"Warlord" build for D&Dnext

@El Mahdi Good post and that is pretty much how I interpret as well. Very much a la the MHRP or FATE malleable "stressed out" such that we can skin the incapcitated combatant in a number of ways. Interpretting HP in the above way and "unconscious" as "stressed out or incapacitated" has always allowed our table a wide swath of diverse narrative renderings (to both the incapacitation and what comes after; eg capture and Escape from Prison trope!).

I think @chaochou's quality suggestion of an "emotional stress track" and/or "mental stress track" as siloed modules to track these states would certainly be helpful. I use the Condition/Disease Track in 4e regularly as a method of attrition that can prevent Extended Rests (and Short Rests) when I want difficult environmental treks (eg lost in a winter or jungle wilderness) to be a theme for the day's play. It does a great job of creating tension at the table and marries the mechanics to the fiction quite well. Its also suitable for horror themed play. I suspect (though I haven't tried) that it could be extended to a morale system in place of HPs. No reason 5e couldn't do the same. It would add a layer of "fiddly bits" that many folks (myself not included) may not like but if its functional enough with minimal overhead, it may get the requisite support.

Hp may be cludgy, but they are simple and very well known. Most everyone knows them form some computer game. Yes, a more complex system might be a better genre emulation for some genres, but Next is among other things an entry level game meant to recruit new players. Hit points are fine for that kind of play.

Viva la Hit Points!

Starfox said:

?..but Next is among other things an entry level game meant to recruit new players. Hit points are fine for that kind of play.

Viva la Hit Points!

Click to expand...

The basic rules are an entry level game, the standard game not so much. The latter is the territory of modules and I think he ideas in this thread are modular based ideas.

chaochou said:

So I guess where I'm going with this is that my idea of modelling a leader in battle first requires a different modelling of combat than AC and HP. Imagine a game featuring the conditions: Confident, Shaken, Falling Back and Broken. Imagine they provide some pretty harsh penalties on what actions you can choose (and penalties on doing them). Imagine each time you lose HP you have to Save vs Fear or move one step down the track (confident to shaken, shaken to falling back etc).

Click to expand...

3.X had a fear system kind of like that, but it wasn't linked to HP. Spells and abilities could cause a creature to be shaken, frightened, or panicked, and stacking the effects moved the target down the line. I could see that being linked to HP-as-morale in a module, giving either an increasing penalty or a penalty to more things. It could possibly be that 0 HP means the person has completely given up and is waiting for death.

chaochou said:

Given that, I'd much rather see morale rules in a module which opens up a martial leader as an interesting and viable option.

Click to expand...

But this is something that worries me, the warlord/captain/whatever ending up as a class that depends entirely on a specific rules module. If that's what I had to do, I'd still try to play it, but I'd have to convince the people that DM for our games to use the module if the healing was integral to the main class. I could definitely see a subclass related to the fear module that deals with that, but I'd still like to see something healing oriented that's available in a basic game. I'd even settle for field medic subclass if that's what it took, even though, as others have said in various threads, that doesn't really fit the "charismatic leader" theme.

Anyone feel ready to get more concrete than the general ideas presented so far? To sum up the thread and perhaps make a stub of a class of it?

Starfox said:

Anyone feel ready to get more concrete than the general ideas presented so far? To sum up the thread and perhaps make a stub of a class of it?

Click to expand...

For what its worth, I did this one back in mid-March and it is pretty close to lockstep with much of what pemerton outlines in the initial post. Results in the poll were mixed. The Warlord players that voted were 8 in favor and 2 thought it was rubbish. If I'm marketing a class to scratch a specific itch, a 20 % fail rate to the players it is catering to is well wide of the target. Other votes in the poll were about immersion, etc. I was basically testing folks' metagame threshold and how well the 5e action economy and intra-class build potency could replicate the 4e Warlord thematically and tactically (crudely using the Cleric chassis and re-engineering...not remotely refluffing or even reskinning for that matter). Overall it would have to be categorized as a failure. KM had a good iteration, basically a mundane bard, in the same thread.

Warlord (Field Marshal)

Ability Adjustment: +1 to your Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma score.
Starting Hit Points: 8 + Constitution modifier
Armor and Weapon Proficiencies: Light armor, medium armor, and shields
Weapon Proficiencies: All simple and martial weapons
Hit Dice: 1d8 per warlord level
Hit Points: 1d8 (or 5) + your Constitution modifier per warlord level gained


1 - (BCT) Battle Captain's Tactics - As an action, you can use any of the below 3 Tactics:

Better Part of Valor - As an action, you can make a melee or ranged attack. One ally can then use their reaction to move up to 10 feet. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Direct the Strike - As an action, one ally attacks or casts an at-will spell with advantage against an enemy of your (their) choice. Your Martial Damage Dice, if any, is added to their damage.

Phalanx Formation - As an action, you make an attack. On its next turn, if the enemy attacks an ally while you are adjacent to it, your ally can use a reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.

1 - (TaO) That's an Order - A number of times per day, you can issue one of the below Orders:

Fortune Favors the Bold - As an action, you can expend a use of your TaO to give a number of allies equal to your Intelligence modifier an action that they must use immediately. If you are at least 11th level, the number of allies improves to your Intelligence modifier + 1.

Shake It Off - When an ally takes damage, you can expend a use of your TaO as a reaction. When you do so, reduce the damage the ally takes by 10. If you are at least 11th level, reduce the damage by 20 instead.

1 - (VoaTT) Veteran of a Thousand Treaties - You are trained in Knowledge Warfare and Persuade.

3 - (SS) Stirring Speech - Once per day, when your allies spend a Hit Die during a short rest, you can give them a bonus to their Hit Points gained equal to your Charisma modifier.

4 - (KTE) Know Thy Enemy - You and your allies have advantage on Sense Motive and Initative checks.

7 - (AAO) Against All Odds - You are immune to fear effects. As a reaction, when an ally makes a saving throw against a fear effect, you can provide that ally advantage on their saving throw.

9 - (DDoM) Don't Die on Me - If an attack or other effect drops an ally to 0 hit points or fewer and it fails to kill them outright, you can spend a reaction to allow them a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to drop to 1 hit point instead. Each time they succeed on this saving throw before taking a short rest, the DC increases by 5.

10 - (MoI) Master of Intel - You have advantage on any Intelligence of Charisma check used to gather information on an enemy's infrastructure, position, and means.

Without really being read up on the current playtest module, Fortune Favors The bold looks like it would cost your allies their reaction. Also, are you an ally of yourself when using this power? Shake it Off seems a bit weak, but then I am not familiar with the damage prevention standards of next.

Starfox said:

Without really being read up on the current playtest module, Fortune Favors The bold looks like it would cost your allies their reaction. Also, are you an ally of yourself when using this power? Shake it Off seems a bit weak, but then I am not familiar with the damage prevention standards of next.

Click to expand...

1) FFtB was inspired by the Divine Wrath Channel Divinity of the Cleric (but not remotely the same thing mechanically). However, its much more potential damage (requiring successful attack rolls), potentially used as an AoE (or even a move for strategic positioning/retreat) and it uses multiple reactions within the action economy. I was assuming an Int with a + 3 (so 3 actions) and wasn't counting the Warlord as ally in this equation. So, higher damage ceiling, more utility, but minor punitive effect of reaction expenditure (with 4-5 allies it is probably likely that 3 of them would find this a better expenditure than their own reaction for the round). If its crap or too powerful, the number of allies could be bumped up (or yourself included) or down (a dial).

2) SiO is a refluffed version of Magical Vestment of the Cleric. It was just buffed from 10/20 to 15/30 so apparently it was a bit weak! However, its utility is different as MV is target:self only while SiO is target:allies only (keeping coherency in thematic space with the Warlord)

I was primarily trying to carve out the thematic space and the tactical richness of the Warlord. Further, I wanted to hem in the metagame aspect of the class (compared to 4e) and do a poll on how many folks still saw it as too metagame intensive; although I find it a bit absurd that folks that love the Warlord (specifically for its metagame intensiveness) would have to have their favored class vetted by the "HP as meat only" lobby, especially if its to be siloed into a module to keep the antiseptic version of Basic 5e free of its infectious machinations. Finally, I wanted to see how many folks thought that the Warlord could be better contrived within the Fighter chassis + the proper specialty and background.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] That was pretty well done, and a good starting point for a class I would be happy to play. I've never made a class of my own and I don't know much about class design (I'm not even sure what's considered a class's chassis), but I have a couple thoughts about what you made. It sounds like your attempt wasn't meant to be too complete as yet, but I still think it has some key things about Warlords that people would discuss when it comes to building a class, so I'm going to go ahead and talk about them.

First is the healing. I know Clerics don't spend all day healing, but it looks like the Warlord as you made it will be quickly outpaced by a Cleric in damage mitigation (if that's an alright blanket term to use for healing and damage reduction). I'm not one that thinks Warlords need to be just as good as Clerics with damage mitigating abilities--I'd like to see a Warlord with something, at least, but I'd still play a Warlord without healing or damage mitigation--but the disparity is noticeable at first level, and it can get fairly extreme later on when a Cleric can use any level spell slot to cast Cure Wounds. The Shrug It Off is also much more situational than something like Cure Wounds, especially at first level: reducing 10/20 (or 15/30, to update it to later packets) damage from a single attack seems wasted when several weaker enemies are whittling away on someone for 2 or 3 damage per attack. It does have a major advantage in outright negating a big hit from an enemy, which can keep an ally from dying without having to spend a round getting them back up, but I'm not sure saving an action is worth losing overall versatility.

Second, I'm not sure about the attack bonus you have, which is kind of nit-picky, I know, but it doesn't quite seem to fit the theme for me. There are exceptions in fantasy stories, but in the real world and in a lot of fiction, the leader is more focused on tactics and keeping everyone organized and motivated. A lot of times they're experienced soldiers, but their fighting skills tend to have taken a back seat to leadership, so I would give them the Cleric/Rogue attack bonus. With that, I could see adding some abilities that don't include the Warlord making an attack, but the class would still give a pretty good chance to hit, so players would have a choice of leading from the back without a weapon, using a ranged weapon, or going melee.

Lastly, I think Battle Captain's Tactics and That's an Order would be prime material for subclasses. It could be like Cleric's deity choice affecting their cantrips and channel divinity. I could see it being one set BCT and TAO plus another of each that the character chooses. I'd be happy doing that if this were an official class, but others might want subclasses that are more open to choices, or more premade with fewer choices.

So there are my ideas. I've been thinking about those things myself already--frequency and intensity of healing, attack bonus and play styles, and how the subclasses would work--so I figured I'd give my thoughts on them and see if it helps keep the conversation going.

Pre-empting reactions to Daffyr's post about healing and warlords; if we want warlord healing, do we want some believability constraints on it? Possible examples of such constraints could be:

* Cannot heal someone who is unconscious/subzero hit points
* Cannot heal more than half the current damage someone has taken
* Cannot affect a certain character more than once per fight
* Is not a heal, but instead temporary hit points (if there is a Next equivalent)

To make up for these limitations, warlord healing could have positive riders, such as:

* Allows a new saving throw against ongoing effects
* Gives a buff (AC, attack, damage, whatever) as part of the heal
* Allows some special maneuver as an immediate attack, such as movement or standing up from prone
* Affects more than one person at once
* Has range

Hopefully, the sum of this would be to make warlord inspiration more distinct from regular healing.

And yeah, if this thread spills over into "Warlord for 3.5/Pathfinder" I think that's not a bad thing. And I'd rather discuss HOW different possibilities for the warlord would work out, than IF we should have them - I find the IF is generally easier to discuss after the how, when the proposed game effect is more polished and better defined.