Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

I think an important thing that is getting overlooked is the fact that the ability of the Warlord to grant Basic Attacks had a certain weight in 4E because 4E was a game where "basic attacks" kind of sucked. You could build synergies and builds (expecially after Essential Classes were released) in order to maximize the worth of those attacks, but still, in a game where Encounter and Daily powers existed for all classes, that one basic attack the Warlord granted was a minimal benefit over him attacking on his own. You would literally compare your at will with a striker's basic attack and go fish for those few more damages he would do.

Which leads us to a big point: it was mostly about the flavour. It's not "power", it's visualizing a style of character that was different from anything else. The senior swordsman taking the enemy's full attention in order to let his allies hit past their guard. The sergeant locking blades with the orc chieftain while the rogue stabs him in the back. The war veteran simply telling a guy how to kill that pesky goblin.

What happens with 5E? 5E doesn't have a nuanced action system. If you're a melee combatant your god-action is the attack action. It's the best thing you can ever do, and you're gonna get some once-per-round riders, maybe once-per-turn if you're a rogue, but that's it. So if someone else grants you an attack action, they're granting you the best thing you can possibly do, not a throwaway move. It's a much tougher balancing act and a place where the simplicity of the 5E engine doesn't help, because in 4E everyone did a lot of things in their turns, often the riders and movers were the meat of the game, and one guy getting a basic attack was nice but hardly gamebreaking. In 5E things are different, and I can see balance issues arising.



And honestly, as a 4E fan, I don't think it's crucial to have a warlord in 5E. I just don't see it happening: the warlord is built around the structure of 4E and that's something 5E isn't equipped to replicate. The Warlord, to me, was about improvising and executing complex battle plans that exploited every square of movement and every bit of positioning and pushing and pulling to obtain the best possible effect. I don't really feel the need for a class that will enable me to roll to hit once more per turn. Different classes for different games.

VisanidethDM said:

What happens with 5E? 5E doesn't have a nuanced action system. If you're a melee combatant your god-action is the attack action. It's the best thing you can ever do, and you're gonna get some once-per-round riders, maybe once-per-turn if you're a rogue, but that's it. So if someone else grants you an attack action, they're granting you the best thing you can possibly do, not a throwaway move. It's a much tougher balancing act and a place where the simplicity of the 5E engine doesn't help, because in 4E everyone did a lot of things in their turns, often the riders and movers were the meat of the game, and one guy getting a basic attack was nice but hardly gamebreaking. In 5E things are different, and I can see balance issues arising.

Click to expand...

Well sure, if you go out of your way to give them an attack action. But ehy would you when you can just give them an attack?

Y'know, the point about warlords not having enough legs to be a full class in 5e is an interesting one. If the idea is that a base class should have eight or ten sub classes (and we seem to be headed that way), then, yeah, I can see Mearls' point. Sure, I can think of three, maybe five sub classes for warlords, but eight or ten? No, I can't actually think of that many variations on "martial support character".

Kind of cool that they seem to think that 10 years from now, we'll still be playing 5e as well.

On a side note, that does make some classes REALLY hard to build in 5e. An alchemist class doesn't have 10 variations. Even the Psionicist is stretching pretty hard to get that many. Possible, I suppose, if they start emulating other classes with psionic classes. But, if that's the design philosophy going forward - that any new base class needs enough design space for 10 or more sub classes, I think many people are going to be pretty disappointed.

Hussar said:

Y'know, the point about warlords not having enough legs to be a full class in 5e is an interesting one. If the idea is that a base class should have eight or ten sub classes (and we seem to be headed that way), then, yeah, I can see Mearls' point. Sure, I can think of three, maybe five sub classes for warlords, but eight or ten? No, I can't actually think of that many variations on "martial support character".

Click to expand...

Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self-sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord. That's 8. I'm sure others can think of more.
*Yes, charisma lord. I'm not worried about stepping on the bard's toes when eldrich knight is standing directly on the wizards foot.


IMO: The only way to fit a "full" warlord class is to trade base features away.
i.e. a fighter can trade 1 attack to let someone move without provoking.


Or possibly the rogue trading away sneak attack dice. Which may be even better since skillful trickster -> smart tactician is a small jump. And, they already require team work for their own sneak attack.
Hmm... yea, actually, i'm liking the rogue better.

They have a dice pool to trade.
Trade 3d6 sneak attack damage to grant an attack.
Trade 2d6 sneak attack damage to let someone cast a 1 level spell. (4d6 for a level 2 spell, 6d6 for a level 3 spell, and so on).
Trade Xd6 sneak attack dice on your first turn, to give out the Xd6 bonus to initiative.
Trade Xd6 to make a diplomacy check, giving an ally xd6 temporary hit dice (once per ally per rest).

Reactions and bonus actions to trade.
A reaction to give someone your uncanny dodge.
A reaction to roll stealth in place of an allies stealth (with disadvantage).
As a bonus action, one person can disegange.

And flavorful skills.
Succeed on a DC 10+enemy level knowledge check and all your allies deal extra damage to the target.
Succeed on a DC 10+spell level arcana check to give someone advantage on their saving throw against that spell.
Make an Intimidate check opposed by an Insight check, if you succeed, the creature is afraid of you for a turn (1/enemy).

Plenty of stuff.

On a side note, that does make some classes REALLY hard to build in 5e. An alchemist class doesn't have 10 variations.

Click to expand...

Alchemist seems pretty open to me.
Potions (buffs), Guns (damage), Constructs (Golems), Wands (effects), Mech Suits (melee), Traps, Healing, Magic Items maker. That's 8 off the top of my head. And I haven't thought of it much.

Or perhaps, "Investor" as the base class, and "Alchemist" being the potion sub-class.
Tons of tropes and variation about inventors.

I fail to see why all classes need to be able to bloat three-fold. What's wrong with a good old fashioned 3 subclass class?

mellored said:

Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord. That's 8. I'm sure others can think of more.

Click to expand...

So in this scenario what is the warlords main stat because you have highlighted strength, dex, charisma, constitution, and int. Also some of these don't even make sense. What does a fear lord mean? What does a charismatic lord mean? What does a pacifist lord even mean? This is just word vomit with no real class idea. Replace lord in there with fighter and you will see why none of this makes sense

mellored said:

Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self-sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord. That's 8. I'm sure others can think of more.
*Yes, charisma lord. I'm not worried about stepping on the bard's toes when eldrich knight is standing directly on the wizards foot.

Click to expand...

Arcane Lord??? I thought the whole point was to have a support class without magic...

chunkosauruswrex said:

So in this scenario what is the warlords main stat because you have highlighted strength, dex, charisma, constitution, and int. Also some of these don't even make sense. What does a fear lord mean? What does a charismatic lord mean? What does a pacifist lord even mean? This is just word vomit with no real class idea. Replace lord in there with fighter and you will see why none of this makes sense

Click to expand...

Int would be the main stat. With a flexible secondary stat.

Fear lord would be using intimidation to control enemies. Breaking their moral, causing fear (disadvantage, movement penalty), possibly some psychic damage. Maybe call it Doomsayer.
Charisma would be the inpsiring leader. Call it a marshal, after the 3.5 marshal.
Pacifist would not deal any damage themselves and would try to resolve things peacefully. Diplomat would be a good name.

There's plenty of room for a non-magical class that focuses on non-damaging effects. No need to limit yourself to just the 4e version of the armored tactician. That's just one example.

Imaro said:

Arcane Lord??? I thought the whole point was to have a support class without magic...

Click to expand...

And the whole point of a wizard is to cast spells, yet there is a bladesinger.
Or the whole point of a fighter is to fight, yet there is an eldrich knight.

Actually I kinda like the idea of a Rune Scribe as a non-magical magical buffer.