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

[Remathilis]

Up to whatever limit is placed on Inspiring Word or similar abilities... (Oooh, this'd be a neat way of dealing with the issue of 'abusing' at-will hp-restoration out of combat, and it'd make a certain amount of sense: in-combat Inspiring Word restores hps, out of combat, it grants temps for the next combat.... if you do away with HD or otherwise find the normal use of Inspiring Word unpalatable, you just change it to always temps.)

That's the point; a limit wasn't proposed. A lot of ideas tossed around in this thread always start with "The warlord should do X" and someone says "X is too powerful" and then they retort "Oh, there will be some limit" that never gets shared. It always seems too that any limit is unacceptable, so we keep running into this circle.

Strict inferiority is never an option. But being able to trigger a HD as an action or as part of an action or a bonus action would never be strictly inferior to waiting an hour to do so. I like the idea of maximizing HD spent on a short rest - it makes it a clearly more efficient option (if you have the time), and it speeds up boring bookkeeping, while making the use in-combat (rolled) more exciting.

HD are already pretty inadequate, and adding to or maximizing HD would be a way of extending the hp resources of the party to handle the full 6-8 encounter day, without actual outright healing resources like Cure Wounds.

If your proposed solution to making a warlord's healing work is REWRITE HOW HIT DICE WORK then you've failed. Horribly.

The Basic Rules aren't changing anytime soon. Errata maybe, but radical changes? Not anytime soon. Right now, they floated out a new ranger as a "trial balloon" that could be used as a replacement to the PHB ranger, but it doesn't change the ranger in the PHB. You're proposing re-writing a basic core rule just to allow a new optional class to have a specific function, which will also cascade into having to fix durable and song of healing as well.

If you need to re-write the core rules to get a warlord to function, don't expect the UA: Warlord before 2025.

Yep. It's fun to speculate about possible mechanics, but it's too early to draw conclusions from such speculations. To really get into it, we'd need something official, like a UA version of the class.

Makes all this pointless then. Even when people propose mechanics, nobodies serious about stress testing them to see if they are actually possible. This is wish-listing.

You're assuming one possible example of the mechanic in a vacuum. What if the bonus applies to short rests, too, or was better for short rests, for instance? What if it couldn't be spammed? It wouldn't be difficult to find a solution to the issue you bring up, the hard part would be deciding on which perfectly good solution to use.

All I ever see is "mechanics in a vacuum" because that's all that gets proposed. None of the "pro-Warlord" camp has even the faintest notion of developing a actual working model, just a list of super-powered abilities they want which will be balanced by "by some vague mechanic"

Here is an idea for the Warlord Power: "Each round, a warlord can allow another PC to make a special attack. The attack does 40d6 damage the target." Don't worry, I'll have some special mechanic to balance this.

And even 'healing' isn't exactly right, since the warlord Inspires allies to restore hps, he doesn't shout their wounds closed. But, yes, it is absolutely too soon to be getting into specifics. First we have to get WotC to get the class in the pipeline, a UA or something, then we can worry over the specific mechanics.

Technical squabble; everyone knows healing = regain hp. There is no other meaning of "healing" in the game. Healing Spells regain hp. Healer feat regains hp. Song of HEALING? regains hp. Healing = Regaining hp. If the idea that a warlord's inspiring words don't provide HEALING, then find a new mechanic to show inspiration.

And if were WotC, I'd NEVER touch the warlord after reading this thread. Its just proven to them what they probably already knew: a warlord class could possibly a.) break bounded accuracy, b.) break the action economy, c.) redefine hit points d.) require new rules or terms like "encounter-recharge" and now e.) require re-writing parts of the base rules. All for one stupid single class. And chances are, the warlord fans would STILL riot because its not 100% replicating the 4e class.

 

[Aenghus]

Eh, but 4e didn't define a 'Striker' that way, it was defined purely as being a class which emphasized killin' stuff. The Sorcerer for instance is in no way 'high mobility' in 4e, but its a striker. I don't recall it having any 'discourage counterattacks' mechanism either, its simply very blasty, does respectable AoE damage, and has a bit of control on the side.
.

4e strikers did *targetted* high damage, most having some way to ignore or bypass the enemy front line and target a particular foe, whether that was ranged attacks, high mobility, stealth, teleportation, forced movement etc. Some have less such abilities, other have more, and it was possible to not choose these, but the possibility was there. The strikers who had less such abilities, eg. the slayer, or melee ranger were tougher than the average striker.

But this is off topic.

One of the sticking points in this discussion is that some of the people who want warlords want them to have some sort of healing ability, which still other people are unwilling to accept. In an ideal world there would be optional warlord mechanics to allow the healing some people want the class to have but that could be ignored by others if they want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's the point; a limit wasn't proposed.

A number have been. There's no actual prototype being built, here, just ideas being tossed around.

If your proposed solution to making a warlord's healing work is REWRITE HOW HIT DICE WORK then you've failed. Horribly.

Nope, not what I was thinking at all. Just thinking something like the Bard's ability to enhance short-rest HD. Maximizing feels 'right' to me because it makes short-rest bookkeeping more streamlined, but it's been pointed out that it'd stack with the Bard's, but not with a Feat. I suppose mentioning that it was an idea I liked from the playtest confused the issue.

This is wish-listing.

Yes.
Top of the list, Warlord.
Next, all the stuff the Warlord absolutely should have.
Last nice to have stuff, blue sky, leaving nothing out, just in case it sparks a good idea.
Not really that important: how to balance it all.

Technical squabble; everyone knows healing = regain hp. There is no other meaning of "healing" in the game.

But, there /is/ another meaning in the minds of some players, 'shout wounds closed,' so, we have to be very clear that it's restoring hps, but not healing.

Its just proven to them what they probably already knew: a warlord class could possibly a.) break bounded accuracy, b.) break the action economy, c.) redefine hit points d.) require new rules or terms like "encounter-recharge" and now e.) require re-writing parts of the base rules.

Any proposed class could 'possibly' do all those things, if it were designed very badly or if the system were already so badly designed that it was just 'made of glass.' Does 5e look like it's been designed that badly, to you?
I'd at least be willing to give them a chance to see what they come up with.

Besides, why go back over those points again? They've all been addressed many times.

OK, except for the 'encounter recharge' one, which, frankly, I don't see the issue. 5e doesn't have a neat template to make classes, if a class calls for a novel mechanic, it gets one.

And chances are, the warlord fans would STILL riot because its not 100% replicating the 4e class.

It'd had better be /better/ than the 4e class. And the longer the wait, the higher that bar gets.
Just human nature.

 

[Remathilis]

Nope, not what I was thinking at all. Just thinking something like the Bard's ability to enhance short-rest HD. Maximizing feels 'right' to me because it makes short-rest bookkeeping more streamlined, but it's been pointed out that it'd stack with the Bard's, but not with a Feat. I suppose mentioning that it was an idea I liked from the playtest confused the issue.

That is a fine house rule, but you gotta talk about the game as it is, not as you want it to be. WotC isn't going to design a warlord class that changes the Hit Dice rules. Never. Gonna. Happen. It'd be like me wanting a samurai subclass for fighter that gets bonus to damage based on his Honor Stat. It seems cool, but if you're not using the Honor Stat, its a nonviable ability.

Yes.
Top of the list, Warlord.
Next, all the stuff the Warlord absolutely should have.
Last nice to have stuff, blue sky, leaving nothing out, just in case it sparks a good idea.
Not really that important: how to balance it all.

That is where we will forever differ. For me, the primary goal is to have a warlord that is fun to play, doesn't induce power creep, and works within the parameters of 5e already. Any other warlord is useless to me and getting tossed down the rabbit hole with that abomination they tried to call the new Ranger.

Think of it like this: You can sit here and tell me all about the awesome places you're going to take me on vacation, but if you don't have a way to PAY for any of that, its useless. You don't make plans for your vacation THEN figure out a way to pay for it later. (Well, unless you work for Congress, I guess).

But, there /is/ another meaning in the minds of some players, 'shout wounds closed,' so, we have to be very clear that it's restoring hps, but not healing.

A distinction without meaning. There is no such distinction made about Second Wind; despite the fact that it never uses the "H" word in the write-up, it is often referred to as a "healing" ability. You wanna make a clear distinction between healing (the act of restoring hp via medicine and magic) and Inspirational healing (the act of shouting at people to regain their hp) use a different mechanic.

OK, except for the 'encounter recharge' one, which, frankly, I don't see the issue. 5e doesn't have a neat template to make classes, if a class calls for a novel mechanic, it gets one.

Encounter-tracking of resources is dead and its joined "10-round turns" and "full-round actions" in the Great Rulebook in the Sky. Trust me, if they ever wanted Encounter-powers, the Warlock's spells and the Fighter's Second Wind would have SAID so...

It'd had better be /better/ than the 4e class. And the longer the wait, the higher that bar gets.
Just human nature.

Your going to be sorely disappointed when the Godlike-Warlord you've built in your head doesn't match whatever idea WotC puts to paper, if it ever does. WotC, unlike you or me, is under an obligation to produce a class that people will want to use. They aren't going to design it for a bunch of 4e holdouts who still pine for healing surges and encounter-powers. They will make it fit 5e. They will use 5e's design language. They will balance it against 5e characters. They will make its powers fit the 5e style of resources and mechanics. And they WILL focus on balance first, everything else second.

I guarantee, if/when that UA comes out, you will hate it.

 

[mellored]

One of the sticking points in this discussion is that some of the people who want warlords want them to have some sort of healing ability, which still other people are unwilling to accept. In an ideal world there would be optional warlord mechanics to allow the healing some people want the class to have but that could be ignored by others if they want.

Is anyone against them allowing HD to be used?
How about allowing HD with a bonus?
(for these questions at least, assume that it is balanced)

 

[Aldarc]

That's the point; a limit wasn't proposed. A lot of ideas tossed around in this thread always start with "The warlord should do X" and someone says "X is too powerful" and then they retort "Oh, there will be some limit" that never gets shared. It always seems too that any limit is unacceptable, so we keep running into this circle.

All I ever see is "mechanics in a vacuum" because that's all that gets proposed. None of the "pro-Warlord" camp has even the faintest notion of developing a actual working model, just a list of super-powered abilities they want which will be balanced by "by some vague mechanic"

Here is an idea for the Warlord Power: "Each round, a warlord can allow another PC to make a special attack. The attack does 40d6 damage the target." Don't worry, I'll have some special mechanic to balance this.

There are limits that are available for the warlord to draw upon that exist already in 5E PHB1 published classes. I just thought those would have been obvious. There is the 'Attack action' that all classes have. Some classes gain one or more bonus 'Attack actions' (e.g., fighter, valor bard, bladelock, etc.). But we also have the 'Reaction' action and class-specified 'Bonus actions' (e.g., rogue's cunning action, bardic inspiration, barbarian rage). These are good limiters because it preserves the action economy. I would suggest 'bonus actions' and 'reactions' for a number of available core warlord abilities, as they are all within the bounds of the action economy. They are both essentially 'at-will,' but also inherently limited in their uses per round. It could even be as simple as allowing 'help' in-combat action (and maybe 'disengage') to be used by the warlord as a bonus action. That right there would give the warlord an empowering, flavorful, and unique class-specific option in combat within the action economy. Another option is that the warlord's presence (within a limited range) empowers other characters with additional options for how they use their bonus actions: e.g., dodge, disengage, initiative advantage, spending HD in-combat, etc. So this makes it incumbent upon the other player to choose what options work best for them, and lets these players have agency (i.e. "I choose to dodge" or "I'll just use my bonus action to rage instead.")

As for 'on reaction' abilities, it could include granting a type of resistance (e.g., resistance to bludgeoning, slashing, piercing damage) or Temp HP to a particular player. Or even granting that resistance 'to party' in more limited circumstances, perhaps limited per day by Cha/Int bonus or X per short/long rests. All of this could represent defensive orders or the warlord providing more 'combat awareness' via their presence that makes players more attentive to fighting defensively. It's reactive. It's "non-healing" but still allows HP preservation.

But for the warlord's other abilities - perhaps such as maneuvers and inspiring words - we may want another limited resource that would 'fuel' their more extraordinary abilities. There are spell slots, but as the core warlord would be 'spell-less,' this is limiting mechanic is mostly moot. The warlord design could even potentially look into a mechanic similar to 'ki points' that would fuel their charismatic abilities. We could look at 'channel divinity' for inspiration a warlord ability.

Then there are 'superiority dice,' 'tactical dice,' or however you want to label them, which has been proposed. If one views the battle master as a 'warlorded fighter' much as the eldritch knight is a 'wizarded fighter,' then 'superiority dice' may be a good mechanic to carry over. In terms of maneuvers, we could give the warlord some of the same maneuvers, but we may also only provide them with a limited amount of overlapping maneuvers, and then provide the 'warlord' with its own set. This could keep the battle master's maneuvers as representing their 'battle mastery' (and the 3E expertise fighter) while the warlord's own set of more party-oriented maneuvers would represent their 'tactical mastery.' I.e., the fighter (battle master) would still be best at combat and physical prowess/skill/maneuvers, while the warlord would be better at an expanded subset of those maneuvers (e.g. rally, maneuvering strike, commander's strike).

And if were WotC, I'd NEVER touch the warlord after reading this thread. Its just proven to them what they probably already knew: a warlord class could possibly a.) break bounded accuracy, b.) break the action economy, c.) redefine hit points d.) require new rules or terms like "encounter-recharge" and now e.) require re-writing parts of the base rules. All for one stupid single class. And chances are, the warlord fans would STILL riot because its not 100% replicating the 4e class.

This sort of baseless hyperbole is too common and highly unproductive. It's hard to hold a conversation with you, if you are not going to converse in good faith by applying malicious intent or negative heresay speculation about what warlord fans want. (Nor am I a fan of the passive-aggressive "what they probably already knew" comment.) Wizard fans are fairly hard to please because of its class popularity and high expectations, and they mostly got a class people like. That's true for all classes. Any class ability that provides 'extra attacks,' 'bonus actions,' 'reactions,' or whatever else could "break the action economy." I'm not sure why 'warlord' earns the ire for something that was held in common by all classes, especially if one read the D&D Next playtests: everyone had their own ideas about how the class should work and seemingly no one was entirely satisfied. But saying 'not everyone will be satisfied' should not be used as a deterrent for game design.

I will admit that I don't necessarily know what would work best. I'm not a professional designer. I'm a mere hobby enthusiast, albeit one who would like to see this fantasy archetype (and prior D&D class) represented as a class in 5E, with nods to its past incarnations, but updated with 5E's sensibilities in mind. I am not looking for complete 4E warlord replication. I do think that some features, such as healing options, should be available for the warlord. From there, I'm quite amendable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is a fine house rule, but you gotta talk about the game as it is, not as you want it to be.

A hypothetical Warlord ability to maximize HD at a short rest would be a 'house rule?'

For me, the primary goal is to have a warlord that is fun to play, doesn't induce power creep, and works within the parameters of 5e already.

Hey, I share that goal, it's just that it's not going to happen in a discussion thread. 'Fun to play' though is going to require including the cool things the warlord could (and couldn't, before, but should!) do, which we have gotten into quite a lot in this thread ('wish listing,' as you put it). That's progress, persistent nay-saying notwithstanding.

A distinction without meaning.

True, in mechanical terms, but it doesn't seem to matter: people still get upset about 'shouting wounds closed,' even though it's not happening.

Encounter-tracking of resources is dead

In a design paradigm like 5e's, nothing is ever really off the table. Not that they're necessary, just that there are some things that you logically wouldn't be able to 'spam' but also wouldn't be excessively exhausting, making 'resting' a poor choice of recharge-point.

Your going to be sorely disappointed when the Godlike-Warlord

I would be sorely disappointed with a Warlord so overpowered that few DMs would be able to handle it (I'd like a playable class), but I don't think balance issues are a meaningful concern this early in the process. Not with a hypothetical class. They're a real hurdle for possible sub-classes, especially of the Fighter, which depends so heavily on it's high DPR to 'balance' it against so many other, and so much more versatile classes.

They will make it fit 5e. They will use 5e's design language. They will make its powers fit the 5e style of resources and mechanics.

I should hope so, that could really open the class up to do more than it had before.

They will balance it against 5e characters.

To the extent any 5e classes are balanced, sure.

And they WILL focus on balance first, everything else second.

Nonsense. Balance looks like a very low priority in 5e design. Empowered DMs can handle balancing PC and encounters at their own tables. Works for all the existing classes, varied as they are. 5e classes are designed to concept first (I believe they've come out and said that), probably 'fast combat' second, DM-empowerment third, and on down the line. There's a few things that there was some clear attempt to 'balance' in some sense, like damage potential (DPR) - but then that also gets into Bounded Accuracy and combat speed, which was such a high/publicized priority.

I guarantee, if/when that UA comes out, you will hate it.

If so, at least I'll have kept an open mind that long. And I'll be pleased that there was an attempt.

 

[Remathilis]

This sort of baseless hyperbole is too common and highly unproductive. It's hard to hold a conversation with you, if you are not going to converse in good faith by applying malicious intent or negative heresay speculation about what warlord fans want. (Nor am I a fan of the passive-aggressive "what they probably already knew" comment.) Wizard fans are fairly hard to please because of its class popularity and high expectations, and they mostly got a class people like. That's true for all classes. Any class ability that provides 'extra attacks,' 'bonus actions,' 'reactions,' or whatever else could "break the action economy." I'm not sure why 'warlord' earns the ire for something that was held in common by all classes, especially if one read the D&D Next playtests: everyone had their own ideas about how the class should work and seemingly no one was entirely satisfied. But saying 'not everyone will be satisfied' should not be used as a deterrent for game design.

Here is my problem right now: people are tossing out ideas with no desire of how to remotely balance them. You just named a few in your post (dice, points, recharges) and for every one of those, someone has come in and poo-poo'd it. I realize there isn't always consensus on how to express a class (re: ranger) but the things I've generally seen here is stuff that is way-overpowered, and when people come in and question it, its hand-waved with "we'll balance it somehow".

I want to know how. And the more I press for how, the more defensive the pro-crowd gets. Because my support of the warlord class hinges on that "how". I like the concept, I'm not crazy on its execution, so if they can create a warlord I would want to play, I'll gladly support it. If they don't, I'll ban it with no feeling of loss.

So until I get some real "hows" added to the wishlist, count me out as a supporter. When I start seeing some more serious attempts to make this class viable and work in 5e as written, I'll listen. Because I want a leader and support warrior, not 4e-Strikes-Back the character class.

 

[Yunru]

So all I'm getting is "I like this but I have (ir)rational hatred of 4e". That about sum it up?

 

[Mouseferatu]

So all I'm getting is "I like this but I have (ir)rational hatred of 4e". That about sum it up?

I'm not getting that at all. As I said before, I could go either way on the 5E warlord. I should also point out that I'm a fan of all prior editions, including 4E. But I agree with [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]: "How" is just as important as "what," sometime even more so. Saying it's too early in the conversation to worry about balance or mechanics makes no sense to me; AFAIAC, those go hand-in-hand with the conceptualizing. You can't advance one without the other.

(I also disagree that 5E has all but discarded class balance. It may not be as strict as 4E, but it's absolutely present, and often far more so than it might appear on the surface.)