mundane" hero no longer is confined to doing mundane things, but he is still not considered "magical". For example, the hero upon reaching 11th level can now jump miles at a time, throw things multiple times their weight, force enemies into doing nonsensical actions by Will alone, or other even more outlandish abilities (like flying, or cutting mountains in half) all while arguing the ability is not magical in origin, merely the result of being "high level".

Green: This is when classes like the hypothetical warlord gets martial abilities that mimic spells (Inspiring Word vs Healing Word) that act like spellcasting for effect purposes, but lack the restrictions of spellcasting (VSM components, antimagic susceptibility, etc). This is a specific callout to that style of build, when people try to do 1:1 polarity with casters by giving them a sword strike that does 8d6 weapon damage to everyone within 20 ft (save for half).

Red: So I take it here that you would prefer then that IF what you said happens, that if for example a class gains the ability to do outlandish thing X, then you want this thing to be outright called supernatural? I can live with that.

Green: That's funny because it's really not something that bothers me at all. I can see why people would be annoyed with it, though.

I think we might be closer to agreement than it initially looked.

 

[Remathilis]

Red: So I take it here that you would prefer then that IF what you said happens, that if for example a class gains the ability to do outlandish thing X, then you want this thing to be outright called supernatural? I can live with that.

Green: That's funny because it's really not something that bothers me at all. I can see why people would be annoyed with it, though.

I think we might be closer to agreement than it initially looked.

Just to add a little more nuance, I'd prefer a supernatural explanation for why and how the outlandish thing happens. For example, the monk taps into inner energy to do amazing things. The barbarian's rage is fueled by Primal energy. The blood hunter uses alchemy and dark rituals to fuel his blood powers. That gives them the right to do some nutty things if you want. Likewise, the arcane archer, phantom rogue, psi warrior, rune knight, they all get secondary supplemental powers that give them supernatural things. However, the latter is limited to 4-5 levels, many of which are high enough level that most PCs don't get to see them. The remainder of the fighter and rogue's kit are shackled by the fact they have to cater to a handful of mundane level subclasses (champion, thief, etc).

My perfect vision would be that the fighter and rogue are redone to have the same supernatural possibilities as monks or blood hunters. The magic is baked into the base class. You are capable of supernatural stuff from low level. Your subclass could define the type of power you have (arcane, rune, psionics, primal, shadow). The idea of a pure "mundane" fighter or rogue is gone, but in its place are classes that can keep pace with what wizards and other casters can do. A rogue who can go invisible or teleport in shadows. A fighter that can fly/jump great leaps and wrestle with dragons. Not spells or spellcasting, but supernatural class features baked in the base class, and can grow with the remaining 16 levels of the base class rather than introducing them at odd intervals.

I realize that no longer leaves a purely mundane class who starts mundane and stays mundane. It's a sacrifice I'm personally willing to make to get martial classes the necessary oomph to not get left behind.

A little more on topic, I could absolutely see a warlord powered by some supernatural force working. Admittedly, I feel a 20 level warlord class is hard to design for other reasons (mainly, the fact buffing in 5e is very limited) but on a design principle, I can accept a warlord with supernatural powers doing some really nutty supernatural things. You want to shout a guy's hand back on? Go ahead. Just justify your answer with whatever supernatural power source is fueling that ability.

 

[Undrave]

As an aside, Armor on a fighter is a defensive option, so I guess your Fighters all go naked since wearing armor doesn't "advance the game state".

Armor doesn't cost ressource every times you get into battle.

You don't like playing a Monk and you don't like using Ki for a defensive option when you do, but that doesn't make it wrong or stupid, especially when the players who use these "stupid" design elements are the ones who also have fun with the class.

This "advance the game state" crap is a bunch of nonsense. Options that make the game more enjoyable are what matters, not theory crafting about what advances the game, especially when that theorycrafting is not backed up by any mathematics.

How is Patient Defence fun? You're just standing there PREDICTING you'll be attacked and hoping for the best, it's not even a reaction. You're sacrificing one of your rare Ki points, your 'Do Cool Stuff' ressource, AND your bonus action, a bonus action you need to not have subpar damage as a Monk. Maybe if your base AC and HP weren't so terrible it could be useful, but having to rely on it is not fun, it doesn't feel good and it's frustrating. It feels like you have to spend Ki just to match a baseline other melee classes reach without using up their 'do cool stuff' ressources.

Now, if Patient Defense allowed you to counter attack, then that would feel like doing something cool. Instead of just trying to survive.

We need to stop focus on a direct, word-for-word port and move towards a more "How does this fit the vibes of the previous class within the current system".

My philosophy exactly! I didn't even LOOK at the Warlord mechanics in details and the only time I cracked a book was to check out the Paragon Paths and use them as inspirations for subclasses. I've gotten so many cool ideas from this thread I'm gonna have to go back to the drawing board on my Warlord but I don't know how to slim it down!

 

[FrogReaver]

A game should not be making you choose between doing the things that are fun to play and doing the things that are rewarded by the game's fundamental mechanics.

Doing the fun things should be the same thing as doing the stuff the game rewards you for doing. That is the essence of good game design: making it so that people who want to play well and people who want to have fun choose to do the same things.

I think that’s missing a lot of nuance. Playing well almost always requires doing something you don’t find fun.

 

[Undrave]

I think that’s missing a lot of nuance. Playing well almost always requires doing something you don’t find fun.

I think a game should strive to make those the same things. It might not always been perfect but it should be the goal. In any case, you shouldn't excuse bad mechanics just because they're fun.

 

[FrogReaver]

Armor doesn't cost ressource every times you get into battle.

How is Patient Defence fun? You're just standing there PREDICTING you'll be attacked and hoping for the best, it's not even a reaction. You're sacrificing one of your rare Ki points, your 'Do Cool Stuff' ressource, AND your bonus action, a bonus action you need to not have subpar damage as a Monk. Maybe if your base AC and HP weren't so terrible it could be useful, but having to rely on it is not fun, it doesn't feel good and it's frustrating. It feels like you have to spend Ki just to match a baseline other melee classes reach without using up their 'do cool stuff' ressources.

Now, if Patient Defense allowed you to counter attack, then that would feel like doing something cool. Instead of just trying to survive.

Patient defense is one of the best tanking abilities in the game. Monk can wade into alot of enemies with patient defense up and not really worry. And since enemies will start to be downed or controlled then by round 2-3 you don’t even need to keep spending ki on it. Used properly it’s cheap and very effective.

If you don’t find ‘tanking’ fun then i get the dislike, but I do and a tier 2 monk makes a solid tank. Speed to get out in front of allies. Solid ac and ability to cause disadvantage. Can stun or close distance on solo enemy that ignores him and chases allies. Can use position and patient defense against larger groups.

Well played monks are really strong (the first few levels are a little rough though).

 

[FrogReaver]

I think a game should strive to make those the same things. It might not always been perfect but it should be the goal. In any case, you shouldn't excuse bad mechanics just because they're fun.

I don’t. Doing that completely eliminates resource abilities being strong than regular ones. Always more fun to use your bigger guns, no? Why require the wizard to sometimes fire bolt, let him fireball every turn! See the problem?