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

[Tony Vargas]

I'm talking about INSTEAD OF a 20 level warlord class

PrCs are too focused and late-game a mechanic for the range of basic concepts the Warlord could cover. They'd work great for some concepts, making them an alternative to just 20 levels of Warlord, for instance, or a way of coming at certain concepts from a non-martial background w/o actually MCing to Warlord, or doing so for fewer levels. And PrCs would be ideal for things like the Marshal that imply actual, high military rank (as opposed to the more modest military rank already available through the Soldier background).

I'm wagering from your answer though, it would probably not be a suitable replacement for a 20-level warlord, so I'll drop it and move on.

Of course, because right now we're trying to hammer out a compromise between extreme positions: PrC-only is far too close to the 'no warlord ever, period' of those extreme position. But, PrCs do represent an avenue by which a few of the most objectionable concepts - the high-ranking active military leader, being the main one - might be neatly restricted to more appropriate levels & campaigns.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, it's mostly off-topic. But, it does show that 5e is moving closer to 3.x in terms of expanding player options - and the risk of 'bloat' & 'power creep' that entails. It weakens the idea that nothing must be allowed to be added to the game, so as to preserve it's 'simplicity.'

Well, my limited experience with 3.5 is that most people heavily maul the game in order to make it workable, so I'd assume that people would just largely leave most of these 5e options out and just pick a few that work for them specifically, if any. Much the way we played 2e where post-core-books NOTHING was allowed in our games, except a few things specifically designated by each GM. I think we allowed a couple of the basic Complete books more-or-less in their entirety, with a careful eye peeled on each individual option. Nobody EVER allowed the later books IME.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So... Prestige class warlord. Discuss.

I meant 5e, check the UA today.

I wrote the following, in response to your first post, before continuing to read the thread to see if there were anything else I could respond to:

Wouldn't that be more of a departure than anything any Warlord fan has actually suggested? 5e has no indication that it supports "prestige class" mechanics, other than having à la carte multiclassing. At least the "HP are a mix of stuff, including inspiration" argument, and arguments to stuff like Second Wind or whatever--whether sufficient or insufficient--are working from precedents clearly established in the game. Maybe I'm just weird, but I personally see creating a "prestige class" anything as a much more serious, and dangerous, path than creating a base-class Warlord.

Having now seen the UA, with its prestige class (and of course it's a bloody rune master, which is one of my favorite spellcasting concepts, so I can't even try to hate it because, while it feels a bit weak, it isn't a total stinker nor heinously OP)...well, obviously I stand massively corrected. Prestige Classes are here, they're queer, and we should get used to them.

As for my feelings on the original question: I'm really torn. On the one hand, even if it were merely a prereq like "you must be at least 3rd level and be able to make at least two attacks when you take the Attack action," or "you must have the Inspiring Leader feat," or something similar...it still forces every Warlord fan (Variant Humans potentially excluded) to wait 6+ levels before getting to the meat of the class. On the other hand, I can't think of a better way to put a giant, flaming, strobing neon sign, five thousand feet high, bearing the words "THIS IS OPTIONAL MATERIAL" than making the Warlord a low-bar-of-entry PrC, because the concept of PrCs has been so thoroughly stigmatized by the rampant abuse they enabled in 3e. People who hate the class have a multitude of options for ignoring it (up to and including "there just isn't anyone available to train you"), they have a clear in-text basis for doing so. And by being "not a class," it can theoretically push boundaries that people would get (and have gotten) too touchy about for the base-class suggestions.

So...yeah. I'm very torn. Also still completely flabbergasted that WotC actually IS doing prestige classes. I mean, I frequently talk of 5e as being a rebuild of 3e, but making the classic PrC examples (EK, AT) into subclasses seemed like the final nail on that particular coffin. Now that they're so shockingly NOT dead, I wonder how much we as a fanbase ACTUALLY can say we "know" about what the designers are, and aren't, comfortable with exploring simply because it wasn't included in the PHB.

Edit:
Ooh, I hadn't considered the "no subclasses for PrCs." That's kind of a problem. Particularly because I was so enjoying the idea of branching out the Warlord's archetypes to include the suggested ideas like a "covert ops" person that contributes to stealth and deception (almost) as much as it does to combat.

Healer feat? Uh, sure, if the Warlord must include a bonus feat, bump it down to an archetype. Healer into er 'Icon' maybe, the other archetypes could get different feats if there's enough to go around. Inspiring, well, Inspiring Leader, Bravura, Sentinel, Tactical? Is there a remotely Tactical feat?

I wouldn't know how to answer the Tactical Warlord feat question, but I have a question of my own. Why Sentinel for Bravura? A feat that makes you a "sticky defender" seems nothing like how Bravura is usually described--I had thought Bravura was all about the risky gambits, the dangerous offensives, going "full-court press" on the enemy. The Blitzkrieg Warlord. Nothing about Sentinel says "Blitzkrieg" to me.

 

[mellored]

Prestige Classes are here, they're queer, and we should get used to them.

Prestige classes are only going to be "here" if enough people like it. It's going to depend on the next survey results.

And thus far, i've seen fairly mixed reviews. Some people like it, some people fear class bloat, some want it as a feat, some want it as a sub-class... So i'm not sure it will stick around.


And yea, the actual rune scribe is slightly on the weak side. It could make a nice 1 level dip, depending on the rune you found, but not enough for a full 5 levels.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Having now seen the UA, with its prestige class (and of course it's a bloody rune master, which is one of my favorite spellcasting concepts, so I can't even try to hate it because, while it feels a bit weak, it isn't a total stinker nor heinously OP)...well, obviously I stand massively corrected. Prestige Classes are here, they're queer, and we should get used to them.

Are they? I mean they were ALWAYS a possibility, we didn't need UA to show us an example to simply make a PRC, the ONLY 'mechanic' that is actually introduced is the idea of a "you must be N level (maybe in X, Y, or Z) before you can MC into this". So in a sense there's not much new here.

OTOH this is UA, its just an article saying "gosh, someone could do X, here's an example". But now lets imagine the issues WotC confronts if they try to make actual PRCs as part of the game at a more official level. First they're not in the PHB, so you can't use them unless you have some other supplement, which means its hard to present them in anything BUT that supplement (IE if they're in modules or etc then you need to recapitulate the PRC rules, or assume people have this particular supplement). Seems like they're not really destined to play a huge part in 5e. Given that we already have backgrounds and sub-classes it seems hard to exactly see where they fit in, except maybe as higher level equivalents of 4e's PP/ED concept.

Oddly the example Rune Scribe doesn't seem to fit well into that model. Its a rather weak class, as presented, and being accessible at relatively lower levels doesn't really come across like a PP/ED. It actually comes across like a sort of not very mechanically-appealing subclass pretty much... Interesting thematics, but I'm guessing it would have to be totally rewritten.

Of course a warlord PRC could avoid all those pitfalls, but I think I agree with Tony, it doesn't really address the whole need. I could see a PRC as an OK way to address something like a character that acquires a leadership position as sort of a PP, but then what about the guy who's all about leading/inspiration/tactics? Why not just MC into a base warlord class, its not really that different. If you have MC anyway, and a concept CAN pull the weight of a whole class, why relegate it to a PRC? You can still 'mix it in' to other classes with MCing if you're using that anway.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Are they? I mean they were ALWAYS a possibility, we didn't need UA to show us an example to simply make a PRC, the ONLY 'mechanic' that is actually introduced is the idea of a "you must be N level (maybe in X, Y, or Z) before you can MC into this". So in a sense there's not much new here.

you don't need WotC to do anything... but them doing it gives an air of officalness...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Prestige classes are only going to be "here" if enough people like it. It's going to depend on the next survey results.

And thus far, i've seen fairly mixed reviews. Some people like it, some people fear class bloat, some want it as a feat, some want it as a sub-class... So i'm not sure it will stick around.

I guess. I heard very "mixed" responses to the Favored Soul, and have seen no signs whatsoever that it is going away. Particularly since this is their first stab at the idea, I would think they'd expect some mixed responses and would intend to iterate at least a couple more times, unless the response was distinctly negative. But, as stated, what-the-fudge do *I* know about WotC's design choices at this point? *shrug*

And yea, the actual rune scribe is slightly on the weak side. It could make a nice 1 level dip, depending on the rune you found, but not enough for a full 5 levels.

Living Rune is fairly nice as well, IMO--perhaps not "devote 4 levels to a class" nice, but still. Instead of getting a standard ASI, you get floating stat points. Extremely flexible. If you're able to frequently get a decent idea of the kinds of challenges you'll be facing in the next day or two, that can mean a +1 to whatever ability is most relevant each day.

If I had to guess, I think the big reason they made the Rune Scribe so light on internal mechanics is that it's like a weird compound of Wizard and Warlock--since it essentially gains the equivalent of a package of invocations from each Rune it acquires. I really do think they should've given it a meatier capstone though. Assuming you can find even one more Major Rune you haven't learned, you may never benefit from the 5th level stuff at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wouldn't know how to answer the Tactical Warlord feat question, but I have a question of my own. Why Sentinel for Bravura? A feat that makes you a "sticky defender" seems nothing like how Bravura is usually described--I had thought Bravura was all about the risky gambits, the dangerous offensives, going "full-court press" on the enemy. The Blitzkrieg Warlord. Nothing about Sentinel says "Blitzkrieg" to me.

The Bravura was an aggressive, in-your-face warrior who very much 'led from the front.' In 4e, as with the fighter, that could mean marking, and there were a number of Bravura-focused exploits that marked, typically for a turn. The Warlord had already been conceived of as a secondary defender, with the Battlefront Leader option, you could 'tank up' your Bravura with better armor/shield and an extra surge, which, along with one or more of those exploits, you could make it particularly so. In 5e, the Bravura would be more of a 'Tank' which might include some archetype features to make it tougher and to take enemy attention away from allies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The Bravura was an aggressive, in-your-face warrior who very much 'led from the front.' In 4e, as with the fighter, that could mean marking, and there were a number of Bravura-focused exploits that marked, typically for a turn. The Warlord had already been conceived of as a secondary defender, with the Battlefront Leader option, you could 'tank up' your Bravura with better armor/shield and an extra surge, which, along with one or more of those exploits, you could make it particularly so. In 5e, the Bravura would be more of a 'Tank' which might include some archetype features to make it tougher and to take enemy attention away from allies.

I guess I stand corrected, then. I've honestly never seen the Warlord described as an off-Defender before, and I've reviewed charop and inspiration threads several times (both for discussions of the Warlord here and elsewhere, and for potential, though never actualized, personal use). Still strikes me as a bit of a weird choice, but given how few and honestly not very varied feats are in 5e, I guess you take what you can get. (Bravura, of course, would prefer to get what it can take! )

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess I stand corrected, then. I've honestly never seen the Warlord described as an off-Defender before, and I've reviewed charop and inspiration threads several times (both for discussions of the Warlord here and elsewhere, and for potential, though never actualized, personal use). Still strikes me as a bit of a weird choice, but given how few and honestly not very varied feats are in 5e, I guess you take what you can get. (Bravura, of course, would prefer to get what it can take! )

Until the Bravura, the secondary defender thing was little more than lip service (light shield prof for 1 better AC than the Cleric, though it was a symbolic similarity to the 'Defender' fighter build), and, I'm sure optimizers focused on offensive buffs and attack granting to make it into an indirect secondary striker - the relative simplicity of D&D's hp system always tilts it a bit towards DPR optimization.

In 5e, the Bravura could be more of a 'tank,' Sentinel functionality backdoor'd in whether feats were opted-in or not (and I still question specific feats as features instead of ASIs for that reason) would just be part of that.