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

[EzekielRaiden]

I mentioned this earlier but it was offhand and I think I should ask it directly: is heavy armour actually notably superior to medium armour? There’s only one point of AC between them and honestly to me it feels more like they’re parallel tracks of progression for DEX and STR based characters to use respectively.

It's not that it's strictly superior overall, though it is slightly better. It's that:

1. The original Warlord did not get heavy armor (and did get martial weapons, notably), and this is one of the easiest and simplest things we can do to stick close(r) to the original;
2. Going heavy armor, especially with other things like the default d10 HD and default Extra Attack, contributes to a "do it yourself" build style*;
3. Armor proficiency and bonus HP are well-established as subclass add-ons, but (AFAIK) WotC subclass design is purely additive: they have never published a single subclass which outright removes/deletes extant proficiencies in a class.

*Again, I'm not opposed to this as a specific build option, I just don't want it to be the unavoidable, unremovable baked-in default. Which is, again, the big problem with the Fighter, there's too much baked-in default.

I do agree that there's some Str-vs-Dex stuff going on here. That's why I advocate a "Vanguard" (or whatever we want to call it, that's just my term) subclass that specializes in Strength, heavy armor, and personally having extra attacks. Part of why I favor the Warlock/"fractal" class model is that it's already an established example of how to have highly divergent subclasses and customization within a single framework. To my eyes, that is the "reuse subsystems you already have" approach that really gets the job done. Invocations as "Tactics" (or what-have-you) are extremely similar, and as noted I think the split-subclass model is terrifically useful for modeling the breadth of options Warlords can cash out as (strong or nimble, charismatic or cerebral, personally-active or assisting from afar, different weapon preferences or martial arts, etc.)

Great example: I think it should be well-supported to have a Mr. Miagi-style "Old Master" Warlord (or Grand Master Oogway, or Ben Kenobi, or...). That's someone who should be relatively fragile, using light or no armor, often supporting from afar or tricking others (allies as well as enemies) into doing what they can see needs to be done. If the baseline Warlord chassis is wedded to d10 and heavy armor, I'm not seeing that choice making sense for this character--too robust and too well-armored to make sense. Meanwhile, if we make the "Vanguard" separate from this "Old Master", we have so much more room to play, to build upon the 4e ethos of the Warlord but in new ways, 5e ways, that respect the old ways without being enslaved to them.

4e ranger had the same hit points as a warlord, they still have d10 hit dice so I feel like the warlord should have the same. I can see dropping armour to medium, but it's always felt like a warrior class to me and I think it should be as sturdy as one when it comes to hit points.

That's why I say that there should be at least one subclass, possibly multiple, that we give heavy armor as one of the subclass perks. Again, Clerics do that: Forge, Life, Order, Tempest, and War all get heavy armor as a subclass feature. With Bard, Valor and Swords both get medium armor. Bladesinger gets Light armor. Bumping up armor proficiency from multiple subclasses is a well-precedented 5e design choice, especially for support-heavy classes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One of the things I was looking forward to, and I was surprised when it didn't really eventuate, was a crpg using 4e as the base. They'd created a perfect game for the transition to computer games and they did pretty much nothing with it. It would have worked great as something similar to those jrpgs with bursts and squares moved, etc.

I think the main issue is that marks, and a handful of other things, actually don't translate well to a code environment. They depend too much on human judgment. I fear that a 4e-based CRPG would end up rather stale, because AI simply isn't up to the task of matching human wits without cheating (or Deep Blue-ing it, running all possible results and always choosing the perfect optimal choice, which results in omniscient enemies and often a lot of un-fun situations.) Perhaps I am wrong, and good AI can be written to use such powers cleverly. But I am not certain it would have existed a decade ago, even if it can be done today.

 

[Yaarel]

I do agree that there's some Str-vs-Dex stuff going on here. That's why I advocate a "Vanguard" (or whatever we want to call it, that's just my term) subclass that specializes in Strength, heavy armor, and personally having extra attacks.

I think "Vanguard" is a fantastic name for the subclass of the "lead from the front" tanky heavy infantry Warlord tropes.


(By the way, explain what you mean by a "fractal subclass"?)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is really why a Barbarian is not good at tanking IME. They can take a lot of damage when they are at full, but hit points are a resource like any other and a more expensive one to "recharge" than a lot of other options.

Alright. I have seen them do just fine. Are they the best? No. That is, as you say, the cheesiness of a Bladesinger who never has to fight more than Proficiency bonus fights a day (since, y'know, a huge chunk of their AC depends on it), and who exclusively blows slots on tanking and nothing else, sure, they can almost be unhittable. For everything that isn't ripe-aged Limburger, Barbarian is only a small step down. It is, I agree, still a step down. But it's still good. Not being the ultimate cheesefest does not make someone bad at something.

As I mentioned to my DM recently the same day that he killed my 3rd level Bard (who had a 13 AC but good hps) - "A high Armor Class beats high hit points every day of the week"

Until, of course, that Bladesinger takes a crit to the face and eats dirt because a nasty crit wipes them out good, being, y'know, a Wizard with d6 HP and pressing need to max Intelligence as quickly as humanly possible for more AC (meaning, at best, they're getting 8 HP at first level and 6 thereafter.) Hit points don't matter until they do, film at 11.

Come on, man. Good AC is definitely helpful, but it is far from the only solution, and isn't even always the best solution. Your comparison is simply not apples to apples. Some of the lowest possible AC, at low level, on a class with at best average HP (remember, a level 3 Barbarian is still gonna have about 40% more HP than a Bard, on average/if using static HP which almost everyone does). That vs literally the largest HD in the game, on a class that gets AC from having higher Constitution and which can naturally use a shield, and which naturally gets resistance to all damage types more often than a Bladesinger gets their AC boost. (Keep in mind, Bladesong per day is actually less frequent than Rage per day at level 3-4, 6-8, and 12; it is never more frequent than Rage, and for the levels most people play, it's behind a bout as often as not.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It does matter. A character might notice odd patterns in a wall, but not recognize this means the building is about to collapse.

Then you make two skill checks. One Wisdom (Perception) to notice the cracks, and one Intelligence (History*) to recall their significance. One character might notice the cracks and point them out to another character.



*Since the isn't a specific civil engineering skill. But the dwarf gets advantage.

Mechanics are what matter for a game.

You believe player ability doesn't matter?

 

[Yaarel]

Then you make two skill checks. One Wisdom (Perception) to notice the cracks, and one Intelligence (History*) to recall their significance. One character might notice the cracks and point them out to another character. *Since the isn't a specific civil engineering skill. But the dwarf gets advantage.

I tend to use Investigation for ad hoc discernment.

I tend to use "Nature" for math, physics, structural engineering, alchemy, and (proto) science generally.

You believe player ability doesn't matter?

Not when defining gaming jargon. Game jargon must refer to game mechanics. Or it didnt happen.

This also relates to balancing the Abilities with each other. Each needs to have a clear, useful, purpose.

It bothers me that Dex is the overpowered compared to the other Physical Abilities. (It bothers me that balance divorces climbing, and jumping divorces falling. The swashbuckling concept is painful in D&D because the current organization of Abilities is idiotic.) It bothers me that Wisdom is the Mental Ability uberstat.

Players need to know which of the Abilities to use, sensically and "intuitively", and the game needs to find uses for them about equally often in vital contexts.

Mechanics matter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think "Vanguard" is a fantastic name for the subclass of the "lead from the front" tanky heavy infantry Warlord tropes.


(By the way, explain what you mean by a "fractal subclass"?)

Term I came up with in the "Let's repurpose the Warlock chassis" thread. Someone was turned off by my first term, "split-subclass model." The "fractal (sub)class" model, where Warlock is a specifically spellcaster implementation, splits fine gradations in stages:

1. Major subclass, which defines theme and provides the major mechanical oomph (for Warlock, the Patrons)
2. Minor subclass, which usually represents a specialization or mechanical focus with less emphasis on theme (Warlock's Pacts)
3. Frequently-recharging resource, which allows flexibility but keeps power lower/spread out (for Warlock, Pact Magic)
4. At high levels, less-frequent but more-potent abilities (for Warlock, Mystic Arcana)
5. Selectable specific bonuses for customization, often passive or only minimally active (for Warlocks, Invocations)

For my Warlord proposal (again, noting that it's at the concept stage), these would be

1. Combat Specialty. Ideas include Vanguard (heavy-armored frontline leader), Sapper (military engineer/trickster, might also offer heavy armor), Knight-Enchanter (EK-/AT-equivalent), Old Master (monk-like as noted above), and Skirmisher (focus on stealth and mobility, hit-and-run, etc.)
2. Minor subclass: Leadership Style. Determines which modifier you use for your Warlord effects. Cha = Bravura, favoring high-risk/high-return action, Wis = Resourceful, favoring healing and buffing, Int = Cunning favoring mitigation and pack-tactics type stuff. These would hook into #5 just as Pacts have exclusive Invocations that make them better.
3. Strategems (or "Exploits" or similar): Maneuvers you have practiced with your allies during your previous rest. Can't demand constant performance, hence the short rest linkage; can't expect your team to always be 100% ready to field every Strategem you've ever learned whenever you like either.
4. ??? This one I'm still chewing on. Given high-level combats tend to actually last long enough, I've considered putting my (stolen from the DW supplement "Grim World") "Gambit" system here, where the Warlord must build up enough Gambit to take advantage of a really powerful ploy. Combat Specialty might define how you go about getting Gambit. As stated, this one I'm still chewing on, so I'm less confident about it.
5. Tactics, a collection of class-level-prerequisite perks and benefits that make you better at being a Warlord. One would, like Blade Pact, grant Extra Attack, but might have prerequisites. Others would grant skills, or restructure how your abilities work (perhaps increasing the healing you do, but replacing all but one point of it with THP or something like that). This is a space to go pretty wild frankly, the "Invocations" space is incredibly fruitful for design.

 

[Yaarel]

Term I came up with in the "Let's repurpose the Warlock chassis" thread. Someone was turned off by my first term, "split-subclass model." The "fractal (sub)class" model, where Warlock is a specifically spellcaster implementation, splits fine gradations in stages:

1. Major subclass, which defines theme and provides the major mechanical oomph (for Warlock, the Patrons)
2. Minor subclass, which usually represents a specialization or mechanical focus with less emphasis on theme (Warlock's Pacts)
3. Frequently-recharging resource, which allows flexibility but keeps power lower/spread out (for Warlock, Pact Magic)
4. At high levels, less-frequent but more-potent abilities (for Warlock, Mystic Arcana)
5. Selectable specific bonuses for customization, often passive or only minimally active (for Warlocks, Invocations)

Ah. I see. For me a "fractal" means a pattern that looks the same upclose as it does from a distance.

In the sense of a well-integrated structure with different compartments for different variations, yeah. This is the reason why I recognized long ago, the Warlock has the best structure for a Psion class. Mechanically, it is exactly right, with easy at-wills, daily novas, recovery from fatigue, and invocations that can do anything from beefing up an at-will to granting new kind of feature relating to the "disciplines".

For my Warlord proposal (again, noting that it's at the concept stage), these would be

1. Combat Specialty. Ideas include Vanguard (heavy-armored frontline leader), Sapper (military engineer/trickster, might also offer heavy armor), Knight-Enchanter (EK-/AT-equivalent), Old Master (monk-like as noted above), and Skirmisher (focus on stealth and mobility, hit-and-run, etc.)

Yeah. The Warlord requires different kinds of subclasses to develop the different concepts. From "lazy lord" to "vanguard", to inspirer to tactician.

1. Minor subclass: Leadership Style. Determines which modifier you use for your Warlord effects. Cha = Bravura, favoring high-risk/high-return action, Wis = Resourceful, favoring healing and buffing, Int = Cunning favoring mitigation and pack-tactics type stuff. These would hook into #5 just as Pacts have exclusive Invocations that make them better.

This would need to be Level 1?

Int is definitely group tactics. It can also associate the "formal training" of an aristocratic higher education, universities, philosophy, officer academies.

I see the Cha associating inspiration, morale, and healing.

Wisdom I am less familiar with for Warlord. It can emphasize "surveillance", spying, and reconnaissance. Alternatively, it can emphasize sanity, against the forces of insanity, including the insanities of war..

1. Strategems (or "Exploits" or similar): Maneuvers you have practiced with your allies during your previous rest. Can't demand constant performance, hence the short rest linkage; can't expect your team to always be 100% ready to field every Strategem you've ever learned whenever you like either.

This part, the "spells" correlates well with the Martial powers.

1. ??? This one I'm still chewing on. Given high-level combats tend to actually last long enough, I've considered putting my (stolen from the DW supplement "Grim World") "Gambit" system here, where the Warlord must build up enough Gambit to take advantage of a really powerful ploy. Combat Specialty might define how you go about getting Gambit. As stated, this one I'm still chewing on, so I'm less confident about it.

Dont forget, the 2024 Warlock per the playtest will make the Arcanum dailies be one of the high tier Invocations. Warlock players can choose different Invocations instead.

For the Psion, slot 9 spells are a must.

However, for the Warlord, it is better to avoid the flavor of "daily" powers. No problem. Choose different very powerful powers instead, whether always-on or recovering with a Short Rest.

1. Tactics, a collection of class-level-prerequisite perks and benefits that make you better at being a Warlord. One would, like Blade Pact, grant Extra Attack, but might have prerequisites. Others would grant skills, or restructure how your abilities work (perhaps increasing the healing you do, but replacing all but one point of it with THP or something like that). This is a space to go pretty wild frankly, the "Invocations" space is incredibly fruitful for design.

Looks good to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Dont forget, the 2024 Warlock per the playtest will make the Arcanum dailies be one of the high tier Invocations. Warlock players can choose different Invocations instead.

That was true in an earlier packet, but they abandoned the idea in Playtest 7 because of negative feedback (much like how they abandoned the idea of just entirely taking away Warlock's unique spellcasting mechanic.)

This also really shouldn't be a surprise, because forcing Mystic Arcana to be an invocation was effectively a MASSIVE nerf. They added in one invocation...and then took away four Mystic Arcana, meaning you'd still be in the hole by a large amount.

 

[Yaarel]

That was true in an earlier packet, but they abandoned the idea in Playtest 7 because of negative feedback (much like how they abandoned the idea of just entirely taking away Warlock's unique spellcasting mechanic.)

This also really shouldn't be a surprise, because forcing Mystic Arcana to be an invocation was effectively a MASSIVE nerf. They added in one invocation...and then took away four Mystic Arcana, meaning you'd still be in the hole by a large amount.

My assumption is, those four places mean, additional choices for an Invocation, that then can be a high slot spell or a different, equally powerful, feature if the player prefers.

In any case, it is probably better for the Warlord to avoid "daily" powers, but to access powers that are as effective and gamechanging as high slot spells are.

For the level 17 power, the Warlord needs to be able to do something as amazing as Wish.