D&D 5E What is a Warlord [No, really, I don't know.]

[Hussar]

So... You are mad because I didn't read it. "Man, so many ppl in this Walmart, THEIR FAULT!"

I don't know what fans want. That is why I asked you. Instead you wrote 600 words when 30 was needed and I bet there is no answer anyway.
I don't care about warlords. What I care about is to know how is it not buildable and so far when I ask what you ppl miss it's always "It's about concept man! Like there is no concept! The conceptual Warlord had a concept for a reason! ...unlike these MC without a concept."

Even if he didn't answer your question, lots of other people did. You can get about 60% of a warlord using existing classes. We want the other 40%.

The existing classes carry too much baggage to be simply reflavoured, it would require several levels just to achieve the basic abilities needed for a warlord, and even after all that you are still severely limited in what style of warlord you can actually build.

As a basic example, you have effect that allow the warlord to grant actions to multiple targets at once. Nothing in 5e allows that currently. And a MC built warlord is still inherently a caster.

I don't want to play a caster.

 

[ZickZak]

The existing classes carry too much baggage to be simply reflavoured

Until something like a Path of Exile tree is introduced, where you basically start with the same thing and upon leveling pick whatever ability you want (or a point buy), all classes will be with some baggage that you don't want. I think granting actions to multiple characters in 5e could be broken, especially with the "once per turn" ones.

 

[pemerton]

I don't care about warlords. What I care about is to know how is it not buildable and so far when I ask what you ppl miss it's always "It's about concept man! Like there is no concept! The conceptual Warlord had a concept for a reason! ...unlike these MC without a concept."

Seriously, how many times does this question have to be answered?

The concept of the warlord is of a buffer/hp-restorer who is not a magician or miracle-worker. In purely functional terms the character occupies a space that is similar to, but not identical to, the traditional cleric (a second-tier combatant with slightly weaker healing who is slightly better at boosting the action economy).

I think granting actions to multiple characters in 5e could be broken

I dunno - granting the ability to attack multiple targets with a single action could be broken too. But Fireball is part of the game.

Look at all the text around the Haste spell. 5e has plenty of scope for regulating the granting of actions so as to avoid breakage.

 

[Orlax]

Even if he didn't answer your question, lots of other people did. You can get about 60% of a warlord using existing classes. We want the other 40%.

The existing classes carry too much baggage to be simply reflavoured, it would require several levels just to achieve the basic abilities needed for a warlord, and even after all that you are still severely limited in what style of warlord you can actually build.

As a basic example, you have effect that allow the warlord to grant actions to multiple targets at once. Nothing in 5e allows that currently. And a MC built warlord is still inherently a caster.

I don't want to play a caster.

Uh the fighter with multiple attacks and multiple uses of commanding strike can grant multiple actions in a turn. A bm with 3 attacks can swing three times and attach a superiority die to every one of those attacks. It just so happens that alphas out all their resources.

 

[Orlax]

Replied to incorrect comment

 

[mellored]

I think granting actions to multiple characters in 5e could be broken, especially with the "once per turn" ones.

It could defiantly could be broken, but it isn't automatically broken. Wizards where also very dominate in many editions, but it doesn't mean they break 5e.

Plus, it's already Though it's already in the game. A sorcerer's can cast twin haste in every battle. It's on the strong side, but not game breaking.


That said, i'm currently leaning towards something like...
"You can spend your action to allow your allies to make an attack against the target as a bonus action. If the ally has a bonus action attack, such as TWF, they get advantage with that attack.".

 

[Hussar]

Uh the fighter with multiple attacks and multiple uses of commanding strike can grant multiple actions in a turn. A bm with 3 attacks can swing three times and attach a superiority die to every one of those attacks. It just so happens that alphas out all their resources.

This my point that the BM makes a poor warlord. If I can only grant 5 actions, say, per short rest, at the cost of all other options, I'm not very good at my job. If I allow 5 pc's to move half their movement once each, I'm done until the next rest.

IOW, I become a poor man's fighter 2/3 of the time assuming three encounters per rest.

 

[Orlax]

Can we also talk about the fact that most combats don't last more than like 3 rounds. Adding more attacks to your side by key members (rogue, ranger, paladin) will reduce that number of rounds even more. Especially if you can add multiple actions more frequently than the bm already can.

 

[mellored]

Can we also talk about the fact that most combats don't last more than like 3 rounds. Adding more attacks to your side by key members (rogue, ranger, paladin) will reduce that number of rounds even more. Especially if you can add multiple actions more frequently than the bm already can.

The warlord should be able to deal as much damage as any other class.

i.e.
If a rogue can deal 20 damage with sneak attack, the warlock deal 20 damage with his spells, the necromancer deal 20 damage though skeletons, then the warlord should be able to grant 20 damage worth of attacks.


And i'll point out that the 3.5 warlord (marshal) was very underpowered.

 

[Aldarc]

I completely agree with you there, but a lot of people do suggest that those who object to the Warlord can reflavor it. So I assume those people don't object to re-flavoring.

That's because you are treating these two options as equivalent positions, and I doubt anyone could reasonably see them as such. Reflavoring a warlord as magical requires little to zero mechanical adjustments. The reverse, however, is not true. You cannot simply reflavor a cleric to be non-magical when you are casting spells and spell-like abilities that can be negated by (and whose power is designed around the assumption of) anti-magic.