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

[EzekielRaiden]

oh of course, i'm not saying make it all passive buffs but there's some improvement to the toolset that could go a long way to improving these classes's baseline turn-to-turn capacities rather than upgrading all the expendable tools: additional movement, more/better action economy, healing surges rather than hit die, these are all things that improve the foundational gameplay of the classes and thus improve the experience of using those 'fun' resources more, just from being more capable.

also do note i'm including the idea of some things like cunning action and reckless attack in 'passive' abilities here as they don't expend any resources, they're just things you always have available to use.

Well, frankly, while that wouldn't be bad, it's also not enough on its own. As an example, one of the classes that got an awful lot of post-release feedback in 13th Age first edition (since they're working on a second now--13A1e? Lotta numbers there...) was the Paladin. And a big part of why it got all that feedback was that the vast majority of its gameplay options were...well, pretty much what you describe. Purely passive gains. And passive gains, while nice, are a lot harder to notice than active ones. That doesn't mean they're totally invisible, but it does mean they need to do a lot more work in order to be visible more than once in a blue moon. Even things like Cunning Action. Reckless Attack is a bit of a middle ground, mostly because it's a mixed blessing, so players are always a tad more cautious about its use...but it can still very quickly become a "default state of being" kind of thing, and thus slip off the radar.

This is where things like usable "stances" or "phases" come into play. The main difference between the two is that you usually stay in one stance for an extended period of time, while you progress through multiple phases, often in a particular intended sequence. In a certain sense, Rage is a stance in this framework. 4e had several stance-based classes, like the Barbarian and Warden, or (arguably) Runepriest, though that really should've been a Cleric subclass. It also had some phase-based options, notably the Cosmic Sorcerer, which would go through a celestial cycle (Solar/fire+radiant, Lunar/cold+psychic, Stellar/force, IIRC), each with different effects on you.

These manage to be a little bit of both things; you mostly get your benefits from passive boosts, but which passive boost you get varies. You never become completely acclimatized. It always feels just a little bit fresh, because it doesn't fall into one eternal pattern.

Now, of course, having some classes that are just always consistent all the time is not bad. I'd say that's what works well for both brand-new players and players who just really want to zone out and not think too much while playing, the "beer and pretzels" crowd. They deserve recognition--including the recognition that magic doesn't have to exclude them. But to force any class, let alone multiple classes, to ONLY be that (unless they become spellcasters themselves...) is simply Not Okay.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, frankly, while that wouldn't be bad, it's also not enough on its own. As an example, one of the classes that got an awful lot of post-release feedback in 13th Age first edition (since they're working on a second now--13A1e? Lotta numbers there...) was the Paladin. And a big part of why it got all that feedback was that the vast majority of its gameplay options were...well, pretty much what you describe. Purely passive gains. And passive gains, while nice, are a lot harder to notice than active ones. That doesn't mean they're totally invisible, but it does mean they need to do a lot more work in order to be visible more than once in a blue moon. Even things like Cunning Action. Reckless Attack is a bit of a middle ground, mostly because it's a mixed blessing, so players are always a tad more cautious about its use...but it can still very quickly become a "default state of being" kind of thing, and thus slip off the radar.

This is where things like usable "stances" or "phases" come into play. The main difference between the two is that you usually stay in one stance for an extended period of time, while you progress through multiple phases, often in a particular intended sequence. In a certain sense, Rage is a stance in this framework. 4e had several stance-based classes, like the Barbarian and Warden, or (arguably) Runepriest, though that really should've been a Cleric subclass. It also had some phase-based options, notably the Cosmic Sorcerer, which would go through a celestial cycle (Solar/fire+radiant, Lunar/cold+psychic, Stellar/force, IIRC), each with different effects on you.

These manage to be a little bit of both things; you mostly get your benefits from passive boosts, but which passive boost you get varies. You never become completely acclimatized. It always feels just a little bit fresh, because it doesn't fall into one eternal pattern.

Now, of course, having some classes that are just always consistent all the time is not bad. I'd say that's what works well for both brand-new players and players who just really want to zone out and not think too much while playing, the "beer and pretzels" crowd. They deserve recognition--including the recognition that magic doesn't have to exclude them. But to force any class, let alone multiple classes, to ONLY be that (unless they become spellcasters themselves...) is simply Not Okay.

no disagreement but i may need to clarify one thing, i said what i said speaking about improving martials as a category rather than looking at them as a group of individual classes, there are improvements that i think should be made to their design as a whole(even if specifics may vary from class to class),

that the 'peak physical' fighter and 'scrawny researcher' wizard both have exactly the same 30ft speed, action, bonus action and reaction causes dissonance for me and i think is also bad design that it is standardised so much. (yes i know speed comes from species but they don't have any class modifiers to their speed)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Did I say that? Hmm. Don't see the word "superhuman" mentioned anywhere...nope, I am fairly confident that isn't, even remotely, what I said.

I was saying that the standard, "very playable," is a completely irrelevant standard. Like attempting to praise a food by calling it "very nontoxic" or a camping area by saying "very rabies-free." Meaningful toxicity is an instantaneous dealbreaker in a (so-called) food. A severe rabies outbreak is an instantaneous dealbreaker with a campground. Having an actually unplayable game would be an instantaneous dealbreaker for a (so-called) game.

5e isn't unplayable. I have never, ever said otherwise. But merely saying "it's a playable game" is terrible. It is damning with faint praise if the only good thing you can say about something is that it's "very playable." It would be like saying of a friend, as a recommendation of their quality as a date, "They're literate." Not nice, or friendly, or a good conversationalist, or attractive, or reliable, or even punctual. Just that they can read. If someone else "complemented" me by saying that and nothing more, I'd be deeply offended.

Any game that is not "very playable" is not worthy of the term "game." 5e is a game, and it is playable. I should damned well hope that it brings more to the table than "playable."


Once more, with feeling:

I tried.​

Have you considered Level Up? They have a marshal class that does everything I might want a warlord to do, and the combat maneuver system fixes a lot of other issues 5e has.

Additionally, unlike other non-WotC 5e games you've tried to play, it should be possible to find players for Level Up.

 

[Mecheon]

Additionally, unlike other non-WotC 5e games you've tried to play, it should be possible to find players for Level Up.

Much larger buy-in on folks having to learn Level Up though, and absolutely folks who'd be prone to doing more 5E related stuff might just go "Nah" because they just consider it homebrew

If you can't get someone cool with Kibble or Lazy's warlords despite those being incredibly well regarded in the community and consideredm by and large to be balanced and non-disruptive, going to that person and going "Hey so there's this thing called Level Up" is just going to get you laughed at, probably worse than the response from just wanting to slip in one more class

Of course, depends on the people involved, but its unfortunately a case of a niche audience who are already in on 5E stuff, are cool with homebrew, and want to expand further from there. If either of those doesn't add up, may not go down well

 

[Micah Sweet]

Much larger buy-in on folks having to learn Level Up though, and absolutely folks who'd be prone to doing more 5E related stuff might just go "Nah" because they just consider it homebrew

If you can't get someone cool with Kibble or Lazy's warlords despite those being incredibly well regarded in the community and consideredm by and large to be balanced and non-disruptive, going to that person and going "Hey so there's this thing called Level Up" is just going to get you laughed at, probably worse than the response from just wanting to slip in one more class

Of course, depends on the people involved, but its unfortunately a case of a niche audience who are already in on 5E stuff, are cool with homebrew, and want to expand further from there. If either of those doesn't add up, may not go down well

Sounds like the only person who wants to laugh at me here is you. Your assumption that any group of players who want to play a 5e-style game will turn up their pretentious noses at A5e as "homebrew" is hopelessly pessimistic. You could get on the A5e Discord right now, say you're looking a game, and find one pretty quickly.

I would also say that @EzekielRaiden is a 4e fan which, no matter how you feel about it, is not a light game. I think he can handle a new game that largely follows WotC 5e rules anyway.

I don't make these suggestions for no reason, and I don't work for EN Publishing. I honestly see Level Up as a superior game to any other 5e-type, and in particular feel that people who have issues with WotC's version would benefit from trying it.

 

[Yaarel]

I C&P the flavor from 4e

Your version is too weak. In a WOTCized Warlord, you double rolled healing in 2024. So Inspiring Word would let you roll your HD 2 or 3 times. Which matches to a good % of HP.

I know. But full-on healing without spending Hit Dice, means the Warlord pays the cost instead of the target. In this case, it would be a power per Short Rest.

 

[Mecheon]

I don't make these suggestions for no reason, and I don't work for EN Publishing. I honestly see Level Up as a superior game to any other 5e-type, and in particular feel that people who have issues with WotC's version would benefit from trying it.

We are in a bit of a closed ecosystem here, though

I dunno where EzekielRaiden goes to find his games (from personal experience my experience getting games going through Discord has a success rate of 0) but it is possible it is from other places that may not know or care about it.

It can be a legitimate concern as we've had dozens of "How do I cram this game into 5E because my friends will not play anything else" threads here alone, so if he's friends who want to play 5E and 5E specifically, and who hear about Level Up, may think its something completely different and not want to touch. Certainly an option, sure, but not the be all and end all

 

[ECMO3]

We have Crawford himself telling us that this is not true.

I don't think Crawford said what you claimed.

You claimed "short rests get dropped faster than combats get dropped." and "that most groups do 4-5 combats per long rest"

Crawford did say Warlocks need to cast more spells and they don't get enough short rests, but that is because the number of combats is low.

Look at the WOTC published adventures: OOTA, TOA, ROFM, SKT, POA ....

Most days in these you are going to have 1 combat or 0 combats. With 1 combat that means Warlocks have less resources than other casters who can Nova and with 1 combat (or 0 combats) it is unlikely you do any actual short rests mechanically and even if you do short rests as a story element, without another encounter they are mechanically irrelevant.

I don't think Crawford said anything to support the idea that short rests get dropped faster than combats get dropped and even if he did, that certainly is not true on any large campaign published by WOTC with the possible exception of DOMM.

There are precious few adventuring days in published campaigns where you do 4-5 combats at all. You have a few, and in those few you are getting short rests IME.

Classes based on short rests are not getting enough short rests compared to how many long rests groups take. That is a fact, told to us by the very makers themselves. If you wish to dispute it with them, more power to you.

Not enough compared to the long rests they get sure, but that is not the same as saying they are not getting enough compared to the number of combats groups have and I don't think the makers themselves have said anything to indicate that is the case.

Nope! That is also emphatically untrue.

It is true. As I said dodging, even as an action, is rather often an optimal tactic.

Uh...no. Rogues are the bottom of the barrel. Try again.

Considering all 3 pillars of the game Rogues are substantially better than Barbarians at every single level, assuming Standard Array or Point Buy. At some levels Barbarians are better at the combat pillar alone but they are never the equal of a Rogue in the other two pillars.

The good Rogue subclasses also bring a lot more to the class than the Barbarian subclasses generally bring to the Barbarian.

Again, you conflate what I am speaking about with "optimization." I am not. Do not mistake caring about being effective with desiring to be the absolute most optimal possible thing.

What is the definition of effective then. This is a very gray area, at what point do you get so far away from optimal that you are not effective?

My arguement is a Monk is an effective character, not the most effective, but certainly effective and any class can be effective.

If a player is choosing to play, for example, a "Warlord-like" character (since you can't actually make a proper Warlord in 5e), they want that to be the thing they do best.

I don't agree with this. If I want to play a spell caster I can play a Wizard and be the best spell caster possible. I can play a Sorc or Cleric and be a pretty darn good spell caster but not as good as an optimal Wizard. I can play a Ranger and optimize my character for using spells and be a good controller and spell caster and while I won't be "the best at that" it will be what "I am best at".

That is not the thing Fighters to best.

What fighters do best is decided by how you build them. 5E is very flexible. Different people want different things out of a Warlord, but given the options currently available I would offer that a Ranger, Rogue or Cleric is probably the best Chassis for a "Warlord Like" character but you would have to build towards that and give up much of the archetype those classes are built around.

It does not matter what subclass you pick. Supporting other people is not, and in 5e-as-it-exists cannot be, the thing a Fighter is best at. Period.

I would disagree with this. The fighter is not the best class to build for this, but you can make a fighter that is best at this.
If you want to support other people - be a Halfling, take Battlemaster, superior technique, Bountiful Luck, martial adept, Gift of the Metallic Dragon, Magic Initiate-Cleric-Guidance-Resistance-Heroism, Fey Touched-Bless. Carry no weapons, when you are not using Battlemaster dice take the help action for your action.

This character will be best at supporting other people

Either you have to nerf their actual Fighter abilities into the ground

Yes exactly. I mentioned Rangers as controller above, I have actually played that into high level and I did exactly what you you claimed - I nerfed their martial abilities with weapons "into the ground". Yeah they still had extra attack, but they were not good using a Rapier with a 14 Dex and 8 Strength at level 14.

How is it not what you said? You're talking about building a character that supports, but does so by intentionally dumping all the things they're personally good at instead.

It is not what I said. I explained what I said. Building a fighter to be a helper in combat is not intentionally building a bad character. Building a fighter to be a helper in combat and then expecting him to function instead as a fighter, while swinging a greatsword with a 14 strength is what I said.

That's literally the same thing. You're dumping what you're actually good for doing, and replacing it with something clearly, demonstrably inferior.

Inferior is not the same as bad. Yes your helper fighter will be inferior to other helpers, but they won't be bad at that. They will be bad at the archetype abilities of a fighter.

I want a Warlord that doesn't have to dump anything. A Warlord where the thing it is already best at doing is supporting others. Where trying to do all the work yourself IS the "do something clearly, demonstrably inferior" option.

Ok. I don't have a problem with this. Helping others is not something I particularly enjoy and I don't think most players particularly enjoy this in a PC as compared to attacking or casting offensive spells or .... even doorway dodging.

I think this is a small number of players who like this, but I am not against a new class to cater to this desire. However don't denigrate the rest of us who do like playing Monks and do like using Patient Defense just because that is not something you want to do.

 

[Undrave]

And again that doesn't explain why you wear it. Having a knitting needle in your backpack doesn't cost anything either but not all your fighters have that.

Because high AC is good?

I almost never use Step of the Wind to disengage.

Come to think of it... why does it exist if, as you say, Patient Defense is vastly superior?? It's even better for your allies if you can trigger some extra OA and take no damage.

5E rewards this play style. The very archetype of a Warlord class this thread is about relies on a play style centered on not doing damage yourself.

It can but doesn't need to.

A 6th-level Barbarian has 4 Rages per day. They'd only be running out for two total combats each day on your six-a-day diet. Even if we assume all combats are ONLY three rounds--so the Monk is only having 1 round per combat where they do nothing particularly interesting--the Monk is getting 6 rounds of combat where they do nothing interesting. The Barbarian is getting...six rounds of combat where they do nothing interesting. The two are equivalent; the Barbarian's just got their "nothing special" rounds all happening in two whole combats, while the Monk is having theirs spread out to every single combat.

Don't forget you don't need to Rage to use Reckless Attack, something that can result into a devastating one shot for lesser enemies. And the Totem Barbarian gets abilities at level 6 that don't rely on Rage. The Barbarians has cool stuff that don't rely on Rage.

 

[Undrave]

Doorway dodging is a thing and it is the optimal thing quite often.

You don't need to dodge if the enemy's dead already.

Does it? I think it says that some people are misinformed. Now, the Berserker subclass is absolutely one of the worst subclasses in the entire game, possibly the worst, which is a genuinely impressive feat considering its competition (Four Elements Monk, Beast Master Ranger, Champion Fighter).

Don't forget the subclass in the Sword Coast guide they never reprinted.

My arguement is a Monk is an effective character, not the most effective, but certainly effective and any class can be effective.

My experience tells me otherwise.

What fighters do best is decided by how you build them.

Nah, there's a limit to that because of what's on the pages.

5E is very flexible. Different people want different things out of a Warlord, but given the options currently available I would offer that a Ranger, Rogue or Cleric is probably the best Chassis for a "Warlord Like" character but you would have to build towards that and give up much of the archetype those classes are built around.

So a homebrew class?

I would disagree with this. The fighter is not the best class to build for this, but you can make a fighter that is best at this.
If you want to support other people - be a Halfling, take Battlemaster, superior technique, Bountiful Luck, martial adept, Gift of the Metallic Dragon, Magic Initiate-Cleric-Guidance-Resistance-Heroism, Fey Touched-Bless. Carry no weapons, when you are not using Battlemaster dice take the help action for your action.

This character will be best at supporting other people

'Cary no weapon' when most of the Battlemaster abilities actually require you to attack to get the effect? THAT is building a character wrong. And how long exactly would it take for all that stuff to get online? Halfway through the campaign?

If a Wizard can be a Wizard at level 1, I want to be a Warlord at level 1. That's the crux of it, innit?

Ok. I don't have a problem with this. Helping others is not something I particularly enjoy and I don't think most players particularly enjoy this in a PC as compared to attacking or casting offensive spells or .... even doorway dodging.

I think this is a small number of players who like this, but I am not against a new class to cater to this desire. However don't denigrate the rest of us who do like playing Monks and do like using Patient Defense just because that is not something you want to do.

Can't be that unpopular if 1/4 of every 4e Class was a leader and people liked them. Clerics, Warlords, Bards, Shamans, I've seen or played them myself. In 4e, people loved the Leaders handing out bonuses, they loved the Defenders keeping enemies off of them and they loved the Strikers wth their big numbers.

The Controllers, now those are the ones I bet were not very popular.