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

[Mephista]

The Paladin and the Ranger only get 2 attacks. The Warlord would be fine with two.

I was under the impression that minigiant wants zero extra attacks. Plus, I was being kinda silly. The truth is that I've ... well, I had my own subclasses for fighter that included a warlord that I liked. Now, however, I'm kinda just waiting for 1d&D to be published, because I have a few feats, items and subclasses bouncing in the back of my head that I think I'd like to add to the game, as well as upgrade Artificer.

Anyways, the point is that I'm just killing time since I'm waiting for the new books and not starting a new game, and I don't really have skin in this game. I'm just kinda chatting because I can while waiting for my PbP Fabula Ultima game to respond.

Everyone can find or make the warlord they want and play it. I seriously doubt WotC won't make a new class for it. So... play on and enjoy yourselves!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think the Expert sidekick class makes a good basis for a warlord. Bolt on it the '"healing die pool" from celestial warlock/dream druid, medium armor + shield and the UA tamdem tactitian feat and you are pretty close.

 

[Mephista]

I hate the lazylord.

The Point of the Warlord was the buffs and heals. If all of the classes power is hardwiring in the "High Damage Attack Action!" there is no room for buffs and heals.

I want Warlords to attack. I want the Fighter and Rogue to attack as well with Triple Team Technique!.

But a character with both HDAA and TTT is OP.

Give the Warlord Rogue or Warlock like damage and I'd be fine.

Just an aside but... not all of the Fighter's class power is hardwired into high damage attack. They have Extra Attack, okay, and one Fighting Style; But the rest? Action Surge does not automatically equate Attack Action. Same with second wind. Indomitable is not about damage, its about resistances. The new Tactical Mind is not. I suppose you can consider Weapon Masteries that, but depending on the Mastery, that can be helping your allies rather than your own dps.

I just can't agree with the idea that the Fighter's power budget is dominated by high damage. Most of the abilities are selfish, yes, but I don't think that its too difficult to change that with a feat, item or subclass feature.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree. This was earlier days of 5e, and I had a DM who remembered it well, and I played my bard to the hilt to constantly role play those traits and flaws, and then avidly cheered for any other players who did the same or did something super cool in the game. If you have anyone at the table actively working to make those things meaningful, they become meaningful to the table.

My fellow players loved me. I was encouraging their role playing, and I was also giving them a constant flow of mechanical bonuses for what they were doing. And nobody seemed to care my direct contribution to combat with my bard was mediocre. I made everyone else shine.

Do what I did one time. Keep track of how much damage was enabled by the bard and count it as your damage.

One session approximately 70% of the parties damage was via the buffer.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There IS a "Warlord equivalent" in 5E, though.

No, there isn't. There is something WotC is peddling as a Warlord equivalent. Several things. None of them are actual Warlords any more than Bards or Eldritch Knights are actual Wizards.

 

[Mephista]

No, there isn't. There is something WotC is peddling as a Warlord equivalent. Several things. None of them are actual Warlords any more than Bards or Eldritch Knights are actual Wizards.

And responses like this are why people object. No, they are Warlord equivalents. You might not like the mechanics. You can say that you don't like the mechanics and want a newer version that appeals to you. That's valid.

Being all gatekeepy and denying that its a warlord for the people who like it? That's not.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And responses like this are why people object. No, they are Warlord equivalents. You might not like the mechanics. You can say that you don't like the mechanics and want a newer version that appeals to you. That's valid.

Being all gatekeepy and denying that its a warlord for the people who like it? That's not.

We have warlords at home.

Really, it's not being gatekeepy to the people who like it. it's pushing back against people who think we should settle. Most people who think the battlemaster and sword bard are warlord enough don't really grok what the warlord was, as commander's strike and a heal are not the whole of what the class was.

 

[ECMO3]

Lots of low level campaign are against humanoids like goblins, kobolds, human bandits, maybe orcs and knolls if you're unlucky. It's not that unusual. Plus, extra weapons are a dime a dozen if you're worried.

Many of them have humanoids but almost all of them have the kinds of monsters I talked about at low level.

Among official campaigns, off the top of my head I know of low level encounters in LMOP, OOTA, TOA, Candlekeep, Saltmarsh and SKT that have monsters with resistance, immunity or vulnerability in the first two levels (most in the very first level). That is just what I remember. My bet is they are actually in every single WOTC published campaign.

As you go up in level there are fewer and fewer monsters with Resistance, Immunity or Vulnerability to all Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing..

No they're not. You just get the highest damage weapon and best AC possible it's not hard.

I am not saying it is "that hard", I am saying it is harder than a Wizard for a newbie.

Using the highest damage weapon possible the Fighter with a greatsword does no damage at all against the Black Pudding in Storm King's Thunder and does less damage than he otherwise would to the skeletons in LMOP and numerous other examples like this.

When SKT first came out I was playing it as a player and the party nearly got TPKd because the Ranger insisted on attacking the Black Pudding with a Longsword over and over.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just an aside but... not all of the Fighter's class power is hardwired into high damage attack. They have Extra Attack, okay, and one Fighting Style; But the rest? Action Surge does not automatically equate Attack Action. Same with second wind. Indomitable is not about damage, its about resistances. The new Tactical Mind is not. I suppose you can consider Weapon Masteries that, but depending on the Mastery, that can be helping your allies rather than your own dps.

I just can't agree with the idea that the Fighter's power budget is dominated by high damage. Most of the abilities are selfish, yes, but I don't think that its too difficult to change that with a feat, item or subclass feature.

It most certainly is about pure personal performance, though. Because in order to do what you describe, you must do one of two things:

1. Remove class features with a subclass, so that doing what the base class was designed to do isn't clearly the superior option anymore.
2. Create new features, or new uses for existing features, which are better than the existing ones, so people have a reason to do something other than beat things over the head.

Neither of these options is acceptable. The former is not supported by 5e's structure (no class has a subclass that removes existing features), and the latter is OP.

Your division into "selfish but not strictly about damage" vs "strictly about damage" is irrelevant. The base Fighter chassis is too much. Actually putting the options necessary for the character to fulfill the Warlord concept WOULD be overpowered. That's why every attempt they've made has felt weaksauce and incomplete--it is, intentionally so.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And responses like this are why people object. No, they are Warlord equivalents. You might not like the mechanics. You can say that you don't like the mechanics and want a newer version that appeals to you. That's valid.

Being all gatekeepy and denying that its a warlord for the people who like it? That's not.

No, there are not. Again, would you accept the Eldritch Knight as a substitute for the existing Wizard? If the Eldritch Knight does not suffice for replacing a Wizard, then the Battle Master does not suffice for replacing a Warlord.

You may also notice that the vast majority of people who love the so-called "Warlord Fighter" did not play and do not like 4e and its Warlord, and likewise, those who did play 4e and loved its Warlord are not at all happy with the insufficient facsimile we got.

If you can tell me with a straight face that you genuinely would accept, without any complaint or criticism whatsoever, the full and total excision of the Wizard from 5e purely because the Eldritch Knight exists, then I'll buy that this argument is valid. I am willing to stake that position because I am sufficiently confident you would not accept that swap.

So. Is the Eldritch Knight enough of a Wizard to justify excising the Wizard entirely?