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

[Yaarel]

fighters and rogues using Ki i would definitely accept, plus it can be utilised in subtle and passive ways but psionics? no way that stuff is way too high-key and psychic powers-y to be put in their baseclasses and maintain the themes i'd want from them,

Psionic characters are using other levels of the soul (spirit and consciousness). Albeit, the "psychometabolic" powers do engage the ki bodily aura, for healing and shapeshifting.

In any case, I am comfortable with the Psion class utilizing the "Primal" power source. So Psionic is really a specialization within Primal.

The Fighter, Rogue, and Monk are using other aspects of the Primal power source.

 

[Yaarel]

I've been pondering a united ki-grit-luck-rage-chutzpah-whatnot pool....

Yeah, all of that can easily be Primal.

Regarding "luck", it associates with "Fate", the fates as seers and oracles, and navigating parallel timelines. All of this is within animism and the "Primal" power source.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've been pondering a united ki-grit-luck-rage-chutzpah-whatnot pool....

Personally rather than expendable resources I’d prefer if more of their power went into passive upgrades, not all of them but like, why is the monk like the only martial baseclass that really gets flat improved movement, mess around with martials capabilities in this overly rigid structure more,

 

[Staffan]

Personally rather than expendable resources I’d prefer if more of their power went into passive upgrades, not all of them but like, why is the monk like the only martial baseclass that really gets flat improved movement, mess around with martials capabilities in this overly rigid structure more,

Thing is that passive resources are kinda boring. Compare the Champion to the Battlemaster. The Champion crits more often, which translates into a passive damage boost. The Battlemaster instead has a limited resource they can spend just when it is needed, which gives the player a choice and the feeling that they are in control.

(Of course, it's not a perfect comparison since you need to fight many, many rounds between short rests for the Champion's passive buff to catch up with the Battlemaster's bonus damage dice, plus that the Battlemaster also throws in some debuffs and such. But even ignoring that, the Battlemaster is a more fun design than the Champion.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

The crab pot fallacy

If a crab tries to climb out of a crab pot, the other crabs will pull them back down, preventing them from escaping, and dooming them all to death.

We can't have better martial classes cuz that would make the other martial classes look worse and we can't be arsed to buff them too.

WotC only has two martial classes. It shouldn't be too hard to buff them at the same time. They won't, of course, but they could.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, all of that can easily be Primal.

Regarding "luck", it associates with "Fate", the fates as seers and oracles, and navigating parallel timelines. All of this is within animism and the "Primal" power source.

Why call it primal? All that stuff could just as easily be psionic instead. It's an older power source in D&D anyway. Primal as a power source came about in 4e, decades after psionics.

 

[Cain_the_Deceiver]

Operative word there: won't
And yes, having only two true martials and a class that's basically martial (ranger, the only 1/3 caster that isn't a subclass) is just more reason of them being lazy and not just bringing everyone to the same level

 

[Yaarel]

Why call it primal? All that stuff could just as easily be psionic instead. It's an older power source in D&D anyway. Primal as a power source came about in 4e, decades after psionics.

Referring to the Fighter as a Psionic class is fine with me, but might rub some players the wrong way. At least, it would take some getting used to that "Psionic" means "soul".

(Psionic actually does mean "soul", since the Greek term psukhe, which means "self", was used to translate the Hebrew term nefesh, which means "lifeforce", and both came to mean the concept of a "soul".)


For me the name "Primal" is no problem, because psionic is an animistic concept.

Interestingly enough, the D&D Druid and Psionics came out at the same time, during Original D&D, even before 1e. In this sense, Primal and Psionic are equally early, and have always been part of the AD&D tradition onward. I think it is ok to make Primal and Psionic the same thing, and including magical Martial seems helpful too.

 

[Remathilis]

Operative word there: won't
And yes, having only two true martials and a class that's basically martial (ranger, the only 1/3 caster that isn't a subclass) is just more reason of them being lazy and not just bringing everyone to the same level

Ranger is a half caster like paladin and artificer.

 

[ECMO3]

Please, nobody cares about the weight of an armor and by level 3 nobody cares about mundane gear costs.

First of all weight does matter a lot if you play RAW, especially if you are a small PC or have a low strength. Second this still doesn't tell me why you wear it. Making enemies miss is not fun (your words), so why bother and why would you ever, ever upgrade?

More to the point, maybe some people don't worry about the loss in damage in spending a bonus action to dodge either.

When I use patient defense, I don't think to myself "oh heck I could have done anouth 8 points of damage instead"

You have a playstyle and for some reason you think everyone else plays the same as you or likes the same things as you.

You know what I don't like doing as a player? Using my action to buff others, or giving others opportunity attacks .... which is really the whole point of the Warlord archetype. I personally have a lot more fun using patient defense, or doorway dodging for that matter. That doesn't mean it is "wrong" to like that style of play or that a Warlord type class would be terrible just because I personally don't like to play my PCs that way.