D&D 5E [Class] Tactician (warlord replacement)

[Yunru]

I still don't get this "bossing around others" thing. So what they don't have a choice? You give them a choice and they're going to take it anyway. Who doesn't want their character doing more/better?

 

[mellored]

It's a new class, so why not a new background? In either case, given that I take "warlord" as looking less like a refined gentleman and more of a battlefield commander, I would have gone with outlander. Even soldier is fitting.

Because that would take more effort.

See, the thing with 5e classes is, even if you have to tilt your head and squint a bit...a well-designed class should be able take on/handle any background. That's just a matter of backstory for the player to work out.

I was following the PHB, which suggested a background.

Probably should of just left it out.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Regardless of the HP amount, it requires that other players sacrifice their own class bonus actions while also requiring the warlord to maintain the ability. In terms of the action economy of the game, it gimps everyone. No one would use it. If no one uses it in lieu of their own class-oriented bonus actions, there's no reason for the warlord to use one of their own class features. Ergo, why bother playing the warlord?

That still doesn't make sense. What if the missing text were "twice your maximum HP"? Who wouldn't sacrifice one action from the healer, and a bonus action from each character who needed healing, for that much healing? Not that I'm suggesting it should be that much, but clearly there is some value at which it becomes an interesting/hard decision. "Gosh I hate to give up my bonus action....but that's a bunch of HP."

Because people want a baseline non-magical support. I can't spell it out any clearer than that. For you it has to be magical. I get it. You clearly don't. But it does not sound as if warlord archetype was ever for you anyway.

Actually, a few people (Bawylie, mellored) have convinced me that a "master of tactics" could be a fun and useful class. And throwing some healing in there is a good idea. I don't think questioning the necessity of one aspect of the fluff, with nothing to do with mechanics, is doubting the whole archetype.

But for actual advocates of the warlord and what it represents, it has to be non-magical at its core. For you it has to be magical. Great. But that's not what most warlord players want. Sure we could make a magical warlord sub-class that would appease your magically-inclined sensibilities, but that should not be the expectation of the core class. It would feel like a complete betrayal of the warlord concept.

I'll try to make an analogy: if we were debating the Druid and I kept arguing, without budging an inch, that Druids should only be able to use non-metallic weapons, would that detail seem like a deal-breaker to you? "Dude, if you don't like metal weapons, don't use them in your game. It doesn't change anything." (Which is exactly the approach I'll take if the Warlord makes it in: I'll pretend the healing is magic.) I'm just trying to understand why non-metallic weapons, or non-magical healing, are so freakin' important.

I have a novel idea. Let's fluff the core fighter, barbarian, and rogue as magical, including the battlemaster and champion. I'm now of the opinion that there is no way they can achieve these extraordinary things without magic.

I sort of see it that way already. They couldn't do some of these things without magic. But the PHB doesn't specify how they do it; the descriptions don't say whether or not its magical. It's written in such a way that everybody can interpret them however they want. The word "spell" isn't used, but a lot of class abilities (c.f. Paladin, Ranger, Monk) are clearly magical without being described as such.

Which is why I think it's odd that the warlord must be written to specifically say "this is not magic". Or, conversely, to provide a specifically non-magical mechanism, "your courage restores hope in your ally" or whatever. Why not describe it without locking it in to one or the other?

 

[mellored]

So how's this: "Rallying Cry: the (insert class name) uses an Action to begin shouting a repetitive martial cheer. Allies who can hear the (insert class name) can use their bonus Action to join in the cheer. All who do so gain (some amount of) temporary Hit Points. On subsequent rounds the (insert class name) can maintain the Rallying Cry using a bonus action (requires Concentration), and allies can continue to benefit by using their own bonus actions."

Seems pretty clunky, and gives even less agency to the cheerleader.

"I choose to make a bonus, you choose to recive it, you choose how to spend it".
Heck, by those rules, an enemy can simply join in the chant.

I mean, every other support at least get's to choose where there bonus goes, if not how it's used.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Seems pretty clunky, and gives even less agency to the cheerleader.

"I choose to make a bonus, you choose to recive it, you choose how to spend it".
Heck, by those rules, an enemy can simply join in the chant.

I mean, every other support at least get's to choose where there bonus goes, if not how it's used.

Huh, ok. I mean, you're right that it doesn't let the player target the effect (and I'm not suggesting it would have to be the only healing ability of the class) but the player is still choosing to begin the chant.

I also think we may be using agency slightly differently. I'm talking about agency of thought & action, with the outcome being dependent on other factors. You may be using agency to mean "ability to accomplish desired goal".

 

[mellored]

I also think we may be using agency slightly differently. I'm talking about agency of thought & action, with the outcome being dependent on other factors. You may be using agency to mean "ability to accomplish desired goal".

After you give a buff, and it's no longer your buff, it's their buff.

i.e.
The bard has the intention of boosting your saving throw against an dragons breath attack. You can turn around and use the bard's inspiration to boost your attack against the bard. Not the bards buff anymore.

At least the cleric have the option of ending concentration if she doesn't like that your using it to attack kobold children. Though that kills the bless for everyone else too.


Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to fully debuff your idea. Something like that could still work, just not what i'm looking for. Possibly a chanter class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Possibly a chanter class.

I was more picturing two warriors getting in each other's faces, yelling "WASSSSSUP!!!!!", head-butting, then turning around and scoring crits on the Frost Giants. Not Gregorian Monks droning.

 

[mellored]

I was more picturing two warriors getting in each other's faces, yelling "WASSSSSUP!!!!!", head-butting, then turning around and scoring crits on the Frost Giants. Not Gregorian Monks droning.

So a "Bro" class then?

 

[Guest 6801328]

So a "Bro" class then?

Other abilities:
"Pass a Brewski"
"Duuuuuuude"
"You da Man"
"Drive Me to the Airport?"
"Now You're Funny, Too" <-- bonus XP for first person to get that reference

 

[Sunseeker]

Because that would take more effort.

Not sure if serious.