D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Eric V]

This is the part I don't get.

Why is a subclass inconsistent with the warlord-experience?

People keep saying this, but provide very little specifics as to why. The only one that seems to stand out is "a fighter is based on DPR"; which while true, it's been shown that the DPR mechanics become action economy mechanics when used for a Warlord.

So, Why? With specific reasons please. I really want to understand this. Help me understand this...

Other people have mentioned it before, but it's because you end up with a different class, essentially. I don't think the Warlord should action surge herself; I don't think she should have multiple attacks herself. I don't think she should be indominatable herself. I don't think she should be as tough as a fighter or as good at DPR as a fighter...but I think a fighter -loves- having her on his team. She makes others better.

As an NBA reference, she's the Popovich to the fighter's Tim Duncan. (It might be more accurate to say that the party is made up of her and the rest of the San Antonio Spurs, and she plays the role of Pop. I dunno, I'm about to take my son to shoot hoops.)

She's the tactical coach, and everyone is better for her.

 

[Eric V]

Yes, it does... because the Warlock was specifically called out as not worth bringing forward. It would be like adding a goalkeeper to gridiron footy... not good for the game as it's played, and either special snowflaked to be able to pull it off, or nerfed to lack of utility...

I keep hearing this, but no offense, I don't really believe you. Do you happen to have a link handy?

 

[El Mahdi]

I think the core issue is that the 5e fighter is designed for:

DPR
or
"Tanking".

The core features are Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style, Indomitable, and Extra Attack 2&3. This combination of features are Too Strong to allow for much change via subclasses.

Its like trying to make a swordmage from the wizard class. The core features are too powerful to allow anything drastic.

Okay.

So, just for a place to start, let's take the Fighter chasis.

Now, let's strip out Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style, Indomitable, and Extra Attack 2&3 (at least for right now, we may want them later as an action economy resource...)

Now we change the name at the top of the class entry to Warlord (under construction)

What class attributes do we install to replace the one's we took out?

 

[Minigiant]

Okay.

So, just for a place to start, let's take the Fighter chasis.

Now, let's strip out Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style, Indomitable, and Extra Attack 2&3 (at least for right now, we may want them later as an action economy resource...)

Now we change the name at the top of the class entry to Warlord (under construction)

What class attributes do we install to replace the one's we took out?

For Fighting Style, I'd add a variant of the Rogue's Cunning Action which lets an adjacent ally Dash their speed or Disengage and moves 1/2 their speed.

For Second Wind, I'd add a version of Song of Rest which allow grants THP with the HP.

For Action Surge. I'd give them a Combined attack which lets them replace one of their attacks with an ally adjacent to the enemy for a reaction.

The subclasses would adjust this features or add more.

The Veteran would be capable alone and get fighting styles, skills, and HP.

The Tactical warlord gets battle master stuff and have fewer restrictions on class features.

The Inspiring Warlord can make a person roll a 20 on a death saving throw and heal more on rests.

The rest issue is high level. The image of the warlord in the world of archmages must be finalized. I know how mine would look but I don't know about everyone else.

 

[El Mahdi]

On the other hand pointing out that every existing class is a miserable failure at being a warlord and it would take radical surgery to the point of effectively being a new class on any of them isn't the same thing at all.

No. This is an approach destined for disappointment also, as it provides no specifics or feedback. It's a declaration only, a declaration that assumes this is fact, while making subjective claims. This is called Dogmatism or Appeal to False Authority.

Without specific examples it's an essentially meaningless statement.

I've already given two entirely different suggestions - the first being how to make them their own class, and the second being the sheer amount of radical surgery you would need for a fighter.

Can you link to these please? I really don't want to comb 170+ posts, or even other threads, to find the relevant portions. It would really help if you could point them out.

No. Just provide specifics. Criticism is a different skill to design.

Whatever works for you is just fine. For those who can or are willing to provide analysis and alternatives, it will be greatly appreciated.

No more than the fighter. Possibly less. This is largely irrelevant.

Is there a mechanical reason why this is irrelevant, or is this personal opinion?

I ask because another has specifically stated that less is desirable.

I know that the 4E Warlord had smaller Hit Dice than the Fighter, but I also know that survivability in 5E is less about To-Hit bonuses, than it is about HP (the two sides of the Bounded Accuracy coin).

Which do you prefer of these two options, D10 or D8...?

This question is putting the cart before the horse. Multiple attacks are simply one large at will DPR mechanic. On the other hand they are needed for damage to scale properly - all the classes without multiple attacks either have an escalating sneak attack or an escalating cantrip. On the gripping hand multiple attacks are the fastest form of damage scaling. If you scale a warlord's attacks the way a valorous bard's attacks scale this wouldn't be a problem.

Okay. I understand what you're saying. Question though: Would you prefer a scaled attack ala valorous bard, and lose the potential action economy resource of multiple actions (attacks), or would you like both?

What about instead of multiple attacks, you have multiple actions at the same accumulation rate as a Fighter, but they cannot be used for actual attacks - only for Warlord maneuvers?

Mu. Warlords with the right options should be capable of wearing the best armour. Warlords without shouldn't.

So, Feats rather than class abilities? Or should Tactical Warlord and Inspiring Warlord be subclasses (archetypes) of a Warlord class, with armor and weapon proficiencies stated there? If so, what should the default armor and weapon proficiencies be?

None and all. The only warlord power all warlords share is Inspiring Word.

That doesn't help very much. I think it's safe to say that it's unrealistic to port every Warlord power to 5E. It's simply too many options and goes against the more simplified system philosophy of 5E. Not to mention that some powers are just higher level versions of other powers - which could be addressed with scaling effects in 5E.

I've also read enough conversations about 4E to know that even 4E fans consider some powers absolutely crucial, while others are considered real stinkers.

I find it hard to believe that you can't identify some of the powers that would be absolutely crucial to include...

And again you are looking at the trees rather than the forest.

Better would be "What defines the warlord that the 5e fighter can't do"

The simple answer to that is "The fighter hits you with their axe. The warlord hits you with the Barbarian."

Now that's unnecessarily captious. Since mechanics define what a class can do, that means that you need mechanics to enable a Warlord to "Hit you with the Barbarian." Those mechanics - or at least some of those mechanics - the most common among all types of Warlords - are codified in both 4E and 5E as Class Features.

What class features should a Warlord class have?
What class features should a Warlord not have?

And that is where you start. You need to build a class that is skilled at hitting the monsters with the fighter, the barbarian, the rogue, and other PCs. They should be able to range from a Leonidas-style solid melee combatant, leading from the front and giving other people openings to a lazylord who never actually makes an attack roll.

As a general philosophical approach to the class, this sounds great.

Now on to specifics...

 

[El Mahdi]

For Fighting Style, I'd add a variant of the Rogue's Cunning Action which lets an adjacent ally Dash their speed or Disengage and moves 1/2 their speed.

For Second Wind, I'd add a version of Song of Rest which allow grants THP with the HP.

For Action Surge. I'd give them a Combined attack which lets them replace one of their attacks with an ally adjacent to the enemy for a reaction.

The subclasses would adjust this features or add more.

The Veteran would be capable alone and get fighting styles, skills, and HP.

The Tactical warlord gets battle master stuff and have fewer restrictions on class features.

The Inspiring Warlord can make a person roll a 20 on a death saving throw and heal more on rests.

The rest issue is high level. The image of the warlord in the world of archmages must be finalized. I know how mine would look but I don't know about everyone else.

Good Stuff. Thanks.

Anybody have feedback or ideas on this? Critiques?


I have a couple of questions:

Which Battle Master stuff do you think a Tactical Warlord should get? Does it need more than just what a Battle Master can provide (more than what is listed for Battle Master maneuvers)...?

What about in-combat healing for the Inspiring Warlord?

I know that the idea of temporary Hit Points is a point of contention with some? Is it that there isn't a permanent HP contribution? Is a temporary HP mechanic okay as long as there is also a permanent HP mechanic?

 

[Obryn]

The point people keep ignoring is that all of the "just use" suggestions have covered every possible approach - including making a separate class (just not officially made by WotC)....
Near as I can tell, all reasons for continuing to reject every attempt at making a Warlord have only one possible, common motivation left. One which I have already stated. One which certainly raised the ire of some, but also - pointedly - did not generate rebuttals, just denials.

Sure, if you ignore everything said in this thread and put words into people's mouths, and if you're bound and determined to call stuff you disagree with "edition warring" I suppose that would be the logical conclusion. [emoji38]

Tony gave a big rundown of why the Fighter won't work. Its core class features are too divergent. Same with the bard, though it's at least closer. Neither of those core sets comes even close. Subclasses add to core features, not remove them.

Is it that hard to believe that some folks actually want what they say they want?

A class by WotC instead of a third party has two big benefits: First, increased chances of acceptance at tables, including organized play. Second, more thorough review, development, and playtesting. The first is the main benefit, though.

 

[Obryn]

Okay.

So, just for a place to start, let's take the Fighter chasis.

Now, let's strip out Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style, Indomitable, and Extra Attack 2&3 (at least for right now, we may want them later as an action economy resource...)

Now we change the name at the top of the class entry to Warlord (under construction)

What class attributes do we install to replace the one's we took out?

Drop hit dice to d8 to line up with cleric. Drop armor down to, probably, medium and maybe no shields. Core class features include some form of manipulation of the action economy - granting attacks and/or movement to allies. Something similar to bardic inspiration, maybe, but with a specific combat focus. Some healing capabilities, most likely allowing allies to access some hit dice while in combat. The first extra attack is fine, but not the later ones; those are the Fighter's toys.

Subclasses can operate on a maneuver basis, using Battlemaster as something of a model. One set focuses more on inspiration (including healing and buffs) and one on tactics (including positioning and attacks).

Class balance should use clerics and bards as the basic model, since they are the closest thematically.

 

[Minigiant]

Good Stuff. Thanks.

Anybody have feedback or ideas on this? Critiques?


I have a couple of questions:

Which Battle Master stuff do you think a Tactical Warlord should get? Does it need more than just what a Battle Master can provide (more than what is listed for Battle Master maneuvers)...?

What about in-combat healing for the Inspiring Warlord?

I know that the idea of temporary Hit Points is a point of contention with some? Is it that there isn't a permanent HP contribution? Is a temporary HP mechanic okay as long as there is also a permanent HP mechanic?

On tactical warlord:
The Tactical warlord would get the same dice and maneuvers as a Battlemaster fighter.

On in combat healing:
I'm in the small group of warlord fans who think warlords don't need in combat healing. In combat healing was an necessity to the battle system.

On THP
I would do both and this would negate most issue. My "Speech of Rest" would grant THP and HP on long and short rests.

 

[El Mahdi]

Sure, if you ignore everything said in this thread and put words into people's mouths, and if you're bound and determined to call stuff you disagree with "edition warring" I suppose that would be the logical conclusion. [emoji38]

And this is where everybody keeps putting words into my mouth. I don't disagree with anything anybody has said. I have my own opinions, but I don't by default hold my opinions supreme to others.

The only thing I disagree with is the lack of specificity. That continued lack of specificity in favor of general complaining is what led me to my posited opinion concerning some poster's motivations.

If you don't agree with my opinion, if you have alternative theories, then I would be interested in hearing them. I know that a logical, rhetorical rebuttal is not beyond the ability of the prominent posters in this thread.

Tony gave a big rundown of why the Fighter won't work. Its core class features are too divergent.

And therein lies a significant piece of the problem. "Too divergent" is non-specific and objective. As concerns actually getting what one wants - which in this case is a Warlord that feels, smells, and plays like a Warlord - these kinds of statements are worse than useless. They're frustrating and counterproductive.

Is it that hard to believe that some folks actually want what they say they want?

No, it's not hard to believe at all. And I've never said or implied that I don't. Assuming people don't believe that, or don't understand that, is likely a big barrier to achieving what you want.

But, just to be clear, let's make sure those who want a Warlord really know what they want.

Do you want a Warlord that feels, smells, and plays like a 4E Warlord?
Or do you want to continue limiting your options or approaches to providing that, by demanding it must be done as a separate class? That any exploration outside of this is automatically subject to rejection because it simply is not its own class?
Are you willing to accept a Warlord that works within the conceits and mechanics of 5E? Understanding that because they are significantly different systems, an exact port simply is not possible...?

If the answer to the first question is yes, then isn't limiting avenues of exploration, even if it means a subclass, counter to getting what you desire?

A class by WotC instead of a third party has two big benefits: First, increased chances of acceptance at tables, including organized play. Second, more thorough review, development, and playtesting. The first is the main benefit, though.

None of these things are exclusive to it being a class. The premise that this is fact is simply not true.