Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Jester David]

That's fine. You can play a fighter, or rogue, or barbarian.
And people who want a complex warlord character can play a bard.

And where are the classes for people who do not want to be a spell caster, but DO want to manage half-dozen opens each round?

Generally people want either complexity or non-complexity and magic is irrelevant. I don't imagine there's many people who want to play a class that's a lot like a spellcaster but just dislike magic.
If you hate magic as a concept, then D&D is probably the wrong game.

And simple martial classes already exsist in the game.

None that heal.
There's a gap for the warlord concept, a gap for a martial healer, and a gap for a simpler healer class. Why not marry the three?

Then the solution is to make a simple caster.
Priest:
Level 1: Healer: You gain a pool of healing equal to 2d8 per level, you can use as a bonus action. You gain sacred flame and light cantrips.
Level 5: Continual Blessing: As an action, select 3 people. They gain the benifits of the bless spell until you take a long rest, or until you use this feature again.
Level 6: Divine Sustenance: Once per day, you can cast create food and water.
Level 9: Sub-class choice.
*When you roll initiative, you can cast Haste on one creature.
*When you roll initiative, you can cast Spritual Guardian.
Level 11: Improved Healer: Increase your healing pool to 2d12 per level.
Level 20: You can cast true resurrection without any material components. Once you do so, you cannot do it again for a week.
etc...

Because then we're making another new class.

 

[mellored]

Generally people want either complexity or non-complexity and magic is irrelevant. I don't imagine there's many people who want to play a class that's a lot like a spellcaster but just dislike magic.

I disagree.
4e warlord has the same complexity as a 4e wizard (all classes did). And it was plenty popular.

There's a gap for the warlord concept, a gap for a martial healer, and a gap for a simpler healer class. Why not marry the three?

There's also a gap for complex martial. So why not marry all 4?

By say... having a default choice, but still allow alternatives?

Choose 2 tactics, gain 2 later.

Chirurgeon:
Suggested Tactics: HP boost, defense boost, movement boost, grant attack.

Guerrilla:
Suggested Tactics: Sneak boost, initiative boost, movement boost, damage boost.

Lazy: ....
Suggested Tactics: Grant attack, defense boost, initiative boost, damage boost.

Trickster:
Suggested Tactics: Cunning Strike, confuse enemy, damage boost, movement boost.

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s a pet peeve of mine in design. I really like when what the story of the mechanic matches the effect. You inspire/ direct someone to take and action, and they do so. You’re the active, and intiating figure in the narrative, and so the mechanic should begin with you.
It could work as a mechanic where in place of an attack you can Ready, and then use your reaction to grant an attack.

Not everyone wants to play a spellcaster. Not everyone wants to be managing multiple powers and choosing between a half-dozen options each round, all competing for the one action.
Martial characters in 5e are the more simple characters. By design for those people who want that sort of thing.
Part of the potential appeal of a good warlord class is that it should be lower complexity than a spellcaster like a bard or cleric. Because high complexity healers already exist in the game. The benefit of a non-spellcaster cleric isn’t a healer that works in anti-magic zones or low magic campaigns, but as a healer character for parties who need one that is less complex than a cleric.

The wizard has 29+44 but the rogue and barbarian have 1: what weapon to choose. And both are subtly limited. And the fighter has six related to weapons.
Because not everyone wants to pick between a dozen options. Some people just want to be the barbarian or the champion fighter or the rogue. And they should have a healer option as well...

Haven't there been multiple attempts at a "simple" warlord class on DM's guild and other such places that are not very good sellers / not very popular?

Hasn't your preferred method of designing a warlord already been proven to be a failure? We have the battlemaster, PDK, various DM's guild style offerings. Why should we give your preferred method of design another chance?

 

[Jester David]

Haven't there been multiple attempts at a "simple" warlord class on DM's guild and other such places that are not very good sellers / not very popular?

Yes. This is true. Most are of so-so quality.

Hasn't your preferred method of designing a warlord already been proven to be a failure?

That is not a reasonable conclusion given the number of other variables at play: the quality of the products, the visibility of the products, the size of the audience, awareness of the author, etc.

We have the battlemaster, PDK, various DM's guild style offerings. Why should we give your preferred method of design another chance?

Because there have also been more complicated versions that have ALSO sold poorly on the DMsGuild. And your method is very much associated with the designs of 4th Edition, which was also famously poorly recieved.
Why then, should we give your preferred method of design another chance?

Thankfully, we are not so limited and can continue to do our own thing with zero impact on the other, and my debating with mellored is unlikely to impact his design or my design.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thankfully, we are not so limited and can continue to do our own thing with zero impact on the other, and my debating with mellored is unlikely to impact his design or my design.

Then why do it?

 

[mellored]

IMHO, support necessarily includes some ability to stand up a fallen ally. Support is most critical when things have already gone wrong.

What about something like...

Last Stand: when an ally is reduce to 0 HP, they are instead reduced to 1 HP.

 

[FrogReaver]

What about something like...

Last Stand: when an ally is reduce to 0 HP, they are instead reduced to 1 HP.

I really like that ability. Maybe we can figure out a way to make something like that work.

 

[mellored]

I really like that ability. Maybe we can figure out a way to make something like that work.

"A creature can only benifit from this once per long rest." Seems like an easy way to limit it. With maybe "and gains THP equal to your Charisma score" or some such.

But would that be good enough to replace "real" healing?

 

[mellored]

Thankfully, we are not so limited and can continue to do our own thing with zero impact on the other, and my debating with mellored is unlikely to impact his design or my design.

Quite the contrary, I've already incorporated most of your suggestions, I'm going to steal some of your maneuvers, and put in in the "quick class" suggestions.
Maybe even word it so the simple is default, same as they do with items.

You start with the following items tactics, plus anything provided by your background sub-class.

<insert list>

Alternatively, you may choose any 2 tactic you want from the list.

I'm just not going to abandon customization and force simple just because it's a "martial" class.

And I hope my suggestions and ideas are useful to you too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Haven't there been multiple attempts at a "simple" warlord class on DM's guild and other such places ...?

More to the point the PDK is already a simple martial support sub-class. It fails at support because contributing support is not simple, and it fails as a Warlord, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But it's simple, and it fits w/in a sub-set of the concept, so for those players that want to play an inspiring martial leader, and want it in a simple, choiceless, package, there is already an option.

It's also worth noting that there are no simple classes in 5e, only simple sub-classes, like the Champion, and simple means DPR because that's the only contribution to party success that's innately simple.