D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[mellored]

I also have no idea why a fighter has to give up their combat abilities for the archetype to have support abilities.

The same reason a wizard has to give up fireball in order to cast haste.

The issue isn't that a fighter and warlord couldn't have share a class. Same as an illusionist and diviner can share a class.

But unlike wizards, who can make their own personal build by choosing between darkvision and invisibility, fighter's are effectively locked into being evokes and forced to take fireball and meteor swarm as their spells.

If there was a maneuver list similar to the spell list, like the playtest, it would be trivial to add warlord abilities to it.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

You misunderstood what I meant by fantasy completely. As in the, fantasy you are playing. As in, the trope. The trope of a fighter and a warlord--I don't see a major difference.

You do have a point with the ideas being similar from a "General Fantasy / Design" point of view. But I simply wanted to emphasize that D&D implements of things weird, for the sake of "Tradition". Even of they are similar concepts, well, "because Tradition" is a thing.

I agree with mellowred: the devs have already decided the 5e "Fighter" must fill the "dumb ordinary warrior" role. So let the fighter have his schtick of second wind and action surge. The Warlord already has enough substance to stand apart.

Look at the existing support classes, by virtue of full access to large spell lists, they can, indeed, do just about anything by default - it's just a matter of picking what they want to do that day. We're not even talking anything the party might need in terms of support contributions, either, since most spells lists include a variety of other functions, as well. That's versatility far in excess of what they had in 4e.

I think the "Warlord should exist" debate should be separated from the "Mundanes are Weak" debate. We should just try to build a Warlord by templating off of other martial classes. It would be the fastest way to integrate a broadly acceptable Warlord into an existing 5e D&D culture. It would fit perfecrly along the lines of "Martials vs Casters" power scale, so that most DMs won't kneejerk insta-ban a Warlord on sight.

You're comparing Martials vs Casters. We need to win the Warlord vs Nothing battle first! Pick your battles wisely.

My viewpoint is that we need to implement Warlords as a "5e Martial class" and not as a "5e Magical Fighter". Right now, a lot of people are playing LowMagic campaigns, and those games don't use the intelligence stat nor have a healer. That's why I keep focusing on an Intelligent & Healing Warlord, because there is a niche that exists.

Conversely, I'm struggling to visualize a "Tactical Warlord" in the 5e framework, so maybe that's where we differ. The 4e warlord did too many "off-turn attacks" and "Situational +1 bonuses" and "Dynamic Dancing Shifting Movements" to be modelled well in the 5e framework. My view is that "Tactical" means like Bardic SongOfRest, or other ShortRest rituals, where the Warlord can grant one-hit bonuses to the next battle to simulate "Tactical Planning & Prep". That's why I think merging InspireLord with Alchemist and peppering in a few military exploration / tactic features is the practical way to go.

LATE EDIT: Too much shifting and in-combat tactics seems to interfere with 5e's TheaterOfTheMind and QuickCombat goals. So I'm really lost on how to do a TacticalLord.

Are there any good Tactical Warlords out there to enlighten me?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the "Warlord should exist" debate should be separated from the "Mundanes are Weak" debate.

You could hardly call something with the DPR potential of the Campion 'weak,' it's just extremely Inflexible. And, that's one reason the Warlord needs to exist, because the few existing non-magical sub-classes are too DPR-focused and inflexible to handle it.

We should just try to build a Warlord by templating off of other martial classes.

That simply can't work, those sub-classes (there are no martial classes in the PH, they all use magic in one or more of their sub-classes) are too locked into DPR as their primary in-combat contribution.

Conversely, I'm struggling to visualize a "Tactical Warlord" in the 5e framework. The 4e warlord did too many "off-turn attacks" and "Situational +1 bonuses" and "Dynamic Dancing Shifting Movements" to be modelled well in the 5e framework.

All classes in the 5e PH were in 4e, and had a lot of fiddly tactical movement and the like in their powers too, it didn't stop them from being translated into 5e. It's not that 5e can't handle such things, it's just that it mostly doesn't handle them in detail, in the name of fast combat.

 

[Miladoon]

You're comparing Martials vs Casters. We need to win the Warlord vs Nothing battle first! Pick your battles wisely.

My viewpoint is that we need to implement Warlords as a "5e Martial class" and not as a "5e Magical Fighter". Right now, a lot of people are playing LowMagic campaigns, and those games don't use the intelligence stat nor have a healer. That's why I keep focusing on an Intelligent & Healing Warlord, because there is a niche that exists.

Real question to warlord fans: There is a niche for someone that can support others in a low magic campaign. Why does this have to be a class called Warlord?

The rogue moves into position to disarm that trap. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

The ranger is moving quick but slows to find sign. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

The sage is working on deciphering those runes. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

If you 'want' a warlord, I will look at it and offer suggestions, but I would prefer to buy into a support class that was not so limited. A spell-less bard makes more sense to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Real question to warlord fans: There is a niche for someone that can support others in a low magic campaign. Why does this have to be a class called Warlord?

The rogue moves into position to disarm that trap. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

The ranger is moving quick but slows to find sign. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

The sage is working on deciphering those runes. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

If you 'want' a warlord, I will look at it and offer suggestions, but I would prefer to buy into a support class that was not so limited. A spell-less bard makes more sense to me.

Lots of names could work. Especially if subclasses have proper names instead of adjectives.

 

[Hussar]

Real question to warlord fans: There is a niche for someone that can support others in a low magic campaign. Why does this have to be a class called Warlord?

The rogue moves into position to disarm that trap. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

The ranger is moving quick but slows to find sign. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

The sage is working on deciphering those runes. "Man, I wish we had a warlord to help her with that."

If you 'want' a warlord, I will look at it and offer suggestions, but I would prefer to buy into a support class that was not so limited. A spell-less bard makes more sense to me.

Honestly, I think the Mastermind subclass for rogues is my way of choice. Being able to grant advantage as a bonus action goes a long way right there. Maybe drop the sneak attack stuff in favour of some sort of healing abilities, and possibly later on some sort of buffing (or perhaps allow the Mastermind's ability to work out of combat) and you're a long way there.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The rogue moves into position to disarm that trap. "Man, I wish we had a spelless bard to help her with that."

The ranger is moving quick but slows to find sign. "Man, I wish we had a spelless bard to help her with that."

The sage is working on deciphering those runes. "Man, I wish we had a spelless bard to help her with that."

The bard's always been a little silly with it's playing music to help it's allies stealth or bluff or whatever. But, no, ultimately the name of the class has little bearing on it.

 

[Miladoon]

Well lets see how that stands up:

The rogue moves into position to disarm that trap. "Man, I wish we had a mastermind to help her with that."

The ranger is moving quick but slows to find sign. "Man, I wish we had a mastermind to help her with that."

The sage is working on deciphering those runes. "Man, I wish we had a mastermind to help her with that."

Here is a few more:

The mastermind draws steel and orders her troops forward.

The mastermind rallies her demoralized forces and they surge into the breach with renewed vigor.

Works for me.

 

[Jester David]

My viewpoint is that we need to implement Warlords as a "5e Martial class" and not as a "5e Magical Fighter". Right now, a lot of people are playing LowMagic campaigns, and those games don't use the intelligence stat nor have a healer. That's why I keep focusing on an Intelligent & Healing Warlord, because there is a niche that exists.

The healer is problematic.
First, as mentioned repeatedly, combat healing is handy but not essential. Getting someone back up when at 0 is handy but too situation for a dedicated character. Something you do once every two or three combats is not a role, it's a secondary or tertiary role.
But the issue comes with warlords not being able to cast lesser restoration or greater restoration, which is essential to the healer archetype. Theoretically a warlord class could allow an ally to reroll a save or something, but that can only go so far and isn't very useful after the fact.

Because of the way monster powers are set up in the game, a martial healer can never be the equal or match of cleric or bard or druid. They can never completely replace those classes like they could in 4e.
As such, since that goal is unobtainable, it's better to focus on other things the warlord can do.

Conversely, I'm struggling to visualize a "Tactical Warlord" in the 5e framework, so maybe that's where we differ. The 4e warlord did too many "off-turn attacks" and "Situational +1 bonuses" and "Dynamic Dancing Shifting Movements" to be modelled well in the 5e framework. My view is that "Tactical" means like Bardic SongOfRest, or other ShortRest rituals, where the Warlord can grant one-hit bonuses to the next battle to simulate "Tactical Planning & Prep". That's why I think merging InspireLord with Alchemist and peppering in a few military exploration / tactic features is the practical way to go.

LATE EDIT: Too much shifting and in-combat tactics seems to interfere with 5e's TheaterOfTheMind and QuickCombat goals. So I'm really lost on how to do a TacticalLord.

Are there any good Tactical Warlords out there to enlighten me?

It is tricky. But personally I like the idea of a tactical warlord that uses Int far more than an inspiring warlord that overlaps a little much with the bard for my tastes. The Int based martial character is a much larger role. Heck, in general Int is an underused stat.

Reactions are a big design space. The meta powers of having practiced and run drills with allies allowing them to react to triggers such as an enemy moving adjacent or making an attack. Maybe some powers with triggers: when you and an ally both X then you get a bonus.
The warlord could also be the king of readied actions, maybe being able to move in addition to making a regular action. They might have something akin to "delay" as a class feature. That keeps combats quick, since they're acting outside of their turn but not doing much on their actual turn.

 

[TwoSix]

I do like Valiant, but the Bard has already snatched up Valor, which is awfully close. Anyway, not important. As long as the archetype is done well, they can call it Shirley for all the difference it makes.
And, Bravura's already established.

I am a warlord. And don't call me Shirley.