Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[FrogReaver]

Not really. Casting spells is generic. Four classes have that. It’s as iconic as Extra Attack. Or wearing heavy armour.

Turning undead is iconic. As is channeling divinity to a lesser degree.

You have a weird definition of iconic

 

[Hussar]

Look at it this way.

A 10th level Battlemaster can grant 15 off turn attacks. Presume 66% hit rates, meaning that the Battlemaster granted 10 sneak attacks. But, wait, there's more. The BM also granted 10d8 damage on those 10 attacks, because he gets bonus damage for his commander's strike. AND the battle master attacked 15 more times (for 10 hits) over the course of granting this 15 attacks. Going with your presumptions of a fighter dealing d8+5 damage.

So, in addition to the 10 sneak attacks, our BM has dealt 20d8+50 points of damage over the course of 15 rounds (Commander's Strike is only usable 1/round) or about 150 points of damage.
[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]'s warlord has only dealt 10 sneak attacks in 15 rounds since he had to give up all attacks. Now, it's going to take about 10 more rounds (6 sneak attacks) to catch up to the battle master. Not do better mind you, just catch up.

It takes TWENTY FIVE ROUNDS for JD's warlord to do what a Battlemaster can do right now in 15 rounds. Never minding that our Battlemaster has been able to grant attacks, or grant movement or grant bonus Temp HP, SINCE THIRD LEVEL.

Why on earth would I play this class? It's not even as good at being a warlord as a Battlemaster is, and BM's aren't very good warlords.

Why are we "reenvisioning" the class? Granting actions and inspirational healing are THE iconic warlord elements. I'm not saying the class has to be as good of a healer as a cleric, fair enough. But, it should heal and it should do so without spells. And, it should be better at granting actions than a Battlemaster.

And, lastly, why is a warlord in heavy armor? They weren't before. They were never meant as tank characters. One subclass, added later, made warlords more tanky - but the iconic, core of the class never was.

"Why shouldn't we reimagine the class"? Because WE WANT A WARLORD. Not a class that is a piss poor version that isn't even as good as what's in the PHB.

 

[Jester David]

A 10th level Battlemaster can grant 15 off turn attacks. Presume 66% hit rates, meaning that the Battlemaster granted 10 sneak attacks. But, wait, there's more. The BM also granted 10d8 damage on those 10 attacks, because he gets bonus damage for his commander's strike. AND the battle master attacked 15 more times (for 10 hits) over the course of granting this 15 attacks. Going with your presumptions of a fighter dealing d8+5 damage.

So, in addition to the 10 sneak attacks, our BM has dealt 20d8+50 points of damage over the course of 15 rounds (Commander's Strike is only usable 1/round) or about 150 points of damage.

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]'s warlord has only dealt 10 sneak attacks in 15 rounds since he had to give up all attacks. Now, it's going to take about 10 more rounds (6 sneak attacks) to catch up to the battle master. Not do better mind you, just catch up.

Cool. Nice math. Thanks.
I do wonder about the damage when not paired with a rogue, which seems like a poor baseline.

Anyhoo… meanwhile, my warlord is also proccing Tactical Acumen every round, using that reaction when the ally hits to deal an additional Int + level on every attack. Which, at level 10, is 15 damage.
Which more than makes up for the difference in frequency.

(Actually, I might need to tone down the damage in Tactical Acumen. After the 15 rounds they're up 75 points. Plus, TA is pretty reliable given it can be used to boost damage even when the granted attack misses, switching to a different ally.)

It takes TWENTY FIVE ROUNDS for JD's warlord to do what a Battlemaster can do right now in 15 rounds. Never minding that our Battlemaster has been able to grant attacks, or grant movement or grant bonus Temp HP, SINCE THIRD LEVEL.

Why play a Tactician rather than a Battle Master? Well, because your BM example requires that fighter to also be attacking fifteen times themselves. So they're not really the Lazylord commanding from the back. They're up there in the front attacking as well.

Again, my warlord lazylord subclass can also grant movement at 3rd level.
Plus all the other abilities. Tactical Acumen. Stratagem.

Why on earth would I play this class? It's not even as good at being a warlord as a Battlemaster is, and BM's aren't very good warlords.

So then don't.

Or give useful feedback I can use to actually make it better beyond telling me it sucks without actually bothering to read the entire class.
Or trying to make me design the warlord exactly how it was in 4e. I'm not going to do that. Just like I'm also not going to exactly replicate the marshal from 3e. The 5e warlord/tactician should kill the 4e warlord and take his stuff. It should keep what works and dump the rest, making something new and exciting that captures the feel of the concept.

And, lastly, why is a warlord in heavy armor? They weren't before. They were never meant as tank characters. One subclass, added later, made warlords more tanky - but the iconic, core of the class never was.

My warlord doesn’t have heavy armour. It only has Medium.

BUT I'm just working on the Vanguard subclass that gives it heavy armour—like the War domain gives the cleric heavy armour—and making that into a tank subclass.

Why is it in heavy armour when it wasn’t before?
BECAUSE IT’S NOT “BEFORE”.
Brace yourself for a shock. 5th Edition is not the same as 4th Edition. It does things differently.
A 5e warlord won't add half its level to all checks. Or add its Constitution Score to its starting hit points. Or have a Fortitude Defence. Or have healing surges. It probably have AEDU powers.
And, sadly, it won't have powers that trigger when an ally spends an Action Surge. Which was probably the TRUE iconic power of the warlord. Because when you spent your Action Surge by the warlord, you felt like a god.

"Why shouldn't we reimagine the class"? Because WE WANT A WARLORD. Not a class that is a piss poor version that isn't even as good as what's in the PHB.

No. No you don't.
If you REALLY wanted one you would have made your own damn warlord class. That's literally what this thread is for. Instead you gave my warlord a quick skim and decided to crap on it because it doesn't match your vision.

That's fine. It's how I envision the concept. You don't have to like it. But if you think it's so terrible then show me something better.
FrogReaver called me out for not contributing and I threw together the Tactician class that you see in a week. If you have such a powerful vision for the warlord I'm sure you could do the same in half that time.
Show me how it's done. Give me a warlord that's true to 4e but balanced with 5e and matches the design conventions of this edition.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not really. Casting spells is generic. Four classes have that. It’s as iconic as Extra Attack. Or wearing heavy armour.

Turning undead is iconic. As is channeling divinity to a lesser degree.

Clerics cast spells and turn undead. How they do that varies by edition. That's iconic cleric.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION], I already did make a warlord. Although, to me, I'd rather bolt it on a rogue chasis as a subclass of rogue. Trade sneak attack damage dice for effects. Done.

You are making it WAY too complicated.

A warlord, as a class, should grant actions, grant some sort of damage mitigation (either by healing or temp HP or some combination of both) and, well, that's pretty much it. It's not rocket science. It doesn't require all this other stuff.

Now, to be fair, I'm not a believer in the "lazy lord" That's just a build, not an actual concept. And, frankly, it's just a warlord that focuses on action granting. Not caring in the slightest if it makes an appearance or not. And, frankly, it's easier to do as a playstyle than as an actual class AFAIC, same as your clerics who never heal.

 

[Jester David]

I already did make a warlord.

Link?

A warlord, as a class, should grant actions, grant some sort of damage mitigation (either by healing or temp HP or some combination of both) and, well, that's pretty much it. It's not rocket science. It doesn't require all this other stuff.

So... it's a rogue subclass then?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now, to be fair, I'm not a believer in the "lazy lord" That's just a build, not an actual concept. And, frankly, it's just a warlord that focuses on action granting. Not caring in the slightest if it makes an appearance or not.

It opens up a whole range of concepts that had never been viable before. It's dreadfully common in genre - when there's a party, at all - for there to be a big disparity in apparent capability among some of the members. Since a lazy build contributes through it's allies, its contribution in the narrative can be a lot more subtle, and it can thus model these 'weaker' characters, without dragging down the party. Moonsong's heart noble is an example of such a concept, whatever anyone may have to say about the design.

 

[Hussar]

It opens up a whole range of concepts that had never been viable before. It's dreadfully common in genre - when there's a party, at all - for there to be a big disparity in apparent capability among some of the members. Since a lazy build contributes through it's allies, its contribution in the narrative can be a lot more subtle, and it can thus model these 'weaker' characters, without dragging down the party. Moonsong's heart noble is an example of such a concept, whatever anyone may have to say about the design.

But, even then Tony, it's all in how the player plays, not in the mechanics. A lazy lord is still a warlord. The character still has all the same proficiencies, skills and hit points and attack bonus as any other warlord (talking about 4e here, in 5e, it's even worse because EVERY character has the same attack bonuses, modified by stat of course).

There was no actual "lazy lord" class. All a lazy lord is, is a warlord that dump stats typical combat stats like Str and Con and then focuses on buffing and action granting.

Why can't that be done with any standard warlord? Heck, if you did that with a Battlemaster in 5e, you're about half way there. Granted, BM's have the issue of running out of gas too soon. But, at the end of the day, Lazy Lord isn't a class. It's just how some people chose to play a class. It's no more a class than Blaster is a class. Or Face. Or a cleric that refuses to take any healing spells. Or any number of other concepts that aren't really mechanical in nature, but, simply a result of the player choosing to play to a particular idea.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, even then Tony, it's all in how the player plays, not in the mechanics. A lazy lord is still a warlord. The character still has all the same proficiencies, skills and hit points and attack bonus as any other warlord (talking about 4e here, in 5e, it's even worse because EVERY character has the same attack bonuses, modified by stat of course).

'Bout the same really, be it proficiency or 1/2 level.

There was no actual "lazy lord" class.

Has someone suggested it be a separate class?

All a lazy lord is, is a warlord that dump stats typical combat stats like Str and Con and then focuses on buffing and action granting.

But it did get a bit of support in more such exploits, so it was enabled, mechanically, as well.

Why can't that be done with any standard warlord?

It should be, if the design is decently flexible, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a sub-class, just that said sub-class should be better played that way, rather than the only one that can be played that way, at all...

It's just like, say Illusionists, they've been a thing for a long time, but in 5e they're just wizards of a tradition who are particularly good with illusions - any wizard can prep a slate of all illusion spells, but that doesn't mean there's no point in having the tradition as a sub-class.

 

[FrogReaver]

On a normal Fighter, Extra attack gives around 6 or maybe more extra DPR. Typically a battlemaster maneuver will do a little less than that with an effect.

What if there was a way to exchange the level 5 extra attack for a free superiority dice effect?

It doesn't solve every problem with the battlemaster as warlord, but I think it get's closer than many of the ideas I'm seeing here and it's something we can start using right away?