Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Mistwell]

What did you like about it?

Much of the same things I like when I play a bard. The support role aspects. The "I make everyone else around me better at what they do" aspects. So, granting attacks, inspiration, and auras pretty much. Minor healing as well.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I really liked the 4e class. I don't think it translates great in all respects to 5e but some core features can. I just prefer it as a subclass of one of: Fighter, Paladin, or Bard. I don't really think it brings enough to the table for a full class, for me at least. I can see why others do want a full class, but was trying to work towards outlining a subclass that some meaningful portion of Warlord fans might like.

[MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION] earlier had asked if there was a 3rd party Warlord people liked, and I mentioned that on DMs Guild there did seem to be one, and it was a Fighter subclass. And that's when Ehren when on the attack, all irked that I wanted something different than he wanted. Which is not the first time he's done that here.

If you think a fighter subclass has enough, there are already 2: the battlemaster and the purple dragon knight. Bard or Paladin won't work, because if someone was OK with just refluffing spells they'd already be playing those.

But we shouldnt stop pushing for a full class. Which is why its frustrating to see requests for one shouted down. It's like some kid in Oliver piping up "Actually I think we're good with what we have. No more for us please!". If you're satisfied, then great. No need to hold the rest of us back. You're right, we'll probably doomed to getting another half ass subclass and nothing more. But that's not because the design space isnt there, it's because of people being willing to settle and WOTC's fear of 4E haters.

 

[Mistwell]

If you think a fighter subclass has enough, there are already 2: the battlemaster and the purple dragon knight.

Neither do it for me. Or apparently some meaningful number of other people.

Bard or Paladin won't work, because if someone was OK with just refluffing spells they'd already be playing those.

It's not just fluff though. There are things the Warlord does (in my mind) which neither class can do. Maybe with a subclass they could though.

But we shouldnt stop pushing for a full class. Which is why its frustrating to see requests for one shouted down.

What the hell is your problem? Serious question. I didn't ask anyone to "stop pushing for a full class". And I didn't "shout down" anything. In fact I wasn't even replying to you to begin with...someone else had asked if there was a third party Warlord that people liked and I mentioned one. I cannot think of a rationale interpretation of my one sentence post which concludes it was an attempt to "shout down" your opinion.

It's like some kid in Oliver piping up "Actually I think we're good with what we have. No more for us please!". If you're satisfied, then great.

I am not satisfied, I'd like a Warlord subclass from WOTC thankyouverymuch. That would be what this thread was about, if you didn't notice.

No need to hold the rest of us back.

Nobody is holding you back. Me expressing my opinion that I think this can work as a subclass is not mutually exclusive with you expressing your opinion that you want it as a full class. I have no idea why my mentioning my preference takes anything away from you mentioning your preference, but it seems bizarre and over the top. Why are you so bugged I want something different?

You're right, we'll probably doomed to getting another half ass subclass and nothing more. But that's not because the design space isnt there, it's because of people being willing to settle and WOTC's fear of 4E haters.

I actually WANT it as a subclass...not "settling" it's my actual desire. And I certainly am not a 4e hater! I was the guy who probably took some of the most heat for promoting 4e. I made an infamous prediction about how it was going to crush the competition and everyone was going to change over and Paizo was doomed. And now I am a "4e hater" because I want something as a subclass instead of a full class?

Maybe take the outrage down a notch?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Much of the same things I like when I play a bard. The support role aspects. The "I make everyone else around me better at what they do" aspects. So, granting attacks, inspiration, and auras pretty much. Minor healing as well.

So, when you played a 4e Warlord (and it's not a requirement, but feel free to wax eloquent about a specific one if you like), how often did you get to do stuff like that? Would you say it was closer to once every-other combat, every combat, or every round? Did it kick in at 1st level or take a while to get going?

And how often do you get to do that sort of thing when you play a 5e bard? Does it kick in at 1st level? Does it continue to build substantially as you level up?

 

[Mistwell]

So, when you played a 4e Warlord (and it's not a requirement, but feel free to wax eloquent about a specific one if you like), how often did you get to do stuff like that? Would you say it was closer to once every-other combat, every combat, or every round? Did it kick in at 1st level or take a while to get going?

And how often do you get to do that sort of thing when you play a 5e bard? Does it kick in at 1st level? Does it continue to build substantially as you level up?

I can't honestly remember that level of detail from when I played a 4e Warlord. It was too long ago, and too many characters ago. Though you do have me curious to try and dig up my old PC sheet.

For Bard I can say I did it almost every combat on some level. I had picked up Bless and Guidance as well, and was physically handing a die to someone almost every combat for them to roll. A d4 for Bless or Guidance, a d6 for Bardic Inspiration, a d6 for Song of Rest, a d20 for the Help action or for transferring my Inspiration die to them, etc..

I don't need it that often for Warlord, but I do think they should be able to meaningfully boost those around them twice per short rest in some manner (or so).

 

[cbwjm]

I can't honestly remember that level of detail from when I played a 4e Warlord. It was too long ago, and too many characters ago. Though you do have me curious to try and dig up my old PC sheet.

For Bard I can say I did it almost every combat on some level. I had picked up Bless and Guidance as well, and was physically handing a die to someone almost every combat for them to roll. A d4 for Bless or Guidance, a d6 for Bardic Inspiration, a d6 for Song of Rest, a d20 for the Help action or for transferring my Inspiration die to them, etc..

I don't need it that often for Warlord, but I do think they should be able to meaningfully boost those around them twice per short rest in some manner (or so).

This is completely aside from this conversation, but speaking of finding old PC sheets, I found one for an old 4e dwarf invoker. On it, it had the "falling dwarf" maneuver, not as a power but as a note. What exactly happened to me that I decided to note that down.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't honestly remember that level of detail from when I played a 4e Warlord. It was too long ago, and too many characters ago. Though you do have me curious to try and dig up my old PC sheet.

IMX, it varied a bit with build. I've played Tactical (not technically 'lazy,' mind you) Warlords who rarely ever let a round go by without at least shifting someone with Wolf Pack Tactics. I've played a Bravura (last night, in fact, kinda a coincidence given how rarely everyone in that group can show up, probably less than 1/month), who often makes basic attacks on his turn, because so many of his best tricks are off-turn, and because, at our current level, monsters' OAs hit too easily and too hard for Brash Assault to be remotely worth it. Quite a bit in between. But certainly, no combat goes by where they're not leadery - and a completely non-leadery round that didn't involved being dazed, stunned, or otherwise out of the fight almost completely tends to be rare.

Even at first, every encounter, you have two inspiring words, an encounter exploit, and your at-wills, both of which likely do a little something.

For Bard I can say I did it almost every combat on some level. I had picked up Bless and Guidance as well, and was physically handing a die to someone almost every combat for them to roll. A d4 for Bless or Guidance, a d6 for Bardic Inspiration, a d6 for Song of Rest, a d20 for the Help action or for transferring my Inspiration die to them, etc..

Sounds good...

...how did you find the Bard's level of flexibility? We're some of your other spells offensive, defensive (self), utility, or 'control' in any sense, or did you stick to the support stuff? Or did you just not play to a level where you had many spells known?

I don't need it that often for Warlord.

Interesting. Why not?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would play the heck out of that...

Me too. Some people think that is what 4e was, which is obvious rubbish

 

[smbakeresq]

IMX, it varied a bit with build. I've played Tactical (not technically 'lazy,' mind you) Warlords who rarely ever let a round go by without at least shifting someone with Wolf Pack Tactics. I've played a Bravura (last night, in fact, kinda a coincidence given how rarely everyone in that group can show up, probably less than 1/month), who often makes basic attacks on his turn, because so many of his best tricks are off-turn, and because, at our current level, monsters' OAs hit too easily and too hard for Brash Assault to be remotely worth it. Quite a bit in between. But certainly, no combat goes by where they're not leadery - and a completely non-leadery round that didn't involved being dazed, stunned, or otherwise out of the fight almost completely tends to be rare.

Even at first, every encounter, you have two inspiring words, an encounter exploit, and your at-wills, both of which likely do a little something.

Sounds good...

...how did you find the Bard's level of flexibility? We're some of your other spells offensive, defensive (self), utility, or 'control' in any sense, or did you stick to the support stuff? Or did you just not play to a level where you had many spells known?

Interesting. Why not?

Brash Assault required a choice by the player, which is good. I used it all the time with Menacing Brute which gave another ally advantage until EONT, which means the team could send it in against the enemy, but I get your point.


If ported over to 5e, I would use it in the right situation, which is what a Warlord should do.

What I liked about the Warlord was you always had a choice of something to do, something that generally encouraged team play. That choice of what when where and how was important and sometimes changed the whole combat around. It was like playing chess when others where playing checkers.

Other martial classes had better high points, Barbarians just blowing away someone right away, polearm fighters just sucking up huge amounts of space and enemies, etc. But those classes were more "on their own" as opposed to "ok team, lets go!"


As far as using the fighter chassis, IMO only champion fighters should get 4 and maybe even 3 attack per round. BM have their dice, giving them one more each time but never getting to 3 or even 4 attacks per round is enough. Eldritch Knight gets spells. By giving only Champion fighter more than 2 attacks per round they become very unique and buffs the Champion a little.

The basic problem and subject of another thread is that the fighter chassis is fine but the champion is underwhelming compared to the other options for fighter subclasses. The other fighter subclasses though are very good because you get the whole fighter chassis with good riders all over since the fighter chassis is front loaded.

 

[Zardnaar]

Brash Assault required a choice by the player, which is good. I used it all the time with Menacing Brute which gave another ally advantage until EONT, which means the team could send it in against the enemy, but I get your point.


If ported over to 5e, I would use it in the right situation, which is what a Warlord should do.

What I liked about the Warlord was you always had a choice of something to do, something that generally encouraged team play. That choice of what when where and how was important and sometimes changed the whole combat around. It was like playing chess when others where playing checkers.

Other martial classes had better high points, Barbarians just blowing away someone right away, polearm fighters just sucking up huge amounts of space and enemies, etc. But those classes were more "on their own" as opposed to "ok team, lets go!"


As far as using the fighter chassis, IMO only champion fighters should get 4 and maybe even 3 attack per round. BM have their dice, giving them one more each time but never getting to 3 or even 4 attacks per round is enough. Eldritch Knight gets spells. By giving only Champion fighter more than 2 attacks per round they become very unique and buffs the Champion a little.

The basic problem and subject of another thread is that the fighter chassis is fine but the champion is underwhelming compared to the other options for fighter subclasses. The other fighter subclasses though are very good because you get the whole fighter chassis with good riders all over since the fighter chassis is front loaded.

I would rate the champion as consistent, battlemaster front loaded and the EK switching on to late.