What makes a Warlord differ from a Bard?

[Jester David]

The spellless bard description is apt but unfortunate. A spellless ranger or paladin isn't a solid classes either.

This comparison is typically the result of inspiring warlords, that share a very simmilar niche with the bard. Bards can do things other than cast spells, but these are theoretically shared with the warlord, which should be avoided as inspiring people is the bard's one unique thing. It'd be unfortunate to give rage or sneak attack to another class and then make that new class more focused and better with that feature.

However, the Intelligence based tactical warlord is very different. This is a strategic leader and military commander, which is different enough to stand apart from the bard. There's far less overlap. This warlord is not inspiring people to better through fancy words but directing them in battle, taking advantage of errors in their opponents' defences, or relying on practiced maneuvers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I see people wanting a "Martial-type character who commands others" but I was wondering what makes people think that a leader can fight better than those under their command?

If you consider a tactical commander, how often is the commander the best combatant in the group, versus how often she is merely the smartest and most analytical of the group? Whenever I picture Warlord, I imagine people desire Hannibal from the A-Team, a character with their own skills PLUS the ability to lead.

This still doesn't mean that Hannibal can out-fight B.A. Hannibal vs Face in a brawl would be interesting - but it's the forte of neither of them.

If a Martial character possessed the ability to actively dominate the support zone as well, where do people feel this would not be overpowered?

Who is asking for the Warlord to be able to out-fight a barbarian or fighter toe-to-toe? One on one in melee a warlord should be about on the level of a melee cleric or a skald bard - with their own suite of abilities to replace the spells they don't get.

We have the Battle Commander abilities with the ability to order others to attack on a fighter already but I understand people also want the Bardic abilities to heal... so I was curious what people feel is missing from a Skald (Bard subtype) that would make a Warlord balanced but superior for their playstyle?

Not crutching on being a caster with nine spell levels for starters... The Bard's one of the best spellcasters in the game (especially with their ability to raid Paladin and Ranger capstones).

 

[choryukami]

Use a valor bard, pick high scores in STR and CHA rather than DEX/CHA, add levels of fighter if you want a more tactical feel. As it stands you cannot get that 'magic-less' warlord though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As others have said: Bards have magic, Warlords don't. That's one of the biggest differences right there. In general, Warlords are expected to have a certain minimal amount of combat acumen that is higher than the Bard minimum, but lower than the Fighter minimum. E.g. Warlords might start with something like medium armor proficiency and one/two martial weapon(s) of choice. Warlords and Bards may both like Cha, but Warlords can choose Int or Wis instead, and still be good at their jobs (in meaningfully different ways).

Beyond that, it's all specific execution, which is too nebulous/edition-specific to describe.

If being a full caster weren't deeply ingrained in the Bard, it would be the closest class to the Warlord. Mechanically, however, I think the Warlock is actually the closest class to the right execution for a 5e Warlord: an initial choice of style with deep meaning (Warlock: Patron/Warlord: "Presence") plus a smaller but still important "focusing" choice at 3rd level (WK: Pact/WD: "Style"); per-rest resources chosen from a short list (WK: spells/WD: maybe "exploits"?); always-on benefits that range from playstyle-defining to fun-and-nifty to obscure-and-niche, which may be dependent on how you've customized the class (WK: invocations/WD: maybe "tactics"?).

It's really quite sad, IMO, that all of the focus has been on the Bard due to the thematic similarity, when the mechanics seem to be three-quarters written for you if you start from Warlock and just jettison any caster-related thinking.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

I feel like the easiest way to show the difference between expectations for the two is to put a level 16 4e tactical (intelligence based) warlord vs a level 16 4e bard - if you put them side by side it's pretty obvious. The level 15 daily (so the flashiest ability that the characters have) that's highest rated for the tactical warlord is 'Anticipate the attack.' This is an interrupt (so used off turn), and the flavour speaks to tactical planning and cleverness. What it does is when someone tries to attack the warlord, he can fire out a melee attack, and then take a 5 foot step that doesn't provoke. This will negate the attack if the monster doesn't have reach or similar. Then any of the warlords allies adjacent to the target can fire out an opportunity attack with a small bonus to hit.

There is no consensus as to what the strongest bard power is but let's look at two of the highest rated by char op. Both are ranged and implement based (so are cast by the bard strumming his lute not hitting someone with an axe). One summons a massive wall of sound that does damage and debuffs for standing in or next to it. Another is 'strike up the dance' which allows you to reposition 1 to 3 enemies and them force them to dance (immobilizing them) until they pass a save while inflicting some psychic damage.

Differences are fairly clear imho. In 4e both are healers, buffers/debuffers and enablers but they go about it very differently. Warlords have tons and tons of 'we swing' powers.

If being a full caster weren't deeply ingrained in the Bard, it would be the closest class to the Warlord. Mechanically, however, I think the Warlock is actually the closest class to the right execution for a 5e Warlord: an initial choice of style with deep meaning (Warlock: Patron/Warlord: "Presence") plus a smaller but still important "focusing" choice at 3rd level (WK: Pact/WD: "Style"); per-rest resources chosen from a short list (WK: spells/WD: maybe "exploits"?); always-on benefits that range from playstyle-defining to fun-and-nifty to obscure-and-niche, which may be dependent on how you've customized the class (WK: invocations/WD: maybe "tactics"?).

I'm 95% certain the easiest way to build a warlord is start with a warlock because all the stuff is keyed off at will or short rests, which feels right for the warlord AND gives it a distinct niche from the bard (just as the warlock is different from the sorcerer). The problem is a huge amount of the warlock is tied up in Eldritch blast - though it's quite possible that could very well be replaced by an initially I swing or you swing, then a 'we swing' power or with a 'I swing and these scaling enablers get added to other people' or a bunch of other stuff. But that becomes the key decision. If you peg it al back to melee you can probably even buff Eldritch blast a bit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the easiest way to build a warlord is start with a warlock because all the stuff is keyed off at will or short rests, which feels right for the warlord AND gives it a distinct niche from the bard.

It 'feels right,' I suppose, because the basic fighter & battlemaster sub-class are keyed to short rests. Which isn't really a fantastic reason. Just because the fighter and warlord are obviously both martial and both had the same resource structure in 4e doesn't mean they should both have the same resource structure in 5e. Sorcerers and Warlocks are both arcane and both had the same resource structure in 4e, but are differentiated by their resources in 5e, for instance.

The problem is a huge amount of the warlock is tied up in Eldritch blast - If you peg it al back to melee you can probably even buff Eldritch blast a bit.

Eldritch Blast roughly keeps up with archery as far as DPR is concerned - weapon attacks would be the obvious corresponding thing. Thing is, the Warlock can be a consistent-DPR build via EB, and that's not the Warlord's thing. It wasn't a 'striker.'

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

It 'feels right,' I suppose, because the basic fighter & battlemaster sub-class are keyed to short rests. Which isn't really a fantastic reason. Just because the fighter and warlord are obviously both martial and both had the same resource structure in 4e doesn't mean they should both have the same resource structure in 5e. Sorcerers and Warlocks are both arcane and both had the same resource structure in 4e, but are differentiated by their resources in 5e, for instance.

Yes, to an extent. However, in 4e inspiring word and the various leader powers are per encounter, and Hammer and Anvil and Vengance is mine are both sort of defining I swing & you swing powers and show up as encounters. Additionally, the 'on an AP' leader features feel more like encounter than daily to me because of the milestone workday (e.g. if playing 5-6 encounters, that's 3 AP features, and it works per player basis, so it goes off 25 times in a 5 encounter workday). A lot of the flavourful stuff is on the 'faster' at will and encounter power schedule imho which makes me lean warlock.

You can obviously do the same thing with the Bard too mind I agree, using a Valour bard as the framework for a power point is not a terrible idea at all. I'm inclined to lump it with the other Martial power source characters and because the key feature - per encounter martial healing - is encounter based. Lastly the patch protection thing is SUPER important to me, a short rest schedule enabler has clear differentiation from a long rest enabler.

Eldritch Blast roughly keeps up with archery as far as DPR is concerned - weapon attacks would be the obvious corresponding thing. Thing is, the Warlock can be a consistent-DPR build via EB, and that's not the Warlord's thing. It wasn't a 'striker.'

Agree absolutely, so you're going to want to take that away from the Warlord.... but it's a huge part of the Warlock's value which makes starting from the Warlock slightly more painful, though honestly I don't see why it cannot be the framework for 'I swing and you swing' at wills. If I was making a warlord, level 6 would have a I swing and you swing power based of Eldritch blast.

 

[mellored]

honestly I don't see why it cannot be the framework for 'I swing and you swing' at wills. If I was making a warlord, level 6 would have a I swing and you swing power based of Eldritch blast.

I swing / you swing is 2 attacks. It works fine to replace at-will multi-attack at level 5 (except with rogue), but you shouldn't let other things add to it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, to an extent. However, in 4e inspiring word and the various leader powers are per encounter, and Hammer and Anvil and Vengance is mine are both sort of defining I swing & you swing powers and show up as encounters.

Sure, and healing word was one of those Encounter leader features, and now it uses daily spell slots.

Additionally, the 'on an AP' leader features feel more like encounter than daily to me because of the milestone workday (e.g. if playing 5-6 encounters, that's 3 AP features, and it works per player basis, so it goes off 25 times in a 5 encounter workday).

Every-other encounter recharge of APs maps almost perfectly to short rests in 5e, mechanically. Conceptually, though, I think APs map better to Inspiration. So it'd be easy to see the 'on AP' feature triggering on the use of Inspiration, instead. It'd also share the mechanical similarity of being ally-player-managed.

You can obviously do the same thing with the Bard too mind I agree, using a Valour bard as the framework for a power point is not a terrible idea at all. I'm inclined to lump it with the other Martial power source characters and because the key feature - per encounter martial healing - is encounter based. Lastly, a short rest schedule enabler has clear differentiation from a long rest enabler.

Mechanical differentiation is a major, conscious hallmark of 5e. Which is why I don't think mapping to an extant class is necessarily the ideal place to start. Aping the resource structure of an existing class saves the designer the effort of balancing the class by re-using something that's already been balanced. That, obviously, assumes that balance is valued under the design philosophy over differentiation, and that balance has been designed into the existing classes to a meaningful degree. I see no reason to think either is true in the case of 5e.

Designing the Warlord with a unique resource schedule unrelated to existing classes and based primarily on fully modeling the range of concept and feel of the original class, secondarily on adequately contributing to the party, and worrying about balance only to the extent that 5e calls for, would make the most sense.

Agree absolutely, so you're going to want to take that away from the Warlord.... but it's a huge part of the Warlock's value which makes starting from the Warlock slightly more painful,

Same problem as starting with the fighter, really, though at least the Warlock innately has a lot more resources and flexibility than the fighter, even while rivaling its DPR, the point is that they're both DPR-focused builds - and the Warlord shouldn't be.

though honestly I don't see why it cannot be the framework for 'I swing and you swing' at wills. If I was making a warlord, level 6 would have a I swing and you swing power based of Eldritch blast.

I suppose you could use that, or extra attack, as a rough guide. The action-granting tricks of the warlord are necessarily much more limited and situational than the at-will DPR features of fighters or warlocks. But, again, differentiation, not re-cycling is emphasized in 5e's class-design philosophy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It 'feels right,' I suppose, because the basic fighter & battlemaster sub-class are keyed to short rests. Which isn't really a fantastic reason. Just because the fighter and warlord are obviously both martial and both had the same resource structure in 4e doesn't mean they should both have the same resource structure in 5e. Sorcerers and Warlocks are both arcane and both had the same resource structure in 4e, but are differentiated by their resources in 5e, for instance.

That said, I have elsewhere said very similar things. The fundamental mechanical effects of invocations--passive effects that meaningfully tweak the character's basic abilities and can even open entirely new avenues of play--seems appropriate to Warlord "training" that is always effective. The Warlock's per-rest spells may be a little harder to sell, but since martial dailies are such a HUGE problem for some people, that seems useful; call them "gambits" or "ploys" that require some kind of investment or setup, but which you can reuse if you get a chance to plan and coordinate again.

It would also, potentially, produce benefits in that you could have a very light touch with subclasses, by leaving many of the major contributing features as invocations and "gambits." You only have a limited number of each, so it becomes impossible to get what some posters fear, the uber-Warlord that can do everything all the time.

Eldritch Blast roughly keeps up with archery as far as DPR is concerned - weapon attacks would be the obvious corresponding thing. Thing is, the Warlock can be a consistent-DPR build via EB, and that's not the Warlord's thing. It wasn't a 'striker.'

And of course a Warlord built using the fundamental mechanical structure of the Warlock (Invocations, bipartite subclass distinction, short-rest resources) shouldn't necessarily get any particular ability the Warlock got. That would be as ridiculous as assuming that a new spell-slot-based class would get access to, say, Druid- or Cleric-specific spells.