D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[Remathilis]

New attempt to find compromise #241


Level 1:
Tactical Superiority: You gain a 1d4 superiority die which you can spend on a variety of maneuvers. You regain this die at the end of your turn. The size of the die and number of dice increase according to the level chart. You can spend more then 1 die on a maneuver.
*Tactical Adjustment: As a reaction, you can expend dice to add or subtract the die from an attack roll of a creature who is within 5'*your Int modifier, who can also see and hear you. If you roll multiple dice, only add or subtract the highest.
*Warlord Strike: When you hit an enemy, you can expend your dice deal extra damage equal to the total roll.


Level 2: Select one of the following.
*Field Medic: You gain the healer feat. You can expend superiority dice to use it as a bonus action. The creature regains additional hit points equal to the die roll.
*Inspiring Words: You gain the inspirational leader feat. You can expend superiority dice to use it as an action. Creature gain additional temporary hit points equal to the die roll.


Thoughts?

Couple things.

1. Limit tactical die damage to one per person per round (like sneak attack). Gives incentive to spread multiple dice around rather than stack them on characters with multiple attacks.

2. Since feats are strictly optional, I'd give them an ability similar to healer and inspiring word, but not the actual feat. Just a matter of replicating the text of the feat a bit and adding in the changes.

3. There is no need for 5+int mod (and 5e measures in feet, not squares). Just set it to a range (60 ft) and be done. K I.S.S.

Rest looks solid.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

New attempt to find compromise #241


Level 1:
Tactical Superiority: You gain a 1d4 superiority die which you can spend on a variety of maneuvers. You regain this die at the end of your turn. The size of the die and number of dice increase according to the level chart. You can spend more then 1 die on a maneuver.
*Tactical Adjustment: As a reaction, you can expend dice to add or subtract the die from an attack roll of a creature who is within 5'*your Int modifier, who can also see and hear you. If you roll multiple dice, only add or subtract the highest.
*Warlord Strike: When you hit an enemy, you can expend your dice deal extra damage equal to the total roll.


Level 2: Select one of the following.
*Field Medic: You gain the healer feat. You can expend superiority dice to use it as a bonus action. The creature regains additional hit points equal to the die roll.
*Inspiring Words: You gain the inspirational leader feat. You can expend superiority dice to use it as an action. Creature gain additional temporary hit points equal to the die roll.


Thoughts?

Well, I'd be kind of...not "upset" or "annoyed," just...sad, I guess, that the concept couldn't find mechanics of its own (and thus be amplified by someone choosing to take the feat). But if that's what it takes to get people to accept a Warlord class, I could go for it. I'm not sure I could compromise much further than that, though. It would be cool if there were other options too though. And in that way, you could even show a shade of solidarity with the Fighter (even if it's in an area I don't care for): both classes lean on extra feats, with one getting incredible flexibility while the other gets narrower focus.

Edit:
Alternatively, what Remathilis said.

 

[El Mahdi]

...It just seems it's all about the sheer amount of maneuvers in the 4e, aka combat...

I'm not sure where you're getting this impression. I haven't seen anyone express that a Battlemaster doesn't work as a Warlord because there aren't enough maneuvers.

The Battlemaster, if anything (IMO), has too many maneuvers.

The Battlemaster also doesn't have enough maneuvers that actually do what a Warlord is supposed to do.

The Battlemaster doesn't need more maneuvers, it just needs better maneuvers. It needs to have the maneuvers it does have, rewritten so they do what a Warlord is supposed to do.


But, as highlighted before, a Battlemaster comes with Fighter baggage that isn't part of the Warlord concept - which is one of the arguments for why the Warlord should be a separate class.

 

[El Mahdi]

(Not far upthread @El Mahdi gives a more bio-medico-psyhcological account of inspirational healing. Personally I prefer to think of it in literary/archetypical terms, but that's just me.)

I'm with you, but I include it to counter the argument that Inspirational Hit Point Recovery isn't realistic. Granted, while that process is realistic, it's extremely rare and unlikely in real-life. A fringe case; but D&D is all fringe cases. 90% of what D&D characters do could never be done in real-life.*

Consistency with the rules and a solid basis in fictional tropes should be all that's required for acceptance. (BTW, you made a great argument for that in your post.) I know that including a realistic model isn't going to change a lot of minds either, but even one or two seems worth it to me.

Truth is, most are not going to be convinced no matter what we say. That's okay; but I'm going to keep countering the misconceptions, inaccuracies, and bad logic people use to make their arguments. Sure, those that are making the arguments likely aren't going to be swayed, but they'll be left with only their own preferences as grounds to not accept it (which is their purview), and maybe my counter-arguments will convince some of the ones on the fence - those maybe just lurking and reading the arguments. Not to mention that maybe even if it doesn't convince people, it may still lower resistance by some for inclusion.


*(I'm fully aware that 87% of all statistics are just made up...it's a fact!)

 

[pemerton]

I like the idea mechanically, but the flavor appears to be incompatible with 5e. Namely, the demand that the class needs to be able to heal like a cleric or inspire like a bard, but it absolutely can't be magical in nature. I suspect that's why half the arguments still seem to involve trying to leverage the existing 'mundane' healing mechanics (HD, healer feat, inspring leader) with no one being satisfied.

"Mundane" healing in 5e includes Second Wind. There is no reason why all serious healing and inspiration in 5e need to be flavoured as magic. With what is it supposed to be incompatible?

 

[mellored]

Couple things.

1. Limit tactical die damage to one per person per round (like sneak attack). Gives incentive to spread multiple dice around rather than stack them on characters with multiple attacks.

2. Since feats are strictly optional, I'd give them an ability similar to healer and inspiring word, but not the actual feat. Just a matter of replicating the text of the feat a bit and adding in the changes.

3. There is no need for 5+int mod (and 5e measures in feet, not squares). Just set it to a range (60 ft) and be done. K I.S.S.

Rest looks solid.

1: Only the warlord can use the die for damage. And you can only boost 1 attack per turn since your limited by reactions. And if you boost an attack, you don't get the die for damage. (which is still good, making the rogue not miss is worth more your own 1d4 damage).

2: Fair enough.

3: I want to tie Int in there somewhere. I figured range would be a good fit and trade-off. More weapon focused (Str) tacticians need to be closer to their allies. Smarter tacticians can analyze more of the battlefield and can be further away.

 

[pemerton]

The issue is Why do we need a full new class when we can already do all warlord stuff?

<snip>

my main is an assassin type character. I took 3 levels of assassin and the rest monk. It's an archer. Monks do quite poorly in range or at least worse than any other martial class, but it's perfect and I won't make a thread just because I think I need assassin to have 20 levels and assassinate every round for 60 damage. It is easy to build as it is, from ranger, monk, fighter, whatever.

Same goes with Warlord: Bard, BattleMaster, Paladin & Cleric are all great choices to MC.

I think it's pretty clear that those who want a warlord don't think they can do all the warlord stuff. Paladin and cleric, for instance, bring a whole lot of baggage (around oaths, gods, magic, etc) that a warlord is meant to be independent of.

 

[mellored]

Edit:
Alternatively, what Remathilis said.

Multiple people agree i'm wrong. I suppose that's something.

 

[Remathilis]

1: Only the warlord can use the die for damage. And you can only boost 1 attack per turn since your limited by reactions. And if you boost an attack, you don't get the die for damage. (which is still good, making the rogue not miss is worth more your own 1d4 damage).

2: Fair enough.

3: I want to tie Int in there somewhere. I figured range would be a good fit and trade-off. More weapon focused (Str) tacticians need to be closer to their allies. Smarter tacticians can analyze more of the battlefield and can be further away.

3. Fair I guess, but convert it to feet for TotM play. (I doubt you meant 5-10 feet).

 

[Yunru]

Battlemaster can't Warlord effectively because Commander's Strike sucks.
You give up an attack, your bonus action and their reaction to have them make an attack. Sure. 3:1 cost to reward ratio, what the hell were they smoking?