Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana:Are they revealing limitations in the 5th edition system?

[Tony Vargas]

Attack support will be difficult, because CR (such as it is) is based on the notion that a party of 4 makes X attacks, not X+3 or X+2 if it takes the recipient's bonus action.

Party composition can radically change the number of attacks a party of 4 can make in a round. The real issue that might distort CR considerations (not that CR is terribly precise to begin with) would be one of overall DPR, which such abilities needn't vary to any greater extent that is already likely with varying party composition.

The stumbling block there would seem to be the de-coupling, in 5e, of attacks and actions. An action might be a single attack, or several attack rolls, or none (but still do damage automatically, on a failed save, or even on a successful save). Still, hardly seems insurmountable.

 

[Nutation]

"Name me a color that doesn't exist", forget the poet's name but it went something like that.

From The Paint Box by E V Rieu:

Now mix me a color that nobody knows,
And paint me a country where nobody goes.
And put in it people a little like you,
Watching a unicorn drinking the dew.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Just want to point out that the healing from the Healer's Feat, and the temp hp from the Leader feat, are decently substantial. Combined with common potions being sold at most local retailers, and you can do a decent job healing with no casting if you are so inclined.

Because you can do something one way, doesn't always mean that there is no room to do something a little different in another way. It might not be highest priority, but if you're going to introduce a lot of new classes, Warlord has been a definite item on the wish list for some players.

Now, all of that does nothing for poison, petrify ect, but I don't think Warlord would cover that design space very well either, people had a hard enough time with hp healing by warlords, I doubt they are going to find a Warlord breaking a curse by cussing it out acceptable...

As pointed out, non-caster support is doable now with feats, tools, etc. Just seems thin for a whole Class to be based around.

Remember that non-caster does not mean non-magic. Non-PoE Monks for example aren't casters. - But they do use magic. Even the Way of Tranquillity monk's only actual spell is the Sanctuary effect. There is definitely potential and precedent for a non-caster to do things like break curses and petrification etc without casting a spell if that is the way WotC decide to take it.

Actually, that pointed out only healing, using a combination of HD (perfectly OK, but inadequate by itself), feats (optional & limited) and magic items (possibly inappropriate in the low/no magic styles that'd be opened up by a non-caster support class). Restoring hps was a consistent feature of of the Leader role 4e, and something like Inspiring Word is certainly called for, but it was not anywhere near the whole class. In 5e there is no such Role limitation on class design, support is more varied, and classes are not limited to the 'needed' contribution, nor held back by niche protection. The Warlord range of concepts could easily cover more than just the desperately-needed aspects of support in 5e, and should, given the 5e design philosophy.

Yep. I've put together a Warlord class for a player with a similar concept of that class using Bard. Just remove the flashy spells and material components, say the other spells and your abilities don't ping under Detect magic and work fine in antimagic.
Hey presto, a non-magic-user able to buff and inspire their allies with nothing but shouts and gestures.

The other version was a BM with mostly support maneuvers and Extra Attack swapped for the ability to use some of those maneuvers without a superiority die as an action. Inspiring leader and Healer feats (with the healer's pack requirement waived). At level 5 got the ability to make an attack as well as use a maneuver, level 11 could use two maneuvers.

Both seemed to work fine in terms of providing what the player wanted. No telling whether WotC would decide to go either of those routes if they do, but probably a different direction and more polished than my efforts.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I like the bard idea. I have had similar thoughts, but never actually put them into practice.

Not to digress too much, but I would be curious if most warlord fans would be good with a magical (but not spell casting) warlord if that is what it took to get WotC behind it for 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

From The Paint Box by E V Rieu:

Now mix me a color that nobody knows,
And paint me a country where nobody goes.
And put in it people a little like you,
Watching a unicorn drinking the dew.

Thanks, was away from my poetry collection when I was typing.

Because you can do something one way, doesn't always mean that there is no room to do something a little different in another way. It might not be highest priority, but if you're going to introduce a lot of new classes, Warlord has been a definite item on the wish list for some players.


Remember that non-caster does not mean non-magic. Non-PoE Monks for example aren't casters. - But they do use magic. Even the Way of Tranquillity monk's only actual spell is the Sanctuary effect. There is definitely potential and precedent for a non-caster to do things like break curses and petrification etc without casting a spell if that is the way WotC decide to take it.

I completely agree with both these points. My response to the healing was only to point out that we do have methods of healing that are adequate to the task and do not use magic, if someone wanted to build a Battlemaster/Banneret-as-Warlord character.

However, with how stringent certain fans can get about things being "spell-less" (like the spell-less ranger), and by Spell-less they often want to have no magic at all, I would not be surprised to see the warlord fan-base split by the introduction of a warlord that uses magic but no spells. Some would like it, others would decry it as a false warlord, because the Warlord needs to be explicitly non-magical for it to be a true warlord. And I could see their point in the case of the Warlord, because it could then be argued that a combination of War Cleric and Valor Bard would then be an acceptable Warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would not be surprised to see the warlord fan-base split by the introduction of a warlord that uses magic but no spells. Some would like it, others would decry it as a false warlord, because the Warlord needs to be explicitly non-magical for it to be a true warlord.

Unlike the Ranger, which had been a caster in most editions and even a martial|primal mash-up in Essentials, the Warlord has only ever been entirely martial. Of course "magic but no spells" could be used as code for 'super-human, but not supernatural...'

...rather like twisting "not magic in the conventional sense" to "an un-conventional sort of magic." ;P