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

[ECMO3]

Ah. Most unfortunate that most people do not short rest nearly that often, then, isn't it? Plus, that's ALL you do with your ki. You literally don't get to do any special monk stuff after the second round of combat. Hope you have only three round combats the vast majority of the time or that's gonna hurt!

I think 2 short rests per day is more common than 6 fights per day. I don't agree most don't short rest that often .... especially if you have a Battlemaster or Warlock in the party and ask for a short rest after every fight. If I am in a game where we can buy or make magic items I am getting a Dragon Hide Belt too which gives me more ki to spend.

There is generally no need to do any special Monk stuff after the second round of combat and if comparing to a Barbarian what can they do other than Rage on the first round and then swing their sword?

That said no it is not all I do, although patient defense and stunning strike are what I use more than anything else.

Except it doesn't, because guess what, short rests get dropped faster than combats get dropped. Most groups get at most one short rest per day. Losing 1/3 of your daily ki points is a huge deal.

I would generally disagree with this. I think combat encounters generally get dropped faster than short rests, especially since Lemund's Tiny Hut is a ritual.

I think if you are having 4+ combats in a day you are generally going to get 2+ short rests per day.

What? Barbarians can be perfectly cromulent tanks. Even with only mild Dex investment. E.g. Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16 is perfectly achievable at first level and gives 15 AC while nekkid and 17 while wielding a shield (since Barbs can do that, while Monks cannot), putting them only 2 AC behind a Fighter in chainmail + shield + Defensive fighting style. They also have resistance to Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing damage while Raging, so they're already taking half damage from most (early-game) attacks, even if they aren't Bear Totem. Bear Totem just takes it into the stratosphere. If the Barbarian got Fighting Styles (kinda dumb they don't, IMO, but it is what it is), they would be within 1 AC of the best a Fighter can achieve at 1st level. Seeing how more powerful heavy armor is fairly expensive (200 gp for Splint at AC 17, 1500 gp for [full] Plate at AC 18), while the Barbarian won't be able to grow their AC as fast as a Fighter, they'll still be among the higher AC options available, and their bigger health pool and natural resistances make that stretch even further.

A Barbarian is only 2 behind a fighter, but only 1 ahead of a Monk to start (and grows slower). Would you say a Monk is a good tank when not dodging? Hardly!

As far as how fast a fighter gains on a Barbarian - that is campaign dependant. Some campaigns you might never be able to afford plate, others you will have it at 1st level.

Barbarians do have resistance to damage while Raging, but they are limited on rages, at 1st level in the example you gave two per day.

The big problem a Barbarian has is hit points, which are a consumable resource. You only get your hit points plus somewhere between half your hit dice and your hit dice per day (and your hit dice only if you take short rests).

Aside from having a higher AC, fighters also can also heal themselves as a bonus action and this is before you consider spells, which a Raging Barbarian can't use, even if he has them through a feat, race or magic item.

A 6th-level Barbarian has 4 Rages per day. They'd only be running out for two total combats each day on your six-a-day diet. Even if we assume all combats are ONLY three rounds--so the Monk is only having 1 round per combat where they do nothing particularly interesting--the Monk is getting 6 rounds of combat where they do nothing interesting.

Being in rage is not particulary intersting I don't think. I mean it is a small bonus on damage, which is being largely undone by carrying a shield. He could reckless attack, which is interesting, but then he gets hit by everyone who attacks him.

If we do the more realistic thing (albeit not the much more realistic thing), where you have four or even five rounds in some combats, guess what?

You also have combats that last 1 or 2 rounds and 1 round is more common than 5 in general.

The much more realistic thing, of course, is to recognize that most groups do 4-5 combats per long rest, and 1-2 short rests per long rest (leaning much closer to 1).

I would say it is less than 2 combats per short rest on average. I just disagree with you completely on this and both the games I play and the streaming games I watch online reenforces my perception of what is typical.

I watched a game last week where the party did 3 short rests for 2 combats. They short rested then went up an elevator in a tower into a room and got beat up pretty bad, they retreated (monsters were part of/confined to the room). They short rested again and then went in that room again, got past the bad guys. Then they did another encounter and short rested yet again. 3 short rests for 2 combat encounters.

Now that example is certainly an extreme, but I see parties short resting a lot when I watch and I see similar when I play. I have seen and played 6-7 fight days with no short rest, but that is relatively rare and on the other side I have seen players use both Rope Trick and a Helm of Teleportation to get a short rest DURING a combat and I have seen them use LTH as a ritual a LOT to get a short rest when they would otherwise not been able to.

Earlier you talked about optimal play - not taking short rests when available (either through story or through magic) is not optimal

 

[ECMO3]

Except that it is. We can mathematically verify that it is.

Only if you assume a whiteroom with no other PCs and pick your enemy to back up that choice.

Doorway dodging is a thing and it is the optimal thing quite often.

It's "viable" for a Wizard to never ever cast a single spell that targets enemies.

Yes absolutely. A Bladesinger who never uses a spell that targets an enemy can be an extremely effective tank.

I would not say that is "better" or more optimal than a Wizard who uses control spells, but at most levels it is "better" at combat than a Fighter or Paladin or Barbarian that relies on weapons to damage enemies.

That doesn't mean it's good, wise, proper, effective, or more likely to lead to success. That just means that it's possible to win while doing that. "Possible to win while doing X" is a bottom-of-the-barrel standard. I do not accept it as the standard that should be used for evaluating game design. If it were outright unviable that would be a completely unacceptable state of affairs.

Barbarians are bottom of the barrel. They are the weakest class overall if you look across levels 1-20. Monks are not particularly strong and are arguably the weakest at portions of the game, say levels 4-7 or so.

Also it is not only possible to win, you are likely to win with non-optimal choices. The game design is actually dependent on people taking non-optimal choices to be even the least bit challenging. If everyone in the party played an optimized full caster you would breeze through combat encounters.

Except that's precisely what you're defending. Intentionally building an inferior character because it's more "thematic" or because you like the idea of being supportive even if the mechanics are actually quite bad at support!

No that is not what I said. When I say purposefully build a bad character I am talking about a fighter who dumps strength and wields a greatsword or a Rogue who wields a longsword. That is what I mean - taking the rules and purposely building a character to be bad to prove a point.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I shouldn't give an opinion about the class features because I have no experience in the game really, but maybe this could help to show the point of a newcomer.

In 5e the philosophy is easy to be understood by new players, simple rules for faster combats and fun gameplay (a list of buffs and enemy nerfing could be useful, but boring).

I don't imagine the warlord working in small squads. The group should be five at least. If the warlord was designed for a small group of PCs then as enemy boss could be overpowered when this was protected by a bigger number of minions enjoying the warlord's buffers.

Could the psionic battlemind from 4th Ed to be a warlord subclass?

What if a player was allowed to controll two or more PCs because thanks psionic powers they share a telepatic link?

What if the warlords could enjoy a "squirel" in the same way wizards' familiar or ranger's beast allies? Or the warlord could enjoy something like bastion, with the leveling up new "tents" in the camp were unlocked.

How would be warlord subclasses focused into factions (wild elves, barbarians, cavaliers..) or monster types (undead, constructs, plants, beasts, drake riders, giants..).

* If a dragon tutle was the ruler of a viking town... How would be a teen ninja mutant turtle dragonborn? Oh, sorry, I was thinking about other thing!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would generally disagree with this. I think combat encounters generally get dropped faster than short rests, especially since Lemund's Tiny Hut is a ritual.

I think if you are having 4+ combats in a day you are generally going to get 2+ short rests per day.

We have Crawford himself telling us that this is not true. That's why Warlocks needed to be revised in "it's totally not a revised edition, you guys! It's TOTALLY the SAME GAME, ignore any signs that we're changing anything" 5e, aka "2024 5e."

Classes based on short rests are not getting enough short rests compared to how many long rests groups take. That is a fact, told to us by the very makers themselves. If you wish to dispute it with them, more power to you.

Only if you assume a whiteroom with no other PCs and pick your enemy to back up that choice.

Nope! That is also emphatically untrue.

Barbarians are bottom of the barrel. They are the weakest class overall if you look across levels 1-20. Monks are not particularly strong and are arguably the weakest at portions of the game, say levels 4-7 or so.

Uh...no. Rogues are the bottom of the barrel. Try again.

The game design is actually dependent on people taking non-optimal choices to be even the least bit challenging. If everyone in the party played an optimized full caster you would breeze through combat encounters.

Again, you conflate what I am speaking about with "optimization." I am not. Do not mistake caring about being effective with desiring to be the absolute most optimal possible thing.

If a player is choosing to play, for example, a "Warlord-like" character (since you can't actually make a proper Warlord in 5e), they want that to be the thing they do best. That is not the thing Fighters to best. It does not matter what subclass you pick. Supporting other people is not, and in 5e-as-it-exists cannot be, the thing a Fighter is best at. Period. That is the problem. The fundamental design of the Fighter makes...well, as the name says, fighting the thing they are best at.

I don't need a Warlord that is better than ALL POSSIBLE other character-build combinations at supporting people. That's a Wizard fanboy thing, and absolute nonsense. What I need is a class that, within the options provided to that class, supporting other people is the thing they're best at. Fighters will never meet that standard. Either you have to nerf their actual Fighter abilities into the ground, or you need to give them support abilities that are stronger than the existing pure-personal-action options they currently have, in order for "support other people" to be the thing the so-called "Warlord Fighter" is personally best at doing. Both of those paths are unacceptable. WotC has made clear (by demonstration) that the former is not something they will ever do in 5e, and the latter is--as so many folks decry--blatantly overpowered.

No that is not what I said. When I say purposefully build a bad character I am talking about a fighter who dumps strength and wields a greatsword or a Rogue who wields a longsword. That is what I mean - taking the rules and purposely building a character to be bad to prove a point.

How is it not what you said? You're talking about building a character that supports, but does so by intentionally dumping all the things they're personally good at instead. That's literally the same thing. You're dumping what you're actually good for doing, and replacing it with something clearly, demonstrably inferior.

I want a Warlord that doesn't have to dump anything. A Warlord where the thing it is already best at doing is supporting others. Where trying to do all the work yourself IS the "do something clearly, demonstrably inferior" option.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We have Crawford himself telling us that this is not true. That's why Warlocks needed to be revised in "it's totally not a revised edition, you guys! It's TOTALLY the SAME GAME, ignore any signs that we're changing anything" 5e, aka "2024 5e."

Classes based on short rests are not getting enough short rests compared to how many long rests groups take. That is a fact, told to us by the very makers themselves. If you wish to dispute it with them, more power to you.


Nope! That is also emphatically untrue.


Uh...no. Rogues are the bottom of the barrel. Try again.


Again, you conflate what I am speaking about with "optimization." I am not. Do not mistake caring about being effective with desiring to be the absolute most optimal possible thing.

If a player is choosing to play, for example, a "Warlord-like" character (since you can't actually make a proper Warlord in 5e), they want that to be the thing they do best. That is not the thing Fighters to best. It does not matter what subclass you pick. Supporting other people is not, and in 5e-as-it-exists cannot be, the thing a Fighter is best at. Period. That is the problem. The fundamental design of the Fighter makes...well, as the name says, fighting the thing they are best at.

I don't need a Warlord that is better than ALL POSSIBLE other character-build combinations at supporting people. That's a Wizard fanboy thing, and absolute nonsense. What I need is a class that, within the options provided to that class, supporting other people is the thing they're best at. Fighters will never meet that standard. Either you have to nerf their actual Fighter abilities into the ground, or you need to give them support abilities that are stronger than the existing pure-personal-action options they currently have, in order for "support other people" to be the thing the so-called "Warlord Fighter" is personally best at doing. Both of those paths are unacceptable. WotC has made clear (by demonstration) that the former is not something they will ever do in 5e, and the latter is--as so many folks decry--blatantly overpowered.


How is it not what you said? You're talking about building a character that supports, but does so by intentionally dumping all the things they're personally good at instead. That's literally the same thing. You're dumping what you're actually good for doing, and replacing it with something clearly, demonstrably inferior.

I want a Warlord that doesn't have to dump anything. A Warlord where the thing it is already best at doing is supporting others. Where trying to do all the work yourself IS the "do something clearly, demonstrably inferior" option.

Yes, people are getting less short rests than intended. But the game is still very playable and balanced enough.

I find it interesting that you can't even agree what the worst class is. That says a lot about the game.

Rogues have the advantage, that they don't need rests at all. Barbarians are dependent on long rests. The monk needs short rests. So depending on the frequency of rests, one class slides to the bottom. Depending on the (healing) support, the differences can become greater or lesser.

Still, all three classes are in the same ballpark. None of them is so far ahead of the other that one class is obsolete. At least in my exerience.

I am very interested in how wotc handles the adventuring day in the 2024 version.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, people are getting less short rests than intended. But the game is still very playable and balanced enough.

"Very playable" is an irrelevant standard, as stated. A game that was actually not playable, that was so horribly bad that it was genuinely impossible for a human being to play it, would be an abject horror, something to threaten people with.

"Balanced enough" is rather more up for grabs--and given 5.5e's changes, it would seem that it is not quite as "balanced enough" as you claim. Again, these aren't my words. They're from Jeremy Crawford.

I find it interesting that you can't even agree what the worst class is. That says a lot about the game.

Does it? I think it says that some people are misinformed. Now, the Berserker subclass is absolutely one of the worst subclasses in the entire game, possibly the worst, which is a genuinely impressive feat considering its competition (Four Elements Monk, Beast Master Ranger, Champion Fighter).

More importantly, just because people disagree about which thing is worst, doesn't mean that things on average are good. It actually doesn't say anything at all about whether things are good overall. It certainly could be the case that nobody agrees because everything is already pretty awesome. It also could just be the case that there are two (or more) very bad things and nobody's quite sure which one is merely a dumpster and which one is a dumpster fire.

Just knowing that no one can decide which option is most-bad does not actually tell you that the options are overall good. You probably can think of a relevant example.

I am very interested in how wotc handles the adventuring day in the 2024 version.

They aren't going to make any meaningful changes because 5.5e is shackled to being backwards compatible. To change the handling of the adventuring day in a way that actually made any difference would require abandoning compatibility with past content. It's a non-starter.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"Very playable" is an irrelevant standard, as stated. A game that was actually not playable, that was so horribly bad that it was genuinely impossible for a human being to play it, would be an abject horror, something to threaten people with.

So you say, everyone who is able to play it is superhuman?

"Balanced enough" is rather more up for grabs--and given 5.5e's changes, it would seem that it is not quite as "balanced enough" as you claim. Again, these aren't my words. They're from Jeremy Crawford.

Does it? I think it says that some people are misinformed. Now, the Berserker subclass is absolutely one of the worst subclasses in the entire game, possibly the worst, which is a genuinely impressive feat considering its competition (Four Elements Monk, Beast Master Ranger, Champion Fighter).

More importantly, just because people disagree about which thing is worst, doesn't mean that things on average are good. It actually doesn't say anything at all about whether things are good overall. It certainly could be the case that nobody agrees because everything is already pretty awesome. It also could just be the case that there are two (or more) very bad things and nobody's quite sure which one is merely a dumpster and which one is a dumpster fire.

Just knowing that no one can decide which option is most-bad does not actually tell you that the options are overall good. You probably can think of a relevant example.


They aren't going to make any meaningful changes because 5.5e is shackled to being backwards compatible. To change the handling of the adventuring day in a way that actually made any difference would require abandoning compatibility with past content. It's a non-starter.

Ok. So play something else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you say, everyone who is able to play it is superhuman?

Did I say that? Hmm. Don't see the word "superhuman" mentioned anywhere...nope, I am fairly confident that isn't, even remotely, what I said.

I was saying that the standard, "very playable," is a completely irrelevant standard. Like attempting to praise a food by calling it "very nontoxic" or a camping area by saying "very rabies-free." Meaningful toxicity is an instantaneous dealbreaker in a (so-called) food. A severe rabies outbreak is an instantaneous dealbreaker with a campground. Having an actually unplayable game would be an instantaneous dealbreaker for a (so-called) game.

5e isn't unplayable. I have never, ever said otherwise. But merely saying "it's a playable game" is terrible. It is damning with faint praise if the only good thing you can say about something is that it's "very playable." It would be like saying of a friend, as a recommendation of their quality as a date, "They're literate." Not nice, or friendly, or a good conversationalist, or attractive, or reliable, or even punctual. Just that they can read. If someone else "complemented" me by saying that and nothing more, I'd be deeply offended.

Any game that is not "very playable" is not worthy of the term "game." 5e is a game, and it is playable. I should damned well hope that it brings more to the table than "playable."

Ok. So play something else.

Once more, with feeling:

I tried.​

 

[CreamCloud0]

Thing is that passive resources are kinda boring. Compare the Champion to the Battlemaster. The Champion crits more often, which translates into a passive damage boost. The Battlemaster instead has a limited resource they can spend just when it is needed, which gives the player a choice and the feeling that they are in control.

(Of course, it's not a perfect comparison since you need to fight many, many rounds between short rests for the Champion's passive buff to catch up with the Battlemaster's bonus damage dice, plus that the Battlemaster also throws in some debuffs and such. But even ignoring that, the Battlemaster is a more fun design than the Champion.)

oh of course, i'm not saying make it all passive buffs but there's some improvement to the baseline toolset that could go a long way to improving these classes's turn-to-turn capacities rather than upgrading expendable tools: additional movement, more/better action economy, healing surges rather than hit die and probably more, these are all things that improve the foundational gameplay of the classes and thus let you have a better time using those 'fun' resources to do fun things, just as a result from being more capable.

also do note i'm including the idea of some things like cunning action and reckless attack in 'passive' abilities here as they don't expend any resources, they're just things you always have available to use.

 

[Minigiant]

I would avoid the term "wound" when referring to nonphysical hit point restoration. Also I want the at-will maneuver to continue being good at higher tiers. Here half the Hit Dice is roughly 25% of the Hit Points. Thus it is roughly 25% at any level except 1 where one Hit Dice is 50%. I need to think about balance and budget, but 25% seems like something that should be both intentionally powerful and standard. Note, the target pays the cost by spending Hit Dice early, which can leave a future Short Rest without Hit Dice, so there needs to be thoughts about logistics and temptation, and encounters after each rest.

In any case, something like:



INSPIRING WORD

Your words inspire courage, determination and focus. As a bonus action, choose a creature within 30 feet that can see or hear you, whose Hit Points are less than maximum but more than zero. It can spend a Hit Die in addition to your Mental Ability (Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma) to restore its Hit Points.

At higher levels. At higher levels, the creature can spend upto half its total Hit Dice, adding your Mental Ability each time.

I C&P the flavor from 4e

Your version is too weak. In a WOTCized Warlord, you double rolled healing in 2024. So Inspiring Word would let you roll your HD 2 or 3 times. Which matches to a good % of HP.