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

[jadrax]

Instead of giving 'Warlords' an ability to grant allies additional actions, would some sort of 'Leadership Aura' work? I.e. all allies within a certain radius of the Warlord does +2 Damage on all their Attacks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Instead of giving 'Warlords' an ability to grant allies additional actions, would some sort of 'Leadership Aura' work? I.e. all allies within a certain radius of the Warlord does +2 Damage on all their Attacks.

Maybe? Though I find that idea...frankly pretty bland-sounding. I mean, it accomplishes the job of "I contribute by making my allies' contributions better," but it does it in the least "tactical"-feeling way I can imagine, particularly if it's just a static effect. For comparison, every 4e Warlord had some kind of "Battlefield Presence" ability, which did essentially what you're talking about...as one of its cool, but relatively minor, baseline features. (I say "relatively" because the Tactical Presence's bonus to Initiative was considered drool-worthy by most "Warlord handbooks.")

Perhaps I should have approached this more positively--my opening sentences there come across harsher than I intended. Speaking more positively: This is a definitely workable place to begin designing a Warlord; it's got a clear analogy to features available in 4e. But you cannot stop with just that, nor do I think you can merely make this aura be the central workhorse of a "5e Warlord" design. It's a good, solid stone--but a single stone, no matter how sturdy, isn't a foundation, and this particular block doesn't strike me as a good choice for the cornerstone either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's a meaty digression, ER!

This I can definitely agree with. People focus a lot on the "Lazy/Princess" build of the Warlord, but the truth is that all of the Warlord builds were pretty keen on one specific thing: Contributing by making others' contributions better. Sometimes, that manifested in the Lazy way: "you, attack this brute, and go for the armpit where the armor's weak!", so the ally gets an extra attack with some damage added on top. Other times--more commonly, I'd argue--it manifested as quite literally leading the attack: "have at you, you foul miscreant--and taste my comrades' steel as well!", so that future attacks made against that target get some kind of benefit. Other manifestations could also work, which were fluffed (while I recognize the ease of refluffing in 4e) as exploiting weaknesses, shoring up defenses, or other forms of Natural Battle Enhancement.

If we were to make a class/subclass aimed at bringing more of the 4e warlord into 5e, I think this gives us a good starting point. It's not hard to imagine a mechanic that works a little like bardic inspiration or superiority dice where when the warlord attacks an enemy, they put a die on it. Then, the next person to also attack that enemy can spend that die to do something to it (imagine a BM who put Rally onto an enemy, rather than using it themselves - "Next person to wail on this guy gets temp hp!"). Aside from porting over manuevers or inspiration effects, there might be some interestingly unique things to be done with a mechanic like that (like extending the effect through more hits, or to more of the party, or affecting nearby enemies, etc.). And if you require a hit rather than just another attack, you might be able to get some of the "risk/reward" vibe of the Bravura.

The Warlord could totally heal, but again it was more about being..."facilitative" than about being "reconstructive," if that makes sense. An ally that remains in the fight is extra damage, extra controlled space, additional flanking ability, another body to take some heat off the squishies, etc. Some Warlords are even facilitative by taking risks; Bravura (a Cha-based Warlord) was all about risking or even accepting downsides (like a penalty to an ally's, or your own, defenses) in order to do something dramatic and rewarding IF you pull it off. Others (e.g. Tactical) were facilitative primarily by accelerating the pace of combat, particularly by improving Initiative, or by making the party highly maneuverable (a less-useful thing in 5e, since everyone can move-attack-move-attack etc., but that doesn't mean it couldn't be worked with).

Thinking about the healing from the perspective of "other PC's use my class abilities," I wonder if a warlord subclass who could use Second Wind...on someone else...might work OK for skeptics and fans alike. Generally speaking, in-combat healing isn't very valuable in 5e (one of the virtues of short fights!), so that could definitely get an allied PC back in the fight when they've been downed, and, hell, the fighter gets to use it in every fight (3x 1d10+Level is actually not bad for a day's worth of healing!).

But the big thing Warlords really weren't was being particularly powerful on their own. Being a "Striker" in 4e was essentially the one thing a Warlord definitely couldn't do both well and consistently. Which is something of a problem, because the base chassis of the 5e Fighter IS definitely a damage machine--being the only class that gets four attacks (though, in practice, most people will only see 2-3) kinda forces the Fighter to be at the very least competent at personal damage-dealing.

For a 5e rendition of the Warlord vis-a-vis the Battlemaster, the baked-in Extra Attack of the Fighter, plus all the personal damage-improvement (or personal hit-improvement) from nearly all Maneuvers, is somewhat an issue. (Of the four maneuvers which don't improve your own damage or hit, two are personal defense boosters--Parry and Evasive Footwork--so only Commander's Strike and Rally are "facilitative" in the way a 4e Warlord was.) It's essentially unavoidable that the Battlemaster will be a major damage machine; the mechanics really don't contribute to a player focusing on how to leverage their allies' strengths on the battlefield, which the 4e Warlord had to do in order to meaningfully contribute to combat. Healing--leveraging their allies' HP pools effectively--was a part of that, but could be made optional. Making the whole thing, the whole "facilitative" structure, optional...that's not so doable, IMO, without making the class something fundamentally other than a Warlord.

What do you think of a potential 5e warlord whose schtick was that other people got to use their class features? You could Second Wind other party members, the manuevers were things other party members could trigger (once you set them up)....maybe even share some of that extra attack love....

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, I'm not talking about comparing my character to the sorcerer.

I mean, you DID ask to compare your DL fighter with a sorcerer:

Heh. That's why the fighter in out dragonlance game has the lowest damage output. By a long ways.

Compare a Sorcerer who Fire Bolts for 2d10 every shot.

...but if you wanna move the goalposts, that's cool.

My character does the least damage of any character in the game. The Paladin, which is just as defensive as my fighter, does twice as much damage per round. The idea that fighters in 5e are the damage kings is pretty laughable. Sure, I'll pull ahead a bit at 11th level with the 3rd attack, but, by that time, the campaign will likely be over. Oooh, I get to be the damage king for a level or two. They are probably the most consistent about dealing damage every round. But as far as dealing the most damage? Not even close. Good grief, the 4th level war cleric in the other campaign would put my fighter to shame.

From where I'm sitting, you're doing about as much with your Action Surges, and your subclass Turn Undead is the equivalent of beating an entire monster or two or three all on your own in a lot of encounters. But if you feel underpowered, there's a place you can go to see what you can do to fix it.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

If the warlord would have healing in any way I would sugest the following.

If he healing is non magical it should not add healing to the system, instead, allouw the spending of healing hitdice during combat instead of just during rests.
The warlord could use the ability at will, but a target can only effected by it once between rests.

maybe it should only effect targets that are still above half hitpoints, as in many peoples interpretation there have sofferd no sustantial wounds and motivation might help them.


This would mean a warlord healong a party would be difrent from a cleric healing the party, as the warlord would be more focused on healing early in battle to prevent targets from dropping under 50% HP.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What about going back to 3.5 and the Marshal class? The warlord may just not work with 5e, but the Marshal might.

Such a character might come in handy on routine expeditions.

Heh. That's why the fighter in out dragonlance game has the lowest damage output. By a long ways.

Compare a Sorcerer who Fire Bolts for 2d10 every shot. That's more than your maul wielding fighter. And that's the least damaging attack he makes.

Does the fighter have crappier stats or something? By the time that sorcerer is doing 2d10 with a fire bolt, the fighter should be getting 2 attacks per round for 2d6+STR+ magic (if any) compared to the straight 2d10, and that isn't counting bonus damage that he/she might get from using a battle master maneuver. When you get to action surge and possibly get 4d6+STR x4, then you are competing with the sorcerers actual spells.

Unless you are having terrible luck and missing often, the fighter should have much better baseline damage than the sorcerer unless the sorcerer is using limited resources.

 

[aramis erak]

My minotaur valor bard never got past level 4, and while he was a good buffer, he wasn't able to grant actions like a 4e warlord.

There are profound differences in the action economy between games. Giving extra actions as they did in 4E would be unbalancing in the extreme.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, in order to be competitive with the paladin, the fighter shouldn't be a front line combatant anymore? Don't you think that's a problem for the class that's supposed to be the combat king?

you are much more versatile. Also don't forget the paladin works on a daily cycle, the fighter on a short rest cycle. The paladin is just really good at a single close combat fight. The fighter is good in every situation all day long.

 

[Dausuul]

Two thoughts on a warlord class:

• It should focus on support/tactics, not personally dishing out damage. The base class shouldn't get Extra Attack. There might be one subclass that gets it, but it would be like the valor bard--more of a "this is what I use when I'm not using my main class abilities" perk than a main ability itself.
• It should have an ability which grants in-combat healing, but that ability should be limited to one subclass or feature option. That way, people who are okay with warlord healing can use it, and people who aren't can ban it without having to junk the whole class.

That's about all I got right now.

 

[Aldarc]

There are all sorts of tactical support that the warlord could provide within the framework of 5E. It does require creativity, but it would make sense within the bounds of the warlord class. A warlord, for example, could use her reaction in a round to provide resistance to bludgeoning/slashing/piercing non-magical attacks to someone within a given range. She could make an attack that results in either giving an ally advantage or that imposes disadvantage on a foe. Abilities that are not necessarily about mostly healing - though some healing would be needed - but empower other characters to resolve combat more efficiently and minimize HP loss in combat.