Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
Tony Vargas
Legend
Stray character removed, no it wasn't a secret message
You're the one obsessing over at-will attack granting, and it was the only build that Actually leaned on that mechanic heavily. A Taclord might have the ability, but not use it that much, for instance, because much of the time an encounter or daily, or his other at will would be more useful.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
No True Warlord fan, eh?
No idea how you seen this applying to anything in the part of my post you quoted...
1. Sure, just like hold person is only a single wizard spell out of a list of probably 100. Yet it still finds it's way on the spell lists of many wizards...
The bottom line is that you have no evidence about what most warlords had or didn't have.
Okay, so at least you aren't throwing out abilities like attack granting but instead placing them inside a subclass. I can't say I agree with that assessment but I'm okay with waiting to see the subclasses before making a final judgment.
It meets the bar conceptually. Mechanically I haven't looked at yet and that's where you will get the most grief for a 5e class is in mechanical balance IME.
Poorly. It leaves off at least half or maybe more of the core concept around the class. Inspiration may be more of a defining trait than sounds tactics... it's at least debatable. So leaving off anything inspiring or relegating it solely to a subclass harms the concept of the class.
Sure, I only map out the first 5ish levels because if those can be gotten right then the rest of everything will relatively easily fall into place.
The basic concept is that the Warlord will have a number of once per round at will abilities that will scale as he levels. I've called the ability Warlord's Aid in the past but I'm not super excited about the name.
Level 1 - Warlord's Aid. Pick 3 of the following abilities. You may use Warlord's Aid once per round even on an ally or enemies turn. Unless noted otherwise the ability requires no action. The abilities automatically increase in effect at level 5 and level 11. The abilities often require a trigger to take place before the ability can be used. You learn additional Aid abilities as you level. At level 5 you gain an additional 1. At level 11 you gain an additional 1. You may also retrain Aid powers anytime you gain a new level in the Warlord Class.
Example ability -
Empowering Strike:
Trigger: When you attack an enemy
Level 1 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 1d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Level 5 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 2d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Level 11 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 3d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Warlord Point: You grant the ally advantage on his first attack.
Inspiring Shout
Trigger: When an ally is hit
...
Level 2: subclass ability
Level 3: Gain 5 Warlord Points per long rest. Each warlord point may be used to grant a Warlord's Aid ability an extra effect that's listed in the power
Level 4: ASI
Level 5: Warlord's Aid improvement
Level 6: subclass ability
Level 7: Warlord point improvement
...
Balance needs worked on a little
Last edited:
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Good thing we aren't enabling lazy lording anything like the noble does.
Hussar
Legend
No True Warlord fan, eh?
The majority of 4e warlords didn't grant actions either. Less than 50% of powers in the PHB1 granted attacks, and even fewer in MP and MP2.
(I ran a 4e game for a year with the warlord as the primary healer and she never used an attack granting power once.)
The lazylord was just one build of the warlord, and an unofficial build as it is.
As such, those abilities fit better as a subclass. I was going to fold those powers into the standard bearer when I got around to working on subclasses.
But how does it hold up to what 5e fans won't reject?
And how does it do with the concept of the class instead of the previous execution of the concept?
What's your warlord look like so far? Can we compare?
That's like saying less than 50% of wizard spells deal direct damage, so, it's okay for a wizard to not have fireball, lightning bolt and magic missile. I think your personal experiences might be coloring your perception here. We had several warlords in our 4e games and every single one of them was primarily about action granting.
About a third of the powers in the PHB grant actions. Maybe a quarter. That's HUGE. That is not some minor point that's easily ignored. You have to work to make a warlord in 4e that grants no attacks at all.
I mean, good grief, Commander's Strike is so iconic that it actually made the port into 5e under the Battlemaster.
Imma tellin' ya right now, a warlord that grants no attacks is a non-starter. Full stop.
Jester David
Hero
If, as you say, only 2/3rds or even 1/4 of the PHB powers grant attacks, then that's pretty easily acomplished. Especially once you add in the two Martial Power books.
Should it be possible for a warlord to grant attacks?
Yes. It can easily be in a subclass. Which was my intent from the start.
Does it need to be mandatory and something all warlords do at level 1?
No, probably not.
(This is all moot actually, because, if you think about it, the Stratagem class feature in my warlord totally grants an attack. Or an ability check. It's just less reactive and more proactive.)
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Thanks for illustrating the most important 2 design principles. If we want to design a useful Warlord class we have to at least hit on the main points for what 4e Warlord fans are looking for in the class. We also have to make sure it doesn't contain abilities that are going to be problematic for general 5e fans to accept.
Relegating attack granting and presumably inspiring healing into different subclasses feels a little off as you will have trouble recreating anything similar to even a 4e level 1 warlord. I'm still willing to see the final product but I think it's too much division of abilities and not enough unification of them.
Jester David
Hero
But not mandatory. And you wouldn't say that it was "iconic" of the wizard.
And you can't really make good analogies between spellcasting classes like the wizard and non-spellcasters. Especially wizards because they can learn so many superflous spells.
A better example might be the fighter and Weapon Specialisation or Power Attack. Those were super iconic elements of the fighter in 3e (the former in 2e and the later in 4e as well). Very useful and few fighters didn't take one or the other. But they still didn't become core assumptions of the game and didn't make it into the 5e fighter.
True. But neither of us have. That information is absent.
But I can note that people played the warlord for a couple years before the "princess build" emerged. And that the majority of powers did not support that concept.
*shrug* Disagree. The tactical aspects of the class are just as important and far more distinct, being unique and not just a retread of another class' shtick.
The opposite can be true. If the class doesn't offer anything new after level 6 or 7 it's easy to just multiclass out.
And the class becomes boring because it's all just more of the same with bigger numbers. Once you've spent 10 levels hitting and granting an ally 1-2d6 extra damage, granting them 3-4d6 extra damage doesn't feel compelling.
So... spells. Albeit non-magical ones.
Should the class that's designed explicitly not to cast spells be designed in a way where it doesn't resemble spellcasters? If someone wanted to play a character like that, they'd play a spellcaster. From a game design perspective, it's important that the non-magical class offer something else in terms of play.
This seems formatting almost exactly like a 4e power. You're literally giving the class At-Will powers.
I'm very much reminded of 4e psionic abilities with their power points.
If you need to spend Warlord Points to gain the effects, what can you do with that power at level 1 and 2 before you get the points?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Because Thus Saith Jester David?
Not really. The iconic ability of a fighter has been extra attack for as far back as I can remember. Fighter's still have that in 5e and are still iconic with it as they do it better than any other class.
Even without the full princess build that eventually emerged commander's strike was a power that was very often used.
I'm fine with saying just as important. Creating a class is not about trying to be distinct for the purpose of being distinct. It's about using mechanics that invoke the class concept all by themselves. Leaving out either inspirational or tactical aspects as at least options of the primary class is going to be a problem for many. Leaving out attack granting or at least the option of it from the base class is also going to be a problem.
It's not about new, it's about increasing in power. People stick in fighter till level 11 for the 3rd extra attack and not really any other ability he gives. As long as abilities continue to increase in power like mine do then this isn't even a concern.
Wait you do realize those were only 2 examples of easily 20+ possible abilities right?
This honestly is the most boring criticism in the book. At-will effects are not spells. Sorry.
Sorry my mechanic isn't any more like spells than any use X ability Y times per day effects. In fact mine is less like spells as it adds new effects on it's own and is at will. No resource even required to use these abilities.
Well yes they are at will and they do allow some interesting effects. They aren't 4e powers though as all of these require a trigger and 4e powers rarely did.
You don't need to spend warlord points to gain effects. You need to spend a warlord point to enhance your at will ability.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Meh. 5e fans, like D&D fans in general, mostly just like D&D, not only one specific edition, not harbor particular malice for one particular edition. Each of the supposedly problematic elements of the Warlord is already present in 5e.
Anyone who finds the bundle of them as a whole, the Warlord name, or it's 4e pedigree, ditasteful can decline to opt into it. It's similar to feats: fans of 3e & 4e tend to like 'em, old-schoolers not s'much, so they're optional, even if in the PH.
No one's burning SCAG for having the PDK in it.
It'd also render individual warlords too inflexible to be viable as sole support for a party, undermining a key benefit of adding the class: expanding the range of play styles under 5e.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
