What makes a Warlord differ from a Bard?

[dmnqwk]

Yeah I have to say reading the section, I agree it's about people conceptualizing a warlord as something they cant quite describe in it's own terms.

I mean, maybe we need to try and whittle down the people from everybody who wants a warlord to those who can conceptualise something other than a Bard, or the SCAG's Mastermind for Rogue or even a Purple Dragon Knight.

I mean, I remember playing Guild Wars and having many short-term shouts available on my Warrior (the one I really only played while solo Gruul farming to be fair haha) and I can definitely see how a Martial-based "shout" system would be a useful fit. But at the same token I wonder how it would differ from a Fighter enough to be distinctive, without creating some insanely difficult mechanic to try and justify it.

I mean, does anyone see a Warlord functioning differently than a Fighter with an archetype focused around issuing orders and perhaps turning their own Extra Attacks into extra actions for other classes? And, if so, what do you think would make the class inherently varied that would justify a new class? (I wont lie, I don't fully agree that Sorcerer needed it's own class from Wizard in 5th edition mechanically speaking)

 

[mellored]

I mean, does anyone see a Warlord functioning differently than a Fighter with an archetype focused around issuing orders and perhaps turning their own Extra Attacks into extra actions for other classes? And, if so, what do you think would make the class inherently varied that would justify a new class? (I wont lie, I don't fully agree that Sorcerer needed it's own class from Wizard in 5th edition mechanically speaking)

My favorite mechanic for the warlord is the playtest fighter. Which you can see here. Effectively, you get X dice each turn, and can use them to power maneuvers or for damage. It wasn't a difficult mechanic and you could easily squeeze a warlord into it simply by expanding the maneuver list. Same way you can expand a spell list.

I also attempted a sub-class that traded attacks for maneuvers here. It is mostly functional, but pretty clunky. It mostly attempts to balance the extra power of by making the maneuvers base don Int or Cha, thereby indirectly reducing combat powers, but it's hard to balance that way, particularly since people can roll for stats.

 

[GreenTengu]

I mean, does anyone see a Warlord functioning differently than a Fighter with an archetype focused around issuing orders and perhaps turning their own Extra Attacks into extra actions for other classes? And, if so, what do you think would make the class inherently varied that would justify a new class? (I wont lie, I don't fully agree that Sorcerer needed it's own class from Wizard in 5th edition mechanically speaking)

Oh, absolutely so! A 20th level warrior can run around wearing a fortress and attack 4x as fast as anyone else possibly can and can take a punishment equivalent to an entire army and basically slaughter a 1000 normal people in battle single handedly.... and if anyone else is along for the ride, that's cool, but they really don't need you.

The 20th level Warlord is more like... maybe he can't beat you one-on-one in a gladiator fight, but if you have armies and he is the guy with only 1,000 men and you have 20,000 equally trained men, he'll decimate you. Or, more importantly, he'll find a way for his 5 guys to beat 100 guys even if his 5 guys aren't necessarily massively superior to those 100. Tactics, psychology, and luck are his weapons, not his individual badassness.

That is a rather fundamental difference in the divide. It isn't about being a Fighter, it is about being a Cleric while replacing the whole deity stuff with human spirit, ingenuity, resilience and such.

The thing is-- if the game can allow for a Sorcerer and a Warlock alternatives for a mage and can allow for a Barbarian, Paladin and a Ranger equivalent for a Fighter, what exactly is the push-back for allowing for someone who can fulfill the absolute requisite for every single group that expects to be at all successful at anything ever from having an alternative to the Cleric that doesn't use the whole 'god' stuff? Because neither the Druid nor Bard are actual equivalents given that both are primarily focused on being the secondary fall-back for everything the main 4 do.

When I say I want to play a Warlord (or another term for the concept-- Marshal, Commander, etc.) what I am saying is NOT that I want to be as formidable and killy as the Fighter. It does not mean that I want to have the Bard's illusion nor lore mastery nor thiefy talents. What is means is that I want to be able to heal, protect and create opportunities for the rest of the party without that aspect of saying that my character is only able to because of their pious faith and devotion to some deity that has been predecided by the setting, but rather able to do so because of their quick wit, their cunning, their understanding of squad maneuvers and their understanding of psychology that allows them to push their allies beyond what even they believed themselves capable of.

Its about allowing the "coach" to be a valid substitute for the "priest". I really, REALLY don't understand the need to treat the Fighter as the base this concept should come from except for the fact that D&D has always resorted to "warrior" a.k.a. "fighter" for any generic concept it fails to define even if that concept isn't about having vast amounts of hit points and wearing bulky armor and slicing everyone to pieces with super-speed sword strikes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah I have to say reading the section, I agree it's about people conceptualizing a warlord as something they cant quite describe in it's own terms.

There's no lack of clarity about what the Warlord has been or could be expanded to model. It's a common archetype not just in the broader fantasy genre, but in heroic/action/pulp genres in general and was a fully-realized class in a past edition.

I mean, I remember playing Guild Wars and having many short-term shouts available on my Warrior (the one I really only played while solo Gruul farming to be fair haha) and I can definitely see how a Martial-based "shout" system would be a useful fit. But at the same token I wonder how it would differ from a Fighter enough to be distinctive, without creating some insanely difficult mechanic to try and justify it.

I mean, does anyone see a Warlord functioning differently than a Fighter with an archetype focused around issuing orders and perhaps turning their own Extra Attacks into extra actions for other classes?

Depends on what you mean by 'functioning differently.' A Cleric and Wizard don't 'function differently' than eachother in that both go around prepping & casting spells. A Warlord could function something like a Battlemaster/PDK or Mastermind, in the same sense that a Wizard functions something like an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster.

And, if so, what do you think would make the class inherently varied that would justify a new class?

The difference between a Warlord and the very DPR-focused 5e take on the Fighter is much greater than the difference between the Druid and Nature Cleric, or the Sorcerer and Wizard. And, the existing choices for a non-casting/magic-using PC are extremely limited in the PH (just 5 vs 30+), leaving lots of room and a clear need for more.
So, really, it is as or more 'justified,' in that sense, than half the classes already in the PH. The Sorcerer, Warlock, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and Bard all have less mechanical justification, and the Druid, Ranger, Monk, Bard, Cleric, and Vancian casters in general, less representation in genre.

If you were, hypothetically, to consolidate classes down to a level where the Warlord would be reasonably folded into the fighter, your class list might look something like:

Warrior (encompassing Fighter, Warlord, Barbarian, Knights, Swashbucklers &c),
Rogue (encompassing, Bard, Thief, Assassin, 'Gish' concepts & other specialist/opportunist/dilettante PCs),
and Mage (mechanically a Warlock with Divine, Hermetic, Primal, & other 'pacts' representing the breadth of caster concepts).

(I wont lie, I don't fully agree that Sorcerer needed it's own class from Wizard in 5th edition mechanically speaking)

The case for the Sorcerer in 4e & 5e, in the absence of 3.x/PF Spontaneous Casting was, indeed, much weaker than the case for the Warlord. But, 4e's design approach and everything-is-core book-pushing sales strategy both tended to make it err on the side of having more classes rather than fewer, while 5e's "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D"/"bring fans of all editions together" kumbaya agenda argues for including classes emblematic of past editions, even if they might be handled in other ways.

 

[dmnqwk]

Okay so we're at a point wherein Warlord players want to manipulate a battlefield, but how can we handle that without being overpowered?

For example a lot of mass spells now have a limit of 6 people but those are few and far between, with most of the old "mass" buffs reduced to using higher level slots of the base spell to accomplish it, and concentration.

A Bard offers Inspiration and can use his reaction with it for slightly more power but how could a Warlord be balanced both on his own, and in a party, without reducing the impact?

And to clarify "justified" adding new classes means players have to learn more than simply adding a new archetype, justify is not so much as "for a single player to homebrew it" as much as a "adding another class to the core phb, because I don't see favoured soul in there yet sorcerer stuck about!" How can we design a Warlord who is not just a buff bot, but brings utility to the table without being incapable of taking someone on 1 vs 1 like every other class is capable of (Rogue's might struggle, but their bonus action dash helps in essence!)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay so we're at a point wherein Warlord players want to manipulate a battlefield, but how can we handle that without being overpowered?

Balance in 5e is primarily of the DM-managed, 'spotlight' sort. 5e tends strongly towards smaller battles where the PCs outnumber the monsters or are outnumbered by only a small factor. So that sort of ability is probably 'balanced' pretty effectively by simply not coming up often, by being 'situational.'

How can we design a Warlord who is not just a buff bot, but brings utility to the table without being incapable of taking someone on 1 vs 1 like every other class is capable of.

By giving it features with some in-play flexibility.

And to clarify "justified" adding new classes means players have to learn more than simply adding a new archetype

That's a much stronger argument for cutting down on arbitrary mechanical distinctions among classes than for not adding a given class. Under that assumption, the game would be much better off with a 'core 4' (or 3, per my last post) set of classes, or with class designs that were much more consistent. 5e does the former within the basic rules, and declines the latter in favor of class diversity.

It's also shading into a no-new-classes-ever catch-22. If a class is unique/interesting/different enough to 'justify' being a new class, turn it around and claim it's 'too much for players to have to learn.' Thus no new class can ever be justified - nor, for that matter, are most existing classes. So, IDK, play the basic game and don't worry about it.

 

[mellored]

Okay so we're at a point wherein Warlord players want to manipulate a battlefield, but how can we handle that without being overpowered?

For example a lot of mass spells now have a limit of 6 people but those are few and far between, with most of the old "mass" buffs reduced to using higher level slots of the base spell to accomplish it, and concentration.

A Bard offers Inspiration and can use his reaction with it for slightly more power but how could a Warlord be balanced both on his own, and in a party, without reducing the impact?

And to clarify "justified" adding new classes means players have to learn more than simply adding a new archetype, justify is not so much as "for a single player to homebrew it" as much as a "adding another class to the core phb, because I don't see favoured soul in there yet sorcerer stuck about!" How can we design a Warlord who is not just a buff bot, but brings utility to the table without being incapable of taking someone on 1 vs 1 like every other class is capable of (Rogue's might struggle, but their bonus action dash helps in essence!)

balance is achived by numbers, same as anything else.

if giving everyone +1d4 damage is too small, and +1d12 is too big, then maybe 1d6 would be right.
same way, fireball with 1d6 damage would be too weak, and 20d6 would be too much.

Capping things at 6 people seems fine, in adition to concentration mechanics if needed.

to compare with the bard, the average day has 15 rounds of combat, and 2 short rests.
a level 5 bard has 12 insperation dice, and 9 spell slots. enough to use one every round.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

The 20th level Warlord is more like... maybe he can't beat you one-on-one in a gladiator fight, but if you have armies and he is the guy with only 1,000 men and you have 20,000 equally trained men, he'll decimate you. Or, more importantly, he'll find a way for his 5 guys to beat 100 guys even if his 5 guys aren't necessarily massively superior to those 100. Tactics, psychology, and luck are his weapons, not his individual badassness.

For some reason now I am thinking of that bible story where they only have like seven fish. But then they pass the food around, and everyone eats like a thousand fish. Pardon the reference.

So maybe the Warlord could be like an amplifier. The bard would be a Jack-of-All-Trades, who fills a missing role. But the Warlord would expand an existing role.

- Give the Warlord fifty soldiers, and he attacks you with seventy soldiers.
- Give the Warlord an armory, and he grants the armory the "masterwork" property.
- Give the Warlord difficult terrain, and he makes the terrain shrink or become less difficult.
- Give the Warlord a Saiyan, and he sends the Saiyan over 9000.

So you don't need a Warlord, but when his ability procs then you're glad he's in the party.

 

[GreenTengu]

And to clarify "justified" adding new classes means players have to learn more than simply adding a new archetype, justify is not so much as "for a single player to homebrew it" as much as a "adding another class to the core phb, because I don't see favoured soul in there yet sorcerer stuck about!" How can we design a Warlord who is not just a buff bot, but brings utility to the table without being incapable of taking someone on 1 vs 1 like every other class is capable of (Rogue's might struggle, but their bonus action dash helps in essence!)

The model I am working on is to take the Battlemaster Fighter maneuvers as a base, turn the Bard inspiration into a maneuver and then within in the class you give up all those extra attacks, ability bonus boosts and indomitable in favor of getting the Life Cleric/Paladin healing ability, a Paladin/Bard-like aura morale boosts and greatly increasing the number of die you get and the size of those die as you level up to make it so that you can use those maneuvers far more powerful and allow them to be used more and more frequently.

Not all of the maneuvers involving healing. So you would probably have one subclass that is basically just a healbot (akin to Life Cleric), another that is more geared on using offensive maneuvers (akin to War Cleric) and likely one more built around out-of-combat functionality (akin to Knowledge Cleric).

 

[Uchawi]

Oh, absolutely so! A 20th level warrior can run around wearing a fortress and attack 4x as fast as anyone else possibly can and can take a punishment equivalent to an entire army and basically slaughter a 1000 normal people in battle single handedly.... and if anyone else is along for the ride, that's cool, but they really don't need you.

The 20th level Warlord is more like... maybe he can't beat you one-on-one in a gladiator fight, but if you have armies and he is the guy with only 1,000 men and you have 20,000 equally trained men, he'll decimate you. Or, more importantly, he'll find a way for his 5 guys to beat 100 guys even if his 5 guys aren't necessarily massively superior to those 100. Tactics, psychology, and luck are his weapons, not his individual badassness.

That is a rather fundamental difference in the divide. It isn't about being a Fighter, it is about being a Cleric while replacing the whole deity stuff with human spirit, ingenuity, resilience and such.

The thing is-- if the game can allow for a Sorcerer and a Warlock alternatives for a mage and can allow for a Barbarian, Paladin and a Ranger equivalent for a Fighter, what exactly is the push-back for allowing for someone who can fulfill the absolute requisite for every single group that expects to be at all successful at anything ever from having an alternative to the Cleric that doesn't use the whole 'god' stuff? Because neither the Druid nor Bard are actual equivalents given that both are primarily focused on being the secondary fall-back for everything the main 4 do.

When I say I want to play a Warlord (or another term for the concept-- Marshal, Commander, etc.) what I am saying is NOT that I want to be as formidable and killy as the Fighter. It does not mean that I want to have the Bard's illusion nor lore mastery nor thiefy talents. What is means is that I want to be able to heal, protect and create opportunities for the rest of the party without that aspect of saying that my character is only able to because of their pious faith and devotion to some deity that has been predecided by the setting, but rather able to do so because of their quick wit, their cunning, their understanding of squad maneuvers and their understanding of psychology that allows them to push their allies beyond what even they believed themselves capable of.

Its about allowing the "coach" to be a valid substitute for the "priest". I really, REALLY don't understand the need to treat the Fighter as the base this concept should come from except for the fact that D&D has always resorted to "warrior" a.k.a. "fighter" for any generic concept it fails to define even if that concept isn't about having vast amounts of hit points and wearing bulky armor and slicing everyone to pieces with super-speed sword strikes.

That is a good summary and direction to take.