Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

FrogReaver said:

I didn't think forced movement granted attacks?

Click to expand...

the creature is still moving on their own, with mind control.

Things like thunderwave or shoving do not work.

mellored said:

the creature is still moving on their own, with mind control.

Things like thunderwave or shoving do not work.

Click to expand...

Not the way I've read it but I'm open to being wrong lol

Cap'n Kobold said:

So the basic attack the warlord granted didn't get to add ability bonus, feat or style benefits, or other riders like sneak attack? It was just equivalent of basic weapon die?

That would make the 5e battlemaster maneuver considerably more powerful than the 4th ed warlord equivalent. Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power?

I may readjust my warlord maneuvers on this basis. Thank you for the information!

Click to expand...

Basic attack was 1W+ ability mod.

4E had a tighter focus as well, a Rogue only dealt an extra 2 dice sneak attack of damage (2d6 or 2d8/feat). Most things dealt less damage as well (fireball 5d6 vs 8d6) the extra dice for an at will attack came in at level 21 (8 for a cleric in 5E, level 5 for marital with extra attack).

There was nothing like a Rogue or Warlock at will damge in 4E, Ranger might come close at low levels as their at will was twin strike which more or less let you make two basic attacks. I think a fighter one I recall a Dwarf using was with axes and it let you get+2 to hit and add con modifier to damage IIRC.

Even i you phrased it in such a way to exclude the Rogue (have an extra attack on your turn) that fixes the Rogue but them something like a Hunter Ranger becomesthe next best option (or raging barbaian or Paladin using hunters quarry or something using hex+ class feature or the -5/+1- feats etc).

1. It complicated.
2. You would probably be better off having attack granting limited and being able to enable the Rogue.

Enabling a Rogue is fun and its not always the best option to pick for an extra attack as I have seen it be granted to the GWM Paladin who can hit for 3d6+5+15+ smite or the hunter ranger with sharpshooter (12d8+1d6+15+).This also excludes magic weapons and I have seen warrior types dealing 5d6+15 type damage and things like Barbarians raging striking with advantage with the -5/+10 feats at low levels. Throw in an action surge and at level 11 they can break 100 damage a round.

There is just to many things at will does not play nice with in 5E.

The Rogues just the poster child for it being a bad idea along with the Warlock of you allow action granting or cantrip casting (or a lore bard who has stolen those spells).

FrogReaver said:

Not the way I've read it but I'm open to being wrong lol

Click to expand...

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/2...ssonant-whispers-provoke-opportunity-attacks/

Bobby the Barbarian
[MENTION=6874300]BobbyB[/MENTION]arbarian
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford Does the movement from Dissonant Whispers provoke opportunity attacks? The creature uses its reaction to move.


Jeremy Crawford
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
You provoke an opportunity attack if you leave a foe's reach using your movement, action, or reaction. #DnD

Dissonant Whisper is one of the few things that does provoke an AoO unlike things like Thunderwave. Great spell when it works.

FrogReaver said:

We are trying. Maybe if you would stop derailing the thread we could actually get back to you know, designing a warlord?

Click to expand...

After this post I decided to back away (aka stop derailing) and also muse a little on the "warlord" myself, and how I might design such as class. Mostly theory crafting and such.

This is what I cobbled together in the past five days:







Haven't done much with the subclasses and not 100% happy with all the features, but it's a framework of a tactical class.
It's got choices each round and plays with reactions and initiative a little. And it gives you the opportunity to work out a "plan" with an ally that leaves less to chance.

How's your warlord going?

@Jester David

Thanks for the actual attempt at a Warlord class design. It's very much appreciated.

First of all let's remember some basic design criteria we are going to have to use for a successful warlord.
1. It must be accepted by most 4e fans. This will likely involve having it at least give the options for inspiring style abilities etc.
2. It must be something that 5e fans won't reject outright. We have to be careful with granting mechanics and hard-coded flavor that may be easy to reject.

Is your warlord going to be accepted by 4e fans or are you cutting to much out a warlord for it to meet a 4e fans expectations? I know the answer for me on that question would be that it doesn't meet my expectations for what all a Warlord should be able to do.

Other design issues with the class are:
1. It doesn't allow for any lazylord/princess builds (this may not be a realistic possibility)
2. It doesn't grant any attacks (we should definietely give the warlord it's most iconic ability in some form).

I'd give the class a D. It's a solid class that is based on a small slice of what a Warlord used to be. That's enough to make it not an F. However, it's going to struggle to gain acceptance with 4e fans because it's leaving out a lot of their favorite flavors and abilities from the old class. As such it's going to struggle to be accepted by 4e Warlord fans.

I do like the subclasses a lot more than the basic, tactics / inspiration etc. The basic concept of your subclasses would really help explain who this "team leader" type character is.

I didn't deep dive into balance but your level 11 ability looks like it could be fairly strong.

mellored said:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/2...ssonant-whispers-provoke-opportunity-attacks/

Bobby the Barbarian
@BobbyBarbarian
@JeremyECrawford Does the movement from Dissonant Whispers provoke opportunity attacks? The creature uses its reaction to move.


Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
You provoke an opportunity attack if you leave a foe's reach using your movement, action, or reaction. #DnD

Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. So there's a few more abilities that will force off-turn attacks. That is definitely worth noting and considering.

I believe that Homebrew generally has a stricter need for balance than the things already in the game. The easier it is for a DM or others to convince a DM that a Homebrew Class is overpowered the easier it is for that Homebrewed Class to not see the light of day in any games. As such we should attempt to tighten up swingy abilities to a place that is within reason whenever possible or to drop such abilities from our class design altogether.

The easiest way to do that is to drop off-turn attack grants in favor for on-ally-turn attack grants so that sneak attack is eliminated as an option. If off-turn attack grants must be included then only allow for them a few times per day.

FrogReaver said:

@Jester David

Thanks for the actual attempt at a Warlord class design. It's very much appreciated.

First of all let's remember some basic design criteria we are going to have to use for a successful warlord.
1. It must be accepted by most 4e fans. This will likely involve having it at least give the options for inspiring style abilities etc.
2. It must be something that 5e fans won't reject outright. We have to be careful with granting mechanics and hard-coded flavor that may be easy to reject.

Is your warlord going to be accepted by 4e fans or are you cutting to much out a warlord for it to meet a 4e fans expectations? I know the answer for me on that question would be that it doesn't meet my expectations for what all a Warlord should be able to do.

Click to expand...

No True Warlord fan, eh?

FrogReaver said:

Other design issues with the class are:
1. It doesn't allow for any lazylord/princess builds (this may not be a realistic possibility)
2. It doesn't grant any attacks (we should definietely give the warlord it's most iconic ability in some form).

Click to expand...

The majority of 4e warlords didn't grant actions either. Less than 50% of powers in the PHB1 granted attacks, and even fewer in MP and MP2.
(I ran a 4e game for a year with the warlord as the primary healer and she never used an attack granting power once.)

The lazylord was just one build of the warlord, and an unofficial build as it is.
As such, those abilities fit better as a subclass. I was going to fold those powers into the standard bearer when I got around to working on subclasses.

FrogReaver said:

I'd give the class a D. It's a solid class that is based on a small slice of what a Warlord used to be. That's enough to make it not an F. However, it's going to struggle to gain acceptance with 4e fans because it's leaving out a lot of their favorite flavors and abilities from the old class. As such it's going to struggle to be accepted by 4e Warlord fans.

Click to expand...

But how does it hold up to what 5e fans won't reject?
And how does it do with the concept of the class instead of the previous execution of the concept?

What's your warlord look like so far? Can we compare?

I thik people are focusing on the lazy lord to much.

1. Its in a splat book.
2. It was not even an archetype, rules exploit perhaps.

Its the equivalent of the Radiant Servent of Pelor 3.5 build focused on spamming metamagic.

You can't really get the lazy lord into the game and make it work and the En5ider noble already exists (hint its very flawed ion multiple levels).

Jester if I sent you a word doc can you format it for me and pot, I liked your layout.