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

[CleverNickName]

No, there isn't.

Neither of these options is acceptable.

No, there are not.

Well let's hear it, then. What's your version of the 5E Warlord?

 

[FrogReaver]

No, there are not. Again, would you accept the Eldritch Knight as a substitute for the existing Wizard? If the Eldritch Knight does not suffice for replacing a Wizard, then the Battle Master does not suffice for replacing a Warlord.

You may also notice that the vast majority of people who love the so-called "Warlord Fighter" did not play and do not like 4e and its Warlord, and likewise, those who did play 4e and loved its Warlord are not at all happy with the insufficient facsimile we got.

If you can tell me with a straight face that you genuinely would accept, without any complaint or criticism whatsoever, the full and total excision of the Wizard from 5e purely because the Eldritch Knight exists, then I'll buy that this argument is valid. I am willing to stake that position because I am sufficiently confident you would not accept that swap.

So. Is the Eldritch Knight enough of a Wizard to justify excising the Wizard entirely?

From where I sit most 4e warlord fans won’t be satisfied unless they have a very overturned warlord class. One that does the damage of the fighter by attacking with their allies, healing of the cleric, while also buffing allies attacks/damage initiative and giving them battlefield movement.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well let's hear it, then. What's your version of the 5E Warlord?

The Level Up Marshal.

 

[Vaalingrade]

From where I sit most 4e warlord fans won’t be satisfied unless they have a very overturned warlord class. One that does the damage of the fighter by attacking with their allies, healing of the cleric, while also buffing allies attacks/damage initiative and giving them battlefield movement.

And then I'd have the fighter get some manner of control, the cleric get real healing that can actually negate hits, and rogues get more battlefield movement.

You know, getting rid of all the undertuned stuff.

 

[Undrave]

I am not saying it is "that hard", I am saying it is harder than a Wizard for a newbie.

No it's not. The Champion works on a very simple principle: BIG numbers are GOOD, small numbers are bad. That's it.

When SKT first came out I was playing it as a player and the party nearly got TPKd because the Ranger insisted on attacking the Black Pudding with a Longsword over and over.

That's just a lack of conveyance from the DM not teaching the player their attack does nothing. This is simpler than Pokémon and billions of people have played Pokémon.

Are there any monsters that actually resist bludgeoning damage, on it's own and not as part of mundane damage resistance, because otherwise it's clearly the best damage type.

 

[Undrave]

As you go up in level there are fewer and fewer monsters with Resistance, Immunity or Vulnerability to all Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing..

Who even has vulnerability to mundane damage?

 

[Clint_L]

This is such a myth. Champion is not easy. Fighters aren't easy to play for a beginner. You need to understand movment, positioning, resistance, Armor class advantage/disadvantage.

What is easy to play is an Invocation Wizard. Not saying it has to be easy, or that it is easy to build but it can be very easy to play - Stay away from the front, take these spells, cast this one when you get hit, this one to damage a bunch of enemies, this one to damage one enemy and shoot your crossbow when you don't want to cast a spell.

Casters have complex choices but in the case of Wizard and Sorcerer they are complex build choices, not complex playing choices and where new players have difficulty is with in game playing choices.

The absolute best classes for a newbie is a Draconic Sorcerer because they are the easiest and most straightforward to play.

So, I work with beginners all the time. Fighters are MUCH easier to play for beginners. You might argue that they are harder to play optimally; that's a different discussion. But as far as a class to play while trying to wrap your head around all the arcane and abstract rules that are D&D, fighter is the second easiest, after barbarian. For a brand new player.

If you can understand moving, hit points, armour class, rolling to hit, and rolling to do damage, and skill checks, you can play a fighter at level 1. I will remind you about second wind when it comes up. But you can be up and running and learning the rest as you go very quickly with a fighter. Not so with a spell caster.

Sorcerer is probably the hardest. Not only do you have to choose through all the spell options and their various effects, you also have to deal with sorcery points, which adds a whole other layer of complexity to players who often have trouble remembering the difference between an action and a bonus action. A draconic sorcerer would be one of the last classes I would recommend to a newbie.

There are some kids who take to the concepts like a duck to water, of course, and immediately start devouring the rulebooks. They are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Fighters are more difficult to play for newbies than casters. They have more choices and more importantly more bad choices.

I would love to visit this universe where fighters have more choices than casters.

Or choices aside from 'which lackluster subclass do I pick when the Dm complains that battlemaster and echo knight are 'too powerful'.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I just saw that the Adventure Time 5E is going to have a Princess class. Maybe that will be Warlord like.

 

[James Gasik]

Who even has vulnerability to mundane damage?

Skeletons. That's about it.