D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[I'm A Banana]

Ooo, I like the idea of Cunning Action replacing Action Surge. Neat idea. Would fit perfectly actually. Lets the Warlord do "Hit Stuff And..." quite nicely. Possibly even forgoing the "Hit Stuff" part and just doing "And" for two different people. Don't bother keying it off of dice pool at all, just make it different actions. Schweet. Easy peasy.

Would that mean that we might make the Warlord a Rogue subclass? It's crazy enough that it just might work. Skill monkey, light armour, high mobility, and giving orders. I think that would work quite nicely.

I think the main obstacle to that is Sneak Attack. Which isn't even entirely un-Warlord-y (it works if your enemy is next to another ally, so it would encourage this warlord to chuck other allies into melee with their move-granting abilities), though the limitation to ranged and light weapons makes pike-wielding or sword-weilding warlords sad pandas. But like extra attacks for fighters, SA is pretty much how rogues contribute to damage.

The impression I'm getting is that a lot of old-style warlord players aren't interested in contributing to damage by doing things themselves, but in contributing to damage by ramping up what their allies can do. That's fair, but the closest 5e gets to that now is valor bard inspiration and superiority dice, and bard/cleric buffs, which aren't quite as central as Sneak Attack or Extra Attacks/Action Surge. I think what we might want to do is come up with a mechanic that is as powerful as Extra Attack+Action Surge or Sneak Attack, but that works on the Warlord's allies rather than from the warlord themselves.

That encourages its own class, though it doesn't require it strictly.

I'm kind of shocking myself here, but providing my analysis is somewhat on-point, I think there is a better case for a "warlord" class in 5e than there is for an artificer or a psion.

We'd need to go bigger with the flavor - you CAN'T just be limited to military-style commanders and the like - but that's not the hardest part. Heck, there's the aristocrat/noble/knight/samurai/cavalier/etc. tradition that might have some meat. Make sure it's very well differentiated from the fighter's wheelhouse fictionally (fighters are mercenaries and soldiers and monster-slayers - they know combat, they know tactics, they are the warriors implementing them; "nobles" couldn't face down a dragon, and they need an army where our fighter just needs a sword-arm), and distinct from the paladin (I think the spells and literal magical power of the paladin will do that OK, but don't talk too much about oaths or loyalty or the like), but that's got some legs on it.

Where rogues have sneak attack and fighters have extra attacks, maybe "nobles" have a class feature something like...

Inspired Action
As a bonus action on your turn, you can use the Help action. When you use the Help action, an ally that can see or hear you gains 1d4 that they can spend to enhance any ability check, attack roll, damage roll, or healing roll they make as part of your Help action (this bumps to d6;d8;d10;d12 at tiers).

In addition to the normal use of the Help action, you can use the Help action to do the following:

• Grant Saving Throws: You can use the Help action to grant any ally that can see or hear you an immediate saving throw against an effect they are currently under which a saving throw can end.
• Spend Hit Dice: You can use the Help action to allow an ally that can see or hear you to spend one of their hit dice.
• Move an Ally: You can use the Help action to allow an ally that can see or hear you to move up to half their speed.
• Grant an Attack: You can use the Help action to allow an ally that can see or hear you to make an attack.

Just a primordial idea, but think of that replacing Sneak Attack+Cunning Action or Extra Attacks+Action Surge on a class. In fact, might be better to split it into two abilities (maybe one that gives the bonus dice, one that lets you do more with your help).

Subclasses might include mounted champions, fancypants nobles, maybe even a little tank-y subclass that uses a variation on provoke mechanics...higher-level abilities let you shout to multiple creatures, but are limited by rests...

And now to make me feel better about encouraging a new class that has martial healing and even kind of uses healing surges, I'll go argue with [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for 5 pages.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, I think I'm done. For one, you clearly don't know what 'strawman' means, because you keep using it in a way that doesn't make sense. Secondly, you seem to assume that 4e is the only edition out there by your interpretation of Mearls' comment. And thirdly, I find your sig to be pretty darn ironic considering how you are always complaining about 5e.

And no, it's not shutting down conversation to tell someone who keep saying, "Man, X in edition Y is the best! This version sucks. It needs to be like in edition X" to stick with the edition where they clearly had the most fun playing. I didn't go into 4e threads when it came out and bitched non stop about how AD&D did it better, and even if I did, I wouldn't accuse someone of trying to shut me up if they told me to stick with AD&D since I clearly don't like 4e.

I play 5e... I am enjoying it I just want a class added... How is that even remotely what you just said??? That is the definition of the strawman you argue against something I did not say...

 

[Jester David]

Assume that the warlord is a full class, with a few major features such as inspiration, maneuvers, extra attack, and mechanics to let allies spend HD during a combat.
Is this broad enough to have at least two subclasses?

What would those subclasses be?

Won't say too much details, but I found basically three, the lazy one, the lead from the battlefront, and the lead with strategy.

I think we look at the 4e subtypes inspirational and tactics are from 4e phb and then the bravado and the one that mixed hit miss effects

So we have 4 or 5 to start from...

The catch with subclasses is that they should be 90% about flavour and 10% about mechanics. The inspiration should be one of story and fluff, with the mechanics supporting that rather than grafting story to interesting mechanics. Similarly, things like combat roles and weapon use are character choices not subclass choices. Most should work equally with a ranged weapon, single melee weapon, or two-weapon fighting; tanking feats and heavy armour or DPR feats and light armour. And "archery" subclass is a poor design choice.

4e had five or so official builds: bravura (gambling), insightful (wise), inspiring (charismatic), resourceful, skirmisher (mobility), and tactical. Plus the unofficial lazylord.
The insightful and inspiring warlords are really better served by the cleric and bard respectively. That leaves bravura, resourceful, skirmiersher, and tactical. However, when designing a class it's a good idea to look at what makes it unique and interest and not just blindly update what came before. In this case, the warlord is a strategic, cunning, smart, and tactical fighter. The battlefield commander. Charisma is nice, but it really seems secondary to Intelligence in the scheme of the class.

Leading from the front and leading from the back seem to be the two big ideas. One grants bonuses when people attack the same target as she is, and the other paints a target and encourages people to attack that.
I imagine there could also be a meta warlord. The gambit-based one ("Ah ha, you fell into my trap!") that ostensibly has a plan that she expects enemies to do, even if the players didn't overtly make said plan. A subclass that has lots of reactions and can trigger reactions. Basically retconning her into having planned an attack.


Healing is still a stumbling block.
Aside from the martial healing debate, the idea of a general or squad leader healing people is odd. Inspiring people to keep fighting really sounds more like temporary hitpoints or resistance than healing. And the warlord was the worst healing in 4e (or tied for last with the bard), so healing was never an integral part of the class.
Plus, healing is a big class feature in an edition where classes seldom get more than one or two features each level. The warlord is seriously trading some unique warlord powers and flexibility for healing.
At best, the warlord should have "stratagems" or some other choice akin to maneuvers or spells, where healing is an option. So it can be ignored for people who don't like martial healing or want a more warlordy warlord.

 

[The_Gneech]

Lore bard works very well for the lazylord style.

Seconded! My character is a lore bard (with the Battle Mastery feat) whose whole premise is that she doesn't fight, that's what she's got staff (i.e., the rest of the party) for– but she sets up tactical situations, heals and buffs, and occasionally pulls out the whip and trips or disarms her foes. She was created for Pathfinder, but converted almost perfectly to 5E (except that now in 5E she's actually too good at combat, go fig). I hadn't heard of the "lazy warlord" before this thread, but it's exactly her concept.

I played a Warlord during my group's flirtation w/ 4E (which admittedly not very long), but from what I recall of it, I'm really not sure what conceptually the class is supposed to provide that the 5E bard doesn't, especially if you're willing to reskin the healing spells to be morale-boosting effects.

What is it that my battle-mastering-bard doesn't do that a Warlord does that people are missing? This isn't snark, it's a genuine question.

-The Gneech

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

What is it that my battle-mastering-bard doesn't do that a Warlord does that people are missing? This isn't snark, it's a genuine question.

Fulfilling it's role, without spellcasting.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, the Healing factor can be version of Durable that works like Song of Rest.


Warlord Healing Feature:
You issue inspiring words of encourage and provide first aid during the time of a short rest. If you of any creature you tend to rolls a Hit Die during a short rest to restore hit points, the minimum number of hit point you or they regain from the rolls is equal to twice your Intelligence or Charisma modifier.
At level X, you or a creature who took a short rest tended by you may use your Intelligence or Charisma modifier in place of their Constitution score when regaining hit points from spending Hit Dice.
At level Y, you or a creature who took a short rest tended by you may use a d12 in place of the value of one of their own Hit Die.


Instead of healing actively, a warlord keeps you at top shape.
Increase of healing 8d10 + 8 times their CON mod from HD for 52 HP, a 8th level fighter might have access to straight up 120 HP from just HD.

 

[The_Gneech]

Fulfilling it's role, without spellcasting.

"Fulfilling its role" doesn't tell me anything. What specific actions do you want the character to take? What is the role in question that isn't covered?

The "without spellcasting" part I get, which is why I mentioned reskinning.

-The Gneech

 

[Obryn]

"Fulfilling its role" doesn't tell me anything. What specific actions do you want the character to take? What is the role in question that isn't covered?

The "without spellcasting" part I get, which is why I mentioned reskinning.

-The Gneech

It's kinda been covered a few times upthread. But the role is a battle-capable (though not dominant) character, capable of performing a variety of buffing, enabling, and healing/damage mitigation/etc. actions.

Reskinning is well and good, but you have to remember the first rule of reskinning. Reskinning fully respects the mechanics. If you're going to reskin an ability, the mechanical specifics, with a little wiggle room, must remain constant. So you can't, for example, reskin a fireball into "I take my sword, run over, hit everyone, then run back" but you could reskin it as "I throw a hive of fire bees into their midst, which run out and sting them with incendiary venom." Now, you can certainly use the effeciveness/power of one ability as a gauge for another, but the reskin has to match the details.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Is this broad enough to have at least two subclasses?

What would those subclasses be?

A land variant (the Marshal) for armies and an aquatic variant (the Admiral) for navies. Give each appropriately themed powers, perhaps elemental in nature.

 

[The_Gneech]

It's kinda been covered a few times upthread. But the role is a battle-capable (though not dominant) character, capable of performing a variety of buffing, enabling, and healing/damage mitigation/etc. actions.

But you just perfectly described the bard. It's what I do every session when I'm a player. -.- This is why I am still confused. It's like you won't take yes for an answer.

Reskinning is well and good, but you have to remember the first rule of reskinning. Reskinning fully respects the mechanics. If you're going to reskin an ability, the mechanical specifics, with a little wiggle room, must remain constant. So you can't, for example, reskin a fireball into "I take my sword, run over, hit everyone, then run back" but you could reskin it as "I throw a hive of fire bees into their midst, which run out and sting them with incendiary venom." Now, you can certainly use the effeciveness/power of one ability as a gauge for another, but the reskin has to match the details.

Hmm. According to my own copy of Rules Pulled From My Hat, the first rule of reskinning is "As long as the numbers don't change, it can look like whatever you want." So aside from converting the fire damage to slashing damage (and the fact it sounds kinda silly), I'm not sure why you couldn't do that particular reskin. At the end of your turn, the exact same result has been achieved.

The way I would do it would be to simply call the bard's spell slots "Leadership Actions" or something and ignore anything on their spell list that doesn't fit your vision of what a warlord should do. The uses/day values remain unchanged, the recharging on a long rest remains unchanged, and other than the risk of a RBDM counterspelling you just to be annoying (which shouldn't be a problem if you've discussed it with them beforehand), you've got what you want.

-The Gneech