D&D 5E Boop

[Don Durito]

Apparently we should not just (eventually) expect 6+ sub-classes for any given class, but not having the potential for that many has been sited as justification for excluding a class from the edition entirely.

Bah. We have the Fighter don't we?

 

[Fenris-77]

I'd like to see both the Bard and Paladin builds personally, I see a lot of potential in both. If I were picking I'd do Paladin, but I've always had a pretty martial vision of what the Warlord should be than some folks. There's more than one way to skin a Warlord though, so YMMV.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

If we can get this first attempt to work, making another one based off of the bard would be a logical next attempt.

....but I'll have to respectfully decline to participate being responsible for the Paladin version.

Getting all that righteousness off afterward is a pain, I know. I'd recommend nitrile gloves and a good astringent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd like to see both the Bard and Paladin builds personally, I see a lot of potential in both. If I were picking I'd do Paladin, but I've always had a pretty martial vision of what the Warlord should be than some folks. There's more than one way to skin a Warlord though, so YMMV.

Nod. The Paladin is tempting, solid melee + solid support, the issue, of course is that it is, itself, a class that can barely justify not simply being a fighter sub-class and even then, mainly on the strength of a history that started with Greyhawk Supplement I. The callow newcomer Warlord, with only one much-maligned & short-lived edition to it's credit, daren't fly so close to a Big 4 class's sun.

 

[Fenris-77]

I like Paladin because the moving parts start off so close to what I think is needed. You get a 1 extra attack martial base, you get defensive auras, you get an offensive die pool to play with (D Smite) and spells to add buff, debuff and control elements. Personally I'd probably end up circling back in something on like the monk build and exchanging the spell slots for points and running both the die pool and the buffs of that. I've always like a more martial feeling Warlord anyway though. Lazylord fans will almost assuredly prefer the Bard chassis, which would also do a fine job IMO.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like Paladin because the moving parts start off so close to what I think is needed. I've always like a more martial feeling Warlord anyway though. Lazylord fans will almost assuredly prefer the Bard chassis, which would also do a fine job IMO.

Yep, definitely see it, it's just that it's best for the aspects of the Warlord for which there's the least urgent call already in 5e: a Paladin-based Warlord would be just a little bit more Warlordly than the BM. The Bard as a template also already gives us a more melee-oriented build, as well, though, so I feel it's a good mechanical guide for more of the full range of the class. Similarly, the Cleric is a good template, because it maximizes rest resources, being one of the less at-will-DPR-committed classes in the game.

Of course, the ultimate would be not using a template, at all, but creating a mechanically unique Warlord, concept-first, which'd also be very much in accord with 5e design principles, just, y'know, requiring a professional designer initiated into whatever inner mysteries of those there may be...

 

[Fenris-77]

Repurposing existing chassis is a good way to get some practice licks in and spend some quality time thinking about rocks and ribbons while avoiding some of the heaviest design lifting. I bet if we had a semi-workable Monk, Paladin and Bard version mocked up it would be a great place to start a conversation about ground up design, taking the best ideas and creating some interesting new ways to integrate and realize them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I bet if we had a semi-workable Monk, Paladin and Bard version mocked up it would be a great place to start

As disappointed as I ultimately was with Lowkey & drbadwolf's attempt, I suspect the Monk could make a fair Template for an expanded & enhanced version of the Marshal for 5e.

 

[Fenris-77]

Don't discount that monk just yet. I'm pretty happy with the foundation, but the devil is in the abilities and the scaling. I think it has promise anyway. Mind you, I have no Warlord baggage of any kind, so I might be easier to please then your average bear.