Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9338330" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>But you're ignoring <em>the rest of the class</em> when you do that. Action surge used on <em>yourself</em>, as a Fighter, is almost always better than using Action Surge on someone else. Indomitable is kinda meh overall, so honestly I don't think that factors in much, but since you get so few uses of it, you'll run out long before you can <em>do</em> much. Second Wind is a hilariously inadequate healing feature--the Banneret already did better than that (giving HP equal to your Fighter level to up to three other targets!) and it was <em>nowhere near enough</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. That might be the start of <em>one single mechanic</em> that could be useful. I'm not seeing how that covers an entire class worth of stuff--nor how this would ever be in any way the better option than just using your own strong features. Which, again, is precisely the problem. The Fighter's base features are already so good, the option of giving them to someone else is mostly pointless.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The former is unacceptable by demonstration; the designers <em>could</em> have actually deleted class features via subclasses, but they never, ever have. Hell, they don't even like doing errata, even in places that sorely, <em>direly</em> need it like the PHB Sorcerer subclasses or the Beast Master.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because none of the things you suggested are BETTER than just using those features (Action Surge, Second Wind, Indomitable) on yourself. In fact, using them on other people is essentially always inferior. But if you make using them on others <em>better</em> than using them on yourself--when using them on yourself is already powerful--then you will have crossed the line into OP.</p><p></p><p>That's the catch-22 here. Change nothing except adding sharing, and you've added a worthless option that will never be used because it isn't better than just...not using it. Change things so it's <em>more</em> than just sharing, and you've now made something OP, because you have a <em>floor</em> of "be a strong Fighter who already does competent damage," which you can then exceed by using your features on allies instead.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it isn't.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, no, it isn't. If the so-called "Warlord Fighter" is simply adding the choice of being allowed to use their selfish features on others, they will still be used selfishly because it is essentially <em>categorically true</em> that using them on yourself is better than using them on anyone else, unless you intentionally and overtly slant the example. If you don't do that, if you actually <em>change</em> the features so that they really are better if given to others, but you can still use them on yourself, then you've just made something OP. It won't be <em>as</em> OP as the thing you just described, but it WOULD be OP, I recognize that and don't want that.</p><p></p><p>And the only other option is to DELETE the ability of the "Warlord Fighter" to use those actions on themselves, something that 5e's rules do not support doing and never have.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, no, no. They knew <em>exactly</em> what they were doing. Well, sort of. They knew exactly <em>part of</em> what they were doing, and that part was intentional.</p><p></p><p>That's why Mearls "joked" about shouting hands back on when he dismissed Warlord as a class concept. That's why they kept pushing out any 4e rules as belonging to the "tactical combat module," which was total vaporware (and most 4e fans could see that literally a year before release). That's why they explicitly said it would be "3e rules with 4e streamlining." This was <em>very</em> intentional. That intentional effort was intensified by various mistakes, I don't deny that. For example, their critical fumble on the Specialties system, where they went absolutely all in on a system they later abandoned, and instead of attempting to fix the issue, they just stopped talking about martial healing. But make no mistake: there were never any bones about this being an intentional effort.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9338330, member: 6790260"] But you're ignoring [I]the rest of the class[/I] when you do that. Action surge used on [I]yourself[/I], as a Fighter, is almost always better than using Action Surge on someone else. Indomitable is kinda meh overall, so honestly I don't think that factors in much, but since you get so few uses of it, you'll run out long before you can [I]do[/I] much. Second Wind is a hilariously inadequate healing feature--the Banneret already did better than that (giving HP equal to your Fighter level to up to three other targets!) and it was [I]nowhere near enough[/I]. Okay. That might be the start of [I]one single mechanic[/I] that could be useful. I'm not seeing how that covers an entire class worth of stuff--nor how this would ever be in any way the better option than just using your own strong features. Which, again, is precisely the problem. The Fighter's base features are already so good, the option of giving them to someone else is mostly pointless. The former is unacceptable by demonstration; the designers [I]could[/I] have actually deleted class features via subclasses, but they never, ever have. Hell, they don't even like doing errata, even in places that sorely, [I]direly[/I] need it like the PHB Sorcerer subclasses or the Beast Master. Because none of the things you suggested are BETTER than just using those features (Action Surge, Second Wind, Indomitable) on yourself. In fact, using them on other people is essentially always inferior. But if you make using them on others [I]better[/I] than using them on yourself--when using them on yourself is already powerful--then you will have crossed the line into OP. That's the catch-22 here. Change nothing except adding sharing, and you've added a worthless option that will never be used because it isn't better than just...not using it. Change things so it's [I]more[/I] than just sharing, and you've now made something OP, because you have a [I]floor[/I] of "be a strong Fighter who already does competent damage," which you can then exceed by using your features on allies instead. No, it isn't. Again, no, it isn't. If the so-called "Warlord Fighter" is simply adding the choice of being allowed to use their selfish features on others, they will still be used selfishly because it is essentially [I]categorically true[/I] that using them on yourself is better than using them on anyone else, unless you intentionally and overtly slant the example. If you don't do that, if you actually [I]change[/I] the features so that they really are better if given to others, but you can still use them on yourself, then you've just made something OP. It won't be [I]as[/I] OP as the thing you just described, but it WOULD be OP, I recognize that and don't want that. And the only other option is to DELETE the ability of the "Warlord Fighter" to use those actions on themselves, something that 5e's rules do not support doing and never have. Oh, no, no. They knew [I]exactly[/I] what they were doing. Well, sort of. They knew exactly [I]part of[/I] what they were doing, and that part was intentional. That's why Mearls "joked" about shouting hands back on when he dismissed Warlord as a class concept. That's why they kept pushing out any 4e rules as belonging to the "tactical combat module," which was total vaporware (and most 4e fans could see that literally a year before release). That's why they explicitly said it would be "3e rules with 4e streamlining." This was [I]very[/I] intentional. That intentional effort was intensified by various mistakes, I don't deny that. For example, their critical fumble on the Specialties system, where they went absolutely all in on a system they later abandoned, and instead of attempting to fix the issue, they just stopped talking about martial healing. But make no mistake: there were never any bones about this being an intentional effort. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
Top