Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Mistwell]

Looking at DMs Guild, one of the top rated Warlord classes there is a fighter subclass.

 

[TwoSix]

I think basing it off the fighter chassis is perfect for the subclass. It's not just a case of best fit for the classes that are currently available in 5e but also because I always felt that the warlord was just a different kind of fighter. I don't agree with the people who claim that the fighter's number or attacks or action surge is too much for the warlord. For me, it all seems to fit really well for a warlord.

Personally, I like using a Rogue chassis, with the action grant replacing sneak attack progression. Or just make it strictly a Rogue subclass. The opportunity cost of giving someone else an attack is a lot heavier when you're forgoing your own sneak attack.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Looking at DMs Guild, one of the top rated Warlord classes there is a fighter subclass.

Good for the person that wrote it. Now can you bow out of the warlord discussion? This isnt for you. You're like a vegetarian constantly telling a steakhouse how not to cook the steak they didnt order and dont want to eat.

If WOTC can waste space on the sorcerer being its own class, they can use some on the warlord. There isnt enough design space in a subclass. They need to make a class for those that want to play a warlord, not try and appease those that don't want it to exist.

 

[Mistwell]

Good for the person that wrote it. Now can you bow out of the warlord discussion?

No. WOTC appears to be going in the direction of a fighter subclass for Warlord. You don't appear to like that. So you can make your own homebrew now. But, if anyone should bow out (and I don't think anyone should) it would probably be the guy insisting on something that won't exist.

This isnt for you.

Why not, because I like something about the Warlord different from what you like? Should everyone who doesn't want exactly what you want vacate the thread now?

You're like a vegetarian

I am not like one. I *am* one. Since 1989.

constantly telling a steakhouse how not to cook the steak they didnt order and dont want to eat.

Nope. I want a Warlord. I just think it works fine as a fighter subclass. You don't. But somehow you think I shouldn't express my opinion because it differs from yours. Maybe write a blog or something, if you don't like contrary opinions about this topic?

Or you could put me on ignore if reading my opinion is so problematic for you. But...I am pretty sure you policing the thread for incorrect opinions is not really your job.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's nice you're happy with scraps, but since you could already do that with the tools provided, a new piddly subclass shouldnt even matter to you. So why exactly are you campaigning against the rest of us getting the class we want?

 

[Mistwell]

It's nice you're happy with scraps, but since you could already do that with the tools provided, a new piddly subclass shouldnt even matter to you. So why exactly are you campaigning against the rest of us getting the class we want?

I am not complaining about anything (aside from your inappropriate attack). I am not sure why you thought I was.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like something about the Warlord different from what you like?

What do you like about the Warlord?

(And, for clarity, first, what do you mean by 'the Warlord?' the 4e Class? the general concept? John Carter? Travis Morgan? a specific Afghani Kahn?

...

Terry Scott Szopinski?)

 

[Mistwell]

What do you like about the Warlord?

(And, for clarity, first, what do you mean by 'the Warlord?' the 4e Class? the general concept? John Carter? Travis Morgan? a specific Afghani Kahn?

...

Terry Scott Szopinski?)

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.

 

[Remathilis]

Lets start a brainstorm for different features that a Warlord Paladin might have.

*cough*

Strip away all the fluff from a paladin, and you get a class that has the following features.

* martial weapons, all armors and shields
* d10 HD
* two attacks at 5th
* Fighting Style
* Smites
* Healing
* Defensive Auras
* Spells
* Minor Divine abilities (detect evil, channel divinity)
* Strength and Charisma focused

Now, we just do some switching around. The Spells and Minor Divine powers need to go; these get swapped to some manner of martial ability that creates its "warlordy powers". I'm a big proponent on using Superiority dice and maneuvers (with a warlord getting many more dice and maneuvers than a battlemaster). Superiority dice don't re-invent the wheel too much, synergize with the Martial Adept feat, and as a bonus new maneuvers that are invented for the warlord can be retroactively added to the battlemaster, which becomes the "eldrich knight" version of the warlord.

As for healing; lay on hands can easily be replaced by inspiring word. The mechanics of it be a pool of hp (like lay on hands) or a pool of dice (akin to the dream-druids summer balm healing pool). They could probably get some sort of kicker that lets HD be more effective (akin to a bard's Song of Rest) as well. A warlord isn't removing diseases, poisons, or raising the dead, but he can be a perfectly servicable hp healer and maybe grant some type of "morale" bonus to give advantage to saves to remove them.

Further a paladin can grant "auras" that grant protection against fear, charms, etc. Since the proto-Warlord was the marshal, I find it appropriate to give the 5e warlord a similar "aura" ability that grants minor bonuses (such as adding bonuses to damage or saves) or major ones (immunity to fear or charm at higher levels). These augment the abilities given by the maneuver/superiority dice and would allow for warlordy things on rounds the warlord chooses to attack or not use a superiority dice.

Smite seems to be a good way to model the extra-actions concept. A paladin's big ability is being able to trade spell slots for handfuls of d8s with an attack. Rather than a buffed out single attack by the paladin, the warlord could use some mechanic to provide his allies a buffed out attack. Rather than granting the ally a free "attack action", though, it would have to be worded to avoid abuse (no bonus SA, no bonus from GMW/SS, no stunning fist or paladin smite) but giving a character a bonus attack with extra damage would be a good way to have the warlord have his awesome attack.

The rest is fairly trivial. You could have the warlord be primarily Strength (for melee, as the warlord is still considered a melee character) and either Int or Cha as secondary (I personally would want Str/Int, as paladin already has Str/Cha).

In the end, I'd see...

* martial weapons, all armors and shields
* d10 HD
* two attacks at 5th
* Fighting Style
* Grant Attacks (with riders)
* Inspiring Word
* Commanding Auras
* Superiority Dice
* Maneuvers
* Strength and Intelligence focused

Now granted, he's more apt to replace a fighter than a cleric, but I think it would work to capture the flavor of the warlord while not radically altering the 5e design paradigm and would integrate into the game without introducing yet-another resource mechanic.

Of course, right now I'd be willing to accept it be elf-only and requiring you to worship a D&D God to get your warlord powers...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really liked the 4e class.

What did you like about it?