D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Corwin]

Which seems a worthwhile trade-off to not playing a wizard and having your own slots.

I have no idea how that relates to my points. Please expound.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you advocate for a lazylord, it is highly improbable you have much desire for a class that does "its own thing", no. Sorry. Not buying it.

Lol wow, this is sad. Do you not know the difference between a class and a build?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Reading this thread I have some suspicions about why there's no official Warlord class:

- The vocal proponents all have different notions of what it must be, and...
- Each seems to have zero tolerance for any deviation from their blueprint.

Any balanced version they published would please exactly one fan, and infuriate all the others.

 

[TwoSix]

Reading this thread I have some suspicions about why there's no official Warlord class:

- The vocal proponents all have different notions of what it must be, and...
- Each seems to have zero tolerance for any deviation from their blueprint.

Any balanced version they published would please exactly one fan, and infuriate all the others.

You're exactly right. That's why there are so many different 3rd party versions, and people should really just use the one they like best.

 

[Blue]

According to wrecan, one of the experts on Warlords, a warlord in 5e needs the following:

1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).
2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage.
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks.
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks).
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks).
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to an ally.
7: Restore lost HP to an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).
8: Improve out-of-combat healing.
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn.
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks).
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks).

Do you agree with this list? If so, how could this be implemented in 5e? I am curious what peoples thoughts are on this.

I find this list next to useless. Actually, I find it worse then useless, I find it misleading. It's an attempt to transplant *mechanics* from one game system to another that has a different philosophy about a lot of what is covered.

Rewrite them as function specifications (what is needed) instead of technical specifications (how to accomplish it) and then design from scratch using a 5e philosophy, assuming the functions are unique enough to burden the system with another class or subclass.

By 5e philosophy, I mean things like:
1. Generally one buff/debuff per character taking up concentration.
2. Using reactions for things not happening on your turn so it's both an opportunity cost and a limiter how often it can be done.
3. Action economy degrades when passed on - it takes you more actions then you give to someone else, or it takes a limited resource.

 

[Corwin]

Lol wow, this is sad.

Agreed. The truly sad thing is when someone doesn't follow along with a particular conversation, then tries to hijack it to serve their agenda.

Do you not know the difference between a class and a build?

Do you know what the conversation I was involved in was even about? I strongly recommend you go back and re-read what was being said directly leading up to my quote/post and what I was specifically discussing. Then come back and let me know if your question here is even relevant to that topic.

Thanks!

 

[Guest 6801328]

I find this list next to useless. Actually, I find it worse then useless, I find it misleading. It's an attempt to transplant *mechanics* from one game system to another that has a different philosophy about a lot of what is covered.

Rewrite them as function specifications (what is needed) instead of technical specifications (how to accomplish it) and then design from scratch using a 5e philosophy, assuming the functions are unique enough to burden the system with another class or subclass.

By 5e philosophy, I mean things like:
1. Generally one buff/debuff per character taking up concentration.
2. Using reactions for things not happening on your turn so it's both an opportunity cost and a limiter how often it can be done.
3. Action economy degrades when passed on - it takes you more actions then you give to someone else, or it takes a limited resource.

I think you're spot on: so many fans of classes from previous editions seem to be looking to have specific mechanics replicated, rather than concepts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

lazy lords are not much different that buff sorcerers, or pacifist life clerics.

Particularly in that they are a build, ie a part of a class, not a class.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Reading this thread I have some suspicions about why there's no official Warlord class:

- The vocal proponents all have different notions of what it must be, and...
- Each seems to have zero tolerance for any deviation from their blueprint.

Any balanced version they published would please exactly one fan, and infuriate all the others.

You run into this problem designing any class. This is a problem with designing a class, not designing a Warlord.

Try redesigning the Ranger. Should the class have a pet? Should the class be better at archery than other classes? Should the class be better with two weapon fighting than other classes? Should the class get spells? Should the class be skill focused? If so, how much?

These are the problems you run into when people want to make one class cover everything from Robin Hood and Grizzy Adams, to World of Warcraft Hunters, to Aragorn and Drizzt, to Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone.

 

[Corwin]

Particularly in that they are a build, ie a part of a class, not a class.

Doesn't matter what it is (build, class, subclass, feat, etc.), the bottom line is that it is exactly what you are asking for--nothing less--and is broke AF.

(And thanks for the xp!)