D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

For what it's worth, my prediction would be that there will be no 5e warlord beyond the Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight - at least, not in the near or even mid-term future. There seems little support for the idea from the publisher, and only mixed support from the player-base.

I think the warlord puts particular pressure on a certain sort of approach to D&D. The warlord forces players to recognise that hit points are abstract and connected to skill, "staying power", etc. The warlord forces players to recognise that the action economy is abstract (and hence that one way to represent trying harder, or benefiting from guidance, is extra actions). The warlord forces players to recognise that the usage/rest economy is abstract (and so martial "powers" can be a thing).

Many D&D players, by way of contrast, seem to want to think of hit points as correlating to "damage" (but not injury - a weird dichotomy I won't try and get into here); of the action economy as "real" (so the gameworld is vaguely stop-motion); of the rest and usage economy as "real" (so that daily powers correlate to magical spells memorised every morning).

There are existing elements of the game that put pressure on these things (eg fighters' action surge and second wind; barbarian's rage; the lack of a damage spiral for hit point loss), but the general response to pointing out that the warlord is consistent with and builds on those existing elements is that they're necessary evils that need to be ignored, not valuable features of the game that should be embraced and expanded.

I'm not saying this view is the totality of D&D players. For all I know it's not even a majority. But it's clearly a large, and vocal, and influential, group. Keeping the on the side of 5e is an important marketing concern from WotC's point of view.

EDIT (for [MENTION=6778305]Redthistle[/MENTION], [MENTION=61026]tuxgeo[/MENTION]): "Keeping the on the side of 5e" should probably read either "Keeping them on the side of 5e" or "Keeping that group on the side of 5e". Hopefully the meaning was nevertheless clear despite the poor typing.

And while I'm at it: [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], you know what my view is on the warlord, the D&D asbtractions that 4e embraces and expands upon, etc. But in general it's a mistake to let desire lead belief.

pemerton said:

Many D&D players, by way of contrast, seem to want to think of hit points as correlating to "damage" (but not injury - a weird dichotomy I won't try and get into here); of the action economy as "real" (so the gameworld is vaguely stop-motion); of the rest and usage economy as "real" (so that daily powers correlate to magical spells memorised every morning).

Click to expand...

This is something I think that a lot of us muse on from time-to-time, and is a central question when a gaming group is negotiating a consensus on the level of grittiness at their table.

For many of us, hit points represent the character's overall physiological status: not just the presence or lack of physical injury, but both the physical and psychological (call it "resolve"?) energy levels of the individual. When the hit points = 0, the PC's "get up and go" "got up and went."

The ambiguity of hit points is, for me, part and parcel of a game that includes the existence of magic. Hit points are a game mechanic; nothing more and nothing less.

I think your post here (#741 in this thread) is on point.

(Minor editorial observation: the final sentence, "Keeping the on the side of 5e is an important marketing concern from WotC's point of view" seems to be missing a word or so. Would you please edit that? Grazie!)

It may be that pemerton only needs to add one letter: append an "m" at the end of the word "the" to make it the pronoun "them" -- "Keeping them on the side of 5e is an important marketing concern. . . ."

pemerton said:

For what it's worth, my prediction would be that there will be no 5e warlord beyond the Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight - at least, not in the near or even mid-term future.

Click to expand...

The preponderance of the available evidence, if you grant WotC no benefit of a doubt, certainly points that way. A dispassionate analysis might conclude, for instance, that Mr Mearls dispises the very concept, or, perhaps, feels it expedient to cater to those who do.

mixed support from the player-base.

Click to expand...

An odd concept. There's clearly demand for it.

I think the warlord puts particular pressure on a certain sort of approach to D&D. The warlord forces players to recognise that hit points are abstract and connected to skill, "staying power", etc.

Click to expand...

'Reminds' might be more apropos. Gaining HD with level, alone, forces you to confront that fact.

Many D&D players, by way of contrast, seem to want to think of hit points as correlating to "damage" (but not injury -

Click to expand...

Actual injury is the belief brought up - meat hps.

the action economy as "real" (so the gameworld is vaguely stop-motion);

Click to expand...

Stop motion? D&D should be so awesome as to rate a comparison to Harryhausen!

Tony Vargas said:

The preponderance of the available evidence, if you grant WotC no benefit of a doubt, certainly points that way. A dispassionate analysis might conclude, for instance, that Mr Mearls dispises the very concept, or, perhaps, feels it expedient to cater to those who do.

Click to expand...

A "dispassionate" analysis might lead to two emotion-laden results? That's ironic. Well, I guess you did include "might", so fair ball. A dispassionate analysis might also conclude that if I buy kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees (or even that you do not love me anymore). Anything's possible, right?

On the other hand, a truly dispassionate analysis would probably conclude that Mr. Mearls, for whatever reasons, perhaps based on data he has that we don't, has determined that the Warlord would not be beneficial to the popularity of the game.

An odd concept. There's clearly demand for it.

Click to expand...

Yes. And there's also opposition to it. And both the support and the opposition comes in vary degrees of intensity. Thus, precisely as pemerton wrote, there is "mixed support from the player-base". Q.E.F.D.

Elfcrusher said:

A "dispassionate" analysis

Click to expand...

Yes, one untainted by impulses like hope, for instance.

might lead to two emotion-laden results? That's ironic.

Click to expand...

I suppose it is, but people are motivated by emotion, and there's been plenty of negative emotion displayed towards the Warlord.

On the other hand, a truly dispassionate analysis would probably conclude that Mr. Mearls, for whatever reasons, perhaps based on data he has that we don't, has determined that the Warlord would not be beneficial to the popularity of the game.

Click to expand...

That would be the "...or feels it expedient to cater to those who do despise the class," eventuality, yes.

And there's also opposition to it.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Now, a less dispassionate analysis could look at the continued calls for the class, the simple fact that those opposed to it need never use it, the slow pace of release, the inclusion of many 4e bits having not re-ignited the edition war, and conclude that the Warlord could still be in the offing, and, beyond that, maybe even 5e's goals of re-uniting the fanbase could be accomplished.

Yeah. Dispassionate analysis kinda sucks.

Not sure I'm buying that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].

There seems to be a pretty steady progression towards a warlord.

1. PHB - includes some of the baseline mechanics for a warlord - non-magical buffing, non-magical healing (both bard), action granting (Battlemaster), "inspiring" mechanics (ie. mechanics that let one player tell another player how to feel - Inspiring Leader feat and Inspiration Points (which can be used on another player).

2. SCAG - Ranged strictly non-magical, unlimited use buffing with the Mastermind. Plus we have the Purple Dragon Knight.

3. Unearthed Arcana - The Mystic rules give us straight up a leader pulled virtually whole cloth from the 4e Ardent.

All of these things have been accepted more or less without comment or criticism into the game. No one seems to be complaining too much (if at all) about these things. So, really, the only actual hurdle anymore is reconciling personal tastes. People seem to be still insisting that warlords are an issue and it seems that the big issue is the inspiration style warlord.

So, in my prediction, in the next year we'll see UA's with both a bravura and a tactical style warlord slide in under the radar. So long as they keep the flavor somewhat ambiguous, I think it will be acceptable. Perhaps our new warlord is a book worm, studying all the works of great generals of the past and uses that knowledge to suggest courses of actions for his allies. Add in some sort of mechanic similar to the bard's rest healing bonuses and something that mitigates damage (like temp HP) and I think you're good to go.

It will be interesting to see who is right.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I like your ideas a lot better, but pemerton's are more plausible. ;(

doctorbadwolf said:

Also, there should be a lower level ability to grant an attack. Just give it restrictions. It's fine if the ability defines exactly what their attack looks like, even. The point is, the tactical benefit of letting the Barbarian clobber something instead of the Warlord stabbing the guy in front of them, or letting the ranger shoot the enemy mage, etc. It'd be easier if 5e had Basic Attacks, including for spellcasters, but the Warlord feature could simply define such a thing.

Click to expand...

5e doesn't go in big for across-the-board stuff like the basic attack concept, but, yes, whatever ability the warlord might have to grant an attack, specifically, rather than an action, could define that attack as needed to fit.

Basic attack. The character makes a weapon attack or spell attack, using the appropriate attack stat. This attack is never made with Advantage.
Weapon attacks are made as if you had taken the Attack Action, except that they do not benefit from the Extra Attack feature.
Spellcasters can either use one of their known cantrips, cast as if they were 1st level, or make a Basic Spell Attack, which deals 1d8 damage of any type the character can normally deal with their known cantrips, uses their Spellcasting Ability Modifier to attack and damage, and has a range of 60ft. Components are Verbal and Somatic.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.... a 'basic' weapon attack, and let's not call it that, because it creates an expectation. What would you want to call a low-level or at-will ability to grant an attack?

whatever you call it, it could go like this:

You use your action to allow an ally to make an attack instead of you. The ally must be able to make attacks - he must be wielding a weapon, conscious, not under any effects that prevent attacking, etc - and have his Reaction available. The ally may, of course, decline to make the attack or use it against a different enemy, and may make the attack with whatever weapon he has in hand (if he's using two weapons, he chooses which one to use). The attack uses the ally's proficiency bonus, the higher of the ally's usual attack stat (STR/DEX) or your INT, and any other bonuses/penalties that apply. The damage caused by the attack uses the weapon's damage die, plus the lower of the ally's attack stat (STR/DEX) or your CHA. For each 5 levels of experience you have over first, add an additional weapon damage die to the damage caused by the attack.

(Yeah, so it's about on par with a cantrip.)

Letting the Warlord do that instead of making an attack, as an Action, seems about right to me. I get that people don't want rogues getting extra Sneak Attacks, which is why I made Basic Attacks never have Advantage. Dual Wielders and Monks kinda get hosed, since they can't spend a Bonus Action to get their normal extra damage, but that's hard to help. Most of the time, the weapon user with the longest range or biggest damage die will be the best person to give an attack to. I'd say that starting with this, and then giving limited access to full extra Action granting, or even just letting the attacker use a feature that would normally cost a Bonus Action as part of the attack, would work.

Click to expand...

Now, a more potent action-grant should grant an attack action, much like that the target would take on his turn - extra attack, SA, or bonus actions included. That way there is a meaningful decision among allies beyond who's standing where. It also give the ally in question a chance to strut his stuff.

I don't think this should cost both the warlord's Action and the recipient's Reaction.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I like the idea of needing the Reaction available, it adds another layer of tactics to it, and it makes sense, an ally who couldn't take an OA probably can't respond to the warlord's urging, either.

What if you could use your Reaction when granted an attack, and instead of a Basic Attack, you get to attack as if you had taken the Attack Action, including stuff like having Advantage, or use your Reaction in place of a Bonus Action to modify your attack? Maybe as a level 5 improvement of the ability?

Click to expand...

A more potent action grant costing the reaction could make sense, though.

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - Despite my recent *ahem* interactions in a few of the threads, I remain overall largely positive. The addition of a straight up Leader in the Mystic UA and it's pretty much total acceptance makes me very hopeful that this can be resolved in the fairly near future.

Hussar said:

It will be interesting to see who is right.

Click to expand...

Sure. I think the big step is taking the warlord/martial leader out of the fighter chassis. A spell-less paladin might be one way to do it, or at least to start towards it.