D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Sacrosanct]

To be fair, there was no quotation. No attribution, no quotation marks. And you were, as per the usual polite assumption, merely mistaken.

They weren't just talking about the warlord in that post, but the core design structure of 4e in general: daily powers, everyone has magic powers, lots of non magic healing, etc. And said no one cared about those. Which isn't true, as we know looking back at what happened.

Your posts yesterday remind me of why I had you on my ignore list. First you accuse me of saying something false when I was simply quoting Don who made that claim, and when I clarified that I was quoting him, you said I am somehow responsible for him saying something false, and when that was called out as bogus, here you are lying again. See the bolded part. There was attribution. I'm clearing talking about how someone else made that comment and not me.

You knew you were on my ignore list because you kept PMing me after the fact complaining to me why I did it and how I should feel bad for you. And yet, you insist on quoting nearly every post I make, and lie about what I've been saying. So I'm going to ask you one time: Stop. Stop quoting me. Clearly you can't be honest when you do so.

@Morrus @Umbran I know your position a while ago was to just ignore people on your ignore list, and while I know most people, upon knowing you put them there, would largely ignore you as well so that advice would work. But most people don't insist on quoting nearly every post you make after the fact knowing they're on your list, and insist on misattributing positions you never made to you. Over and over and over. Because they know you don't see their posts so it's like they can make things up about you or what you've said carte blanche without recourse. So I'm asking for some assistance here.

Heh. It's funny.

@lowkey13 mentioned arguing about magic item shops in 5e and then comparing that to warlord arguments. @Sacrosanct now picks up the torch about things being disingenuous. But, there is a significant difference, that I've mentioned a few times already.

When I said things are disingenuous, this is what I was talking about. Not magic shops. This was even the second reference I made that quite clearly clarified what I was talking about.

I'm not calling you disingenuous. And you can keep your insults to yourself, please. I'm calling it disingenuous for someone (a 4e fan, in this case you) making a statement like "all classes are magical", me quoting you saying that, and someone else on your "side" telling me I'm being dishonest because 4e does not in fact have every class magical. It's disingenuous to infer I'm lying when I wasn't the one making the claim. And double disingenuous for telling me (who doesn't have hardly any experience in 4e) I'm the one who should be held accountable for sharing false information from someone who is experienced in that edition. That's a load of bullpucky right there. How am I supposed to know what a fan of an editions says that isn't true or not of that edition if I don't play it? And somehow I'm the one at fault for repeating what said fan said?

Some of them realize if they cause enough frustration that the mods will do their dirty work for them and the thread will be closed like many have been.

Or maybe there's no grand conspiracy between people who disagree with "your side" and the mods, and maybe, just maybe, as illustrated in the above two quotes (along with many quotes I called out earlier a few days ago), the problem is folks like those quoted can't be honest in discussion, and insist on insulting other people like what Umbran sanctioned earlier? And maybe, just maybe, you (collective you) wouldn't be so frustrated if you didn't make up strawmen to argue against, or accuse people of doing things they didn't do.

Occam's razor and all that. Or people like lowkey13 and myself secretly meet with Morrus, Umbran, and Danny in a secret back chatroom to plan out our conspiracy to keep people from playing the warlock. Yeah, or that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See the bolded part. There was attribution. I'm clearing talking about how someone else made that comment and not me.

I'm sorry if that's what you meant to express, but it sounded more like a reference back to the topic, than a direct quote.
In any case, the misstatement, and, I hope, misunderstanding has been corrected.

 

[Undrave]

Been meaning to answer this for a while...

1. Given the release schedule of 5e, where it appears that new classes are few, far between, and tied into a setting, how would you like the Warlord to be officially introduced? In a realistic way- not just, "In some sort of splat book."

I dunno all the settings, but I'd imagine, fittingly enough, a book with a 'war' theme with expended mundane options.

One where you could pick up proficiency in Siege engines for exemple (instead of 'Land Vehicle' for exemple, you'd get 'Catapult' or 'Ballista') and with rules for squad formations. I envision Formations as a thing anyone could become proficient in given a certain amount of downtime (shorter than other proficiencies, like maybe a week, top?) and the Warlord could have a little interaction with that system. Maybe the regular use of formations is that everyone proficient in it stands close to each other, but the Warlord can prepare his pals for a formation in only an hour of prep time (one formation per long rest) and thus make them easier to use? Just a thought.

I would also see that supplement including more detailed rules on trap making and trap laying.

2. What features are essential to a "true" Warlord? Are these features that you can easily make in 5e, or features that would require more extensive rules changes?

A lot of Warlord features are already in 5e, they're just spread out over multiple subclasses and feat. What is essential to me, though, is the idea that the Warlord can BE a Warlord every turn. He doesn't just issue two commands and then needs a one hour nap to be a Warlord again. The Warlord isn't going to be as strong in combat as a Fighter so he can't just fall back on that like the Battlemaster. In that way, he needs to be like a Caster with access to Cantrips, or a Monk who can punch as a bonus action or a Rogue with their Sneak Attack.

One aspect I think that needs to be added is ways to manipulate initiative, or abilities triggered by rolling initiative. I do think they'd need to be mindful of limited Reaction and need ways to either not require Reactions, or their ability instead affects the allie's next turn.

In short, a Warlord needs to (potentially) be able to : heal (temp HP or real HP, in or out of combat), make allies attack more often, allow allies to move around more easily, interact with initiative, improve the damage of allies, improve accuracy of allies, improve saves (especially saves to end effects), be better at using the 'Help' action, all the while having the tools to stand by the front line without being a drag.

The degree of effectiveness at which they are able to do each of those would depend on your build, including the subclass you choose. I don't expect EVERY Warlord to do all of these elements, just that they have the ability available should they choose it.

Also, their abilities need to improve and get stronger with level the same way everybody else does, and take into accounts the type of enemies being fought at higher levels. And they need more skills than a Fighter.

3. Given that the Warlord's genesis is in 4e, which has a reputation (if not always a reality) of being more grid-focused, do you think that the features of the Warlord work equally well in TOTM and grid?

I think the disparate features already available in 5e proves that it's possible. It's just a matter of synthesizing them together.

4. Finally, the most debate occurs around creating a Warlord class. But what types of archetypes (subclasses) are you expecting to see?

Returning:

• INT based Tactician (Best at granting additional attacks and initiative manipulation)
• CHA based Inspiring Leader (Best at temp HP and granting saves)
• CHA based Bravura (Best at melee combat, has 'push your luck' types of mechanic where they risk themselves to boost allies)
• WIS based Insightful Leader (Best at boosting skills and regular saves)

New-ish:

• Artillerist Warlord: has background in leading squads of archers or spellslingers or ballista crews (focus on improving ranged attacks)
• Chosen One Warlord: has supernatural luck and a divinely appointed destiny, good for the Lazylord or Sidekick build
• Bandit King: Dirty tricks and Rogue-like skill proficiency, boosts Stealth of allies
• WIS based Skirmisher subclass: Dash of 4e Ranger, good mobility powers and interacts with Trap rules, Survival skill (maybe has some spells/rituals but I'd prefer fully mundane)
• WIS based Combat Medic: Basically has the Healer feat as a class feature, good at out-of-combat healing, can make potions and healer kit charges, most straightforward in combat.
• An INT-based Formation specialist to interact with the Formation rules
• An INT-based Witch Hunter subclass: an Arcane dabbler with ritual casting and ways to defend groups against spells or make allies' weapons magical, no offensive spells of their own. Has skill in Arcana and additional Saving Throw proficiency.

Good enough?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

Well, I hate to break this to you ... but I don't actually get to make the call.

But it's pretty impressive! If it wasn't for the fact that I'd prefer to cut classes (and you know where I'd start ...) I could certainly see this.

Maybe I could tag some detractors and see what THEY think? Like @Prakriti? Or other people like @Sacrosanct ? Maybe they got insights I don't have?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Been meaning to answer this for a while...



I dunno all the settings, but I'd imagine, fittingly enough, a book with a 'war' theme with expended mundane options.

One where you could pick up proficiency in Siege engines for exemple (instead of 'Land Vehicle' for exemple, you'd get 'Catapult' or 'Ballista') and with rules for squad formations. I envision Formations as a thing anyone could become proficient in given a certain amount of downtime (shorter than other proficiencies, like maybe a week, top?) and the Warlord could have a little interaction with that system. Maybe the regular use of formations is that everyone proficient in it stands close to each other, but the Warlord can prepare his pals for a formation in only an hour of prep time (one formation per long rest) and thus make them easier to use? Just a thought.

I would also see that supplement including more detailed rules on trap making and trap laying.



A lot of Warlord features are already in 5e, they're just spread out over multiple subclasses and feat. What is essential to me, though, is the idea that the Warlord can BE a Warlord every turn. He doesn't just issue two commands and then needs a one hour nap to be a Warlord again. The Warlord isn't going to be as strong in combat as a Fighter so he can't just fall back on that like the Battlemaster. In that way, he needs to be like a Caster with access to Cantrips, or a Monk who can punch as a bonus action or a Rogue with their Sneak Attack.

One aspect I think that needs to be added is ways to manipulate initiative, or abilities triggered by rolling initiative. I do think they'd need to be mindful of limited Reaction and need ways to either not require Reactions, or their ability instead affects the allie's next turn.

In short, a Warlord needs to (potentially) be able to : heal (temp HP or real HP, in or out of combat), make allies attack more often, allow allies to move around more easily, interact with initiative, improve the damage of allies, improve accuracy of allies, improve saves (especially saves to end effects), be better at using the 'Help' action, all the while having the tools to stand by the front line without being a drag.

The degree of effectiveness at which they are able to do each of those would depend on your build, including the subclass you choose. I don't expect EVERY Warlord to do all of these elements, just that they have the ability available should they choose it.

Also, their abilities need to improve and get stronger with level the same way everybody else does, and take into accounts the type of enemies being fought at higher levels. And they need more skills than a Fighter.



I think the disparate features already available in 5e proves that it's possible. It's just a matter of synthesizing them together.



Returning:

• INT based Tactician (Best at granting additional attacks and initiative manipulation)
• CHA based Inspiring Leader (Best at temp HP and granting saves)
• CHA based Bravura (Best at melee combat, has 'push your luck' types of mechanic where they risk themselves to boost allies)
• WIS based Insightful Leader (Best at boosting skills and regular saves)

New-ish:

• Artillerist Warlord: has background in leading squads of archers or spellslingers or ballista crews (focus on improving ranged attacks)
• Chosen One Warlord: has supernatural luck and a divinely appointed destiny, good for the Lazylord or Sidekick build
• Bandit King: Dirty tricks and Rogue-like skill proficiency, boosts Stealth of allies
• WIS based Skirmisher subclass: Dash of 4e Ranger, good mobility powers and interacts with Trap rules, Survival skill (maybe has some spells/rituals but I'd prefer fully mundane)
• WIS based Combat Medic: Basically has the Healer feat as a class feature, good at out-of-combat healing, can make potions and healer kit charges, most straightforward in combat.
• An INT-based Formation specialist to interact with the Formation rules
• An INT-based Witch Hunter subclass: an Arcane dabbler with ritual casting and ways to defend groups against spells or make allies' weapons magical, no offensive spells of their own. Has skill in Arcana and additional Saving Throw proficiency.

Good enough?

I’d make the magic subclass have a ritual to make the group have DR against a magical damage type, and a spell or ritual to add a magical damage type/make all weapon attacks do that damage type instead of their norm.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe I could tag some detractors and see what THEY think? Like @Prakriti or I think @Sacrosanct ? Maybe they got insights I don't have?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you think I'm a detractor for the warlord? I think you have me mistaken for someone else. In every thread, and a few times in this thread, I've said I'm totally cool with the warlord in the game, and think the game has room for it. I've even participated in ideas of how to incorporate it. So I'm not really a detractor against the warlord, despite the best efforts of some to paint me that way because it's convenient for them I guess.

 

[Undrave]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you think I'm a detractor for the warlord? I think you have me mistaken for someone else. In every thread, and a few times in this thread, I've said I'm totally cool with the warlord in the game, and think the game has room for it. I've even participated in ideas of how to incorporate it. So I'm not really a detractor against the warlord, despite the best efforts of some to paint me that way because it's convenient for them I guess.

Oops, sorry. But I would still like your opinion.

 

[Undrave]

I’d make the magic subclass have a ritual to make the group have DR against a magical damage type, and a spell or ritual to add a magical damage type/make all weapon attacks do that damage type instead of their norm.

That could be a thing. A Warlord who is best when he has a bit of prep time and idea of what is ahead.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oops, sorry. But I would still like your opinion.

Well, I'm always willing to give my opinion

I agree with you that probably 75% of what a warlord does is already in the game on some level, and what I seem to be gathering from these discussions is a disconnect between "The warlord is already there between class/subclass/feats" and "Us warlord fans are ignored and forsaken." I.e., it seems to me that the truth is in the middle, and the actual argument should be, "As a warlord fan, I don't want to have to cobble together various options when I could have a stand alone class like lots of other people get with their favorite archetype."

Speaking of various options cobbled together, the main problem in using them to emulate a warlord is that they aren't really scaling. Like the inspiring leader feat, which just scales by 1 hp per level--hardly enough to emulate a class feature.

Re: temp HP, I support that much more than straight up healing. I know for some, there is little or no distinction between the two, but in my mind when I visualize what a warlord does, it's all about inspiration, and temp hp models that much better than actual healing of hp. IMO anyway. Obviously YMMV

As far as your "newish" options, I think I'll reference my earlier post about how warlord abilities could model the warlock ability chassis. All of those options could be like warlocks use invocations. Then lesser maneuvers could be like cantrips, and other core abilities that scale could be treated like spells. I.e., a warlord doesn't have a ton of options, but specializes in certain areas.