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

UngeheuerLich said:

But now, compare the monk level 2 to a rogue. Yes, the rogue has cunning action, but if they want to deal as much damage as the monk, they need to spend their bonus action on an off-hand attack. 3d6+3 damage (rogue) vs 1d8+1d4+6 damage (monk). Of course, taking hit probabilities into account, the rogue is slightly ahead (1d6 applied t nthe first hit) , but then you also need to account that this damage is conditional.

Then compare monk hp to rogue hp (same), and AC (both probably 15) and you see that on paper both classes are rather balanced against each other in combat. It just that because the monk needs to spend resources for things the rogue can do at will, that it feels worse. Then top it out with expertise for the rogue out of combat and suddenly it feels that the monk should get a little bit more either out of combat or in it.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the Rogue can do all their damage at range so they don't risk as much as a monk does in melee (where they need to be to use their bonus attack).

The Monk should just get the Mobility feat.

Micah Sweet said:

Not sure they succeeded in not having too many magical characters. Many folks want even the nonmagical characters to be magical in fact (even if they adamantly don't want them to be magical in name).

Click to expand...

I meant in the movie.

Micah Sweet said:

Not sure they succeeded in not having too many magical characters. Many folks want even the nonmagical characters to be magical in fact (even if they adamantly don't want them to be magical in name).

Click to expand...

Well yeah, that’s cause magic in DnD is a specific Thing, but that doesn’t mean we ought to be denied being able to do the fun stuff because we don’t want our characters to be painted with a specific flavour of paint, this is a Fantasy game, let us play fantasy characters who do extraordinary fantasy things without needing magic as a matter of course.

CreamCloud0 said:

Well yeah, that’s cause magic in DnD is a specific Thing, but that doesn’t mean we ought to be denied being able to do the fun stuff because we don’t want our characters to be painted with a specific flavour of paint, this is a Fantasy game, let us play fantasy characters who do extraordinary fantasy things without needing magic as a matter of course.

Click to expand...

Well, you know I don't agree with that, but we don't have to bring it here.

It's certainly a personal choice. That there are people on both sides of the "fantastic, not magic" and the "grounded, not magic" camps is not something that is going to go away soon. WotC isn't going to risk alienating people on either side, so the game is stuck in "if you want to have fantastic abilities, play a magical (sub)class" and if you don't, you can play a class that has few enough fantastic abilities that you can tilt your head to one side and pretend aren't fantastic.

Vaalingrade said:

And then all the burn flesh sloths off and regenerates when you take a nap right?

Nope. HP is plot armor; a countdown of near misses until from a story standpoint it can't be justified that you're still up. The rest of flavor text.

James Bond's rumpled suit is just as much HP damage as John McClane's sweat and bruises is just as much HP damage as Rasputin's shredded not-corpse.

Click to expand...

Next time I play a rogue or bard, I'm describing damage to them as rumpled or messy clothing lmfao. At 0, their wardrobe is so damaged they might as well just die.

Shardstone said:

Next time I play a rogue or bard, I'm describing damage to them as rumpled or messy clothing lmfao. At 0, their wardrobe is so damaged they might as well just die.

Click to expand...

There's only one way to respond to this.

"My Rogue deals 17 points of..."

Minigiant said:

My point was that few tables play as how 5e was designed to be played.

Click to expand...

Could I kindly ask to tone down the "you're doing it wrong" rhetoric?

Maybe you actually aren't the enlightened one that knows how the game truly is to be played?

Maybe 5e is enjoyed and successful because of and not in spite of the designers' efforts?

Thanks

Undrave said:

Focused Aim didn't exist when I played my Monk. Higher DEX also means extra damage.

Click to expand...

Not much extra damage though and not enough to overcome the loss to your save. Most subclass abilties with a save and stunning strike use Ki, so you want those to land when you use them, IME getting an extra 30 or so damage over the course of a day.

This is particularly true if you pick up Fey Touched and Hex. With one casting of Hex a day you can compensate quite a bit for the extra damage you would get with a dex ASI.

Undrave said:

Yeah and using Ki for Patient Defense SUCKS. It brings you up to the level of AC other classes get for free (literally, because you can get armour and shield as your stating equipment!)

Click to expand...

It brings you over where other classes. Disadvantage is a powerful mechanic. 16AC with advantage is quite a bit better than the 16-19 starting AC you get with a fighter, Paladin or Ranger and is comparable the 21 they can get once plate becomes available (and at that point the Monk will be higher).

This also varies by campaign. I've been in campaigns that went beyond 10th level where Plate was not available. In these the Monk is outrunning others by quite a bit at this level.

Undrave said:

and fails to advance the game state. Spending a resource should make you win faster, not delay your defeat, i just doesn't feel good.

Click to expand...

For some people it doesn't and they probably overuse FOB to compensate and IME those people have less fun with Monks.

Stunning Strike is very powerful offensively though, it is the same Ki cost as FOB and I would venture it is 10 times the value of FOB, but if you have wasted all your ki for an extra 1 attack a round then you don't have the opportunity to use it.

Me, I don't like Barbarians or Druids. I don't like the play style needed to be effective playing them, so I don't play them. But others do and have fun with them. I have a lot more fun with Monks more than these two classes certainly and generally more than Paladins or Bards as well.

Undrave said:

Don't forget the Rogue can do all their damage at range so they don't risk as much as a monk does in melee (where they need to be to use their bonus attack).

The Monk should just get the Mobility feat.

Click to expand...

I am not a fan of the mobility feat on a Monk. Monk is MAD and you really need to boost Wisdom and Dexterity unless you had fabulous rolls at character creation. Protecting you from 4 or 5 AOOs a day is not worth a feat IMO.

I also have problem getting an entire feat to do what you can do better by simply spending a bonus action and ki for SOW (or many times a ki and stunning strike).

I find people have an illogical fear of taking AOOs. When I am playing a Monk I rarely use step of wind to disengage, Instead I will take Patient Defense and make them use their reaction at disadvantage (along with all other attacks over the following round against me to be at disadvantage). I will alternatively use SOW-dash and take 1 AOO but then move beyond the bad guy's movement range so they can't get to me with multiattack on their turn.

I don't think this aversion to AOOs is specifc to Monk, but a lot of people feel like once they are engaged they have to stay put or find a way to disengage. This is a bit true at low level when an AOO can one shot you even with full hit points, but once you hit level 4 or so taking an AOO in combat every couple rounds is not generally the end of the world and is often better than staying engaged.

James Gasik said:

D&D also neatly sidesteps blood loss save for very specific circumstances. Which is the key. Hit points are only meat when a game element specifically makes them meat; your normal hits in combat do not do this.

Click to expand...

To say it's always meat is as wrong as to say that it's never meat. To say that it's "almost always" injuries is as wrong as to say that it is "almost always" not injuries. And "injuries" can run the gamut between bruises, nicks, cuts, etc. And natural healing in D&D has traditionally been very slow (on the order of weeks) - though more recent editions have gone in a more heroic direction where injuries are, indeed, healed with a long rest (because of whatever narrative reason you want to give - it's not any more unrealistic than the rest of the game).

For D&D Officially, HP needs to be able to be both. And non-magical healing effects do exist in the game! The Fighter's Second Wind is a pretty decent example. It heals HP, but it's not "curing wounds." Which works both with a meat model (ah, okay, the fighter's tough enough that they can focus for a minute and ignore those cuts bruises) and a nonmeat model (ah, okay, the fighter takes a moment to compose themselves and can fight on once more!).

I think the designers could probably even thread the needle and have some carefully-described nonmagical abilities restore hp without having to compromise on the possibility of a warlord being a "healing character" and without having to push too hard against people who want meatier hp. "The power to ignore your wounds" does a lot of lifting there!

I don't think HP-as-Meat is a reason 5e hasn't seen the warlord yet. 5e's OK with the general principle of nonmagical healing. It might need to walk carefully, but it's not verboten.