D&D 5E What kind of Warlord design are you hoping for?

[Tallifer]

As a dungeon master still learning how to run 5th Edition, I do not want any additional mechanics. I prefer players building a Warlord using the existing rules (Battlemaster, or multiclassing, or refluffing a Bard, etc) or using a DMs Guild variant which also uses the existing mechanics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As a dungeon master still learning how to run 5th Edition, I do not want any additional mechanics.

You may not have internalized just how Empowered you are by 5e. Hold the line where you want. PH-only is very convenient, for instance. Makes no difference what come out in UA or eventually sees print in some supplement.

 

[Draegn]

If there is to be a warlord I would like to see one that actually gains soldiers each level so that the player can go war about something or other. Perhaps gaining men at arms in a similar manner to the AD&D cavalier class. In addition upon reaching a certain number of troops the warlord would also start to attract camp followers. Maybe one for every seven men, these being strictly non-combatants. The character could use various checks to give orders. Example: perception the player spots and orc readying to throw a flask of burning oil, he calls out "Archer Bobby, shoot that orc!" The character's saving throws affect those under his command, if he makes a save against fear, no one under his command flees, however if the character fails everyone routs.

 

[CapnZapp]

A warlord:

Base it on a martial cleric's chassi: d8 hit dice, martial weapons, all armors and shield.

Then strip away everything that fighters and clerics get on top of this, to make room for some seriously cool warlord-y abilities.

Crib freely from existing classes. The argument "the Bard already got Inspiration" is not valid - we can't have a Warlord if existing warlord-y abilities can't be used.

Extra Attack becomes Commander's strike something. You don't make an extra weapon attack, somebody else does. [Insert design discussion about how to prevent nova riders, most notably sneak damage, using easy non-convoluted language]

Possibly superiority dice, but with its own selection of support-y usages.

Full free unrestricted action trading (essentially giving up your own action to give away an action surge) at high level. Anything that requires the recipient to pay a cost in actions is dead on arrival - at high levels optimized characters have already found uses for their action, bonus action, reaction (if not more actions). Any ability that requires the target to spend its anything will get a "thanks but no thanks" response.

Absolutely no magic, or even supernatural, fluff (nothing like barbarian ancestor spirits). Pure unadulterated charisma willpower and leadership to explain 100% of abilities.

Including healing, and effective healing at that (possibly restricted to one subclass, since in-combat healing is much less a needed thing in 5E)

---

Personal wishes:

At least one subclass specializing in aggro control (or "taunts" or whatever you want to call it). I know some of you will get an aneurysm just by reading this, so let's put all the aggro mechanics in the subclass (and not the base class) and then make that subclass optional.

But having a D&D class that can influence monsters to make bad decisions (such as ganging up on the impenetrable fighter while leaving the rogue and wizard alone) in a completely unmagical manner would be highly refreshing tactically and gameplay speaking.

Compare aggro to fear. It targets will (probably), but there are no attempts to write it off as something magical. A dragon's majestic aura works within an antimagic zone. Aggro should too.

Darkness and silence is another thing. I'm okay with a Warlord having a Bard-level dependency on sight and sound.

 

[The Old Crow]

I voted "other", simply because I like the concept of the Warlord class (name sucks though, sorry have to say it). I never saw a 3e Marshall or even played 4e at all, so I have no mechanical preferences. I think it will oen up more design space for martial characters, which is something I really want.

Full free unrestricted action trading (essentially giving up your own action to give away an action surge) at high level. Anything that requires the recipient to pay a cost in actions is dead on arrival - at high levels optimized characters have already found uses for their action, bonus action, reaction (if not more actions). Any ability that requires the target to spend its anything will get a "thanks but no thanks" response.

I agree with this 100%. Also if what the Warlord lets the other characters do with their reaction is better than what they set up their own characters to do, it might feel like the Warlord is hijacking their character simply because it will be stupid not to do what the Warlord wanted instead. This can be avoided altogether by having the Warlord's sacrificed actions carry the entire cost.

 

[Dausuul]

I want a "noble" class, a nonmagical support character who does not rely on dealing damage personally. Something like the "lazy warlord" builds from 4E, where you never swung a sword yourself but instead used Commander's Strike every round to give your allies extra attacks. Subclasses could specialize in taunts/distractions, inspiring allies, and tactical advantage.

If we're going to have a new base class, it should cover more ground than just "battlemaster fighter with maneuvers turned up and Extra Attack turned down."

 

[MoonSong]

I want a "noble" class, a nonmagical support character who does not rely on dealing damage personally. Something like the "lazy warlord" builds from 4E, where you never swung a sword yourself but instead used Commander's Strike every round to give your allies extra attacks. Subclasses could specialize in taunts/distractions, inspiring allies, and tactical advantage.

If we're going to have a new base class, it should cover more ground than just "battlemaster fighter with maneuvers turned up and Extra Attack turned down."

Not official, but this one does that (This is the OGL version with Errata included)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpgdownloads.php?do=download&downloadid=1359

The original is I believe in En5ider 34 and here is the errata

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?499099-En5ider-s-Noble-class-Errata

Yunru was kind enough to put together a Guide (predates the errata)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469537-Paths-of-Nobility-A-Noble-Guide

 

[ccs]

[sarcasm]Well, here's hoping that they do, and that you get stuck playing one from 1-20.

Because I have as much right to hope that the way I'd like to play D&D is forced down your throat as you do.[/sarcasm]

Which is to say, no right at all.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't notice the disclaimer on this poll/question that stated you had to be Pro-warlord in order to reply. Could you point it out to me?

And you're completely wrong about us not having any right to hope Wizards does/does not design a 5e warlord.
You can hope yes, I can hope no, & eventually we'll see who's hope comes true....

I hope no because I don't have any use for the class. Thus I'm hoping the effort & page count this would take gets spent on something I would have a use for.

I fully expect though that your hope will come true. Because $. There's no profit in not selling a WL.

Enjoy playing D&D with no Warlord for the rest of your life, because nothing can ever force you to use an optional class you don't want to.
Count your blessings (starting with that one), and try to grow a little, tiny bit of basic consideration for your fellow human beings, and maybe even your fellow gamers.

Ok, before my anti-warlord hope was just a personal thing (see above). Wether you end up with an official WL or not is actually irrelevant to me. But poop like this? It shifts it. So now I'm hoping against you. And my hope expands! In the eventuality that you do get your 5e WL? I hope it's terribly designed. Much worse than the PHB beast-master ranger. And I hope any revisions take forever & don't help it much.

 

[Eric V]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't notice the disclaimer on this poll/question that stated you had to be Pro-warlord in order to reply. Could you point it out to me?

And you're completely wrong about us not having any right to hope Wizards does/does not design a 5e warlord.
You can hope yes, I can hope no, & eventually we'll see who's hope comes true....

I hope no because I don't have any use for the class. Thus I'm hoping the effort & page count this would take gets spent on something I would have a use for.

I fully expect though that your hope will come true. Because $. There's no profit in not selling a WL.




Ok, before my anti-warlord hope was just a personal thing (see above). Wether you end up with an official WL or not is actually irrelevant to me. But poop like this? It shifts it. So now I'm hoping against you. And my hope expands! In the eventuality that you do get your 5e WL? I hope it's terribly designed. Much worse than the PHB beast-master ranger. And I hope any revisions take forever & don't help it much.

Dude...this is a really childish reaction. Read it again and tell me it's not; come on, now...

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I would love a 4e style warlord (in that it needs to spend most of it's time being a warlord, rather than a fighter whom can occasionally do something warlord oriented) though I'm still debating which way would be best for this edition's warlord- a fighter as warlord could work... but you HAVE to use extra attacks as a resource- I would be fine with a feature that lets you use you use your extra attacks to grant others attacks with bonuses instead- sort of taking away your attacks, to give attacks, so that's balanced and then putting in the normal extra power of the subclass (like the damage part of the superiority die) and it's other effects into riders on those attacks.