Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Tony Vargas]

That might be a lot more satisfying of an explanation if the character in question didn't also get uses of the same abilities without having to feel out enemies by making probing attacks etc.

What's the issue with the BM having CS dice, up-front - a limited ability to pull tricks in combat, either because combat presents limited opportunities (abstract reasoning) or because pulling such a trick 'cold' requires the ol' 'deep reserves' or whatever the current BM explanation is - and also being able to set up tricks by forgoing attacks to 'probe' or 'condition' the enemy, or by scouting out & assessing the enemy in advance?

Different means to the same ends hardly seems out of line for martial maneuvers, "all's fair in Love andCombat as War..."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I found a pre-battle pool to work best. It also fits the flavor of studing the enemy, so your tricks only works against those enemies, and let's you "pre-buff" if you scout.

But, I'm not sure what the best wording would be if your trying to squeeze it in with the current battlemaster. Suggestions?

Ah. So its not short-rest. I was wondering whether some of the objections to your suggestion were that it looked like you could build up dice in one fight to use in another, and there didn't seem to be a maximum number anywhere.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm looking into different options for maneuver mechanics. Could I get some opinions on this one please?

(This is intended for offensive maneuvers, as an alternative to expending a superiority dice and forcing the opponent to make a save or suffer a condition.)

"The warlord chooses a number of superiority dice to roll when initiating the maneuver. The total is compared against the ability score of the target. If it is greater, then the maneuver takes effect. If the total of the SD is less than the target's ability score, the maneuver fails."

Many of the maneuvers will target the Constitution score of the target, and inflict conditions (anything from deafened to paralysed depending upon the level of the maneuver.)
Do people think that this mechanic is worth exploring for my warlord design, or would sticking to the saving throw system be better?

Stuff to bear in mind: My warlord has two variants (Mindsets) One will have a dice pool of Ability mod + prof bonus of up to d12s, renewing on short rest. The other will have up to 4d8 renewing every round.

Thus an architect-mindset warlord willing to invest a lot of their dice will have a very reliable chance of applying that maneuver to most human-level opponents, and even a lot of much more powerful foes if they're willing to really go all-in.
- This is what I'm worried about, but I'm not sure whether its an actual issue or not.

 

[mellored]

Ah. So its not short-rest. I was wondering whether some of the objections to your suggestion were that it looked like you could build up dice in one fight to use in another, and there didn't seem to be a maximum number anywhere.

I was using Int mod as a cap, but I didn't really like it. Since it forces you to raise your Int to use the big 5 dice moves.

But I still wanted a small cap, since you could build up dice while scouting.

"The warlord chooses a number of superiority dice to roll when initiating the maneuver. The total is compared against the ability score of the target. If it is greater, then the maneuver takes effect. If the total of the SD is less than the target's ability score, the maneuver fails."

Seems fine to me, except that it's not worth trading 1 attack for 1 die. I would add in some flat bonus instead.

Maybe something like Int modifier + die roll vs ability score...
Nah. Too small.

Int + proficency + die?
Still seems a bit small.

Maybe just give more dice?
So if you traded 1 attack for 2d6 dice... then you could hand out out as bonus damage or damage reduction.
Just don't hand out 1d6's as a bonuses to-hit.
(Possibly 2d6 take the highest as the to-hit bonus? And scale to 2d12?
Hmmm....)

Do people think that this mechanic is worth exploring for my warlord design, or would sticking to the saving throw system be better?

I like the warlord rolling the die. Though I would have liked the wizard rolling the "saves' as well.
Still, it gives it a different feel from "magic". (which was the excuse for magic to use saving throws).

Thus an architect-mindset warlord willing to invest a lot of their dice will have a very reliable chance of applying that maneuver to most human-level opponents, and even a lot of much more powerful foes if they're willing to really go all-in.
- This is what I'm worried about, but I'm not sure whether its an actual issue or not.

True.
Ability scores vary twice as much as ability modifiers. It undermines the bounded accuracy thing.
The whole math was set up around the d20....

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was using Int mod as a cap, but I didn't really like it. Since it forces you to raise your Int to use the big 5 dice moves.

But I still wanted a small cap, since you could build up dice while scouting.

I do like the 'build up dice while scouting' idea, nicely evokes planning, without actually having to listen to players 'planning' for a long time. ;P

I'm looking into different options for maneuver mechanics. Could I get some opinions on this one please?
"The warlord chooses a number of superiority dice to roll when initiating the maneuver. The total is compared against the ability score of the target. If it is greater, then the maneuver takes effect. If the total of the SD is less than the target's ability score, the maneuver fails."

Well, my first impression is that the class'd need a lot of such dice to do anything. Second impression is that it doesn't take the target's level into account, which seems off.

And, of course, it's adding a /third/ method of resolving an offensive action, on top of attack rolls and saving throws, when any more than one is just needless complexity, in the first place. (Or is it fourth? do contested checks count, as well? Does 5e have anything like the old Bluff vs Sense Motive to 'feint,' for instance? Hm, even if it doesn't, explicitly, a player might declare an action that leads the DM to using a contested Deception v Insight like that as part of the resolution....)

Do people think that this mechanic is worth exploring for my warlord design, or would sticking to the saving throw system be better?

Save DC of 8 + relevant mod + proficiency seems well-established, and 'attacks' a stat in the same sense, including the possibility of hammering a low-stat, non-proficient save, even vs a high-level target.

Stuff to bear in mind: My warlord has two variants (Mindsets) One will have a dice pool of Ability mod + prof bonus of up to d12s, renewing on short rest. The other will have up to 4d8 renewing every round.

That bears on the 'you'd need more than a few dice' observation.

Thus an architect-mindset warlord willing to invest a lot of their dice will have a very reliable chance of applying that maneuver to most human-level opponents, and even a lot of much more powerful foes if they're willing to really go all-in.
- This is what I'm worried about, but I'm not sure whether its an actual issue or not.

It's kinda an iffy mechanic, that way. Some player's'd be fine with rolling a d12 and hopping to beat a very low stat, other's'd throw great handfuls of dice just to be sure...
...could end up not playing at all well with BA.

Seems fine to me, except that it's not worth trading 1 attack for 1 die. I would add in some flat bonus instead.

maybe if you started with 2d and each attack added one?

I like the warlord rolling the die. Though I would have liked the wizard rolling the "saves' as well.
Still, it gives it a different feel from "magic". (which was the excuse for magic to use saving throws).

It also, incidentally, gives your target 6 "ACs" to maintain, one or a few of which are almost inevitably going to be really low.

 

[Jester David]

Threaddddd Necromancy!!!

Okay, finishing up a revision I'm making of the Tactician I started seven or eight months back.

When I started designing this, I had the following concepts in mind:
1) Do what the concept should do. I wanted to think about what a "warlord" type character would do and make that. I didn't want to limit it to "just what it did in 4e" but what you might expect a smart, field commander to do. Really, I wanted to update the concept and not just update the previous implementation.
2) Encourage teamwork. I wanted this class to work with its allies and use abilities that implied teamwork, either overtly in the mechanics, or via the story.
3) Be Smart. I wanted it to use Intelligence over Charisma. The charming, inspiring leader is already the bard. Doubling down on the cunning, intelligent leader gives the tactician/ warlord a more unique place in the game.
4) Choices but Limited Complexity. As this was the class designed to appeal to the person wanting to be a "tactical genius", I wanted to give interesting choices each round. But not so many that you actually needed to be a master tactician to play the class.

Other design thoughts:

Replacing the Cleric. This is less necessary in 5e as the druid and bard can heal in the PHB just fine. And through other subclasses, the warlock and sorcerer can unlock healing.
Replacing the cleric feels like a less necessary design goal. (Just like designing the sorcerer as the "wizard replacement" or the barbarian as the "fighter replacement".) Classes should be designed around the concept, not around another class.
I wanted to focus more on what made the warlord conceptually interesting and less on replacing the cleric. This also allows a "warlord" to be in the same party as a cleric without completely overlapping and stepping on each other's toes or feeling redundant.
Plus, this also sidestepped trying to find "replacements" for cleric features, such as raising the dead, removing disease, or unpetrifying a stone PC.

Party Role. The above said, I still wanted this to potentially be a martial healer. However, I also wanted this to be a "simple" healer. There's not a lot of "simple healing" in 5e. Keeping the "warlord" complexity lite allowed it to also fill this gap. It's an option if "no one wants to play the cleric" except the one player who dislikes spellcasters.
Which is the point of the warlord: to be the healer that doesn't use magic. If the "cleric replacement" works and feels just like the cleric… it's not really a *different* option.
That said, 5e doesn't tie classes to a single combat role. While the cleric can excel as a healer, they can also work quite well as the party face, the tank, a striker/DPR character, or even a tricky rogue type. As such, it was important to make a 5e "warlord" inspired class do more than the single role. But to do so in a warlordy way.

Going to take any feedback and sit on this design for a few days. And then maybe do a final edit pass and throw this on the DMsGuild.


















PDF link

Curious if any of the other posters in this thread have a PDF to show off as well...

 

[Garthanos]

Threaddddd Necromancy!!!

Okay, finishing up a revision I'm making of the Tactician I started seven or eight months back.

When I started designing this, I had the following concepts in mind:
1) Do what the concept should do. I wanted to think about what a "warlord" type character would do and make that. I didn't want to limit it to "just what it did in 4e" but what you might expect a smart, field commander to do. Really, I wanted to update the concept and not just update the previous implementation.
2) Encourage teamwork. I wanted this class to work with its allies and use abilities that implied teamwork, either overtly in the mechanics, or via the story.
3) Be Smart. I wanted it to use Intelligence over Charisma. The charming, inspiring leader is already the bard. Doubling down on the cunning, intelligent leader gives the tactician/ warlord a more unique place in the game.
4) Choices but Limited Complexity. As this was the class designed to appeal to the person wanting to be a "tactical genius", I wanted to give interesting choices each round. But not so many that you actually needed to be a master tactician to play the class.

Quick response - love your goals. updating the concept - good there were options that seemed to never make it to the table with the 4e Warlord (in spite of it being already very role versatile and having a lot of support, I think actually battlefield control could have been better and having some striker functionality? intrigues me) . Teamwork also vital (this is missing from the feel of Battlemaster subtype so few maneuvers were full party boosters ). And Intelligence is also very very nice. Indeed arguably the whole purpose of roleplaying is the opportunity to feel the flow of something you likely aren't while I don't mind some complexity a lot is not required with the right elegance. I even like the simple healer idea.

I am picturing the Legend of Arslan after reading this.

 

[Garthanos]

A couple of ideas I had seem like they could be used by Warlord/Fighter variants

One was a low level feature that helps out the Strength based character called

Battle ready
For most the beginning of a battle is something they have to react to and its reflexes that take over but for you its a fulfillment of your expectations and your plans.
You may pick and alternative stat (instead of dexterity to base your initiative on)
Intelligence - Quick Thinking / Charisma - Cunning / Wisdom - for Perception even considered Constitution - for instinctive response.

The other is a fighting style that enables Warlord like function with every successful strike. Works alright even if it is just you.

Leading(or Probing) Strike
Your every attack creates openings for yourself and your allies to exploit.
Subsequent attacks against a target you successfully attack this turn gain +1 to the attack.
or maybe just the first gains a +3 damage.

 

[Jester David]

A couple of ideas I had seem like they could be used by Warlord/Fighter variants

One was a low level feature that helps out the Strength based character called

Battle ready
For most the beginning of a battle is something they have to react to and its reflexes that take over but for you its a fulfillment of your expectations and your plans.
You may pick and alternative stat (instead of dexterity to base your initiative on)
Intelligence - Quick Thinking / Charisma - Cunning / Wisdom - for Perception even considered Constitution - for instinctive response.

I considered having them use Intelligence instead of Dexterity. Or something like Investigation/ Perception checks.
Instead, I opted to give them the choice of adding or subtracting Int, which gives them more of a range, and lets them decide where they want to act. Which adds a quick decision element that feels tactical.

The other is a fighting style that enables Warlord like function with every successful strike. Works alright even if it is just you.

Leading(or Probing) Strike
Your every attack creates openings for yourself and your allies to exploit.
Subsequent attacks against a target you successfully attack this turn gain +1 to the attack.
or maybe just the first gains a +3 damage.

I do like the idea of adding a new fighting style! It's also be a neat way of slipping just that dash of leadership into the fighter.

 

[Garthanos]

I considered having them use Intelligence instead of Dexterity. Or something like Investigation/ Perception checks.
Instead, I opted to give them the choice of adding or subtracting Int, which gives them more of a range, and lets them decide where they want to act. Which adds a quick decision element that feels tactical.

Agreed nice for Warlord I approve though I think Battle Ready could also be just any fighter. So those who opt for Strength get their favored secondary as initiative (and its barely more than a tweak)

I do like the idea of adding a new fighting style! It's also be a neat way of slipping just that dash of leadership into the fighter.

Yeh I think both of these are minimal fuss modifications, I even like the Battlemaster name being a pretty fair synonym of the "War" "Lord"