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

[doctorbadwolf]

Do remember, that "grant an attack" is different for who is getting that attack. The Rogue's single attack is worth more than the Fighter/Monk/Ranger, Barbarian is slightly better than F/M/R, Paladin is a little better than Barbarian. Since the Rogue can sneak attack once per turn, not once per round, you'll probably need to balance attack granting with this in mind.

That's why the Battlemaster's commander's strike is such a potent ability, but also why it costs the bonus action AND an attack. Base Warlord could spend their action to grant an attack, but it probably shouldn't get a benefit on it other than a +Int or +Cha mod rider (this could be different for each build; tactical could get +Int mod to damage, inspiring could get +Cha mod temp HP).

I think some Warlords should get to do one of their own attacks when they grant an attack, but not all Warlords. The lead from the rear, more support warlords, and lazylord definitely shouldn't have extra attack.

Or they should have it, since they’re a minority of subclasses, and they can trade the attacks for granting attacks and/or giving a group buff. In their case, Extra Attack just increases their ability to do those things.

but even they should be able to be played using a mix of strategies and as being capable of actually fighting on their own. Not all Tactician players are going to want to play someone who cannot fight competently.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do remember, that "grant an attack" is different for who is getting that attack. The Rogue's single attack is worth more than the Fighter/Monk/Ranger, Barbarian is slightly better than F/M/R, Paladin is a little better than Barbarian.

IIRC, Mike Mearls talked briefly about that when noodling around with his Tactical warlord fighter archetype, and was quite matter-of-fact about it: they leave in little optimization opportunities like that, because it's fun for the players to find & use them.

As far as balance is concerned - well, everyone can generate a spike of damage most support classes, as full casters, quite dramatically so, and there's nothing broken about a party with two Rogues.

So, not quite as important a consideration as it was in 4e.

Since the Rogue can sneak attack once per turn, not once per round, you'll probably need to balance attack granting with this in mind.

Interestingly, the Rogue in 4e started out SA 1/round, and the Essentials version changed to 1/turn. The Tactical Warlord I played in our first campaign would often, but not nearly always, use Commander's Strike on our resident Rogue - whenever, for instance, he missed on his turn, he was a prime candidate, to recapture that SA damage. Other times, he'd use it with the Greatweapon Fighter.

Base Warlord could spend their action to grant an attack, but it probably shouldn't get a benefit on it other than a +Int or +Cha mod rider (this could be different for each build; tactical could get +Int mod to damage, inspiring could get +Cha mod temp HP).

I think some Warlords should get to do one of their own attacks when they grant an attack, but not all Warlords. The lead from the rear, more support warlords, and lazylord definitely shouldn't have extra attack.

Nod. There were a number of Warlord attack-grants, the at-will did not give the Warlord an attack, himself, some of the encounters & dailies did.

Extra Attack is the Fighter's big thing in 5e, he's unique in getting so many of them, and they're his major contribution (DPR) to the party's success. In 4e, multi-attacking (vs one target - AEs and multi-target were all over) was much more carefully handled, and very much a Striker feature. The Fighter's thing was marking - also something lots of other folks did, but something it exceptionally well.

The Warlord didn't mark.
A few Bravura-oriented maneuvers did.
The Bravura was a fighter-leaning build. In 5e, as a Warlord sub-class, it should get Extra Attack, other Warlord archetypes, not so much, though, a rest-recharge maneuver that could make more than one attack roll might be fine.

 

[Xeviat]

The Warlord didn't mark.
A few Bravura-oriented maneuvers did.
The Bravura was a fighter-leaning build. In 5e, as a Warlord sub-class, it should get Extra Attack, other Warlord archetypes, not so much, though, a rest-recharge maneuver that could make more than one attack roll might be fine.

Do you feel the Weapon Master Fighter is enough Warlord-lite, and then Bravura would be Fighter-lite?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you feel the Weapon Master Fighter is enough Warlord-lite, and then Bravura would be Fighter-lite?

Prettymuch like EK and Bladesinger, sure. If you're a little bit fighter (like the Bard), you get Extra Attack in a sub-class (like Valor).
5e seem fairly enthusiastic about making faux-Multi-classing sub-classes. You'd think actual MCing must be really unpopular or something.

 

[Garthanos]

(I dislike the 'lazy' term, but since people know it...) - though all classes synergize to a degree - some builds/sub-classes can take it to extremes, "all multiplier & no force." The Pacifist Cleric and the LazyLord never worked by themselves, except maybe by persuading their enemies in some way....

I called it Prince(ss) build when I thought of it originally.

Yes, the Hector's tricks are something any Warlord might use in some form at some time, the Hector should just be a bit better at it, and likely to use more 'em more.

Agreed but that particular build is specifically about not doing it themselves and that makes it really hard not to be dependent on allies the controller functions seem very appropriate to be a potent thing in their arsenal
Galadriel is kind of presented with Hector and LL qualities bolsters herself up and enemies run in terror get flustered and make stupid mistakes etc .

But if your character generally not doing their own things getting a bad guy to do it in your place accidentally is right up in the LL characters needs.

Redirection would almost have to be a Reaction (which is also consumed by Ready in 5e).
While attack granting is often conceived as using your allies' Reactions.

5e, does still have an 'action economy,' and spending an action & a reaction to get the effect of an action, alone, maybe not a solid trade in that economy?

That is why you do not do that... the decision as to what things cost is still on the one designing it I have an ability that says 2 times per short rest / day I can use a reaction to get an enemies failed attack to hit one of their adjacent allies whatever.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fact that the fighter gets extra attack doesn’t have any bearing on whether the warlord should get it, nor does the relationship between fight and warlord in 4e.

 

[generic]

The fact that the fighter gets extra attack doesn’t have any bearing on whether the warlord should get it, nor does the relationship between fight and warlord in 4e.

Yes, exactly.

We should develop these things on an individual basis, dependent on edition.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, exactly.

We should develop these things on an individual basis, dependent on edition.

Yep. I do not care what it looked like in another edition except as that can provide fun ideas for thematically appropriate features and abilities.

 

[generic]

@Urriak Uruk, have we convinced you?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

@Urriak Uruk, have we convinced you?

The past 5 or so pages ago seemed to get really sidetracked so I stopped reading after that.

I think you've mostly convinced me, that yes under certain conditions and in the right context a warlord class could work.