Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Remathilis]

"Handwaving" it is then.

And we've come full circle back to gamist mechanics devoid of any meaning in the game world. You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".

There's no martial source in 5e. Instead, such concepts are defined by what they lack: supernatural powers such as spells, spells, spells, granted divine powers, spells, ki, spells, psionics, spells, and, I suppose, spells. (5e has a lotta spellcasters is what I'm subtly alluding to in passing, there, in case anyone missed it.) Probably not coincidentally, the 5 sub-classes in the PH that fall into that all contribute DPR in combat. Two also contribute some enhanced skill use; the other three are decidedly tanky in their DPR contributions. That's not a lot to hang character concepts on. If you do care to use magic, you have quite a range of choices.

"Martial", as I was defining it, was classes that are generally good at combat. Defined as "proficient in martial weapons, most if not all armors, d10 or greater HD, and two attacks at 5th level". This category covers the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin, as those classes can more or less swap for one another in the role of combat while bringing different secondary abilities to the table.

Nonmagical, as you are describing, is somewhat limited: The fighter is decisively nonmagical, as is the rogue (barring certain subclasses).The Barbarian is fairly nonmagical, though you can argue rage can be viewed as a supernatural ability beyond mere anger issues, and the monk has ki as a source of supernatural exploits. Rangers and Paladins have spells and divine powers.

Unfortunately, that is a rather small box. The best place to look for outside the box in 5e is Battlemaster (as they can grant extra attacks, temp hp, and a variety of tactical attack). My concept is to expand the battlemaster into a full class and use it as a guide to develop more powerful effects. But effects that, at most, would be on par with 5th level magic tops (and far more narrowly defined than anything a current caster can use). I think there is design space there that won't cause outright rejection by the D&D community at large.

That disparity needs to be addressed, and the Warlord, by virtue of having appeared as a full class in a PH1 should be at the front of the queue. It was also the Martial/Leader in 4e, so was in a unique-to-D&D position of enabling relatively normal D&D play without the traditional Band-Aid Cleric, nor any of it's second-string magical replacements (like the Druid, Paladin, Bard, or WoCLW). Suddenly, D&D was almost-seamlessly playable in low-/no-magic campaign modes that had always been problematic, before. Of course, there was more to that (healing surges, marginally consistent encounter design guidelines, formalized Source, etc), but the Warlord was a key part of it.

This to me doesn't say "I want a class that is good at tactics and support" and says "I want a class that I can use to re-write D&D to be low/no magic." That to me is effectively a non-issue. The warlord should work not as a cleric replacement for no-magic games, but as a unique element on the D&D Multiverse.

I'm sorry, but the concerns of "low/no magic D&D" rank right up there with the lack of modern technology like cell-phones and cars in the list of Things I Don't Think Should Matter When Designing for Dungeons & Dragons.

It'd be a nearer miss than the Fighter as a model.

Only because you refuse to compromise. The designers, starting from the Battlemaster up to today's Warlord HFH, view the Warlord as basically worth a fighter subclass. A good compromise is a full class that is a hybrid of a fighter and a support class who isn't required to check all the boxes of a support caster nor is he bound by the constraints of a fighter subclass.

Put another way, would a paladin-like official warlord be better than the no-warlord you have right now?

Martial Leader. The Leader box in 4e was very constraining. They chopped a lot off the cleric to stuff it in there, they were able to split the Druid between the Leader and Controller boxes and still had bits left over - while the Bard dropped right in and still needed some padding. But, formal and narrow though Leader was, it did make a convenient way to reference D&D's long dependency on the Cleric 'type' - the Band-Aid, the healer, the WoCLW with legs - and to easily address that issue. 5e abandoned the term, but not the convenience of having several viable support alternatives. The Cleric, Druid and Bard can all keep a party going when things go south, in slightly different ways, while having a fair amount of versatility, as well. That 'support' type of class is still needed to keep the game running smoothly, but, unlike the narrower leader role in 4e, it's still also tied to magical power.

Many of the effects that the "band-aid" support classes are there for are unfortunately magical, and have magical solutions. I'd say this is because D&D is a highly magical game, as evidence by in every edition magical/caster-classes outnumber non-caster classes by a large margin. To me, a martial "support class" changes many assumptions about the game at the fundemental level. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I feel its beyond the scope of D&D and what the designers have laid out for it. It really sounds like a warlord is a better fit for a non-magical game like The One Ring d20 than D&D.

The ranger still outputs some serious DPR, it hasn't exactly changed roles. Same goes for the Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock and Slayer(Fighter). DPR. I casually juxtaposes with the durability of a 4e defender, in some cases, but without anyting resembling marking. So, not really a shift, more an expansion.

As stated above, the ranger in 5e is a lot closer to fighter than rogue these days.

The Paladin was a secondary leader in 4e, but primarily a defender, a front-liner. In 5e, defenders aren't really a thing, 'tanks' (I'll call 'em, there's no formal terms) are, they're tough like a 4e defender, and hit like a 4e striker (adjusted for 5e numbers, of course). The fighter, barbarian, pally, they're tanks - even the Ranger presumably could be. Moon Druids, War Cleric, Valor Bards, they're mainly support (and also control, and utility, they're casters - 5e casters are super-versatile), but can off-tank a bit if they had to (OK, the Moon Druid's a bear of a tank at specific levels).

In 5e, a paladin is a warrior who can support his allies with healing (lay on hands), defensive buffs (auras), and spells (bless). A warlord could easily fill the same role as a warrior who gets healing (inspiring word), defensive buffs (command zones) and spells (gambits).

Since the few non-magical sub-classes already available have tanking and skill enhancement sewn up and are all-in with DPR, there's not a lot of point to skewing the Warlord any more in that direction than it already went. OTOH, there's something to be gained in the potential viability of such parties/campaigns in expanding it into the 'controller' space that it also had a clear inclination towards (manipulating enemies, either with clever tactics (INT) or provocation/intimidation/deceit (CHA) which the warlord did in 4e, just only to the degree that wouldn't step on controllers' sensitive toes), as well as making it a viable source of the support a party needs for the dynamics of D&D combat to work.

The issue with the "warlord as contrroller" gets into the nasty mess of disassociated mechanics and "martial mind control" that was a huge sticking point of 4e. I'd rather avoid those issues and work in the design space hollowed out by 5e to try to ease those concepts in rather than throttle the gas and bring back Come and Get it.

Of course, I'm looking at it as much from a DM as a player perspective. The low-/no-magic campaign has always been elusive and problematic, requiring all sorts of adjustments, variants, soft-balling, and 'GM force' to get in place & keep rolling. In 4e's brief tenure, it was almost seamless - only a martial controller could have made it better (and I agitated for one of those, too, at the time) - and didn't even have to be a campaign, an all-martial party was perfectly viable in an otherwise normal campaign.

4e made the low/no magic game possible by beating magic to death with a stick. 4e magic and 5e magic are light-years apart, and I'm afraid there isn't enough ways to make up that distance without grinding magic back down to "attack + riders" and rituals again.

The Warlord - as viable, non-magical support class, any necessary hand-waving included - is not really a lot to ask, but what it could deliver is potentially huge.

No, its a HUGE thing to ask.

4e is still viewed as the poster-child of everything people hated about 4e; disassociated mechanics, powers, source/role grid-filling, encounter/daily martial powers, etc. WotC has to understand that any warlord that brings those elements back to 5e in a large, unchecked way is going to cause huge amounts of grief. A martial character tossing "nonmagical" equivalents to Foresight is going to grind more gears than it doesn't. Simply put, there isn't a big enough market to warrant its design and development, esp since WotC has been slow and cautious on introducing new classes (the artificer and mystic are still in development hell). Even my paladin-looking warlord, while probably less problematic than a "casterless caster" is still a large amound of design and development to satisfy a rather small minority of the fanbase.

Moral the story: the wilder the design goals of a warlord, the less likely it will ever see creation. I tried to shoot for a compromise by making him partially a warrior, based around an existing mechanic (superiority dice), and adding in as much of the 4e class as I could given 5e's definitions of magic and mundane power.

A nonmagical cleric has literally no chance in hell. A battlemaster+ as a full 20 level class, though just might.

 

[Zardnaar]

And we've come full circle back to gamist mechanics devoid of any meaning in the game world. You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".



"Martial", as I was defining it, was classes that are generally good at combat. Defined as "proficient in martial weapons, most if not all armors, d10 or greater HD, and two attacks at 5th level". This category covers the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin, as those classes can more or less swap for one another in the role of combat while bringing different secondary abilities to the table.

Nonmagical, as you are describing, is somewhat limited: The fighter is decisively nonmagical, as is the rogue (barring certain subclasses).The Barbarian is fairly nonmagical, though you can argue rage can be viewed as a supernatural ability beyond mere anger issues, and the monk has ki as a source of supernatural exploits. Rangers and Paladins have spells and divine powers.

Unfortunately, that is a rather small box. The best place to look for outside the box in 5e is Battlemaster (as they can grant extra attacks, temp hp, and a variety of tactical attack). My concept is to expand the battlemaster into a full class and use it as a guide to develop more powerful effects. But effects that, at most, would be on par with 5th level magic tops (and far more narrowly defined than anything a current caster can use). I think there is design space there that won't cause outright rejection by the D&D community at large.




This to me doesn't say "I want a class that is good at tactics and support" and says "I want a class that I can use to re-write D&D to be low/no magic." That to me is effectively a non-issue. The warlord should work not as a cleric replacement for no-magic games, but as a unique element on the D&D Multiverse.

I'm sorry, but the concerns of "low/no magic D&D" rank right up there with the lack of modern technology like cell-phones and cars in the list of Things I Don't Think Should Matter When Designing for Dungeons & Dragons.



Only because you refuse to compromise. The designers, starting from the Battlemaster up to today's Warlord HFH, view the Warlord as basically worth a fighter subclass. A good compromise is a full class that is a hybrid of a fighter and a support class who isn't required to check all the boxes of a support caster nor is he bound by the constraints of a fighter subclass.

Put another way, would a paladin-like official warlord be better than the no-warlord you have right now?



Many of the effects that the "band-aid" support classes are there for are unfortunately magical, and have magical solutions. I'd say this is because D&D is a highly magical game, as evidence by in every edition magical/caster-classes outnumber non-caster classes by a large margin. To me, a martial "support class" changes many assumptions about the game at the fundemental level. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I feel its beyond the scope of D&D and what the designers have laid out for it. It really sounds like a warlord is a better fit for a non-magical game like The One Ring d20 than D&D.



As stated above, the ranger in 5e is a lot closer to fighter than rogue these days.



In 5e, a paladin is a warrior who can support his allies with healing (lay on hands), defensive buffs (auras), and spells (bless). A warlord could easily fill the same role as a warrior who gets healing (inspiring word), defensive buffs (command zones) and spells (gambits).



The issue with the "warlord as contrroller" gets into the nasty mess of disassociated mechanics and "martial mind control" that was a huge sticking point of 4e. I'd rather avoid those issues and work in the design space hollowed out by 5e to try to ease those concepts in rather than throttle the gas and bring back Come and Get it.



4e made the low/no magic game possible by beating magic to death with a stick. 4e magic and 5e magic are light-years apart, and I'm afraid there isn't enough ways to make up that distance without grinding magic back down to "attack + riders" and rituals again.



No, its a HUGE thing to ask.

4e is still viewed as the poster-child of everything people hated about 4e; disassociated mechanics, powers, source/role grid-filling, encounter/daily martial powers, etc. WotC has to understand that any warlord that brings those elements back to 5e in a large, unchecked way is going to cause huge amounts of grief. A martial character tossing "nonmagical" equivalents to Foresight is going to grind more gears than it doesn't. Simply put, there isn't a big enough market to warrant its design and development, esp since WotC has been slow and cautious on introducing new classes (the artificer and mystic are still in development hell). Even my paladin-looking warlord, while probably less problematic than a "casterless caster" is still a large amound of design and development to satisfy a rather small minority of the fanbase.

Moral the story: the wilder the design goals of a warlord, the less likely it will ever see creation. I tried to shoot for a compromise by making him partially a warrior, based around an existing mechanic (superiority dice), and adding in as much of the 4e class as I could given 5e's definitions of magic and mundane power.

A nonmagical cleric has literally no chance in hell. A battlemaster+ as a full 20 level class, though just might.

Erm battlemaster over the whole 20 levels?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?625334-Zards-Warlord-2-0

Also this is the rate I think I have settled on for the WL in regards to healing.


Inspiring Word
As a bonus action a creature of your choice within 30’regains hit points equal to 1d8+ your warlord level. You may use this feature twice between rests. You regain all uses of this feature once you complete a short or long rest.

Healing Surge

As an action all allies within 30’ of you regain hit points equal to 2d8+ your warlord level. You regain all uses of this feature once you complete a short or long rest.

You get healing surge at level 2 with another use at level 6. I was going to design some exploits/gambits/powers etc to allow more healing but this is whats baked in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And we've come full circle back to gamist mechanics devoid of any meaning in the game world. You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".

I get it, you disaprove of a version of the game I liked. You, however, should have the basic respect and consideration for your fellow fans to hold your nose, look the other way, or whatever it is you need to metaphorically do to live with the idea of those of use who like having that kind of option actually having it, in some obscure supplement, several years from now (assuming it enters development tomorrow - look how long the mystic's taken and still not seen print!).

4e made the low/no magic game possible by beating magic to death with a stick. 4e magic and 5e magic are light-years apart, and I'm afraid there isn't enough ways to make up that distance without grinding magic back down to "attack + riders" and rituals again.

Your fear is unfounded. There's no reason a functional support alternative in the warlord couldn't be, as you put "hand waved" (that is, given the same narrative forbearance as D&D has always granted magic), right into some optional little supplement, with no impact whatsoever on the underlying system and the standard game.

still viewed as the poster-child of everything people hated about 4e; disassociated mechanics, powers, source/role grid-filling, encounter/daily martial powers, etc. WotC has to understand that any warlord that brings those elements back to 5e in a large, unchecked way is going to cause huge amounts of grief.

All that's remotely on the table at this point is an option, it's years into the edition, the standard version of 5e D&D is set in stone, a decent Warlord that does bring back all the things people loved about 4e (which it couldn't possibly do alone, but hey, even if it did) will not hurt those who hated 4e, it'll be an option they can just ignore.

5e was introduced, at the start of the Next playtest as aspiring to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D. Fans of 4e loved D&D, even if only for a few years. Fans of the Warlord loved D&D.

It really is very little to ask. The same live-and-let-live consideration you're asked to give your fellow human beings who might differ from you in some small way, every day.

As far as compromise, how is waiting years and years, not meeting you half way? You have had D&D be the exercise in high-magic caster-supremacy you seem to insist upon, exclusively, for the first - probably about half, unless it goes significantly longer than 3.5 - of the current ed's life.

Can you not just set aside the grudge you hold against 4e and everyone who ever enjoyed playing it?

 

[Remathilis]

I get it, you disaprove of a version of the game I liked. You, however, should have the basic respect and consideration for your fellow fans to hold your nose, look the other way, or whatever it is you need to metaphorically do to live with the idea of those of use who like having that kind of option actually having it, in some obscure supplement, several years from now (assuming it enters development tomorrow - look how long the mystic's taken and still not seen print!).

D&D doesn't do obscure supplements; it does yearly rules updates bound with a heaping topping of fluff. If you're looking for obscure online supplements, WotC will kindly point you to the DMsGuild. Anything WotC puts out in its official capacity is going to be big and put in the major release, so it needs to appeal the widest swath of players.

And while I did not enjoy my time with 4e, I do not begrudge those that did. However, it is fair to say the treatment of martial characters, outside of some true hardcore fans, wasn't the most well-received element of the game; if the Essentials Knight, Slayer, and Thief were any indicator.

5e was introduced, at the start of the Next playtest as aspiring to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D. Fans of 4e loved D&D, even if only for a few years. Fans of the Warlord loved D&D.

Yet 5e can't be everything to everyone. There are fans of the Elf class from BECMI who love D&D. There are fans of Council of Wyrms who love D&D. There are fans of Player's Option: Skills and Powers who love D&D. Do they deserve official support too?

It really is very little to ask. The same live-and-let-live consideration you're asked to give your fellow human beings who might differ from you in some small way, every day.

So let me spell out my considerations.

* I believe that there is design space for an archetype of martial leader commonly called the Warlord.
* I believe the concept warrants more design space than a Fighter or Rogue subclass allows.
* I believe the concept should support hp recovery, buffing, tactical considerations, and allowance of extra actions (including some form of attack)
* I believe there is sufficient room currently to create a martial leader based on the rules that already exist, once remixed and expanded upon.

* I don't believe the game can support a nonmagical version of the cleric, equal enough to the cleric enough to substitute for it, and not fundamentally warp with its inclusion.
* I don't believe nonmagical characters should have powers equal to 6th level or greater magic.
* I don't believe the lack of a non-magical support character for low/no magic games is alone sufficient to warrant its creation.
* I don't believe that the 4e warlord is the only, let alone best, way to emulate the archetype of the martial leader.

So perhaps it is that I believe there should be *A* warlord class, but not necessarily the *4e* warlord class, although the concepts share significant overlap.

As far as compromise, how is waiting years and years, not meeting you half way? You have had D&D be the exercise in high-magic caster-supremacy you seem to insist upon, exclusively, for the first - probably about half, unless it goes significantly longer than 3.5 - of the current ed's life.

Its not caster supremacy, its keeping mundane and magical effects separate. If a highly intelligent warlord can devise plans equal to foresight, than what exactly makes the spell magical?

As for waiting; get in line behind the chronomancer, Incarnum, and Birthright...

Can you not just set aside the grudge you hold against 4e and everyone who ever enjoyed playing it?

I don't begrudge you. Play 4e all you want. You're still part of the D&D table. I want a warlord that could be accepted at most tables, not just the ones that enjoyed 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

D&D doesn't do obscure supplements;

5e really does. 5e is the Core 3. Everything else gets a weird name that doesn't even sound like a rules supplement. SCAG sounded like a setting book. I can barely remember the names of the others. Xana-somethingorother....? If you don't like Bladesingers, do you go "XOMG! the nasty horrid bladesinererss, they are in SCAG, I must let anyone at my table play one!" No, you shrug and move on...

If you're looking for obscure online supplements,

Nope. I'm old. If a tree didn't die for it, it's not worth my time. ;P

I do not begrudge those that did.

Then recuse yourself from threads on the topic.

However, it is fair to say the treatment of martial characters, outside of some true hardcore fans, wasn't the most well-received element of the game; if the Essentials Knight, Slayer, and Thief were any indicator.

The knight, slayer & thief were returns to the classic game's (mis)treatment of the martial source idiot-specialists in DPR. But, to be fair, there was no way Essentials was getting a fair shake - h4ters hated it for being 4e, 4vengers hated it for knuckling under to h4ters. Most doomed half-ed ever.

The Warlord, Fighter, & Rogue, and their expansions in MP & MP2 were pretty well-loved among 4e fans.

Yet 5e can't be everything to everyone. There are fans of the Elf class from BECMI who love D&D.

Yes! And the EK and bladesinger seem made for them, but here is NO way they shouldn't get an elfing elf racial class! It'd be made of awesome!
(heck, there should've been an "Elf" and "Halfing" in the basic pdf, with no mention of their (multi)class. Just: You're an Elf! You fight & use magic! You're a halfling! You sneak around and steal gold cups from dragons!)

Seriously, I half-expected an Elf class of some sort in 5e. OK, maybe 7/16th expected it.

There are fans of Council of Wyrms who love D&D.

Settings are a whole nuther kettle of wyrms. There have been so many. Still, I don't doubt they'll all get something eventually. There are rumors of Spelljammer for 5e, and it has been gone for decades.

There are fans of Player's Option: Skills and Powers who love D&D. Do they deserve official support too?

They prettymuch have it, AFAICT. But, I'm not conversant - I was separated from D&D from '95 'til 3.0.

* I don't believe the game can support a nonmagical version of the cleric, equal enough to the cleric enough to substitute for it, and not fundamentally warp with its inclusion.

The game cannot be fundamentally warped by an option.

* I don't believe nonmagical characters should have powers equal to 6th level or greater magic.

You are entitled to that belief, and free, as a DM to ban any such powers from your table. And, while I'd happily accept such things, I've always (and I mean always, back to the 80s) felt there was a stark line between 5th & 6th level spells. Ultimately, though, Gambits & Maneuvers aren't spells, and don't need to follow their progressions or paradigms - they just need to be balanced, and, in the case of the warlord, constitute a viable sole support option for parities. Even if it means the genre-appropriate narratives that implies get derided as 'hand-waving' or 'dissociatied' by those who are under no obligation to use, nor even glance at, them.

* I don't believe the lack of a non-magical support character for low/no magic games is alone sufficient to warrant its creation.

Oh, alone, it is. But it's not nearly alone in that. A PH1 class from a controversial edition excluded from the PH, alone, is reason enough. The compelling character concepts it enables, alone, are reason enough.

I don't believe that the 4e warlord is the only, let alone best, way to emulate the archetype of the martial leader.

'Leader' was 4e jargon. It needn't be taken literally. It's the best (only) model in D&D history for a non-magical support class.

So perhaps it is that I believe there should be *A* warlord class, but not necessarily the *4e* warlord class

A direct port of the 4e Warlord would fail as hard as a Fighter sub-class. 5e raises the bar on PC versatility & power non-trivially from 4e, including what's demanded for viable support.

Its not caster supremacy, its keeping mundane and magical effects separate.

"It's not dicrimination, it's separate but equal?"
Listen to yourself.

As for waiting; get in line behind the chronomancer, Incarnum, and Birthright...

Any of them in a PH1? No.

I don't begrudge you. Play 4e all you want.

Look. If "you can keep playing that prior ed" were adequate, there'd have been no basis whatsoever for anyone complaining about 4e, not one peep.
Fans of 3.5 had the OGL, their system of choice would be supported as long as there was the least demand for - and was, lavishly, by PF. There have been more PF books published than were published for 3.5 & 4e /combined/.

Fans of the classic game were warring against 4e in the midst of the Old School Renaissance, with multiple games catering precisely to what they wanted coming out in a continuous stream.

4e cannot be legally cloned. It has been entirely unsupported for 6 years, heck, 8 if you didn't cotton to Essentials.
5e is the only supported option for ongoing D&D fans who preferred 4e over prior editions.
(And, let's be honest, fans of 4e are the D&D fans who embrace each new edition and give it every chance, or they wouldn't have become fans of 4e in spite of the toxic environment that surrounded it.)

 

[Zardnaar]

5e really does. 5e is the Core 3. Everything else gets a weird name that doesn't even sound like a rules supplement. SCAG sounded like a setting book. I can barely remember the names of the others. Xana-somethingorother....? If you don't like Bladesingers, do you go "XOMG! the nasty horrid bladesinererss, they are in SCAG, I must let anyone at my table play one!" No, you shrug and move on...

Nope. I'm old. If a tree didn't die for it, it's not worth my time. ;P

Then recuse yourself from threads on the topic.

The knight, slayer & thief were returns to the classic game's (mis)treatment of the martial source idiot-specialists in DPR. But, to be fair, there was no way Essentials was getting a fair shake - h4ters hated it for being 4e, 4vengers hated it for knuckling under to h4ters. Most doomed half-ed ever.

The Warlord, Fighter, & Rogue, and their expansions in MP & MP2 were pretty well-loved among 4e fans.

Yes! And the EK and bladesinger seem made for them, but here is NO way they shouldn't get an elfing elf racial class! It'd be made of awesome!
(heck, there should've been an "Elf" and "Halfing" in the basic pdf, with no mention of their (multi)class. Just: You're an Elf! You fight & use magic! You're a halfling! You sneak around and steal gold cups from dragons!)

Seriously, I half-expected an Elf class of some sort in 5e. OK, maybe 7/16th expected it.

Settings are a whole nuther kettle of wyrms. There have been so many. Still, I don't doubt they'll all get something eventually. There are rumors of Spelljammer for 5e, and it has been gone for decades.

They prettymuch have it, AFAICT. But, I'm not conversant - I was separated from D&D from '95 'til 3.0.

The game cannot be fundamentally warped by an option.

You are entitled to that belief, and free, as a DM to ban any such powers from your table. And, while I'd happily accept such things, I've always (and I mean always, back to the 80s) felt there was a stark line between 5th & 6th level spells. Ultimately, though, Gambits & Maneuvers aren't spells, and don't need to follow their progressions or paradigms - they just need to be balanced, and, in the case of the warlord, constitute a viable sole support option for parities. Even if it means the genre-appropriate narratives that implies get derided as 'hand-waving' or 'dissociatied' by those who are under no obligation to use, nor even glance at, them.

Oh, alone, it is. But it's not nearly alone in that. A PH1 class from a controversial edition excluded from the PH, alone, is reason enough. The compelling character concepts it enables, alone, are reason enough.

'Leader' was 4e jargon. It needn't be taken literally. It's the best (only) model in D&D history for a non-magical support class.

A direct port of the 4e Warlord would fail as hard as a Fighter sub-class. 5e raises the bar on PC versatility & power non-trivially from 4e, including what's demanded for viable support.

It's not dicrimination, it's separate but equal. Listen to yourself.

Any of them in a PH1? No.

Look. If "you can keep playing that prior ed" were adequate, there'd have been no basis whatsoever for anyone complaining about 4e, not one peep.
Fans of 3.5 had the OGL, they're system would be supported as long as there was the least demand for - and was, lavishly, by PF. There have been more PF books published than were published for 3.5 & 4e /combined/.
Fans of the classic game were warring against 4e in the midst of the Old School Renaissance, with multiple games catering precisely to what they wanted coming out in a continuous stream.

4e cannot be legally cloned. It has been entirely unsupported for 6 years, heck, 8 if you didn't cotton to Essentials.
5e is the only supported option for ongoing D&D fans who preferred 4e over prior editions.
(And, let's be honest, fans of 4e are the D&D fans who embrace each new edition and give it every chance, or they wouldn't have become fans of 4e in spite of the toxic environment that surrounded it.)

You can clone 4E using the ogl. Just have to change the names. It's alot of work though.

 

[Yaarel]

I think I like the idea a warlord can use 2nd wind on other people I think I will use that. They might need a few more as they should not be as good at healing as a cleric the do need some abilities to replace clerical spells.

The level 1 cleric heals two spell slots per LONG rest.

If the level 1 warlord grants Second Wind, once per SHORT rest, that seems effective.

Im not tracking all the bonuses that the cleric can opt into. But the frequency of warlord healing seems ok.

 

[Zardnaar]

The level 1 cleric heals two spell slots per LONG rest.

If the level 1 warlord grants Second Wind, once per SHORT rest, that seems effective.

Im not tracking all the bonuses that the cleric can opt into. But the frequency of warlord healing seems ok.

Currently giving them 2 per short rest as my version heals less and clerics scale better at level 2and 3.

Might have made it a bit generous which in hindsight with the healing surge thing.

 

[Yaarel]

Currently giving them 2 per short rest as my version heals less and clerics scale better at level 2and 3.

Might have made it a bit generous which in hindsight with the healing surge thing.

Just noting that adding a Rally Fighting Style to grant Second Wind to others, seems to meet the need for a level 1 healer. (Without looking too closely at the cleric healing options.)

 

[Yaarel]

Heh, regarding the thread.

The phrase is ‘hand waive’ − with an i in waive.

‘Waive’ in the sense of refusing to enforce something. And ‘hand’ in the sense of something like a casual shrug.



That said, the phrase ‘hand waive’ is pretty rare, but conveys the image of a backhanded dismissal. Probably under the influence of ‘hand wave’ in the sense of good bye.