D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[aramis erak]

The various leadership bonuses look a lot like a bless spell.

Remember - very few stacking bonii in 5E. Shitloads of them in 4E. Direct mechanical conversion is going to be way out of whack.

 

[Hussar]

I suppose that is one thing to be careful of. A character that can give at-will attack bonuses is going to play merry hell with bounded accuracy. I think I'd much rather they granted extra actions instead. Bonuses on saves, and effect mitigation is fine, but, if Warlords can give bonuses on attacks, that will get very out of hand in groups that have clerics as well.

 

[Ashrym]

I think advantage is the way to go. The playtest valor bard was able to use the help action for free with his attack by being in melee with the same target as another PC. That works because it doesn't add more bonuses or stack. That would be what I would give a warlord, in some form.

I would stick with inspiration / superiority dice like battlemasters and bards still.

 

[Jester David]

Off topic, but... Inspiring warlords are actually first rate. Warlords are the only class who can get an extra use of their Inspiring Word with a feat at Paragon, and have a bevy of feats to improve them further. And they have a great minor action utility which tosses out 2 surges. And there's Stand The Fallen. Etc...

/derail

Which is one of those things like saying "the wizard is a great class if you take spells X and Y and Z." It's not that the wizard is great, it's that the spells are great.
The warlord benefits from having a second book granting it new powers and lots of Dragon support. Lots of options = power creep. But the base class itself...

I get that 4e classes can be equated with their powers. But that works best when you pull the unique mechanics (so many powers were kinda samey). All of the leaders could heal. That's super generic. It's like calling out the ability to stun or push a creature.

Mandatory healing on the warlord is just one of those things that seems forced. It's not like the fighter and paladin both need a "mark" power, or the wizard and druid have a crowd control focus. Heck, not only can you make a bard and cleric that don't heal, only a single cleric domain is assumed to have healing spells always memorized. You can make a cleric that does zero healing. So having a warlord with mandatory healing is funky.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quick, real shallow crack at this. I think I'd probably go with the Rogue as the Warlord Chassis:

1) Use Sneak Attack as Commander's Strike. The Warlord gets to give it out 1/turn to an ally who has advantage.

2) Use the Healing Surge option in the DMG but again, like SA above, it would be on allies. Schedule it at 1/short rest and scale the frequency as needed through the levels for balance. This would allow the martial healing aspect, the rallying by way of digging down deep on internal reserves.

3) An aura whereby you can deploy effects that give allies riders to their attacks (a la the Battlemaster's stuff) as an immediate action.

4) Be able to give allies Bonus Actions (such as Dash and Disengage).

5) Aura where allies get a bonus to Insight or Initiative.

6) Medium armor and martial weapons.

Figure out the scheduling, maths, and action economy of that stuff. Might be alright.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlords could do healing adequately. Every other leader in the game was better.

Definitely not true. No other leader touched the most extreme Cleric healing-focused builds, like the Pacifist Healer, but Inspiring Warlords could do a crazy amount of healing, well beyond the 'adequate' baseline of all leader builds.

And temp hp work just fine in combat. It soaks a hit and prevents you going down.

That's not working fine. If you don't predict who will be hit and for how much, they're a wasted resource, and when someone does go down, the can't bring him back up. That is an irredeemable failing.

Plus, it lengthens the adventuring day unlike triggering Hit Dice, as spending HD in combat is the same daily healing as spending them during a short rest.

Both temp hps and hp restoration would be reasonable features - and, it had both, so there's no reason not to. Separating day-lengthening and standing fallen allies in combat into temp hps and hp-restoration, respectively, would make a lot of sense.

A 1st level cleric or bard can cast cure wounds twice. Or something much, much more interesting. It is literally a third of their class features.

It's a fraction of their features, since every other spell has an equal claim on being a 'feature.'

The iconic parts of the warlord are {restoring hps in combat via Inspiring Word}, imparting movement, granting extra attacks, boosting initiative, bonuses to attack, damage, rerolled saves, etc.
Which of those are you going to give up at level one for healing?

None, and there's no call to do so. Druids don't give up shapeshifting or casting Call Lighting to cast Cure Wounds, now do they?

Healing was the least interesting thing a warlord can do.

But the most iconic and critical. Healing Word wasn't taken away from the Cleric.

Like I said, it'd be better as something you can opt into.

By definition, as an out-after-the-standard-game optional class, the Warlord, as a whole, will be opt-in.

There is no need to 'compromise' with those who object to the Warlord, as they already got exactly what they wanted: no Warlord, at all, in the PH.

Not quite the same effect space - the Warlord's effect space is more ranged than the Battlemaster. The Warlord is effect-wise comparable to the Valor College Bard, and the Priest of War in range and breadth of effects (albeit the Warlord in 4E is actually less broadly competent than either 5E caster).

No 4e class had the sheer versatility enjoyed by the 5e neo-Vancian casters.

Now all the powers and features that just deal with movemnt (slides, swaps, pushes) don't translate well to 5th as positioning doesn't matter as much. That's Wolf Pack Tactics, Viper's Strike, Leaf in the Wind, White Raven, Onslaught, and Pin the foe.

It's not that those things don't matter, it's that they're handled with less granularity. WPT, for instance, let the Warlord shift an ally out of reach of an enemy, enabling him to open up distance with a regular move on his turn. In 5e, this translates to letting an ally disengage, saving him an action. That certainly matters, even if shifting is no longer, strictly speaking, part of the game.

 

[The_Gneech]

Quick, real shallow crack at this. I think I'd probably go with the Rogue as the Warlord Chassis:

1) Use Sneak Attack as Commander's Strike. The Warlord gets to give it out 1/turn to an ally who has advantage.

2) Use the Healing Surge option in the DMG but again, like SA above, it would be on allies. Schedule it at 1/short rest and scale the frequency as needed through the levels for balance. This would allow the martial healing aspect, the rallying by way of digging down deep on internal reserves.

3) An aura whereby you can deploy effects that give allies riders to their attacks (a la the Battlemaster's stuff) as an immediate action.

4) Be able to give allies Bonus Actions (such as Dash and Disengage).

5) Aura where allies get a bonus to Insight or Initiative.

6) Medium armor and martial weapons.

Figure out the scheduling, maths, and action economy of that stuff. Might be alright.

I like the sound of this. I suspect #3 would be something you did with your reaction rather than an aura, thus keeping it from hosing the action economy, and would combine with #5.

-The Gneech

 

[Jester David]

Definitely not true. No other leader touched the most extreme Cleric healing-focused builds, like the Pacifist Healer, but Inspiring Warlords could do a crazy amount of healing, well beyond the 'adequate' baseline of all leader builds.

The CharOp boards say otherwise.

That's not working fine. If you don't predict who will be hit and for how much, they're a wasted resource, and when someone does go down, the can't bring him back up. That is an irredeemable failing.

Temp hit points have a number of advantages beyond healing. You don't need to worry about wasting healing by overhealing. You can prevent someone from falling down in the first place, thus negating the need for them to stand up or potentially miss a turn. You can stack temp hp on a character likely to be hit and they can take far more punishment than they could otherwise. You can use the power proactively if you roll a high initiative, rather than having to ready or choose a different action since no one is hurt.
There are differences, but both are strong choices.

None, and there's no call to do so. Druids don't give up shapeshifting or casting Call Lighting to cast Cure Wounds, now do they?

But druids do not gain wildshape until second level. A warlord that can grant an attack once a day, grant an ally movement once a day, and heal someone once a day has more "spells" than the cleric or wizard or bard. And they likely have better armour and weapons and are able to continue fighting after expending those "spells".
Compare it to the fighter. The warlord might have 2 fewer hp, a couple less points of AC, but the have a better heal, much more utility through triggering attacks and movement. It's stronger.

If the warlord does everything at first level it's broken. Even everything at second level would be broken. Something has to give, the abilities have to be limited and deferred. Or people have to choose "commands" that include movement, induce attack, or heal so they cannot do everything.

But the most iconic and critical. Healing Word wasn't taken away from the Cleric.

Sure it was. Not a single cleric domain grants healing word as a domain spell and of the seven clerical domains only a single one includes cure wounds as a domain spell. 6/7ths of clerics need never prepare a single cure spell and have to choose to do so. Healing is so iconic to a cleric that 85.7% of clerics don't have class features that automatically grant healing.

Why is healing be more important to the warlord, more essential to the definition of the class, than it is to the cleric?

--edit--
I forgot about the death domain.
7/8ths of clerics and 87.5%.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The CharOp boards say otherwise.

They explore extreme builds.

Temp hit points have a number of advantages beyond healing

Yes, they do. And, the Warlord always had choices that could bestow temp hps as well as restore hps. He should lose neither.

A warlord that can grant an attack once a day, grant an ally movement once a day, and heal someone once a day has more "spells" than the cleric or wizard or bard.

The warlord would have no spells - nor "spells."

Compare it to the fighter.

No. The Warlord is not a DPR-only beatstick, there is no comparison.

The warlord might have 2 fewer hp, a couple less points of AC, but the have a better heal, much more utility

And this is different from the Cleric, how? Yes, any class stacks up well if you compare versatility to the base-line fighter. Because the fighter has none.

If the warlord does everything at first level it's broken.

Then every class is broken.

Sure it was.

Right there in the spell list. Every cleric has access to it.

Why is healing be more important to the warlord, more essential to the definition of the class, than it is to the cleric?

It's not. You're assuming fairly specific mechanics, there. You're assuming, strangely, that the Warlord would have a list of abilities each useable 1/day, which is nothing like what it had. You're also assuming that for one warlord to have an ability, they'd all have to have it, at first level. Also strange.

 

[Jester David]

Then every class is broken.

Now you're being silly. No class gets everything and all classes have their most iconic abilities spread over three or more levels.

Right there in the spell list. Every cleric has access to it.

They can choose to take it or not. That's like saying every fighter has a longbow because they have the weapon proficiency.

It's not. You're assuming fairly specific mechanics, there.

I've seen very little to the contrary.

You're assuming, strangely, that the Warlord would have a list of abilities each useable 1/day, which is nothing like what it had.

What it had was irrelevant as its two at-wills, an encounter, and a daily mean less than nothing when designing a 5e class.
But starting with daily resources is a good balancing, since it seems unlikely a warlord would work if it could heal more often than a per/day rate.

You're also assuming that for one warlord to have an ability, they'd all have to have it, at first level. Also strange.

No one has said otherwise.
Like most of these threads, everyone is full of ideas but almost no one actually bothers to write a build or put their time where their mouth is. And the few people that do write something are criticized because it doesn't meet some unrealistic standard or being the warlord that varies from person to person. They're just an excuse to argue and I think I'm done...