Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

That is a... rather skewed and incorrect perception.
Not only have at least 4 pretty decent stabs at the class been made since 5E began that you can find on DM's guild, but if you had bothered to look at the board in general, since this discussion started at least 3 people have tried making a Warlord class.

Of course there is going to be division on exactly how to go about it. Had the Druid or Ranger not been in the base handbook, there would be a dozen different ideas on how to go about it, and very few would match what was even in the PHB.

In fact, I would be surprised if very many Druid or Ranger players are at all happy with what was presented in the PHB. Certainly people are not happy with the Ranger and a dozen people have attempted to remake it in a dozen ways.

Similarly-- there is little consensus on how exactly a Psion class should be built-- and whether some of the psionic classes presented in previous editions should be subclasses of that class or should be subclasses of other classes that get abilities from the main Psion class.

Just because there are dozens of options to choose from and none wins the award for the overall consensus of the perfect version doesn't mean there is nothing productive. After all, one can notice that overwhelmingly there are certain trends one can see among all the various options there are certain trends, certain aims even if the exact ways of going about them are a bit different.


Aims, by the way, that Mearls stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. And there is no wonder. The trend is obvious that the guy is not incompetent, but rather outright malicious. He was a terrible choice as a head designer, especially in an edition being this tightly regulated and controlled. Because he has a specific vision about how D&D should be and is openly hostile towards anyone else playing or enjoying the game in any way but his way.

He thinks all heroes should be small and agile, so he only made the races that are well-balanced and have good universal access to all classes. He even went as far as to take the traditional strength class, the Fighter, and warp it so that the Strength version is massively inferior to making it a Dexterity class, similarly he absolutely removed even the possibility of playing a Monk as a Strength character and has added a total of 0 functional subclasses that take advantage of strength.

Of course, in his version Orcs absolutely cannot ever be heroes. Certainly they are not allowed any variety. So the Half-Orc is the only race in the whole PHB that is entirely non-functional unless you play it as a very narrow specific stereotype and don't stray one iota from the singular functional build. And when he felt pressured to make a full Orc race, he made it entirely useless. It is even worse for the Hobgoblin-- if you play that as anything but a Warlock or a Wizard, he intentionally made it so you are functionally an entire level behind the rest of the party. And even worse when it came to those who might want to play Gnoll, which was made a decent playable race in the last two editions, and outright refused to even entertain the idea of making a PC version of them at all.

This is why the Warlord was the singular class left out of the 5E PHB. Simply because HE didn't like it, because HE had control wrapping his head around it, because HE didn't want anyone to get to play the concept. And this is why he is absolutely opposed to doing it correctly at all-- insisting on shoving it into that tiny 1/3rd sliver a subclass of Fighter would even allow when its damn obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that you can never properly compete with the Cleric or Bard in terms of support class while making 2/3rds of the class vanilla thug. In fact, there have already been two attempts to do this-- the Battlemaster and the Purple Dragon Knight-- neither of which worked. If it could have been done, it already would have been done.

It all comes down to him being a damn autocratic control-freak who wants to make damn certain that anyone who doesn't play in his exact way using only his favorite races and classes, you are massively penalized to the point of ensuring your character won't survive long or will contribute so little to the party that you would be pressured into playing one of his chosen options that he wants people to play and thus made the mechanically superior options.


This wouldn't be such a problem if D&D wasn't being so iron-fistedly controlled by one guy with a singular vision and outright hostility towards all other visions. D&D was at its best when there were dozens of worlds and nothing was guaranteed to be universal between them.

But at least he is honest by saying that he isn't even remotely trying to balance things. It is just unfortunate that he chooses to imbalance things towards his own personal preferences rather than imbalance sneaking in by mistake or accident.

Whoaa....I think I'll replace Acererak the demi-lich in my ToA game with Mearl the Evil Designer. Sucking all souls from the mortal world is bad, but a hostile iron-fisted control-freak with a malicious agenda toward a some design decision in making a tabletop game is way more threatening.

People sure are passionate on the subject :p
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That is a... rather skewed and incorrect perception.
Not only have at least 4 pretty decent stabs at the class been made since 5E began that you can find on DM's guild, but if you had bothered to look at the board in general, since this discussion started at least 3 people have tried making a Warlord class.
He's done his own, too, on DMsG. Maybe he'd prefer people pick that up, instead of wait for an official one? ;P

Which is why you need a flexible base class and a bunch of sub-classes. Then each person can take the variant that fits their idea.

Same is true for the ranger. Which has just as many ideas, if not more.
And the Sorcerer, and Mystic...

Really, 5e shows a lot of flexibility with regards to class designs. They don't need to be fit to very specific qualifications or guidelines, there's no Role/Source no Groups no iconic roles, just try to do the concept justice, and include elements from past editions, so fans of it's past incarnations, even if they may have been pretty different, can all get something of what they want out of it.

They've been more successful with some classes than others, of course. The Ranger and Sorcerer, for instance, draw a lot of criticism. I can't speak for ranger fans, but the Sorcerer is an interesting case. In the playtest, they went back to the concept ("DRAGON MAGIC!" part of it, anyway) and came up with something new/unique - and the reception was mixed. For the PH, it presented the Dragon and Wild (chaos) Sorcerer, so 4e fans should have recognized that and felt some familiarity. And, it used elements - Spontaneous Casting and Meta-magic - lifted directly from 3.5, which, if all you had to do was port elements, should have pleased them, as well. It didn't quite pull it off, though. Because, while the Sorcerer did have spontaneous casting in 3.x, now, so did everyone else, including the Wizard it traditionally contrasted with. And, while the 3.x Sorcerer was nominally dragon-blooded-magic, that wasn't built into it too strongly, it could be readily re-skinned, while the 5e sub-class approach has it more locked-in, re-skinnable, perhaps, as an elementalist of some type, but not much more. And, of course, on top of that, the spell lists don't much support elementalists beyond fire, either.

They seem to have learned from these difficulties with the design of the Mystic, and hopefully will continue to improve their process and get better at delivering on classes.

Of course there is going to be division on exactly how to go about it. Had the Druid or Ranger not been in the base handbook, there would be a dozen different ideas on how to go about it, and very few would match what was even in the PHB.

In fact, I would be surprised if very many Druid or Ranger players are at all happy with what was presented in the PHB. Certainly people are not happy with the Ranger and a dozen people have attempted to remake it in a dozen ways.
The thing about the Druid is that it hasn't varied much from it's original theme and presentation over the editions, it's just been (mostly) taken away from in some. In 2e, the Druid's unique spell progression was taken away. In 4e, nothing was exactly taken away, but it's major schticks were hard-divided among 3 different sub-classes, so you could play a druid that did some of what your favorite druid back in the day could, but not one specific druid that could all of it. Of course, in 3.x, it became the D in CoDzilla, which was not great for either fans nor detractors of the class - much as CharOp might've loved alternately abusing and bitching about Natural Spell...

In 5e, the Druid is back. It ticks all it's traditional boxes and is good at all of them, but does so without breaking the spell progression formula of 5e (a direct port, with 3rd level spells at 3rd level would have been insane, since 5e normalized the meaning of spell levels - everyone casts the same spells at the same level). It's a good example of very faithfully bringing a class into 5e, even while adapting it to 5e.

Similarly-- there is little consensus on how exactly a Psion class should be built-- and whether some of the psionic classes presented in previous editions should be subclasses of that class or should be subclasses of other classes that get abilities from the main Psion class.
So they Mystic is a pretty variable class... it's arguable 3 or 4 classes in one. ;)
But, yes, it's a much more daunting challenge than the Warlord. Fans of the random-psionics/Psionicist/Psion/Psionics-Source necessarily have much more varied expectations and priorities.

Aims, by the way, that Mearls stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. And there is no wonder. The trend is obvious that the guy is not incompetent, but rather outright malicious. He was a terrible choice as a head designer, especially in an edition being this tightly regulated and controlled. Because he has a specific vision about how D&D should be and is openly hostile towards anyone else playing or enjoying the game in any way but his way.
Mearls may have the odd blindspot, and his style of design might not be to everyone's taste, but his love of the game and willingness to let us play in our own varied ways seems genuine enough. At least give him the benefit of the doubt.

This is why the Warlord was the singular class left out of the 5E PHB. Simply because HE didn't like it, because HE had control wrapping his head around it, because HE didn't want anyone to get to play the concept. And this is why he is absolutely opposed to doing it correctly at all-- insisting on shoving it into that tiny 1/3rd sliver a subclass of Fighter would even allow when its damn obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that you can never properly compete with the Cleric or Bard in terms of support class while making 2/3rds of the class vanilla thug. In fact, there have already been two attempts to do this-- the Battlemaster and the Purple Dragon Knight-- neither of which worked. If it could have been done, it already would have been done.
Or, he's taking such a slow and measured approach to avoid offending people who actually do feel that way - and have a track record of going to extremes when they imagine they've reason to be offended. The BM could have been nothing but a roadblock to the Warlord, as you describe. The fact we got limited-use short-rest-recharge maneuvers from the BM, then inferior martial healing and attack granting from the PDK, and now long-rest recharge gambits and better martial healing from this nominal 'warlord' (faux-fighter/warlord Multi-class), says otherwise, that the obviously-doomed attempts as fighter-sub-class warlords could represent a measured approach to slowing working in a controversial (only because h4ters make it so by being h4teful, obviously, but Mearls can't ignore their prejudices entirely, he must try to work around them) class.

If the sub-class he's working on here is very well-done, it could well be a reasonable step towards an adequate full class design. At this rate, it likely won't see print until moments before a 6e goes into playtest, but even that'd be better than completely caving and ignoring that the warlord had ever existed (which is how it looked like it might have gone early in the playtest).
 
Last edited:

So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
Can we get to at least 10 of them?

Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)
Tactical/Commander (back line, shouty)
Stealth/Skrimisher (allies don't provoke OA's, allies can move and hide as a reaction)
Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)
Doctor/Non-magical cleric. (healing kits)
Nature Guide/Non-magical ranger (tracking, survival, secure encampment)
Officer of the Peace (net's, non-lethal)
Non-magical beastmaster. (command animals)

That's 8.
9 if you want to include Lifeguard/David Hasselhoff (swimming)

Anyone got a few more?
 

So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
Can we get to at least 10 of them?

Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)
Tactical/Commander (back line, shouty)
Stealth/Skrimisher (allies don't provoke OA's, allies can move and hide as a reaction)
Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)
Doctor/Non-magical cleric. (healing kits)
Nature Guide/Non-magical ranger (tracking, survival, secure encampment)
Officer of the Peace (net's, non-lethal)
Non-magical beastmaster. (command animals)

That's 8.
9 if you want to include Lifeguard/David Hasselhoff (swimming)

Anyone got a few more?

I'm good with name, so I can at least try to give proper names to the concept you present, then add some to reach 10.

Bravada: Banner of the Bastion
Tactical: Banner of the Strategist
Stealth: Banner of the Guildmaster
Inspiring: Banner of the White Raven
Doctor: Banner of the Master Healer
Nature: Banner of the Sentinel
Peace: Banner of the Emissary
Beast: Banner of the Pack runner

To which I add:
Banner of the Thane: Inspire barbaric frenzy in its allies
Banner of Vanguard: Move-oriented warlord who breach the line and splinter enemies formations.
 

So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
Can we get to at least 10 of them?
There were 8 in 4e, and it didn't even do faux-MCing via multi-classing, so shouldn't be hard...

One thing, I think, is that each type of Warlord should have an emphasis, class features that point to it's schtick, and be able to use gambits that reflect that /better/, rather than just having a very short, fixed-progression list of features that, one each, suggest that emphasis and restrict it to only that. Rather like how the other INT-based class works with it's traditions. Any Warlord might use any Gambit, but some will be particularly suited to the talents and doctrines of a given one.

Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)
Should be the faux-Fighter/Warlord MC sub-class.
Tactical/Commander (back line, shouty)
Not necessarily back-line - you could be executing some of your own tactical plans, surely - but yeah.
Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)
Should emphasize healing, and fighting on type abilities. The overhealing rule would work very well with it, though obviously shouldn't be limited to it.
Stealth/Skrimisher (allies don't provoke OA's, allies can move and hide as a reaction)
Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)
Adding group stealth to Skirmisher is a nice idea.

Nature Guide/Non-magical ranger (tracking, survival, secure encampment)
I suppose if we can have both EK & Bladesinger, we can have both non-casting Ranger, and outdoorsy Woodlord.

Doctor/Non-magical cleric. (healing kits)
Seems narrow, and medieval medicine is ill suited to much of anything. But, it could be /a/ feature of a Resourceful Warlord. The one that focuses on preparedness and improvisation involving equipment and the environment. With a very pragmatic approach to 'doctoring' using, yeah, healing kits, since they're surprisingly effective. ;) But also with gambits that make use of whatever sort of gear he just might have slipped into your pack when your weren't looking, or whatever advantage might be wrung from the battlefield, itself.

Non-magical beastmaster. (command animals)
Not as strange as it sounds. Animals - horses, hounds, hawks - were the status-symbols of the era, like a hot car or the latest iPhone. It could work for a Warlord with the Noble background, for instance. But, it's pretty specific, again. (See 'Marshal' below)

Officer of the Peace (net's, non-lethal)
Not sure I see it. (but, again, see the Marshal idea)

9 if you want to include Lifeguard/David Hasselhoff (swimming)
It could be broadened. The Warlord had several powers, that'd be reactions in 5e, in which it dashed to an ally's rescue in some sense or another, either providing hps or a save or temps off turn, or jumping in and attacking (even marking) an enemy, or a combination. One of them was literally called "Fearless Rescue" and it healed the ally you were helping for more hps the more OAs you provoked in rushing to help...

Anyone got a few more?
Sure.

The Art-of-War(lord): The Insightful build focused on WIS. The big, obvious, use of that is in spotting & understanding your enemy. A 'Know your enemy' style of Warlord would focus a bit more on buffs and debuffs, as he counter's the enemy's methods and ferrets out their weaknesses. I suppose this could include the 'watchman' idea of the warlord, always alert for the enemy, with an 'Overwatch' feature like the zone of control, maybe?

The Artillerist: Whether actual medieval siege weapons, archers, or casters provide it, the advantage of a stand-off capability cannot be overstated. Setting up and making the most of that advantage is the specialty of this Warlord, and the focus of the gambits at which he excels. Where there are not source resource to direct, the Artillerist takes up whatever weapons are available to provide the direct advantages of ranged support to his allies - taking a shot at just the right moment, even if it is easily dodged or blocked, can give an ally an advantage or opening, or put an enemy out of it's best tactical position as it seeks over or crouches behind its shield...

The Hector: this was a classification of Warlord powers that wrecan came up with on the WotC boards. It was a pretty small set of powers, because it shaded heavily into controller, which was verboten when your place is in the Leader Box. This is the warlord who harangues, taunts, deceives, and outmaneuvers the enemy into making tactical mistakes and generally playing into his hands. It should involve gambits that change de-buff and even 'control' the enemy (in the sense of getting them to make bad choices, though it might well involve making WILL saves on their part.).

The Marshal: I'm just lifting the name for some of it's implied meaning, not for anything to do with the Marshal pseudo-class in the Mini's Handbook. This is the Warlord who, by whatever means, 'marshals' lesser troops - volunteers, conscripts, villagers, bandits, whatever - into an effective fighting force. It's a classic trope, 'training the villagers to fight for themselves' for instance, and, it side-steps one of the problems with attack-granting and barking commands: this Warlord doesn't have to do it PCs, mussing their precious bad-boy doesn't-work-well-with-others edginess. He has his own NPC grunts to abuse. It also side-steps the problem with pet classes and henchmen: that they impact the action economy. The Marshal would have his unit of recruits that he commands to move around, holding positions, or making concerted attacks ("when you see the whites of their eyes!") of high value. All of which would be resolved by the player of the Marshal. A volley from his unit of archers, for instance, wouldn't be a bunch of attacks rolled by the DM one on each archers turn, rather, it'd be done on the Marshals' turn, and crate a beaten zone, enemies in it would get skewered (save:1/2). That kinda thing. And, yes, it could include a warlord that 'marshals' animals bred & trained for combat, or a posse comitatus under the mantle of the law. (or those could be broken out and be good at similar gambits)


The Princess (Lazylord): Though not intended by the designers, a Warlord that isn't a capable fighter in its own right, and instead uses it's actions to inspire and incite allies, can cover a range of concepts not ever otherwise viable in D&D (nor most RPGs, really). The plucky side-kick who can't measure up his heroes but who's antics, cooperation, and frequent need of saving bring out the most heroic in them. The psychologically important symbol (mascot, literal prince or princess, ringbearer, etc) who everyone in the party cares about on some level, and thus binds them together into a stronger whole. The victim in need of rescue. etc...
... and, sure, if your group like the idea, the effete commander, "sipping Sancerre & directing the battle" from a safe distance.


Then, in the spirit of adapting to 5e, the faux-MCing it seems to go for:

Crusader: The 1/3rd Cleric or half-Paladin Warlord, a leader of zealots and champion of a divine cause, who, in the D&D world, obviously can't get away with it without displaying actual divine powers.

Arcane Battlemaster (name lifted from a Paragon Path): In the D&D, spells very often turn the tide of battle, if not decide it from the beginning, so it only makes sense that there are commanders who shape their tactics around the effective use of caster assets, and, probably, pick up wizardry second-hand, INT-focused as the warlord can be.

Infernal Strategist (ditto): Some will pay any price for victory. The Infernal Strategist employs both magical powers and diabolical gambits gleaned from the darkest and most perilous of arcane sources.

The Thaneborn (name lifted from barbarian build - and thanks for reminding me of this one, Vince): A traditional leader of a clan or tribe or the like, by right of birth. The Thane leads 'his people' in battle, and others call those people 'barbarians'). A faux-Barbarian-MC who's rage is not as potent, but is 'contagious' to his allies.
 
Last edited:

When I see the word ‘gambit’, I interpret it to mean a level 1 mechanic that is a prelude of more developed mechanics that are to come at higher levels.
 

Any Warlord might use any Gambit, but some will be particularly suited to the talents and doctrines of a given one.
Sure. Just like any wizard can cast any spell, and each sub-class get's a bonuses to certain spells.

i.e.
Direct the strike (any warlord): An ally can reroll a missed attack.
Tactician: When you use direct the strike, the ally gains +Int to hit.

Having a flexible choose-your-gambit based system would allow for lots of builds and easy expansion into new concepts just by adding new gabits.

Seems narrow, and medieval medicine is ill suited to much of anything. But, it could be /a/ feature of a Resourceful Warlord.
I never saw the resourceful warlord as any kind of architype. It was just a middle-of-the-road warlord between insperation and tactical.

One of them was literally called "Fearless Rescue" and it healed the ally you were helping for more hps the more OAs you provoked in rushing to help...
"Feerless Rescure" sounds good. But adding THP for provoking seems a bit off.
In general, you want to avoid too many off-turn die rolls.

The Art-of-War(lord): The Insightful build focused on WIS. The big, obvious, use of that is in spotting & understanding your enemy. A 'Know your enemy' style of Warlord would focus a bit more on buffs and debuffs, as he counter's the enemy's methods and ferrets out their weaknesses.
IMO, that would work better as an Int based Sage-lord. Making knowlage checks to know you enemy, beyond mearly the "plants are vulnerable to fire".

i.e.
"This orc clan considers mongooses to be sacred. It will confuse them if we use it as our battle cry."
"This kind of jelly's acids produces vinegar, it can be neutralized with baking soda."
"That style of armor restricts arm movement to 20 degrees. So try and stay outside it's range."

Might be hard to come up with a good mechanic for it though.
Possibly a random bonus?
i.e.

Make a knowlege check, you gain a bonus on the chart below.
0-10: Nothing
11-12: +2 to-hit.
13-14: +2 to defense.
ect...

The Artillerist: Whether actual medieval siege weapons, archers, or casters provide it, the advantage of a stand-off capability cannot be overstated. Setting up and making the most of that advantage is the specialty of this Warlord, and the focus of the gambits at which he excels.
IMO, just make most gabits will work both in melee and range by default. Allowing for both Str or Dex.

The Hector: this was a classification of Warlord powers that wrecan came up with on the WotC boards. It was a pretty small set of powers, because it shaded heavily into controller, which was verboten when your place is in the Leader Box. This is the warlord who harangues, taunts, deceives, and outmaneuvers the enemy into making tactical mistakes and generally playing into his hands.
Forgot that one.

The Marshal: This is the Warlord who, by whatever means, 'marshals' lesser troops - volunteers, conscripts, villagers, bandits, whatever - into an effective fighting force.
That could be fun, but tricky to pull off well. Paticularly if you don't have any towns nearby.
Probably best left as a gambit. Something any warlord can pick up.

The Princess (Lazylord): The psychologically important symbol (mascot, literal prince or princess, ringbearer, etc) who everyone in the party cares about on some level, and thus binds them together into a stronger whole. The victim in need of rescue. etc...
"Mascot" might be a better name. But i'm not sure how much different it is from inspiring.

Crusader:
Arcane Battlemaster (name lifted from a Paragon Path).
Infernal Strategist (ditto):.
The Thaneborn (name lifted from barbarian build - and thanks for reminding me of this one, Vince).
Those all work.


I suppose this could include the 'watchman' idea of the warlord, always alert for the enemy, with an 'Overwatch' feature like the zone of control, maybe?
I like the idea of the Overwatch zone being a core feature. Though not as a full requirement.
Something like dealing full damage if you guessed correctly, but still ahve half on a miss-placement.


Maybe something like...

Gambits:
Focus Fire: Allies gain a +1d4 bonus to any damage roll against the target. If the target is in your overwatch zone, increase the bonus to +1d6.
Shift: An ally can move half their speed. If they are in your overwatch zone, they do not provoke OA's.

Sub-class:
Tactician: All enemies are considered in your overwatch zone for the Focus Fire gambits.
Skirmisher: All allies are considered in your overwatch zone for the Shift gambits.
 

When I see the word ‘gambit’, I interpret it to mean a level 1 mechanic that is a prelude of more developed mechanics that are to come at higher levels.
I'm on the fecnce about making new gambits, or letting them stack.


Which sounds better?

Gambit Levels.
1: Novice Gambit
2: Overwatch: You set up a zone at the end of your turn. Your gambits gain a bonus when in the zone.
3: Sub-class
4: ABI
5: Adept Gambit
...
11: Expert Gambit
...
17: Master Gambit

Gambit Stacking.
1: Gambit
2: Overwatch: You set up a zone at the end of your turn. Your gambits gain a bonus when in the zone.
3: Sub-class
4: ABI
5: Lateral Thinking: You can use two gambits at once.
...
11: Multilateral Thinking: You can use three gambits at once.
...
17: Omnilateral Thinking: You can use four gambits at once.
 

I'm on the fecnce about making new gambits, or letting them stack.


Which sounds better?
Stacking can be problematic, but there's no shortage of it. Mike's original idea of having Gambits require concentration is a good one. The fighter has no use for concentration ATM, so it's particularly good for a fighter sub-class. A Gambit could even keep going as long as the Warlord or enough of his allies are concentrating on keeping the 'plan' on track. Once the warlord is down, and there aren't enough of his allies sticking to the plan, it falls apart...
...while it's still salvageable, concentration could be resumed to add (or return) allies to the Gambit's benefits. Like any idea I have, probably too complicated, but it catches the idea of participating in a plan to get the benefits. It also keeps the warlord from stacking his buffing Gambits too easily with the most OP buffs of other support types, which generally require Concentration.

When I see the word ‘gambit’, I interpret it to mean a level 1 mechanic that is a prelude of more developed mechanics that are to come at higher levels.
I just see it as a second word that sounds better than 'exploit' (like 'maneuver'). To make a viable support character from first that remains viable through all levels based on 'gambits' they'd have to have rather a lot of them to choose from, and a fairly high degree of flexibility in choosing which ones to execute in a given encounter. And, the feature, whether CS dice, maneuver, gambit or some combinations would have to be level-gated, so that as the party advances, the Warlord keeps up with their needs and continues to complement their growing abilities. One problem with the BM is that his maneuvers failed in that regard, being essentially all 'low level' abilities.

If this design challenge had been taken up in the playtest, we might have gotten a more consistent, unified approach. Instead of the weird, piecemeal way non-BMs use CS dice, we could have a consistent set of maneuvers or gambits that various 'martial' (whether non-magical or mixed) classes can draw from and new classes or sub-classes could add too. Of course, they could have kept something like MDDs, too. ::shrug::
 
Last edited:

Sure. Just like any wizard can cast any spell, and each sub-class get's a bonuses to certain spells.

i.e.
Direct the strike (any warlord): An ally can reroll a missed attack.
Tactician: When you use direct the strike, the ally gains +Int to hit.
Exactly. Warlords need to be flexible with their Gambits, because inflexible tactical genius, well, isn't.

Having a flexible choose-your-gambit based system would allow for lots of builds and easy expansion into new concepts just by adding new gabits.

I never saw the resourceful warlord as any kind of architype. It was just a middle-of-the-road warlord between insperation and tactical.
Yes, but we're focusing on ideas, not mechanics. Mechanically it was just split-the-difference between INT & CHA importance, but some of the powers it was good at, and it's commanding presence at least seemed to support the implication of the name: a Warlord who was 'ready for anything,' an opportunist & contingency-planner.
Spinning that out just a little further gets you the logistical warlord focused on material preparation, as well, and the medic with his healing kits plops neatly into that much broader concept.

"Feerless Rescure" sounds good. But adding THP for provoking seems a bit off.
The idea is the more danger you run through to help your ally, the more inspired he is. But that was just one example of a 4e 'rescuer' exploit, there were more than a few. Then again, the idea of the Warlord who comes to ally's rescue literally might, like the Bravura, be another faux-MC sub-class, either yet another fighter/faux-warlord, a Warlord sub-class that cribs from fighter. Or, it could just be a Warlord archetype that shades towards defender the way Oath of the Crown or Path of Ancestors tend to do.

IMO, that would work better as an Int based Sage-lord. Making knowlage checks to know you enemy, beyond mearly the "plants are vulnerable to fire".
Well, if gambits are generally available and sub-class just makes you better at some, that'd be how the tactician uses 'know your enemy' gambits, by prior knowledge, while the Insightful one susses out the strengths, weaknesses, values, etc of his enemies right in the moment, by direct first-hand observation.
Oh, it's a sub-class that could have some sort of perk for 'surveying the field,' that is for spending actions in early rounds to get benefits for his allies, later, like the Commander in 13A.

IMO, just make most gabits will work both in melee and range by default. Allowing for both Str or Dex.
That's how I'd see it, yes. It fits with the rest of 5e design, and it allows an Artillerist/Archer warlord to use the same gambits, just specialize in and be a tad better at the ranged uses.

That could be fun, but tricky to pull off well. Paticularly if you don't have any towns nearby.
Probably best left as a gambit. Something any warlord can pick up.
All gambits should be available to all Warlords, but the Marshal could be less prone to having his 'recruit troops' gambits blocked by mere lack of plausible availability. Maybe he has regulars, while other warlords have to recruit from locals. Maybe when he really needs 'em the Cavalry come over the hill in a cloud of dissociative mechanics.
IDK, it's a thought. And it calls back to the fighter-as-lord with followers. Albeit, at whatever level the Warlord gets his sub-class, rather than 'name' level.

"Mascot" might be a better name. But i'm not sure how much different it is from inspiring.
Inspiring is more likely to inspire by doing, the whole lead from the front thing.
One name I considered, since 'lazy'/'mascot'/side-kick are silly, and 'princess' presumably old-fashioned-sexist, was "Icon." Lazy's just the one everyone knows.

I like the idea of the Overwatch zone being a core feature. Though not as a full requirement.
Something like dealing full damage if you guessed correctly, but still ahve half on a miss-placement.
I'm still on the fence about it. If the implementation really adds something in return for the added complexity to track, maybe. It should be made clear how it'd work in TotM, though.


Oh, and one more:

Combat Veteran (again, cribbed from a Paragon Path, but this time spun in a new direction): A grit-and-gristle old soldier who hasn't faded away just yet, the Combat Veteran has seen it all - the grand strategies, the cunning plans, the unstoppable secret weapons, the divine assurance of victory, the flashy battlefield spells, the invincible overlords, the fated deliverers and the omnipotent artifacts - and y'know what, it's all crap. In the end, the guy left standing with nothing sharp in is vital organs has won.
The combat veteran eschews fancier gambits and those that edge into counting on improbable coincidence and enemy stupidity, and instead keeps his allies going with pragmatic tricks and his enemies on the ropes with a solid does of reality, delivered right between the uprights. He excels at granting allies saves and defensive buffs against magic, whacky monsters, gonzo combat tricks, and all the wilder stuff of fantasy - and very solidly real offensive buffs vs those who depend upon such things.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top