D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Winterthorn]

I couldn't read every post here, but doesn't the Marshall from the 3.5E Miniatures Handbook offer good ideas? The Marshall has minor and major aura effects (typically boosts to certain rolls, boosts to AC, boosts to saves, DR at higher levels). The class also grants an extra move to allies, 1 to 5/per day depending on it's class level. And a Charisma bonus figures prominently in it's assistance to allies as well. So for example, an Advantage on all diplomacy rolls for a 5E Warlord could be conceptually derived from the Marshall's default Skill Focus (Diplomacy).

So, having just looked at my 3.5 book, I'm just wondering if the Marshall can be a good guide towards the development of a Warlord for 5E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I couldn't read every post here, but doesn't the Marshall from the 3.5E Miniatures Handbook offer good ideas?

Not really. The few features the Marshal brought to the table were already there in the Warlord: Commanding Presence instead of an Aura, exploits that included granting allies moves and other actions in addition to many, many other things, and builds that made strong use of CHA (and other INT and even WIS). The Marshal can be politely regarded as an early, failed experiment in creating a 'leader' class.


But, now that I think of it, Commanding Presence hasn't been brought up, at all, that I remember. Like the Marshal's "auras," Commanding Presence is an obvious outgrowth of 'command radius' - the area in which an officer could command units. A 5e Warlord would, presumably, be given a precise command radius of some kind, because 5e just generally tends to give distances in feet. Maybe 30' or 60' or 120' - those tend to get used a lot - maybe something else. (It won't really matter much in TotM, but that doesn't stop the game anywhere else.) Within that radius, the Warlord could help out his allies in various ways, with orders, warnings, inspiration, etc...

 

[epithet]

Seems like most folks are thinking in terms of changing up the fighter (it's the thread title, after all) but wouldn't it be mechanically easier to start with the Ranger, or the "Spell-less Ranger" from UA?

It seems to me that replacing the beastmaster functionality with party buff functionality would get you most of the way there.

 

[GreenTengu]

Yeah, I don't know what the fixation is on altering the Fighter.

Actually, I think it would be far more feasible to create what the Warlord is supposed to be by starting with the Cleric, getting the Martial Weapons proficiency and changing your caster stat to either Intelligence or Charisma. After that it would just be a matter of selecting your spells based on what would seem to fit with the concept of theme of them not being magic so much as tactics.

Either that or start with the Paladin and start replacing features.

But the Fighter is just not a good place to start.

 

[Hussar]

The reason is people want a non magical character with more options.

Take the idea of a pirate captain. A fighter should make a good one right? It's an archetype that should fall under a fighter's umbrella.

But a fighter would make a terrible ship's captain. No skills and no abilities to aid in sailing a ship. A ranger, bard or, of course, wizard would make a ten times better captain.

I want a fighter that can command a group. Not through magic but because he's a fighter and there are a bajillion mundane archetypes that should fit under fighter but don't.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The reason is people want a non magical character with more options.

Take the idea of a pirate captain. A fighter should make a good one right? It's an archetype that should fall under a fighter's umbrella.

But a fighter would make a terrible ship's captain. No skills and no abilities to aid in sailing a ship. A ranger, bard or, of course, wizard would make a ten times better captain.

I want a fighter that can command a group. Not through magic but because he's a fighter and there are a bajillion mundane archetypes that should fit under fighter but don't.

Why can't a fighter make a good ship's captain? Take proficiency in water vehicles and have a decent Charisma score and maybe Intimidate and there you are. Hell, a Sailor background gets you 90% of the way there.

A ranger or bard or wizard would have to do basically the same thing.

Why do you need some sort of special heroic ability on your character sheet to tell a bunch of NPC's what to do? Or perhaps a more relevant question: what did a 4e warlord have that no other class had that let it be a good ship's captain?

 

[Hussar]

Why can't a fighter make a good ship's captain? Take proficiency in water vehicles and have a decent Charisma score and maybe Intimidate and there you are. Hell, a Sailor background gets you 90% of the way there.

A ranger or bard or wizard would have to do basically the same thing.

Why do you need some sort of special heroic ability on your character sheet to tell a bunch of NPC's what to do? Or perhaps a more relevant question: what did a 4e warlord have that no other class had that let it be a good ship's captain?

Umm, how do you get people to do what you want without the persuasion proficiency? If I use intimidate, anyone I use that on becomes hostile. Pretty quick way to get thrown overboard IMO.

And, note, nothing you listed actually is a part of the fighter class - background, is something anyone could do. Yet a ranger has all sorts of terrain powers that would definitely help in navigating a ship. A wizard has a bajillion spells that would make naval travel a lot easier.

Warlords had a number of powers which assisted skills. That right there would make him a good ship's captain. Never minding that with a crew, having the ability to grant additional actions, movement and bonuses to those actions would make him a very effective ship's captain.

Note, proficiency in water vehicles would be a big help here. That's true. But, like everything else, a fighter can be good but not great at anything other than beating on stuff with a lumpy metal item. Every other class can do what the fighter does and does it better. You'd think with subclasses like the battle master, a fighter would be the best at commanding a small group. But, every spell caster blows the fighter straight out of the water here. Heh, pun intended.

 

[Hussar]

Got a few minutes more. So, I'll add this:

Warlords are meant to have high Cha, so, right off the bat, "Leader of men" makes sense, whereas taking a high Cha actively hurts a 5e fighter.

Warlords start off with Diplomacy and History as class skills making them fit the "Captain" archetype much better. Captains should be educated individuals with broad knowledge. And diplomacy is a must. In 5e, none of the fighter skills speak to this.

Warlords, as Combat leader give allies +2 to initiative, or as a Canny Leader grant +2 to insight and Perception. What bonuses does a 5e fighter confer to allies?

Now, I will totally admit that warlord powers probably aren't all that useful. I think I am mistaken in remembering powers which gave bonuses to skill checks. My bad.

To fair though, I'm not sure why you are arguing with me KM. The whole point of warlording the fighter is to create a fighter archetype that fits the mold of commander of men. I simply used pirate captain as an example. Choose any small group concept you like, the point still remains - fighters make very poor commanders and that's a problem IMO. The Town Guard Captain should be a fighter shouldn't he? Making a mercenary captain a fighter shouldn't be considered a weaksauce option.

That all being said though, I'm kinda wondering if warlording the ranger might not be a better fit. I'm fickle that way.

 

[fuindordm]

Why can't a fighter make a good ship's captain? Take proficiency in water vehicles and have a decent Charisma score and maybe Intimidate and there you are. Hell, a Sailor background gets you 90% of the way there.

The same reason a fighter with Survival doesn't make a good ranger, or a fighter with stealth doesn't make a good rogue... when people are saying they want a class, with powers that go above and beyond skills and support the archetype they want to play, what's the point of telling them that choosing a couple of skills could be enough?

 

[Minigiant]

The same reason a fighter with Survival doesn't make a good ranger, or a fighter with stealth doesn't make a good rogue... when people are saying they want a class, with powers that go above and beyond skills and support the archetype they want to play, what's the point of telling them that choosing a couple of skills could be enough?

The issue is focus.

An outlander fighter is fine as a ranger if your focus is combat. An outlander fighter tracks an orc then murder-kills it to death. This was the 4e ranger and how low level 1e-2e rangers worked: killers who were decent at stealth and survival. If you just want exploration skills and offence, a oulander rogue. But if you wanted to rock exploration pillar while still keep combat strength, you had to make a ranger class.

With a sea captain warlord, the question is what's the focus. If you want a warrior captain who can do the basic jobs of a sailor, there is a sailor fighter with decent Charisma. A skill heavy swashbuckler is the same thing but as a rogue. Tempest clerics, coastal druids, valor bards, storm sorcerers, and elemental wizards can do magic captains. But if you want to lead the men actively and manage the ship actively without msgic, another class must be made.