Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Hussar]

Some good stuff here. I think I'll have to take a stab when I have a few more minutes. Bookmarked for later reference.

Just to be clear here though, we're looking at a full class or subclass?

 

[FrogReaver]

Warlord's Aid - Aid takes many forms. Sometimes it comes from an inspiring shout and an ally is urged to fight on after being hit. Sometimes it's sharing tactical brilliance that helps an ally knock an enemy prone. Sometimes it's your own bravery and fighting that inspires allies instead of your words. Other times it comes from an insightful understanding of your foes that enables you to alert your allies out of dangers way just in time. Whatever the sources for your ability to aid other's it's frequency and power is renowned amongst your friends.

Abilities granted by Warlord's Aid can be used once per round in combat. Aid abilities generally require a trigger and grant an effect. These abilities do not require any kind of action on your part. Warlord's Aid abilities improve at 5th and 11th level granting improved effectiveness to your already chosen maneuvers as well as opening up a few new ones.

I wanted to expand on this Warlord's Aid style of ability a little and the theory around how and why it will work.

Almost all the Warlord classes power will come by it's aids. Aid's will start with minor effects. At level 5 they will upgrade and start providing extra damage, extra attacks, and stronger buffs and debuffs. At level 11 they will upgrade again and provide even stronger effects.

This means the Warlord base class will not see extra attack. However, some level 5+ Aid's will feature him being able to make a second attack when he uses that particular Aid. Some may even feature an ally getting an extra attack. By removing extra attack and most other ways of scaling Warlord Damage we allow Warlord's Aid to empower some pretty strong effects while still being able to remain at will.

 

[Jester David]

I've had plenty of time to muse on the warlord over the years. And I did an attempt as a fighter subclass a while back (renamed the Commander).

Design Thoughts
The big design goals for a warlord class would be:
* Use Intelligence. Charisma is the bard's thing. There's no martial class that uses Int. That's a nice gap. Doubling down on being the "smart fighter" better defines the class.
* Reward smart play. The warlord is the strategic mastermind. Players interested in that concept likely want more tactical play, and the class can support that.
* Encourage teamwork. The class should make the other characters better and imply coordination.

I'd likely focus on reactions with the class, making the warlord the character all about off-turn actions.

Role
If a warlord class is going to be added, it should focus on what the concept should do. What you would expect a "warlord" to do. Especially new players unfamiliar with past implementations: you shouldn't have to fight against expectations.

I'm less concerned about forcing the class to be the "martial healer" as healers are a character role in 5e and not a class role. A player should be able to make their warlord into the healer if they want, but the person wanting to play the warlord in a different role shouldn't be saddled with a bunch of healing they don't want to use.

"Cleric replacement" is a lame niche for a class. Having the sorcerer be the "wizard replacement" would do a disservice to that class.
The idea of making a class just to be a "non-magical buffer" is weak, being needless grid filling. We also shouldn't make a class just be to the "nonmagical pet class" or the "spell-less AoE damage class".

Healing
Only one class in the game has assumed healing: the paladin. Every other class has to opt into being a healer.
It's not an essential part of the druid or the bard or even the cleric. So it doesn't *need* to be an essential assumed part of the warlord. It gets in the way of the concept. Move healing to a subclass.

Does there need to be more healing in a low-magic campaign? Maybe. But hp recovery is fast already with overnight healing, and there's Hit Dice to speed that up.
Even assuming HD aren't enough, if you're changing the base assumptions of the game (i.e. low magic, no spellcasting classes) the best way to tweak gameplay is variant rules, and not a class. Changing how hp is regained, added a Healing Surge optional rule, and the like.
Making that one class essential is bad design. No one should *have* to play the cleric in the base game, and so no one should *have* to be the warlord in a low magic game.

Subclasses
The 4e subclasses for the warlord are lame. They have unremarkable story hooks and zero fluff. We don't need a repeat of the Champion and Battle Master.
These need to be tossed out.

* Chirurgeon. The boring one. The healer. It restores hp. Whee.
I do like the "overhealing" Meals suggested. That'd fit nicely in there.
Maybe it could hand out bonus HD to people, allowing more healing at rests. It should also do things like allow extra saving throws with a bonus against poisons and diseases. Perhaps in place of the bonus Hit Dice, where the die is rolled and becomes a bonus on the save. (Healing Surge dice?)

* Guerrilla. The sneaky warlord that works with ambush tactics and dirty tricks. They help the party hide, and grant their allies a bonus against surprised creatures. They might also spot ambushes.

* Herald. The hornblower or bugler, who signals their allies. A blast of their warhorn inspires their allies as they rush into battle (aka they give out temporary hit points). The herald can also warn their allies, allowing them to act despite being surprised, or ready themselves for battle more quickly.

* Lancer. A common build of 4e warlords was the spearman/pikeman: giving them a polearm let them fight behind the Defender, where their melee skills would be useful but they wouldn't be base-2-base with enemies. This can draw inspiration from knights as well as dragoons from Final Fantasy, with abilities that give bonuses with polearms and spears, likely via a Fighting Style variant. (Bonus points if it allows for a finesse spear wielder like Oberyn Martell.)

* Standard Bearer. The dude with the flag mobilising the troops. This would be the warlord who directs the action, allowing allies to shift their position. More focused on ally mobility and "castling".
There might also be some more limited morale boosting, by planting the flag and rallying the troops, or preventing people from being moved away from the standard (aka hold the line).

* Vanguard. The lead from the front character. Better armour, and a little more tanky. When they charge, they can bring allies along with them. Maybe some damage mitigation, for themselves and their allies.

Filled Features

A lot of the basic skeleton would be filled:
3 - Subclass
4 - ASI
5 - Extra Attack
6 - Subclass
8 - ASI
10 - Subclass
12 - ASI
14 - Subclass
16 - ASI
19 - ASI

So, really, only ten levels of powers are really needed.

(Plus, 2nd level should probably also have Fighting Style. Like the Paladin and the Ranger. But that's only half a level's features. )

Class Features
Levels 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are still empty.

Looking at the 4e warlord, one of the consistent abilities of the warlord was making other people's Action Surge even more awesome. Not sure how to translate that. And it's not something the warlord is actively part off, so it'd be weak first level power.
But maybe it could be tweaked. When an ally hits with an attack, you can trigger a bonus, like moving 10 feet or some bonus damage. Likely once a round. “Tactical Acumen” is a cool name. Subclasses can also add additional options to this, like the rogue’s Cunning Action. (Or the warlord could just use it when they hit.)

The 4e version often had a bonus to initiative, which is cool. Messing with initiative in generally would be fun. Having the ability to allow characters to "delay" and change their initiative order would be neat, or swap turns with the warlord.
That might be a good, small 2nd level feature. You can modify your Initiative by your Intelligence, adding or subtracting it. Meanwhile, swapping with another character (or swapping other characters in general) might be a fun 13th level feature.

For 7th level, something more complicated could be cool. A “Stratagem” mechanic where at the end of a rest you give a character a bonus they can trigger. It gives you the flavour of having anticipated a situation and been ready. They might get additional uses and better strategems at 11, 15, and 18. With "Master Stratagem" as the capstone.

This leaves level 17 as one where I got nothing. I'll come back for that...

 

[Zardnaar]

When I hear the term skirmisher, I think ‘light infantry’, and especially think of athletic warriors running, jumping, with less armor and more mobility.

Historically, the skirmisher division split off the subset of special operations. A handful of people on a covert operation. These are the tip of the spear, sotospeak, and fighting smart and sneaky. There are roguish abilities in play. But like US marines, seals, and rangers, they are strong warriors.

When you characterize the term ‘skirmisher’, I am reading ‘guerilla’. Reasonable enough.

If the term ‘skirmisher’ is being used, I want to play up the mobility aspect, with high Strength and athletic skill checks, fast speed, gymnastic grace. But it seems appropriate to also play up the high Intelligence tactics that can slip thru highly volatile scenarios.

A covert mission is minimalist. Each member represents an essential contribution. The team leader is especially important to coordinate and optimize these contributions.

Nope they used them as far back as Ancient Greece. One of the 1st losses inflicted on the Spartans was by light infantry in rough terrain at Pylos IIRC. Light infantry is not always skirmishers but all skirmishers are basically light infantry if that makes any sense.

Skirmishers are basically Rogues, monks and certain fighter or ranger builds I suppose. Dex based in a D&D context, historically it jut means they were not expected to fight in formation and wore little to no armor.

 

[FrogReaver]

I've had plenty of time to muse on the warlord over the years. And I did an attempt as a fighter subclass a while back (renamed the Commander).

Design Thoughts
The big design goals for a warlord class would be:
* Use Intelligence. Charisma is the bard's thing. There's no martial class that uses Int. That's a nice gap. Doubling down on being the "smart fighter" better defines the class.
* Reward smart play. The warlord is the strategic mastermind. Players interested in that concept likely want more tactical play, and the class can support that.
* Encourage teamwork. The class should make the other characters better and imply coordination.

I'd likely focus on reactions with the class, making the warlord the character all about off-turn actions.

Role
If a warlord class is going to be added, it should focus on what the concept should do. What you would expect a "warlord" to do. Especially new players unfamiliar with past implementations: you shouldn't have to fight against expectations.

I'm less concerned about forcing the class to be the "martial healer" as healers are a character role in 5e and not a class role. A player should be able to make their warlord into the healer if they want, but the person wanting to play the warlord in a different role shouldn't be saddled with a bunch of healing they don't want to use.

"Cleric replacement" is a lame niche for a class. Having the sorcerer be the "wizard replacement" would do a disservice to that class.
The idea of making a class just to be a "non-magical buffer" is weak, being needless grid filling. We also shouldn't make a class just be to the "nonmagical pet class" or the "spell-less AoE damage class".

Healing
Only one class in the game has assumed healing: the paladin. Every other class has to opt into being a healer.
It's not an essential part of the druid or the bard or even the cleric. So it doesn't *need* to be an essential assumed part of the warlord. It gets in the way of the concept. Move healing to a subclass.

Does there need to be more healing in a low-magic campaign? Maybe. But hp recovery is fast already with overnight healing, and there's Hit Dice to speed that up.
Even assuming HD aren't enough, if you're changing the base assumptions of the game (i.e. low magic, no spellcasting classes) the best way to tweak gameplay is variant rules, and not a class. Changing how hp is regained, added a Healing Surge optional rule, and the like.
Making that one class essential is bad design. No one should *have* to play the cleric in the base game, and so no one should *have* to be the warlord in a low magic game.

Subclasses
The 4e subclasses for the warlord are lame. They have unremarkable story hooks and zero fluff. We don't need a repeat of the Champion and Battle Master.
These need to be tossed out.

* Chirurgeon. The boring one. The healer. It restores hp. Whee.
It's also likely do things like allow extra saving throws with a bonus against poisons and diseases. Maybe it could hand out bonus HD to people. I do like the "overhealing" Meals suggested. That'd fit nicely in there.

* Standard Bearer. The dude with the flag mobilizing the troops. This would be the warlord who directs the action, allowing allies to shift their position. More focused on ally mobility and "castling".
There might also be some more limited morale boosting, by planting the flag and rallying the troops.

* Vanguard. The lead from the front character. Better armour, and a little more tanky. When they charge, they can bring allies along with them.

* Guerrilla. The sneaky warlord that works with ambush tactics and dirty tricks.

...

I'm with you that we don't need to focus on making a warlord that goes out of it's way to heal as much as a cleric. I do think warlords should be able to grant temp hp and heal. Maybe the best implementation of a healing warlord is a subclass. Maybe not. I think there are mechanics we can add in to a warlord that are very flexible that can allow healing at the expense of damage or buffing etc. So I'm with you that it doesn't need to be a focus as it's just one expression of warlord leadership and inspiration but I'm not sure it has to be relegated to a subclass either.

I really like your subclasses, thought I'd prefer a different name than Guerilla for the final one. They are very good concepts and I'm going to start thinking in that direction for my own subclasses. They are much more 5e sounding and feeling than the more generic warlord ones I'm accustomed to seeing. Most subclasses help define who your character is in the world even though they primarily grant combat related abilities and these get right to the heart of that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

we don't need to focus on making a warlord that goes out of it's way to heal as much as a cleric.

It didn't in 4e, and it's not like healing is the funnest part of playing the cleric - it can even be regarded as a 'burden' - so there's literally no impetus to make a Warlord compete with the life cleric for that particular crown. It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting.

I do think warlords should be able to grant temp hp and heal.

The overhealing mechanism from the Happy Funtime podcast would be an ideal way to do both in an efficient, flavorful manner - that might also serve to reduce the whack-a-mole phenomenon just a bit.

Maybe the best implementation of a healing warlord is a subclass. Maybe not. I think there are mechanics we can add in to a warlord that are very flexible that can allow healing at the expense of damage or buffing etc.

A support class that focuses on just one aspect of support - like the miniatures handbook 'Healer' and Marshal - isn't a viable support class in full D&D. Likewise, one that isn't flexible isn't going to be up to the challenge. And, finally, flexibility lets players play the character they want. If the party already has a cleric, a player should be able to run his warlord without once using an 'Inspiring Word' type power - OTOH, if the cleric leaves the group, he just might start doing so. No vital support contribution should be locked away in a sub-class - really, nothing should be strictly locked away in a sub-class, sub-classes should make the Warlord better (or not so good) at things the base class does, rather than adding totally new capabilities or deleting anything (not that 5e sub-classes much do that latter).

 

[FrogReaver]

It didn't in 4e, and it's not like healing is the funnest part of playing the cleric - it can even be regarded as a 'burden' - so there's literally no impetus to make a Warlord compete with the life cleric for that particular crown. It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting. The overhealing mechanism from the Happy Funtime podcast would be an ideal way to do both in an efficient, flavorful manner - that might also serve to reduce the whack-a-mole phenomenon just a bit. A support class that focuses on just one aspect of support - like the miniatures handbook 'Healer' and Marshal - isn't a viable support class in full D&D. Likewise, one that isn't flexible isn't going to be up to the challenge. And, finally, flexibility lets players play the character they want. If the party already has a cleric, a player should be able to run his warlord without once using an 'Inspiring Word' type power - OTOH, if the cleric leaves the group, he just might start doing so. No vital support contribution should be locked away in a sub-class - really, nothing should be strictly locked away in a sub-class, sub-classes should make the Warlord better (or not so good) at things the base class does, rather than adding totally new capabilities or deleting anything (not that 5e sub-classes much do that latter).

WHOA! You said :"It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting."

This isn't true. Look I think there is a lot of space in the warlord design for healing or temp hp granting abilities and I want to see the Warlord get them. But it's just I can picture a Warlord without any of those abilities and he would be no less of a warlord. Even in 5e's economy he would function fine and still be a fine support character. There are also many mechanics that can mitigate damage and or keep allies on their feet without actually healing a single point of damage. It just takes some imagination.

I believe a Warlord's healing is best realized as an OPT IN ability instead of something that's inherent to every single warlord ever. A subclass does this. So does a broad mechanics that allow him to either heal or deal damage or buff allies etc. But as a core component of the main class that every warlord gets, it really doesn't need to be a focus. It's not an essential part of realizing the concept of a warlord but it's nonetheless a great way to do so if the player OPTs in to doing so.

By the way I love the overhealing mechanic. Depending on how healing is handled will depend on where that kind of feature should go.

I agree a support class needs a lot of options. I agree healing should be an option for warlords. I disagree on locking things away in subclasses. I think all subclasses have abilities locked away in them. Subclasses are a form of specialization and specialists can do things the non-specialists aren't capable of.

 

[Jester David]

I'm with you that we don't need to focus on making a warlord that goes out of it's way to heal as much as a cleric. I do think warlords should be able to grant temp hp and heal. Maybe the best implementation of a healing warlord is a subclass. Maybe not. I think there are mechanics we can add in to a warlord that are very flexible that can allow healing at the expense of damage or buffing etc. So I'm with you that it doesn't need to be a focus as it's just one expression of warlord leadership and inspiration but I'm not sure it has to be relegated to a subclass either.

The catch is that 3rd level is "the subclass level" while 4th is the ASI. And 5th should really be Extra Attack. The warlord isn't all about attacking, but it should keep pace with the ranger, paladin, barbarian, and Valour bard.
Similarly, like the paladin and ranger, it really needs Fighting Style so you can be good at archery, TWF, or the like. It's a nice customisation point.

That means you heal an insignificant amount at 2nd level (with Fighting Style) or healing is all you get at first level. But you really want a warlord to do, well, warlordy things at 1st level. (And 2nd level for that matter.) Things only the warlord can do.
Healing could be delayed until 6th/7th level (depending on when the second subclass feature kicks in). But it's still coming at the cost of some tactical powers. Stuff that could be unique to the class.

But I'd rather keep the warlord focused on tactical features and leave the healing in the subclass, where you can double down on those features. Otherwise you get the Vanguard warlord or Standard Bearer warlord with rando healing powers despite not being the "healer" character. If feels like a wasted level to the player (and an opportunity to just multiclass into fighter or cleric).

I really like your subclasses, thought I'd prefer a different name than Guerilla for the final one.

Not my finest name given the real world connotations, but it really conveys the concept. (And real world "warlords" aren't so nice either.) Guerrillas are military forces known for the ambush tactics of the same name, so with a single word it tells you exactly what the subclass should do.
But this is a super rough draft, so I'm open to suggestions.

They are very good concepts and I'm going to start thinking in that direction for my own subclasses. They are much more 5e sounding and feeling than the more generic warlord ones I'm accustomed to seeing. Most subclasses help define who your character is in the world even though they primarily grant combat related abilities and these get right to the heart of that.

I'm brainstorming more, but it's not as easy as some classes...
Reading about positions in medieval armies can give ideas. If I think of more I'll edit them in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

WHOA! You said :"It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting."

Yep, and you quoted it twice.

What I perhaps didn't make clear enough was that no individual warlord need necessarily /ever/ restore a single hp...

I believe a Warlord's healing is best realized as an OPT IN ability

We're in agreement. Think about it, the Cleric is the iconic healer of D&D, but in 5e, if even he must OPT IN to it by preparing Cure Wounds or Healing Word or the like. Of course, a Life Cleric that didn't cast some healing now and then would be a tad weird, but he could willfully do just that, using all his slots for other spells.

The option, though is vital to provide adequate support.

A subclass does this. So does a broad mechanics that allow him to either heal or deal damage or buff allies etc.

The sub-class does it too hard and too inflexibly, though. Oh, you're an Inspiring Warlord, you heal 2/Short Rest, enjoy? Tactical? Sorry, no heals, you party can drop dead? Not great. Inspiring Warlord - add your CHA mod when you use a gambit that restores hps? Much more reasonable.

But as a core component of the main class that every warlord gets, it really doesn't need to be a focus. It's not an essential part of realizing the concept of a warlord but it's nonetheless a great way to do so if the player OPTs in to doing so.

It's an essential part of realizing the concept behind the whole class, but no, not of realizing an individual warlord who specifically just doesn't go there. It's essential because of the game, itself. D&D doesn't have morale checks (has never had 'em for PCs, as far as I know), nor any other mechanic to model ongoing will to fight: except hps. Whether the individual warlord is literally a leader, just making battle plans, or veritable mascot, he needs to potential to influence that.

By the way I love the overhealing mechanic. Depending on how healing is handled will depend on where that kind of feature should go.
I agree a support class needs a lot of options. I agree healing should be an option for warlords.

Overhealing is a great mechanic, and should good at getting the support character who gets it to heal more proactively, as it eliminates some inefficiency. It seems like it would be a particularly good way of modeling the warlord's brands of inspiration.

Support classes need flexibility - options that can be exercised round by round, or day by day.

Needing to lock in certain of those options at chargen or level up is as good (bad) as not having them.

I disagree on locking things away in subclasses. I think all subclasses have abilities locked away in them. Subclasses are a form of specialization and specialists can do things the non-specialists aren't capable of.

It'd be like giving wizards back opposition schools - or giving clerics opposition domains that take spells away from their lists - or re-introducing weapon specialization so the fighter sucks unless he has his glaive-glaive-glaive-Guisarme-glaive.
Specialists are /better/ at things than non-specialist are at the same things. Especially true when the 'things' in question aren't in-born or God-given magical powers.

 

[Guest 6801328]

(snip)

I'd likely focus on reactions with the class, making the warlord the character all about off-turn actions.

(snip)

Great idea!