Are we overthinking the warlord?

[Dualazi]

You want a nonmagical warlord to have nonmagical solutions for... lost limbs, lycanthropy, and petrification.

Weird, it's almost like you picked a bunch of obscure, rare status effects that are explicitly magical in nature to prop up your argument, instead of the much more common stun/charm/frightened conditions that a warlord should be able to address. Funny, that.

I have no problem with the warlord not being able to address every condition under the sun, but the usual ones you'll commonly encounter should definitely be accounted for.

Funny thing: I've had people argue just as strenuously as you are now that short-rest healing is inherently overpowered.

It might be, if the example amount was of any significance.

You talk as though the class you apparently want the warlord to be -- the cleric, or perhaps the paladin -- were not gated with *gasp* long rest resources.

Maybe you should stick to arguments presented instead of postulating as to other poster's desires. First off, even if that was the case, there would be nothing wrong with that mechanically. We have a short rest arcane caster (the warlock), and it works just fine, and even the wizard gets spells back on short rest, so it's not like there isn't already precedent for that design paradigm. Secondly, no, what I want is a distinct class that can fulfill the same role as a leader archetype to the extent that they could be a viable replacement for the classes that are currently assumed to fill that role, i.e. cleric/bard/druid.

I have no issue with a magical subclass of the warlord being able to do all that, but in my expectation of the non-magical warlord it will not have tools to deal with lost limbs, lycanthropy, curses or petrification. I could see them having tools for helping with poison and (to a lesser extent) disease, but those would not be the immediate curing kind of tools that magical characters like clerics would have. I can also see a warlord having tools to help with certain status effects and with drained stats.

And that's all perfectly fine, for one very good reason: the warlord is a combat-focused support character. They should be able to heal and help with some of the things you'd generally want a cleric for, but that kind of support should have a built-in cut-off for kinds of things it can't do. That's part of what makes it okay for the warlord to perform other support actions, like enabling off-turn actions, without doing too much.

Agreed, and as above you'll see in my response to cosmic, the more esoteric ones are fine to be out of reach for the warlord, but that's not a valid reason it shouldn't be able to counter charm/fear/stun effects and the like.

The point is that the war cleric isn't a healer. The trickster cleric isn't a healer. The tempest cleric isn't a healer.

The cleric isn't always a healer. It can be the tank, it can be the face, it can be the sneak, or it could be the blaster.
So why does the walord have to be the healer when even the cleric—the class synonymous with the healer role—might not serve as the healer? Shouldn't that be more of an option in a subclass of the warlord? Why is healing so essential to the class?

A trickster cleric can heal. A war cleric can heal. A tempest cleric can heal. It's the unifying baseline of the class, much like all rogues sneak attack. You're free to play a rogue that never sneak attacks, a mage that never casts spells, and any other odd-ball option you want, but to pretend that this is the common approach is farcical to me. I've certainly seen clerics built in a large number of ways but I have yet to ever encounter a cleric that never preps healing spells to some degree.

How exactly does a warlord bring someone back from the dead? Back from stone?

It doesn't, nor should it.

As I say above, in the 5e design a big role of the "healer" character is casting spells like lesser restoration or raise dead. Which the warlord cannot do without actually casting spells or having magical abilities. Thus it cannot fill the role.

It can fulfill the role, just not to the same extent, in that the warlord is worse at reacting to effects already placed on PCs and better about proactively dealing with them. I would liken it to the fighter, barbarian, and paladin. All of them can fulfill the role of melee front-line combatant, but they do so in different ways and with some options not available to others.

Meanwhile, classes have a finite number of abilities. 16 or so class features spread over 20 levels.
Each time you add a healing one to the warlord, it takes away a warlordy feature from the class. Something unique to being a tactical leader and commander that no other class could do.

Especially at low levels. Because, if the warlord is the healer and all warlords despite build have to heal, then that's their first level feature. It's making restoring hp a more iconic part of the classs than granting actions or movement or increasing initiative or buffing ally attacks.
The design of the warlord should focus on the cool things of the class, not the expected things of its 4e role.

I would totally cede the healing point if people would stop doing several things:

1) trying to staple the class onto the fighter. It'll never work as long as it has that baggage and misspent design space and it's exhausting to see this repeated over and over and people still not get it.

2) being incredibly gun-shy about action-granting/enabling. Even in the OP, cosmic later clarified that granting cantrip use with the class features was too much, and this mentality needs to be dumpstered if a 'real' warlord is to be made, because sans the healing option being able to grant actions will be the defining aspect of the class, and thus necessary to be used in as many situations as possible.

 

[Zardnaar]

Weird, it's almost like you picked a bunch of obscure, rare status effects that are explicitly magical in nature to prop up your argument, instead of the much more common stun/charm/frightened conditions that a warlord should be able to address. Funny, that.

I have no problem with the warlord not being able to address every condition under the sun, but the usual ones you'll commonly encounter should definitely be accounted for.



It might be, if the example amount was of any significance.



Maybe you should stick to arguments presented instead of postulating as to other poster's desires. First off, even if that was the case, there would be nothing wrong with that mechanically. We have a short rest arcane caster (the warlock), and it works just fine, and even the wizard gets spells back on short rest, so it's not like there isn't already precedent for that design paradigm. Secondly, no, what I want is a distinct class that can fulfill the same role as a leader archetype to the extent that they could be a viable replacement for the classes that are currently assumed to fill that role, i.e. cleric/bard/druid.



Agreed, and as above you'll see in my response to cosmic, the more esoteric ones are fine to be out of reach for the warlord, but that's not a valid reason it shouldn't be able to counter charm/fear/stun effects and the like.



A trickster cleric can heal. A war cleric can heal. A tempest cleric can heal. It's the unifying baseline of the class, much like all rogues sneak attack. You're free to play a rogue that never sneak attacks, a mage that never casts spells, and any other odd-ball option you want, but to pretend that this is the common approach is farcical to me. I've certainly seen clerics built in a large number of ways but I have yet to ever encounter a cleric that never preps healing spells to some degree.




It doesn't, nor should it.




It can fulfill the role, just not to the same extent, in that the warlord is worse at reacting to effects already placed on PCs and better about proactively dealing with them. I would liken it to the fighter, barbarian, and paladin. All of them can fulfill the role of melee front-line combatant, but they do so in different ways and with some options not available to others.



I would totally cede the healing point if people would stop doing several things:

1) trying to staple the class onto the fighter. It'll never work as long as it has that baggage and misspent design space and it's exhausting to see this repeated over and over and people still not get it.

2) being incredibly gun-shy about action-granting/enabling. Even in the OP, cosmic later clarified that granting cantrip use with the class features was too much, and this mentality needs to be dumpstered if a 'real' warlord is to be made, because sans the healing option being able to grant actions will be the defining aspect of the class, and thus necessary to be used in as many situations as possible.

Attack granting was not even the defining feature in 4E. It's something some fans have seized on.

Attack granting is in 5E, it should be fairly obvious why it's not at will.

It's also not us you have to convince it's Mearls. He has already made his decision about it. You might be able to get a warlord as an independent class but you need more support than a dozen or so posters on ENworld.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Weird, it's almost like you picked a bunch of obscure, rare status effects that are explicitly magical in nature to prop up your argument, instead of the much more common stun/charm/frightened conditions that a warlord should be able to address. Funny, that.

Those were all named explicitly on the list of status effects that [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] posted to which you responded, "ideally a warlord would be able to do these competently as well". If you don't actually think that a warlord should be able to cure someone of petrification by shouting at them, then good! I agree! But can you reslly blame any of us for reading the words you wrote in that context and going, "Wait, what?"

(I'm also raising my eyebrows at your now calling lost limbs "explicitly magical in nature". But that may qualify as overthinking.)

First off, even if that was the case, there would be nothing wrong with that mechanically. We have a short rest arcane caster (the warlock), and it works just fine, and even the wizard gets spells back on short rest, so it's not like there isn't already precedent for that design paradigm.

Now I'm legitimately confused. You just got done telling me why short rest resources for class abilities suck.

 

[Zardnaar]

What do 4E fans think of a warlord that is magical as a subclass? 1/3rd Paladin, Cleric or wizard probably.

The ideas I'm thinking of.
Inspiration= 1/3rd bard (no spells)
Tactical 1/3rd BM fighter
Bravura 1/3rd fighter

Not using exact mechanics as such although there can be some over lap just in concept.

and the 3 spellcasting ones with explicitly magical restoration options (probably later than a cleric).

 

[unknowable]

Warlord as a healer bard could be interesting.

But the level of healing people are expecting from a non magical class is very, gonzo. More than 5e seems to accept core.

 

[Jester David]

Weird, it's almost like you picked a bunch of obscure, rare status effects that are explicitly magical in nature to prop up your argument, instead of the much more common stun/charm/frightened conditions that a warlord should be able to address. Funny, that.

I agree. A warlord should be able to shake allies out of those conditions.
But the difference, appart from magic, is that stun/charm/frighten are typically minor effects that affect you for a combat. The other ones like the magical lycanthrope or petrification—as well as non-magical conditions like disease and poison—take the character out. You can't play the fighter who is a statue or blind from disease.

A trickster cleric can heal. A war cleric can heal. A tempest cleric can heal. It's the unifying baseline of the class, much like all rogues sneak attack. You're free to play a rogue that never sneak attacks, a mage that never casts spells, and any other odd-ball option you want, but to pretend that this is the common approach is farcical to me. I've certainly seen clerics built in a large number of ways but I have yet to ever encounter a cleric that never preps healing spells to some degree.

None of those subclasses have class features that boost their healing and aren't given healing spells for free. They can heal but so can a rogue that picks the Magic Initiate feat.
And, technically, a ranger can also chose to learn/ memorise cure wounds but they're not a healer class.

The point is that healing is NOT assumed of every cleric. You can play a cleric and never prep cure wounds and never cast lesser restoration and you'll still completely be a cleric. Because healing isn't an essential aspect of the cleric of Ares or Thor or Loki.

And the warlord has a lot more in common with the armoured battle cleric of Ares than a robed healing cleric of Asclepius.

It can fulfill the role, just not to the same extent, in that the warlord is worse at reacting to effects already placed on PCs and better about proactively dealing with them. I would liken it to the fighter, barbarian, and paladin. All of them can fulfill the role of melee front-line combatant, but they do so in different ways and with some options not available to others.

It can fill the role of "combat healer". But the point is it doesn't entirely replace the cleric/ druid/ bard because there's some things it just cannot do.

Which is problematic because it's a combat healer for two reasons: it was a leader in 4e and all leaders healed, and it's goal in 4e was to be a replacement for the cleric.
In regards to the first point, in 5e, I would argue that all leaders do not have to heal. You can be the combat buffer without healing, like many bards. So the warlord is a healer not because the design of the edition warrants it, but because of the design of the previous edition required it.
In regards to the second point, it's clear the warlord cannot be a full replacement for the cleric. Therefore, it can be something else. It can break free of the tiny mold 4e placed it in, and we can consider a warlord that doesn't heal, a warlord that controls or defends, or other alternatives.

Plus, as implied above by the cleric subclass discussion, in 5e, class roles like "healer" or "tank" are more commonly placed in subclasses not in classes themselves. (Life cleric heals, War cleric tanks, Tempest cleric blasts, Forge cleric buffs, and Trickster cleric is sneaky.) Classes are left more open to pick a role.
Why should the warlord be different in that regard? Why should the warlord not match how the rest of the classes are designed?

I would totally cede the healing point if people would stop doing several things:

1) trying to staple the class onto the fighter. It'll never work as long as it has that baggage and misspent design space and it's exhausting to see this repeated over and over and people still not get it.

A big reason it gets stapled onto the fighter is the "size" of the class.
It needs to have a lot of iconic class features. Enough for fifteen or sixteen levels.

But more importantly, to be a full class you really need five or six really distinct subclasses. And they should be story focused, where they can be described and that invokes their potential mechanics without actually mentioning the mechanics themselves.
What are some potential warlord subclasses and their associated story/ flavour?

2) being incredibly gun-shy about action-granting/enabling. Even in the OP, cosmic later clarified that granting cantrip use with the class features was too much, and this mentality needs to be dumpstered if a 'real' warlord is to be made, because sans the healing option being able to grant actions will be the defining aspect of the class, and thus necessary to be used in as many situations as possible.

The majority of warlord powers in the 4e PHB were unrelated to granting actions. And when you add in MP and MP2 the percentage gets even smaller.
It's a defining feature pretty much because a couple fans decided it was and championed a fan made build as the "iconic" warlord.

Even if it is iconic, adding something like that to the game should not come at the expense of balance or gameplay. The class still needs to be balanced.

 

[mellored]

The majority of warlord powers in the 4e PHB were unrelated to granting actions. And when you add in MP and MP2 the percentage gets even smaller.
It's a defining feature pretty much because a couple fans decided it was and championed a fan made build as the "iconic" warlord.

It was a defining feature because it was unique, and at-will at level 1.
Other classes had the ability to buff and heal. So that aspect wasn't special.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But the level of healing people are expecting from a non magical class is very, gonzo. More than 5e seems to accept core.

You can, in 1d4+1 hrs, go from being seconds away from death, after taking the most grievous wound the game can model with just hp loss, all the way back to full hps, without magic, nor even first aid of the crudest sort. (ie: if you're left 'dying' from your wound by a single attack that was 1hp shy of instantly killing you, you can stabilize by succeeding on 3 death after already failing two. 1d4 hours later, you wake up, and can take a short rest (AFAICT, those 1d4 hrs of unconsciousness do not count as resting), at the end of which you spend your HD, and, assuming you roll reasonably well, get back up to full hps.)
A low level fighter can, with a lucky roll, go from 1hp to fully healed in an instant with Second Wind.
It doesn't get more core than HD & 1st level fighters.
Heck, they're both in the basic pdf.

It was a defining feature because it was unique, and at-will at level 1.
Other classes had the ability to buff and heal. So that aspect wasn't special.

Attack-granting, hp-restoring, buffing... the warlord should be able to do all of them. The sub-class and player choice and even preparing for the coming battle when such is telegraphed, should all figure into exactly which of those things a given warlord brings in a given situation, but the full range of what it could do in 4e, stuffed, as it was, in the restrictive leader box, should be a bare minimum of what it should start with in less-restrictive 5e. There's possibilities that the warlord's concept implied - manipulating enemies, in particular - that was off limits in 4e because it would have stepped on the controller role.

...

I think the whole "what's the defining feature" thing is a bit wrong-headed to begin with, especially if the only motive behind the question is to seize on any answer as an excuse to take away everything else.

"What's the defining thing about wizards?" "Uh, IDK, sleep, magic missile, fireball, I guess are the first spells that scream 'wizard' at me." "Cool, the new wizard gets magic missile at 1st level, sleep at 8th, and fireball as his level 20 capstone. Enjoy your complete, perfectly-realized new wizard class!" "Oh, now, waitaminit, I'm a wizard fan, too, and I don't think offense defines the wizard, what about defense like Shield or utilities like Make Whole, Tiny Hut, or Teleport, I mean, teleportation is a classic wizard schtick across genres..." "Bah! You wizard fans can't even agree on what you want, there's no point even providing a class for you fractious ingrates!"

 

[Zardnaar]

You can, in 1d4+1 hrs, go from being dropped and one death save away from expiring for good, to full hps, without magic, nor even first aid of the crudest sort (if you're left 'dying' from your wounds, you can stabilize by succeeding on 3 death saves before failing three, that can include failing two, then making three. (ie: 1d4 hours later, you wake up, and can take a short rest (AFAICT, those 1d4 hrs of unconsciousness do not count as resting), spend your HD, and get back up to full hps.) A low level fighter can, with a lucky roll, go from 1hp to fully healed in an instant with Second Wind. It doesn't get more core than HD & 1st level fighters. Heck, they're both in the basic pdf.

Attack-granting, hp-restoring, buffing... the warlord should be able to do all of them. The sub-class and player choice and even preparing for the coming battle when such is telegraphed, should all figure into exactly which of those things a given warlord brings in a given situation, but the full range of what it could do in 4e, stuffed, as it was, in the restrictive leader box, should be a bare minimum of what it should start with in less-restrictive 5e. There's possibilities that the warlord's concept implied - manipulating enemies, in particular - that was off limits in 4e because it would have stepped on the controller role.


I think the whole "what's the defining feature" thing is a bit wrong-headed to begin with, especially if the only motive behind the question is to seize on any answer as an excuse to take away everything else.

"What's the defining thing about wizards?" "Uh, IDK, sleep, magic missile, fireball, I guess are the first spells that scream 'wizard' at me." "Cool, the new wizard gets magic missile at 1st level, sleep at 8th, and fireball as his level 20 capstone. Enjoy your complete, perfectly-realized new wizard class!" "Oh, now, waitaminit, I'm a wizard fan, too, and I don't think offense defines the wizard, what about defense like Shield or utilities like Make Whole, Tiny Hut, or Teleport, I mean, teleportation is a classic wizard schtick across genres..." "Bah! You wizard fans can't even agree on what you want, there's no point even providing a class for you fractious ingrates!"

Casting arcane spells is the iconic feature for wizards. How those spells function is not.

Clerics divine spells turn undead armor and ok weapons.

Fighter hit things with pointy sticks hard best armor.

Ranger some sort of wilderness warrior some form of favoured enemy

Etc. The exact expression of those abilities have varied.

At will attack granting was only an option in 4E, was not iconic as such healing was more iconic along with good wrapons and ok armor. Those were baked in throw in support and tactics and that's your warlord. How it's expressed can vary.

 

[Dualazi]

(I'm also raising my eyebrows at your now calling lost limbs "explicitly magical in nature". But that may qualify as overthinking.)

IIRC if you are suffering a lost limb it still requires a Regenerate spell or similar effect to cure, which is more of what I was getting at to differentiate it from a generic HP restoring option like cure wounds.

Now I'm legitimately confused. You just got done telling me why short rest resources for class abilities suck.

Short rest abilities are fine, the problem is twofold:

1) your example abilities are very weak for the most part, and do not scale in any way enough to be comparable to the other poster child for short rests, the warlock.

2) Once those abilities are expended, you're back to being a fighter. When a warlock runs out of spells, he's still a warlock. He still has the invocations, pact magics, pact boons etc. that set him apart from other classes mechanically. There's no space for any of those type of options or differences when you have to contend with design space being taken up by the fighter's fighting style, or ASIs, or action surge.

In my opinion short rest abilities/features have to be roughly half as good as long rest ones, probably closer to 60%. Once they're depleted, you still need something to make your class distinctive, like the warlock's pact magic and invocations. Really that goes for all classes though, a paladin or ranger still have abilities that set them apart besides their spells, but a subclass warlord is still ultimately a fighter. Hopefully this helps articulate the point better that I'm not opposed to short rest mechanics, but the weak implementation therein.

In regards to the second point, it's clear the warlord cannot be a full replacement for the cleric. Therefore, it can be something else. It can break free of the tiny mold 4e placed it in, and we can consider a warlord that doesn't heal, a warlord that controls or defends, or other alternatives.

Which I'm totally game for, it just seems that mearls and many others don't accept that possibility, because they keep giving them shallow do-nothing abilities and trying to cram it into the fighter chassis.

A big reason it gets stapled onto the fighter is the "size" of the class.
It needs to have a lot of iconic class features. Enough for fifteen or sixteen levels.

Just to clarify, you're saying you think there aren't enough abilities to merit the warlord being its own class? Not sure I buy that if so.

But more importantly, to be a full class you really need five or six really distinct subclasses. And they should be story focused, where they can be described and that invokes their potential mechanics without actually mentioning the mechanics themselves.

You do not. The Bard, Barbarian, and Ranger off the top of my head all launched with 2 subclasses. Saying that the warlord can't do the same because the other classes now have expanded material is a bit disingenuous, but I don't think that's what you were going for to be fair.

What are some potential warlord subclasses and their associated story/ flavour?

Tactical, Bravura, and Inspiring are all different archetypes that can play and narratively present a broad range of story options. Some of the past options like resourceful might also be included if you swapped their focus to a more skill or exploration focused path.

The majority of warlord powers in the 4e PHB were unrelated to granting actions. And when you add in MP and MP2 the percentage gets even smaller.
It's a defining feature pretty much because a couple fans decided it was and championed a fan made build as the "iconic" warlord.

Even if it is iconic, adding something like that to the game should not come at the expense of balance or gameplay. The class still needs to be balanced.

As mellored said, action granting was something they could do at the start, and many of the best rated powers from the optimization side of things were centered around that concept. While I mostly agree with the balance argument, class balance itself has always been somewhat shaky in 5e and I would rather they focus their efforts on being evocative and unique at this point. A great example I think of this is the pacifist paladin option in Xanathars. I think that subclass is crap, because it doesn't do enough to change how the paladin plays to fit its supposed narrative space, and was even trimmed down from its playtest version. I'd rather have a less-balanced option that more accurately represents the concept and changes the playstyle of the paladin than a few ribbon abilities that don't amount to much, and same thing for the warlord. They were willing to experiment with that ridiculously OP Lore Wizard, how about Mearls tosses out an overpowered warlock and we can try walking it back for once.