D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[kerbarian]

Imagine the Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard were not in the PH1. Someone says "the Eldritch Knight gets you pretty close, a few tweaks and you're there." That's what this thread sounds like to me.

IMO, 4E (which I liked!) had much more than 5E does of powers or abilities that bend reality without being magical. Things like the fighter's "Come and Get it" were the most infamous, but a lot of the warlord's powers were along those lines as well. Many of them were also directly related to the kinds of tactical details that 5E did away with in order to speed up combat. So I think a lot of the 4E warlord mechanics are rather antithetical to 5E design.

So there are a few options:

1) Come up with a 5E class that feels mechanically similar to a 4E warlord. For the reasons I stated above, I think that's unlikely to work well.
2) Find a way to play a character in 5E that fills the thematic role of a 4E warlord (and feels like a warlord), even if it doesn't have many unique mechanics.
3) Come up with an entirely new, unique set of mechanics that fits the warlord and also works well with 5E.

I've been mainly thinking about 2, but 3 would be an interesting project.

 

[Obryn]

Here's where I think I'd like a more concrete definition.

A higher-level battlemaster at the moment has 6d10 superiority dice that all recharge with a short rest, so they're typically spending every round with +1d10 and some fancy skill.

Where does that fall short as a high-level effect?

It's only a difference in frequency and some magnitude from what they could do at 3rd level; it's the problem endemic to the Battlemaster's design.

Not to be glib about it, but at 11th level, the Battlemaster has 5d10 every short rest, using the same abilities that were balanced for a 3rd level character with a slightly bigger die (or 1 point in average magnitude). At 11th level, a Cleric has access to 6th level spells, which include Heal and Trueseeing, can already raise the dead, and can cast Bless pretty much every encounter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMO, 4E (which I liked!) had much more than 5E does of powers or abilities that bend reality without being magical. Things like the fighter's "Come and Get it" were the most infamous, but a lot of the warlord's powers were along those lines as well. Many of them were also directly related to the kinds of tactical details that 5E did away with in order to speed up combat. So I think a lot of the 4E warlord mechanics are rather antithetical to 5E design.

No martial exploit in 4e "bent reality." They may have been abstract, bundling tactics, training, force of personality, and the like into a single action, or, at the extreme, granted the player some agency, but never involved the martial PC 'bending reality.' Never.

Ironically, though, by dropping some of the tactical depth of 3.5 & 4e, 5e sets the stage for any revived Warlord class to need to use even more abstract maneuvers to model the kind of positioning, diversionary, and other tactics that 4e would have handled with a granted move or slide.

So, yes, it would be an insurmountable problem, trying to make a Warlord that doesn't offend the sensibilities affected by people determined to hate it.

3) Come up with an entirely new, unique set of mechanics that fits the warlord and also works well with 5E.

That'd be the most impressive. They'd have to hire someone with the brilliance to pull it off. After seeing Heinsoo's 13A 'Commander,' I doubt even he could manage it, though.

 

[Ashkelon]

Here are my thoughts on a warlord-like class.

1. Call it something else. Some people will hate on it just because of the name. Call it commander, marshal, tactician, or something.

2. It can't fight as good as a fighter on its own. 2 attacks max. A d8 HD instead of a d10. Maybe no heavy armor. It should be focused more on support than on pure combat skill.

3. No spells or daily abilities. Those are for magical characters. The warlord doesn't need that. They go against the flavor of the class.

4. Instead of spells and the like, it should have some resource that recharges with a short rest. Combat Inspiration perhaps. This resource can be used for special "warlord" tactics.

5. Tactics will include things like giving allies temp HP, granting allies attacks, granting allies movement, granting allies advantage, or imposing disadvantage on enemies. The action granting abilities can "break" the action economy because they are limited in usage.

6. Some other at-will features that show mastery of combat and tactics. The ability to allow allies to remain conscious while at 0 HP as long as they have temp HP. Bonuses to allies initiative rolls. The ability to use the Help action as a bonus action. The ability to use your action to let command an ally make an attack. That sort of thing.

 

[kerbarian]

No martial exploit in 4e "bent reality." They may have been abstract, bundling tactics, training, force of personality, and the like into a single action, or, at the extreme, granted the player some agency, but never involved the martial PC 'bending reality.' Never.

Sure, "made the game more abstract" is a good way of describing what those kinds of abilities did in 4E. 5E certainly still has a lot of abstraction, but I think it generally stays much more concrete in terms of what happens when you take an action, and that gives combat a different feel.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I don't think the Fighter chassis is any more suitable for a full-featured Warlord than it would be for Rangers or Paladins, and for similar reasons.

The main criteria a Warlord needs to fit, imo, is that it works as a Cleric (or Bard) replacement. Just like you don't give Clerics or Bards action surge/second wind/multiple attacks, you shouldn't give them to a Warlord.

Yeah, a Battlemaster has those warlordish maneuvers. But that's basically the Eldritch Knight approach. You're still mostly a Fighter.

I always thought of the warlord as mostly fighter, with a bit of action enabler/buffer and healer tossed in.

 

[Ashrym]

It's only a difference in frequency and some magnitude from what they could do at 3rd level; it's the problem endemic to the Battlemaster's design.

Not to be glib about it, but at 11th level, the Battlemaster has 5d10 every short rest, using the same abilities that were balanced for a 3rd level character with a slightly bigger die (or 1 point in average magnitude). At 11th level, a Cleric has access to 6th level spells, which include Heal and Trueseeing, can already raise the dead, and can cast Bless pretty much every encounter.

Yes and no.

It wasn't uncommon for higher level powers to do add weapon damage and then also do the same basic effects as lower level powers and then just give it a new name. An 11th level battlemaster goes from, for example, an attack action that does 2[W]+2*STR+1d10+15ft push to 1 target and then opens up a new attack action that does 3[W]+3*STR+1d10+15ft push to 1 target. Unlike 4e, 5e doesn't codify and restrict the number of options so said character doesn't need to choose between a power that says 3[W]+3*STR+1d10+15ft push to 1 target, or 2[W]+2*STR+1d10+15ft push to 1 target and [W]+STR to a second target, or choose 3 targets and do [W]+STR+1d10+15ft push to each target. Those are all new options available to an 11th level battlemaster and could just as easily have been codified, labelled, and given a restricted list from which to choose.

The options aren't balanced to 3rd level because the permutations of options increases drastically as numbers of maneuvers increases, feats are acquired, and additional attacks become available. The restriction is more akin to a power point pool where even bigger options that became available can simply cost more points, but they are still available, so the choice is often to continue without blowing them all quickly. There's a big difference between having precision attack at 3rd level and having precision attack with 3 attacks at -5/+10 using great weapon master. Precision attack is the same, but the attack action of which it is a component is not.

One that same note, not all 4e powers were obviously simply improved versions of weaker abilities either. It's just they weren't all exactly different either, and were balanced against each other the same as those that might be just improvements on existing abilities.

It's the permutations that give the gain, not just the individual maneuvers.



I'm curious what you think a battlemaster should include. I'm still thinking of working on one, even if I don't care for the, for those who might like one. I would be cautious not to step on battlemaster toes at the same time, however.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I guess the problem when comparing to the 4E warlord is that the battlemaster can't deliver as much healing as a cleric. But as a matter of personal taste, I would prefer if the warlord could still function as an effective fighter by building on the fighter chassis. I don't think the warlord should be capable of healing effects with large numbers of dice, however.

I still think it's within the realm of a subclass; give them the same choice of maneuvers, but instead of granting extra damage to the battlemaster have them grant extra HP or damage to allies, depending on the maneuver, and key off of Int or Cha, depending on the maneuver. I think that to better keep a party alive, superiority dice to heal allies should be boosted by the Cha modifier.

E.G.

Respite: Attack an opponent threatening an ally. Whether you hit or miss, your target has disadvantage on attack rolls against the ally on its next turn, and your ally gains one superiority die + Cha bonus in HP.

Tactical Strike: As your action, you identify a high-value target and direct your allies to focus fire. Attack the target. All your allies add one superiority die + Int bonus to their first attack roll against that target on their next turn.

The superiority dice giving healing as opposed to damage is an excellent idea imo. This could be part of a Warlord Feat. Add a couple other benefits and boom, instant warlordly dude. Love it!

Warlord Feat:

1. You get leadership dice (stolen name from earlier post!) instead of superiority dice. You can give nearby allies or yourself (temp?) hp with them.
2. You can enable an ally to use a maneuver you know as a reaction
3. something else

 

[Tony Vargas]

5E certainly still has a lot of abstraction, but I think it generally stays much more concrete in terms of what happens when you take an action, and that gives combat a different feel.

The DM could choose to run it that way, yes. Then again, he might not. Think about the potential breadth of improvised actions a DM /might/ allow in 5e? The resolution of them could be very detailed and concrete - step-by-step, even - or sweaping, abstract, even hand-waved.

That's the thing that I really appreciate about 5e, it is so much the DM's game. Most of the crazy debates we had in the 3e & 4e eras on-line (or are having now), are rendered moot at the 5e table.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It seems easier to squeeze a warlord out of a cleric to me.

Is that heresy?