Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

mellored · Mar 26, 2018

I still don't get the fascination with trying this to int mod. We are making a warlord not a solely tactical warlord. My basic abilities (especially the more inspirational ones) shouldn't require INT to function best and this int mod on uses basically forces that.

I'm partial to the tactical warlord.

But mostly, I wanted a few points at level 1, but not be able to give out +20 to a skill check at level 20. So just off the top of my head, I went Stat+half-level for a 3-15 points range.

I didn't put much though into balance. Just threw out some ideas.

However, there are still a few things. My first major concern is that you are level gating some of these abilities when it's a single resource pool you get to spend on them which makes it feel like the higher level gated abilities should be stronger when they should actually be equal (or else why worry about the lower tier abilities).

The only level gate was the saving throw penalty. And only to keep it out of the hands of casters.

But really, I can't think of many that need level gates if they go the scaling right.

Healing, even gated by hit dice should not be at will. At level 6 you would be able to instandly fully heal 2 party members from 0 hp in the same turn. It's not just a problem with your particular implementation of at-will healing. Healing simply must have a per rest limitation on it.

Again, i didn't balance. But let me see...

Your typical (5+2) * 6 = 47 HP
Maximizing a d8 = +3.5 HP
* half your hit dice per day * a party of 5.
= 10.6 * 5 people per day.

Mass cure wounds gives 17.5 HP * 5 people.

So it seems about right for a base ability. With sub-class boosting.

The skill boost one concerns me if it's not left to a combat only use (not many skills get used in combat so I don't see any particular issue with it at this time)

Yea. Probably change skills to 2 points for +1.
Change saves to 5 points for -1.
And change scaling to just warlord level.

That works better.

What are some of the encounter or long rest style save abilities?

I'm not sure I have any.
"when you roll inititive"
"When an ally fails with a spell, they gain a slot 2 levels lower than they cast."
And healing, with hit dice.

All of which are gated other ways besides resting.

Tony Vargas · Mar 26, 2018

Zardnaar said:
Sure a warlord could TWF but they lack the fighitng style although the Bravura one could get it but like the Paladin probably should not get TWF as an option.

Bravuras are not like Paladins, and should logically get melee-offense-oriented styles, GW & TWF are certainly appropriate. Something like the hypothetical Protector, pages back, might also get a choice of styles, but like Protection or Defense, as the name implies.

Most Warlords, though, should be much more about their allies than their weapons.

FrogReaver said:
Gambits and exploits best cover inspiring attacks but they don't map as well to battleplans or shouts etc.

'Exploit' was the 4e term for all martial powers, and I still vaguely feel like it was chosen in part to take the word away from discussions of 'exploitable mechanics.' The BM's "Maneuver" sounded like a much better term for that sort of thing. Mike's "Gambits" also sound nicer than 'exploits,' and sound, to me, more like tactical plans and tricks, FWIW.

Also, I kinda like the idea of using several terms. Apprentice-tier abilities labeled 'Maneuvers,' heroic 'Gambits,' etc.

FrogReaver said:
If that's what it took to get an accepted warlord I'm good with a no flavor text version of the ability. Do you think others in your camp will go for that kind of compromise?

5e doesn't go in for 'no flavor text:' everything is meant to be designed from concept up, not mechanics first, then flavor to your liking.

That said, phrasing that leaves room for players to play their characters as they envision them is better than locking down RP options. For instance, the PH is clear that a Monk's ki is magical, but that doesn't stop an Open-Hand monk from looking significantly less magical than an Elemental one, and various characters could have various opinions about the Open-Hand monk. Bottom line, though, in an anti-magic effect, his ki is inaccessible.

The Warlord didn't use magic, his abilities were not supernatural, but it would be perfectly reasonable to phrase fluff such that there's plenty of room for people to believe supernatural agencies are at work. Heck, IRL, lots of people have believed in supernatural agencies - God or fate or luck or what-have-you assuring the victories of a famous general or the like. Mechanically, the bottom line should still be 'not magic,' but the bottom line of their being no magic IRL has never stopped RL believers.

mellored · Mar 26, 2018

Putting some ideas together...

Level 1: First Aid: As a bonus action, you can let a creature within 5' spend a hit dice, maximizing their die roll. You can do this a number of times equal to your class level between long rests.

Sub-Class:
*Tactician: As an action, you can put down a zone. Hostile creatures in the zone take extra damage equal to your Int modifier. The zone lasts as long as you maintain concentration.
*Bravada: You gain heavy armor and martial weapons. As a reaction, you can make an attack with 5', or ranged attack that passes within 5' of you, target you instead of the origional target.
*Inspirational: As an action, you can give a creature THP equal your Cha modifier.
*Skirmishing: You gain proficiency in martial ranged weapons. As an action, you can let another creature use their reaction to hide.

Level 2: Points: You gain pool of points equal to half your class level. The pool recharges at the end of your turn.

Default Point Use: When a creature within 30' (including yourself) takes damage, you can spend points to reduce or increase the damage by the number of points spent. If this reduces the damage to 0, the attack is a miss.

Level 3: Select an out of combat feature. You gain an additional choice at levels...
*Helpful: When you use the help action to help with a skill you have proficency in, the roll gains a bonus equal to half your proficency bonus.
*Expertise: Gain expertise in a skill.
*(more stuff).

Level 5: Sub-class
*Tactical: When you spend points on creatures in your zone, they count as double.
*Bravada: When you spend points on yourself, they count as double.
*Inspirational: When you spend points on a creature, they gain Temporary hit points equal to the points spent.
*Skirmishing: When you spend points on an OA, they count as double.

FrogReaver · Mar 26, 2018

mellored said:
I'm partial to the tactical warlord.

Sure. It's easy to push the main class to really be about what we want when it either should come from the subclass or options on the main class.

But mostly, I wanted a few points at level 1, but not be able to give out +20 to a skill check at level 20. So just off the top of my head, I went Stat+half-level for a 3-15 points range.

Right. 5e would typically phrase such an ability as you get 3 uses at level 1 and then you gain a point every other level or something similar to that. Or better yet it would just be detailed on the class chart.

I didn't put much though into balance. Just threw out some ideas.

The only level gate was the saving throw penalty. And only to keep it out of the hands of casters.

If that's the only reason for level gating something then I'm not opposed. Level gating certain abilities that would be too good for multiclassing is definitely a consideration I'm in favor of.

But really, I can't think of many that need level gates if they go the scaling right.

agreed

Again, i didn't balance. But let me see...

Your typical (5+2) * 6 = 47 HP
Maximizing a d8 = +3.5 HP
* half your hit dice per day * a party of 5.
= 10.6 * 5 people per day.

Mass cure wounds gives 17.5 HP * 5 people.

So it seems about right for a base ability. With sub-class boosting.

First of all I mentioned a level 6 warlord. You would be comparing mass healing word at that level not mass cure wounds.

Secondly, the most a cleric can heal to a single character in a single turn to a single character is
Level 1: 1d8 + 3 + life cleric boost = 10.5
Level 3: 2d8 + 3 + life cleric boost = 16
Level 5: 3d8 + 4 + life cleric boost = 22.5

The warlord you cited would be granting two characters in one turn both 3d8 + 6 maximized = 30 hp

It's not just about the total extra amount you are allowing to be recovered but how fast you are allowing it to be recovered as well. It's that using hit dice as the only daily usage limit on warlord healing and an at will healing ability just means the players will tend to use the healing outside combat and us their other abilities inside combat. It works that way because using that healing out of combat doesn't reduce your combat effectiveness at all. When a Cleric casts a heal spell outside combat it means he cant cast a spirit guardians or a spiritual weapon etc.

Yea. Probably change skills to 2 points for +1.
Change saves to 5 points for -1.
And change scaling to just warlord level.

That works better.

You need to remove the save thing.
1. It's not something that makes sense for the class
2. It's not really some iconic ability warlords got in previous editions
3. 5e generally stays away from effects that lower saving throws and does so for a good reason.

If you disagree with those premises that's fine but don't try to fix and mold 5e with the warlord class. Instead make a warlord that easily fits into what 5e already is

I'm not sure I have any.
"when you roll inititive"
"When an ally fails with a spell, they gain a slot 2 levels lower than they cast."
And healing, with hit dice.

All of which are gated other ways besides resting.

But warlords were never really about making casters better. Why all the caster focused stuff? Why try to force warlords to heal at will with hit dice when it's like trying to stick a round peg in a square hole in 5e terms?

Zardnaar · Mar 27, 2018

I already dumped the idea of HD based healing for the wl. There's not enough of them.

Martial healing in 5E scales with level and seems short rest based. Examples we have are the healer feat and second wind.

Grant 2nd wind seems to be a good level 1 ability 1d8 plus level works. Compares well to a clerics clw and holy word and you will get two or 3 of them.

I added more healing level 2 and based it off the light clerics ability so it's a mass inspire type ability. Makes warlord better healer at level two than noise clerics.

Since warlords don't get spell slots is another reason to have it scale, tentative name healing surge for the level two ability.

They get an aditional use of each ability level 5 and 6 and another use of the level 1 ability when's trips scale. I think the goal word be comparable healing roughly to a non life cleric that has used perhaps 50% of their spell slots on healing.

At level 6 you would have two uses of 1d8+6 and 2d8+6 per short rest. That's 6 uses each seems a generous amount even.

Tony Vargas · Mar 27, 2018

FrogReaver said:
But warlords were never really about making casters better. Why all the caster focused stuff?

Warlords were always about making their allies better, regardless of Source.

In 5e, though, it could make a lot of sense to have a sub-class that focused on enhancing arcanists, or on zealotry, or whatever, both as a plausible faux-MC and from concept-first design. In a world where magic is endemic, militaries and the like are going to try to make best use of it.

Why try to force warlords to heal at will with hit dice when it's like trying to stick a round peg in a square hole in 5e terms?

HD already heal in 5e, and are already a daily (bi-daily? semi-daily?) resource, so I'm not sure the hole is all that square.

mellored · Mar 27, 2018

FrogReaver said:
First of all I mentioned a level 6 warlord. You would be comparing mass healing word at that level not mass cure wounds.

That was mass healing word.
My mistake.

The warlord you cited would be granting two characters in one turn both 3d8 + 6 maximized = 30 hp

It took a bonus action, so only 1 target per turn.

But again, those are just ideas.

You need to remove the save thing.
1. It's not something that makes sense for the class
2. It's not really some iconic ability warlords got in previous editions
3. 5e generally stays away from effects that lower saving throws and does so for a good reason.

1: It makes plenty of sense for a support class to work for all classes. Over half the classes cast magic so there should be some support for that.

2: Yes, it was.
In 3.5 the marshal had "Determined Caster: Bonus on rolls to overcome spell resistance."
In 4e, spells used to-hit rolls the same as weapon attacks. So when "lead the attack" gave everyone +Int bonus to-hit the target, that including the wizard casting. There was also "No Gambit Wasted" that let people keep their power if they missed.

3: Bane is a 1st level cleric spell. Giving a -1d4 save penalty.

Why all the caster focused stuff?

It's not a focus. It's 2 abilties (save penalty + No Gambit Wasted) out of probably out of 10 or more options. So only 20%, maybe less.

Though I could see an "arcane commander" sub-class that had more focus on it.

FrogReaver · Mar 27, 2018

mellored said:
That was mass healing word.
My mistake.

It took a bonus action, so only 1 target per turn.

But again, those are just ideas.

1: It makes plenty of sense for a support class to work for all classes. Over half the classes cast magic so there should be some support for that.

2: Yes, it was.
In 3.5 the marshal had "Determined Caster: Bonus on rolls to overcome spell resistance."
In 4e, spells used to-hit rolls the same as weapon attacks. So when "lead the attack" gave everyone +Int bonus to-hit the target, that including the wizard casting. There was also "No Gambit Wasted" that let people keep their power if they missed.

3: Bane is a 1st level cleric spell. Giving a -1d4 save penalty.

It's not a focus. It's 2 abilties (save penalty + No Gambit Wasted) out of probably out of 10 or more options. So only 20%, maybe less.

Though I could see an "arcane commander" sub-class that had more focus on it.

Here's the biggest issue. We are trying to create a warlord that has fairly broad appeal, that keeps the flavor and the iconic abilities while remaining balanced in 5e. The more mechanics that people may inherently dislike the more issues you will have with your version of the warlord seeing play.

Modifying enemy saving throws especially on an at-will basis is going to be a major point of contention.

I'm open to abilities that increase spell damage, to abilities that increase cantrip attack rolls or damage. I find abilities that can lower spell DC to be problematic. I could explain why bane (the level 1 spell that lowers save DC is generally considered worthless) but I'd rather point to the fact that the only other ability that messes with enemy saves I can think of is the portent ability for a divination wizard and that ability alone is enough to make him debatably the best wizard subclass. All in all the 5e designers steered very clear of abilities that messed with saving throws and I tend to think it was for a good reason.

I would be open to a subclass that modifies spell DC's on a limited basis.

Using hit dice for healing is going to be another major point of contention. Placing a daily limit on how many you can allow is a good starting point though. But 2 things.
1. It seems to me like if we have a daily limit and a per turn limit then why does it even need to be fueled by hit dice? What's the purpose of tying the healing to the hit dice at that point? Is it flavor? Do you think hit dice healing will be more easily accepted by the community?

2. If choosing the healing option is going to be an ability choice and it grants this amazing extra daily resource that you don't get to use on anything else then you've turned the healing option into a must take. It goes back to the question earlier about how you balance at-will and per rest powers in your system. In this case choosing the healing option actually increases power because it can be used out of combat and all your other at-will abilities can be used in combat for a net increase to your daily contributions to the party as opposed to the warlord that didn't take your now daily healing ability.

***We have to be really careful not to backtrack and solve new issues with solutions that we ruled out at previous stages due to the pain points they bring to our design.

Tony Vargas · Mar 27, 2018

FrogReaver said:
Here's the biggest issue. We are trying to create a warlord that has fairly broad appeal, that keeps the flavor and the iconic abilities

...but isn't limited to just that.

while remaining balanced in 5e.

I'd say the challenge is viable in 5e, balance is, as Mike touched on in the podcast, not a tight, to the corners kind of thing - he dismissed out of hand the idea of 'balancing an action grant on the assumption it'd get passed to a Rogue with Adv every round.

The more mechanics that people may inherently dislike the more issues you will have with your version of the warlord seeing play.

There's a thread about how dumb guidance is - Its not even entirely wrong - do you think DMs are banning the Cleric and players who really want to play clerics (I suspect some must exist) are going bard, instead, because Guidance? No, the players just aren't choosing it or the DMs fixing it. That's the beauty of 5e, it's not all intricately interdependent, precariously balanced, or set in stone.

Edit: dropped in on that thread, and the proposed solution is to make the cantrip add to all checks in a radius...

Modifying enemy saving throws especially on an at-will basis is going to be a major point of contention.

Every time a caster boost their primary stat or hits a new proficiency break point, all their saves get harder, at will, no Action, nothing.

. All in all the 5e designers steered very clear of abilities that messed with saving throws and I tend to think it was for a good reason.

BA, sure, and, saves are already problematic, since the DCs go up with level steadily, while only a couple of save bonuses do...

... but, again, balance, meh. I'm sure when they balanced saves they ignored the corner case of the caster always forcing the targets worst save.

Using hit dice for healing is going to be another major point of contention. Placing a daily limit on how many you can allow is a good starting point though.

HD are a daily limit. That's the elegance of it.

What's the purpose of tying the healing to the hit dice at that point? Is it flavor?

Flavah, immersions, association. HD are non-magical healing, already, easily mapping to 'reserves.'

If choosing the healing option is going to be an ability choice and it grants this amazing extra daily resource that you don't get to use on anything else then you've turned the healing option into a must take.

Is Cure Wounds a must-take... ? Some healing is because, when you need it, you really need it. But do you necessarily devote all your resources to it? No. Can you safely ignore it if one or two other PCs can make with the heals? No.

The solution to that worry is flexibility.

It goes back to the question earlier about how you balance at-will and per rest powers in your system.

I'd still have to go with the approximate formula of other support classes: many, flexible & powerful daily-resource options, including healing among them, fewer and more modest at-wills. That's based Mearls insistence healing be a daily resource. Otherwise I'd say that concept-first design would suggest a system of gambits limited per allies' rests and per encounter or enemy faced.

Either that or short rest CS dice like the BM, but with maneuvers just the first Tier of abilities to use them....

Zardnaar · Mar 27, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
...but isn't limited to just that.
I'd say the challenge is viable in 5e, balance is, as Mike touched on in the podcast, not a tight, to the corners kind of thing - he dismissed out of hand the idea of 'balancing an action grant on the assumption it'd get passed to a Rogue with Adv every round.

There's a thread about how dumb guidance is - Its not even entirely wrong - do you think DMs are banning the Cleric and players who really want to play clerics (I suspect some must exist) are going bard, instead, because Guidance? No, the players just aren't choosing it or the DMs fixing it. That's the beauty of 5e, it's not all intricately interdependent, precariously balanced, or set in stone.

Edit: dropped in on that thread, and the proposed solution is to make the cantrip add to all checks in a radius...

Every time a caster boost their primary stat or hits a new proficiency break point, all their saves get harder, at will, no Action, nothing.

BA, sure, and, saves are already problematic, since the DCs go up with level steadily, while only a couple of save bonuses do...

... but, again, balance, meh. I'm sure when they balanced saves they ignored the corner case of the caster always forcing the targets worst save.

HD are a daily limit. That's the elegance of it.

Flavah, immersions, association. HD are non-magical healing, already, easily mapping to 'reserves.'

Is Cure Wounds a must-take... ? Some healing is because, when you need it, you really need it. But do you necessarily devote all your resources to it? No. Can you safely ignore it if one or two other PCs can make with the heals? No.

The solution to that worry is flexibility.

I'd still have to go with the approximate formula of other support classes: many, flexible & powerful daily-resource options, including healing among them, fewer and more modest at-wills. That's based Mearls insistence healing be a daily resource. Otherwise I'd say that concept-first design would suggest a system of gambits limited per allies' rests and per encounter or enemy faced.

Either that or short rest CS dice like the BM, but with maneuvers just the first Tier of abilities to use them....

5E has patterns and you can see where they were going with balance. We also have a better idea of how things work now and how mnuch dmaage classes can roughly expect to do in a best case and average scenario. Same thing with healing.

The problem with some of the warlord fans is IDK if they actually play 5E. FOr example the at will attack granting thing I covered earlier and its roughly equivalent to a level 10 Sorcerer devoting all their resources to spamming haste all of the time (and thats all they do). So assuming a Warlord can fdo it before level 5 one assume you also want the warlord to have other abilities so even something like a divine soul sorcerer refluffed as a warlord using spells like bless and hasted can;t actually do all the things warlord fans want.

And if you do want the ability to manipulate saves which is a magical ability and very limited (2/day) and have at will action granting and have some healing and have gambits I think that more or less the problem. How many abilities do you want stacked on the class.

Unlike most people here I have tested at will action granting in 5E with the noble. IN the right party its broken in the wrong party its fairly weak which makes the class itself weak as that is all that sublclass has been built to do by Moonsong.

At will healing is a problem
at will attack granting is a problem (comparable to a level 10 sorcerer just doing that and cantrip spam), the warlord can still fight, presumably heal and have gambits, haste etc has drawbacks as well.
Manipulating saves, very powerful ability does exist in game but once again depends on what other features you want a WL to have.

Things in 5E we can draw comparisons to.
Short rest martial healing.
Battlemaster supremacy dice
Bard inspiration dice
Warlock invocations
daily healing guesstimates
Granting advantage at will
action surge/granting action surge (hypothetically)
second wind/granting second wind
extra damage features
Leadership abilites on monsters (ie Knights, Hobgoblin leaders etc).

The potential arcane subclass I have been thinking about is a Shadowlord. That one it might make sense to have saving throw manipulation. I just kind of liked the Shadowlord name as a potential subclass and starting thinking illusion and enchantment type magic.

Daily effects on Warlords do not make to much sense unless they are perhaps the spellcasting subclasses or perhaps something like rage. Saving throw manipulation would be a major feature of a subclass and should come at the expense of something else (my attack granting one is tactical WL for example).