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

[Mephista]

4e had a Striker Fighter, it was called the Ranger, but the Fighter was clearly minoring in SStriker.

So does that mean the real Ranger was the seeker?

 

[Justice and Rule]

The 4e Monk was a Striker, I don't know what the 5e Monk is good at because to make it be good at anything on a baseline level they need to spend their limited Ki point. They've got terrible AC without Ki, and their HP is too low to tank, and their damage sucks without Flurry of Blow which also costs Ki. There's some cool utility in the class where I can see a Monk replacing a Rogue outside of battle (though some equivalent of Expertise could be useful) but a Rogue would be better in combat. They need DEX for their attacks and AC, they need WIS for their effects and they'll want CON because they WILL get hit so they have no room for trying out different builds. I wouldn't be opposed to have either a Striker or Defender monk in 5e as long as they're good and don't rely on a limited resource to have basic competency.

4e had a Striker Fighter, it was called the Ranger, but the Fighter was clearly minoring in Striker.

Yes! All the fun stuff you normally want to do with a Monk is all tied to the same damn ki pool, and for some stuff that other classes can simply do ("Hey, you can do the stuff the Rogue does at the cost of the resource that fuels all your cool abilities!"). I got it into my head that every Monk subclass should just be able to do one of the three basic abilities to sort of define their style of Monk as Mobile, Defensive, or Striker. Then you use that ability and put a spin on it to make something interesting out of it: Open-hand would get more strikes and get their shoves/trips, or allow Drunken monks to get Dodge for free and key something off of that, like being able to spend a reaction to attack if an attack with disadvantage misses on both dice. There's a whole space to work within so that your gimmick always works while still having access to the rest of the tools (at a cost).

Because its impossible to balance. In 4e everyonehad a basic attack. In 5e? A warlock basic attack is multiple eldritch blasts. Rogue has tons of sneak attacks. Pally could smite pre1dnd. A glamor bard... has vicious mockery? Monk has basic punch.

The results vary wildly. Which means that the mechanic might be useless or might be OP, depending on party composition. Something outside your control. And what happens if you rely on having a Rogue, but they stop showing or change PC?

I mean, wouldn't the easiest balance be "You get you action which can either be used as an Attack Action (i.e. for multiple attacks) or to cast a Cantrip". In theory that should roughly balance out with the gimmicks of different martials and casters, as the martials get more attacks to balance out the extra dice of an upgraded cantrip. That not only makes it more universal (unlike Commander's Strike, where it's more useful for certain classes that can cause massive damage on one attack) as well as allowing it to scale as you go up in level without opening yourself up to too many caster shenanigans by banning leveled spells.

 

[Mephista]

Wouldn't the easiest balance be "You get you action which can either be used as an Attack Action (i.e. for multiple attacks) or to cast a One-Action Cantrip".

That will be a firm "Maybe." 1d&d monk has 3 flurry of lows BA at lvl 11. This is key to doing damage as a monk, leaving their base attack with 2 attacks. An equal level 1dnd Fighter gets 4 attacks with Nick. Bard cantrip gets even worse.

Variations are still there.

In theory that should roughly balance out with the gimmicks of different martials and casters, as the martials get more attacks to balance out the extra dice of an upgraded cantrip. That not only makes it more universal (unlike Commander's Strike, where it's more useful for certain classes that can cause massive damage on one attack) as well as allowing it to scale as you go up in level without opening yourself up to too many caster shenanigans by banning leveled spells.

 

[Shardstone]

Oh. I thought cleric kit was official. Ah, well. Learn something new.

That said, I think it would have been fine as a Rogue kit. but tHats just me.

Because its impossible to balance. In 4e everyonehad a basic attack. In 5e? A warlock basic attack is multiple eldritch blasts. Rogue has tons of sneak attacks. Pally could smite pre1dnd. A glamor bard... has vicious mockery? Monk has basic punch.

The results vary wildly. Which means that the mechanic might be useless or might be OP, depending on party composition. Something outside your control. And what happens if you rely on having a Rogue, but they stop showing or change PC?

It's not impossible to balance. None of those are a basic attack. A basic attack is a weapon attack, something which all classes can make. Just because it isn't the best option to use your Commanding Strike for a warlock with a sickle doesn't mean it isn't possible.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That will be a firm "Maybe." 1d&d monk has 3 flurry of lows BA at lvl 11. This is key to doing damage as a monk, leaving their base attack with 2 attacks. An equal level 1dnd Fighter gets 4 attacks with Nick. Bard cantrip gets even worse.

Variations are still there.

It doesn't have to be exactly balanced to everyone; variations are fine as long as there are other powers which might benefit them more (perhaps some movement tactics or a single strike and fade tactic). That just means you have to make decisions on what to use to maximize your impact. But the big thing would be having a default "this works with all classes" tactical gimmick that you can pull out that scales with level when necessary, that way we have the basic power of a Warlord/Marshall/Commander to key the class off of.

 

[Yaarel]

Not for lack of trying, though. As you said, the topic usually hits a wall when folks try to describe what healing looks like. But why?

I think the biggest trouble with 'non-magical healing' being more widely accepted, is that it requires acceptance that hit points aren't physical damage. For your character to recover hit points from an inspirational speech, after losing them to a volley of arrows, requires you to accept that those arrows didn't physically wound your character, or didn't wound them in a way that was debilitating, or etc.

Some folks are quite resolute about this topic, on both sides, and they will. not. budge. from their position. Whether you believe hit points are abstract and can be recovered with psychology and bedrest, or you believe hit points are physical and can be healed with magic and miracles, you're probably not interested in changing your mind about it. And the two ideas are so different, so incompatible with each other, that it's difficult to have them both in the same game.

The 2014 Players Handbook has a clear description of what hit points are. It is Warlord friendly and core for a decade.

 

[CleverNickName]

The 2014 Players Handbook has a clear description of what hit points are. It is Warlord friendly and core for a decade.

And yet.

 

[Mephista]

It's not impossible to balance. None of those are a basic attack. A basic attack is a weapon attack, something which all classes can make. Just because it isn't the best option to use your Commanding Strike for a warlock with a sickle doesn't mean it isn't possible.

The well known variances in Commander Strike makes me wonder if this is a serious question or just being contrary. Rogue or pally smite is outright superior to an attack with a simple weapon and dump stat.

 

[Mephista]

It doesn't have to be exactly balanced to everyone; variations are fine as long as there are other powers which might benefit them more (perhaps some movement tactics or a single strike and fade tactic).

Variance is fine so long as it doent make players feel weak. That is a vibe that can ruin enjoyment, according to surveys.

Its a common complaint with Commander stirke.

People asked why the balance was considered "difficult" with granting attacks. These are the common answers I've run into. If you don't agree, feel free to try it out yourself.

My answers are based on others' subjective experiences after all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know what the 5e Monk is good at because to make it be good at anything on a baseline level they need to spend their limited Ki point. They've got terrible AC without Ki, and their HP is too low to tank, and their damage sucks without Flurry of Blow which also costs Ki.

It's pretty clear in play what a Monk is meant to do, because every monk I've ever actually seen in play is a focused damage-dealer who mostly piles multiple attacks into the enemy. Spending ki is an expected part of their play (spending resources is an expected part of any class's play, no?), and at low levels most monks I know readily spend it for Flurry, while maybe holding one in reserve for Patient Defense or Step of the Wind if they want to play it safe. Most other 1st-tier abilities are not oriented to their attack power (which, because of flurry, is considerable), but at 5th level they get even more attacks and also stunning strike, which effectively locks down almost every monster in the game and ups the entire party's damage potential. I've seen monks effectively solo threats meant for a whole party simply because of their ability to deny actions.

Which isn't to say they're perfect or can't be buffed or whatever, it's just to say "without ki" is a poor way to evaluate the monk. It's like evaluating the wizard without considering spells they cast, or evaluating the rogue without sneak attacks.