Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Zardnaar]

As a side note, Mearls decision to base Warlord off the fighter chassis is a mistake IMO. Action Surge is the iconic fighter talent, as is 3 and then 4 attacks per round and more feats or ABI.

I could see it if you could give your action surge to another person to use. But you want the fighter to be distinctive, and that’s what makes it distinctive.

I get the arguments that BM can be the warlord, but it really isn’t . Action economy isn’t in favor of Commanders strike, the movement one is too situational, and the superiority dice favor using them in other ways.

IMO the fighter chassis is too strong in essence to use as a warlord chassis and then add other stuff on top of it.

Its not just you have to convince of that its Mearls.

But there is not enough WL fans, you need a lot more people to get on board and push for it. Blind insistence on certain things to replicate the 4E version 100% won't get you far. All the classes got changed from previous editions. What does a wizard do cast spells, a cleric, casts spells, fights, turns undead.

Rather than looking at exact mechanics peple should look at the concept. What does a warlord do? It heals, support, fights, does tactical things, it inspires. If a 5E version does that you have a warlord it does not have to 100% reflect the 4E version of it and it could even borrow a few things from the 3.5 Marshall (auras or what have you).

I suppose players of previous editions stuff are happy with the concepts not the exact implementation I mean I am really cut up I can't play CoDzilla anymore.

 

[smbakeresq]

In another thread they are discussing how at-will attack granting won't work due to the nature of 5e. It really belongs here, as part of the warlord thread. It already is in the game with Commanders Strike also, but the action economy doesn't favor it. However, lets say action economy would favor it, say it only cost a reaction by that party and didn't cost you a bonus action. Then the problem is in general its a poor trade because your attack is better then most other party members except someone with sneak attack or a smite or some other rider to thrown on. Its still a poor choice in most cases.

Now lets say though the Warlord gets a similar ability but gets a risk/reward scenario like the old Brash Assault with say a superiority die + Charisma bonus thrown in as a damage rider. For those that don't remember you attack the enemy and then:

"The target can make a melee basic attack against you as a free action and has combat advantage for the attack. If the target makes this attack, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of the target can make a basic attack against the target as a free action and has combat advantage for the attack."

Now maybe its more usable. You get your attack in, and then the enemy gets to attack you leaving itself open to an attack from your ally with a rider thrown in. You are essentially trading your AC and HP for an ally to send in an attack with a big rider like (superiority die + CHR in this case) with advantage. By getting that advantage + DMG rider now a lot more allies can use it, and you are trading a different resource (HP) to do more damage to the enemy. It also requires a player to think about when to use it, which is good, you want a Warlord PC to think at the table.

Limiting a Warlord to 2 attacks in total would limit abuse of this also.

Any warlord build needs things like that, and more of them, and if you use superiority dice they need to be ally focused and not yourself focused. They also need them earlier in the PC, you don't want to be just a worse fighter until you hit higher levels. That's why it cant be a subclass and wait to 3rd level, any Warlord needs its own class.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because I feel it would be better served as subclasses.

Hell, there already are a few that are based around support. Mastermind (which apparently doesn't count because rogues do too much damage), Wolf Totem Barbarian (which doesn't count because it can cast a whole 2 spells), Ancestral Guardian, (which doesn't count because it can cast 1 spell and people can't stand reflavorings) Banneret (which doesn't count because it doesn't give attacks), and Cavelier (which doesn't count because it attacks too much).

Because there isnt enough space in a subclass. The battlemaster is a fighter with a splash of warlord. The eldritch knight is a fighter with a splash of wizard. We need the parent warlord class. If they can waste space on the sorcerer which is basically just fluff and an alternative casting stat, they can add the warlord.

I don't see why a class needs 8 subclasses though. The barbarian is pretty limited and half its subclasses seem redundant to each other (berserker, battle rager, zealot) in terms of design space.

 

[Satyrn]

Pretty sure "Read my mind to understand why I am objecting to your position" doesn't work very well.

It works fantastically well for my wife. But it might be her accompanying stare that really seals it.

 

[smbakeresq]

Its not just you have to convince of that its Mearls.

But there is not enough WL fans, you need a lot more people to get on board and push for it. Blind insistence on certain things to replicate the 4E version 100% won't get you far. All the classes got changed from previous editions. What does a wizard do cast spells, a cleric, casts spells, fights, turns undead.

Rather than looking at exact mechanics peple should look at the concept. What does a warlord do? It heals, support, fights, does tactical things, it inspires. If a 5E version does that you have a warlord it does not have to 100% reflect the 4E version of it and it could even borrow a few things from the 3.5 Marshall (auras or what have you).

I suppose players of previous editions stuff are happy with the concepts not the exact implementation I mean I am really cut up I can't play CoDzilla anymore.

Warlord should in order

1. Support
2. Tactical things
3. Inspire
4. Fight
5. Grant THP

They should not heal unless it a healer feat type affect, otherwise that's another classes prime or second ability. In no way should a Warlord substitute for healing classes and healing should be done "up front" through THP and not actual healing. Granting of THP could use the hit dice mechanic in game for healing on a rest but with a rider like INT or CHR. For example to a barbarian you could grant THP using a d12 + con + your rider on some type of action. Or do the same with your warlords superiority dice mechanic if that's how it goes with the targets CON and your rider to make it more effective. Like Rally for BM but with a bigger rider since its more of a core ability.

Inspiration should be attack rolls or damage rolls, same with tactical things, and much more than a Bard. Bards in play use inspiration dice for saving throws bonuses or turn enemy hits into misses, sometimes for a PC attack roll when a big attack is coming. Otherwise Bards are about spells.

Support should/could be about AC bonuses but should mostly be around offensive things, like INT bonuses to hit or CHR bonuses to damage with limited uses along the lines of superiority dice or spell slots as to hit bonuses replicate Bless spells. Maybe a power like I described for Brash Assault, a personal favorite of mine. How about a power that grants advantage, for example the Warlord's allies gets to use the flanking rules in the DMG when he/she flanking with an ally; but only the ally gets the benefit. This could be expanded just to be if the ally and the warlord are in reach of the same target to make it more generally effective. This would encourage thoughtful positioning also, which is good for team play.

Whatever they are they should be limited to seeing or hearing (and understanding) the Warlord and should never apply to things like animated objects or animal intelligence summons. This would also give the Warlord a weakness, silence or fog cloud would be a problem, which is good for the DM.

 

[Yaarel]

Lets start a brainstorm for different features that a Warlord Paladin might have. They can be general or specific, or different ways of doing the same thing if there is disagreement about how best to do something. Think of marshal and warlord features, 13Age commander features, warlord features already in bard and fighter, also pacifist paladin, and ways to repurpose standard paladin features in nonmagical ways for a nonmagical character or setting. We can organize and evaluate this list, separately, later. This is just a place to jot down any ideas

Warlord Paladin

Rallier (Charisma)
- Coach: dramatic verbal healing of nonphysical hit points, before reaching zero hit points.
- Medic: modest touch healing of physical hit points, with bandages, antiseptic, balm, if at zero hit points.
- Invigorator: temporary hit points, vigor, also as ritual or during rest to prepare for combat.
- Aura: when in vicinity and in heat of battle, is a symbol to inspire courage.
- Intimidator: force hostiles to surrender.

Tactician (Intelligence)
- Lead from behind: grant extra attack.
- Lead from the front: buffing for those imitating warlord attack.
- Fight dirty: debuff hostiles.
- Fight dirty: aiming for anatomical weaknesses adds Intelligence to damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord Paladin

Rallier
Tactician

First of all, it's gotta be "Oath of _______"

Second of all, scrubbing that much divine flavor & magic off a class seems a bit much for the 5e paradigm.

No, neither of those are serious objections. Carry on.

I don't see why a class needs 8 subclasses though. The barbarian is pretty limited and half its subclasses seem redundant to each other (berserker, battle rager, zealot) in terms of design space.

It sounds like another of those criteria that's just pulled out of thin air. But, the Warlord met it, even within the limited design space of 4e (ie only Martial Leader archetypes need apply).

As a side note, Mearls decision to base Warlord off the fighter chassis is a mistake IMO.

It's only a mistake if the intent is to actually have a Warlord at the end of the exercise. If the intent is to conclude "oh, so sorry, Warlord turns out to be impossible" or to deliver another disappointment containing the word 'warlord' in an apparent typo, like PDK, then it could be a very shrewd choice, indeed. ;P

Action Surge is the iconic fighter talent, as is 3 and then 4 attacks per round and more feats or ABI.
IMO the fighter chassis is too strong in essence to use as a warlord chassis and then add other stuff on top of it.

Nod. Even the secondary-support-contribution Paladin doesn't have 'room' (design space/balance) for another Extra Attack (let alone two), nevermind the signature Action Surge. Primary support necessitates backing off the whole Tank thing.

Even the tankiest warlord - the Bravura - was a lot less tanky than a Fighter or Paladin (in 4e, in 5e tanks are even tankier in terms of offense).

 

[Yaarel]

Paladin spell slots offer an amount of design space, that can be repurposed for almost anything, from extra attacks to healing.

 

[cbwjm]

As a side note, Mearls decision to base Warlord off the fighter chassis is a mistake IMO. Action Surge is the iconic fighter talent, as is 3 and then 4 attacks per round and more feats or ABI.

I could see it if you could give your action surge to another person to use. But you want the fighter to be distinctive, and that’s what makes it distinctive.

I get the arguments that BM can be the warlord, but it really isn’t . Action economy isn’t in favor of Commanders strike, the movement one is too situational, and the superiority dice favor using them in other ways.

IMO the fighter chassis is too strong in essence to use as a warlord chassis and then add other stuff on top of it.

I think basing it off the fighter chassis is perfect for the subclass. It's not just a case of best fit for the classes that are currently available in 5e but also because I always felt that the warlord was just a different kind of fighter. I don't agree with the people who claim that the fighter's number or attacks or action surge is too much for the warlord. For me, it all seems to fit really well for a warlord.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think basing it off the fighter chassis is perfect for the subclass. It's not just a case of best fit for the classes that are currently available in 5e but also because I always felt that the warlord was just a different kind of fighter. I don't agree with the people who claim that the fighter's number or attacks or action surge is too much for the warlord. For me, it all seems to fit really well for a warlord.

The problem is that a Warlord needs to be able to do powerful stuff. Combined with fighter stuff it gets too good.

Rather than not granting the Warlord his toys, the obvious solution is not to base it on Fighter.