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

[Aldarc]

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.

I have provided some 'hows' already, as you say. I don't know how to balance these - not because it is something inherently overpowered or a giant wishlist of "I want everything" - but because the class will and should exist as a package deal. So at least on my end, it's about feeling out the rough contours of the warlord's shape. It's fielding ideas, seeing what sticks, and what's reasonable. I want balance, but balance honestly comes much later in the conceptual process once everything else begins taking shape and the package can be fine-tuned. It's hand-in-hand but the overarching feel seems important to peg down, especially given how controversial the warlord is for some, whether pro- or anti-warlord.

What are your thoughts on my other suggestions surrounding bonus actions and reactions as part of the warlord's limited resource in the action economy?

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

In the defense of [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], I don't think that is the case at all. I think that the emphasis for him should be placed much higher on him being pro-5E and that any 5E warlord should exist within the framework of 5E and not just a 4E warlord shoved into 5E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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".

A few pages back, you were insisting that Warlord couldn't possibly be able to stand in for another support class, now you're insisting it'd inevitably be wildly overpowered.

While both are possibilities, neither is certain, and both are premature judgements at this point.

Because my support of the warlord class hinges on that "how".

That will come later, when we see a UA or other preview. We can throw out ideas, but they're just ideas, not a finished, playtested class ready to be torture-tested for balance (even 5e's relatively low bar for balance).

...

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you supported psionics so fervently, there was no consensus in any of the psionics discussion about any such 'how.'

 

[Zardnaar]

How many of the pro warlord group have looked at the noble class?

I read somewhere the class caused problems in organized play so if it ever turns up not in the core books would be the right place for it.

 

[pemerton]

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

Huh? Allowing a party to heal itself (via expedited HD use) once in 5 minutes rather than 1 hour, by spending all the PCs' HD, doesn't strike me as very god-like.

Maybe it's unbalanced, maybe not - more details would obviously be required - but all it's doing is giving a time advantage. It's not actually increasing the amount of hit points the PCs recover between long rests.

 

[mellored]

How many of the pro warlord group have looked at the noble class?

Didn't get EN5ider, though i'm tempted.

I read somewhere the class caused problems in organized play so if it ever turns up not in the core books would be the right place for it.

The 4e warlord could be quite OP if you optimized (which usually meant hybrid bard, artificer, or ardent for even more boosting powers, not pure warlord). A big part of the problem is how they scaled the action economy.

At level 1, you used 1 action to grant 1 basic attack, which did about 80% normal damage. So that was balanced. But then they scaled it up (because you have to get more powerful).

At level 11, you could use 1 action to grant 3 attacks * 80% each = 240% normal damage. And you could possibly add your bonus action to give a bonus to damage as well. Which is as not balanced.

Same issue the wizard had in 3.5. More slots multiplied by more damage each slot. Except more attacks multiplied by more damage each attack (and sometimes more accuracy).

In 5e it wouldn't be as bad, since multi-attack is a main scaling method. So granting the 3 attacks at level 11 is the same thing a fighter can do. Still OP, but not nearly as bad.


but, like the wizard, just because it was unbalanced (or rather, could be if you optimized) in previous editions doesn't mean it is inherently unbalanced in the next.

 

[Remathilis]

A few pages back, you were insisting that Warlord couldn't possibly be able to stand in for another support class, now you're insisting it'd inevitably be wildly overpowered.

While both are possibilities, neither is certain, and both are premature judgements at this point.

You need to measure not only potency, but versatility.

Imagine for a minute the warlord had two (and only two) features: grant an action to another PC 1/round or heal an ally Xd8 hp per round. Both as written would be grossly OP compared to what any other class can do in one round at-will, but he would be useless in any situation that didn't involve giving someone something else to do or healing buckets of hp. Compared to a cleric, for example he might beat the pants off him as far as healing, but he can't do anything else a cleric can do in situations that don't involve buckets of hp back.

Obviously, that's an extreme example for sake of comparison, but it shows how something can be broken on one scale, but weak on another. A class that ends up being only a hammer is might be great when you have a lot of nails, but useless when you have a bunch of screws.

That will come later, when we see a UA or other preview. We can throw out ideas, but they're just ideas, not a finished, playtested class ready to be torture-tested for balance (even 5e's relatively low bar for balance).

There is a bigger bar than you think. Let me show you: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you supported psionics so fervently, there was no consensus in any of the psionics discussion about any such 'how.'

You're way mis-remembering that argument. A LOT of my argument stemmed from the idea of whether a psionic should be represented by spells or some new power system, not whether psionics should exist or not. This is the same debate: I don't question whether the warlord should exist, but I do have strong feelings on how it should be mechanically expressed.

 

[Remathilis]

Thanks [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] for the support.

What are your thoughts on my other suggestions surrounding bonus actions and reactions as part of the warlord's limited resource in the action economy?

Since bonus and reactions are limited to one (of either) per round, that helps out (at least against multiple warlords granting multiple actions). The concern is how often a warlord can do X, where X is the warlordy stuff everyone wants.

My personal choice is to build a warlord around superiority dice as a full mechanic rather than a subclass option, increasing the number of dice and number of powers to make it competitive as a main class. A warlord might have a few powers at-will (such as granting advantage, giving disadvantage to a foe, granting resistance to an ally, etc) but the bulk comes from spending superiority dice to do the cool stuff (grant an attack as a bonus action, allow an ally to spend a HD in combat, do cool combat tricks like trip and disarm, give allies re-rolls, give them Temporary HP, or even use longer-lasting powers (akin to bless or haste) via concentration. Even more powerful powers could use more dice. When dice are spent, the warlord is out of power (mental fatigue?) until a rest.

The rest of the warlord's powers could be separate abilities (I could see something akin to song of healing; an ability that triggers on rests for example).

Once you have the basic currency, its just a matter of figuring out how much each ability will cost.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Given this and your other posts, Remathilis, I think the problem is that you're trying to have a fundamentally different conversation than the one you entered.

The conversation you entered, from what I can tell, was something like:
"I'd like a warlord."
"I don't think a Warlord is even possible in 5e. I think that absolutely every mechanic you could propose would be broken-awesome/broken-useless/break immersion/undermine DM empowerment/etc."
"Well, what about X, Y, or Z?"
"Those have problems A, B, C."
"Well what if we tweaked them to X', Y', Z'?"
(further iterations follow)

Whereas the conversation you're having has nothing to do with the possibility of the Warlord. You are already sold on that question. You don't need people to present you with spitballed ideas merely to accept the very premise. The conversation you're having is about the practicality of the Warlord. You don't want to hear, "Would modifying HD uses work?" You want to hear, "The class should modify HD by letting players roll twice and pick the highest" or "by adding the HD-spending character's highest physical ability modifier" or something else. (Note: the former, as has already been stated, would conflict with a currently-present feat, which would be a perfectly fine reason to say, "that's not a good way to modify HD, let's try again.")

This is, and has been, an almost purely concept thread. That's why nearly everything is stated qualitatively, as generalized mechanical ideas, like "do something with HD" or "provide damage mitigation." In those cases where it's stated quantitatively, like "add Charisma modifier to ally HD rolls," I believe that every single poster has either overtly stated or meant to imply an "I am just making up a number on the spot, without doing the careful thought that actual design requires" clause. Expecting hard, calculated, well-defined quantitative stuff from this thread is not only unproductive, but actually going to interfere with the very goal itself. Because the demand for analysis--which is, I completely agree, essential for good design--will be seen, by both "pro" and "con" posters, as an argument *against the very concept of a Warlord-like class in 5e.*

Since you do support the existence of a Warlord-like class--even if it has a completely different name, even if it works only vaguely like the 4e Warlord--demanding rigorous analysis in a high-concept thread is going to leave both you and the people you would nominally "agree" with (in the sense that you are "pro-Warlord" to one degree or another) frustrated.

If you want to do numerical analysis of actual, or potential, Warlord class features, I strongly suggest that you create a thread for doing so, or that you check out one of the (unfortunately many) other threads discussing the class. You won't find hard, numerical analysis here, and demanding it of people while embracing the class as a concept will merely alienate you from "both" sides of the argument.

 

[Remathilis]

Right now, this thread feels like a presidential campaign policy speech: heavy on promises, light on details. Everyone wants a stronger economy, lower taxes, and more secure borders, but nobody says how they'll do that. My brain is hardwired to be skeptical: I want to see policy, not rhetoric. I like to see the numbers and how they will balance. Especially on something I'm hesitate about.

That said, I'll leave you to your idea tossing. Call me if anyone wants to move on to practical ways of making his happen.

 

[CapnZapp]

I won't care either way, not until we see a Warlord class in print as an official dead-paper supplement from Wizards of the Coast.