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

[TwoSix]

You are 100% right that this discussion isn’t really about the warlord. Its about 4e vs 5e, caster vs martial, supernatural martials and their place in the game, how to justify the fictional for non-magical abilities, what is overtime’s in 5e, etc.

It definitely is about all those issues, but I think it's reactionary; there's a certain inevitable frustration when the dominant paradigm (5e) has been so static for such a long period of time (just about a decade now).

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

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.

 

[Undrave]

Heh, we did succeed at slaughtering vancian casting. Mostly.

I think only a few people ever realize they WANT to see sacred cows slain and the rest only realize it when they're already eating the Sacred Steak that results.

 

[pawsplay]

Is that like a 5.24 thing, because my PHB says it's just "You take exhaustion at the end of your rage."

No, that's actually just a basic rule of barbarian rage. The fact that you've forgotten it says all I really need to say about barbarians and rules complexity.

 

[Yaarel]

The vast majority of spells are completely unacceptable unchanged. Period. They would need to be changed so significantly, they would be barely recognizable.

They cannot have any components, especially not material nor somatic ones. They cannot permit being counterspelled. They cannot cease to function in certain areas because anti-spell effects are in play (AMF, dead magic zone). They cannot involve the vast majority of nonphysical damage types unless fueled by an actual material, e.g. if you bring along a bottle of alchemist's fire, then sure, that could enable fire damage, but unless it's psychic damage I'm not buying it as a martial action.

So, what does that leave? Even if we pretend that all spells are suddenly immune to counterspell and AMF/dead magic/etc., and allow not just psychic but also force and thunder damage (because I'm feeling generous), I'm counting a grand total of 16 damage spells and 31 non-damage spells. Of the damage spells, the only ones I can even remotely justify are sword burst, ensnaring strike, thunderous smite, wrathful smite, zephyr strike, and staggering smite. You may notice that most of these are Ranger spells, and most that aren't are Paladin spells—and are basically just psychic or thunder damage riding atop "do a weapon thing", "scare someone badly", or "push someone around."

Utility spells are even worse. The only ones I can see passing muster are a few heals, hunter's mark, command, and knock, with nothing above 3rd level being even remotely acceptable. Perhaps a dozen spells, max, and even those would need to be reworked to some degree.

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.

 

[Undrave]

It definitely is about all those issues, but I think it's reactionary; there's a certain inevitable frustration when the dominant paradigm (5e) has been so static for such a long period of time (just about a decade now).

Yeah we got the Echo Knight, the Clockwork Soul and the Rogue with its token but that's as crazy as it's gotten since the PHB.

Remember the Psionic Dice and it's neat mechanic of 'burning out' if you rolled too well? Apparently it was confusing so no wild mechanics for us.

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?

 

[Justice and Rule]

They don't, but if what you really want deep down is for martials to have powers that are equal to spells again, you're not talking about the Warlord, you're talking about 5e's choice to not open the can of worms that is martial dailies.

I mean, yeah, absolutely. When I was looking at redoing the fighter with Martial dailies, I basically started looking at doing dailies for all the martial classes because, well, why not go all in? But that was around the point that I found out about PF2 and that it simply started with that stuff.

No, that's actually just a basic rule of barbarian rage. The fact that you've forgotten it says all I really need to say about barbarians and rules complexity.

No, sorry, I misread that as "needing to attack and cause damage or they gain exhaustion", largely because I didn't understand why someone would include the reasons for rage ending in the first place. Chalk that up to you trying to make things more complicated than they actually are, because I've never seen a barbarian have much problem continuing a rage.

 

[Yaarel]

I think only a few people ever realize they WANT to see sacred cows slain and the rest only realize it when they're already eating the Sacred Steak that results.

Maybe. But for the change to actually happen, truly required a consensus across the D&D community. The frustration with vancian casting became a consensus toward the end of 3e. The 3e Psion (points) and 3e Warlock (invocations) were born out of that consensus. Then they were working on 4e, which mainly began to understand how a game engine works, but also standardized Atwills and Encounters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Certainly. My proposed "Strategies" would have to be written more or less from whole cloth, because while they are slotting into the design space that is filled by spells with the actual Warlock...they wouldn't be spells and should not work like spells. How many you learn, how often you refresh them, whether they should scale (and if so, how), and what effects are fitting for them would all need to be extensively reviewed and tested.

 

[pawsplay]

No, sorry, I misread that as "needing to attack and cause damage or they gain exhaustion", largely because I didn't understand why someone would include the reasons for rage ending in the first place. Chalk that up to you trying to make things more complicated than they actually are, because I've never seen a barbarian have much problem continuing a rage.

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.