Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[OB1]

Love the direction Mike is going with this. Sounds like an interesting sub-class and one I’d love to play.
As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play.
By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met. As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).
For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want? How would you implement?

 

[Tony Vargas]

As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play.

That's yet another novel set of hypothetical bars to new classes.
Only the 'lazy' build would have an issue with the first one.
No class'd do really well on the second one, though I suppose the most versatile could just pick specialties arbitrarily and optimize, and those with more faux-MC sub-classes could lean on that to kinda 'cheat' their way through.

What's funny is thinking about the Wizard and that first goal. A lone wizard, especially at low level, in the classic game would be tantamount to suicide. In 5e (oddly, in 4e, too), though, it's not particularly more so than for any other class. It really is quite remarkable how many of the limitations and weaknesses of that class have been removed, almost entirely, over the editions. There's a lot of pendulum-swinging in a lot of areas, but as far as making life easier on wizards, it's been steady.

By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met.

I can see how it'd make the fighter handle the second goal better, since it is, in essence, a faux-multi-class 'support' character, something the fighter would currently lack in the hypothetical all-fighter party.

As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).

It's an issue with any support class, of course. And a joke in 4e circles, something about a party of leaders being "all multiplier and no force."

For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want? How would you implement?

I think those goals are silly, but, sure, if the class were not ported directly from 4e still in the constrictive 'Leader' box, but allowed to cover more of the conceptual ground it implies - particularly into the 4e-'controller' realm, it could do very well. Similarly, a faux-MC sub-class or two would help with the second one.

 

[cbwjm]

Love the direction Mike is going with this. Sounds like an interesting sub-class and one I’d love to play.
As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play.
By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met. As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).
For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want? How would you implement?

I've noticed that concept as well when reading through the PHB, all of them should be able to handle themselves okay when alone and many agree that a party should be able to be made up of any group of classes, no healers, arcanists, rogues, or warriors necessary.

 

[Remathilis]

Let's break down this requirement list:


1. To heal is to restore hit points. To restore hit points is to limit the risk of a character dying. Curing is reactive — only doable after the damage was done. Temp hit points are proactive — providing a buffer so that no significant damage gets through. Healing can be immediate (cure spells), or heal over time (regeneration), recovered via rests (hit dice), or gained as a bonus effect from other actions (vampiric knife).

Curing is the simplest form of solution to the problem behind the requirement, but the requirement itself is, Keep people active and capable of fighting over the course of multiple combats.

2. The extensive amount of attacks is a means of generating damage in a fight, the ultimate purpose of which is to complete the fight victoriously. That usually means killing the opponents. Increasing damage output reduces the time to complete a fight, and thus reduces resources used (including healing). Granting extra attacks is compensation for not doing much damage yourself. You're delegating the damage to other people.

So the requirement here is: Provide a means of shortening the fight commensurate with what a typical class could do, but without requiring me to actually be the one doing damage.

3. Buffing allies covers a massive range of possible things, but for the Warlord, from what I read of it on the wiki, this largely relates to boosting attack, AC, damage, or movement. Just miscellaneous ways to increase damage output or reduce damage taken, which is a superset of requirements 1 and 2. This excludes buffs such as flight, teleportation, invisibility, etc.

4. The implied/assumed final requirement: Do so without using magic.

To add a little more thought to each of these.

1. It seems when people say a warlord should be able to "heal", they use it place of "restore hit points", which is the easiest portion of the healer's role for others to fulfill. I have nothing against a warlord healing (within a few parameters; such as inspirational healing not working in a silence spell) but to me, this should be the secondary function of the warlord, not the primary. That is at odds with his "leader" moniker in 4e, but since I don't think the warlord should be a cleric replacement, I'm fine with his healing being more on par with a paladin (more or less) than a cleric.

2. I think its important to differentiate between "granting an additional attack" and "granting an additional attack action". What the warlord should be doing is "loaning" his attack to a more advantageous ally rather than letting the ally attack again. The reason is simple; there are plenty of other classes who can get more bang for their buck than a simple weapon attack from a (hypothetical) warlord. Imagine for a minute a warlord gets no self-buffing to his attacks (no riders or extra damage dice). If that is true, than lots of abilities get better by having the warlord forgo his attack action to give it to a fighter (extra attack), rogue (SA), stunning fist (monk), paladin (smite), barbarian (rage) or even a cleric (divine strike). Thus, its imperative that the warlord NOT grant an extra attack/attack action, but a special new ability that doesn't allow classes mentioned above to trigger their special attack riders. It would be a bit metagamey (akin to how an unarmed strike isn't a weapon, but it is a weapon attack) but something like "You grant your ally an opening, he can roll an attack roll with your proficiency bonus plus your Intelligence modifier. If he hits, he does his weapons normal damage die plus your intelligence modifier." (rough draft).

3. This is the area that is hardest to define. What is the warlord able to buff? Attacks and damage, AC and saves, skills and ability checks seem fairly safe, but beyond influencing die rolls, what does a warlord do for support? How does he influence the exploration and social pillars beyond boosting skill checks? A spellcaster adds so much "non-math-influencing" effects (such as divinations, water-breathing, curing poison and disease, making food, or easing travel) that a warlord has to somehow match non-magically or be the inferior choice.

4. Which limits what the warlord can accomplish, as he would have to be balanced against some form of spellcaster (even Mearls' version was balanced against the EK) but have to create effects that are useful and don't feel "supernatural". For a fighter subclass, that is easy (since you only need a few support powers to fill in the gaps of the fighter) but the least satisfying. For a paladin-like class, its a little harder (as a paladin eventually tops out at 5th level magical effects) and for a cleric-like one, nearly impossible.

5. I'd like to add a 5th point: Warlords ultimately are suffering from the fact that in 4e, they could replace casters because caster magic generally ended up being attacks anyway (save for utility powers and rituals). Imagine, for a moment, that rather than replicate the "martial leader" role of 4e, we start with the marshal (a underpowered but interesting take on a commander class) and then layer on some warlord inspired ideas (such as inspirational healing, granting attacks, or setting up strategic maneuvers. The marshal also had a magical cousin in the 3.5 PHB2: the dragon shaman. He was an aura-based buffing character who didn't have spells but could heal (a souped up lay on hands) and gained dragon powers (including a breath weapon) and was far better balanced than the marshal. I think these two classes would make an interesting basis for a warlord, especially when you start layering on some warlord concepts to them. The PHB2 also had the knight class, which also is a good place to look for "inspirational warrior" ideas.

I think that once you free yourself form the notion that the warlord must be a low/no magic cleric, you find there is plenty of design space and ideas to work with.

 

[Remathilis]

Love the direction Mike is going with this. Sounds like an interesting sub-class and one I’d love to play.
As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play.
By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met. As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).
For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want? How would you implement?

Its a good question. Can a warlord inspire himself? Can he heal himself? If he has no allies to grant attacks to, can he still fight? It might be the biggest design hurdle for a full class.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I think that once you free yourself form the notion that the warlord must be a low/no magic cleric, you find there is plenty of design space and ideas to work with.

The problem being is that for a lot of people, the non-magicalness of the Warlord is the main selling point.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem being is that for a lot of people, the non-magicalness of the Warlord is the main selling point.

Which I think is the exact wrong way to go about it. Your not designing the class with Dungeons & Dragons in mind, your requesting it to be a tool for some Generic Fantasy Toolkit d20 game. It is certainly possible to design a low/no magic buffer-healer type character, but a.) It should be designed with a low/no magical setting in mind, so it doesn't have to compete with support casters; b.) probably be paired with a low/no magical version of the fighter, rogue, monk/martial artist, barbarian, paladin/knight, and ranger classes that similarly ramp down magic and magical effects; and c.) Probably should be a third party supplement or DMs Guild product rather than a supplement for official Dungeons & Dragons.

However, that's my personal bugbear. I'd much rather see a Warlord who fits in the 5e game as is rather than one that either changes the fundamentals of the game assumptions OR can't carry his weight when compared to a caster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

, no healers, arcanists, rogues, or warriors necessary.

what's left, exactly?

Good bye. We'll not meet again.

Promises, promises...

The problem being is that for a lot of people, the non-magicalness of the Warlord is the main selling point.

He was making the opposite point: not that the warlord must use magic, itself, but that it must be strictly inferior to those who do.

 

[Hussar]

I'm baffled why the notion of a "magical warlord" is even being brought up (yet again for the umpteenth time).

For one, warlord fans have been pretty darn adamant that this is non-negotiable. You might not like it, you might not understand it, but, there it is. The warlord must be non-magical. Full stop.

Secondly, we already HAVE two magic using tactical classes - Bards and Clerics. The buffing, action granting and healing of either class is pretty extensive. Why would we want a third magic using tactical class? If people were happy with a magic using tactical class, they're spoiled for choice.

Heck, I don't even NEED to be a buffing/action granting character to be a seriously tactical leader type. Just make a Druid and cast summoning spells. One man army. I don't need to worry about the rest of the group. Good grief, a single Conjure Animals gives me up to EIGHT actions, plus my own, per round. Riders and whatnot included.

If magic was what we were looking for WE'D PLAY CASTERS!!!!

Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The point is a non-magical warlord (with powers on a par with cleric/druid) DOES NOT FIT in a medium/high magic setting. The point of magic is it allows you to do things that would otherwise be impossible. If it is possible to achieve equivalent effects without magic there is no point in magic existing.

I have nothing against setting-specific classes, but will warlord fans stop trying to break our medium/high magic settings by insisting it be a standard core class?