Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Mistwell]

The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes. They don't want to make a homebrew one because if they don't get exactly what they want then the people who disagree with them about how the game works would win.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of Yaarel.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I don't think that's a fair characterization of Yaarel.

Well you've been here longer so you prolly know him a bit better than me.

I also love the cheek of this.

 

[mellored]

Its magic. How is he doing it nonmagically?

Distracting foes while his allies run for it.

Wait, I thought healing was an important part of the warlord's identity. [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] said it was so important it MUST be from level 1!

Healing at level 1 doesn't mean a lot of healing at level 1.

"First Aid: As a bonus action, a creature can spend a hit dice and stand up if they are prone. A creature can only benifit from this once per short rest" works just fine, IMO.
Then you can take the feature/subclass to boost closer to cleric levels.

Also, I'm not Yaarel. I can't answer what he wants.

1.) Mixing weapon damage and spellcasting is also the realm of the paladin, blade bard, valor bard, arcane trickster, eldritch knight, Hexblade, and bladesinger. You might as well say that a ranger's thing is d10 HD.

Yea. The 1e/2e ranger has been pretty well killed and gutted. Nothing special about him.

Wait, so now a warlord is a ranger? What happened to the leader/healer/buffer dude we've been on about.

Same guy, new name.
Since the "ranger" doesn't have a stchick anymore, we can pass the title down to the next generation.

Well... just a suggestion anyway. I personally don't care what it's called. I care how it plays.

This was never about the "warlord" archetype at all, was it? This was only about reintroducing the Martial Power source.

To me, it's about both.

I generally want non-magical characters who can do interesting things besides damage.
I specificly want the tactician archetype who almost never swings his sword. (I personally don't care for the inspiring one, but no need to shut it out).

* To be fair, a Trojan Horse would probably be a good high-level ability...

Agreed.

 

[mellored]

The Warlord'll need a lotta gambit, and any given warlord might conceivably use any of them

You don't need a lot of gambits if you have a flexible one.

For example.
"As a reaction, you can reroll an attack roll, skill, or saving throw."
1 gambit covers a huge amount of situations (probably a bit too flexible). Then you can specialize from there.

"When you reroll an ally's attack roll and it hits, you can add Int to the damage."
"When you reroll an enemy's attack roll, and it still hits, you can reduce the damage by Int"
etc...

 

[Kinematics]

Except not unique in some fairly major ways. A Storm Sorcerer and Dragon Sorcerer might still no the exact same spells. A Mastermind Rogue is still using SA for some nasty DPR.

I did say, "even though the mechanics may not be so terribly different." The uniqueness is the concept space, not the mechanics.

There's not a lot of room, in sub-classes, for sub-sub-specializations. But, I'm curious how you'd group the score or so of concepts posted just the last day or two under those 4, without making them about mechanics rather than concept, that is....

Descriptions are vague, so categorization will sometimes be vague.

Self-sacrifice focuses more on Charisma. Commander and Defender are balanced. Strategist focuses more on Intelligence.


Bravada - Self-sacrifice

Tactical - Commander

Skirmisher - Commander specialization, possibly Strategist

Inspiring - Base class, Defender

Doctor - Base class, Defender

Nature Guide - undefined (it's a Ranger), touches on Defender

Officer of the Peace - Commander (iffy, as this is pretty much a basic Fighter)

Lifeguard - Possibly a new subclass, but need a more concrete concept

Non-magical Beastmaster - undefined (it's a Ranger)

Banner of the Thane (cause barbaric frenzy) - Turn everyone into Barbarians? Don't feel comfortable with this.

Banner of Vanguard (move, break formations) - Commander, possibly Self-sacrifice, possibly Strategist

Art of War/Insightful - Commander/Strategist

Artillerist - Commander

Hector - Self-sacrifice/Strategist

Marshal - Seems similar to the necromancer keeping pet zombies, in that it becomes logistically problematic for the game table. If you can get around that, then I'd see it as a subclass specialization, or an optional general class feature.

Princess - Self-sacrifice (And I like the Icon name for this, too.)

Thaneborn/Chieftain/Savage Warlord - Any

Infernal Strategist - Either of the 1/3 casters

Combat Veteran - Defender, Commander

Ruthless - Strategist or Commander

Diplomat - Concept not specific enough to define. More of a background.




It's fine to add the 1/3 casters as extra subclasses, as they are a common structural mechanic. There's obvious in-universe reasons for incorporating magic, so I'm not going to put extra effort into figuring out the underlying concepts right now.

Crusader - 1/3 caster, divine

Arcane Battlemaster - 1/3 caster, arcane

 

[Remathilis]

Distracting foes while his allies run for it.

See, I'd rather let any character "cause a distraction" to give advantage to his allies Stealth checks. I mean, I guess you could have some "add a extra die roll" power as well...

Healing at level 1 doesn't mean a lot of healing at level 1.

First Aid: As a bonus action, a creature can spend a hit dice and stand up if they are prone. A creature can only benifit from this once per short rest" works just fine, IMO.
Then you can take the feature/subclass to boost closer to cleric levels.

Seems strong for a bonus action. Maybe as a normal action.

Also, I'm not Yaarel. I can't answer what he wants.

Funny enough, there are as many warlord wishlists and grains of sand on the beach. Part of the problem with trying to nail this down.

Yea. The 1e/2e ranger has been pretty well killed and gutted. Nothing special about him.

Aside from Favored enemy, what does the 1e/2e ranger get that the 5e doesn't?

Weapon/Armor Proficiency: Looks right. Rangers weren't plate-mail wearers, so light/medium seems right.
Dual-Wielding (2e): Still an option.
Double first level hp (1e): A wonky rule that doesn't need to be. He's had d10s in nearly every edition since.
Favored Enemy (1e/2e) This needs fixing. Getting level to damage against nearly 1/2 the MM is a little too strong, but I see no reason a bonus to damage can't be in the cards.
Tracking. Hmmm. Rangers get survival as a skill.
Hide/Move Silently (2e): They also get Stealth as a skill.
Animal Empathy (2e): Animal Handling, also a skill
Spells: More, earlier, and mostly druidic. They lost the 1e wizard spells, I guess.
Use Crystal Balls (1e) A silly Aragorn-only rule. Next.
Animal Companion: Beastmaster says "hi".

The biggest issue with the ranger is that since the skill system is now standardized, some abilities a ranger got (tracking, stealth, animals) are universal skills now. The 5e ranger needs tweaking, but I don't see it as a lost cause.

Same guy, new name.
Since the "ranger" doesn't have a stchick anymore, we can pass the title down to the next generation.

Well... just a suggestion anyway. I personally don't care what it's called. I care how it plays.

So you don't actually care about the warlord archetype. Got it.

To me, it's about both.

I generally want non-magical characters who can do interesting things besides damage.
I specificly want the tactician archetype who almost never swings his sword. (I personally don't care for the inspiring one, but no need to shut it out).

Generally, non-magical characters in 5e excel at combat prowess or skill prowess. Expansion into "near-magical" martial effects seems like it would be better served in a "Book of 9 Swords" style book where the whole combat system and class system could be changed to match it. I just don't see that happening from WotC, but a 3PP could (and should) take up that mantle.
Specifically, I don't want a warlord who never touches a weapon. I want one that fights, leads, gives buffs, uses tactics, and heals some. I want a warrior first, you want a warrior last.

We'll agree to disagree on both these goals, as we want the exact opposite from a warlord class.

 

[mellored]

See, I'd rather let any character "cause a distraction" to give advantage to his allies Stealth checks. I mean, I guess you could have some "add a extra die roll" power as well...

I'd rather let any character read a spell book or pray to for magic.
But sure.

Anyone can cause a distraction as an action.
Warlords can do it as a bonus action.
Skirmishing warlord can do it as a bonus action and give a bonus die.

Seems strong for a bonus action. Maybe as a normal action.

I don't see it.
Healing word is a bonus action that gives 1d4+wis, and doesn't cost a hit die so they can still heal that hit die later. That's about 80% more healing and a 60' range. (I was thinking melee, for first aid, if i didn't say it).

Funny enough, there are as many warlord wishlists and grains of sand on the beach. Part of the problem with trying to nail this down.

Or, just give people a bucket and let them pick up the grains that intrest them.

For reference, there are 29 wizard cantrips, and 36 first level spells. And no one is forcing all wizard to take magic missile.

Aside from Favored enemy, what does the 1e/2e ranger get that the 5e doesn't?

Aside from favored enemy, which he no longer has, what's unique to a ranger?

Fighter has weapons, armor, dual wielding, d10 hit dice, and can pick up survival, stealth, and animal empathy skills, and even wizard spells with the eldritch knight and the magic initiate feat. And anyone can buy a pet.

That leaves weapons + spells as their thing.
And many people want a spell-less version.

So you don't actually care about the warlord archetype. Got it.

I fully support the warlord archetype. Whatever that means to whomever says it.

I put extra support into tactician archetype.

Generally, non-magical characters in 5e excel at combat prowess or skill prowess.

Which is like forcing wizards to fill up half their spell slots with magic missile and fireball. Kinda a silly thing to do.

Expansion into "near-magical" martial effects seems like it would be better served in a "Book of 9 Swords" style book where the whole combat system and class system could be changed to match it.

I don't see why it needs to be "near magical" to say "look at me" while your allies hide. And I really don't see any need to change any of the system.

But, I don't see any reason why you can't have near-magical "school of the sublime way" sub-class as well.

Specifically, I don't want a warlord who never touches a weapon. I want one that fights, leads, gives buffs, uses tactics, and heals some. I want a warrior first, you want a warrior last.

Good thing I support all versions of the warlord under the same class. Even ones that are different than my idea.

At level 1, select some of the following.
Lead the front: When you take the attack action, you can use your bonus action to buff.
Lead from behind: You can use your action to give a buff. In addition to your bonus action buff.
Heal some: You can heal some.
Near-Magic: You can perform a near-magic maneuver.
<insert the other 20 options>

See. Easy.

 

[Kinematics]

Specialization, unquestionably.

OK, this, I think, is a notable point. You see it unquestionably as a specialization class. I see it as very strongly a uniqueness class. This causes very different approaches to defining character concept for the class and its subclasses.

The specialization approach depends on its gambits. As you've already described, you expect all Warlords to select from a very long list of gambits (effectively, create a spell list for the class), and you expect that selection of gambits, with possible enhancements via subclass, to be how the character is defined. Basically, the character concept is defined by the player's choice of what his Warlord can do, which turns it into a puzzle game, or alt-spellcaster class. You can theoretically build whatever you want, but the game doesn't help you.

The uniqueness approach depends on subclasses. It may have gambits (I haven't tried to build the mechanics for it), but the character concept is tied to the subclass, rather than the class+gambit selection. It builds on more narrowly-defined ideas to help shape what the character is like, which I think is essential for a class that has a much weaker class concept definition.

In any case, this creates divergent approaches in even building the class, right from the start. And it's not the only divergence, as Zard mixes the two together. He puts the gambit selection system in the main class, and then adds subclasses that come in at level 3. Given how weakly he defines his subclasses, it really should be built with the subclasses coming in at level 1.

Take the tactical warlord, for instance, the tactical demands of a given situation might call for almost any gambit, if he had 'opposition schools' like an old-timey 2e wizard, he'd be unable to use certain battle plans just because they required he be even a teeny bit inspiring or perceptive or whatever. The Warlord'll need a lotta gambits, and any given warlord might conceivably use any of them - but, it's personal style & inclination, the doctrines it follows, and so forth might make it better suited to or better using some sub-set of them.

This also shows a different approach in the build. I would try to introduce unique mechanics per subclass, whereas you want everything built out of the same mechanic system. I'll admit that I likely would see if the Tactical Focus system could be a class feature for all the subclasses to draw from, but I would try to avoid choice-based mechanics at the class level, and instead try to make each subclass feel really different.

I think you might be getting hung up on mechanics, yourself, with those four. You're trying to group concepts together by how they might do things, mechanically

I build the concepts first, and then put together some vague ideas on mechanics that could go with them. What does this person do? How do they think? How do they approach problems? Then after that, What sort of mechanics might support such an approach?

I tried to think of characters that fit the general idea first. For example, Shin, in the manga "Kingdom", is the commander of a 5000 man army. But he's not a Commander (subclass). He throws himself into the fray, generally works on keeping his men inspired, and fights like a madman, refusing to go down. The 'Commander' is the girl who acts as the company's strategist, handling resources, planning tactics, and so forth. But I see Shin as a Warlord-type, falling into the Icon/Self-sacrificing hero archetype. Rather than weakness to draw the enemy in, it's foolish bullheadedness that puts him in the middle of the mess and keeps him there. Typical shonen hero stuff.

Mechanically, that would be supported by damage resistance, healing by inspiring the troops, the Rallying Cry feature, fierce determination, strong combat skills, etc.

Alternatively, you have Usagi of Sailor Moon, who is effectively playing the same type of character, except that she uses her clumsiness to avoid damage, and isn't such a great fighter (but still has the necessary finisher magic). They are both Icons, heroes, inspirational for their allies and a magnet for their foes. They are not tactical geniuses. They don't figure out elaborate plots and plans. They wouldn't have a clue how to set things up to defend a castle, or crush an enemy in an ambush. They are not just Warlords with a slightly different specialization and gambit selection, they are completely different character concepts than Tylor or Lelouche or Parson, even if they have the same basic core.


In order to be convincing at a general player level (and more specifically, the general player of 5E, not 4E, and not the narrow group of character optimizers), I feel like the level 3 approach works better. It's not the only way to build it, though, and the gambit-puzzle approach can also work (it basically turns Warlord into Wizard). It's just going to lead to a very differently structured class design, which leads to conflicts in understanding.

Give Mike Mearls' comment about not enough design space for more subclasses, I suspect he's also approaching it from the level 3 perspective. While I do feel like it's got a reasonably solid basis to work from, I don't see a lot of growth potential for new concepts, at least offhand. The level 1 approach has a practically unlimited number of design combinations, but those designs aren't character concepts, which makes it very difficult to define how far it can actually go.

 

[Yaarel]

I just see it as a second word that sounds better than 'exploit' (like 'maneuver'). To make a viable support character from first that remains viable through all levels based on 'gambits' they'd have to have rather a lot of them to choose from, and a fairly high degree of flexibility in choosing which ones to execute in a given encounter. And, the feature, whether CS dice, maneuver, gambit or some combinations would have to be level-gated, so that as the party advances, the Warlord keeps up with their needs and continues to complement their growing abilities. One problem with the BM is that his maneuvers failed in that regard, being essentially all 'low level' abilities.

Ah. I had no idea that the term ‘gambit’ was being used this way.

To me, a gambit always means an ‘opening move’. But one that sets up future moves.

I guess ‘gambit’ could work for a strategic maneuver. But it is always one that requires an other movement to follow up. And it is never the conclusive move in itself.


In the sense of a requiring a follow-up move. The term ‘gambit’ is actually a good technical term for granting an extra attack.

 

[mellored]

The specialization approach depends on its gambits. As you've already described, you expect all Warlords to select from a very long list of gambits (effectively, create a spell list for the class), and you expect that selection of gambits, with possible enhancements via subclass, to be how the character is defined. Basically, the character concept is defined by the player's choice of what his Warlord can do, which turns it into a puzzle game, or alt-spellcaster class. You can theoretically build whatever you want, but the game doesn't help you.

it's easy enough to provide guidance while keeping the options open.

Tactician: you are a tactical master...
Suggested Gambits: Shift, Commanders Strike, Lead the assault.

Alternatively, the domain spell style.
Tactician: you gain the following bonus gambits. (Plus some open choices.)

Would be nice if wizards also got a suggested spell list too.

which I think is essential for a class that has a much weaker class concept definition.

IMO there is more of a class concept than wizards, sorcerers, or fighters. Which is just "person who cast spells" and "guy with better weapons and armor".
About the same as monk and rogue.
But it less definition than bard, barbarian, paladin.