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

[James Gasik]

You are not talking about a low level game here (i.e. newbies).

Did you miss me saying we played from level 1 to 9?

Oil is 5 fire, not 3. Alchemists fire is 1d4 per turn if you hit. Acid is 2d6, Holy Water is 2d6 (against Undead and Fiends).

I said nothing about oil, I said improvised torch which the DM said did d6 fire. So 3.5.

Bludgeoing works on most oozes

It didn't work on this one:

Well then you didn't face any of those monsters. There are two pages of monsters on DNDBeyond that are vulnerable to Bludgeoning, that includes ordinary Skeletons

Also some Ozes (which you did fight) have outright immunity to slashing weapons but not others.

And didn't I say this is campaign-dependent? That was my whole point, I just had an experience that counters what you were saying- what's been true for you isn't universally true (now if you want to say I'm some edge case, I dunno, it's not like the adventure was homebrew or anything). That wasn't me discrediting you, but saying that isn't always true so you can't just say "well if you do this you'll be fine". There's a lot of critters who are damned unfriendly to weapon-using martials, from the very early parts of the game (you say skeletons, I say shadows) all the way up.

Don't have a magic weapon or a easy way to deal elemental damage without a consumable on hand, you can end up in a bad spot. You might say "well, always carry a consumable", but most of the classes in the game don't need to. People say you don't need a spellcaster, but if a party went through the adventure I just went through without a full caster, I don't think they would have made it.

 

[TwoSix]

Heck, the PHB didn't even anything that feels truly unique to 5e. Like, we talk about how the Warlord was unique a beast of 4e, but 5e doesn't really have a class like that, does it? I guess you could argue the 5e Warlock stands out as a unique 5e creation, even if it uses an existing name?

You could argue that, but I've also seen it argued that it's the closest thing we have to an AEDU 4e structure in 5e.

I lean towards the Warlock being one of the better design evolutions in 5e, myself, and wish Pact Magic was the standard casting paradigm.

 

[James Gasik]

No, the 1e versions were "subclasses", buddings that hadnt separated yet.

Do we talk about Paladin as a Cavalier subclass? A subclass of a subclass? Or pretend that didn't happen?

 

[Minigiant]

Is it? Are we sure about that? Or is it perhaps that because you fall into that camp, you wish/hope/want it to be massive so that there's the slimmest chance it could get changed?

And if it doesn't get changed... maybe the movement isn't as massive as you thought it was. Just like the movement to get a Warlord, Psion, and Swordmage into WotC's 5E D&D perhaps isn't large enough to the point that WotC feels the need to act on it? Just speculating here.

Did you see me in the Sorcerer threads.

I know it won't get changed. I'm answering the the question in the first post.

The issue is many don't like the answer

 

[Justice and Rule]

That's because people usually don't point out when they becoming ineligible to continue raging. I'm not making things more complicated than they are, I'm stating them exactly as complicated as they are. A frenzy still has to follow all the rules of rage. But now, not only do you have to remember those pesky requirements, but if you don't keep it going, you get hit with the exhaustion hammer.

But that's just every rage. There's nothing more complicated to frenzy other than the consequences of failing to continue rage, which is one of the easiest things to continue in a combat. I have yet to see a barb have a problem continuing a rage when necessary. Admittedly I haven't seen a berserker deal with it, but that's largely because the berserker sucks on toast and no one at my table wanted to hobble themselves for an extra attack they could get through something like Great Weapon Master or simply having an off-hand weapon if they so desired. There's a reason that mechanic got changed (into something far better while also still fairly simple).

 

[Micah Sweet]

The core problem is that the warlord that is designed within the 5e paradigm and mechanics is not worth printing.

A warlord class that is worth printing that anyone would be satisfied with requires more paperwork than 5E is willing to do.

It's the exact same problem the beastmaster ranger had. Tasha had to add two more pages to the beastmaster to make people somewhat satisfied with it.

You will never be able to fit a big gameplay changing or narrative changing character concept in a 1/3rd of a page.

It's the same old issue. The problem is not 5e. The problem is WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dunno... maybe there just aren't enough people who want those sacred cows slain? Maybe the number of people hung up on the Wizard "getting everything" isn't big enough to warrant a change? Don't ask me. I have no idea.

I just know I couldn't care less if a Psion or isn't in the game. I'm perfectly fine if WotC decides to make one at some point, just like I'm okay if WotC doesn't and I have to use a 3rd party psionic system or update/use the UA Mystic rules for it if I ever feel the need to have a psion class at one of my tables.

Yeah, I am perfectly happy with using the Level Up versions if classes (including their take on the warlord and the psion) as the base for my game. No need, or even desire, for WotC to do it.

 

[Minigiant]

It's the same old issue. The problem is not 5e. The problem is WotC.

It's not just WOTC, it's a section of the community.

WOTC just happens to hire from this section as it was one of the 2 dominant ones 20 years ago.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you are coming at it backwards.

The number of people hung up on the "Wizard getting everything" is small.

The number of people hung up on "every other fantasy archetype save the Warrior Cleric not getting half the treatment of the Wizard" is massive.

Wizard Hatred vs Wizard Envy

Where's my ranger spells? Where's my paladin villain? Where is the warlock monsters? Eye of Ruin? Venca? Another Wizard Bad Guy? I guess you don't want my money.

Do you represent at least 70% of the gaming public? If not, WotC has no reason to spend design effort on what you want, per their business plan.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Earlier, I suppose a "Martial spell school" using the spell format for maneuvers. Great for gishes, plausible for Warlord. But it means writing new maneuvers to meet the specific needs of nonmagic flavor with suitable mechanics.

Again, I direct you to Level Up. In this case, it's cross-class Combat Manuever system.