Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[FrogReaver]

Something like that. Or maybe 1 per level. Some examples...

*First Aid: As a bonus action, you can heal someone 1d4+Int HP and let them stand up. A creature can only benefit from this once per short rest.
*Direct the Strike: When a creature you can see makes an attack, you can use your reaction to give them advantage.
*Rally: When you roll initiative, each ally who can see and hear you gains THP equal to half your level (minimum 1).
*Helper: When you take the help action, you can help all your allies within 30'.
*Battle Ready: You and your allies gain +2 bonus to initiative.

Level 5/11/17: I see 2 general options.
1: Multi-gambit. You gain an extra reaction/bonus action/or otherwise let gambits stack...

2: Higher level gambits. More powerful gambits.
*Recuccitate: When a creature has died from in the last minute, and not from massive damage, you can spend 3 rounds performing an advanced medical technique, physically pushing air into their lungs and forcing their heart to beat, in order to bring them back to life. They are stabilized 0 hit point. Once you use this feature, you cannot do it again until you take a long rest.
*Alpha Strike: When you roll initiative, allies gain advantage on their first attack that battle.
*Inspiring Presence: At the start of each of their turn, your allies who can see you gain THP equal to your Charisma modifier.

Or some mix of the 2. Like stronger gambits at level 5, extra reaction at level 11.

As an example... with both stacking and scaling gambits.

Level 1 novice-tier gambit: Your party gains +2 to initiative.
Level 3 sub-class feature: Your party has advantage on initiative.
Level 5 adept-tier gambit: You party can move half their speed when they roll initiative.
Level 11 paragon-tier gambit: Your party gains advantage to attacks on their first turn.
Level 17 epic-tier gambit: The enemy gains disadvantage on saves until their first turn.
level 18: another novice-tier invocation: At the start of each of their turns, your allies gain THP equal to half your warlord level (9 THP).

All useful.

Yes. Just turn spell into invocations, like some spells already are and give more invocations.
i.e.
Devils Flame: (prerequisite level 5) You can cast fireball once per short rest. Increase the damage by 1d6 at levels 7, 9, and 10.
Amor of Agathys: You can cast armor of agathys once per short rest. This improves at levels 3,5,7,9 and 10.
Disco Ball (prerequisite level 5): You can cast hypnotic pattern once per short rest.
Devils Charm: (prerequisite level 11): You can cast mass charm once per long rest.


Not that I would recommend it for the warlock, since it would be bit awkward to keep track of all those different expended resources.
But you don't need to keep track of whether you used at-will stuff or not.

I do promise to try and get back to this. It's a much better discussion than constantly defending the warlord against the same stale complaints over and over again.

 

[FrogReaver]

There could be a compromise, if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions. (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about "playstyle.")

I'd just as soon dismiss this whole Warlord idea, but I've tried really hard to both understand the appeal and to find mechanics/fluff that address the goals. There are some participants, though, who won't budge on any of their demands: a class/subclass that delivers a similar playstyle isn't enough; it has to be the same Warlord, with all the same abilities, that they recall from previous editions.

I think I've seen solutions to almost every single desire/expectation that I'd be ok with, except for this non-magical healing thing. And I've seen the same from other posters as well. It really is the sticking point. Ok, I suppose that plus at-will action granting. I would have thought that Warlord proponents would be willing to temper those two demands, so that "action granting" has some limitations, and "healing" is a composite of damage prevention, temp HP, and maybe short rest bonuses, if by agreeing to that they could have an "Int-based support/tactical martial fighter."

But, no, that's not good enough. It has to have everything.

As long as some people think of listening and compromise as "backing down", this discussion will...well, just look at well that's turned out in Washington D.C.

You can't demand someone compromise without asking why they should. What do warlord fans gain from compromising with you on any one of these issues? Is our compromise going to bring an official warlord class any closer? If it's about homebrew, why should we worry about compromising there unless its literally impossible to create a balanced warlord with all the kinds of features we are talking about. But instead of talking about possible features being overpowered or ways to make them acceptable you are talking about compromising on the basic concepts of non-magical healing, inspirational abilities etc.

So really what are you doing here other than crapping on a concept you don't even like and making demands about it that aren't going to impact you one way or another?

 

[mellored]

So... we should give the warlord spells?!

No. We should give them the same choices that casters get.

i.e.
A big list of special powers to choose from. One of which is healing, one gives THP, one gives bonus AC, one gives bonus movement, one gives bonus to-hit, one slows enemies, and so on...

Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.

I agree. And I wasn't suggesting warlords get spell slots.
Insetad, turn spells into martial equivalents.

i.e.
Guiding Bolt -> Lead the Assault: When you attack an enemy, you can use a bonus action to push them into a vulnerable position. The next attack roll made against this target before the end of your next turn has advantage.

Bless -> Coordinate Assault: As an action, you can select a creature, any attack against that creature before the end of your next turn gains +1d4 to-hit.

Heroism -> Inspire Bravery: As an action, one creature gains temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier and is immune to fear until the start of your next turn.

Shield of Faith -> Shield Wall: As a bonus action, each friendly creature adjacent to you gains +2 AC until the end of your next turn.

Grease -> Trip: As a bonus action, you can attempt to knock a creature prone.

Haste -> Tactical Oversight (prerequisite, level 5): As an action, select a creature. It gains an additional action on it's next turn. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.

Forsight -> Calculate Future: (prerequisit, level 17): As a bonus actoin, select a creature. Until the start of your next turn, the target can't be surprised and has advantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. Additionally, other creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls against the target for the duration.

etc...

 

[FrogReaver]

The best way IMO to get a Warlord class is to show WOTC a version of one that actually works and appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans in general. There's hard liners on both sides that are extreme vocal minorities that will always say what's presented doesn't work for them.

The great thing is that even if WOTC doesn't use such a design it makes a great homebrew class that can be shared and used at many tables. So either way, designing a working functioning warlord class with fairly broad appeal, this isn't over powered, that meets our checklist without being something to intrusive/annoying/commanding into other PC's that are playing at a warlord PC's table is the best option for Warlord fans. It will have the best chance of being incorporated into something official and it will have the best chance of seeing use at the most tables if it's designed with this in mind.

So really why, are we getting bogged down in having the age old "inspirational healing" debate. Why are we even talking about siloing certain warlord concepts into subclasses that should all be options for a general warlord class. Why are we talking about giving up attack granting when there's various ways to make that ability work. Why are we talking about compromise when a warlord with nearly every feature we ever wanted is closer than ever.

The rest is just going to come down to design decisions and implementation decisions which are going to inform each other a bit. We need to really go deep into each design and see the pros and cons and what it can allow and what it can't and what solutions we have for balancing these things in that particular framework.

Once we have done this and seen the tricks used to make the other design implementations work then we can make a final pass and hopefully one design at this point will stand out as the clear best and we can actually start creating abilities and subclasses for it.

 

[Jester David]

Not really. Caster's don't typically get their spells silo'ed off in subclasses. Though there are a few subclasses that get spells the primary class can't get and those spells are usually tied to flavor more than anything else.

Which still assumes the best way to design a warlord is as a spellcaster with "spell" crossed out.

I disagree. As a martial class, the design should resemble the fighter or the rogue more than the wizard.
It doesn't need to get "spells" or have to pick from a list of At-Will and Encounter powers. That's 4th Edition design.

Here's the thing. A tactical themed warlord should have the option of sometimes shouting at his allies and getting them to fight longer or of not doing that at all. An inspirational themed warlord should sometimes have the option of providing some tactical insight or none at all.

First... why? Why should the player be expected to do something they chose not to focus on? Why should they have abilities taken away from their desired role
This is like mandating fighters not get an ASI at 4th level and instead get the Healer feat.
What's the benefit?

Second, this assumes the warlord subclasses are going to be "tactical" and "inspiring", which they probably should not be. I'm hard pressed to think more more bland and less descriptive names.

Siloing off these abilities into subclasses or making one the sole purpose of the main class really is an attempt at declaring that one type of warlord is okay, but that others are not and that's not really okay. It sounds like good design at first but it falls flat on it's face. It'd be a lot like only giving evocation wizards evocation spells.

But, again, it's not a spellcaster. The Champion fighter doesn't get Maneuvers or spells. The Thief doesn't get the abilities of a Mastermind or the Assassin or the Scout.

Instead what we need is a primary warlord class that offers lots of options. Some inspiration themed, some tactical themed, some risk themed, etc. Subclasses should then be more like wizard subclasses that enhance particular flavors of a warlord.

Which just means the subclasses will be bland and samey, just making the class better at things it's already good at rather than adding anything unique. Not to mention likely devoid of any flavour or story.

Hard pass on that warlord.

 

[Draegn]

So... we should give the warlord spells?!

If all we're doing is renaming spells then then we can literally just use paladin or cleric or bard and just rename the class and its features. Done and done.

Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.

Agreed. They should also not play like "jedi". IMO a warlord should have charisma skills and gain retainers, henchmen and men at arms so that they have forces to conduct a war with.

 

[Jester David]

No. We should give them the same choices that casters get.

i.e.
A big list of special powers to choose from. One of which is healing, one gives THP, one gives bonus AC, one gives bonus movement, one gives bonus to-hit, one slows enemies, and so on...

I agree. And I wasn't suggesting warlords get spell slots.
Insetad, turn spells into martial equivalents.

Why?
Are we designing a class for 5e or for 4e? Because the warlord kinda already exists for 4e.

If we're designing it for 5e, shouldn't it look like a 5e class?

 

[Jester David]

The best way IMO to get a Warlord class is to show WOTC a version of one that actually works and appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans in general. There's hard liners on both sides that are extreme vocal minorities that will always say what's presented doesn't work for them.

The great thing is that even if WOTC doesn't use such a design it makes a great homebrew class that can be shared and used at many tables. So either way, designing a working functioning warlord class with fairly broad appeal, this isn't over powered, that meets our checklist without being something to intrusive/annoying/commanding into other PC's that are playing at a warlord PC's table is the best option for Warlord fans. It will have the best chance of being incorporated into something official and it will have the best chance of seeing use at the most tables if it's designed with this in mind.

Let's not kid ourselves here. No warlord that emerges from this site is ever going to get used by more than a half-dozen tables. And even the warlords on the DMsGuild are going to be lucky to see use in more than a table or two.
Let alone "appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans".

The best selling warlord class on the Guild has sold maybe 100 copies. All less than 250. And there's a couple fighter archetypes that have probably moved comparable numbers.

There's a lot of high selling classes on the Guild. All the Platinum books have sold 1000+ copies: which is roughly ten times that as most warlords. A Magus. A spellbinder. A pugilist. The dragon knight. A shaman.
And none of them have made it into an official product or been recognised in any way by WotC.

Heck, the best selling 3rd Party class, hands down, is the Blood Hunter. Which is popular enough to have made it into D&D Beyond. If you want an official warlord, you have to match that class' success. That's the bar.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's been discussed in the thread several times prior.

My concerns are this:
1) Only one class has baseline healing. The paladin. And that's only passable healing. Even the cleric doesn't have baseline healing, having to choose to prepare that spell. And another former leader class, the bard, can choose not to even know cure wounds.

I think warlord fans agree. There seems to be a decent consensus here that we want to see healing be an option for any warlord to pick rather than for it to be mandantory.

2) Only one cleric subclass gives you healing as a default option. All the others focus on other things, strongly implying the cleric isn't always assumed to be the healer. A War domain cleric or Tempest cleric or Trickster cleric might never heal.

We are fine with healing being an option. Just don't try to gate it behind a specific subclass.

3) More D&D players haven't played 4e than have played 5e. A warlord class should do things that a lay person would expect a smart tactical warrior to do. Healing isn't at the top of that list. This creates a disconnect between the description of the class and the execution that can be a trap for new players.

1. Granting an ally the will to keep on fighting is a common movie trope. That is something they are going to expect some warlords to be able to do.
2. Not all warlords are smart tactical warriors. some are inspiring warriors that suck at tactics, possibly a kind hearted and gullible but always there for you type of warrior.

4) Not everyone likes hp not being wounds. Or likes hp restoration being entirely done via morale. While restoring a little hp can be ignored (Healer feat, Second Wind), moral healing that's the equivalent of a full healer irks some people. The designers know this, which is why there's so many healing variants in the DMG. So DMs can choose to speed-up/ slow-down healing overnight.

I get that but,

#1. Warlord class isn't in the main book and unless we are talking Adventures league then all supplemental content is considered optional.
#2 If warlord abilities are just options and they don't like the healing ability then they can choose to ban just the healing ability instead of the whole class at their table.

We are bending over backwards at this point trying to make warlord healing something easy to remove if desired and to still have the class function. But it's too iconic of an ability (we've all seen it in the movies) to just up and not have it on a class that's supposed to at least have the option of inspiring allies.

5) There's a finite number of class features a warlord can have at low levels. Healing (a generic power) means fewer warlord powers (non-generic powers unique to the class). A healing warlord is a less warlordy warlord.

Only if you view healing as not something warlordy to begin with. Healing is very warlordy (we see the will to continue fighting trope in many movies). But beyond that, having healing be an option instead of a mandantory feature further resolves this complaint. If healing is just an option it doesn't have to be picked or even if picked ever used. You can have healing be a part of the class without it being mandantory so that every warlord gets it.

The thing is, in 5e, your party role is not determined by your class. Class = role is 4e design. And early 4e design at that, as they moved slightly away from that with Essentials. A 5e warlord that is designed like the other 5e classes shouldn't always be the "healer". Being the "healer" should be optional and something the player chooses to opt into because it fits their character.

Thanks for finally catching up with the rest of us.

A table with a warlord and a cleric, shouldn't have a redundant character. Both should be able to do different things. You should be able to have a healing warlord paired with a War cleric and a non-healing warlord paired with a Life cleric with both combinations playing very differently and no redundant powers.
The non-healer warlord shouldn't feel like they have wasted class features that aren't being used because there's a Life cleric. And the non-healer warlord also shouldn't feel pressured to spend their action healing in place of the abilities the actions they want to take.

Thanks again for finally getting to the same place the rest of us are at.


There's always a compromise.

Many have been suggested over the years. They just require moving the discussion forward. If no one ever stops to discuss and think of the alternatives, instead focusing on a fallacious either/or argument, then it just seems like there's no compromise.

Damage mitigation (preventing damage) is effectively the same as healing.

Sadly restoring an allies will to fight is more iconic for a warlord than being able to reduce damage. I do think we can do something with damage reduction but it's less fitting than healing.

As is granting temporary hit points

Prememtive temp hp going into battle is quite warlordy. BUT it's not a replacement for an ability where the warlord is watching his ally get beat up and yells something at him and the ally gains the will to fight again.

The warlord could also semi-heal through granting bonus Hit Dice that can be spent with regular Hit Dice.

I'm not opposed to hit dice manipulation with him. Perhaps that's how his healing inspiration ability works. Ally an ally to spend a hit dice to restore hp maybe with a bonus from the warlord. It still needs gated behind some long rest or short rest warlord ability, but I can see that as a possible implementation.

All those have the same effect of prolonging the adventuring day.

Sure, but many are far different abilities in fiction than the one where a character is giving an ally extra will to fight

(I like the idea of restoring fallen allies back up to 1 hp with additional temporary hit points, as it has the fun visual of the guy who still looks hurt and beaten to hell, but is refusing to go down. Rather than the wounds actually being healed.)

I like that too and there are a lot of variations for such an ability, some even involving healing or temp hp after the PC is at 1 Hp. It definietely ticks off the will to fight ability i'm talking about.

Preferably I guess I'd like to see both healing and something like this as an option.

Another compromise is just making the healing warlord a subclass. Which matches the rest of 5e design, as the healing sorcerer, warlock, druid, and even cleric are all subclasses.

Most of 5e design is about making healing abilities optional and not gating such abilities through subclasses. Xanathers did give some classes healing abilities through their subclasses but it's because healing abilities didn't fit on the general class for sorcerer or warlock at all. So subclasses enabled them. The conceptual piece pushed the design in that direction. With warlords its different. There's no conceptual reasons warlords, even the most tactically cunning warlords can't also do a few inspiring things.

And this means people who like the warlord as a concept but don't like healing can just dump that subclass.

I agree there. And I had considered that. But if warlord healing is just an option kind of like the cure wounds spell is an option, then you are able to remove the cure wounds spell or the warlord healing ability option without really impacting the class as a whole. Why doesn't that work for compromise?

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's not kid ourselves here. No warlord that emerges from this site is ever going to get used by more than a half-dozen tables. And even the warlords on the DMsGuild are going to be lucky to see use in more than a table or two.
Let alone "appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans".

The best selling warlord class on the Guild has sold maybe 100 copies. All less than 250. And there's a couple fighter archetypes that have probably moved comparable numbers.

There's a lot of high selling classes on the Guild. All the Platinum books have sold 1000+ copies: which is roughly ten times that as most warlords. A Magus. A spellbinder. A pugilist. The dragon knight. A shaman.
And none of them have made it into an official product or been recognised in any way by WotC.

Heck, the best selling 3rd Party class, hands down, is the Blood Hunter. Which is popular enough to have made it into D&D Beyond. If you want an official warlord, you have to match that class' success. That's the bar.

Maybe Dm's guild warlords sale bad because they are bad designed classes? Maybe just maybe the community here is capable of coming up with something much better than the DM's guild authors have.