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

[EzekielRaiden]

This is again very subjective though. You accuse the designers of "stumbling" into what is for me an excellent result, while you present 4e as perfect (implied with "purposefully designed to be exactly what it was intended to be."), while for me, it was an abject failure.

You can stumble into something great. That isn't a commentary on the product. It's a commentary on its designers.

The people who designed 3e did not intend for it to be many of the things it actually was. I think that's pretty much incontrovertible fact at this point. Do you disagree?

I also already did explicitly call out flaws in 4e, such as its presentation. It's not perfect, and I've literally never said otherwise; you are projecting if you think that's what I'm saying. But the designers did, in fact, have a very clear and specific vision for what they wanted the game to do, and they actually did the hard work of statistical testing and evaluation to see if it DID do that work.

I mean, not only for me. See how it ended.
4e was a game that had no functional MM for years, and had to re-do supposed strong points like skill challenges over and over until the design team gave up.

Excuse me? No. None of this is factual. At all. The MMs were plenty functional--they just erred on the side of caution, making monsters that were less likely to kill quickly by accident. It was very intentional, players just preferred a more high-risk, high-reward experience. So they adjusted to fit that.

You're showing some pretty massively anti-4e bias here.

I mean there is currently up a thread about which edition had the best fantasy for each class... and for me all the raving about 4e fighters are hilarious because in order to allow 4e fighters to carry out basic power fantasy things like killing an enemy with one strike, they had to implement and incredibly clumsy, dissociated and immersion breaking mechanics like minions.

Again, you bring up dissociated mechanics. If you can articulate that theory in a way that isn't just referencing the completely intellectually bankrupt argument The Alexandrian made, perhaps I'll be willing to entertain it. But his argument is complete crap, it always was, and his own hypocrisy has now shown that to the world. I can get you the links; he himself LIKES dissociated mechanics when they're the right kind of dissociated.

To me, it doesn't seem that 4e designers really knew what they were doing, and surely they changed their mind quickly with Essentials. The whole thing was erratic from the ground up.

It was not. It was extremely functional and purposeful--up until guess who took the helm? Mearls. Someone I've already said did not understand what 4e was about.

5e is missing Spellcraft, decent skill frameworks, crafting, special materials in great numbers, and spectacular effects like high threat range or crit multiplier weapons. After X years from the launch, 3ed had monster books like the Draconomicon. Has 5e something on that level for monsters? I don't think so, even remotely.

Did I not already say that the enormous breadth and depth of 3e options is one of the most common complaints from 3e fans about 5e?

5e's skill system SHOULD resemble 4e's. The rules themselves are closest to that (not the same, but closest.) Thing is, people RUN IT as though it were still 3e--much to the game's detriment in my experience. Insanely high DCs (e.g. 15-20 just for ordinary, mundane stuff), every action narrowly tailored and extremely specific, miserly with bonuses (even Advantage, for goodness' sake), forcing multiple rolls instead of letting it ride, etc. I've genuinely no idea why so many 5e DMs do this, but I'm far from the only one who's seen this pattern.

You see that the Fighter doesn't have a pre-made combo with a cheesy name like 4e and think "this is 3e" but for me it's just boring. Boring to the point that I almost prefer 4e.

Again, your radically anti-4e bias is showing ("pre-made combo"? Seriously? No such thing exists in 4e. You're literally inventing things to be mad about.)

Frankly, though, I'm not sure what is somehow not-boring about the 3e Fighter. It literally doesn't have class features, it just has "get a crapload of feats." Except that the vast majority of feats it can get suck--badly. Picking up Spring Attack or specializing in some maneuver or another requires picking up multiple bad feats before you're allowed to have a single good one. Feats like Toughness and Mobility are prerequisites not because they are logically or rationally related, but because they're otherwise nearly-worthless choices, the penalty you pay for eventually, someday, being allowed to do some cool stuff if you actually make it to high enough level.

Meanwhile, all the Druid has to do to be stupidly broken is "take Natural Spell at 6th level." (Technically, you qualify at Druid 5, but a single-class Druid wouldn't get their next feat until 6.) As Order of the Stick put it, "I have class features stronger than [the Rogue's] entire class."

 

[Minigiant]

How about... no?

Aaaw. lol

What about having various Commanding Presences.

Bravura Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Attack action, you can use your reaction to let them make one weapon attack or unarmed strike as a bonus action

Cost: X Brainpower

Channeling Presence: When a creature other than you within 30 feet of you uses the Magic action, you can use your reaction to add a bonus to their spells DC equal to your Wisdom modifier

Cost: X Brainpower

Insightful Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Dodge action, you can use your reaction to add your Wisdom modifier to their AC and saving throws until the start of their next turn

Cost: X Brainpower

Inspiring Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Dodge action, you can use your reaction to spend a Hit Dice, roll the die twice and regain hit points equal to the result plus your Charisma modifier.

Cost: X Brainpower

Motivating Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Attack action, you can use your reaction to give that creature temporary hit points equal to your level plus your Charisma modifier.

Cost: X Brainpower

Resourceful Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Attack action, you can use your reaction to give that attack gains a bonus to damage equal to your level plus your Intelligence modifier. If the attack hits no target, the creature gains temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier.

Cost: X Brainpower

Skirmishing Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Disengage action, you can use your reaction to let them make one weapon attack or unarmed strike as a bonus action

Cost: X Brainpower

Strategic Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Delay action, you can use your reaction to add your Intelligence modifier to their AC and saving throws until the start of their next turn

Cost: X Brainpower

Tactical Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Attack action, you can use your reaction to give that attack gains a bonus to the attack roll equal to your Intelligence modifier.

Cost: X Brainpower

Terrifying Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Attack action, you can use your reaction to cause the target of the attack to make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it is frightened of the creature until the end of the creatures next turn.

Cost: X Brainpower

Veteran Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Dodge action, you can use your reaction to spend a Hit Dice, roll the die twice and regain hit points equal to the result plus your Wisdom modifier

Cost: X Brainpower

 

[Yaarel]

I assume your "less regimented character advancement" is in relation to 4e... but it really threw me since the list started with 1e and 2e.

Indeed, I did mean 3e is less regimented in comparison to 4e.

On second thought, 1e is also highly regimented. Pick one class, then that is it for the rest of the career. Almost no customization according core. One can multiclass, which is its own stiff regiment. Or if Human, one can duoclass which is its own weird regiment.

So far, 3e is the most free form character builder of the editions. Albeit its gratuitous prereqs also make its builds the most convoluted.

4e and 5e disentangle then channel the customizability of 3e within an advancement schedule for background, subclass/build, and feats. At higher tiers, 4e additionally offers Paragon Path and Epic Destiny. 5e optionally permits multiclassing, cautiously.

 

[Yaarel]

Could be cool to have a Warlord who can replace DEX with INT or WIS, or even CHA, when calculating AC.

That is a great idea. The Warlord using a choice of Mental Ability for Unarmored Defense. Each has precedent. The AC bonus comes with great flavor:

Intelligence (4e) − calculating eventualities, marshaling tactics
Wisdom (Monk) − paying attention, opportunistic, relentless
Charisma (Suave, Glorious) − intimidating and persuading to psych out, amaze, bluff, outwit

I associate Insight and reading people to anticipate moves, with Charisma.

The choice of Primary Mental Ability flavors the rest of the build.


Regarding armor, I envision the typical Warlord as either unarmored as an officer, or in Medium Armor in chain tunic or a breastplate while reasonably mobile. Light Armor is possible but the concept skips over it. A Shield is possible. In other words, the Armor Training is the same as Barbarian.

The Barbarian uses Constitution for Unarmored Defense, then effectively chooses between either armor or Dexterity + Consititution. The Barbarian can add a Shield either way (unlike a Monk).

Warlord can do similar using the Primary Mental Ability for Unarmored Defense.


For Warlord, I would like an Unarmored Defense Improvement, at a higher tier, that allows both Medium Armor + Mental Ability. But this is alot within Bounded Accuracy. It would be: AC 14 Breastplate + 2 Dex + 2 Shield + 5 Mental = AC 23 even without magic. I guess around Epic?

Maybe the problem is that the Fighter doesn't get enough HP compared to the Ranger? The ranking of most HP to less HP should probably go

Barbarian
Fighter=Paladin
Ranger=Monk=Some Cleric(=Warlord)
Rogue=Cleric=Druid=Warlock=Bard?(maybe depends on subclas?)
Sorcerer=Wizard=Bard?

Just a reflection. Would be weird for the Barb to have 2d6 as 'hit dice'.

If we are talking about should.

The squishy Wizard is gratuitous and disruptive. If forces players to beef up Constitution, which then makes the Wizard the opposite of squishy anyway. Indeed player Wizards are exceptionally tough. But the coercion prevents players from creating character concepts for their Wizard, like charismatic or strong, or even perceptive. The Gygax Wizard broken at low levels then broken at high levels, needs to rest.

The Sorcerer depends on subclass. The Dragon should be tanky.

Because of Wild Shape, the Druid is tanky even with a normal Hit Dice. The Swordmage tanks via magic, such as regeneration, with normal Hit Dice. Similarly, I expect the Warlord to benefit as part of buffing a team.

I prefer the Hit Point expectations to rank something like.

d12 Barbarian, Fighter
d10 Paladin, Ranger, Monk
d8 Druid, Swordmage, Warlord
d8 Rogue, Bard, Cleric, Wizard, Psion, Warlock, Sorcerer, Artificer

Every class in the d8 rank has a subclass to tank in the d10 rank.

Maybe instead of invocations you have powers that sacrifices large ammounts of Hit Dice? That way you don't NEED an explicit daily limit, because it'll sort itself out. Like, yeah, you can sacrifice, like, 10 HD and turn their result into extra damage anytime you want, but you ain't gonna be able to use it more than once per day.

I am a fan of a pool of energy, flavoring variously as psychic focus, magical mana, physical stamina, and so on.

Flavorwise, I like less masochism or vampirism.

Converting energy into Hit Points is fine. But converting Hit Points into energy is less fine. Heh, its a flavor thing.

 

[Mephista]

Back to Warlords.

Since D&D characters don't get tired in combat, a Warlord class could have be a way to introduce a "Mana" system to core d&D without getting into Psionics.

We have mana systems. Spell points for casters, stamina / supeiority dice /rage / Ki (or dp) on martials.

After X years from the launch, 3ed had monster books like the Draconomicon. Has 5e something on that level for monsters? Or something like Lords of Madness? I don't think so, even remotely.

Purely out of curisoity, why does Fizbin's Treasury of Dragons not fill that Draconomicon niche for you?

 

[Kaiyanwang]

I also already did explicitly call out flaws in 4e, such as its presentation. It's not perfect, and I've literally never said otherwise; you are projecting if you think that's what I'm saying. But the designers did, in fact, have a very clear and specific vision for what they wanted the game to do, and they actually did the hard work of statistical testing and evaluation to see if it DID do that work.


You're showing some pretty massively anti-4e bias here.

I don't really care addressing the usual Druidzilla rants I heard for decades, but I wish to point out at this because this is the reason why I stopped lurking in the first place.

The first paragraph shows your general way to present things. See what you did here? You are not-so-subtly implying that the "actual" issue of 4e is its presentation - which implies that basically people failed to give it a chance, and it was in fact great. FYI - many people understood its design principles from day 1 and found them terrible. It's genuinely time to accept that.
And more importantly, what I am doing here is exactly what you are doing in many of your posts when you frame 3e and its design decision in a certain way that, if I wouldn't know better, I would be tempted to call disingenuous.

The second paragraph is the pot talking to an admittedly very black kettle.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Purely out of curisoity, why does Fizbin's Treasury of Dragons not fill that Draconomicon niche for you?

Question - have you evere DMed using the 3e Draconomicon with its full "power" so to speak? Do you realize what 3e dragons could do with it?
I mean from a certain point of view, my question is dishonest because 3e Draconomicon worked within the 3e framework. Which is basically the whole point.

 

[Mephista]

@Kaiyanwang - Its been decades (2003 release date) since I touched Draconomicon. I couldn't tell you what's in it anymore. Been too long.

But seriously. You said that you didn't feel that 5e had monster books on par with Draconomicon. What is it about 5e monster books do you feel is missing? Just raw power? New abilities? New stat blocks? Lore?

 

[Kaiyanwang]

@Kaiyanwang - Its been decades (2003 release date) since I touched Draconomicon. I couldn't tell you what's in it anymore. Been too long.

Metabreath? Dragon-specific spells? Shadow Dragon with those rules (also in FR)?
That book was a riot for the DM. Plus, the baby Black Dragon is so cute. Look at him!

Both monsters and combat have been progressively neutered. I mean even in PF1e which I generally enjoy in many parts (the ones that expand 3e at least).
I always use this example with people: just compare how the Nightshades changed from 3.0 to 3.5 to PF1e (I don't even need to involve 5e to show a progression). Look how were progressively defanged, and how weaker and weaker iconic mechanics associated with these monsters, like energy drain, became.
Then add in a general combat framework in which you cannot just flip a combat anymore with a critical Karmic Strike.

 

[Mephista]

@Kaiyanwang - okay, thank you for the answer.