Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Azzy]

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?

Just because you *believe* it doesn't fit doesn't make it so. Also, no one would compel you play a fully non-magical warlord. If it isn't for you, then just move along.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

It came up a while back and I think the idea was a magical warlord would be a subclass. The way I have been tweaking my Warlord is you could have a 1/3rd caster but it would not be as good at inspiring, being tactical of fighting (bravura) as the other warlords.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

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?

Its not a core class its not in the PHB.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would suggest the whole reason for the success of D&D where RPGs in other settings have faltered is the existence of magic. This enabled heroes to do impossible feats like shooting lightning from their fingers and healing someone from the brink of death, and beyond. To make these thing that anyone can do kills the suspension of disbelief that is so essential to the game.

And the excuse "your character with one hp remaining isn't really severely wounded, they are just feeling a little tired" diminishes both the magic of the game and the sense of peril.


"Magic" and "non-magic" should not be seen at separate. We do not need two classes that can do same things "magically" and "non-magically". That's redundancy. Classes are defined by what they do, not how they do it.

 

[Pauln6]

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?

The logic is flawed. DM choice on how much magic exists also includes DM choice as to whether certain classes or subclasses are allowed. For my part, the Warlord should be non magical even s/he is so damn inspiring they can help others overcome the effects of magic. Saving throws are not magical. Hit dice are not magical. Second wind is not magical. An adrenaline rush is not magical. There is plenty of scope.

 

[OB1]

That's yet another novel set of hypothetical bars to new classes.

I don't mean it as a bar, I mean it as a real consideration towards what a class is in 5e. Ignoring it means you're fighting against the core concepts of the edition.

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.

I disagree. If the DM is strictly following the rules for encounter building and daily xp, I don't see a single class (or really even a single subclass) that would have difficulty making it through adventuring days. Again, it's one of the hidden design goals of 5e, to allow a party to be created with any combination of PCs and be viable, just as a Class with any Race combo is viable. Sure, certain character builds and party builds are more effective, but the game is purposefully balanced around non-optimization of party and pc so that players can pick whatever they want and still succeed. I've actually played in an all Monk and all Wizard run through of different modules in Yawing Portal and it's a ton of fun.

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.

This hits on another design goal and one that was first done successfully in 4e. That every class be fun to play at every level. No more Fighters are great for the first 10 levels and Wizards rule the last 10. Same should be true for a full Warlord class.

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.
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."

And hence why every class, besides it's unique role, must also be able to stand on it's own.

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.

They may be silly to you, but it is what 5e is. Does it put limitations on what a Warlord can be in 5e? Yes. But it could also encourage creativity in design and lead to something even more fun to play than the 4e Warlord because it's designed to work with the system you're playing in rather than against or in spite of it. And that is where I see brilliance in what Mearls is doing with the fighter sub-class warlord. He's adding to the game in a way that still feels in line with it.

For a full class, I'd start with what he is doing there and then figure out how to flesh that out with a full class design that keeps in mind what a 5e class is. Build the full class in the reverse way that the Arcane Trickster or Eldrich Knight was built. Perhaps some mix of Paladin (for durability) and Warlock (for flexibility) classes would make a good base for this subclass to sit on top of and to add other subclasses?

 

[Remathilis]

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?

I think a litmus test for any new class should be "does it fit well into Toril, Oerth, Krynn, or Eberron?" Aka does it work with all the dials set to normal.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean it as a real consideration towards what a class is in 5e. Ignoring it means you're fighting against the core concepts of the edition.

Is there a Class Designer's guide somewhere that spells that out? Is so, link it. If not, don't pretend that there's anything so bizarre as a requirement for single-player or single-class party viability in an essentially cooperative game that runs on spotlight balance.

I don't mean it as a bar

That's OK, then. If it isn't a bar to the consideration of a class for inclusion, then it only has bearing on the later design phase.

If the DM is strictly following the rules for encounter building and daily xp, I don't see a single class (or really even a single subclass) that would have difficulty making it through adventuring days.

I know 5e has a rep for being 'too easy,' but if you do follow those guidelines, you'll end up with 6-8 medium/hard encounters (by including some encounters where the party is outnumbered, resulting in hard encounters with less-than-hard exp value), and single class parties will likely choke on that, especially indifferently optimized ones at 1st level. Some of the more versatile classes, though, you could optimize a party of them to cover everything it needs, and, if you heavily optimize a single-class party it could probably blow it's way through at least a full day of standard encounters, even if they're all hard.

But, honestly, that's going beyond the viability of the class to the manipulation of the system.

Again, it's one of the hidden design goals of 5e

If it's hidden, you can't claim it as a goal, it could just be a fantasy of your own.

This hits on another design goal and one that was first done successfully in 4e. That every class be fun to play at every level. No more Fighters are great for the first 10 levels and Wizards rule the last 10. Same should be true for a full Warlord class.

No reason it shouldn't hit that imaginary design goal, with a full class, either. The sub-class in question doesn't even start to boot up until 3rd, of course, because it's a sub-class. :shrug:

They may be silly to you, but it is what 5e is.

Again, that is a baseless assertion. You'll need to find it in print, or get a designer to swear to it, before I even start to take you seriously.
I mean, Mearls /is/ on record with goals for 5e's inclusiveness and integration of all past editions to the point different players could enjoy the 'styles' of different editions, at the same table. No one takes that seriously.

Does it put limitations on what a Warlord can be in 5e?

No, only on how design might be approached.

For a full class, I'd start with what he is doing there and then figure out how to flesh that out with a full class design that keeps in mind what a 5e class is. Build the full class in the reverse way that the Arcane Trickster or Eldrich Knight was built.

Nod. I can see that as a development path, too. Treat this class as a faux-MC sub-class like the EK or AT is a faux-Wizard-MC for their native classes, and extrapolate the full class from that.

 

[Imaro]

And the excuse "your character with one hp remaining isn't really severely wounded, they are just feeling a little tired" diminishes both the magic of the game and the sense of peril.

It also forces a specific view of hit points which may not be to everyone's tastes.

 

[Imaro]

Is there a Class Designer's guide somewhere that spells that out? Is so, link it. If not, don't pretend that there's anything so bizarre as a requirement for single-player or single-class party viability in an essentially cooperative game that runs on spotlight balance .

Can you in turn link to a quote where they said an official design goal of D&D 5e was supposed to accommodate every desire of every previous player who has played a previous edition of D&D? Because you sure do tend to trot out that dead horse alot in warlord discussions...