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

[Minigiant]

And my point is, that doesn’t matter. WotC needs to lean into what sells best, irrespective of original intent

My point is that is only true if they lack competition.

This is false, 5e was never designed for a warlord.

Never said it did.

I said it was designed for long dungeons with tons of trash battles.

A warlord would be a big help in it but that wasn't the intention.

But that is also irrelevant. If market research suggested that it would be a popular addition they would add it, irrespective of original intent

They can't follow market research. They already committed to stuff that won't let them change.

 

[Remathilis]

A warlord who self buffs is a tv show protagonist fighter who uses the POWER OF FRIENDSHIP! and I FIGURED OUT YOUR WEAKNESS! at the end of the show.

"I must defeat you. Because my friends and kingdom depend on me."
(Theme song plays)

But mechanically, a class that uses its own buffs to match a fighter's solo combat abilities is just burning resources on himself to do what the fighter already does.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you are a big company you have to sell what the greatest number of people want. Otherwise you don't survive.

But the flaw in your reasoning, as I have already said, is that this only works as an explanation if absolutely every single thing, without exception, is what the greatest number of people sincerely, deeply want.

Do you know that? Do you know for sure that the greatest number of people is genuinely happy with every single thing in 5e, without exception, without even the slightest complaint or deviation on any point or part?

Because if you don't, then your position remains vulnerable to that simple critique: Just because someone buys something, doesn't mean they like EVERYTHING about it.

And we now have good reason to say that people actively choose to play things that AREN'T well-liked. We literally got statistics from WotC itself showing that there were problems with the satisfaction ratings for various classes and subclasses, despite some of those things being among the most popular options in 5e. How could that be? Is it, perhaps, that people choose things despite their design, even if that design continues to bug them and they just tolerate it because they don't have any other choices? Is it, perhaps, that with 5e being so thoroughly the (literal) only game in town for many people, folks settle for what they can get?

But that's why 3PP is so important. Smaller companies cater to smaller, niche markets. Like people who like to play D&D in other ways. That is' why it's vitally important we support them. If you don't allow 3PP at your table YOU SHOULD. If you don't support this you are doing everyone a disservice.

Except the overall culture of play for 5e is by far the most 3PP-hostile culture-of-play I've ever participated in. Even 3.x, which was notorious for its TERRIBAD 3PP (and even some terribad 1PP!), was more amenable to 3PP and outside homebrew options than 5e has been.

People celebrated how 5e was allegedly made for integrating 3PP in a way 4e wasn't. I've used more 4e 3PP and homebrew than I ever have in 5e. And at this point, I've actually played MORE 5e than 4e!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My point is that is only true if they lack competition.

The only thing holding back competition is the popularity of the current product. A great many popular products hit on the winning formula by accident rather than design.

Never said it did.

I said it was designed for long dungeons with tons of trash battles.

But, since most people don't play that way, it doesn't make sense to support it.

A warlord would be a big help in it but that wasn't the intention.

So would a quartermaster class. Gloomhaven has one. Go away and make it, if there is a demand people will buy it.

They can't follow market research. They already committed to stuff that won't let them change.

They follow market research all the time.

 

[Minigiant]

They follow market research all the time.

Sure.

They've also committed to decisions BEFORE they can collect research.

Like how WOTC committed to "NO NEW CLASSES UNLESS SETTING DEMANDS" before 5e even was publish

 

[CreamCloud0]

But mechanically, a class that uses its own buffs to match a fighter's solo combat abilities is just burning resources on himself to do what the fighter already does.

i wonder if you could do a 'my friends are my power/power of friendship' warlord subclass that works like a mimic(not the monster), being able to replicate or channel some of their party's abilities using their own resources?

 

[Remathilis]

I don't want them to be better than magic. I want them to be different from magic, without "different from" necessarily meaning "worse than."

That's part of what makes the Warlock chassis so useful as a starting point. It builds in customizability, but with tools that are class-specific. It recharges quickly but not instantly, which at least makes an effort to recognize the folks who fervently hate daily resources on non-spellcasters. Much of its power comes from permanent, passive bonuses or indefinitely reusable tricks. And it has a split main/secondary subclass model that fits extremely well with the diversity of approaches that Warlords did embody in 4e and could potentially embody even better in 5e.

As I said, this is merely a concept stage, but conceptually it works quite well. You can squeeze a great deal out of this model without needing to give up core elements of the 4e concept (like being actually nonmagical and not using spells). That's why I feel that something derived from the Warlock is so much better than most other paths forward; the customizable nature, flexibility, and relative simplicity makes for highly fertile soil.

So I'll start by saying that the warlock is my least favorite chassis to build classes over, at least in vanilla 5e. That's one strike against it.

My real concern is that in 5e, there are scant few checks on magic as it stands. The DM can screw the wizard things like antimagic, spells like dispel magic and counterspell, or try to control components with silence and grappling. I worry about when people start tossing around martials having abilities on par with spells because the first thing they do is remove those last checks on magic.

Let's give the hypothetical warlord access to an ability that mimics the power of haste. You have a warlord and a wizard both with the ability to haste an ally. But the warlord's power works in a beholder's antimagic eye. An evil mage can't disrupt or dispel it.. The warlord doesn't worry about a focus or somatic components (I'll assume some verbal is needed by the warlord to give orders). So what is the warlord's downside? Why should the wizard ever bother with it if the warlords version is the exact same but harder to counter? You can repeat this process with cleric vs warlord healing as well.

There is a secondary notion also that if you codify martial abilities as "spells" all martial classes will want access to them. We saw that with weapon mastery and how many classes (and subclasses) got or wanted them. You think the fighter or barbarian won't? The rogue or monk? Paladin or ranger? Martial casters like war cleric or valor bard? If popular, they will be everywhere in a few years. All the classes are casting spells, either magical or martial, and we're back to ADEU meets Vancian.

All of which is why I'm very leary of martial magic. You want to give martial abilities that mimic spells? Give them magic and be susceptible to magic's downsides as well.

 

[Remathilis]

i wonder if you could do a 'my friends are my power/power of friendship' warlord subclass that works like a mimic(not the monster), being able to replicate or channel some of their party's abilities using their own resources?

A warlord who uses his allies abilities to buff himself? Like an anti-warlord?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure.

They've also committed to decisions BEFORE they can collect research.

Like how WOTC committed to "NO NEW CLASSES UNLESS SETTING DEMANDS" before 5e even was publish

This is nonsense. The only thing WotC is committed to is maximising profit. The shareholders see to that.

Personally, I think 5e already has too many classes. If it were up to me I would be axing monks and sorcerers, not adding more. "More classes" goes with a "highly specialised classes" paradigm. Since 5e moved away from that, it doesn't need so many.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Overlaying the Warlord is how poorly D&D handles the Ability Scores in combat.

In 0e and 1e, ability scores for fighting men didn't matter.

Starting with 2e and ramping up with each edition, D&D made ability scores matter more and more but didn't explore it.


If I were in control, I'd make each Ability Score have a theme of how they influence combat.

• STRENGTH
  • Pushes
  • Knockdowns
• DEXTERITY
  • Accuracy
  • "Called shots"
    • Eyes: Blind
    • Gut: Bleed
    • Hands: Disarm
    • Legs: Slow
• CONSTITUTION
  • Self Heals
  • Resistences
• INTELLIGENCE
  • Attack prediction
  • Tactics
    • Action granting
      • Attack
      • Dash
      • Dodge
      • Disengage
    • Action Denial
      • Attack
      • Dash
      • Dodge
      • Disengage
• WISDOM
  • Experience
    • Saving throw rerolls
  • Spotting Weakpoints
  • Counterattacks
• CHARISMA
  • Boosting Morale
    • Buffs
    • Heals and THP
  • Demoralization of Foes
    • Debuuffs
    • Fear

Whether its Feats or a Maneuver system. Fantasy gaming is Way behind on the idea of using Might and Mind in different way that has been tropes in combat since the Classical Era.

There would be no call for Warlords if D&D and Fantasy game designers got off their "Warriors are Big Dumb Jocks" mentality.
Let the Warrior Nerds free!
Let the Warrior Jocks free!

Although the intend is great, this would make for a vastly different game. Too much focus on combat. Too detailed. Would make a great combat simulation.

So thank heaven's you are not in control of the core D&D game. I'd like to see how your game works out though.