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

[I'm A Banana]

Which would mean something if they ever asked a question about the warlord.

I mean, I can't prove it, since I'm not there, but I'm quite confident that they do. They've shown a very good ability to listen to multiple channels of feedback. I'm sure they're quite aware that warlord fans aren't all happy with the current options, just like they're aware that psion fans aren't all happy with the current options. If it was something they felt there was a critical need to address, I'm pretty sure they would've addressed it in the last 10 years. Or, maybe they've got a plan to address it that just hasn't seen publication yet! Who knows?

 

[Minigiant]

The corollary here is that if commander's strike (or other options) wasn't enough for most people then we would have an official version of the warlord by now when WotC responded to the outcry of excluding it by now. Heck, we probably would've had one in 2014 - these dudes have been survey-jockeys for a decade, now.

Another answer to why there is no warlord equivalent in 5e: the existing options satisfy enough people that it hasn't been a major concern for the devs (even if it definitely doesn't serve everyone).

The response to that is like I said before.

WOTC locked themselves in a policy of not creating new classes

So if surveys stated that the community wanted a new class, WOTC had already stated that they would not create a new class not linked to a setting

This is what breaks the "WOTC follows the research" argument. Quality and Costs are on their own policy guidelines.

Jeremy Crawford literally said that he and the team had fixes that they wanted to put into 54 years that they would not implement because they did not want to invalidate the 2014 player handbook.

They sat on bad rules for a decade in order to not print errata.

 

[Undrave]

This theorycraft isn't born out in actual play. Most 1st-tier monks I've seen blast through an average monster by spending a single ki point on flurry when they decide to nova. d8 hp doesn't mean you get one-shotted, so you can take a round or two of hits (and a round or two is all you need), and 1 ki point left in reserve lets you access the defensive options if the monsters get lucky and crit you or something. Dead monsters give no crackback. Heck, the most recent monk I've had was effectively the party tank (a cleric, a warlock, and a bard made up the rest of the party). The comparison to a rogue is pretty apples and oranges - remove ki and you may as well remove sneak attacks, too. Expertise is a ribbon.

Again, not borne out in play. Big secret that most wizards know is that monsters have doo doo saves. Sure, dragons or giants or other meaty critters might save, but you've got enough ki to take it to them round after round - everyone rolls a 3 eventually (typical D&D fight is about 3-5 rounds, so it's not like you need to conserve your resources much there). I've seen monks lock down enemies often enough that house ruling Stunning Strike is one of the few power-based house rules I've considered for 5e, due to it turning so many 4v1 fights into cakewalks for the players (didn't end up doing it, because I prefer to allow power to breathe a bit, but it wrecked some fights like arcane eye wrecks some dungeons!)

Well my experience is that you burn through all your ki trying to make a decent contribution to a battle and end up exposed because you have crap AC and HP better suited for a ranged attacker. 'You can take it to them round after round'? Really? No you can't because you got like 5 ki points and they need to last you for two encounter so you can't be too spendy. And half the time, the Monsters that easily fail their save? They end up cut down by your team mates who actually do good damage anyway so you basically spent your ki point on nothing.

Playing a monk is an exercise in frustration. Teleporting around with a Shadow Monk and having great Stealth when you spend ki points on Pass Without Trace, now that's cool. Still not enough ki to make use of those spells often enough.

 

[ECMO3]

Well my experience is that you burn through all your ki trying to make a decent contribution to a battle and end up exposed because you have crap AC and HP better suited for a ranged attacker. 'You can take it to them round after round'? Really? No you can't because you got like 5 ki points and they need to last you for two encounter so you can't be too spendy. And half the time, the Monsters that easily fail their save? They end up cut down by your team mates who actually do good damage anyway so you basically spent your ki point on nothing.

Playing a monk is an exercise in frustration. Teleporting around with a Shadow Monk and having great Stealth when you spend ki points on Pass Without Trace, now that's cool. Still not enough ki to make use of those spells often enough.

I love playing Monks. The key is never use Flurry of Blows unless you have a real good reason to. I played a Monk 1-20 and I probably used FOB maybe 5 times in 20 levels. The PCs I see that use FOB a lot are typically not happy with the class. Also I think it works best with a Wisdom-first mindset because that improves your save DCs and AC, and you don't need a higher dex as much because you can use focused aim to get more on an attack roll than a higher dex will give you anyway. On point buy I like to start with a 17 Wisdom and take either Fey Touched with Hex or Gift of the Gem Dragon at 4th level, and ASIs after that.

At early levels I used Ki primarily for Patient Defense (which fixes the AC issue), then in tier 2 add in stunning strike and subclass abilities. Ki still in short supply for a while in tier 2, but it gets better the further you go. Once you get to 10th level or so you have a ton of Ki and don't run out easily unless you are just wasting it.

Also IMO Monks work best on a race with a high movement, I personally like Dhampir, but getting extra movement at start is big. Wood Elf works well too, getting proficiency in Warhammer and Longsword. Then at high levels when you can move all over the battlefield, use that ability. I see a lot of people try to tank with a Monk when they can just move away and take some AOO and then the bad guys can't reach them to melee them.

At high level Monk is the most powerful non-caster in combat by quite a bit and is arguably better in combat than a Ranger or Paladin as well. The mobility and stunning strike really start paying dividends.

 

[cbwjm]

I've had different experience with monks as well, they typically have been fun for those who played them and they did well in combat. I'm not saying it's perfect but it definitely doesn't suck.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We use hit points not only in D&D but most of videogames.

WotC has to choose about a possible update of the martial adept classes and the martial maneuvers. I mean if there is an update of the "martial maneuvers" then some classes from previus editions could be redesigned, for example the warmage could be an arcane ranged martial adept, or something like this.

And it is not only the gameplay, but each class needs its own mark of identitity. A warlord can't be only a fighter with some buff for allies. Each new class has to be cool and interesting enough to be the protagonist of its own novel.

* I wonder how would be mixing Magic: the Gathering and the old wargame "Batle Masters", in a videogame like a virtual tabletop simulation.

* My opinion is the future warlord class will be designed for a future miniature wargame, mass battles or skirmishes.

 

[pawsplay]

The 5e monk from 3rd level on is doable. But at 1st level, you're a person with a stick. Literally all the abilities you gain just mitigate some of the disadvantages of being someone in a robe with a stick. At 2nd level, you have just enough ki to get overconfident. Once you get to 3rd level, you get an actual class feature, and things start to get interesting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean I guess appealing to WotC's poorly administered surveys is a unique appeal to popularity where you don't actually need to prove popularity.

Didn't get 70% NOT POPULAR.

Didn't even actually get put up for consideration or a vote? NOT POPULAR.

And we'll see how much they actually follow through with the survey results once the books drop. I still remember the shocking swerves of the NEXT Playtest.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well my experience is that you burn through all your ki trying to make a decent contribution to a battle and end up exposed because you have crap AC and HP better suited for a ranged attacker. 'You can take it to them round after round'? Really? No you can't because you got like 5 ki points and they need to last you for two encounter so you can't be too spendy. And half the time, the Monsters that easily fail their save? They end up cut down by your team mates who actually do good damage anyway so you basically spent your ki point on nothing.

Playing a monk is an exercise in frustration. Teleporting around with a Shadow Monk and having great Stealth when you spend ki points on Pass Without Trace, now that's cool. Still not enough ki to make use of those spells often enough.

I have seen several monks in play and they rocked. That does not mean there is room for improvement (see 2024 monk), but for many people the monk works. Ki is not more of a problem than spell slots.

 

[Minigiant]

Like I said earlier, Monks were built for mega dungeons with many easy trash combats that 5e was designed after.

Once you reduce the game to a few cinematic encounters, the monk gets VERY wonky and table dependent.