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

[AbdulAlhazred]

They never quite got the trading-in-for-maneuvers idea to work /well/ either. It was too easy for the optimal use to be just damage, and the intended flexibility to disappear.

Its a little OT, but this is why AEDU worked SO WELL, because it wasn't about trading anything for anything else. You never had a choice to say "I'd rather have some damage instead of that daily power!" (well, Barbarians actually DID get exactly that mechanic, and it worked OK for them, but remembering that they still had at-will and encounter powers which weren't shoehorned into it).

So, I'm not really convinced that the Warlord needs to be able to trade these dice in for damage, at least not "I attack and add some tactical dice to my damage roll" as it probably will tend to cause things to devolve a bit. Maybe they can just stay d4s and be used to grant bonuses, then you COULD let them work into damage in some cases, but they wouldn't add a LOT of it. At higher levels they'd probably add a trivial amount even. This is a usual other problem with damage bonuses, they have to get a lot bigger, whereas a given attack bonus is as good at level 20 as at level 1.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, I'm not really convinced that the Warlord needs to be able to trade these dice in for damage, at least not "I attack and add some tactical dice to my damage roll" as it probably will tend to cause things to devolve a bit.

I don't think the added versatility would be out of place in 5e. Most 5e classes have made tremendous gains in versatility relative to their 4e versions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think the added versatility would be out of place in 5e. Most 5e classes have made tremendous gains in versatility relative to their 4e versions.

Yeah, I don't really see that too much. In terms of COMBAT 5e classes seem no more versatile than 4e ones to me. Spell casting tends to be less focused, so in a sense you have a lot of wazoos that can try a great variety of things, but what works best is still pretty narrow.

Outside of combat, 4e was pretty wide-open, you had decent bonuses on a wide variety of checks, skill challenges, rituals, and utility powers (skill powers in particular), then many themes added MORE versatility, etc. If anything 4e characters are almost broadly omnicompetent with usually just a few weaknesses.

 

[Aldarc]

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

No problem. I appreciate your good intent to at least work with pro-warlord fans to find something that works.

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.

Ability resources should always be a concern.

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.

Sounds good to me. This makes the Warlord (much as the Battle Master itself) akin to the Warlock's limited number of spells between short/long rests. Part of the question then involves superiority dice. Should the Warlord retain the complexity of the Battle Master's superiority dice/maneuvers, or how much added complexity should there be for the Warlord? I.e., should the Warlord have separate tier values of superiority dice available (d6, d8, d12, etc.) and tiers of maneuvers (perhaps levels 1 to 4 or 5) that they could access?

Also, I almost think that some of the disarm/trip fighting akin to the 3E expertise Fighter should be left to the Battle Master, if only so that Fighters retain unique maneuvers. That would also keep the Battle Master and Warlord's flavor somewhat separate and distinct.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No problem. I appreciate your good intent to at least work with pro-warlord fans to find something that works.

Ability resources should always be a concern.

Sounds good to me. This makes the Warlord (much as the Battle Master itself) akin to the Warlock's limited number of spells between short/long rests. Part of the question then involves superiority dice. Should the Warlord retain the complexity of the Battle Master's superiority dice/maneuvers, or how much added complexity should there be for the Warlord? I.e., should the Warlord have separate tier values of superiority dice available (d6, d8, d12, etc.) and tiers of maneuvers (perhaps levels 1 to 4 or 5) that they could access?

Also, I almost think that some of the disarm/trip fighting akin to the 3E expertise Fighter should be left to the Battle Master, if only so that Fighters retain unique maneuvers. That would also keep the Battle Master and Warlord's flavor somewhat separate and distinct.

Right, I don't see the warlord as doing 'combat tricks' like tripping or disarming, those are things that rely on individual expertise in handling weapons. The warlord in my mind is the expert at tactics and inspiration. He's getting other people to perform better. At most he might act himself in a way that is calculated to create a better opening for the other characters to pull something off. So maybe he has a power like "distract the enemy at the critical moment" where the understanding is any character might be equally good at distraction, but the warlord is good at making it really count. Thus the fighter might distract his opponent and get in a good hit, the bard might make a really amazing semi-magical distraction that has great effect, and the warlord will make a distraction that causes the enemy to let his allies disengage for free at the critical moment.

I share your questions about dice tiers for 'tactical dice'. Are they even really dice? I can see some cases where a die might be cool and add to the mechanic (IE add a dX to damage), but I think MOST of the things that a warlord would do don't really seem like stuff that you'd add a whole die worth of bonus to, unless maybe it was a d4 (IE you're surely not going to be adding d8 or higher to d20 check results very often, even d6 would be a lot, d4 sounds OK). I'd think in general the advantage mechanic is what you'd primarily be exploiting there. So maybe tactical dice are all d4 all the time and how many you get is the main scaling factor? Or maybe the size of the dice is just not a very big deal, once in a while something adds the die result to damage but mainly you just spend them in increments of a die to power some sort of effect. Or maybe they're just not dice at all, maybe you just get N uses of your abilities and they add +CHA to something or a fixed small value like +1 or grant advantage depending on what the ability is.

 

[mellored]

Part of the question then involves superiority dice. Should the Warlord retain the complexity of the Battle Master's superiority dice/maneuvers, or how much added complexity should there be for the Warlord? I.e., should the Warlord have separate tier values of superiority dice available (d6, d8, d12, etc.) and tiers of maneuvers (perhaps levels 1 to 4 or 5) that they could access?

My current suggestion is that they get 1 die a turn. 2 dice at level 5, and 3 dice at level 17.
The size of the die also scales giving you 1d4 -> 3d12.

Basic maneuvers cost 1 die.
Advances maneuvers cost 2 dice.
Expert maneuvers cost 3 dice.

So you choose between doing several small things, or 1 big thing.

Also, I almost think that some of the disarm/trip fighting akin to the 3E expertise Fighter should be left to the Battle Master, if only so that Fighters retain unique maneuvers. That would also keep the Battle Master and Warlord's flavor somewhat separate and distinct.

I would be ok with that.

Of course the warlord would get some the fighter doesn't have. Like movement granting ones.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, I don't see the warlord as doing 'combat tricks' like tripping or disarming, those are things that rely on individual expertise in handling weapons. The warlord in my mind is the expert at tactics and inspiration. He's getting other people to perform better. At most he might act himself in a way that is calculated to create a better opening for the other characters to pull something off. So maybe he has a power like "distract the enemy at the critical moment" where the understanding is any character might be equally good at distraction, but the warlord is good at making it really count.

In 5e, I could certainly see the Warlord having more self-only maneuvers, as well as coordinate-the-party ones. All the battlemaster maneuvers, for instance, just not so prone to burning through them in one round, maybe not using the limited dice mechanic, at all (it's really a mechanic designed to work with a class narrowly focused on DPR, which the Warlord shouldn't be).

I share your questions about dice tiers for 'tactical dice'. Are they even really dice? I can see some cases where a die might be cool and add to the mechanic (IE add a dX to damage), but I think MOST of the things that a warlord would do don't really seem like stuff that you'd add a whole die worth of bonus to, unless maybe it was a d4 (IE you're surely not going to be adding d8 or higher to d20 check results very often, even d6 would be a lot, d4 sounds OK). I'd think in general the advantage mechanic is what you'd primarily be exploiting there. So maybe tactical dice are all d4 all the time and how many you get is the main scaling factor? Or maybe the size of the dice is just not a very big deal, once in a while something adds the die result to damage but mainly you just spend them in increments of a die to power some sort of effect. Or maybe they're just not dice at all, maybe you just get N uses of your abilities and they add +CHA to something or a fixed small value like +1 or grant advantage depending on what the ability is.

I'm beginning to think n/x limits aren't going to cut it. They're abstract, they caused a lot of resistance in the past, and 5e design favors concept over 'gamist' considerations like balance/playability/consistency, and Empowers the DM to smooth over any issues that crop up at the table.

Instead, some warlord maneuvers might be limited by interaction with allies and enemies. If an enemy has seen or 'figured out' (INT save) a maneuver, it becomes unavailable for the rest of that encounter. If an ally has been inspired to some heroic effort, he'll need a short rest before he can push himself that far again. You can't inspire any more fighting-on if the subject is out of HD. That kind of thing. Less abstract, more flavorful, closer to modeling the concept, more in keeping with the philosophy of 5e...

...not so abstract or random as a CS die, an elegant mechanic, for a more civilized edition. ;P

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In 5e, I could certainly see the Warlord having more self-only maneuvers, as well as coordinate-the-party ones. All the battlemaster maneuvers, for instance, just not so prone to burning through them in one round, maybe not using the limited dice mechanic, at all (it's really a mechanic designed to work with a class narrowly focused on DPR, which the Warlord shouldn't be).

Well, I don't see any problem with being able to get 'more fighting ability' as one possible build option, the character is after all a sort of 'warrior' in basic concept, so that's fine. The Battlemaster can access some warlordish capabilities, so if the warlord can access some battlemasterish ones, that's OK. One build represents a very strong fighter that can also lead, and the other represents a leader that has some level of fighting skill up to roughly the lowest end of what a real battlemaster would have, thus covering all the bases. At the other end of the spectrum maybe you can't literally dump ALL melee ability, but you can make it not really worth using in lieu of making your other options optimized, producing something akin to the 'princess' builds.

I'm beginning to think n/x limits aren't going to cut it. They're abstract, they caused a lot of resistance in the past, and 5e design favors concept over 'gamist' considerations like balance/playability/consistency, and Empowers the DM to smooth over any issues that crop up at the table.

Eh, they're all over the place in 5e now, so why fight that fight here, it seems to be a ship that has largely sailed. Battlemaster in particular has tons of it. Now maybe it chafes some people, but it has the virtue that the player can sit down at the table and understand what he can and can't do without the need to parse nebulous requirements that he may suddenly find rule out things that normally you'd imagine would work.

Instead, some warlord maneuvers might be limited by interaction with allies and enemies. If an enemy has seen or 'figured out' (INT save) a maneuver, it becomes unavailable for the rest of that encounter. If an ally has been inspired to some heroic effort, he'll need a short rest before he can push himself that far again. You can't inspire any more fighting-on if the subject is out of HD. That kind of thing. Less abstract, more flavorful, closer to modeling the concept, more in keeping with the philosophy of 5e...

...not so abstract or random as a CS die, an elegant mechanic, for a more civilized edition. ;P

I think these are complicated mechanics that add a lot of extra die rolls and book-keeping at a very low return rate. This is probably why in ALL editions of D&D this sort of mechanic has AFAIK never really been used (maybe I've missed some obscure nook of the game somewhere, but I know of no PHB class in any edition that ever had such a mechanic, and MOST of them have had at least one "one time per ..." kind of mechanism.

As I always told people when they had issues with something like this in 4e, narrative always trumps rules. Whenever we explained some limitation in a narrative way, then we followed the narrative logic when something of real consequence hung on it or where the narrative took place outside of the specific context where the mechanic was really relevant (IE if you used some sort of 'once per encounter' feature outside of combat). As long as this kind of thing is clearly presented to the players and each mechanical device of the class is described in terms of its intended narrative context then it shouldn't present too much of a problem, should it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Eh, they're all over the place in 5e now, so why fight that fight here, it seems to be a ship that has largely sailed. Battlemaster in particular has tons of it. Now maybe it chafes some people, but it has the virtue that the player can sit down at the table and understand what he can and can't do without the need to parse nebulous requirements that he may suddenly find rule out things that normally you'd imagine would work.

Sure, 'nebulous requirements' aren't the best design, but, they can be evocative. And while 5e has plenty of x/time limitations, nothing requires any given new class or mechanic to cleave to that. It's messy and old-west-shoot-from-the-hip, but it leaves possibilities wide open that more disciplined design would close off.

And, 5e places it's faith in the Empowered DM to keep it from all boiling over. So no reason at all not to explore something different with the Warlord (or psion, or warden, or shaman, or anything else that might be down the line). It might not balance well, it might run into problems situationally, it might bring a round to a screeching halt, but a DM who can handle what 5e is already throwing at him, can handle that without breaking stride.

It's actually kinda exciting, in a way.

I think these are complicated mechanics that add a lot of extra die rolls and book-keeping at a very low return rate.

I definitely agree about bookkeeping, that can be a drag, any bookkeeping-heavy approach to a neat new rule or sub-system should be side-barred, even if the whole thing is already optional, just to emphasize the potential fun-sucking-vortex of boredom. But, for those to whom the extra soupcons of realism or consistency or whatever is worth it, it'd be cool.

This is probably why in ALL editions of D&D this sort of mechanic has AFAIK never really been used (maybe I've missed some obscure nook of the game somewhere, but I know of no PHB class in any edition that ever had such a mechanic, and MOST of them have had at least one "one time per ..." kind of mechanism.

I can't call one immediately to mind. I have a vague sense of more obscure stuff, magic item creation, maybe, or something to do with henchmen... or,... no, it's gone.

And, you're right, a novel mechanic can be a bit of work for little return. That doesn't stop us from having multiple methods of spell casting, or three fighter builds that all work differently (noth'n vs CS Dice + Maneuvers vs Spell-casting), or Ki-zapping Monks, and I'm actually half-hopeful it won't stop much else, either.

The Standard Game can stand as a bastion against bloat, while the Advanced Game gets all experimental.

As I always told people when they had issues with something like this in 4e, narrative always trumps rules. Whenever we explained some limitation in a narrative way, then we followed the narrative logic when something of real consequence hung on it or where the narrative took place outside of the specific context where the mechanic was really relevant

I suspect that'd go over even more easily in 5e, yes.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm one of the people who wants a warlord, but I have to say that I just don't see anything constructive in carrying on the argument about whether a warlord (or anything else for that matter) is wanted or needed. There are just too many warlord threads, and too many opinions are being inappropriately aggregated on respective "sides" of the discussion. I think the best thing for all parties is for this discussion to be replaced with people posting their respective warlords in the homebrew section.