Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Remathilis]

Remathilis is correct, using 5e framework a warlord would be built off the Paladin chassis in a nonmagical/nondevine way. Paladin is sort of a warlord with inspiring healer granting THP, save bonuses, Aura of Life, etc.

I still think 5e should use HD more to heal, even with spells. This makes a larger hit die more important then just the roll for HP and some out of combat healing, the side effect would make Durable feat more valuable. Since activating HD to heal is an untapped source, this could be used for Warlords. Its also limited, which is good.

From the old 4e, I always greatly preferred Bravura, especially with Brash Strike and such, risking something to get something.

Heh, if a nonmagical paladin became the chassis for a warlord, then it would actually better justify the *paladin* as deserving its own class.

So, warlord or tactician, the ‘neutral’ paladin? (True neutral, true good, true evil, lawful neutral, chaotic neutral.)

It is thinkable because the 5e paladin inspires by means of *ethics* (alignment) rather than by means of religion. So, there is conceptual space for nonmagical inspiration.

I'm meaning more in terms of mechanics than story...

Strip away all the fluff from a paladin, and you get a class that has the following features.

* martial weapons, all armors and shields
* d10 HD
* two attacks at 5th
* Fighting Style
* Smites
* Healing
* Defensive Auras
* Spells
* Minor Divine abilities (detect evil, channel divinity)
* Strength and Charisma focused

Now, we just do some switching around. The Spells and Minor Divine powers need to go; these get swapped to some manner of martial ability that creates its "warlordy powers". I'm a big proponent on using Superiority dice and maneuvers (with a warlord getting many more dice and maneuvers than a battlemaster). Superiority dice don't re-invent the wheel too much, synergize with the Martial Adept feat, and as a bonus new maneuvers that are invented for the warlord can be retroactively added to the battlemaster, which becomes the "eldrich knight" version of the warlord.

As for healing; lay on hands can easily be replaced by inspiring word. The mechanics of it be a pool of hp (like lay on hands) or a pool of dice (akin to the dream-druids summer balm healing pool). They could probably get some sort of kicker that lets HD be more effective (akin to a bard's Song of Rest) as well. A warlord isn't removing diseases, poisons, or raising the dead, but he can be a perfectly servicable hp healer and maybe grant some type of "morale" bonus to give advantage to saves to remove them.

Further a paladin can grant "auras" that grant protection against fear, charms, etc. Since the proto-Warlord was the marshal, I find it appropriate to give the 5e warlord a similar "aura" ability that grants minor bonuses (such as adding bonuses to damage or saves) or major ones (immunity to fear or charm at higher levels). These augment the abilities given by the maneuver/superiority dice and would allow for warlordy things on rounds the warlord chooses to attack or not use a superiority dice.

Smite seems to be a good way to model the extra-actions concept. A paladin's big ability is being able to trade spell slots for handfuls of d8s with an attack. Rather than a buffed out single attack by the paladin, the warlord could use some mechanic to provide his allies a buffed out attack. Rather than granting the ally a free "attack action", though, it would have to be worded to avoid abuse (no bonus SA, no bonus from GMW/SS, no stunning fist or paladin smite) but giving a character a bonus attack with extra damage would be a good way to have the warlord have his awesome attack.

The rest is fairly trivial. You could have the warlord be primarily Strength (for melee, as the warlord is still considered a melee character) and either Int or Cha as secondary (I personally would want Str/Int, as paladin already has Str/Cha).

In the end, I'd see...

* martial weapons, all armors and shields
* d10 HD
* two attacks at 5th
* Fighting Style
* Grant Attacks (with riders)
* Inspiring Word
* Commanding Auras
* Superiority Dice
* Maneuvers
* Strength and Intelligence focused

Now granted, he's more apt to replace a fighter than a cleric, but I think it would work to capture the flavor of the warlord while not radically altering the 5e design paradigm and would integrate into the game without introducing yet-another resource mechanic.

 

[mellored]

The whole point of lesser restoration and greater restoration and raise dead is getting the character back after something bad happens, and the warlord simply cannot replicate those effects. They'll never have full symmetry with a cleric/bard /druid / sorcerer/ warlock that is specced to be the "healer".

That's ok.

You want situations where you would say "I wish we had a cleric" and situations where you would say "I wish we had a warlord".

So... why try and fit into that design space? The warlord is a square peg and the 5e leader role is a round hole, and it's doing a disservice to the squareness of the peg to shave down its sides and make it less square just to cram it into that hole. Let it embrace its squareness.

Agreed.
But language only works with a common reference point. Otherwise, it's like making up words.

i.e.
"I want a new class that can blumpikah while also bliperating, and with blerghera once per blaque."
You have no idea what that could mean because you've never seen anything like it before.

But saying "i want a class that's similar to a cleric, but without magic" and you at least have a ballpark idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm meaning more in terms of mechanics than story..

D&D 5e blends ‘story’ and ‘mechanics’ descriptions, inseparably. This is especially so if one is an immersive theater of the mind style DM, where narrative adjudication takes priority over mechanical resolution.

To make the paladin mechanically nonmagical, makes the paladin narratively nonmagical. The healing would function in nonmagic zones and so on, and other narrative implications.

But a nonmagical paladin makes narrative sense. It is ok.

The paladin can already handle many of the needed warlord mechanics. Moreover, the paladin benefits. Adding more options to the paladin for more effective healing and ‘lazy lord’ tactician attacks enriches the flavor of the paladin.

 

[Yaarel]

The ethic of a neutral-alignment tactician paladin is: discipline and dedication.

 

[MechaPilot]

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power to grant attacks at will.

You'd think so, the way some people act.

 

[Jester David]

That's ok.

You want situations where you would say "I wish we had a cleric" and situations where you would say "I wish we had a warlord".

And that would be good.

Agreed.
But language only works with a common reference point. Otherwise, it's like making up words.

i.e.
"I want a new class that can blumpikah while also bliperating, and with blerghera once per blaque."
You have no idea what that could mean because you've never seen anything like it before.

But saying "i want a class that's similar to a cleric, but without magic" and you at least have a ballpark idea of what I'm talking about.

But the cool things about the sorcerer and the warlock isn't that they're like the wizard. That's probably the lamest elements of them.
When someone asks you what the hook is with a warlock or sorcerer, you shouldn't start with "they're a wizard that...". Instead it's "a sorcerer is an arcane spellcaster that innately casts spells because its in their blood or part of their heritage" and "a warlock is someone who made a deal with a powerful godlike being for magic".

When describing a warlord and what a warlord does "it's like a cleric... but without magic" is probably the lamest and most boring description imaginable. Not just because it requires knowledge of what a cleric is, but also because it doesn't so much tell you what it does but what it does NOT do.

 

[MechaPilot]

No I mean one of the fundamental tenets I've seen Warlord fans state is that a Warlord has to be non-magical...

The warlord must be able to be non-magical, the way a fighter or rogue can be non-magical. When most people say they want a non-magical warlord, they mean that the abilities ingrained into the class and not gained from subclass choices must be non-magical. I don't personally have an issue with two magical warlord subclasses: one using arcane magic and the other using divine magic.

 

[Yaarel]

The warlord paladin probably emphasizes Charisma. (Maybe also Intelligence.)

This means a paladin could prioritize Charisma, perhaps even dropping Strength. (An intelligent warrior might also be possible.)

All of this enhances the scope and customizability of the paladin class.

Nonmagic paladin.

 

[MechaPilot]

3 more subclasses on top of the 4E ones. Psionic, arcane and divine. 1/3rd casters.

Let's be frank though, you just wouldn't use a warlord class anyway. So it really shouldn't matter to you how many subclasses they get as long it doesn't chew up too much page space.

And, even as a fan of the warlord, I can't really see a need for more than 5 subclasses for it.

 

[Yaarel]

Paladins normally use spell slots for smites anyway. Switching spell slots for a nonmagical use, I doubt anyone would notice much difference.