So what do we need from the Warlord?

[Miladoon]

I prefer no INT bonus and no extra attack. It is not important for a 'spell-less' support class. Make it even with a cleric. If I want a low magic fightey warlord I will go with Battlemaster.

Focusing on non-magic healing, enabling PCs, and positioning using SLAs.

EDIT: And bolster allies

 

[mellored]

For the 13A Commander, they needed 'command points,' and got one if they attacked, but could 'weigh the odds' for a round, instead, to get more. FWIW.

Yea, something like that.

Though given the number of rounds in 5e combat, it needs to be a pretty significant boost.

 

[Bawylie]

I prefer no INT bonus and no extra attack. It is not important for a 'spell-less' support class. Make it even with a cleric. If I want a low magic fightey warlord I will go with Battlemaster.

Focusing on non-magic healing, enabling PCs, and positioning using SLAs.

EDIT: And bolster allies

I kinda think he needs 2 attacks. WOTC says the W lives somewhere between BM fighter and Valor Bard. So, fine, but that suggests more than 1 attack to me.

 

[Miladoon]

I kinda think he needs 2 attacks. WOTC says the W lives somewhere between BM fighter and Valor Bard. So, fine, but that suggests more than 1 attack to me.

I used to see this, but now I am changing my views. Turning the class upside down sorta speak.

Besides, if I took WotC advice on the matter I would not be here.

Not all classes need multi-attack to function. To me, extra attack for the modelW is now an arbitrary/legacy distinction.

 

[Orlax]

I kinda think he needs 2 attacks. WOTC says the W lives somewhere between BM fighter and Valor Bard. So, fine, but that suggests more than 1 attack to me.

If he can grant a cantrip he doesn't need multi attacks

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I used to see this, but now I am changing my views. Turning the class upside down sorta speak.

Besides, if I took WotC advice on the matter I would not be here.

Not all classes need multi-attack to function. To me, extra attack for the modelW is now an arbitrary/legacy distinction.

I'm not married to the idea, but I definitely feel like there's something to the idea that Warlords have a little bit--not a huge amount, but a little bit--of combat heft of their own. Not the full-bore "I have three attacks and can make 6 in a round once/twice per short rest, plus better crit range/maneuvers/spells" thing Fighters get, but something.

However, I'm perfectly content with the idea that extra attack is a subclass thing, just like it is for Valor Bards. It might even be present on multiple subclasses. Others could get something different but commensurate. For example, the "covert/stealth" subclass idea that's been floated a few times around here, could get Sneak Attack or something like it.

-----

For my money, there are a couple of things Warlords gotta have. Going with what I understand to be pretty minimal stuff (based on my own desires and what I've heard from others, critical or otherwise), the Warlord has to have:

1. At least one significant mechanic that can extend the adventuring day beyond the limits of Hit Dice.
2. The ability to bring allies back from 0 HP-and-rolling-death-saves territory.
3. Some meaningful mitigation-based mechanics, whatever specific form(s) that takes.
4. The option to grant actions, potentially including attacks to allies, though not necessarily as a core feature (e.g. it could be subclass-limited). Keeping this balanced with the action economy and other classes' abilities is a prime concern.
5. A fully-text-supported reading as being non-magical, though other readings can also be supported by the text (the "open interpretation" compromise).

Additional things that would be really really NICE, but not strictly necessary:
6. Enough meaningfully distinct choices (by, say, 4ish) to have more than one valid option for its resource expenditure (e.g. "maneuver dice," [re]actions, etc.) every round
7. Less personal damage capacity than the Fighter, and probably less personal "tankiness" (HP, AC, DR, resistance, save bonuses, etc.) than Fighters, Paladins, or Barbarians
8. New options (relative to 4e), such as features that inhibit/debuff enemies, focus on previously unavailable areas (e.g. the "covert/stealth" subclass idea), and better support for non-combat situations (since 4e was a bit thin on Warlordy support for that).
9. At least one subclass which improves, beyond the (expected-to-be-minimal) baseline, the amount of "healing"/"HP restoration" that the 5e Warlord provides, possibly with additional features to mitigate or remove conditions afflicting allies.

Anybody have any comments/criticism/suggestions?

 

[mellored]

I kinda think he needs 2 attacks. WOTC says the W lives somewhere between BM fighter and Valor Bard. So, fine, but that suggests more than 1 attack to me.

IMO: doing a sneak attack thing would be better. spending dice on damage, or on maneuvers. basicly the fighter from the playtest. possibly a more fightery option can get multi-attack or bonus action attack.

also, i question weather we need sub-classes. why not just have options similar to 4e? heck, why not AEDU?

level 1: you get 1d4 superiority dice you can use it to deal extra damage when you hit or expend them to perform a maneuver. select 2 at-will manuevers that you can use as an action. (commander's strike, wolfpack tactics, trip, ect...)
level 2: select 1 encounter maneuvers that you can use as a bonus action. you regain them after a short rest. (inspiring word, mass rally, knights move, death from 2 sides, ect..).
level 3: select 2 daily maneuver. when you use them you gain a level of exhaustion. (lead the attack, stand the fallen, bolt of genius, ect..)
level 4: abi
level 5: select 2 at-will maneuvers that you can use as a reaction. your dice increases to 2d6.
level 6: select a utility feature. (expertise? skill sharing?)
level 7: learn 1 more at-will action and 1 more reaction (3)
level 8: abi
level 9: dice increase to 2d8
level 10: 1 more encounter (2)
level 11: learn 1 more daily (3). once per day durring a short rest you can remove exaustion on yourself.
level 12: abi
level 13: 1 utility (?)
level 14: dice increase to 2d10
level 15: learn 1 more encounter (3)
level 16: abi
level 17: dice increase to 3d12
level 18: learn all at-will actions and reactions
level 19: abi
level 20: if you run out of dice you can still use a maneuvers with a 1d4.

 

[mellored]

1d8+5+3d12 = 29 assuming you took Str or can attack with Int.
firebolt = 22 .
rogue = 43.5 not counting the nova.

so they arn't useless alone, but still rather weak

 

[Bawylie]

Ok those are compelling arguments. But damage does Need to go up over time, I think mello's dice pool does that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I kinda think he needs 2 attacks. WOTC says the W lives somewhere between BM fighter and Valor Bard. So, fine, but that suggests more than 1 attack to me.

That'd suggest spell casting, which is just silly. But, that aside, the Extra Attack feature is a big commitment of design space. It's a very potent at-will ability and tends to crowd out other options, both in terms of design space, and in terms of flexibility in play.

Couldn't there be one or more limited-availability maneuvers that could be used to make more than one attack roll? Perhaps with certain restrictions (like needing to be vs different targets, or only adding bonuses once if you hit the same target more than once or whatever seems reasonable to balance 'em). That way, a Warlord concept that called for that sort of ability could have it, and could use it when other Warlordly actions aren't called for, but one that didn't could ignore it.