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

[Staffan]

So has the warlord question been settled? What did everyone decide?

That in order to make a warlord work the way at least I want it to, you'd have to change so many other things about 5e that it's basically impossible. You'd need healing on par with a non-Life cleric, which should ideally come with healing surges (which is a much better mechanic than Hit Dice) and proper per-encounter powers instead of per short rest. You also want positional tactics that actually matter, which likely requires some more granular bonuses than just advantage/disadvantage.

 

[Zardnaar]

People do play at high level and almost everyone plays at level 1-2 and the Monk is a strong class in both of those ranges. It is around level 5-8 where it is objectively weak in comparison to other classes and it is a small minority of games that are played only in that small window.

Wizards released some numbers and the majority of games are played in those levels.

Level 1-7 was 70% iirc, above 10 was 10% falling down to 1% at the epic levels.


3-7 is the sweet spot in most editions 4E was probably more 1-5.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So has the warlord question been settled? What did everyone decide?

I don’t think it was settled people just found something else they wanted to argue about more right now.

 

[Undrave]

I don’t think it was settled people just found something else they wanted to argue about more right now.

I'm still thinking of going back to creating a Warlord. My last attempts were using the ROGUE progression as a framework, because I think it would be cool to have another class with At-Will only abilities in the core class. But I'm really interested in the Warlock's mix-and-match framework right now.

But I was also thinking about the replacement for the 2 Spells a Warlock normally get and then I remembered the Psy Dice in that one UA... What if the Warlord had a 'Gambit' die? A type of 'push your luck' mechanic?

If you want to use one of your 'gambit' techniques you have to roll the Gambit die and if you roll a certain number you can't use any until you finish a short rest? I think there's something there.

Not sure if it needs to work exactly like the old psy die or somethng else... Maybe you have a certain number of those dice and when you do you action you can add more of them but if you roll the wrong number on any of them the gambit fails and you remove the die with the bad number from your pool? Maybe the Gambit works if you roll BELOW your proficiency bonus and each gambit has a different type of dice it asks you to roll, with the easiest one using d4 but the more difficult ones use d12? Or the opposite, your gambit dice improves over time and each gambit technique has a DC you have to beat with your die so the early ones gets easier as your dice becomes bigger. Just spitballing here.

It's just something that came to me I haven't actually designed anything concrete.

I find it really weird to be having a big debate over the current monk build. It's dead as a doornail; even if you're not already using the 2024 version (you should; it's so much better), it'll be live in a few months anyway.

FoB is great with the new build, because you have a slightly higher damage base, you have more di, crucially, it steps up to allowing three extra attacks at level 10, and it comes off the bonus action, meaning that you can always combine it with the dodge action if necessary. Between that and deflect missile becoming deflect attack, monk are very capable tanks, especially against single opponents.

For example, at level 10, my monk's base attacks, unarmed, each hit for an average of 10.5 damage (d8+5+1 for eldritch claw tattoo); going up to 14 if I need to activate the tattoo for a tough fight. With FoB that's a base of 52.5 or 70 damage per round, which is pretty damned respectable. Even in tank mode, using the dodge action, she's still sitting at a base of 31.5 DPR (plus 14 more from deflect attack if she wants to spend di on that).

I'm actually happy to hear it got significant buffs. I haven't followed the UAs that closely because I didn't have opportunities to test them out.

 

[Minigiant]

So has the warlord question been settled? What did everyone decide?

The answer is

WOTC would never print a full powered full scaling maneuver system again after 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The answer is

WOTC would never print a full powered full scaling maneuver system again after 4e.

Too bad for them and those who won't leave them for greener pastures. I'll just have to stick with Level Up.

 

[Undrave]

The answer is

WOTC would never print a full powered full scaling maneuver system again after 4e.

Boooooooh! So tired of the Caster bias.

 

[Jack Daniel]

▯

 

[Undrave]

There can only be one warlo__ class in the game without confusing new players, and WotC made their decision. Of course they picked the caster.

We had both in 4e. Pretty sure the Warlocks are in the PHB because of 4e.

We could always switch to Warmaster.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm still thinking of going back to creating a Warlord. My last attempts were using the ROGUE progression as a framework, because I think it would be cool to have another class with At-Will only abilities in the core class. But I'm really interested in the Warlock's mix-and-match framework right now.

But I was also thinking about the replacement for the 2 Spells a Warlock normally get and then I remembered the Psy Dice in that one UA... What if the Warlord had a 'Gambit' die? A type of 'push your luck' mechanic?

If you want to use one of your 'gambit' techniques you have to roll the Gambit die and if you roll a certain number you can't use any until you finish a short rest? I think there's something there.

Not sure if it needs to work exactly like the old psy die or somethng else... Maybe you have a certain number of those dice and when you do you action you can add more of them but if you roll the wrong number on any of them the gambit fails and you remove the die with the bad number from your pool? Maybe the Gambit works if you roll BELOW your proficiency bonus and each gambit has a different type of dice it asks you to roll, with the easiest one using d4 but the more difficult ones use d12? Or the opposite, your gambit dice improves over time and each gambit technique has a DC you have to beat with your die so the early ones gets easier as your dice becomes bigger. Just spitballing here.

It's just something that came to me I haven't actually designed anything concrete.


I'm actually happy to hear it got significant buffs. I haven't followed the UAs that closely because I didn't have opportunities to test them out.

Haha, we are moving in exact opposite frameworks. I've made a Warlord that used Warlock-style stuff, but now I'm liking the Rogue idea more.

My favorite unwritten idea though is the one shared by @Minigiant significantly upthread. He poised the idea of basically a grab bag of buffs that can be handed out. If this idea is innovated on, you kind of create a new kind of Warlord spell that isn't explicitly a Maneuver. Essentially, when I explored further on my own, the Orders provide a one-turn (or longer, if Concentration is maintained by the ORDERED creature) unique effect to the creature. This could augment it, be a numerical buff, and even be new traits or actions. I give the Rogue the Sabotage action and they can make a Dexterity Skill check of their choice to not just impose disadvantage on a target, but to make them suffer damage and conditions on a failure. Then, you give the Warlord something like Tactical Operations Dice and you roll these for damage OR spend dice for conditions or other effects. Essentially, you'd have a menu of effects powered by the Sneak Attack/Tactical Operations dice that OTHER characters are tapping into. You assign who each turn by replacing an Attack or using a bonus action.

But, I think the Warlock-style you propose is great too! What I like about the Warlord fantasy is that its so cool and engaging that you can really represent it through a lot of different mechanics.