D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[pemerton]

when I said I know exactly how warlord fans feel, because the ninja is my favorite class and 5e doesn't quite allow me to replicate the class in 5e's system the way I want (explaining in detail why), and folks like manbearcat, hussar, Tony, and you all pretty much took the position of "Yes you can, just put together x, y, and z parts."

Abstract arguments about shadow ninjas vs purple warlords don't look that productive to me.

Isn't the question - (a) what might a ninja do, and how far short of that does some sort of Shadow Monk and/or Assassin build fall short?

And then - (b) what might a warlord do, and how far short of that does some sort of Banneret and/or Battle Master and/or Mastermind build fall short? (I'm discounting clerics and bards on the grounds that, as maximal casters, they are obviously inadequate as warlord substitutes.)

I'll leave others to answer (a), though my gut feeling is - not very far short. As far as (b) is concerned, though, the answer is - quite a bit, because all the warlord-y stuff has been watered down so as to not unbalance a class chassis that is primarily based around damage dealing rather than support.

Sacrosanct, I think our two posts speak for themselves.

One thing they say is that you didn't read mine, or at least not very closely.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you're going to insist that a Nature Cleric represents a sufficiently distinct reality from the Druid so as to warrant separate mechanical representation, just as the Valor Bard is sufficiently distinct from the Eldritch Knight, then you could argue that a hypothetical Warlord would be sufficiently distinct from the existing Battlemaster that it should also exist. That's a fairly consistent position. If you think that the existing divisions are pedantic and unnecessary, and that the game is better off when you don't include redundant optional sub-classes, then obviously there's no need for an entire Warlord class.

You could make a similar argument about swords. Is the difference between a cutlass and a sabre significant enough to warrant separate mechanical representation? What about between a gladius and a tanto? It just depends on how complicated you want to make things.

That is a good comparison. I do think that what a falcata or kukri or machete does is different enough from a rapier, saber/scimitar, or shortsword, to warrant differentiation, but the three of them aren't different enough from eachother to warrant differentiation, imo.

Likewise, the various kinds of swashbuckler are best suited living in different classes in 5e, while the types of underhanded scoundrels all fit inside the rogue.

Where does the warlord come in?

Simply, it is like the rogue, or Bard, or ranger. A subclass can be made that "dips" into the warlord, like the BM, MM, or PDK, but none of them will *cover* the warlord concept. Instead, for people that just want to play a Captain/Noble/Tactician/Hector/etc, none of those options will really satisfy, because they will be *mostly* something other than that concept.

 

[Remathilis]

Obviously, there was a way, since 4e did it, and it had very consistent rules, not in the least contorted. I think the important thing though, isn't whether they could do that again - they're professional game designers, some were even on the team that did it last time, give them a tiny bit of credit - but how they could do it /better/.

The problem here is that 4e's warlord is a child of 4e's design paradigm. Specifically, what a "leader" can do.

Take a 4e cleric vs a 5e cleric. Think of what the cleric's powers in 4e do. Mostly, they either a.) heal; b.) buff, or c.) do radiant damage*. Most of the "support" spells were rituals anyone could learn (such are remove affliction, raise dead, or divination). Take away the rituals, and a cleric has far more limited range of effects, which can be either replicated (in a martial form) or swapped for similar effects. A warlord works as a cleric replacement because the cleric class had a fairly narrow range of effects. That is the complete opposite of 5e's cleric, which rolls those "support" magics back into the cleric's main abilities. Curing disease, raising the dead, divining the future, and other effects like this aren't separate (and available to any character with a feat or class ability); they're a main part of the cleric's identity. You cannot replicate them non-magically because you couldn't in 4e either. (A warlord still needed ritual caster to remove afflictions or raising the dead). In 5e, he'll be perpetually second rate compared to a cleric or bard since he'll lack those abilities.

Which is why I suggested him more like a paladin; you MIGHT be able to get enough martial abilities to equal a half-caster with d10 HD and two attacks; but your not matching a dedicated "caster" is range or versatility without literally giving a warlord the ability to re-write reality nonmagically. He can heal, buff allies, grant attacks, and even some debuffs, but you aren't going to match a caster's support ability without giving them magic. You might not get a nonmagical cleric, but you might be able to get a nonmagical paladin.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem here is that 4e's warlord is a child of 4e's design paradigm. Specifically, what a "leader" can do.

That's not a problem, it's an opportunity (did I really just say that?). What a leader could do in 4e is /less/ than what the same class can do in 5e. The Warlord wasn't defined by the Leader role in 4e, it was limited by it. 5e removes that limitation.

Take a 4e cleric vs a 5e cleric. Think of what the cleric's powers in 4e do. Mostly, they either a.) heal; b.) buff, or c.) do radiant damage*. Most of the "support" spells were rituals anyone could learn (such are remove affliction, raise dead, or divination).

Rituals were a decidedly minor part of 4e play, but FWIW, 4e also introduced "martial practices," so you could avail yourself of a similar system without resorting to 'magic.'
I wouldn't worry too much about the way they've been folded back into spellcasting (an actually fairly elegant way, really, compared to being tacked-on and draining gold).

Take away the rituals, and a cleric has far more limited range of effects, which can be either replicated (in a martial form) or swapped for similar effects. A warlord works as a cleric replacement because the cleric class had a fairly narrow range of effects.

The Cleric had quite the breadth of powers, with both weapon & implement powers, numerous ranged, area, and radiant powers, a variety of utilities, etc. The Warlord did not simply replicate them, it had quite different martial exploits. The two classes were the same role, and both reasonably balanced in that role, but they were very different.

The premise that they have to be the same to fill in for eachother doesn't seem to wash.

In 5e, it's even less clear that you have to do all the same things to step in as the 'support class.' The Cleric, Druid and Bard all do support stuff, but the rest of what they do is somewhat different - in spite of the profound overlapping of spell lists - the Cleric might turn undead, the Druid turn into a bird and spy out an area, the Bard turn up bits of vanished lore. A given Cleric, even, might be pretty inept in battle or a near rival to the fighter through mid levels.

One of the great things about 5e is that it does not, as 4e did, put classes in boxes. In designing a class, it's possible to overlap with a concept or function of another class without obviating it, because there are also going to be areas that don't overlap and grant conceptual and mechanical distinctiveness.

I'm not saying your concerns are unfounded - from the 4e paradigm, it's hard to look at 5e as anything but radically imbalanced and 'incoherent' (much as I dislike the Forge term) - and thinking in terms of that tighter, more balance(consistency/clarity/etc)-oriented paradigm, when it happens to be the one that brought us the Warlord is perfectly natural.

But the 5e paradigm embraces /more/ than the 4e paradigm, not less.
That's a major point of it, and how it reaches across edition boundaries to all fans of D&D.

(....how did I get on this soapbox...? ...no, I'm not going to ask you all to sing Kumbaya, I promise.)

That is the complete opposite of 5e's cleric, which rolls those "support" magics back into the cleric's main abilities. Curing disease, raising the dead, divining the future, You cannot replicate them non-magically

I think part of the problem is that you're focusing on how those things are done, rather than what they accomplish.

People recover from diseases and speculate about the future without the 'how' of 'using magic.' In a fantasy world, what might help a person recover from disease, or how long one might be *ahem* "only mostly dead," might be rather more open than it is in a scientifically-correct world. PCs in 5e D&D can be down and moments from death in a fight, and fine again an hour later, with no magical intervention having occurred, thanks to HD. Such extraordinary individuals might well be able to throw off a disease, or a disability like blindness, paralyzation or poisoning with some equally extraordinary motivation.

And, please, keep in mind, if any of that offends your vision of the world as a DM, you simply don't opt into the Warlord in the first place. It's a non-issue that some campaigns might not want to be that fantastic (while still having wizards casting Wish).

and other effects like this aren't separate (and available to any character with a feat or class ability); they're a main part of the cleric's identity.

Cure Disease -actually, in 5e, folded into Lesser Restoration - is on 5 different casters' lists. Raise Dead, on three. Divinations of various types are available to all casters. They can hardly constitute a main part of the Cleric's identity.

Which is why I suggested him more like a paladin; you MIGHT be able to get enough martial abilities to equal a half-caster with d10 HD and two attacks

What you're saying is that martial ability /must/ be strictly inferior casting. That's a legitimate thing to establish in a campaign, and D&D has certainly supported that kind of campaign in the past, and continues to do so in 5e. Introducing a Warlord who was the equal of a Cleric or Druid or the like would NOT make it impossible to continue doing so. It would hardly be a noticeable inconvenience in doing so, you'd just decline to opt into the class, using other, conveniently inferior, already extant options to cover such character concepts, which would have to be sidelines of a more traditional main contribution.
By the same token, though, adding the Warlord would re-enable styles of campaigns that were finally practical in 4e, for the first time (though they'd been attempted many times over the years).

but your not matching a dedicated "caster" is range or versatility without literally giving a warlord the ability to re-write reality nonmagically.

It's what heroes do - just not with a wave of their hands and a word of power - they change the world.

Warlords shouldn't be the /only/ non-supernatural heroes doing so, either. Hopefully the design space that might be opened up could lead to sub-classes less tied to the 5e vision of the Warlord, or new or other reprised martial classes, as well.

 

[mellored]

We already have a resource we can use. Actions. You only get 3 per turn.

Just look at rogues, they do fine with everything at-will.
Bonus action can be spent on, hide, dash, disengage, or TWF (possibly also steal or help). You have to decide which you will do.
Reactions can be spent on uncanny dodge or opportunity attacks. You have to decide which you will do.
Action... ok, it's still just attacking.


Thus i propose...

1: Select 3 maneuvers, you can perform one of them an action.
2: Expertise.
3: Select a specialization (sub-class), you can do it as a bonus action.
4: ABI
5: Select 2 counters, you can perform one as a reaction.
6: +1d8 damage.
7: Your maneuvers improve to level 2.
8: ABI
9: Your specializations improve to level 2.
10: Passive sub-class feature.
11: Your counter improve to level 2.
12: ABI
13: Your maneuvers improve to level 3.
14: +1d8 damage. (2d8)
15: Your specializations improve to level 3.
16: ABI
17: Your counter improve to level 3.
18: Passive sub-class feature.
19; ABI
20: At the start of each turn, select either reaction or bonus action. You can perform an additional one of them that round.


Maneuvers (action)
Lead the attack
Level 1: When you hit an enemy, the next attack against the enemy has advantage.
Level 2: When you miss an enemy, the next attack against the enemy has advantage.
Level 3: When you hit an enemy, all attacks before the start of your next turn have advantage.

Grapple
Level 1: Make a grapple check with advantage.
Level 2: You can drag enemies around at your normal speed.
Level 3: Count yourself as 1 size larger for the purposes of grappling.

Specializations (bonus action):
Rally
Level 1: You give a friendly creature temporary hit points equal to your charisma modifier.
Level 2: Increases to 2 creatures, and twice your Charisma modifier.
Level 3: Increases to each creature who can hear you, and three times your Charisma modifier.

Two Weapon Fighting
Level 1: You can make an attack with your off-hand weapon.
Level 2: You gain +1 AC while wielding 2 weapons.
Level 3: You can make two attacks with your off-hand weapon.

Counters (Reaction)
Warning shout
Level 1: When a creature is attacked, you can use your reaction to give a penalty equal to your Int modifier. You must do this before you see the results.
Level 2: If the attack still hits, the damage is halved.
Level 3: You can do it after you see the result.

Riposte
Level 1: If an attack misses you by 5 or more, you can make a single attack against the target.
Level 2: You can riposte if the attack misses you.
Level 3: You gain +5 AC against an attack, and can riposte as part of the same reaction.


ect....

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sacrosanct, I think our two posts speak for themselves.

One thing they say is that you didn't read mine, or at least not very closely.

He can't have read these parts of my reply to him, either:

in 5e, there IS a ninja class. It's the Way of Shadow monk.

A name drop is not the same as a class by the same name, not emotionally, and not when it comes to delivering on the spirit of inclusiveness. The ninja's fairly obscure, a late-ed addition or PrC or the like in each ed, but it deserves more than a name drop. IMHO, it deserves a PrC tied to some very Japanese-flavored setting.

You HAVE a ninja class. Right there in the PHB.

Nope, sorry, it's a sub-class, it's called a Monk. "It might also be called a ninja," sure. It might also be called a shinobi, a stealer-in, a special ops silent-kill specialist, or a Mimbari Ranger.

It's not the name-drop, it's the functionality that makes the difference in this case. You can do all the ninja-y things - thanks in large part to ninjas being a little bit magical and magic being rather enormously privileged in 5e designs to date. If you want a non-mystical ninja, you'd have to settle for a mere Assassin, and, while he might be stealthy, deadly, and a master of disguise, it might not quite cover everything past ninjas did to their fans' collective satisfaction.

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]: I freak'n /hate/ getting ninjas in my RPGs, and I stood up for your right to demand one.

We already have a resource we can use. Actions. You only get 3 per turn.

Doesn't help, it's an at-will resource.

Just look at rogues, they do fine with everything at-will.

I'm not sure I buy that. They do fine DPR at-will. Support touches too strongly and the D&D attrition paradigm/resource-management game for it not to involve some resources.

Giving the Warlord a resource pool would be an expedient, abstract way to do that. (I'd like to see 5e push the envelope a little more and have the Warlord trigger/enhance and link abilities to allies' resources (and even degrade or leverage enemies') in a variety of ways, with different limitations and restrictions - it could make for a more interesting-to-play class, and possibly one with less abstract fluff:crunch binding.)

Bonus action can be spent on, hide, dash, disengage, or TWF (possibly also steal or help). You have to decide which you will do.
Reactions can be spent on uncanny dodge or opportunity attacks. You have to decide which you will do.
Action... ok, it's still just attacking.

Thus i propose...

Sounds like the makings of a nifty alternate fighter design.

Maneuvers (action)
Lead the attack

No comment.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION], [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

Whether its rationed by actions; by rest-based-recovery manoeuvre/inspiration dice; by rest-based-recovery points - as I said, I don't know. But these strike me as first and foremost technical questions (as to what's possible), to then be integrated with flavour questions (what does the fiction look like, and is it the fiction we want?).

But the idea that it can't be done just seems wildly implausible.
[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]: I could play a cleric who does nothing but Bless the party, provide Guidance, and Cure Wounds. It mightn't be the most effective cleric of all time, but the class resource suite allows for that.

That's the startig point for building the warlord, isn't it? How do you replicate that sort of character within a non-spell paradigm?

(Which is not to say you have to end there. As Tony Vargas has said, there's all sort of further ways you might develop the character.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]: I could play a cleric who does nothing but Bless the party, provide Guidance, and Cure Wounds. It mightn't be the most effective cleric of all time, but the class resource suite allows for that.
...
That's the startig point for building the warlord, isn't it?

I don't feel like that would be a starting point consistent with the class-design philosophy evinced in 5e, no. 5e class designs seem to be more concept-first, and less function-first. (Or maybe, classic-game-first*, concept second.) Because the concept was done in 4e, the function connection is obvious, but it shouldn't be the basis of the class in 5e, the 5e version should still be able to carry out support functions, to make a worthy replacement (and to enable the campaigns & party composition options that the Warlord did in 4e), but the design should start with the concept, develop unique mechanics to support that, and then adapt them to make sure it can cover the past edition version, as well as claim its own place in the new edition.
(Sounds daunting, but at least there aren't 4 radically different past edition versions!)









* doesn't apply to the upstart Warlord, of course, there being no classic version.

 

[mellored]

I'm not sure I buy that. They do fine DPR at-will. Support touches too strongly and the D&D attrition paradigm/resource-management game for it not to involve some resources.

I disagree.

First, there's already plenty of at-will support in the game.
Help action, grapple, viscous mockery, mantle of command, paladin's aura, guidance, warlocks repelling blast, light, minor illusion, resistance, spare the dying, blessings of the trickster, and any level 1 or 2 wizards spell. Not to mention, things become effectively at-will. Mid level clerics don't avoid casting bless because of spell slot limitations (concentration is an at-will resource).

Second, do you really think the at-will help action that everyone is breaking the game? Does the game break down because wizards get at-will feather fall? Because I rarely see anyone use them. Even a mastermind rogue will often forgo helping to TWF (when he misses his first attack).

If your option was to use your action to grant everyone +5 AC and saves against a dragons attack, or to kill it, which one will save you more HP?



The only thing you don't want at-will is healing.

 

[Remathilis]

[MENTION=6801209] [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]: I could play a cleric who does nothing but Bless the party, provide Guidance, and Cure Wounds. It mightn't be the most effective cleric of all time, but the class resource suite allows for that.

That's the startig point for building the warlord, isn't it? How do you replicate that sort of character within a non-spell paradigm?

(Which is not to say you have to end there. As Tony Vargas has said, there's all sort of further ways you might develop the character.)

You COULD build a cleric that relies only on a handful of low-level spells, sure. You could also gimp your character in a number of other ways as well.

Imagine two people engage in a fight; one has one of his arms tied behind his back, one is literally missing his arm. Assuming the two are equally matched in terms of strength and skill; they appear equal. But at any time, the one man can untie his arm and use both of them, while the man missing his arm cannot. Put another way; you could have your cleric run around with just bless, guidance, and healing word; but the minute you have an ally who is blinded and needs it cured, or you need to cast water breathing to progress in a dungeon, is the cleric going to say "sorry. I don't want to prep those spells. Guess we all go home now."?

The problem, of course, is that for the warlord to "mimic" such effects, he has to be able to literally contradict what the DM just said. He effectively gets to re-write the story as a class power, be it "he was only mostly dead (even though he failed three death saves)" or "hey mister archer, you can shoot 10,000 arrows in your life, but without me telling you to, you can never silence a foe with a well-placed arrow-in-the-throat." You might as well have name the warlord resource "plot points" and expand it basically spending them to contradict the DM. ["The door is locked." "I spend 2 plot points. The door isn't locked" (Knock).]

Which ultimately is why these threads end up frustrating me. There is a place in the game for a warlord. There is even room for a full warlord class. There is NO room for the 4e faithful warlord. Much like the 5e UA artificer, the idea works fine once you unshackle it form having to replicate the 4e artificer. (I don't think the 5e artificer can even heal, and he's far more a rogue than a cleric in terms of role). Once you get past replicating the 4e warlord verbatim, I think you can find there is a decent warlord class possible.