D&D 5E A WOTC 5e Warlord That Would Be Acceptable To Skeptics

[Umbran]

Why design something for the sceptics?

Because, if you can please them, they get out of your way.

This is a common enough thing in, say, customer service. When faced with an irate customer, the basic question is, "What can I do to make you happy?" Either you find out what will make them happy, or you'll find out that *nothing* can make them happy - and maybe they realize it too, and then stop bugging you, because they know you can't do anything for them.

 

[the Jester]

First off, I am not a 4e fan at all. It is the only edition I never connected with. It looked well designed for what it was but it catered to a very different playstyle than I enjoy and didn't seem like a natural evolution from the classic D&D I played for the 25 years previously. I never played a Warlord in that edition, but I actually really like the idea of the Warlord as a class representing a charismatic or intelligent warrior who buffs, debuffs, applies some battlefield manipulation, rallies the troops and manipulates the course of battle through their leadership.


I am sure anyone who cringes every time they hear the word Warlord (as well as Warlord fans who don't like refluffing) might not like this but how about presenting a 5e Warlord as a magical class but with absolutely minimal fluff other than something like "using a lost mythic war magic from a previous epoch," "blessed by the gods of war" or "a chosen one manifesting the spirit of war itself."

Blech. You already lost me. Nonmagical is an absolute prerequisite for an acceptable warlord. Throw in magic, and you have a valor bard (IMHO).

EDIT: Not to sound like a party pooper. I love the warlord and really wanted a good 5e version. I think you can sorta-kinda build one with the right mix of battlemaster and valor bard and the Inspirational Leader feat, but... damn it, it's an achetype I love and think really deserves its own class. I might have to see if I can come up with my own version of it. My initial thoughts include the notion of an ability to shout some hps into someone at the cost of the target gaining a level of exhaustion. Also, possibly letting the warlord trigger in-combat expenditure of Hit Dice, like healing surges in 4e.

Having read the rest of the thread, I think there are a couple of good ideas in here, such as restricting nonmagical healing to a subclass. But I totally agree with the general sentiment that you should make a warlord for warlord-lovers and let the haters ignore it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't mean to it come off that way if that is the way it sounded. I had been following the Warlord poll thread for a couple of days here and hadn't really even considered it viable for 5e previously but it did get me to crack open the 4e PHB and actually read the class and the powers. I saw vaguely how it might work in 5e so I thought the objection was the martial flavor from the skeptic's side.

You're not far off. It seesm a little more extreme an objection than can be solved just by optional re-flavoring, though. More existential. Like I said, ideals like re-fluffing have gotten floated. They get floated the other way, too. Like, can you re-flavor a 5e Bard to be a Warlord? (Not really, they're pretty different, and you'd have the oddity of the Ward/Barlord/whatever being better than other Bards because he's immune to dispelling & anti-magic, or being obviously magical, because he's not. And 5e's not quite as open to re-flavoring, either, because of fluff/rules interactions like that.)

I suppose you could limit a Warlord inspirational healing to a subclass. DMs or players who like the Warlord but found inspirational healing to be a dealbreaker could have it in the game without the healing component.

Rather than an immutable feature like it was in 4e, you could just make it one (or 50 or so, to be true to the original) of many (339) maneuvers that a Warlord might choose - just like Healing Word is just one of many spells a Cleric or Druid might choose. Same effect, more flexibility (players could eschew any other maneuvers they found unsuitable for whatever reason).

I never really checked out Warlord development in 4e beyond the PHB so I am only really familiar with the idea of more inspirational and more tactical builds out of the box. Later supplements may have opened up other obvious archetypes that aren't coming to me right now. I did see "lazy warlords" mentioned in the big thread who were all about not attacking but granting actions and team leading which sounds appealing to me, but seems to be contentious, maybe that is another possibility though.

The 'lazy' build was a fan digression, but an amusing one and it received a little official support later. Martial Power 1 & 2 both had additional warlord builds, some more compelling than others.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I enjoyed 4E quite a bit, but it was not D&D for me. I liked the 4E warlord... I'm in the hp != meat camp, so the rationale behind the healing made perfect sense to me. Having said that, I think the OP's idea is great as a class concept. It's a totally different thing from the 4E warlord, but I think the OP gets that. In summary, I like the 4E warlord and like this version as well (the OP's fluff for the magical background of the healing/ally boosting powers is top notch).

 

[Hussar]

Yeah I have to admit that a warlord for me has to be non-magical. The issue isn't in my mind anyway, magic vs non-magic. It's can we get a class that heals and focuses on granting additional actions and buffs.

 

[Jester David]

Make it a martially oriented class focused around the leadership role of the Warlord in the 4e sense up to and including "shouting away" hp damage. If 5e fans can accept a Bard "singing away" wounds through magic, I am not sure why anyone would have issues with a Warlord "shouting" them away if there is some indication if you have some reassurance that it is magical.

There's a big difference. The bard IS magic. And it only really sings away 1d6 per short rest. That's not a lot of healing, and is adjustable by the DM based on the length of the rest and any requirements placed on spending hit dice.

So, yeah, if the warlord only heals 1d6-10 extra each short rest, that'll be inoffensive.

Would that be vaguely acceptable to 5e fans, Warlord doubters and 4e Warlord fans?

The catch is, "5e fans", "warlord fans" and "4e warlord fans" are not unified groups. There's a lot of different values and opinions in those groups.
Some really want a healing warlord, others will accept a warlord that does temporary hit points. Some thing the "lazylord" should be the basis for the warlord, while others want a inspirational or commanding warlord instead.
There'll never be a class that satisfies everyone because there'll always be some variance or difference. It's become this issue larger than the class itself.

 

[Hussar]

The thing that really baffles me about all these Warlord threads is the idea of martial healing. 5e HAS martial healing. Fighters obviously, can self heal multiple times per day and every character can heal about half their HP in a day as well. Why is it perfectly okay for my fighter to put his own arm back on, but, apparently, not okay for a warlord to help the fighter put his arm back on?

I'd find the criticisms of warlords much easier to understand if they weren't so inconsistent. Either non-magical healing is bad or it's not. This, "Well, non-magical healing is okay so long as it isn't from a warlord" schtick is just edition warring with a funny set of glasses and a fake moustache.

 

[Lanefan]

The OP's idea sounds like it wants to start with something like a Bard (maybe not even a 5e Bard - try 2e?) and then kitbash to suit. Might be workable, particularly if you first define what a Bard does as also being non-magical - they're just manipulating sound.

As for the "lazy-lord" idea, am I to believe this type of character's main schtick is to stay in the back and buff-control from there even though it has good h.p. and can halfway fight? If so, I can see the appeal for a certain (despicable) type of player: the one who makes sure that everyone else in the party dies first. I've played with people like this - death and destruction all round yet somehow their characters always just happen to be in the right place to avoid it, mostly because they've intentionally made sure others take the risks; after which those players' characters then get rich looting both sides' dead.

Let's not encourage them. If there's to be a warlord leader-type class let's make sure its best effects happen when it leads from the front.

Lan-"thinking about the Barlord class someone mentioned upthread, along with the 1d8 h.p. gin & tonics from another thread...oh, the possibilities!"-efan

 

[Hussar]

The OP's idea sounds like it wants to start with something like a Bard (maybe not even a 5e Bard - try 2e?) and then kitbash to suit. Might be workable, particularly if you first define what a Bard does as also being non-magical - they're just manipulating sound.

As for the "lazy-lord" idea, am I to believe this type of character's main schtick is to stay in the back and buff-control from there even though it has good h.p. and can halfway fight? If so, I can see the appeal for a certain (despicable) type of player: the one who makes sure that everyone else in the party dies first. I've played with people like this - death and destruction all round yet somehow their characters always just happen to be in the right place to avoid it, mostly because they've intentionally made sure others take the risks; after which those players' characters then get rich looting both sides' dead.

Let's not encourage them. If there's to be a warlord leader-type class let's make sure its best effects happen when it leads from the front.

Lan-"thinking about the Barlord class someone mentioned upthread, along with the 1d8 h.p. gin & tonics from another thread...oh, the possibilities!"-efan

To be fair though, that's not always intentional, it's just an artifact of the class system.

For example, right now, I'm playing a dwarven druid with a 14 con. Because of dwarven resilience, I get +1/HD for HP, meaning I get about 8HP/ level. At 4th level, I've got 35 HP. However, since the character is more of a ranged combatant, I'm almost never taking any damage, even though I've got similar HP to the front line fighters who are typically only averaging a point or two more/level than I am. It's not a case of me wanting everyone else to die first, it's just that this character has buckets of HP despite it not really fitting with the concept I had for this character.

Like I said, an artefact of the class system.

 

[Lanefan]

To be fair though, that's not always intentional, it's just an artifact of the class system.

Perhaps, but I've seen it done intentionally often enough to never want it encouraged.

For example, right now, I'm playing a dwarven druid with a 14 con. Because of dwarven resilience, I get +1/HD for HP, meaning I get about 8HP/ level. At 4th level, I've got 35 HP. However, since the character is more of a ranged combatant, I'm almost never taking any damage, even though I've got similar HP to the front line fighters who are typically only averaging a point or two more/level than I am. It's not a case of me wanting everyone else to die first, it's just that this character has buckets of HP despite it not really fitting with the concept I had for this character.

Nothing wrong with that*; Druids (or Nature Clerics) have never really been intended as front-line bangers in any edition, 3e's char-ops wackiness notwithstanding. You're probably set for a long career! (there's a similar character in my current game - an Elf Nature Cleric with unusually high Con. has the second-highest h.p. total in a party of 11; and its player plays it like a front-line banger too, much to the concern of the rest of the party as they watch most of their cures potentially get squashed in every combat!)

* - though it'll take me a while to wrap my head around the concept of Dwarven Druid; in most games I've seen Dwarves see trees as so many board-feet of lumber waiting to be harvested, and they ain't exactly kind about it.

Lanefan