D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Tony Vargas]

I'd like to see very few, very well-done and 'complete' splat-books. Maybe one a year. Maybe not every year after the first few...

For instance, we should be getting a psionics book, with the mystic and other other psionic classes all drawing from a well-developed psionics sub-system. Something as extensive as spells are in the PH. That'd be fantastic. DarkSun adventure paths could come out the same year.

The Warlord would fit in a similar book for martial characters. Imagine if the Battlemasters' maneuvers were given that same kind of development, hundreds of them, with a sophisticated sub-system for learning, using, and even training others to participate in them during downtime along with downtime martial practices. Could be pretty awesome. Low-/no- magic settings would be viable.

The only thing that's fully-developed right now, with just the PH, is spell-casting. Every class casts spells or uses them to model some other supernatural power. Around 29 of 38 builds, 3/4s of possible characters are casters, with Totem Barbarans and Monks being supernatural, and only 4 builds (Champion, Battlemaster, Thief & Assassin) not supernatural at all (with a 5th, the Berserker, apparently questionable). A large chunk of the PH is devoted just to the large list of spells all casters share (and other supernatural classes reference).

We're good there, but for anything else, lots of room. And, hopefully, lots of time to do it well.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'd be cool with that if the material was all optional and wasn't referenced in other books. But then one product isn't driving the sale of other products and I doubt they aren't going to do that if they go down that road.

So I'm up for no splats. Maybe one unearthed arcana book with a bunch of optional rules that aren't part of the core game.

 

[MechaPilot]

It may be easier to understand/see past if we drop the 4e "role" labels. Stop thinking like that. Stop believing them to be some kind of "underlying truth" of D&D. They aren't.

This is not 4e. This is 5e. Whatever 4e had/labeled/defined things DO. NOT. APPLY. HERE. AND. NOW. "But we don't have a marital leader. Where's my martial leader?" means NADA in the context of 5e.

The fighter is not a "striker". The battlemaster subclass is not a "controller" or "leader." These terms have NO MEANING in 5e.

Once people can drop/let those go/leave them to the edition for which they were created...they might better be able to see the possibilities to have/make/"build" any kind of "warlord" anyone could want with what we already have to work with in 5e.

As others have said, we can very easily rephrase it or come up with new terms (e.g. "I can't make an inspiromancer"), but why should we when we already have terms that work and that people know? There's no reason to rename the wheel just because you're putting it on the 2014 version of a car (or the 2014 version of D&D).

 

[mellored]

At the expense of being able to do other things with those limited resources, you mean.

Yes. More likely they will use bigger effects. (though i've seen plenty of clerics use their level 2 slots for bless).

The mundane class buffer DOES have a limited resources; in-combat actions.
He has ~10-12 actions per day (depending on the day).


Giving someone a bonus to-hit while out of combat doesn't count at infinite to-hit.
Nor does a warlock casting false life while he walks down the road count as infinite THP.
Nor the fighter swinging his sword at nothing count for infinite damage.


Unless you have the mundane bonus giver helping the fighter's punches the warlock....

 

[Pauper]

Looking beyond defined roles I can see even more things for the Warlord to do. Can we do what the warlord could in 4e with what we have in 5e now?

Of course -- the problem is that we already have, with the battlemaster fighter. Between Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally, it's possible to make a 3rd level character that feels very much like a 4E warlord, as long as you're not a 4E purist, in which case, you should probably just still be playing 4E. (Nothing wrong with that, by the way; I'm both playing in and running 4E games to complete the LFR Epic campaign.)

I also feel that a 4E style tactical warlord design would be bad for the game -- the principal effect of the 4E warlord, after all, was to basically surrender her own actions and give them to the most optimized ally in the party. I don't see that as a playstyle worth encouraging.

Next, I think the differentiation of all the different aspects of the 4E warlord is an admission by the 5E designers that all of those aspects should not be combined in a single character, or at least not easily. I won't go so far as to call it a 'toxic' design, but the idea of a highly-tactical, chessmasterish character goes against a lot of the 5E design ethic about streamlining and taking complexity out of combat. Again, if that's what you want, you can homebrew it or stick with 4E; I don't think we need to spend official resources on something that isn't really germane to the design of the system.

Finally, I'm not sure classes invented simply as prior edition system experiments are always germane to the current system, and even the concept of 'playing with the system' in that way is questionable. To the former point, the Favored Soul was a 3E class that asked the question 'what if we had a divine sorcerer?' I'm not sure we need a divine sorcerer in 5E, but players who want to play one might well disagree. Likewise, to the latter point, would it really be a benefit to the system to, for example, create a core class that used the warlock spell slot and prepared spell mechanics, but to cast divine spells rather than arcane spells? Isn't that just saying 'let's have a cleric that casts spells like a warlock', when you could just, y'know, multiclass cleric and warlock?

We have a system where complex initiative, playing on a grid, and even customization via feats and multiclassing are all optional rules systems. I guess I don't really see the benefit in adding a bunch of classes, solely for the benefit of folks who remember them fondly from prior editions, solely as additional options.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes. More likely they will use bigger effects. (though i've seen plenty of clerics use their level 2 slots for bless).

The mundane class buffer DOES have a limited resources; in-combat actions.
He has ~10-12 actions per day (depending on the day).

But is that a meaningful choice?

The cleric is choosing bless (or whatever) over other spells, many of which might be as good or better for a given situation.

But if the warlord is choosing between buffing a character who hits harder than he does, or giving an extra action to a character who hits harder than he does, versus taking his own attack? That's not meaningful. That's almost always going to be the better option. (I use "hit harder" as an example, but other checks are viable, too.)

For this choice to be meaningful, the warlord must be choosing between "augment other character" and "do something myself that is potentially just as effective." So what's option two? What else does the hypothetical warlord do that makes it a tough choice to make? Other people have said they don't want the warlord to be that good of a frontline fighter, and the warlord obviously isn't a spellcaster. So what choice is the warlord making? What's the sacrifice in spending the action/other resource?

(This is a genuine question, not me challenging the warlord's "right" to exist.)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I also feel that a 4E style tactical warlord design would be bad for the game -- the principal effect of the 4E warlord, after all, was to basically surrender her own actions and give them to the most optimized ally in the party. I don't see that as a playstyle worth encouraging.

I personally don't see the attraction of that playstyle. Where you are reduced to just being support. When I play a bard he mostly sword fighting, my cleric is mostly braining orcs with his mace. I always bristled when players who came from a different gaming background expected me to stand behind the line with my cleric and just be there to cast heal on their fighter. I'm in full plate with a smashing weapon, why do you think I'm a behinds the line support guy?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

can you clarify what your trying to prove please?

Really? I thought I was pretty clear. Okay. Claiming that a PC can expend all of their limited resources to spam something more often, its still not "at-will." It's "at opportunity cost." If the cleric is casting bless constantly (the example he gave), to maintain it for as many encounters as possible in a day, they are not casting other spells. Other spells that are also part of the character's niche.

Hope that helped clear it up.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Of course -- the problem is that we already have, with the battlemaster fighter. Between Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally, it's possible to make a 3rd level character that feels very much like a 4E warlord, as long as you're not a 4E purist, in which case, you should probably just still be playing 4E. (Nothing wrong with that, by the way; I'm both playing in and running 4E games to complete the LFR Epic campaign.)

I also feel that a 4E style tactical warlord design would be bad for the game -- the principal effect of the 4E warlord, after all, was to basically surrender her own actions and give them to the most optimized ally in the party. I don't see that as a playstyle worth encouraging.

Next, I think the differentiation of all the different aspects of the 4E warlord is an admission by the 5E designers that all of those aspects should not be combined in a single character, or at least not easily. I won't go so far as to call it a 'toxic' design, but the idea of a highly-tactical, chessmasterish character goes against a lot of the 5E design ethic about streamlining and taking complexity out of combat. Again, if that's what you want, you can homebrew it or stick with 4E; I don't think we need to spend official resources on something that isn't really germane to the design of the system.

Finally, I'm not sure classes invented simply as prior edition system experiments are always germane to the current system, and even the concept of 'playing with the system' in that way is questionable. To the former point, the Favored Soul was a 3E class that asked the question 'what if we had a divine sorcerer?' I'm not sure we need a divine sorcerer in 5E, but players who want to play one might well disagree. Likewise, to the latter point, would it really be a benefit to the system to, for example, create a core class that used the warlock spell slot and prepared spell mechanics, but to cast divine spells rather than arcane spells? Isn't that just saying 'let's have a cleric that casts spells like a warlock', when you could just, y'know, multiclass cleric and warlock?

We have a system where complex initiative, playing on a grid, and even customization via feats and multiclassing are all optional rules systems. I guess I don't really see the benefit in adding a bunch of classes, solely for the benefit of folks who remember them fondly from prior editions, solely as additional options.

Great post.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Really? I thought I was pretty clear. Okay. Claiming that a PC can expend all of their limited resources to spam something more often, its still not "at-will." It's "at opportunity cost." If the cleric is casting bless constantly (the example he gave), to maintain it for as many encounters as possible in a day, they are not casting other spells. Other spells that are also part of the character's niche.

Hope that helped clear it up.

So your only problem with the mundane class buffer is it has to be based on the same baseline as a spellcaster?