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

[FrogReaver]

It should be noted that the 4e warlord had two Inspiring Words per encounter (three at some point). But on the other hand, the limit on Inspiring Word wasn't warlord-centric – it was the fact that the target got to spend a healing surge, and if they don't have any left they're SOL.

That was the case with all the leader healing features in 4e.

 

[CleverNickName]

It should be noted that the 4e warlord had two Inspiring Words per encounter (three at some point). But on the other hand, the limit on Inspiring Word wasn't warlord-centric – it was the fact that the target got to spend a healing surge, and if they don't have any left they're SOL.

You could borrow from the Battle Master's "Commander's Strike" ability:

"When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forego one of your attacks to choose an ally within 30 feet that can see and hear you. That ally can then use its Reaction to recover XdY+Z hit points."

 

[Undrave]

That was the case with all the leader healing features in 4e.

Healing Surge: The superior healing system

 

[FrogReaver]

Indeed and I am aware, but I stan laserllama cuz ive tried his stuff and offered it in many situations and as a designer, I find it is worth the hype. He has yet to put forth anything that screwed up my many tables balance.

Most overtuned classes don’t screw up the tables balance depending on exactly what is meant by that. Doesn’t mean those same things aren’t overtuned.

The warlord specifically feels good because it empowers other players too. I consider the class a force multiplier, not a showstealer.

Anything that’s A force multiplier is overtuned. It means adding the force multiplier in will be better than adding in a non-force multiplier.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am unfamiliar with LaserLlama Warlord. (I have it now and will read it soon.)

I am commenting on your assessment that the following is overpowered:

Level 1: heavy weapon (d10), heavy armor, and 3x Healing Word

No. 3x per short rest.

Even a Level 1 Cleric can have heavy weapon, heavy armor, and [2x] Healing Word.

The Cleric additionally has other significant class features. Nobody thinks the 5e Cleric is overpowered.

At level 1 clerics are typically regarded as the strongest class.

Meanwhile, the 5e designers have decided that pretty much ALL healing spells are underpowered. The playtest doubles the amount of healing of spells like Healing Word.

Maybe it will be balanced in 2024 but it’s not currently so.

Where LaserLlama similarly enhanced the healing effectiveness of his Warlord, I am confident his design will prove to balance well at level 1.

It doesn’t though.

Start with this premise, warlord shouldnt be capable of healong more than a life cleric. Sounds reasonable, no?

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding the Warlord and "nonmagical" healing, matching the mechanics to flavor is vital.


For the Martial hit point restoration maneuvers, I feel they should be better than magic while the ally is still Up. However, once Downed at 0 hit points, the maneuver is ineffective.

At 0 Hit Points, the Warlord should resort to medical triage for a serious injury, including actual bandages and balms. Relying on the Medicine skill − and enhancing its effectiveness − can make sense too.

But before being Downed, the nonphysical hit points are exactly what the Warlord specializes in: competence, cooperative synergy, alertness, morale, hope, responsiveness, energy, enthusiasm.

 

[Minigiant]

That was the case with all the leader healing features in 4e.

Nah. The cleric had a few surgeless heal.

The Cleric was a better healer than Warlord because of this.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nah. The cleric had a few surgeless heal.

The Cleric was a better healer than Warlord because of this.

Thus why i said all ‘the leader healing features’ and not powers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah. That's a problem that many people bring up. It's not the defense you think it is.

Ah, so we should eliminate Druids, because that's a narrowly-specific single-culture semi-priestly archetype which has jack-all to do with transforming into animals.

And we should get rid of Paladins, because "Paladin" derives from "a protector of the Palatine hill" (from Latin, via French) and has jack-all to do with keeping sacred oaths or bringing good and beauty into the world.

And we should get rid of Clerics, because "cleric" refers either to a specific type of leadership among priests, or to scribes (e.g. "clerical error"), which the in-game Clerics have absolutely no relationship to.

And we should get rid of the Monk, because it's narrowly specific to one single subculture of one single religion (specifically, Shaolin kung fu Buddhist monks).

And we should get rid of "Warlock," because in Wicca, that's a term for wicked people who use magic specifically for evil ends.

And we should get rid of Bards for the same reason as Druids, except worse because it's intentionally conflating two completely different concepts (Celtic priest-leaders and post-Celtic minstrel-entertainers).

And we should get rid of Rangers because that's literally just a ripoff of a character from a single series (Aragorn), which then got a whole bunch of other mechanics stapled to it for no reason (dual wielding, animal taming).

And we should get rid of Artificers, because not all fantasy settings have devices and magic and tinkering.

Finally we'll be free of classes that have ridiculous over-specific commitments or unfortunate implications, left with only the ones pure enough to qualify as valid interests for players to play!

Or, y'know, we could recognize that what allows something to qualify as "a class" is not, and has never been, a logically-consistent thing. That there are classes baked into D&D's structure that would never have been acceptable if they were erased from existence and then proposed three editions later. That easily, easily half of all classes are things that the very same people who defend them to the hilt today as vitally necessary parts of D&D would scoff and dismiss them outright without the weight of tradition behind them.

The vast majority of opposition to a "Warlord" class boils down to, "It's not what I'm familiar with, so it doesn't fit." That's a craptacular excuse for why it shouldn't be allowed to exist, both because the "reason" is inherently self-serving, and because it creates, as I've said in may prior threads, a guaranteed catch-22 for creativity and innovation: it's unfamiliar so it should never be allowed, but things can only become familiar by being allowed.

Now, that doesn't mean absolutely everything should be added. I get that being profligate with game elements is bad. My point is not that we should become profligate; it is that we should avoid being miserly.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm curious. Do you really not care what things are called?

I know I don't.

Not in the Game of Uninspired Names.

Looking at you, barbarians, rogues, fighters, dragonborn and all of the really dumb, unpronouncable demon and aberration names.