Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Greg K]

YEven Mearls, when he went there, immediately admitted he was being ridiculous.

Don't bring facts into this!

 

[Remathilis]

5E is doing fine. 5E warlord doesn't need to do everything a 4E one does just like a 5E Druid or Wizard or whatever doesn't do everything a 3.5 one does and functions differently than a 4E one.

The concept is more important warlord supports heals fights tactics is the idea of the class.

So, what are you willing to sacrifice of the 4e Warlord to make it work in 5e?

 

[mellored]

So at 17th level, a warlord becomes clairvoyant. Nothing magical about that!

It didn't take magic for me to predict someone would make that type of response.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To go just slightly off topic for a moment, another interesting thing, from both podcasts, is the use of spell slots as a primary resource-balancing mechanism. Toting up those dice as healing or damage.

It's interesting in that it ignores what made the classes shake out into Tiers in 3.x: versatility.

A hypothetical class that just knew single-target blasting spells - one spell for each spell level, no player choice involved - but with the same slots as a wizard, would be valued the same as said wizard (or cleric or druid) under the scheme as outlined so far.

 

[Zardnaar]

So, what are you willing to sacrifice of the 4e Warlord to make it work in 5e?

Most of my current thinking is here. Note its still rough.

I am looking at the concepts of the 4E warlord. Healing, support, tactics, combat. 5E doesn't use healing surges for example so its going to need more than 2 uses of 1d6 healing word per short rest.

A Warlord subclass might also be a good idea for explicitly magical things. Mostly I want the 2 4E PHB warlords to be the focus, tactical being better at things like attack granting, inspiration being better at buffing and healing.

 

[smbakeresq]

Doesn't matter, they all get *those* spells, and a warlord needs to match them with the option to get similar effects or be the subpar option.

While that is literally true the idea is the Warlord needs to be as effective but different. Like we talked about before, the Warlord should be built around the Paladin chassis for balance reasons, just with different mechanics. The Fighter base chassis is pretty strong as it is, and even better when you get your class specific 3 and 4 attacks per round at 11+ with the extra feats thrown in. With those extra feats or ABI you will have build defining feats much earlier then others, so whatever you add in needs to be moderated somewhat.

Mearls idea "we already have a class that grants attacks" is just not understanding how people play, people who play BM will tell you Commanders Strike is only worth it with a backstabbing rogue or Paladin willing to smite with the actions you have to give up. The other maneuvers are rarely worth it. However there are pieces all over the rules that if put into one package and modified somewhat it would work and be effective. It also seems like Mearls is strictly fixated on a tactical warlord using intelligence, and the idea of using a zone just seems clunky and destined to slow down combat. Also his idea that "we don't wont to interfere with bonus actions so as not to mess up two weapon fighting" is absurd, the whole idea is to make choices in combat. Besides there are many other things that they put it to use your bonus action, it seems a weird hill to die on. Maybe the better idea is to have a better list of maneuvers in his idea.

There are some good ideas in there, but by starting off by basing it off the eldritch knight I think was a bad idea.

 

[Zardnaar]

To go just slightly off topic for a moment, another interesting thing, from both podcasts, is the use of spell slots as a primary resource-balancing mechanism. Toting up those dice as healing or damage.

It's interesting in that it ignores what made the classes shake out into Tiers in 3.x: versatility.

A hypothetical class that just knew single-target blasting spells - one spell for each spell level, no player choice involved - but with the same slots as a wizard, would be valued the same as said wizard (or cleric or druid) under the scheme as outlined so far.

Context he is layering that amount of healing onto the fighter, its a fighter subclass. Its a generous amount of healing.

 

[Zardnaar]

While that is literally true the idea is the Warlord needs to be as effective but different. Like we talked about before, the Warlord should be built around the Paladin chassis for balance reasons, just with different mechanics. The Fighter base chassis is pretty strong as it is, and even better when you get your class specific 3 and 4 attacks per round at 11+ with the extra feats thrown in. With those extra feats or ABI you will have build defining feats much earlier then others, so whatever you add in needs to be moderated somewhat.

Mearls idea "we already have a class that grants attacks" is just not understanding how people play, people who play BM will tell you Commanders Strike is only worth it with a backstabbing rogue or Paladin willing to smite with the actions you have to give up. The other maneuvers are rarely worth it. However there are pieces all over the rules that if put into one package and modified somewhat it would work and be effective. It also seems like Mearls is strictly fixated on a tactical warlord using intelligence, and the idea of using a zone just seems clunky and destined to slow down combat. Also his idea that "we don't wont to interfere with bonus actions so as not to mess up two weapon fighting" is absurd, the whole idea is to make choices in combat. Besides there are many other things that they put it to use your bonus action, it seems a weird hill to die on. Maybe the better idea is to have a better list of maneuvers in his idea.

There are some good ideas in there, but by starting off by basing it off the eldritch knight I think was a bad idea.

Commanders strike is great with Rogues but its also useful for.

1. Sword and board battlemaster fighters granting attacks to a two handed weapon iuser.
2. Raging barbarians
3. Ranged PCs (giving up a melee attack to turn it into a ranged one)
4. All of the above with the -5/+10 feats.
5. Any class using hunters quarry/hex.
6. The hunter ranger using hunters quarry/colossus slayer.

The BM fighter is also the best one. A Rogue is not required its just really really nice when you have the BM+Rogue combo.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The warlord is a class to be used in mass battles. My own idea is a fighter with martial maneuvers like the white raven school from 3.5. Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. And I imagine the mass battles with the packs of soldiers like only a creature but the monster subtype "squad" working like "swarn" monster key, and "morality points", like hit points, but not about health or injures but to avoid retreating if they suffer too much.

* I have thought a crazy idea about warlords like "gladiators" of a fantasy version of MOBA e-sports, where they are in a circus arena controlling armys of illusory miniatures, but where nobody really gets hurt because the little battalions are only "holograms". This could be a future videogame.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm only halfway through the video but I really like Mearl's ideas. It looks like it is shaping up to be an excellent subclass.