D&D 5E Which classes would you like to see added to D&D 5e, if any? (check all that apply)

[Guest 6801328]

Simply mentioning "Apart from spells" in the post is which you stated that a warlord class would have to be able to grant full actions would have saved some bother.
You stated that the ability to grant actions would be mandatory for a Warlord class. Spells are an action. Its not really a leap, and hardly deserving of such a snarky response to follow the reasoning that you expected Warlords to be able to enable casters to cast additional spells.

Only somewhat. I would have the exact same question about any two actions. For example, what would it look like if somebody used the extra action to quaff a potion (Use Object)? Help Action?

I suppose if the group had been together a long time and had practiced "plays" so that the Warlord (who is now a quarterback, in my example...) could just call out "49!" and everybody knew what that meant. But we can't assume that, and the abilities also have to work with a party that is together by accident for the first time, right?

Elfcrusher was addressing someone who had explicitly stated that granting actions would be a mandatory part of the Warlord class.

The narrative implications of spotting an opening in which someone already engaged in sparring with the opponent can take advantage of, are much less than spotting an opening that allows someone to chant out a spell that would normally take a significant proportion of a 6-second round to cast.

Yeah. Especially if the warlord gets involved with the sparring. (I get a little wary of the idea that he can just shout something, as noted in my previous post.)

 

[Jester David]

I'd still love a response to my question about the narration behind granting a Wizard an extra Action, which he uses to cast another spell. If you're writing the short story in which this happens, what does actually happen?

Mechanically, the warlord uses their power, and the wizard uses their reaction to make a rapid spell attack. Narratively, the warlord points at the enemy and shouts "NOW!" wizard hastily and super quickly fires off the spell as quickly as they do on their turn.
Because the same time is passing on each turn, and the warlord isn't doing anything else that's going to eat up their half-second of time. After all, it's common for a dozen creatures to each take turns during the six seconds of a round. Casting a spell takes virtually no time.

After all, there's already a feat that lets wizards cast spells in place of Opportunity Attacks. (War Caster.) So, by the rules in the PHB, you have time to cast an off turn spell.

I thought we made progress on the extra attack, where I was seeing it as your character messing with the monster, rather than as messing with me. But with the Wizard example (because of the full Action) I'm having trouble interpreting this as anything other than, "The Wizard is so inspired and motivated by the non-magical words of the Warlord that he can do twelve seconds worth of casting in just six seconds." If there's another way of looking at it I really do want to understand.

On the wizard's turn, they're looking for their opening. They're shifting and re-positioning, looking for their best shot. On the warlord's turn, the wizard knows when and where to just attack, and can do so without having to wait for their shot.

Granting attacks/ actions/ movement never really bugged me with the warlord. But I'm not a fan of martial healing. Never have been. That bugs me. And just the idea that the smart, intelligent, tactical leader also being the healer just doesn't mesh with me narratively.
Really, the 4e warlord occupies three different roles: the Charismatic, inspiring leader; the Intelligent, cunning strategist; and the field medic. The inspiring warlord overlaps too much with the bard for my tastes. Focusing on that aspect of the leader diminishes the bard and makes the warlord less unique. But the tactical, strategic commanding officer class is interesting. That's an unfilled role. That's a space for a class to do its own unique thing in a cool way.

Plus, the focus on in-combat restoration of hit points feels like the lazy way of designing those options. It could easily be granting Hit Dice to be used during rests or temporary hit points or resistance to damage. All of which does the same effective thing—let you adventure longer—but in a different way.
But... as I said in my first response, the class isn't free to do it's own unique thing in a cool way. It has to do it's 4e thing in the 4e way, only in a game that isn't 4th Edition.

Besides that, why would a 5e warlord be able to do something that a 4e warlord couldn't? Who's asking for this?

I am.
The 5e warlord should absolutely do things the 4e warlord could not. Because it's not the 4e warlord. It's an upgrade. Every single class in 5e can do things differently than they could in 4e or 3e or 2e. They've all been changed and tweaked and upgraded to do iconic elements unique to that class while emulating the tropes of that archetype.

Is healing iconic to the warlord? Not really. It's just something it could do as a leader. All the leaders could. It was okay at healing, but not the best at restoring hp (that was the cleric). Saying healing is iconic to the warlord is like saying marking was iconic to the fighter. What's iconic was everything else that only they could do and the other leader classes could not. Blended with anything cool the Marshal could do in 3e that got missed in the transition. Plus maybe some ideas pulled from 2e kits.

Warlords couldn't allow casters to cast more spells, so, why would they suddenly gain this ability.

Which was something Tony Vargas used to point out as a flaw of the warlords. In a table with no one with a solid melee basic attack, they weren't very good. If they were at a table with a lot of casters, there was less they could do to lead...
Shouldn't the 5e warlord fix problems the 4e warlord had?

The warlord would be great in a book like The Low Magic Campaigns Handbook. Or something. A book with advice, optional rules, and character options focused on playing in a more gritty game where high magic doesn't exist. Suggestions like limiting the full spellcasting classes to level 5 or 10. Perhaps requiring people to have a certain number of levels first. Alternate class features for the ranger and paladin to replace spellcasting, and suggested lists of spells they could instead use that feel less magical and could be flavoured as skill. Plus alternate healing rules and methods of dealing with lasting status effects. It'd be a good place for 1-3 non-magical classes to fill out the game.
But WotC isn't doing super niche schedule-filling books like that. It'd be a 3rd Party book. (Really... it kinda already exists. It's the Middle Earth Player's Guide. The Warden in that book is pretty much a non-magical bard.) The D&D team isn't really in the business of putting out books that don't work with their big published adventures or by design will only appeal to a fraction of the audience; they want books that could potentially appeal to their entire fanbase.

But... even in a super low magic campaign... would warlords heal? The whole point of that campaign is the different tone. If things work exactly the same, you haven't gained anything by reducing the amount of magic. Slower healing would be a feature of that sort of campaign. If the change in tone is just flavour, why not just reskin the cleric? It completely replaces the cleric and you can just flavour its abilities as being mundane...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Mechanically, the warlord uses their power, and the wizard uses their reaction to make a rapid spell attack. Narratively, the warlord points at the enemy and shouts "NOW!" wizard hastily and super quickly fires off the spell as quickly as they do on their turn.
Because the same time is passing on each turn, and the warlord isn't doing anything else that's going to eat up their half-second of time. After all, it's common for a dozen creatures to each take turns during the six seconds of a round. Casting a spell takes virtually no time.

After all, there's already a feat that lets wizards cast spells in place of Opportunity Attacks. (War Caster.) So, by the rules in the PHB, you have time to cast an off turn spell.


On the wizard's turn, they're looking for their opening. They're shifting and re-positioning, looking for their best shot. On the warlord's turn, the wizard knows when and where to just attack, and can do so without having to wait for their shot.

I fully acknowledge that I should not have used 6 seconds (or "12 seconds worth of casting") to illustrate this.

But the narrative you offer is still...distasteful...to me. To me it makes it sound like the Warlord is better at spellcasting than Wizards, even if he can't cast himself. He's like a coach who maybe can't keep up on the court/field, but he still knows more about the game than the youngun's out there. Sorry but I don't want my player to have a 'coach' who knows more about his role than he himself does.

Which is the only conclusion you can draw if most characters can never do two actions in a round, even when using the Help action, and then suddenly this new guy Tigger ("Casting spells is what Tiggers do best!") starts yelling "now!" and suddenly everybody is getting extra actions.

I think I'd probably switch sides and help the monsters kill Tigger, that smug little s.o.b.

Granting attacks/ actions/ movement never really bugged me with the warlord. But I'm not a fan of martial healing. Never have been. That bugs me. And just the idea that the smart, intelligent, tactical leader also being the healer just doesn't mesh with me narratively.
Really, the 4e warlord occupies three different roles: the Charismatic, inspiring leader; the Intelligent, cunning strategist; and the field medic. The inspiring warlord overlaps too much with the bard for my tastes. Focusing on that aspect of the leader diminishes the bard and makes the warlord less unique. But the tactical, strategic commanding officer class is interesting. That's an unfilled role. That's a space for a class to do its own unique thing in a cool way.

Plus, the focus on in-combat restoration of hit points feels like the lazy way of designing those options. It could easily be granting Hit Dice to be used during rests or temporary hit points or resistance to damage. All of which does the same effective thing—let you adventure longer—but in a different way.
But... as I said in my first response, the class isn't free to do it's own unique thing in a cool way. It has to do it's 4e thing in the 4e way, only in a game that isn't 4th Edition.



I am.
The 5e warlord should absolutely do things the 4e warlord could not. Because it's not the 4e warlord. It's an upgrade. Every single class in 5e can do things differently than they could in 4e or 3e or 2e. They've all been changed and tweaked and upgraded to do iconic elements unique to that class while emulating the tropes of that archetype.

Is healing iconic to the warlord? Not really. It's just something it could do as a leader. All the leaders could. It was okay at healing, but not the best at restoring hp (that was the cleric). Saying healing is iconic to the warlord is like saying marking was iconic to the fighter. What's iconic was everything else that only they could do and the other leader classes could not. Blended with anything cool the Marshal could do in 3e that got missed in the transition. Plus maybe some ideas pulled from 2e kits.


Which was something Tony Vargas used to point out as a flaw of the warlords. In a table with no one with a solid melee basic attack, they weren't very good. If they were at a table with a lot of casters, there was less they could do to lead...
Shouldn't the 5e warlord fix problems the 4e warlord had?

The warlord would be great in a book like The Low Magic Campaigns Handbook. Or something. A book with advice, optional rules, and character options focused on playing in a more gritty game where high magic doesn't exist. Suggestions like limiting the full spellcasting classes to level 5 or 10. Perhaps requiring people to have a certain number of levels first. Alternate class features for the ranger and paladin to replace spellcasting, and suggested lists of spells they could instead use that feel less magical and could be flavoured as skill. Plus alternate healing rules and methods of dealing with lasting status effects. It'd be a good place for 1-3 non-magical classes to fill out the game.
But WotC isn't doing super niche schedule-filling books like that. It'd be a 3rd Party book. (Really... it kinda already exists. It's the Middle Earth Player's Guide. The Warden in that book is pretty much a non-magical bard.) The D&D team isn't really in the business of putting out books that don't work with their big published adventures or by design will only appeal to a fraction of the audience; they want books that could potentially appeal to their entire fanbase.

But... even in a super low magic campaign... would warlords heal? The whole point of that campaign is the different tone. If things work exactly the same, you haven't gained anything by reducing the amount of magic. Slower healing would be a feature of that sort of campaign. If the change in tone is just flavour, why not just reskin the cleric? It completely replaces the cleric and you can just flavour its abilities as being mundane...

Agree with all this, too.

 

[Aldarc]

I suppose if the group had been together a long time and had practiced "plays" so that the Warlord (who is now a quarterback, in my example...) could just call out "49!" and everybody knew what that meant. But we can't assume that, and the abilities also have to work with a party that is together by accident for the first time, right

I know that you have a problem with certain abilities of the Battle Master already, but their abilities do not necessarily require an arbitrary amount of bonding time to bolster their allies. (And they are already at your AL table.) Most of the phrasing is about what an ally, attacker, or creature can do as a result of the maneuver:

Commander’s Strike. When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll.

Distracting Strike. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to distract the creature, giving your allies an opening. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll. The next attack roll against the target by an attacker other than you has advantage if the attack is made before the start of your next turn.

Maneuvering Attack. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to maneuver one of your comrades into a more advantageous position. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and you choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you. That creature can use its reaction to move up to half its speed without provoking opportunity attacks from the target of your attack.

None of these abilities require that the Battle Master practices "plays" with their combat allies beforehand.

There is also rally which does not require a prior rapport:

Rally. On your turn, you can use a bonus action and expend one superiority die to bolster the resolve of one of your companions. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you. That creature gains temporary hit points equal to the superiority die roll + your Charisma modifier.

It's so weird, as per Hussar's observation, that people are so reticent about the addition of a Warlord class in 5e by complaining about mechanics that are already in the game without a complaint. Many of the mechanics are there in the Battle Master, Purple Dragon Knight, and the Mastermind. One of the problems, however, is that one obviously cannot multiclass between a Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight to achieve a Warlord, and the Fighter chassis - as many have observed in this thread - is too restrictive in regards to its subclasses.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I know that you have a problem with certain abilities of the Battle Master already, but their abilities do not necessarily require an arbitrary amount of bonding time to bolster their allies. (And they are already at your AL table.) Most of the phrasing is about what an ally, attacker, or creature can do as a result of the maneuver:


None of these abilities require that the Battle Master practices "plays" with their combat allies beforehand.

There is also rally which does not require a prior rapport:

I don't think you are understanding my point. It's not that the rules require practice/rapport, it's that for it to be believable (to me; clearly ymmv) that a warlord can call out "now!" and his allies know what to do requires some kind of practice/rapport. In the absence of that practice, it's either:
1) Overwhelming force of personality such that he is able to give commands and near-strangers (or, really, total strangers, according to RAW) are suddenly able to do rule-bending things they could never do before, which is unacceptable to me.
2) "Because magic", which is unacceptable to you.

It's so weird, as per Hussar's observation, that people are so reticent about the addition of a Warlord class in 5e by complaining about mechanics that are already in the game without a complaint. Many of the mechanics are there in the Battle Master, Purple Dragon Knight, and the Mastermind. One of the problems, however, is that one obviously cannot multiclass between a Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight to achieve a Warlord, and the Fighter chassis - as many have observed in this thread - is too restrictive in regards to its subclasses.

Yeah, well, you can scroll back through and read the last 3 or 4 times I've answered this if you really want an answer. If, on the other hand, you would rather be able to fall back on this argument as a way of trying to invalidate an opposing view, however, then you probably shouldn't re-read.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think you are understanding my point. It's not that the rules require practice/rapport, it's that for it to be believable (to me; clearly ymmv) that a warlord can call out "now!" and his allies know what to do requires some kind of practice/rapport.

I think that the fluff of the mechanics have always been fairly open so that the Warlord can yell out whatever is most applicable to the situation at hand. I'm not sure why you are forcing yourself to find silly things to get hanged-up about with the Warlord that you don't voice with other classes.

In the absence of that practice, it's either:
1) Overwhelming force of personality such that he is able to give commands and near-strangers (or, really, total strangers, according to RAW) are suddenly able to do rule-bending things they could never do before, which is unacceptable to me.

Which is already present in the game rules without being magic.

2) "Because magic", which is unacceptable to you.

You can fluff it up to magic if you like. As you should recall from past discussions, I was a proponent of some abilities of the Warlord being regarded as Extraordinary or within the blur of Supernatural: i.e., "magic." The reason many pro-Warlord advocates say "no magic," is that it's effectively shorthand for "no spells." Because the moment that Warlord advocates compromise that a Warlord's inspiration could be "somewhat magical," the opposition sees this as a false agreement that the Warlord should be played as a pre-existing caster class (e.g., Bard, Cleric, etc.).

Yeah, well, you can scroll back through and read the last 3 or 4 times I've answered this if you really want an answer. If, on the other hand, you would rather be able to fall back on this argument as a way of trying to invalidate an opposing view, however, then you probably shouldn't re-read.

Elfcrusher, just because you address the issue, doesn't mean that it was done well, and your point has also been addressed numerous times here and in other threads.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You can fluff it up to magic if you like.

Then can you play a cleric or bard and fluff it up to non-magic? (I suspect not, but why is it different?)

As you should recall from past discussions, I was a proponent of some abilities of the Warlord being regarded as Extraordinary or within the blur of Supernatural: i.e., "magic." The reason many pro-Warlord advocates say "no magic," is that it's effectively shorthand for "no spells." Because the moment that Warlord advocates compromise that a Warlord's inspiration could be "somewhat magical," the opposition sees this as a false agreement that the Warlord should be played as a pre-existing caster class (e.g., Bard, Cleric, etc.).

Ah, I had actually missed that you are ok with "supernatural". A lot of people (Tony Vargas, for one) insist that it can't even be supernatural. It must be entirely mundane. That makes some of it more acceptable to me.

Bard Inspiration Dice for example. Call it magic, call it supernatural, but it's something other than my character just really being impressed with the Bard. And therefore fine.

Elfcrusher, just because you address the issue, doesn't mean that it was done well, and your point has also been addressed numerous times here and in other threads.

Ok, then, I'll try again: just because I don't complain about specific abilities with Mastermind or Purple Dragon Knight or Battlemaster (or Samurai) doesn't mean I like them. We just never have long threads discussing them. AND those other examples have just one or two abilities that trigger my roleplaying-ometer. An entire class built around those concepts triggers it a lot more.

Analogy: I don't like rapiers. I sometimes bring that up, often as an illustrative case, but I don't start threads on how much I dislike rapiers. But if an active sub-community were lobbying for an entire class built around the rapier, I would probably chime in on why I think that's an awful idea. And if I got told that I was wrong because there's no valid reason for disliking rapiers (replete with spreadsheets showing how they aren't unbalanced) I might take umbrage.

It's funny I get accused of being an irrational zealot. Here's my take on how these conversations always unfold:

Somebody: "There is no rational reason to be opposed to Warlords."
Me: "I have one: the concept of the class implies non-magical influence over my character that I find unacceptable."
Somebody and somebody else: "No, you are simply wrong, that is not a valid reason to be opposed."

(Now that I think about it, there's huge irony here: "I don't like the class because it implies that somebody else is dictating what my character thinks." "No, you can't possibly think that.")

 

[Satyrn]

The "Are there too darn many spellcasters?" thread has made me realize that there is an other class that I really would like added to the game: a non magical/mystical monk.

Martial Artist.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The "Are there too darn many spellcasters?" thread has made me realize that there is an other class that I really would like added to the game: a non magical/mystical monk.

Martial Artist.

I can understand the desire for that. Just like I can understand the desire for a Warlord-type character.

I just don't think Dungeons and Dragons is the right game to support that.

In a truly non-magical world, a guy with armor and a sword is going to kill the martial artist, assuming both of them have the same level of talent & training. (And I *think* we can all agree that two characters of level X, with similar ability scores, have the same talent and training. Right?)

So to make martial artists viable we have to give them 'supernatural' abilities. I.e., the Monk.

 

[Aldarc]

Then can you play a cleric or bard and fluff it up to non-magic? (I suspect not, but why is it different?)

And there it is. This answer. Because the abilities are not magical spells.

Ok, then, I'll try again: just because I don't complain about specific abilities with Mastermind or Purple Dragon Knight or Battlemaster (or Samurai) doesn't mean I like them. We just never have long threads discussing them. AND those other examples have just one or two abilities that trigger my roleplaying-ometer. An entire class built around those concepts triggers it a lot more.

I think it's not that an entire class is built around these concepts. As you yourself say on the first thread, there is room for a flexible martial support class, and there are different ways to translate that 5e that does justice to the 4E Warlord, the 3E Marshall, and other similar classes.

Analogy: I don't like rapiers. I sometimes bring that up, often as an illustrative case, but I don't start threads on how much I dislike rapiers. But if an active sub-community were lobbying for an entire class built around the rapier, I would probably chime in on why I think that's an awful idea. And if I got told that I was wrong because there's no valid reason for disliking rapiers (replete with spreadsheets showing how they aren't unbalanced) I might take umbrage.

That's a terrible analogy.

Here's my take on how these conversations always unfold:

Somebody: "There is no rational reason to be opposed to Warlords."
Me: "I have one: the concept of the class implies non-magical influence over my character that I find unacceptable."
Somebody and somebody else: "No, you are simply wrong, that is not a valid reason to be opposed."

(Now that I think about it, there's huge irony here: "I don't like the class because it implies that somebody else is dictating what my character thinks." "No, you can't possibly think that.")

I suppose you are allowed to think however you want, if that makes you feel better about belittling the opposition position.