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

[FrogReaver]

This is what I said:

*A method to heal/mitigate damage for an ally twice per day.
*A "team field" bonus that can be used once per day.
*A bonus action ability to grant an ally an attack a few times per day.

I didn't say 2-3 blesses. And given that the bonus action attacks the War Cleric gets per day are equal to their Wis, no that's not more than that at all.

Sorry you are right. So we are only 1 bless above what a level 1 war cleric can do, not 2-3. But Doesn’t that still support my point?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

2x healing words, 2-3 bonus action attacks and 2-3 blesses is more than a level 1 war cleric can do.

*And this assumes the warlord healing isn’t intended to be higher than healing word, the attacks he grants aren’t stronger than the war clerics and his blesses don’t target the whole party.

And people wonder why I say warlord fans just seem to want an OP class. To be fair @EzekielRaiden seems to have a fairly good grasp on class power budget and 5e design lines and is trying really hard to stay within them.

Yes, we do wonder why you do say that. Given the immediate response from warlord fans when being told that they can do as much as a caster is "Hang on, that seems too much!"

Yes. This is why the system needs to be expanded. But it would be a mistake to make a new system when this system is already there.
You could easily make all the battle master maneuvers level 1 to 6 warlord maneuvers and then have better ones at 7 to 12 and even better ones at 13 to 20. Or so.
The warlord should be the "full caster" variant to the "3rd caster" battlemaster.

Or make the lazylord/princess the "full caster" and the warlord the "half caster".

I did something similar when putting together a "Warlord" class: Speculate that if the Battlemaster has basically 1/3rd caster progression of maneuvers, what the full caster equivalent would be.

just to explain my thoughts for why i gave them what i did

personally, just from what i had heard of the 4e version and innovating off the battlemaster i was imagining the warlord as more of a tankier class rather than a directly offensive one, hence the higher hit die, shields and heavy armour(medium and heavy armour IMO are basically parralel progression, there's only 1 point of AC between them, just focusing on different stat prerequisites, DEX vs STR respectively)

similarly extra attack exists more as a vehicle for getting off more maneuvres than as a tool for dealing damage, their best weapons being 1-handed d8 weapons(with the possibility of 2-H d10 for longsword), but more attacks mean inflicting more effects on enemies or supporting allies.

The issue with having Extra Attack is that it is quite powerful, at least at level 5 or 6. Thus to have something that seems more effective to use most of the time, you need to make the alternative even more powerful.
When I was putting together a warlord, I gave actual Extra Attack at level 11 for most subclasses, but gave the ability to make an attack and use a maneuver at level 5/6.

I personally didn't try to push the warlord into being either as tanky, or as good at damage as a Fighter. Their strength came from making allies tankier or more offensive. While I had a fair amount of maneuvers for solo use, these generally focused on conditions and tactical use rather than trying to match fighter levels of damage.
Heavy armour, large hit die and extra attack were benefits of one of the subclasses.
Martial weapons, d8 HD, shields and medium armour were granted by the base class.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good.

The battlemaster maneuvers would do the job. It is designed for this. There are maneuvers doing exactly what a warlord should be able to do.
It just needs an expansion.
Like eldritch knight spell progression is only a third of what a wizard can do, the warlord progression should be about 3 times as powerful as battlemaster maneuvers.

I disagree. If you have a system that works, use it.

This is your assessment. You are probably playing with more dedicated gamers than I am.
I play with casual gamers and students of age 12 to 17. No, don't overload the base system with needles systems.
If you want a warlord in the base game, make it blend into it.

If we would design 6e with a warlord in mind, as I said, battle master would follow the warlord design, not vice versa (as eldritch knight follows the wizard design).
The battlemaster is actually not very popular in the mentioned group, because their maneuvers are a subsystem that looks complicated.

"Works" and "works better for the intended purpose" are often very different things. And including simple options for folks like your players should preclude more advanced options for others. The drive for simplicity has a tendency to leave behind those most invested, and they're the ones who get people interested in engaging with the game in the first place.

 

[James Gasik]

Sorry you are right. So we are only 1 bless above what a level 1 war cleric can do, not 2-3. But Doesn’t that still support my point?

Clerics have Cantrips, I mean, if Cantrips are < 1 spell slot in your opinion, then your point is valid. I honestly didn't think that was a terrible trade off- after using your heals and your daily and your bonus action granted attacks, you're reduced to being a Fighter with 2 less hit points, no Fighting Style, and no Second Wind.

Meanwhile the Cleric is still able to make light, toss out guidance, and toll the dead.

 

[FrogReaver]

Clerics have Cantrips, I mean, if Cantrips are < 1 spell slot in your opinion, then your point is valid. I honestly didn't think that was a terrible trade off- after using your heals and your daily and your bonus action granted attacks, you're reduced to being a Fighter with 2 less hit points, no Fighting Style, and no Second Wind.

Meanwhile the Cleric is still able to make light, toss out guidance, and toll the dead.

Fair point

 

[James Gasik]

However, there is a downside to my idea that's worth noting. Multiclassing. When you take two caster classes, you don't get independent spell progressions- you continue to progress in spell slots according to a set progression- 1/3 for Subclass casters, 1/2 for Paladin, Ranger, and Artificer, 1:1 for Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, and 1/???? for Warlock*.

*I am one of those heretics who hates the Warlock's design so I've never played one. Granted, this is mostly because I came into 5e through Adventure League, where you rarely get a short rest, so being a 1st level Warlock is basically "cast 1 spell, then spam Eldritch Blast". Sure, that's only one less spell than the full casters, but it's still half the spell slots.

Now if I was a 1st-level War Cleric and I multiclassed into, say, Wizard, I get another spell slot, more cantrips, and access to 1st-level Wizard spells.

If I was a 1st-level War Cleric and I multiclassed into my proposed Warlord, since it's not magical, I now have the rough equivalent of 5 spell slots! That could be a huge boost at low levels, and yes, the "Warlord dip" could become a thing.

And I honestly don't see a way around that, because to my mind, shoving features that let you feel like you're playing your class behind a level wall isn't a great experience. You just have to hope that not having level 3 spells by level 5 (and so on) is a large enough price to pay.

And note, I haven't even gotten into what Warlord 2 would bring (my initial idea is something like how Pathfinder 1's Cavalier could loan out Teamwork Feats to their allies).

It's a quandary, to say the least- it's not that you can't have a level 1 Warlord. It's just that the game is balanced around "casters work this way, non-casters work that way" and bridging the gap is going to take more work than just slapping 20 levels of a class and a couple subclasses together and dropping them on the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"Works" and "works better for the intended purpose" are often very different things. And including simple options for folks like your players should preclude more advanced options for others. The drive for simplicity has a tendency to leave behind those most invested, and they're the ones who get people interested in engaging with the game in the first place.

Really depends. I think the best thing is having a PHB that is simple to use and a book with advanced options. For those players you mention. Cluttering the base book with too many option has the tendency to overload younger and newer players. But YMMV.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really depends. I think the best thing is having a PHB that is simple to use and a book with advanced options. For those players you mention. Cluttering the base book with too many option has the tendency to overload younger and newer players. But YMMV.

Ok, except WotC never released the book with advanced options, so all those WotC ride or die folks have been out of luck for the last decade.

 

[FrogReaver]

However, there is a downside to my idea that's worth noting. Multiclassing. When you take two caster classes, you don't get independent spell progressions- you continue to progress in spell slots according to a set progression- 1/3 for Subclass casters, 1/2 for Paladin, Ranger, and Artificer, 1:1 for Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, and 1/???? for Warlock*.

*I am one of those heretics who hates the Warlock's design so I've never played one. Granted, this is mostly because I came into 5e through Adventure League, where you rarely get a short rest, so being a 1st level Warlock is basically "cast 1 spell, then spam Eldritch Blast". Sure, that's only one less spell than the full casters, but it's still half the spell slots.

Now if I was a 1st-level War Cleric and I multiclassed into, say, Wizard, I get another spell slot, more cantrips, and access to 1st-level Wizard spells.

If I was a 1st-level War Cleric and I multiclassed into my proposed Warlord, since it's not magical, I now have the rough equivalent of 5 spell slots! That could be a huge boost at low levels, and yes, the "Warlord dip" could become a thing.

And I honestly don't see a way around that, because to my mind, shoving features that let you feel like you're playing your class behind a level wall isn't a great experience. You just have to hope that not having level 3 spells by level 5 (and so on) is a large enough price to pay.

And note, I haven't even gotten into what Warlord 2 would bring (my initial idea is something like how Pathfinder 1's Cavalier could loan out Teamwork Feats to their allies).

It's a quandary, to say the least- it's not that you can't have a level 1 Warlord. It's just that the game is balanced around "casters work this way, non-casters work that way" and bridging the gap is going to take more work than just slapping 20 levels of a class and a couple subclasses together and dropping them on the game.

generally you don’t see casters dipping for low level class features of other casters. And there’s no great level 1 martial feature that works great with spell casting (heavy armor and shields maybe?)

Most concerns can be solved via action economy. Action required to let ally attack. Party buff takes an action. Etc. I think warlord abilities will be similar

 

[James Gasik]

generally you don’t see casters dipping for low level class features of other casters. And there’s no great level 1 martial feature that works great with spell casting (heavy armor and shields maybe?)

Most concerns can be solved via action economy. Action required to let ally attack. Party buff takes an action. Etc. I think warlord abilities will be similar

Other than Sorlocks and Hexblade dips, that is.