D&D 5E (2014) Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?

[Minigiant]

One idea I had for a 5e-ized Warlord that could be under 6 pages I'd to have a Warlord Aura. The Aura is the Area the Warlord is coordinating.

Those in the Aura can snag bonuses for a shared pool which is the Warlord's plan.

So a Warlord might have

• 4 damage dice Rerolls
• 2 Gain Advantage
• 2 Attack Roll Rerolls
• 2 Saving Throws Rerolls
• 1 Shove
• 3d8 of Damage
• 5d8 of Healing.

Then the Warlord spends an action to turn the 2 Attack Rerolls into 4 Damage Rerolls.

 

[FrogReaver]

Attack granting is not a challenge in 5E. I have no idea why people keep making this claim. I have never seen this claim appear and it seems otherwise completely nonsensical. It smells of white room analysis, not real world playtesting.

Finding a version the 4e warlord fans can get behind that’s balanced very much is. Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us what is nonsensical about it.

 

[Shardstone]

Finding a version the 4e warlord fans can get behind that’s balanced very much is. Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us what is nonsensical about it.

I don't think Warlord fans are as splintered as you paint them. Many of us have variations on an idea, but don't really have problems with other people's variations. On top of that, the argument that something needs to 100% be what everyone imagined is nonsensical, if not designed to kill conversation. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees, especially on a forum as small as Enworld; the handful of posters in this thread don't constitute a passable population size AND people only need to be satisfied with a solution with it, not have it be their exact solution. For these two specific reasons, I really request people stop bringing up the discussion point "But not every Warlord fan will love that!" because there's no way for you to know that, there's no way to draw that inference from this small amount of present data, and it does nothing but muck up the conversation by trying to shut it down with an ad populum argument.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think Warlord fans are as splintered as you paint them. Many of us have variations on an idea, but don't really have problems with other people's variations. On top of that, the argument that something needs to 100% be what everyone imagined is nonsensical, if not designed to kill conversation. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees, especially on a forum as small as Enworld; the handful of posters in this thread don't constitute a passable population size AND people only need to be satisfied with a solution with it, not have it be their exact solution. For these two specific reasons, I really request people stop bringing up the discussion point "But not every Warlord fan will love that!" because there's no way for you to know that, there's no way to draw that inference from this small amount of present data, and it does nothing but muck up the conversation by trying to shut it down with an ad populum argument.

I keep saying that the Warrlord fan community will mostly all agree on the same thing

You know. . As long as a someone puts actual effort in it

 

[pawsplay]

How is that not an extra cost? It's basically a maintenance cost for the ability imposed on the person granting the ability.

That's why the Monk sucks.

I guess. I don't think marking where a monk is on the martial-magic-psi by striker-defender-controller grid is immediately going to sprout insights into how to build a low-gear character in a high-gear game.

 

[Undrave]

I guess. I don't think marking where a monk is on the martial-magic-psi by striker-defender-controller grid is immediately going to sprout insights into how to build a low-gear character in a high-gear game.

If you know you're trying to build a Striker you'll know what helps accomplish that goal and be able to see if it has a place in your class. It's fairly simple.

Low gear thing is fair but 4e had rules to just buy magic items and invented magical tattoos you could use as a monk. Plus a bunch of utility wondrous item you could spend on. You'd think it'd be easier to balance a monk when the only gear you can buy is only a handful of GP worth of mundane stuff.

 

[pawsplay]

If you know you're trying to build a Striker you'll know what helps accomplish that goal and be able to see if it has a place in your class. It's fairly simple.

Is a monk a striker? Do you think it's cool 4e had a defender fighter and a striker fighter? Should 5e have both striker and defender options for monk?

 

[Undrave]

Reject it. I think it could work. But attack granting is something desired and it’s a big challenge in 5e.

Attack granting is not a challenge in 5E. I have no idea why people keep making this claim. I have never seen this claim appear and it seems otherwise completely nonsensical. It smells of white room analysis, not real world playtesting.

Exactly? How is it an issue? We have Commander's Strike right there!

Let's compare Commander's Strike to two other Maneuvers: Lunging Attack and Maneuvring Attack. All three can be grabbed at level 3 and all three use 1 superiority dice. All three ad the superiority dice to the damage of the attack made as part of their effects.

This means that 'Granting an allies, who spends their reaction, a single attack' is given the same 'value' in this transaction as 'Attack someone 5 feet further away' and 'An ally can move half their speed without triggering oa from the target'. That doesn't feel like a high value effect to me. Especially because a reaction can be REALLY costly: A Fighter with the right Subclass or feat can use their OA to stop an enemy in their track, a Wizard can use reaction to protect themselves with Shield, and both the Monk and Rogue can use it to use Evasion. It's not like 4e where you get one reaction per character's turn, you only get 1 per round.

Commander's Strike is basically sacrificing your own attack to let an ally do an opportunity attack without riders. The dice cost seems to exist only to justify the extra damage and nothing else. I don't think an at-will version of Commander's Strike that offers no damage bonus would be broken.

One idea I had for a 5e-ized Warlord that could be under 6 pages I'd to have a Warlord Aura. The Aura is the Area the Warlord is coordinating.

Those in the Aura can snag bonuses for a shared pool which is the Warlord's plan.

So a Warlord might have

• 4 damage dice Rerolls
• 2 Gain Advantage
• 2 Attack Roll Rerolls
• 2 Saving Throws Rerolls
• 1 Shove
• 3d8 of Damage
• 5d8 of Healing.

Then the Warlord spends an action to turn the 2 Attack Rerolls into 4 Damage Rerolls.

That could be interesting! The Warlord has a buffet of benefit and people can just grab from it on their turn... Maybe the Warlord can set one up every time they perform an Attack!

 

[Undrave]

Is a monk a striker? Do you think it's cool 4e had a defender fighter and a striker fighter? Should 5e have both striker and defender options for monk?

The 4e Monk was a Striker, I don't know what the 5e Monk is good at because to make it be good at anything on a baseline level they need to spend their limited Ki point. They've got terrible AC without Ki, and their HP is too low to tank, and their damage sucks without Flurry of Blow which also costs Ki. There's some cool utility in the class where I can see a Monk replacing a Rogue outside of battle (though some equivalent of Expertise could be useful) but a Rogue would be better in combat. They need DEX for their attacks and AC, they need WIS for their effects and they'll want CON because they WILL get hit so they have no room for trying out different builds. I wouldn't be opposed to have either a Striker or Defender monk in 5e as long as they're good and don't rely on a limited resource to have basic competency.

4e had a Striker Fighter, it was called the Ranger, but the Fighter was clearly minoring in Striker.

 

[Mephista]

2e didn't really have a monk class.

Oh. I thought cleric kit was official. Ah, well. Learn something new.

That said, I think it would have been fine as a Rogue kit. but tHats just me.

Attack granting is not a challenge in 5E. I have no idea why people keep making this claim. I have never seen this claim appear and it seems otherwise completely nonsensical. It smells of white room analysis, not real world playtesting.

Because its impossible to balance. In 4e everyonehad a basic attack. In 5e? A warlock basic attack is multiple eldritch blasts. Rogue has tons of sneak attacks. Pally could smite pre1dnd. A glamor bard... has vicious mockery? Monk has basic punch.

The results vary wildly. Which means that the mechanic might be useless or might be OP, depending on party composition. Something outside your control. And what happens if you rely on having a Rogue, but they stop showing or change PC?