Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Yaarel]

Still, abjuration is a miscellaneous assortment of different kinds of magic. The only thing these spells have in common is, they are all protective and restorative.

 

[smbakeresq]

The tactical focus idea is terrible IMO. First off he is thinking in 2 dimensions. Second, you are a Warlord, you don't focus on areas, you focus on leading people.

Saying the BM can already grant attacks is true, however the ability is terrible due to action economy. Maybe other people use it, but I haven't seen it.

After hearing these podcasts and seeing some of the spells in Xanathars I wonder if they actually playtest the games in the office or even bother to check in on the community. The ideas presented here by posters are better than what came out.

 

[Zardnaar]

The tactical focus idea is terrible IMO. First off he is thinking in 2 dimensions. Second, you are a Warlord, you don't focus on areas, you focus on leading people.

Saying the BM can already grant attacks is true, however the ability is terrible due to action economy. Maybe other people use it, but I haven't seen it.

After hearing these podcasts and seeing some of the spells in Xanathars I wonder if they actually playtest the games in the office or even bother to check in on the community. The ideas presented here by posters are better than what came out.

Granting attacks is very good as the BM, as long as you have another heavy hitter or a Rogue. One of my PCs had a dex based melee character and the granting attack thing was a bit better since he did not go for the great weapon thing. Its also really good when you have a ranged encounter and an archer in the party and you're a strength based duelist style with a shield for example or if the Rogue switches to ranged attacks and qualifies for sneak attacks.

Alot of 5E players espicially younger ones that I have seen do not get hte co-operative aspects of 5E much. They want to be the ones dealing the uber damage not helping someone else do it (and some of them expect someone else to heal them as well).

 

[Yaarel]

The tactical focus idea is terrible IMO. First off he is thinking in 2 dimensions. Second, you are a Warlord, you don't focus on areas, you focus on leading people.

I like the focus on a particular fight. But you are right, it needs to emphasize the people, not the vacant space. And must be 3-dimensional, to function while flying, or swimming − nevermind jumping down from a balcony or a tree or dropping in on a rope in an ambush, or fighting against the surface of a cliff. In other words, *tactics*.

 

[Mistwell]

The cleric is inappropriate for some settings, and inappropriate for some players.

Healing is a fundamental aspect of the D&D game.

I strongly oppose any cleric monopoly over healing.

There should be as many classes that heal, as there are classes that deal damage.

Are you not the guy who wants D&D to not really support deities though? I mean, I get that, but it's also never ever going to be a mainstream well-supported option.

 

[Yaarel]

Are you not the guy who wants D&D to not really support deities though? I mean, I get that, but it's also never ever going to be a mainstream well-supported option.

Heh, I wish I could give you ½ an xp!

 

[Kinematics]

General review---

As a carry-over from the Acrobat video, we need to keep in mind action economy conflicts. Avoid bonus action abilities, as those conflict with two-weapon fighting. Reactions are generally OK. Most features will probably fit in the main attack action, though, and most likely in conjunction with an attack, rather than a replacement for it. This isn't taking away the Warlord's ability to contribute to the combat. By the same token, this isn't the lazylord, nor is it trying to cater to those that want that.

Mike did not make anything concentration-based, despite the earlier brainstorming. It's entirely possible to make the Tactical Focus area have a concentration requirement, and then just allow the Warlord to change the area it covers each turn. Several concentration effect spells (eg: Alter Self) allow you to modify them as a bonus action each turn, but since we don't want to be in constant conflict with the bonus action, it's likely just going to be "something you can do". Maybe use that free object interaction action slot for it, if they feel they absolutely have to assign it to an action slot.

On the other hand, since he's clearly allowing the Warlord to get fully invested in combat (not having to sacrifice actions for the subclass's benefits), concentration may itself be too much of a penalty, since presumably the Warlord will be taking hits as well. So dropping concentration entirely may be fine.

* This contrasts to my original idea of specifying a "key battlefield area" in that mine was more leaning towards a larger size, but would be unable to move. And since it was concentration-based, and exchanged the Warlord's own resources to give advantage to other party members, it encouraged the Warlord to avoid combat.

Being able to move the area freely each turn allows you to react to changes in the battlefield, and not need to be a "master strategist" to figure out how to define where the major conflict would arise. It also allows for more minor effects (the cantrip-level effects) that allow you to shift and shape the battle on the fly, and feel like you're actively contributing.

Mike's design has more options in its setup. Rather than the cruder ideas of sacrificing an action or reaction in order to grant another player the ability to move or attack or whatever, he creates an area where any ally can gain those benefits if they choose to use them. That removes some of the problem with "The Warlord tells you what to do!" It's giving other players opportunities rather than commands.

By tying the benefits to the Tactical Focus area, while also limiting its size, you can make things happen in the area of the battle that actually needs that focus. You can let the Wizard slip out of that ambush without taking opportunity attacks, or set up an ambush of your own when an enemy enters your TF area. Maybe swap positions so that when the enemy thought they had the Wizard trapped, the Paladin suddenly takes his place.


Anyway, the cantrip-level abilities are things that will be running all the time. The spell-level abilities are major effects, able to affect things that could potentially swing the battle. They're only once per battle, but realistically you should only really need one in any given battle, given the average battle length. Yelling a warning to let people dodge out of the way of a big AOE is always going to be useful (*grumble*Fireball*grumble*Cone of Cold*grumble). Preventing a few dozen HP of damage for a bunch of the party members is easily better than having to worry about healing that much damage. Getting everyone focused on the big target in your TF area may let you beat the big bad before it can do the next nasty trick it had up its sleeve. 'Charming' someone in the middle of battle can disrupt the enemy's battle plan. And so forth.

As laid out in the notes, these things would likely be reaction-based. Use them when the right opportunity shows up. Take out the enemy archers. Dodge the Fireball. Beat down the demon. They are about recognizing what's most useful for the party, at the time the party most needs it. And that absolutely fits the feel of what the character class represents. You aren't just moving dice and numbers around, you're playing the Warlord.


The Tactical Smarts aspect is relatively minor. Being a 'smart' fighter, it adds Int mod as a bonus to damage, representing recognizing weaknesses in the opponent's defense, or maybe recognizing the opponent's fighting style, and knowing how to counter it, etc. Mostly it just rewards the fighter for not dumping Int, because he's supposed to be smart.

The Inspiring/Insightful Heal/Damage thing will need more mechanics behind it to really evaluate. This is the bit that's most strongly tied to the available dice pool. Maybe give a few temp hit points before the fight starts, or urge the paladin to keep fighting when he's just about to fall over. On the other side, it might grant damage boosts, though I'm rather unsure in how that might be applied that isn't in conflict with the other ways of boosting damage that the Cunning Plan offers.

~~~

Overall, I'm already very much liking the design. It provides an easy hook to readily expand its minor cantrip-level abilities, and even spell-level abilities, and it maintains the essence of "flavor before mechanics" design. Even in this incomplete state, I'm very much interested in playing it.
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] provided this list of 4E Warlord builds earlier in the thread:

Tactical - a canny warlord, who excels at devising & coordinating cunning plans. This is the one that Mearls was talking about in the podcast as if it were the whole class, so, in 5e would use INT and 'Gambits' that map, vaguely, to spells in the way Mearls went into, only, to do it 'right,' it'd map more to the casting of Druid or Wizard than an EK. It would emphasize 'Tactical Gambits' in the same sense that an Evoker emphasizes blasty spells, an emphasis, being better at it, not in the sense of being unable to use everything else.

Inspiring - the original opposite number to the tactical warlord, the inspiring warlord did exactly what it says on the tin, bolstered his allies (hps, both healing &temps and handed out buffs), mainly keyed off CHA. It tended to be less about maneuvering & commanding and more about leading & aiding. In 5e, it would use the same Gambits & Maneuvers as other warlords, but better at the ones that hand out bonuses and hps, probably by the simple expedient of tacking his CHA mod onto them.

Resourceful - where the tactical warlord plans & orchestrates, the resourceful warlord reacts to opportunity - he has contingencies. The resourceful sub-class in 5e might be like the still unrealized generalist wizard, it'd be reasonably good at all the various sorts of Gambits, and it'd benefit a little, from both INT & CHA. Or, it could emphasize gambits that react to the enemy and leverage the environment.

Bravura - Mearls also hinted a this one, just a bit, in talking about the benighted pre-sub-class Warlord-heading fighter. It's the lead from the front type. It leads by example, is all about showing and inspiring bravery - and intimidating the enemy, something 5e could afford to emphasize more than 4e did. In 5e terms, this'd be the faux-fighter-multi-class sub-class, analogous to a war cleric, valor bard, or bladesinger. It'd get an actual extra attack of it's own, get slightly better weapons or armor, and do better with Gambits that involved getting in there and mixing it up to make things happen, rather than those that provoke or trick the enemy or direct or coordinate allies.

These next three were the last gasp of the warlord before essential (keep in mind, everything Warlord in 4e came out in a 2-year period, as soon as Mearls took the helm, the Warlord got nothing - except getting slapped with the 'Marshal' sub-class label) got less support than the others, so they're not as fleshed out...

Skirmishing - Emphasized mobility for both itself and it's allies. Skirmishing is RL military tactic, of course, in 4e, there were plenty of exploits that involved movement. In 5e, it could get a more evocative treatment, maybe emphasize DEX and light armor, and gambits best used by similarly mobile allies, and, of course, be particularly good at those gambits that involved maneuvering allies, quick in-and-out attacks and the like.

Insightful - 'Watchful' might've been a good name for this one. Specialized understanding the enemy and staying alert for their plans and actions. Mechanically it didn't much deliver, it mostly just subbed WIS for INT or CHA when handing out bonuses. In 5e it could get a more interesting "know your enemy" sort of treatment, shading over into what in 4e would have been off-limits 'controller' functions, and imposing conditions and actions on the enemy, metaphorically 'getting in their heads' and predicting & manipulating them. Could be very good at a few such gambits that are otherwise marginal in the hands of most other warlords.

and Archery - though the distinction isn't important, this was not a build, but an alternate feature ::shrug:: - 4e was not super flexible about the choice of range vs melee weapons, STR vs DEX, so the Warlord was mostly STR/Melee. This version was able to do ranged. It was the sole official exception to the 'lead from the front' idiom, it would shoot enemies and set them up for allies. In 5e, it'd be a lot less convoluted to emphasize ranged weapons, and an Archer-Warlord could simply do so, and excel at Gambits involving archery, his own or coordinating with his allies.

Then, there's the 'Lazy' build, it wasn't spelled out, but players strung together some tactical 'exploits' (maneuvers or gambits), that didn't involve the warlord attacking (or often, even acting, at all), into a build that aided allies primarily by funneling actions to them. The concepts this opens up are surprising - Garthanos called it a 'Princess Build,' because it could be used to let you play a seemingly-helpless side-kick or damsel in distress sort of character, yet still fully-contribute to the success of your party. Instead of imperiously commanding your allies to attack, you scream for help. In 5e, this sub-class could de-emphasize weapons & armor, emphasize CHA and Gambits that involve heroics on the part of their allies.

Interestingly, Mike's proposal touches on a lot of what these builds supposedly bring to the table.

• Tactical - Tactical gambits. Coordination of team members.
• Inspiring - Boost HP, temp HP.
• Resourceful - Reacting to opportunities.
• Bravura - Lead from the front. Don't sacrifice combat ability to grant the Warlord buffs.
• Skirmishing - Emphasize mobility. Tricks involving the the TF area.
• Insightful - Stay alert to enemy plans, and be able to react to them.
• Archery - Not relevant in 5E.
• 'Lazy' - Not supported.

As simple as Mike's Warlord is, it already incorporates a huge chunk of what the former Warlord class was able to do, thematically. (At least as described by Tony.)

 

[outsider]

TBH, "Martial Cantrips" would make me like 5E -way- more. What I really want is to A) have tactical mechanical options to use every single round and B) not have to use magic to get those options. I don't like the mechanical play of "I hit it with my sword!" every single round, and I don't like the thematic play of "I use supernatural forces to destroy my enemies!". There aren't many character options for people like me in 5e.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Yeah, he did do really good on getting to the idea. Probably why he's a professional game designer.

Also: I feel like a Warlord with an Order Cleric would be cool. Hell, you could even multiclass the two if you want to be the best in the world at yelling at people.

 

[Kinematics]

5e has become unnecessarily complicated in how it handles a number of somewhat similar things - bless/guidance, inspiration, bardic inspiration, CS dice, Aid, advantage, help, HD, re-rolls, etc...

I feel like they could have consolidated a number of 'expendable-dice' mechanics into one unified sub-system that could have been readily adapted to different applications, keeping the game simpler. Too late now, obviously. 5.5,maybe?

Yeah, that would have been useful. Feels vaguely similar to the spell points mechanic, which ended up a very low-tier optional rule. On the other hand, you may still want to be able to use those dice in different ways, and even if they had a universal system on the design side, it may not manifest that way in what the player can see (the actual implementations), and what the player can see is what users have to work with when designing their own subclasses. Again, it's showing another tool that a player could use to figure out what would work, even if they don't have the tools that WotC has at their office.

On top of STR/DEX or instead of it? Neither's good, mind you...

The Int damage bonus is on top of Str/Dex. He did mention that it might be too powerful, but set it aside as an issue to be dealt with on Jerry's side (general balance adjustments) or playtesting.

If it was hit, but not damage rolls, that might be workable, but just, in general, a warlord design should not be worrying overmuch about its own sustained DPR.

He did actually mention that he considered the possibility of adding it to the attack roll rather than the damage roll, but had decided against it, after other considerations. I don't remember exactly what he said, though.

Mildly bizarre given 5e's fetishization of TotM. It's not like it'd be at all hard or TotM-incompatible, to move allies around /relative/ to eachother & enemies. Also, I think the word 'contiguous' could have helped, there, it sounds like a 4e 'Wall 4'

Of course, 5e's love affair with TotM has not exactly delivered a lot of actual support for TotM, anyway. :shrug:

The Warlord was being explicitly designed for those who are more interested in the tactical nature of the game, and thus more suited to those who might use miniatures and maps. Having a more complex design was explicitly considered OK.