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

[Bawylie]

Delay? Is it just me, or are the number of houserules needed to bring this class to life growing at a phenomenal rate?

To be charitable, there's no bad ideas in brainstorming. And it's OK to explore something and then cut it down.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh, I see, didn't occur to me to worry:

That's good; hypothetical game design discussions should never cause you to worry. If you have been then I apologize if I've contributed to it.

Some problems like that were never issues, presumably caught in development, others, like chaining reactive action-granting and free attacks, which got even crazier, were addressed with errata, still others became issues again in Essentials. I think of them as 'solved' because they had been solved once, but if the design isn't careful, they could repeat a mistake, sure, just like Essentials did.

Yup. That's why we're having "development" discussions.

 

[Hussar]

Why would initiative matter?

You gain an extra attack the next time you attack is exactly how haste works isn't it?

Then again, it's not like rogues break the game anyway. As the rules stand now, you folks already allow the rogue multiple sneaks per round. Why is a warlord doing it any different than a Battlemaster?

Imagine a rogue in a group of Battlemasters. His dpr would be off the chart. I guess 5e is broken.

 

[mellored]

Delay? Is it just me, or are the number of houserules needed to bring this class to life growing at a phenomenal rate?

i don't see a need for any houserule.

though inititive manipulating abilitites would make sense on a warlord. letting allies swap initive to give the assassin a leg up, or the wizard a chance to fireball before the barbarian runs in would make plenty of sense for a tactician to coordinate.

hmm... "after everyone rolls initive, but before combat starts, you can give out X bonuses and penalties score to the inititive of creatures you see, potentially changing the turn order"

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why would initiative matter?

You gain an extra attack the next time you attack is exactly how haste works isn't it?

You are 100% right. I don't know what I was envisioning while typing that. In my head I was thinking about Shield Master, which does very much depend on initiative order.

Then again, it's not like rogues break the game anyway. As the rules stand now, you folks already allow the rogue multiple sneaks per round.

What's this "you folks"? You don't allow rogues to get a second Sneak Attack when they get to use a Reaction? If so I'm pretty sure you're not playing by RAW. But interested to hear an alternative interpretation.

Why is a warlord doing it any different than a Battlemaster?

Imagine a rogue in a group of Battlemasters. His dpr would be off the chart. I guess 5e is broken.

Why broken? Sure, it's a ton of damage and would be a fun setup, but that doesn't "break" the game. You'd have to have one or more players interested in playing the role of "buffing the rogue".

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Then again, it's not like rogues break the game anyway. As the rules stand now, you folks already allow the rogue multiple sneaks per round. Why is a warlord doing it any different than a Battlemaster?

So this hypothetical warlord action granting ability is a limited resource as well? Whew. You had me worried for a second there...

 

[mellored]

So this hypothetical warlord action granting ability is a limited resource as well? Whew. You had me worried for a second there...

Granting a full unrestricted action at-will would be OP. (as opposed to a restricted action, like haste).

Maybe as a level 17 or 20 ability. But even then probably not since warlords should have plenty of other useful features. And things like giving advantage scale.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Granting a full unrestricted action at-will would be OP. (as opposed to a restricted action, like haste).

Maybe as a level 17 or 20 ability. But even then probably not since warlords should have plenty of other useful features. And things like giving advantage scale.

Not what I was responding to, but okay.

 

[mellored]

Not what I was responding to, but okay.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[Miladoon]

I'm gonna make a prediction. The Warlord is going to steal the Rangers role.

Oh not the wildernessy, archery, Aragorny role.

The Warlord will be the new class no one is ever quite happy with. The one that spawns endless debates, rewrites, homebrews, and theory crafting. The one with variants from light-casting to psionics, to divine, to magicless and still no one will ever quite be happy.

Somewhere a Ranger is patting a Warlord on the back and saying "Good luck pal."

Hey, hands off my prediction, Rogue!

The Ranger is also handing out tissues to the Valor Bard and the Battlemaster. They just didn't cut the mustard.

EDIT: I hope Warlord fans get what they want. What I don't want is for the only way to get synergy in the group is to have a warlord. Seems way to forced and dumps on player skill. My overall preference is to have a Commander subclass that can fit under any class. Why can't I have a wizard commander?