Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Jester David]

We'll see. 5e still has a few years left in it, who knows what will make it into a book. No reason not to refine and use something from the HFH is it fits. As is, if we can get something finalised for UA that will be enough for me to use. One or two of them may be useable now but I haven't copied down what he'd written.

Maybe. You could ask on Twitter (would have to be a y/n question).

Realistically, if he were going to do a HFT book with a couple options per class... at two weeks per subclass that's 48 weeks before he finishes. Before playtesting, which can take several months.
But to fill an entire book they need a lot of options: twice as many as will actually make it into the book so you can test and pick the best options. Now we're looking at 96 weeks of design.

But he's just grabbing whatever suggestion from Twitter catch his interest. That's not going to lead to the most popular designs. And he's likely only going to do one per class before moving onto races and spells and other design elements.

They do have the time though. I can't imagine them releasing a book with more class content before 2019. Or 2020. A few of these options might be tested for that book, but whether or nor they make it in would depend on if it's well received by the entire community via surveys.

 

[mellored]

Who are the prototype characters (fictional/historical) for the Warlord concept? Napoleon Bonaparte? Julius Caesar? Captain Kirk? The Doctor? The last of these is the only one who does anything resembling healing, and then not as often as the name suggests.

Lelouch Lamperouge: Typical lazy lord. Super high intelliigence, poor physical. Commands others in his squad with tactics superiority, both in and out of battle. No healing.

Coach/Drill Sergent: Intimindates and Inspires allies to push their limits. THP.

First Responder: Real world rescue workers, though obviously, these would need to fantasy up, all will have first aid training. I put a quick version here.
*Police: Chases criminals. Trys to disarm and arrest. Carry's a sidearm (hand-crossbow)
*Fire Brigade: Coordinates a bucket brigade. Drags victims out of burning buildings. Carries an axe.
*Paramedic (Battlefield medic?): non-magic pacifist healer.
*Guy with St. Bernard searching for avalance survivors.
*Lifeguard: ... maybe...

 

[Remathilis]

Lelouch Lamperouge: Typical lazy lord. Super high intelligence, poor physical. Commands others in his squad with tactics superiority, both in and out of battle. No healing.

Not familiar enough with the anime, but it would seem the "poor physical" element is an outlier rather than "typical". As far as I was aware, the warlord in the PHB was Str primary, Int/Cha secondary and proficient in military weapons and most armors, which to me doesn't scream "poor physical". In fact, "Super high intelligence, poor physical" sounds like the description of the wizard, not the warlord.

I get the lazylord/princess build was popular with some warlord fans, but prototypical?

Coach/Drill Sergent: Intimindates and Inspires allies to push their limits. THP.
First Responder: Real world rescue workers, though obviously, these would need to fantasy up, all will have first aid training. I put a quick version here.
*Police: Chases criminals. Trys to disarm and arrest. Carry's a sidearm (hand-crossbow)
*Fire Brigade: Coordinates a bucket brigade. Drags victims out of burning buildings. Carries an axe.
*Paramedic (Battlefield medic?): non-magic pacifist healer.
*Guy with St. Bernard searching for avalance survivors.
*Lifeguard: ... maybe...

These are warlords?

A coach or drill sergeant could be any class proficient in Intimidate and has the Inspiring Leader feat. That's not even worth a subclass.
First Responder and Paramedic is someone proficient in Medicine and maybe has the healer feat.
Police/Fire brigade is worth a background as most.
Lifeguard is someone trained in Athletics?

These don't even begin to describe any sort of military leader or tactician. They're all heroes for sure, but nothing here even warrants subclass, much less a class. If this is what a warlord is to you, its probably a background and/or feat at best.

 

[Remathilis]

I always found that metaphor stretching things and a backwards way of design.
Rather than designing the class for what conceptual warlords in literature/ history did, you defined the class and then seek analogies that justify it's abilities.

When someone unfamiliar with the class looks at the warlord, it needs to do what they expect it to. When you hear the name of the class, the first assumptions you have of what it does should match what it actually does. If you hear one thing and it does something else entirely, it probably has the wrong name.
(Which is why they renamed the "favoured soul" sorcerer, because what they wanted the subclass to do and what people expected a favoured soul to look like were different.)

If one of the primary abilities of the subclass requires an analogy that has little to do with literary implementations of the archetype, that implies a disconnect.

Apparently, the archetypial warlord is Doc Louis.

 

[FrogReaver]

...

These don't even begin to describe any sort of military leader or tactician. They're all heroes for sure, but nothing here even warrants subclass, much less a class. If this is what a warlord is to you, its probably a background and/or feat at best.

BlahBlahBlah...

A fighter could have just as easily been a background with a feat too...

Why do we even need a rogue? All the rogue archetype gives us is are various thief type characters. Why can't a thief just be a background with a feat?

Why do we need a barbarian? Can't it just be a fighter with a background and a feat?

Your argument fails because it equally applies to many other classes and subclasses already in 5e.

 

[Enkhidu]

I don't get why there's so much pushback on the warlord-as-a-subclass route (aside from the lazy version, which bears so little resemblance to traditional D&D roles I don't think it's possible without going back to the drawing board). The Fighter chassis has most of the pieces required to meet the stated requirements for those wanting a 4e warlord.

* Front line combatant (heavy armor + all weapons)
* Healing = extra instances of Second Wind that can only be granted to other characters
* Extra attacks = when taking an Attack action, grant other characters your attacks (which they take a reaction to use - one attack per other character) instead of making them yourself
* Extra Action = grant your action surge to another character

We haven't touched buffing, since that's the piece that the Fighter Chassis is missing, but its easy enough to add abilities to replicate Bless, Heroism, or even giving the PC the ability to grant Inspiration for a single roll.

The pieces are there - I think its a matter of fine tuning for balance vs level.

 

[Kinematics]

Who are the prototype characters (fictional/historical) for the Warlord concept? Napoleon Bonaparte? Julius Caesar? Captain Kirk? The Doctor? The last of these is the only one who does anything resembling healing, and then not as often as the name suggests.

Based on what I've learned, what I consider examples of the Warlord:

Parson Gotti of Erfworld (strategic and tactical planning; no fighting, no healing)

「BLANK」 from No Game, No Life (strategic and tactical planning; no fighting, no healing)

Izaya from Durarara!! (strategic and tactical planning, no fighting, no healing)

Shiroe from Log Horizon (strategic and tactical planning, fighting, some healing)

Tanya from The Saga of Tanya the Evil (strategic and tactical planning, fighting, inspiring)

The tactician from Suikoden (varied by version) (strategic and tactical planning; some fighting, no healing)

Each of the heroes from Suikoden 3 (Hugo, Chris, Geddoe).
– Hugo gained followers partly by loyalty to him, partly because of loyalty to his mother. Leader of a cause. (fighter, minimal planning, no healing)
– Chris gained followers from being a respected commander. Leader of troops. (fighter, leader, healer)
– Geddoe gained followers that were mercenaries. Loyalty was to money, and the fact that no one questioned their past, but they also respected him. (fighter, planner, no healing)


Aside: Planning aspects are pushed aside in games, as the player is handling that, whereas they are emphasized in shows and stories that want to show off the protagonist's abilities. Explicit healing is almost never relevant, but being inspirational is common, in keeping people going when they were about to give up. Fighting is less relevant in shows/stories, and more relevant in games.


As far as nominal classes go: Parson is a magician of some sort, and Shiroe is explicitly a magician (Red Mage, a controller in D&D terms). Izaya and Geddoe would be Rogues (Mastermind subclass). Hugo and Chris would be Fighters (though Hugo could be considered a Barbarian). Tanya might be either a Fighter or a Ranger.

Basically, I can't really wrap my head around a Warlord who is not also some other class. Either the Warlord has to have every other class as a subclass, or every other class has to have Warlord as a subclass. This also makes sense because the Warlord has to have a vector to apply its talents. Without that, it's just throwing around numbers, which might as well be magic, which might as well be a magic-based class. The only one that feels like it might be able to pull an exception is 「BLANK」, as they work on an almost purely strategic/tactical level, but even then I could see classifying them as Rogues (Insightful subclass).

Mostly, I see Warlord as a quality that can be applied to a person, and thus not a class. A Warlord is not a thing unto itself. Generally a class describes a thing you do. A Warlord is saying, "I can do this thing I do to great advantage for me and my allies."

The problem is that many subclasses haven't been entirely built out to handle this factor. An Insightful Rogue can spot weaknesses, and thus fight better, but can't point out those weaknesses to others in the party. A Mastermind doesn't provide the inspiration to nudge people to fight a little bit longer. And it's those minor gaps that leave their utility as Warlord variants just a bit too lacking.

An entire separate class, however, would allow multiclassing to pick up those basic, missing elements. And maybe that would be a better design direction. It almost certainly won't be taken by WotC, but it's better than trying to duplicate every other regular class as a subclass of the Warlord. Just create a class whose primary purpose it for multiclassing, providing some of the missing elements that the almost-Warlord subclasses need.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't get why there's so much pushback on the warlord-as-a-subclass route (aside from the lazy version, which bears so little resemblance to traditional D&D roles I don't think it's possible without going back to the drawing board). The Fighter chassis has most of the pieces required to meet the stated requirements for those wanting a 4e warlord.

* Front line combatant (heavy armor + all weapons)
* Healing = extra instances of Second Wind that can only be granted to other characters
* Extra attacks = when taking an Attack action, grant other characters your attacks (which they take a reaction to use - one attack per other character) instead of making them yourself
* Extra Action = grant your action surge to another character

We haven't touched buffing, since that's the piece that the Fighter Chassis is missing, but its easy enough to add abilities to replicate Bless, Heroism, or even giving the PC the ability to grant Inspiration for a single roll.

The pieces are there - I think its a matter of fine tuning for balance vs level.

For 4e Warlord fans there's almost certainly not enough design space + crunch to back up the warlord in a subclass. Perhaps Mearls can pull off a miracle and I hope he can but I find it doubtful. What I think Mearls will do is create an OP subclass which will then later get toned back way to far and no one will be happy with it. Perhaps that's what happened to the Purple Dragon Knight and such as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Based on what I've learned, what I consider examples of the Warlord:

Parson Gotti of Erfworld (strategic and tactical planning; no fighting, no healing)

「BLANK」 from No Game, No Life (strategic and tactical planning; no fighting, no healing)

Izaya from Durarara!! (strategic and tactical planning, no fighting, no healing)

Shiroe from Log Horizon (strategic and tactical planning, fighting, some healing)

Tanya from The Saga of Tanya the Evil (strategic and tactical planning, fighting, inspiring)

The tactician from Suikoden (varied by version) (strategic and tactical planning; some fighting, no healing)

Each of the heroes from Suikoden 3 (Hugo, Chris, Geddoe).
– Hugo gained followers partly by loyalty to him, partly because of loyalty to his mother. Leader of a cause. (fighter, minimal planning, no healing)
– Chris gained followers from being a respected commander. Leader of troops. (fighter, leader, healer)
– Geddoe gained followers that were mercenaries. Loyalty was to money, and the fact that no one questioned their past, but they also respected him. (fighter, planner, no healing)


Aside: Planning aspects are pushed aside in games, as the player is handling that, whereas they are emphasized in shows and stories that want to show off the protagonist's abilities. Explicit healing is almost never relevant, but being inspirational is common, in keeping people going when they were about to give up. Fighting is less relevant in shows/stories, and more relevant in games.


As far as nominal classes go: Parson is a magician of some sort, and Shiroe is explicitly a magician (Red Mage, a controller in D&D terms). Izaya and Geddoe would be Rogues (Mastermind subclass). Hugo and Chris would be Fighters. Tanya might be either a Fighter or a Ranger.

Basically, I can't really wrap my head around a Warlord who is not also some other class. Either the Warlord has to have every other class as a subclass, or every other class has to have Warlord as a subclass. This also makes sense because the Warlord has to have a vector to apply its talents. Without that, it's just throwing around numbers, which might as well be magic, which might as well be a magic-based class. The only one that feels like it might be able to pull an exception is 「BLANK」, as they work on an almost purely strategic/tactical level, but even then I could see classifying them as Rogues (Insightful subclass).

Mostly, I see Warlord as a quality that can be applied to a person, and thus not a class. A Warlord is not a thing unto itself. Generally a class describes a thing you do. A Warlord is saying, "I can do this thing I do to great advantage for me and my allies."

The problem is that many subclasses haven't been entirely built out to handle this factor. An Insightful Rogue can spot weaknesses, and thus fight better, but can't point out those weaknesses to others in the party. A Mastermind doesn't provide the inspiration to nudge people to fight a little bit longer. And it's those minor gaps that leave their utility as Warlord variants just a bit too lacking.

An entire separate class, however, would allow multiclassing to pick up those basic, missing elements. And maybe that would be a better design direction. It almost certainly won't be taken by WotC, but it's better than trying to duplicate every other regular class as a subclass of the Warlord. Just create a class whose primary purpose it for multiclassing, providing some of the missing elements that the almost-Warlord subclasses need.

If they had given fighter subclasses 10 levels worth of abilities instead of 5 levels worth of abilities I'd have loved to seen the warlord as a subclass of fighter. I think it could have worked then.

The other part of warlord fan pushback on a fighter subclass is that it's going to take way to many levels to really feel like you are playing a warlord instead of a fighter. Warlord fans want to play a warlord from very early on, not have to wait half the game for the basic pieces of warlord abilities to come together in a subclass.

I do think a class is better. I don't think we will get a class unless pathfinder 2 does very well and pushes 5e to release more material.

I no longer think the lazylord is a design concept that can work in 5e and so I'm personally not attached to it. For those that haven't realized it can't work in 5e I can understand why they desire it. That just means I'm shifting warlord thoughts more toward deciding what the right mix of warlord abilities and fighting man abilities are best to realize the concept.

 

[FrogReaver]

So can we debunk the arguments that a Warlord doesn't fit the design of 5e yet. I see so many of these type of comments it's a real chore to go through them all 1 by 1.

The fact is that the design space of an RPG is more flexible than formulaic. Saying things like a Warlord won't work because it won't work as a party of 1 is simply wrong. There's no design rule or goal that states that. Even if there was an exception can easily be made as RPG design is flexible. That's one of the main points of playing an RPG.

Or how about the argument that goes something like "5e doesn't want redundant designs and you can make a warlord out of a battlemaster with the inspiring leader feat and so making a warlord class or subclass would be against the design of 5e". Well it's the same thing. There's no design rule or goal that states that. Even if there was an exception can easily be made as RPG design is flexible. That's one of the main points of playing an RPG.

Aren't these the stupidest kinds of arguments you ever heard?