Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Yaarel]

Also, I like modern settings where most characters lack magic. I need a nonmagical tactician aka warlord with effective healing to make this kind of setting work optimally.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

It is necessary to have decent nonmagical class options because not all settings have magic. Not all players want to play a magical character.

Personally, I love magic, and only play magical characters.

However, the tactician aka warlord is such an important salient option, that I want to see 5e offer it as a core part of the game.

Also as DM, even tho I prefer high magic settings, there will be regions and cultures that lack magic, and I want to see the tactician as part of my tool kit for world building.

Honestly, I am starting to get convinced of the Warlord as a full class. Not because of the non-magical distinction because that's just silly in the context of D&D, but on the idea that the Warlord might have some stuff neutered if it was just a subclass.

Saw that with the idea of making a Barbarian just a Fighter subclass and making the Druid just a Cleric subclass.

There's enough of a mechanical difference from the other classes, which, IMO, is enough to push it into full class territory and it's not just people wanting their specific thing done their own special way.

So that bring the total of classed that I feel 5e needs to add to about 4 or so.

 

[Yunru]

So just get rid of the key part of a Barbarian and neuter a key part of the Druid and it's all fine?

I feel like you're trying to make a point here.

I am. Rage isn't key to a Barbarian. It increases skill checks, adds damage and reduces incoming damage. What's key to a Barbarian is the relentless, reckless attacking.

And "neuter a key part of the druid"? What would that be? Wildshape is a 2/rest mechanic to turn into an animal. CD: Wildshape is an up to 3/rest mechanic to turn into an animal.

My point is that your points for the barbarian, druid, etc. all being seperate are far less substantial than your points against the warlord.

All of the mentioned classes could be folded into other classes. But they have a much better identity and more uniqur mechanics as a class.

 

[Mistwell]

Because it's not possible. Sub-classes in 5e don't all follow a fixed formula or pattern, but there's some things that are unprecedented to do with a sub-class. One of them is to yoink major, class-defining, abilities like full casting or Extra Attack. That prettymuch disqualifies ever last class. If you start with a full-caster bard or a high-DPR fighter or Rogue, you just don't have enough design space left to do all that fun stubbornly-not-magical support stuff.

Umm...Tony?

Even if we set the precedent

We did.

, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class, anyway.

It wasn't.

[I misunderstood...clarified below]

 

[Yunru]

Umm...Tony?

We did.



It wasn't.

I do believe joink is being used as slang for "remove" not add.

In which case, look at the UA Ranger. They made the entire feature a subclass feature rather than have a subclass feature remove a class feature.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I am. Rage isn't key to a Barbarian. It increases skill checks, adds damage and reduces incoming damage. What's key to a Barbarian is the relentless, reckless attacking.

And "neuter a key part of the druid"? What would that be? Wildshape is a 2/rest mechanic to turn into an animal. CD: Wildshape is an up to 3/rest mechanic to turn into an animal.

My point is that your points for the barbarian, druid, etc. all being seperate are far less substantial than your points against the warlord.

We'll agree to disagree on the first part, but yeah, I now feel that Warlord should be it's own class with that distinction.

Something might be lost or an archetype of the Warlord might not be possible if it was just a Subclass. Same with the Artificer, Mystic, and an Eidolon user thing (someone come up with a better name, I've heard Avatar, which might work.)

 

[Mistwell]

I do believe joink is being used as slang for "remove" not add.

In which case, look at the UA Ranger. They made the entire feature a subclass feature rather than have a subclass feature remove a class feature.

Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?

 

[mellored]

Maybe have it so you don't actually have to use dice for it? Maybe you just get maneuvers you can trade attacks for?

It was an idea for people to jump off of, although I could've worded that part better.

I've tried, it turned out pretty clunky.

I await your version.

 

[Hussar]

And I still say why does being non-magical matter so much?

End result would be the same.

Because, frankly, if we were happy with a magical support character, we'd just play a bard, cleric or wizard. I mean, there's hardly a lack of magical support characters in the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?

Oh, I could see it, theoretically. For instance, a faux-Warlord fighter sub-class that could sacrifice it's Extra Attacks to do all sorts of maneuvers, dynamically. Extra Attack represents a pretty big chunk of power. It's just unprecedented, ATM, and it's not like Mearls is suggesting anything of the kind in his podcast.

And, yeah, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class. Heck, the BM's maneuvers are barely contained in the existing fighter, in either sense. They're both a bit much in terms of column-inches & complexity for 'just a sub-class' and constitue an entire, unique sub-system. The mechanical distinction between a Wizard and Sorcerer (ie, the metamagic sub-system) is arguably less profound than between a Champion and a Battlemaster (maneuver sub-system). That maneuver sub-system is then left with no room to grow or be adapted to other things.

A whole class that got most of it's capability from a larger list of level-gated BM-style maneuvers, for instance, could have sub-classes that cover a variety of Warlords, and other martial archetypes like the Bo9S Warblade and the Weaponmaster and 3.x fighter-based builds you just can't do yet, even with feats - heck, even the mythical 'martial controller.'

And, frankly, as neat as that may sound, I think they could do better.