D&D 5E "Warlord" Fighter sub-class from MMHFT podcast. Further duscussion.

[Tony Vargas]

It may be nice to get a new Mearls Warlord thread with his final design so we can all talk about that and we won't have to dig through 900 posts to find the details about his design? Any volunteers to create it?

Hunted up the most relevant links from the original thread:

Links to the podcasts:

For those of you who do not know:

Mike Mearls hosts a stream where he designs subclasses, this week he took a stab at the highly demanded (Fighter)Warlord.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/235935943
.

2nd part:

YouTube link is here.

3rd part:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621

And, in summary:
(also attached, below)

Transcribed his first draft results, which you can see here. .

I'm going wiki with this one, so feel free to add other relevant links!

 

[Pauln6]

That seems incredibly unwieldy. I think I would have preferred a variant battlemaster with lower superiority dice but bigger battlefield effects plus superior manoeuvres that are more like tactical gambits costing two dice and toned down purple dragon knight healing.

 

[Leatherhead]

I would like to point out, this is a stream and not a podcast. It's like the difference between radio and tv.

 

[CapnZapp]

What? A "tactical area"?

Talk about... I lack words.

This is obviously stealing the totem shaman's schtick, planting a totem in the ground for various effects.

Where is the give-ally-action? Oh, at 18th level. What a wasted effort - you could just as well say "don't get any"?

I give this an F as a warlord effort. As a misnamed totem class it might have merit, but honestly I can't be bothered to analyse in any detail.

What's wrong with him, people? Why insist on calling this not-warlord a warlord? Is he deliberately trolling us or what?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would like to point out, this is a stream and not a podcast. It's like the difference between radio and tv.

Yeah, I feel like my grandmother asking if we were "listening" to Star Trek...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why insist on calling this not-warlord a warlord? Is he deliberately trolling us or what?

In the first ep he does leave the door open a crack to a full class...

...one excuse he offered was not enough concepts to fill out a full class with 8+ sub-classes... ignoring there were 6 different 'Presences' in 4e, plus the fan-favorite 'lazy' builds. The other thread came up with 12-16 potential 5e sub-classes, since those go all over the map, playing with faux-MC ideas and the like.

 

[FrogReaver]

I like a lot of ideas in the subclass. It seems maybe too strong by max level and will have to be toned back quite a bit IMO

its probably about right in power till mid game

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is all I can think when I hear all this banter about Warlords...



Maybe it's because I played 1e then missed a few decades and started back up with 5e...

 

[TwoSix]

That's quite a tactical genius, right there. As a DM, I'm always terrified that the PCs might group up into another a tight bunch to get healing, because there's nothing I can do to punish PCs for standing together in a small area.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The only substantive objection I have to this is the name "Warlord" which remains one of the worst class names ever.

I still don't see the need for healing, but at least the source for it was left vague. Those who need it to be non-magical can make it so.

I find the abilities themselves fun and flavorful, although rather "unwieldy" as [MENTION=6777422]Pauln6[/MENTION] said. The nifty/tricky thing about it is that because you declare the tactical focus on one turn and use it on subsequent turns you actually have to plan ahead...at least a little bit...so in that sense it really is tactical and not just reactionary.