So the standard commercial design process then?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
- Thread starter Leatherhead
- Start date
Kinematics
Hero
Off-the-cuff attempt, based on Mearl's framework.
I think, conceptually, I would veer towards the types of generals in the "Kingdom" manga — either instinctual, or strategic. The Strategic generals work off of careful planning, while the Instinctual ones react to the 'feel' of the battlefield on the fly. Given that the strategic types tend to lead from the rear, while the instinctual types tend to lead from the front, as a character class the instinctual types would be the easier match for a PC.
Types of features/abilities:
Battlefield Awareness. A concentration effect.
While Battlefield Awareness is active, various abilities may be available (gain over levels?):
• Increases passive perception while active (easier to spot enemies trying to hide or sneak up on you).
• Hidden creatures cannot get advantage on any attack against any ally that can hear you. (range?)
• You may use a reaction to grant allies advantage on a saving throw against an area effect spell or attack.
• When an ally moves, you may use a reaction to prevent opportunity attacks against him.
• When an ally retreats behind another ally, you may use a reaction to command the second ally to assist the fleeing one. Enemies may not pursue past the intervening ally during this round. (battlefield control element; makes Disengage more valuable when retreating)
• You recognize a section of the battlefield as critically important, and a key point for events to happen. You designate this area at the start of combat. (size?) On activation (using a bonus action), until the end of your next turn, all allies within that region have advantage on their attacks, and enemies in that region have disadvantage on attacks against your allies and saving throws. Causes one level of exhaustion when it expires.
Command: You may expend an Action Surge in order to allow an ally to immediately take an action as a reaction. (Essentially, giving Action Surge to another player)
Charge: [Folded this into Command. An Action Surge can be used to Dash, so if you want to give someone a free move, that doesn't require a different ability.]
Formation: As an action, you may call for the repositioning of all allies within range. All allies may immediately move 10' towards a prepared formation of your design. Opportunities Attacks have disadvantage against those who move.
Draw In: You may use a reaction on your turn and designate yourself or an ally. Enemy units have their attention drawn to the designated individual. Those that are not currently engaged will treat the designated individual as their primary target, barring other direct commands, and move towards that person at the next available opportunity.
Prescience (stolen from mellored, renamed): When an ally takes an action that fails, including casting a spell, attack, or ability check, you can expend your action surge to warn them of their impending failure. That action did not happen, and they can take a different action instead. You can use this feature after you see the results of a roll, but before it takes effect.
This setup uses reactions as a major resource, which is not in conflict with a fighter's standard design. It also uses Action Surge as a resource, so the player is more likely to hold onto it, rather than spend it immediately, as most fighters would. It focuses on giving you advantages, and preventing the enemy from getting advantages.
I avoided others of mellored's suggestions, as the tactician's role is to put people in the best position to do what they do best, not to "make them better", which bleeds into buffing (such as the example of Bless that Mike Mearls referenced). That means helping people move (either granting a bonus Dash action, preventing Opportunity Attacks, or allowing other allies to interfere with pursuit of a retreat), and preventing the enemy from gaining advantage from its own positioning.
However that's leaning more strongly towards defensive features, and we want some offense, too. Command gives an ally the ability to "strike while the iron's hot", so to speak, giving another person the ability to act in your place, when they're better positioned to do so. And the "key battlefield zone" gives you a chance to nova with the entire party. (I'm not sure whether it's over- or under-powered, though.) Formation and Draw In can be used as a combo to pull the enemy into your key battlefield zone.
The Battlemaster does have access to some of these features, but the maneuvers available to them are more tightly bound to individuals and individual fights, while the Warlord should be attempting to work on the entire party. This take on the idea focuses on maneuverability, and then being able to nova off of good repositioning tactics.
Anyway, I didn't try to fit this into a leveling structure. It may be too much for a subclass, particularly for a class where it comes in at 3rd level. Taking a quick once-over, it'd be something like:
3: Battlefield Awareness (improving over levels), proficiency in Insight (tactics)
7: Command
10: Formation, Draw In
18: Prescience
Eh.. it's a rough sketch. Since most of it is folded into Battlefield Awareness, it might not even really be a problem, leveling-wise.
I think, conceptually, I would veer towards the types of generals in the "Kingdom" manga — either instinctual, or strategic. The Strategic generals work off of careful planning, while the Instinctual ones react to the 'feel' of the battlefield on the fly. Given that the strategic types tend to lead from the rear, while the instinctual types tend to lead from the front, as a character class the instinctual types would be the easier match for a PC.
Types of features/abilities:
Battlefield Awareness. A concentration effect.
While Battlefield Awareness is active, various abilities may be available (gain over levels?):
• Increases passive perception while active (easier to spot enemies trying to hide or sneak up on you).
• Hidden creatures cannot get advantage on any attack against any ally that can hear you. (range?)
• You may use a reaction to grant allies advantage on a saving throw against an area effect spell or attack.
• When an ally moves, you may use a reaction to prevent opportunity attacks against him.
• When an ally retreats behind another ally, you may use a reaction to command the second ally to assist the fleeing one. Enemies may not pursue past the intervening ally during this round. (battlefield control element; makes Disengage more valuable when retreating)
• You recognize a section of the battlefield as critically important, and a key point for events to happen. You designate this area at the start of combat. (size?) On activation (using a bonus action), until the end of your next turn, all allies within that region have advantage on their attacks, and enemies in that region have disadvantage on attacks against your allies and saving throws. Causes one level of exhaustion when it expires.
Command: You may expend an Action Surge in order to allow an ally to immediately take an action as a reaction. (Essentially, giving Action Surge to another player)
Charge: [Folded this into Command. An Action Surge can be used to Dash, so if you want to give someone a free move, that doesn't require a different ability.]
Formation: As an action, you may call for the repositioning of all allies within range. All allies may immediately move 10' towards a prepared formation of your design. Opportunities Attacks have disadvantage against those who move.
Draw In: You may use a reaction on your turn and designate yourself or an ally. Enemy units have their attention drawn to the designated individual. Those that are not currently engaged will treat the designated individual as their primary target, barring other direct commands, and move towards that person at the next available opportunity.
Prescience (stolen from mellored, renamed): When an ally takes an action that fails, including casting a spell, attack, or ability check, you can expend your action surge to warn them of their impending failure. That action did not happen, and they can take a different action instead. You can use this feature after you see the results of a roll, but before it takes effect.
This setup uses reactions as a major resource, which is not in conflict with a fighter's standard design. It also uses Action Surge as a resource, so the player is more likely to hold onto it, rather than spend it immediately, as most fighters would. It focuses on giving you advantages, and preventing the enemy from getting advantages.
I avoided others of mellored's suggestions, as the tactician's role is to put people in the best position to do what they do best, not to "make them better", which bleeds into buffing (such as the example of Bless that Mike Mearls referenced). That means helping people move (either granting a bonus Dash action, preventing Opportunity Attacks, or allowing other allies to interfere with pursuit of a retreat), and preventing the enemy from gaining advantage from its own positioning.
However that's leaning more strongly towards defensive features, and we want some offense, too. Command gives an ally the ability to "strike while the iron's hot", so to speak, giving another person the ability to act in your place, when they're better positioned to do so. And the "key battlefield zone" gives you a chance to nova with the entire party. (I'm not sure whether it's over- or under-powered, though.) Formation and Draw In can be used as a combo to pull the enemy into your key battlefield zone.
The Battlemaster does have access to some of these features, but the maneuvers available to them are more tightly bound to individuals and individual fights, while the Warlord should be attempting to work on the entire party. This take on the idea focuses on maneuverability, and then being able to nova off of good repositioning tactics.
Anyway, I didn't try to fit this into a leveling structure. It may be too much for a subclass, particularly for a class where it comes in at 3rd level. Taking a quick once-over, it'd be something like:
3: Battlefield Awareness (improving over levels), proficiency in Insight (tactics)
7: Command
10: Formation, Draw In
18: Prescience
Eh.. it's a rough sketch. Since most of it is folded into Battlefield Awareness, it might not even really be a problem, leveling-wise.
Tony Vargas
Legend
It's 4venger. A 'vengee would be the one getting 'venged,' no?
But, yes, 5e can handle the warlord, there's no need to 'budge' on anything for it to do so. Mechanically, there are no obstacles.
Likewise, if the 5e paradigm can handle haste, it can handle limited action-granting. The only question is exactly what limits. 5e lacks a simple way of limiting a granted action not only to an attack, but to a carefully-balanced, relatively low-impact melee attack. It's a price that 5e pays in added complexity for emphasizing natural language over jargon. It's been a high price at times, but it's never flinched from paying it, before.
5e neo-Vancian casting is more flexible and less restricted than that of the magic-user (/the/ classic wizard). I'd not complain about a more flexible, less restricted Warlord. Haste was nerfed relative to 3e & AD&D, sure, but the Warlord isn't an overpowered spell coming from those editions, it's a class that was balanced in 4e.
Really, for 5e, the Warlord will need to be powered up to fit the paradigm, like the 5e versions the other classes that were assigned the Leader role in 4e have been.
Zardnaar
Legend
So the standard commercial design process then?
Just be honest you're not going to play 4E and there's nothing wotc can do to get you to play. Stay with 4E, go write a clone or your own D&D that's what we did, admitted we don't like 4E and moved on.
Tony Vargas
Legend
4vengers, like H4ters were a real thing, and we may have mostly stopped warring, but many of the same folks are playing 5e, now.
Some with everything they wanted from the game, some still waiting....
Last edited:
AntiStateQuixote
Enemy of the State
It's called a bard. Now go back to CM.
FlyingChihuahua
Hero
I mean, we do already have the precedent for granting other people actions with Commander's Strike, plus since it still would be the fighter, spending an attack to do it wouldn't be too bad.
Maybe it starts off with simple stuff, but, in addition to the extra stuff you would get, and every level where you get an Archetype class ability, you can grant people better actions? Like at 3rd level you grant them one attack, then at 7th you can yell at a caster to throw out a cantrip, at 15th you can allow someone to take a full attack action, then at 18th you can tell a caster to throw out an actual spell. You could do that an amount of times equal to your CHA modifier once a long rest.
prolly not balanced completely, but it's an idea.
Maybe it starts off with simple stuff, but, in addition to the extra stuff you would get, and every level where you get an Archetype class ability, you can grant people better actions? Like at 3rd level you grant them one attack, then at 7th you can yell at a caster to throw out a cantrip, at 15th you can allow someone to take a full attack action, then at 18th you can tell a caster to throw out an actual spell. You could do that an amount of times equal to your CHA modifier once a long rest.
prolly not balanced completely, but it's an idea.
Tony Vargas
Legend
So I got around to watching the video, and it was interesting. Not the discussion of the Warlord, which is an exercise in futility from "fighter sub-class" on, but in the insights into Mike Mearls's design process. The frustration we had with him in the 4e era, when he'd pop off stuff like Magic of the Feywild, is a lot more understandable having seen the creative process in action. It confirmed a number of fairly obvious, but occasionally controversial ideas, like that balance just is not a priority in 5e designs. A consideration, but not a priority. Or that magic is at the center of the game not just in thematics as a fantasy rpg, but as a core design touchstone.
I probably shouldn't bother, but listening to the dismissal of the Warlord as a full class, because it's just too narrow a concept, and then focusing exclusively on the Tactical Warlord as if that were the whole thing... I'm sorry, Mike, it's a tad disingenuous, really.
I'm not sure if it points to anything - maybe this is just an exercise in sharing the creative process, so why mention all the cribbing from past editions - but it is odd that, when I open a 5e book, I can't help but recognize very familiar stuff from past editions, sometimes virtually verbatim, but when tackling the warlord, he's just kinda brainstorming, rather than reviewing the many builds, alternate class features, and hundreds of powers already developed for the class in it's brief history. The cynical reason might be that h4ters wouldn't stand for it, of course, but with all the other things taken from 4e, whether bowdlerized, or, again, virtually verbatim, and, besides, 4 years in on some podcast - why? Is he still that worried about a hypothetical h4ter backlash? Y'know, most h4ters I've talked to only know of a handful of warlord powers or builds, anyway. They fulminated over Commander's Strike and Inspiring Word and Come & Get It, and hardly cracked the book, otherwise.
And, it's not like the few minutes of brainstorming came up with anything new. Move allies around? Lots of powers. Like 'castling' in chess, well, there was a power called King's Castle in direct reference to that (though it wasn't even a Warlord power, all martial classes got cool toys in 4e) Mess with initiative? Guileful Switch. Grant actions? The well-known Commander's Strike, of course, and the also-chess-referent 'Knigtht's Move,' among many others (Hammer & Anvil was a nice one at low level). Concentration? Sustained powers were common in 4e, like concentration, plus cost an actual action.
The decision to go with dailies was also weird. Oh, healing could be a daily resource if it's that all-fired important - heck, take a serious page from 4e and have Warlord 'healing' simply trigger hit dice in combat, done. But martial dailies were a major, major controversy. Why even contemplate going there?
'Gambits' isn't a bad label, though.
I probably shouldn't bother, but listening to the dismissal of the Warlord as a full class, because it's just too narrow a concept, and then focusing exclusively on the Tactical Warlord as if that were the whole thing... I'm sorry, Mike, it's a tad disingenuous, really.
I'm not sure if it points to anything - maybe this is just an exercise in sharing the creative process, so why mention all the cribbing from past editions - but it is odd that, when I open a 5e book, I can't help but recognize very familiar stuff from past editions, sometimes virtually verbatim, but when tackling the warlord, he's just kinda brainstorming, rather than reviewing the many builds, alternate class features, and hundreds of powers already developed for the class in it's brief history. The cynical reason might be that h4ters wouldn't stand for it, of course, but with all the other things taken from 4e, whether bowdlerized, or, again, virtually verbatim, and, besides, 4 years in on some podcast - why? Is he still that worried about a hypothetical h4ter backlash? Y'know, most h4ters I've talked to only know of a handful of warlord powers or builds, anyway. They fulminated over Commander's Strike and Inspiring Word and Come & Get It, and hardly cracked the book, otherwise.
And, it's not like the few minutes of brainstorming came up with anything new. Move allies around? Lots of powers. Like 'castling' in chess, well, there was a power called King's Castle in direct reference to that (though it wasn't even a Warlord power, all martial classes got cool toys in 4e) Mess with initiative? Guileful Switch. Grant actions? The well-known Commander's Strike, of course, and the also-chess-referent 'Knigtht's Move,' among many others (Hammer & Anvil was a nice one at low level). Concentration? Sustained powers were common in 4e, like concentration, plus cost an actual action.
The decision to go with dailies was also weird. Oh, healing could be a daily resource if it's that all-fired important - heck, take a serious page from 4e and have Warlord 'healing' simply trigger hit dice in combat, done. But martial dailies were a major, major controversy. Why even contemplate going there?
'Gambits' isn't a bad label, though.
Hussar
Legend
I always have to laugh when people talk about warlords being OP.
Virtually EVERY SINGLE mechanic that warlords had is available in 5e. Every single one.
Does that not mean that a character with levels in Battlemaster, Bard, and Mastermind Rogue would be massively overpowered? After all, you have all the functions of a warlord right there.
It's so much edition warring garbage from people who can't seem to get over the idea that they must protect 5e from 4e cooties.
Sorry folks, you lost that race years ago. The warlord abilities are here to stay. All that's left is actually rebuilding the class.
Virtually EVERY SINGLE mechanic that warlords had is available in 5e. Every single one.
Does that not mean that a character with levels in Battlemaster, Bard, and Mastermind Rogue would be massively overpowered? After all, you have all the functions of a warlord right there.
It's so much edition warring garbage from people who can't seem to get over the idea that they must protect 5e from 4e cooties.
Sorry folks, you lost that race years ago. The warlord abilities are here to stay. All that's left is actually rebuilding the class.
Similar Threads
