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

[Eric V]

It'd be more accurate to say that, say, spell-casting follows the laws/rules of the fantasy universe, they're just different laws/rules than the real world. The same is true of anything else in a fantasy universe, it follows the laws/rules of that universe.

Typically, in genre, magic follows very restrictive and immutable laws that make it every difficult or very dangerous or both.

My biggest issue with magic right here. It's like the most reliable science ever. There's no danger in researching a spell you don't know as long as it's in the PHB. All wizard castings have no chance of misfiring or anything unpredictable as long as you follow the recipe of gestures and components. With the exception of Wish, nothing is more structured in D&D worlds than the casting of spells. It's science, really.

Because magic is so codified in the rules, I couldn't honestly say they "break the laws of the universe." The laws just include things like "Holding a small leather loop while making this gesture and saying these words is how one floats off the ground."

 

[Minigiant]

I think "3 cantrips" is the right power level.

Imagine if a caster could have 2 buff cantrips on his fighter while using an attack cantrip

A cleric who has blade ward on the fighter, resistance on the rogue, and casting sacred flam on the orc.

You can't do it because of concentration limits on magic. But its not overpowered if that's all you can do. But the warlord isn't magical necessarily.

So the warlord uses "I've got your back" on the fighter he is adjacent to, "Give give up" on the rogue fighting the orc shaman, and shooting the PRC chieftain with "Aim for here" using his bow.

"I've got your back" Reduce bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage of ally within 5 feet but tactical die result.

"Never give up!" Add tactical die to the target's mental save.

"Aim for here." Add tactical die to damage the target takes from the next attack.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

A cantrip, like Guidance, that takes concentration and needs to be re-cast after the subject has availed himself of the benefit is clearly more limited than an aura, and it already does a very small +1d4 bonus.

But, you could have an inspiration 'aura' that's just up most of the time giving a similar bonus, but the refresh comes based on the ally taking a short rest. So, start of combat "I'm inspiring!" (yeah, yeah, we hate you almost as much as the Bard's singing, but we'll take the bonus), everyone gets a die, and can spend it when they like. Those that do can't benefit from being 'inspired' again until they've had a short rest. That'd be more like inspiring heroic effort in the ally.

You just went from less limited than Guidance (because no action or concentration) to more limited (the same ally can't benefit from it twice between rests), even though you can use each 'at will.'

 

[Remathilis]

That's fine. There's plenty of good effects from cantrips.
Thornwhip moves enemies.
Vicious mockery gives disadvantage.
True strike grants advantage.
Blade Ward is 1/2 damage.
Shocking grasp prevents enemy reactions.
Guidiance gives +1d4 to any skill.
Those can easily be the 1/turn maneuver. Along with a few others like trip.

Question though: Is a class who just gets cantrips (and only cantrips) sufficient? I mean, take a moment and mentally replace the bard's spells a dozen cantrips. Does it work?

I never expected at-will healing, no one has.
Not everything needs to be at-will. Short rest to make someone use a hit die works.

Limited by # of HD. I guess that works.

Cunning action does that already. Which is at-will.
Using your action to grant someone else a disengage is reasonable.

As long as its limited: dash, disengage, hide, use an object. No spellcasting, no attacks.

And, as i pointed out above. Granting 1 attack (when everyone has 2 attacks, not before) is the same damage level as firebolt.

At what level? Firebolt improves with level, adding an extra dice instead of adding extra attacks. Additionally, there are other classes that get damage via riders (sneak attack, divine strike) rather than extra attacks, making their extra single attack much more powerful than a fighters.

A passive aura wouldn't be 'cantrip-like,' obviously, since they're actions, but there are few passive abilities in the game, IIRC.

Then they'd have to be even weaker; partial feat level maybe?

Just in case you're serious: 5e is not tied to doing things only one (mechanical) way, any new class might bring with it novel mechanics.

I was being too-cute by half, but I do find per-encounter mechanics distasteful, because it recreates the "when is an encounter an encounter" problems with framing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Question though: Is a class who just gets cantrips (and only cantrips) sufficient?

Well, no class currently tries to get by with just cantrips. And I don't see why the warlord would be at-will-only. It's a pointless restriction, when even the fighter has short- and long-rest-recharge stuff.

As long as its limited: dash, disengage, hide, use an object. No spellcasting, no attacks.

Or stepped-down attacks. Spellcasting, but only cantrips, for instance. Or make an attack but it's just weapon die plus Warlord's INT or CHA mod if you hit. Or make an off-turn trip or grapple. I'm sure there are many other possibilities.

At what level? Firebolt improves with level, adding an extra dice instead of adding extra attacks. Additionally, there are other classes that get damage via riders (sneak attack, divine strike) rather than extra attacks, making their extra single attack much more powerful than a fighters.

Nod. Just like there weren't a lot of Warlord exploits that let you take an unrestricted action, but plenty, including several at-wills, that granted basic attacks, it could take a better (more limited and/or higher level) maneuver to grant an attack with full riders, bonus action, extra attacks or whatnot.

I was being too-cute by half, but I do find per-encounter mechanics distasteful, because it recreates the "when is an encounter an encounter" problems with framing.

An encounter starts when the DM says 'roll initiative' and ends when he stops tracking it. Pretty straightforward, really. And, even if it were vague or someone tried to push it in some way, that's what 5e DMs do: we make rulings.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A 40d nova isn't nice to have? Seriously, though, I agree that a diverse party is an ideal D&D at least attempts to encourage. There should be some synergy among the party, in any case, support classes like the Warlord, though, particularly highlight that.

Well, there's always that question of whether or not you wouldn't just be better off 95% of the time with a whole slew of wizards! I mean its a pretty monstrously nasty alpha-strike! We concluded back in 1e days it was pretty much true even then, but 'classic' D&D did have some built-in restrictions that made it tough to do (no casting unless you're on a stable surface was a big one).

But not necessary nor even that accurate. 'Support' works just as well, for instance. Just like it might be easy to say 'Striker,' but 'DPR' is just as easy and conveys the laser-focus some 5e DPR classes have ('Strikers' had a few other aspects to the role, such as mobility or discouraging counter-attacks, that aren't true of all 5e DPR classes).

I don't see it as a matter of 'accuracy', its an established term which carries the concept. 4e didn't use the term 'support', because not all leaders are 'supporting characters', many are actual front-line 'go ahead of the troops' type LEADERS (others aren't, but its a term of art, it doesn't have to evoke every antecedent exactly). I think Striker perfectly adequately conveys the idea of 'focused attacker' quite well. 'DPR' is a technical term, and not all strikers achieve their ends by raw high damage output, at least not directly. I think Striker (and Defender and Controller) work pretty well. I've heard a lot of alternative terms bandied about, and none of them really improve on those.

'Less flashy' might be fair.

Different. I don't expect to find that magical and mundane means are going to be the same. Maybe magic is often more flashy, but it could also be more subtle, etc. It could even be just plain better in certain respects, but D&D kind of eschewed the possibility by making casting cheap. So we're kind of stuck with putting some limiters on it and accepting fairly fantastical 'mundane' things to get some parity. Its OK, that's D&D for you!

Regardless of how much I agree with other ideas of the person saying it, "D&D is not for you, go play something else," just isn't constructive. It's as dismissive as what he did to you up-thread.
5e is meant to be for all fans of D&D.
I know that's an almost painfully cutesy, kumbaya, line, but it really would be good for the game if the community could rise to that level.

I'm not saying anyone should 'go play something else'. I'm just saying that there are games which EXPLICITLY match Steeldragon's idea of what D&D should be. My guess is he has a passing familiarity with that system, by reputation at least, and so I've conveyed the idea, Ars Magica really is "magic is best", and by contrast D&D isn't (though one might wonder about 3.5...).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The magic class can do [perhaps] more variety or [definitely] more "impressive" [perhaps a poor choice of words on my part] a.k.a. "powerful" a.k.a. "reality bending" (flashy or not) things...but only as far/often as their magic (slots and lists) let them.

The mundane class can do [perhaps] less variety or [definitely] less "impressive" a.k.a. "powerful" a.k.a. "reality bending" things...if not all/any time, certainly more often than spell slots (in 5e parlance, potentially, a short rest recharge). It's a matter of trade-off, what's "fair, and what makes sense, not what's "the same" or "must be as 'good' as 'they' get."

I don't think they should be 'the same' either. I hesitate to establish hard and fast formulae for what should constitute magical and non-magical 'stuff' though. I think it is more of a case-by-case basis. I think overall a warlord is going to invoke a mostly down-to-earth kind of concept, at least until high levels, though I suppose some specific 'fantastic' ability might be possible. I suspect that most such would narrow the class too much into a niche though, so I don't think we really envisage radically different types of concept here. I just don't see a real issue with doing some things that are often called 'magic' (but not always, I mean if you can use a single action in combat to slap a bandage on someone and 'patch them up' in a single round that's pretty fantastical and yet 'mundane') and giving it another explanation.

So, I can accommodate 'inspirational heal' being in the concept space for a warlord, it may be similar to something that magical clerics and bards have, but its also similar to what non-magical healers have, what hit dice do, etc. If I can imagine a Bruce Willis character doing it, then I'm pretty OK with it being in the realm of what warlords can do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, there's always that question of whether or not you wouldn't just be better off 95% of the time with a whole slew of wizards! I mean its a pretty monstrously nasty alpha-strike! We concluded back in 1e days it was pretty much true even then, but 'classic' D&D did have some built-in restrictions that made it tough to do (no casting unless you're on a stable surface was a big one).

Nod. Casting has become successively less limited with every edition, and rarely dropped in power to match.

I think Striker (and Defender and Controller) work pretty well. I've heard a lot of alternative terms bandied about, and none of them really improve on those.

They don't all apply well to 5e, though. A 5e fighter, for instance, is a 'Striker' in that he's high DPR, but he's not highly mobile, doesn't have ways of discouraging counter-attacks, and isn't gifted with any extra effectiveness with out-of-combat skills, all things Strikers tended to have (the Rogue fits the Striker model more closely, for instance). A Cleric is a 'leader' in the sense of healing/buffing, but his spell-casting versatility also makes him capable of doing a lot of damage or exerting control. Wizards are 'control' but can also do lots of damage and/or buff. Really 'caster' is sort of a role in 5e (as it was in classic D&D), the high-versatility, problem-solving role.

I'm not saying anyone should 'go play something else'. I'm just saying that there are games which EXPLICITLY match Steeldragon's idea of what D&D should be. My guess is he has a passing familiarity with that system, by reputation at least, and so I've conveyed the idea, Ars Magica really is "magic is best", and by contrast D&D isn't (though one might wonder about 3.5...).

D&D may have tried to achieve class balance in the past (Gygax certain said he was trying to often enough in the 1e DMG), but casters came out so far ahead so often in so many editions...

... the case for 'just go play something else' is really much stronger against someone who wants a game where heroic, arcane, pious &c characters all contribute equally (albeit in very different ways), than anyone who wants a game with primary casters ruling from Tier 1. Conversely, if D&D is to be a more inclusive game, it needs balance among the myriad preferences of all it's past & current (and potential) fans: everybody gets to play the character they want, but without overshadowing or obviating anyone else's choice.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, no class currently tries to get by with just cantrips. And I don't see why the warlord would be at-will-only. It's a pointless restriction, when even the fighter has short- and long-rest-recharge stuff.

I proposed a warlord system powered by a consumable resource (warlord dice) that refreshed on a long rest.
[MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] and you didn't like that.

I proposed a system where they got less warlord dice, but they refreshed on a short rest.

The two of you didn't like that either. mellored in particular wanted an "AT-WILL" system.

I said fine; an at-will system will be limited to just cantrip-level power.

You retort: Nu-uh, they have short-and-long rest powers too.

Except you JUST SAID NO to short-and-long rest powers!!!

This is why this will never work. There is no design that will warlord fans will accept besides "grant any bonus I want whenever I want it." I was going to respond to your other points, but I frankly no longer care. I hope someone comes by and makes you the perfect warlord that does EVERYTHING the 4e warlord did (all 1100 powers worth); but at this point any attempt to design one within the parameter's of 5e is a fools errand. They were right to leave the class out of the PHB.