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

[Aldarc]

Why do I get the feeling, however, that that's not the only thing this proposed warlord is doing...

Do you think that the warlord would be balanced if that was all the class did?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.)

Its no different from 4e class design. A warlord is constantly asking "How can I BEST utilize my skill? Do I grant the rogue an extra backstab attack, or do I grant the barbarian a chance to charge the enemy?" Its as simple as that!

Of course you can have more variety of choices, like "Do I continue to maintain this buff or do I grant an attack?" Its not that hard to have valid choices, and if you give a class several options they'll be fine.

I mean we're not criticizing the fighter because his main options are always 'attack something' are we?

 

[Mecheon]

Warlord as a class? I think the role is covered adequately by Valor Bard, Cleric of War or Battle Master Fighter. It's not really *needed.* If such a class were to be made for 5th Ed, I suspect it would be disappointing to most folks who want it because it would perforce be weaker than a "Fighter with Support and Tactical Abilities."

Why is the Barbarian a class? Can't that be covered by a Fighter?
Why is the Paladin a class? Can't that be covered by a Cleric?

And so on, and so forth. Also consider that a Cleric is Divine and all, and the Warlord is pure guts and charisma.

The Warlord is it own thing nowerdays

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Do you think that the warlord would be balanced if that was all the class did?

Of course. Since it's all the cleric can do, if it wants to emulate this supposed "at-will" bless thing that's being offered up by comparison.

That's the thing.

"Look! If all my cleric ever does is spam bless, it's like it's practically at-will. So why can't a warlord offer an at-will feature of comparable power?"

Answer: "Sure. If that's all the warlord does as well..."

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Why is the Barbarian a class? Can't that be covered by a Fighter?

It is not. See the 5e PHB.

Why is the Paladin a class? Can't that be covered by a Cleric?

It is not. See the 5e PHB.

The Warlord is it own thing nowerdays

It is not. See the 5e PHB.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Its no different from 4e class design. A warlord is constantly asking "How can I BEST utilize my skill? Do I grant the rogue an extra backstab attack, or do I grant the barbarian a chance to charge the enemy?" Its as simple as that!

The root of the problem, IMO. The warlord got to forsake needing to bother with physical prowess and personal combat ability, while ensuring their "off-stats" (INT/CHA/WIS) were pumped up to fuel their class abilities, freeing them up to concentrate on social and interaction features of the game, and still got to hit like the rogue using sneak attack or the barbarian charging or whatever other optimal attack was needed in the moment.

Best of both worlds. Overly flexible. Some might say too good a deal...

 

[Remathilis]

Discourage enemies from moving.

Sentinel Feat.

Force an enemy back with a fierce attack.

Pushing Attack or Tripping Attack

Frighten a group of lesser enemies into hesitating (not moving or not attacking on their next turn).

Menacing Attack

Foil an ambush.

Alert Feat.

Coordinate volley fire or a formation attack (possibly of NPCs), resolving it quickly like an AE, instead of each subject (or the DM) rolling each attack individually, and make it more effective than the individual attacks would have been (again, especially for NPCs). (It's the old, train the villagers to defend themselves thing.)

Maybe something for mass-battle if they ever finish the BattleSystem rules. (Though I'm loathe to give a class any feature that makes a necromancer's skeleton horde even MORE deadly...)

Use a reaction to bring an ally to his rescue when attacked.

Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack is pretty similar.

Tricking an enemy into a 'false sense of security' so it's initiative is delayed, or it doesn't take critical action immediately.
Confuse an enemy, lowering his initiative, or limiting his actions on the next turn.
Draw an unsuspecting enemy out of position.
Trick an enemy into a trap or AE of an ally (ok, the second part is kinda support).
Take a command from a Boss, causing a lesser enemy to take an action of his choice

These sound like they could be handled with a good Deception Check.

Drive a wedge between two enemies, so they attack each other.
goad/trick every enemy w/in 10 or 15' to move adjacent, then whack 'em all with one great cleaving blow (or a series of quick Inigo Montoya thrusts).

Come and Get It should remain buried (under 20 feet of concrete) but if you really want to, Goading Attack and Riposte are there

Disarm an enemy

Disarming Attack

Find a flaw in/damage an enemy's armor or other defenses
Find a 'counter' to an enemy's attack, rendering it less effective for the rest of the battle.
Trick an enemy into revealing a weakness, or deduce the weakness if INT-based rather than CHA-based.

These seem like Perception, Insight, or Knowledge checks to grant advantage to an allies attacks or learn known weaknesses ("That's a troll! ready the oil and torches") Barring that, Precision Attack, Evasive Footwork, or Parry.

Make a devastating 'Surprise Attack' against an unsuspecting enemy who thought he was just a caddy.

Sneak attack? Ok, maybe Lunging Attack (reach), Feinting Attack, or a really good Deception check for advantage

And, at the risk of causing some heads to explode: Pull a 'big reveal' where some 'plot point' or reversal of fortune changes things - an enemy is actual a sleeper agent that infiltrated the bad guys years ago, the ground in front of the charging force was undermined by deep gnome allies no one knew about, re-enforcement come riding over the hill. The whole melodrama thing. Yes, it's an /actual/ 'plot coupon,' and yes, it'd be double-dog/triple-pterodactyl, hidden in the Auschwitz of Option Ghettos, quick-avert-your-eyes, whole-table unanimous approval required, you will neverevereverevereverEVER have to put up with it or even hear of it actually happening if you don't like plot coupons, OPTIONAL. But it's fun at tables that can handle it. Some of them are even D&D tables.

NOPE!

There is NO quicker way to watch a class get banned from most table and in AL then "plot coupons." That is a DM table thing, not the basis of a core class. The hell that would unleash on the community would make shouting a ally back from unconscious look like rolling for initiative in terms of acceptability. Its a good option for a game, but a piss-poor one to build a class around.

That said, a lot of those things are already Battlemaster maneuvers or improved skill checks. The few that aren't could easily be added to the list. I get that people would want a warlord to be a tactical genius, but how many of these are either already maneuvers or just reasons to gain advantage/impose disadvantage?

The more I look at this, the more I think the battlemaster is doing a better job at this than its given credit for...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let me expand on my prior comment, because I feel like I'm chewing around the edges of understanding something.

I think that both sides of this discussion/debate are so focused on one specific aspect of a hypothetical warlord class--an important aspect, but still only one--that neither is considering the rest of the package.

See, no class in 5E has only a single purpose/niche. They have things they're good at, or lean toward, but it's never 100%. The fighter isn't just about DPR, but also soaking hits and athletic challenges. The cleric and bard have an enormous variety of options beyond buffing and healing. You absolutely can play a cleric or bard whose primary purpose is support, but you in no way have to. You can play a wizard who's primarily a blaster, but the options go way beyond that.

Yet we've all been talking about the warlord solely in a support capacity, because that's what's missing: a non-magical support character. It's true the warlord, to succeed, must be able to do that. But to be a viable class, that cannot be all the warlord is. It must be at least as well rounded as the others. It must allow support builds and non-support builds, just like every other "support" class.

When I spoke of meaningful choices above, I didn't just mean "choose X buff or Y buff." I meant "choose X buff or Y buff or non-buff."

So what is the warlord, and what else does he do?

I don't think that's horribly difficult. He can do a lot of the same sorts of things that a Bard can do (IE inspire people, etc). I'd see his non-combat role as primarily either social or organizational. In an exploration sense I think we've already seen a suggestion about enhancing movement and a couple of other things.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course. Since it's all the cleric can do, if it wants to emulate this supposed "at-will" bless thing that's being offered up by comparison.

That's the thing.

"Look! If all my cleric ever does is spam bless, it's like it's practically at-will. So why can't a warlord offer an at-will feature of comparable power?"

Answer: "Sure. If that's all the warlord does as well..."

One of the things people forget is that spellcasters no longer have silo'd spells. Barring rituals, they have to use their spell slots for everything.

So a cleric can use his 2-4 first level spell slots for bless and guiding bolt in every combat OR they can use it to cure wounds, detect magic, detect poison, create water, purify food & drink etc.

Which runs me into the problem I've had with this whole "martial leader" thing; he's going to suck at being a cleric replacement. Even IF we give him some form of hp recovery and buff ability, he still can't remove blindness, look for magic auras, sense falsehoods, scry, create light, or bring an ally back from the dead. Bards can do all that. Druids can do most of that. Paladins can even do a lot of that. Warlords can do NONE of that, well, any better than anyone with proper skills and tools.

Therein lies the paradox; if he is equal to bard/cleric in buffing/healing, he's still a poor choice because he lacks the versatility of a caster. If he's better than a bard/cleric in buffing/healing, he threatens bounded accuracy and is OP.

 

[steeldragons]

I find it so ironic that when it was the move from 3e to 4e the screams were all "I can't do X, Y, Z special snowflake spellthief in 4e, its CRAP!" and now the refrain is "Oh, stop bothering us about all those missing things from 4e, there's no reason why a new game should cater to your wants, its different!"

How soon they forget.

I've actually forgotten nothing. I didn't play 3. I didn't play 4e (other than some online playtesting for EN world's Zeitgeist adventure development and that was fairly shortlived). So whatever happened from 3.5 into 4 and the "edition war" business was completely outside my experience. None of the complaints about 4e that came/were a result of it deviating from 3e can be pinned on me.

If I had been around then, I suspect, I would have been saying the same thing to the 3.x people about 4. It was, quite obviously, not the same game. Which is no reflection, in any way, on whether I like or dislike either or both of them.