Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Yaarel]

Charisma really seems like the purview of the bard. It's the inspiring class. That's it’s niche. And it's also the stat of the warlock and sorcerer.

No class but the wizard uses Intelligence. The smart warrior is very different from other characters and distinguishes the warlord.

There is a need for an intelligent warrior. Making the paladin able to benefit from Intelligence works well. It also ties into the paladin being an upper class, educated, military school, warrior. A military officer.

The psionic Mystic will use Intelligence (but probably it makes more sense to use Charisma to impact others, especially regarding telepathic mind magic).



Any class uses Charisma to interact with others, just like any class uses Strength to wield a longsword.

No class monopolizes any ability.

A difference is, the bard is high magic and a full caster. The warlord is nonmagic. But inspiration is inspiration.

 

[mellored]

IMO: Have both Cha and Int.

And something like, "You can use Int in place of Dex for to-hit rolls (not damage) when making weapon attacks."

 

[Yaarel]

IMO: Have both Cha and Int.

And something like, "You can use Int in place of Dex for to-hit rolls (not damage) when making weapon attacks."

Alternatively, it could be the other way around: add Intelligence to damage, because you studied anatomy and know the where the weak and vulnerable points are.

 

[Jester David]

There is a need for an intelligent warrior. Making the paladin able to benefit from Intelligence works well. It also ties into the paladin being an upper class, educated, military school, warrior. A military officer.

The psionic Mystic will use Intelligence (but probably it makes more sense to use Charisma to impact others, especially regarding telepathic mind magic).



Any class uses Charisma to interact with others, just like any class uses Strength to wield a longsword.

No class monopolizes any ability.

A difference is, the bard is high magic and a full caster. The warlord is nonmagic. But inspiration is inspiration.

Inspiration is inspiration, but a charismatic inspiring warlord really steps on what makes the bard special and unique. It's like giving another class rage or sneak attack. The inspiring warlord makes the bard less interesting while also not filling a unique role itself.
Better to move the warlord away from the bard and let it stand alone as the tactician and strategist. The inspiring charismatic leader is the bard or characters with the inspiring leader feat. The smart tactical genius is the warlord.

 

[Yaarel]

Magic classes have significant overlap. Even sharing spells, rituals, familiars, etcetera.

Nonmagical classes can have significant overlap too.

Compare ranger with scout rogue for overlap. Zealot and samurai with berserker. And so on.

As long as the concept is fun and salient, go for it.

Avoid ruining one class because of an imagined monopoly by an other class.



Plus, if the warlord is an aspect of the paladin, the paladin itself personifies inspiration.

 

[Yaarel]

The tactician can be especially useful to spell casters, by using inspiration to restore a broken concentration on the tacticians round, after the concentration was lost.

 

[FrogReaver]

Inspiration is inspiration, but a charismatic inspiring warlord really steps on what makes the bard special and unique. It's like giving another class rage or sneak attack. The inspiring warlord makes the bard less interesting while also not filling a unique role itself.
Better to move the warlord away from the bard and let it stand alone as the tactician and strategist. The inspiring charismatic leader is the bard or characters with the inspiring leader feat. The smart tactical genius is the warlord.

Bards and Warlords coexisted in 4e just fine. I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to in 5e.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can I just say that if there was a spell-less paladin it would not have aura's (non-magical auras make no sense). It would not have lay on hands (as divine healing by touch makes no sense). Basically almost everything that makes a paladin a paladin would have to be taken away for a spell less paladin. It would be so Un-paladin at that point I don't know why anyone would call it a paladin.

That being said if there was a spell-less paladin class it probably would be a fine warlord chassy as it would be more or less a blank slate that could easily be about inspiring others. (Oath of inspiration? anyone?)

 

[Mistwell]

There aren't enough eyerolls in the world for the stacked deck of silly business this post contains.

Pretty sure "Read my mind to understand why I am objecting to your position" doesn't work very well. Whatever your argument is, it's not self evident.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D 5e blends ‘story’ and ‘mechanics’ descriptions, inseparably. This is especially so if one is an immersive theater of the mind style DM, where narrative adjudication takes priority over mechanical resolution.

To make the paladin mechanically nonmagical, makes the paladin narratively nonmagical. The healing would function in nonmagic zones and so on, and other narrative implications.

But a nonmagical paladin makes narrative sense. It is ok.

The paladin can already handle many of the needed warlord mechanics. Moreover, the paladin benefits. Adding more options to the paladin for more effective healing and ‘lazy lord’ tactician attacks enriches the flavor of the paladin.

Thank you for not reading another word of my post and then completely going off on a wild tangent if your own making. You failed to grasp even the basics of what I was trying to say and instead have made this now about changing the paladin class.

Sigh. One day I'll learn to avoid Warlord threads. They aren't about actually creating a Warlord class, they are about stealth edition warring.

This is why we can't have nice things.