Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Aldarc]

Warlord Conceptually

Well I think we all agree on the basic warlord, 1d8 HD, martial weapons, medium armor, probably fighter saving throws (con_+str).

Quick Note: I would probably go with Con and Int saves for the Warlord in order to distinguish it from the Fighter.

 

[Zardnaar]

Quick Note: I would probably go with Con and Int saves for the Warlord in order to distinguish it from the Fighter.

Makes sense I only have two problems with it.
1. Intelligence saves basically suck its almost like not being proficient in any saves.
2. Makes the intelligence based one a bit more "ideal" than the inspiring one.

Fighters and Sorcerers have the best saves in 5E, Rogues perhaps the worst.

It it even worth worrying about an inspiring one anymore? Just go Tactical and Bravura?

 

[Aldarc]

Makes sense I only have two problems with it.
1. Intelligence saves basically suck its almost like not being proficient in any saves.
2. Makes the intelligence based one a bit more "ideal" than the inspiring one.

Point taken.

Fighters and Sorcerers have the best saves in 5E, Rogues perhaps the worst.

Seems like the commonality there is Con saves rather than anything granted by the secondary saves.

It it even worth worrying about an inspiring one anymore? Just go Tactical and Bravura?

Perhaps depending upon how the inspiring was done. Some people think that the inspiring warlord is redundant with the valor bard, banneret, and paladin. Maybe it's worth considering whether there should be more Intelligence-based ways to play a Warlord than simply "tacitcal." I had proposed a divination/luck-based subclass for the Warlord. But I suppose that an Int-based field medic warlord that used alchemy and other means could also work.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't need to think outside the box. 5E doesn't have at weill action granting because its obvious how blatantly stupidly overpowered it would be and the Battlemaster for example is also the best fighter. Rogues exist in 5E, and even without them there are things like hunter rangers.
.

People keep arguing this point because it ISN'T obvious. Assume the following baseline:
Warlord Class
1d6 HD
Simple weapons, light armor.
2 skills, 2 saves
ASIs at 4,8,12,16,19.
Class feature: Action grant. You can spend your action to allow an ally with a level (or CR) of your level or lower to take any one action as a reaction.

Now, assuming that's it, no other class features, is it broken? It's obviously not the way a real class would be finalized, but with that framework and nothing else, it is OP?

 

[Zardnaar]

People keep arguing this point because it ISN'T obvious. Assume the following baseline:
Warlord Class
1d6 HD
Simple weapons, light armor.
2 skills, 2 saves
ASIs at 4,8,12,16,19.
Class feature: Action grant. You can spend your action to allow an ally with a level (or CR) of your level or lower to take any one action as a reaction.

Now, assuming that's it, no other class features, is it broken? It's obviously not the way a real class would be finalized, but with that framework and nothing else, it is OP?

Noble 2.0 and it allows spellcasting so yeah its a very bad idea. Go down that path you end up with the same thing the noble has. In the right party it out right broken in the wrong party your class sucks.

That is not good class design even the worst classes in 5E are still ok at worst assuming the player doesn't pumpkin it up. Stick that in a party with say a warlock, ranger (archer, Rogue) and a Paladin in it and you are basically giving up your pathetic attack and can switch between letting the warlock cast eldritch blast, the Rogue and the Ranger potentially with the -5/+10 feat two of them with hex/hunters quarry.

As discussed earlier a level 10 Sorcerer built entirely around spamming haste can't do that and haste is limited, has a downside and can be interrupted.

Change the party makeup and you have a pumpkin PC that can't really do much.

That is basically the problem with the EN5ider Noble among other things. 5E rewards min/maxing the party more than the individual already. For example multiple spellcaster to get around concentration, buffers to offset the -5/+10 feats, haste+ big hitter etc.

At this point people are just insisting on a 4E mechanic because it was in 4E and not good game design and even in 4E is was an option only, not a core part of the warlord class. And some players more or less figured out the lazy lord which from the sounds of it was not an intended build in 4E.

 

[TwoSix]

Noble 2.0 and it allows spellcasting so yeah its a very bad idea. Go down that path you end up with the same thing the noble has. In the right party it out right broken in the wrong party your class sucks.

In what party is it broken? I simply don't see it, over any other replacement character that actually brings resources.

 

[FrogReaver]

In what party is it broken? I simply don't see it, over any other replacement character that actually brings resources.

Are we talking action granting or attack granting? Being able to always use the best ability is very powerful.

It's like always having the abilities of 2 wizards when you need them. Always having the abilities of 2 clerics when you need them and always being able to do the highest DPR when you need to.

This particular ability allows 1 character to fulfill the role of any other character in the party

 

[mellored]

Are we talking action granting or attack granting? Being able to always use the best ability is very powerful.

It's like always having the abilities of 2 wizards when you need them. Always having the abilities of 2 clerics when you need them and always being able to do the highest DPR when you need to.

This particular ability allows 1 character to fulfill the role of any other character in the party

It's like having 2 wizards that share the same pool of spell slots.
So, no, you can't simply fulfill any role, because the those roles are limited.

Only rogues don't have a resource pool of some kind. Though sub-classes do.

 

[TwoSix]

Are we talking action granting or attack granting? Being able to always use the best ability is very powerful.

It's like always having the abilities of 2 wizards when you need them. Always having the abilities of 2 clerics when you need them and always being able to do the highest DPR when you need to.

This particular ability allows 1 character to fulfill the role of any other character in the party

I'd still rather bring a light cleric or something. This hypothetical warlord isn't providing any spell slots, or even another concentration slot. I don't see any spell combination that's going to win a fight that the party members you're enabling couldn't simply do themselves on their own turns. This hypothetical warlord just lets you get out a particular combination faster, if needed.

 

[Zardnaar]

In what party is it broken? I simply don't see it, over any other replacement character that actually brings resources.

I gave you a list of broken stuff. Rogue and Warlock come to mind. It's also action granting at level 1 at will. Aalso raises issue of level dipping. A lore bard can take a single level of this and gets a massive upgrade.

It's also worse than 2 rogues or two wizards etc. It's 2 of whatever you need at the time. Even if you limited it to casting cantrip you still have warlock.

That's the basic fundamental problem of at will action/attack granting in 5E. 5E doesn't have basic attacks and some "strikers" deal a lot more damage than 4E equivalents.