D&D 5E Made it Happen. 5E Warlord.

[Zardnaar]

Completely agree that's why fighter should get extra attack first and earlier (4th, 9th, 14th) and have something in the base class no one else can do it do as well. Personally I've added stances that can be changed as a counts action that lets the fighter do additional things. Either that or remove Fighting Styles from all classes but fighter.

Yeah.

Actually testing this bad boy out. Rolled up a 4d6 drop the lowest and took an inspiring one out for a test drive. Only 1 encounter so far a lot of bonus actions to play with.

 

[Zardnaar]

Finished off the Path of Bravery and added a few exploits/tweaked old ones.

 

[Aldarc]

Martial classe slike the barbarian and fighter. Con and charisma or con and inteligence would also wok.

Proficiency in intelligence saves is almost like not having proficiency in anything though. I woiuld go con and charisma if I were to change it.

True, but I see the Warlord as the "mental" martial class. I concur then that Charisma would work for the better secondary save.

Yeah.

Actually testing this bad boy out. Rolled up a 4d6 drop the lowest and took an inspiring one out for a test drive. Only 1 encounter so far a lot of bonus actions to play with.

I would have several questions about a playtest. How does the Warlord play over an extended period (e.g. a "day," series of encounters, or a campaign)? How does it compare in play with the bard, cleric, or potentially more support-oriented classes/subclasses?

 

[Zardnaar]

True, but I see the Warlord as the "mental" martial class. I concur then that Charisma would work for the better secondary save.

I would have several questions about a playtest. How does the Warlord play over an extended period (e.g. a "day," series of encounters, or a campaign)? How does it compare in play with the bard, cleric, or potentially more support-oriented classes/subclasses?

I will have to get back to you on that one.

We had 4 encounters 2 short rests, started at level 3 with a 3 person group- fighter/warlock, Rogue, Warlord. I took the inspiring leader feat (18 charisma) with the inspiring warlord. Had 2 exploits and took Advantageous Strike and Leadership.

I was kind of tripping over the bonus actions as I have more or less divorced the 4E riders onto the bonus action part and the 1W/2W etc part is mostly gone although you get skillful strike at level 7.

I think I am on the right path with the bonus action thing and abilities that recharge on short rests although I am adding riders to the attack granting short rest exploits.

IN osme ways it was better than a cleric (bonus action+short rest) but lacked their versatility and domain abilites. It seemed to perform not to bad though. Granted 3 extra attacks, bard dice+ master of tactics doesn't play to nice together but that is fine you have options and can buff outside combat. More or less used bless 3 times, granted 3 attacks, used around 10 bard dice, used inspiring word 6 times.

Probably not as good as a life cleric/light cleric perhaps better than the other clerics and can kind of nova off with attack granting and the Master of Tactics ability from SCAG is great on a support type over a Rogue.

Warlord can't do things like use hold spells or use lesser restoration. MOre or elss went into a lost world type demi plane and beat up some CR 1,2, and 3 dinosaurs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It sounds like it runs about like a warlord should.

I like the idea of using a bonus action to gain 4e style "riders" on an action.


I keep thinking that a 5e Warlord could also use Stances, that it can change by using their movement for the round, that provide a benefit to the warlord and their nearby allies. Perhaps each subclass has a different Stance?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the Exploits are too locked in to the subclasses.

Also, there should be a lower level ability to grant an attack. Just give it restrictions. It's fine if the ability defines exactly what their attack looks like, even. The point is, the tactical benefit of letting the Barbarian clobber something instead of the Warlord stabbing the guy in front of them, or letting the ranger shoot the enemy mage, etc. It'd be easier if 5e had Basic Attacks, including for spellcasters, but the Warlord feature could simply define such a thing.

Basic attack. The character makes a weapon attack or spell attack, using the appropriate attack stat. This attack is never made with Advantage.

Weapon attacks are made as if you had taken the Attack Action, except that they do not benefit from the Extra Attack feature.


Spellcasters can either use one of their known cantrips, cast as if they were 1st level, or make a Basic Spell Attack, which deals 1d8 damage of any type the character can normally deal with their known cantrips, uses their Spellcasting Ability Modifier to attack and damage, and has a range of 60ft. Components are Verbal and Somatic.


Letting the Warlord do that instead of making an attack, as an Action, seems about right to me. I get that people don't want rogues getting extra Sneak Attacks, which is why I made Basic Attacks never have Advantage. Dual Wielders and Monks kinda get hosed, since they can't spend a Bonus Action to get their normal extra damage, but that's hard to help. Most of the time, the weapon user with the longest range or biggest damage die will be the best person to give an attack to.

I'd say that starting with this, and then giving limited access to full extra Action granting, or even just letting the attacker use a feature that would normally cost a Bonus Action as part of the attack, would work.

I don't think this should cost both the warlord's Action and the recipient's Reaction. What if you could use your Reaction when granted an attack, and instead of a Basic Attack, you get to attack as if you had taken the Attack Action, including stuff like having Advantage, or use your Reaction in place of a Bonus Action to modify your attack? Maybe as a level 5 improvement of the ability?

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the Exploits are too locked in to the subclasses.

Also, there should be a lower level ability to grant an attack. Just give it restrictions. It's fine if the ability defines exactly what their attack looks like, even. The point is, the tactical benefit of letting the Barbarian clobber something instead of the Warlord stabbing the guy in front of them, or letting the ranger shoot the enemy mage, etc. It'd be easier if 5e had Basic Attacks, including for spellcasters, but the Warlord feature could simply define such a thing.

Basic attack. The character makes a weapon attack or spell attack, using the appropriate attack stat. This attack is never made with Advantage.

Weapon attacks are made as if you had taken the Attack Action, except that they do not benefit from the Extra Attack feature.


Spellcasters can either use one of their known cantrips, cast as if they were 1st level, or make a Basic Spell Attack, which deals 1d8 damage of any type the character can normally deal with their known cantrips, uses their Spellcasting Ability Modifier to attack and damage, and has a range of 60ft. Components are Verbal and Somatic.


Letting the Warlord do that instead of making an attack, as an Action, seems about right to me. I get that people don't want rogues getting extra Sneak Attacks, which is why I made Basic Attacks never have Advantage. Dual Wielders and Monks kinda get hosed, since they can't spend a Bonus Action to get their normal extra damage, but that's hard to help. Most of the time, the weapon user with the longest range or biggest damage die will be the best person to give an attack to.

I'd say that starting with this, and then giving limited access to full extra Action granting, or even just letting the attacker use a feature that would normally cost a Bonus Action as part of the attack, would work.

I don't think this should cost both the warlord's Action and the recipient's Reaction. What if you could use your Reaction when granted an attack, and instead of a Basic Attack, you get to attack as if you had taken the Attack Action, including stuff like having Advantage, or use your Reaction in place of a Bonus Action to modify your attack? Maybe as a level 5 improvement of the ability?

Rather than grant at will attacks may as well grant at will bonus dice. It more or less achieves the same thing and stops abuse with Rogues, the -5/+10 feats etc. The other reason I have been keeping that down or making it encounter popwers is classes like clerics give up damage (except in daily novas) so having a warlord turn up that can heal+do interesting other stuff+ deal fighter level damage is not a good idea IMHO.

I have limited some of the exploits to the subclasses for niche protection and is based off the warlock invocations which limits some of them. Other exploits are based off certain spells or at least the effect perhaps toned down since they do not have to worry about things like the concentration mechanic.

The designers correctly identified at will attack granting as a problem hence commanders strike being superiority dice based and short rest based. I have been adding a few new exploits that allow attack granting so if you wanted to specialize in it pick the Path of the Tactician, get some superiority dice and pick the right exploits and since it all refreshes on a short rest that is a lot of attack granting options.

I am also trying to have 2 exploit for each subclass and 2 generic ones for levels 5,7,9 etc. That means I have to design 8 exploits roughly. I'm trying to make a mixture of big daily effects or smaller effects you can use 1/short rest or multiple times per short rest.

IDK if you have seen superiority dice used with a Rogue in 5E but it is glorious. Last night I had the Inspiration WL granting advantage to the Fighter/Warlock over the Rogue as she was dual wielding for pseudo advantage anyway.

 

[Eubani]

Rejuvenating Boost seems like it should have a limit on how often it can be used.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rejuvenating Boost seems like it should have a limit on how often it can be used.

It should be short rest. I have tweaked it on my word doc already.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The designer decision to not have at will action granting makes sense.

But that isn't what I suggested.