D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[kerbarian]

It seems easier to squeeze a warlord out of a cleric to me.

Is that heresy?

It sounds like a very painful process for both parties .

 

[Tony Vargas]

It seems easier to squeeze a warlord out of a cleric to me.

Is that heresy?

To some cleric somewhere, probably. They were both 'leaders' in 4e, so it's understandable in concept, but the Cleric is no longer quite so squarely in the leader box in 5e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's only a difference in frequency and some magnitude from what they could do at 3rd level; it's the problem endemic to the Battlemaster's design.

Not to be glib about it, but at 11th level, the Battlemaster has 5d10 every short rest, using the same abilities that were balanced for a 3rd level character with a slightly bigger die (or 1 point in average magnitude). At 11th level, a Cleric has access to 6th level spells, which include Heal and Trueseeing, can already raise the dead, and can cast Bless pretty much every encounter.

Yeah, 5e overall doesn't have deep numbers, and the Battlemaster still relies on the extra attacks/action surge they get from being a Fighter for most of their boom. This scales well with many (thought not all of) the maneuvers they get. If they went nova with their stuff, they'll get: six attacks that each deal ~ 1d10 damage or so apiece from the weapon, that they can use in combination with manuevers that work on any attack or that work on a hit, as well as manuevers that use other actions, to pretty much FUBAR anything they want for a while.

I mean, Precision Attack -> Trip Attack -> Manuevering Attack -> Goading Attack -> Commander's Strike to let the rogue sneak attack...and then another three attacks of your own, and 2d10 superiority left over for parries or whatever...and doing that every other fight....you are looking at a nova that any assassin or spellcaster would be pretty envious of (I mean disintigrate, at a comparable level and role, is nice, and if you're a wild sorcerer you can be almost as reliable with it, but eh...)

So I don't imagine that your case is that the Battlemaster is too weak.

But it does seem like "extra attacks that let you use more powers and do more things" aren't exactly what you've got in mind for high-level warlord effects, so I'd like to hear what is! Spending more dice to scale up an effect? Getting more effects on a single hit? Something that would replace the extra attacks and/or action surge for the boom?

 

[Obryn]

I always thought of the warlord as mostly fighter, with a bit of action enabler/buffer and healer tossed in.

OK? I don't think that is an adequate treatment.

Yes and nne that same note, not all 4e powers were obviously simply improved versions of weaker abilities either. It's just they weren't all exactly different either, and were balanced against each other the same as those that might be just improvements on existing abilities.

It's the permutations that give the gain, not just the individual maneuvers.

Well, no amount of dice will get you a stun or blind, for example, under the current scenario.

And the incredibly small pool of dice is a major bummer.

Yeah, 5e overall doesn't have deep numbers, and the Battlemaster still relies on the extra attacks/action surge they get from being a Fighter for most of their boom. This scales well with many (thought not all of) the maneuvers they get. If they went nova with their stuff, they'll get: six attacks that each deal ~ 1d10 damage or so apiece from the weapon, that they can use in combination with manuevers that work on any attack or that work on a hit, as well as manuevers that use other actions, to pretty much FUBAR anything they want for a while.

I mean, Precision Attack -> Trip Attack -> Manuevering Attack -> Goading Attack -> Commander's Strike to let the rogue sneak attack...and then another three attacks of your own, and 2d10 superiority left over for parries or whatever...and doing that every other fight....you are looking at a nova that any assassin or spellcaster would be pretty envious of (I mean disintigrate, at a comparable level and role, is nice, and if you're a wild sorcerer you can be almost as reliable with it, but eh...)

So I don't imagine that your case is that the Battlemaster is too weak.

But it does seem like "extra attacks that let you use more powers and do more things" aren't exactly what you've got in mind for high-level warlord effects, so I'd like to hear what is! Spending more dice to scale up an effect? Getting more effects on a single hit? Something that would replace the extra attacks and/or action surge for the boom?

A further problem with your example is that ... well, that's it. That's everything for a few encounters. Poof! You're out of mojo.

As for higher-level maneuvers? Well, I think that's part of the issue with making any tentative Warlord on the Fighter chassis, though higher-level maneuvers for Fighters would be nice, too.

But, for starters, (1) group buffs that don't take all your actions, (2) group healing of whatever variety, (3) deeper/more potent enabling that doesn't waste both your bonus action and their reaction, (4) more tactical battlefield movement, (5) the ability to get comrades back into a fight, (6) the ability to grant/boost saving throws, etc.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A further problem with your example is that ... well, that's it. That's everything for a few encounters. Poof! You're out of mojo.

Yeah, we already covered the fact that a BM doesn't have an at-will spammable buff it can use and that this is one of the things that it's lacking for certain Warlord fans. Adding something like that is pretty trivial (hell, the Help action + Action Surge is already 90% of the way there - if that was in 4e it'd be something like an encounter power that was Attack Str vs. AC (melee or ranged) or Dex vs. AC (ranged) Hit 1W + STR damage (melee) or 1W + STR damage (ranged) or 1W + Dex (ranged) Effect the next attack made by an ally against a target enemy adjacent to you is made with advantage; add a little hotsauce to that with your subclass feature and you're well on your way), so I'm not really sweating it much.

As for higher-level maneuvers? Well, I think that's part of the issue with making any tentative Warlord on the Fighter chassis, though higher-level maneuvers for Fighters would be nice, too.

But, for starters, (1) group buffs that don't take all your actions, (2) group healing of whatever variety, (3) deeper/more potent enabling that doesn't waste both your bonus action and their reaction, (4) more tactical battlefield movement, (5) the ability to get comrades back into a fight, (6) the ability to grant/boost saving throws, etc.

(1) slightly confuses me because everyone only gets one action in 5e, so any action would waste all their actions. (3) seems related - again, you have to spend actions to do things. It sounds broadly like you want to smash up the action economy a bit, which sounds OK, but likely isn't going to produce big "nova" effects. It's also something that might replace those extra attacks.

(3) and (4) seem a little vague. I don't know specifically what "deeper/more potent ennabling" or "more tactical battlefield movement" looks like.

(5) is solvable by scratching out the word "temporary" from temporary hp's

(1), (2), and (6) all sound like solid maneuver additions to me.

So with regards to it being possible to fit on the fighter chassis, it looks like that kind of depends on how it breaks the action economy in your mind. For a fighter, action surge/extra attack are how they become murder machines. If we ditch that and go with something else, we might want to look at other classes (I keep coming back to bards since a bard already plays a lot like that anyway, and has that position in fiction, and all you'd need to do is strip out spells and replace 'em with whatever).

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, we already covered the fact that a BM doesn't have an at-will spammable buff it can use and that this is one of the things that it's lacking for certain Warlord fans. Adding something like that is pretty trivial (hell, the Help action + Action Surge is already 90% of the way there - if that was in 4e it'd be something like an encounter power that was Attack Str vs. AC (melee or ranged) or Dex vs. AC (ranged) Hit 1W + STR damage (melee) or 1W + STR damage (ranged) or 1W + Dex (ranged) Effect the next attack made by an ally against a target enemy adjacent to you is made with advantage; add a little hotsauce to that with your subclass feature and you're well on your way), so I'm not really sweating it much.

And, like before, Action Surge is a once-and-done sort of deal. You get 1 round of being very helpful. It's not even close.

The Help action isn't much Help either, since it's a full action.

(1) slightly confuses me because everyone only gets one action in 5e, so any action would waste all their actions. (3) seems related - again, you have to spend actions to do things. It sounds broadly like you want to smash up the action economy a bit, which sounds OK, but likely isn't going to produce big "nova" effects. It's also something that might replace those extra attacks.

(3) and (4) seem a little vague. I don't know specifically what "deeper/more potent ennabling" or "more tactical battlefield movement" looks like.

(5) is solvable by scratching out the word "temporary" from temporary hp's

(1), (2), and (6) all sound like solid maneuver additions to me.

So with regards to it being possible to fit on the fighter chassis, it looks like that kind of depends on how it breaks the action economy in your mind. For a fighter, action surge/extra attack are how they become murder machines. If we ditch that and go with something else, we might want to look at other classes (I keep coming back to bards since a bard already plays a lot like that anyway, and has that position in fiction, and all you'd need to do is strip out spells and replace 'em with whatever)

I don't see any way to reconcile the needs of a potential buff-centric Warlord class with the existing damage- and attack-centric Fighter chassis, and question the benefit of trying to mangle the bard to fit it, too. The bard chassis has, if anything, even more baggage. Tony Vargas makes all of those points quite well, IMO, so I won't go and repeat them.

e: What you'll end up with, if you use the Fighter chassis, is more or less what an Eldritch Knight is to a Wizard. Very narrow, limited options, less effective than you'd expect for your level, with limited uses, which only works out because in the end you're still a Fighter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And, like before, Action Surge is a once-and-done sort of deal. You get 1 round of being very helpful. It's not even close.

The Help action isn't much Help either, since it's a full action.

Yeah, the idea-seed I had was something like Cunning Action replacing Action Surge - warlords can Help as a bonus action and can maybe do some other stuff with their Help. It won't eat up their main action for the turn, so they can attack + grant advantage, or attack + heal a bit, or attack + give a saving throw or attack + move someone half their speed or maybe some other stuff.

I don't see any way to reconcile the needs of a potential buff-centric Warlord class with the existing damage- and attack-centric Fighter chassis, and question the benefit of trying to mangle the bard to fit it, too. The bard chassis has, if anything, even more baggage. Tony Vargas makes all of those points quite well, IMO, so I won't go and repeat them.

All you've gotta do for the bard is pitch Spellcasting overboard and give 'em class features that do things a little like spells. With the magic weirdness stripped away, something like faerie fire or healing word or even vicious mockery seems well within a warlord's wheelhouse to me.

But I'd generally agree that if you don't want your class's power to come from hitting things yourself, you'd probably be better off not being a fighter subclass. You could still maybe be an alt-fighter, but action surge/extra attack is pretty definitive, and that's what they'd be giving up (essentially giving these to other characters, rather than themselves).

 

[Ashrym]

OK? I don't think that is an adequate treatment.


Well, no amount of dice will get you a stun or blind, for example, under the current scenario.

And the incredibly small pool of dice is a major bummer.

So better status effects?

The number of dice is limited on purpose because it works out to 2-3 per encounter in order to facilitate roughly an encounter resource that can one bigger or a couple smaller per encounter, and doesn't seem that bad to me. They can be mixed with standard at-will attack actions but those aren't unique.

It sounds like more per encounter / short rest options are what you want, and specific flavour at-will ability.

A further problem with your example is that ... well, that's it. That's everything for a few encounters. Poof! You're out of mojo.

As for higher-level maneuvers? Well, I think that's part of the issue with making any tentative Warlord on the Fighter chassis, though higher-level maneuvers for Fighters would be nice, too.

But, for starters, (1) group buffs that don't take all your actions, (2) group healing of whatever variety, (3) deeper/more potent enabling that doesn't waste both your bonus action and their reaction, (4) more tactical battlefield movement, (5) the ability to get comrades back into a fight, (6) the ability to grant/boost saving throws, etc.

I agree fighters start with a heavy combat chassis for someone looking at support and bards don't give a non-magical option.

I have an idea where I want to start with a design. I'll post it later after some work for a first draft.

How do you differentiate subclasses, in your mind?

Edit: I cannot go with going outside 5e action philosophy, so that might be limited.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, the idea-seed I had was something like Cunning Action replacing Action Surge - warlords can Help as a bonus action and can maybe do some other stuff with their Help. It won't eat up their main action for the turn, so they can attack + grant advantage, or attack + heal a bit, or attack + give a saving throw or attack + move someone half their speed or maybe some other stuff.



All you've gotta do for the bard is pitch Spellcasting overboard and give 'em class features that do things a little like spells. With the magic weirdness stripped away, something like faerie fire or healing word or even vicious mockery seems well within a warlord's wheelhouse to me.

But I'd generally agree that if you don't want your class's power to come from hitting things yourself, you'd probably be better off not being a fighter subclass. You could still maybe be an alt-fighter, but action surge/extra attack is pretty definitive, and that's what they'd be giving up (essentially giving these to other characters, rather than themselves).

Ooo, I like the idea of Cunning Action replacing Action Surge. Neat idea. Would fit perfectly actually. Lets the Warlord do "Hit Stuff And..." quite nicely. Possibly even forgoing the "Hit Stuff" part and just doing "And" for two different people. Don't bother keying it off of dice pool at all, just make it different actions. Schweet. Easy peasy.

Would that mean that we might make the Warlord a Rogue subclass? It's crazy enough that it just might work. Skill monkey, light armour, high mobility, and giving orders. I think that would work quite nicely.

 

[CapnZapp]

Spinning off from another thread, what sort of tweaks to the fighter class would support the Warlord play style? The purpose of this thread is to propose and critique minor variations on the fighter that would help.

Personally, one player in my home game has a battlemaster fighter with the Parry, Commander's Strike, and Rally (heal ally--I might be misrecalling the name). He also has the mobility feat and does a more than adequate job bossing the rest of the party around while roaming around the outskirts of the battle getting his licks in.

Here are my two thoughts:

A "Tactician" fighting style that grants your allies advantage on attack rolls if you are adjacent to their target. This gives the player an incentive to move through the combats to support weaker fighters. I think that advantage should not apply to the fighter, because the style can grant advantage to multiple allies.

A possible Warlord subclass wouldn't be very different at all from the battlemaster subclass. However, we could consider replacing a couple of subclass features with the following:

"Get Back In There!" -- You can give your Action Surge to an ally who can hear or see you, unless they already used Action Surge in this battle. The ally can take the bonus action on your turn.

(capstone) "Desperate Charge" -- Spend your Action Surge. Each ally who can hear or see you can immediately take an Attack, Dash, or Withdraw action.

If you agree the Warlord is a martial healer and controller you would not base it on the 5e Fighter, which is a cool class but terrible at those two things.