D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[Krachek]

The challenges of making a Warlord Class.

Allow an ally to make an attack vary greatly in strength. Allowing a Rogue, a GWM or SS ally to strike is not the same as allowing a dual wielding weapon ally to strike.

Allow ally to use Cantrip also vary greatly in strength and will increase in strength as you level up. Allowing cantrip at low level is ok, but allowing a fireBolt 3d10 + ability modifier is more nasty. Balancing the use by an ally of Eldritch Agonizing blast + Hex is a challenge on its own.

Reaction will be a bottle neck. Warlord will have to manage its allies’ reaction availability. It could be time consuming and frustrating.

Allow rerolls or giving advantage on save look great, but rerolls a wisdom save with a -1 bonus wont help that much. Warlord would be better served with an aura granting bonus to saving throw. This feature is already taken by the paladin. Overlapping is still possible.

Making the Warlord versatile will also be a challenge. Casters can prepare then use spells that fit the most with the situation. Paladin can smite. Warlord should be able to be more offensive or support on demand.

Making the Warlord a class that don't rely on the rest of the party lineup to be freaking too good or totally boring useless.

 

[Corwin]

I will almost never read a post that is more than a few paragraphs long. But I read all of that. Well put.

I was going to add the same sentiment in my previous post. But went with brevity. I, too, almost always skip wall o' text posts. But I hung in for every word of that one as well.

 

[Corwin]

For reference, here's a short list of level 11 lore bard can do (though obviously they have plenty of other options).
*~15 personal damage (via firebolt).
*~80 HP worth of healing (via healing word).
*~60 THP (via the Inspiring leader feat in a party of 4)
*Add/Subtract 12 - d10s to a d20 roll.
*Haste every combat (which is a bit of a waste, but for simplicity sake...)
**Grant 1 attack per turn.
**Grant double movement each turn.
**Grant +2 AC each turn
**Grant advantage on dex saves each turn.


So give me a non-magical level 11 build that is in the same ball park as that.

That list is both misleading and, frankly, wrong-headed. I see no point to such an exercise in futility.

 

[Yunru]

That list is both misleading and, frankly, wrong-headed. I see no point to such an exercise in futility.

How so?

 

[Jester David]

People have already asked "how do we build a warlord with classes and feats?"
The answer is you can't. You are forced to take many other non-support features, like multi-attack.

Is it going to be identical to the 4e one? Nope. Not anymore than a swashbuckler using a multiclass battle master rogue swashbuckler will copy the 3e class or 2e kit. It's highly unlikely a warlord class will be 100% support every single round. That's 4e design, not 5e design. Neither the bard nor the cleric have baked-in at-will support options.
Will a warlord fighter build let you do warlordy things in almost every session of the campaign? Yes. Can you act the part of the warlord? Yes. Therefore it works.

Besides, the princess/lazylord is just one build. And a fanbuild, not one found in a printed book. All the official builds in the PHB, Martial Power, and Martial Power 2 relied on hitting people. The warlord in my 4e game spent most of her time smacking people.
Extra attack totally works for most warlord characters. Even if you don't want to deal damage you could push or grapple or attempt to trip.

If you think it can be done, go ahead and prove me wrong.
How would you build a non-magical support class (approximately on par with a haste spamming bard) with the current 5e options?

For reference, here's a short list of level 11 lore bard can do (though obviously they have plenty of other options).
*~15 personal damage (via firebolt).
*~80 HP worth of healing (via healing word).
*~60 THP (via the Inspiring leader feat in a party of 4)
*Add/Subtract 12 - d10s to a d20 roll.
*Haste every combat (which is a bit of a waste, but for simplicity sake...)
**Grant 1 attack per turn.
**Grant double movement each turn.
**Grant +2 AC each turn
**Grant advantage on dex saves each turn.


So give me a non-magical level 11 build that is in the same ball park as that.

Will it be identical? No. When did having to match another character be a requirement for being a fun build? Not contributing in the exact same way as bard doesn't mean it's not contributing or worth playing. Otherwise, why isn't there a bard in every table?

Also, do you really think a WotC warlord class would compare with that? Even for a second. Do you honestly believe they'd release a class for 5e that matched the bard that effectively note-for-note. The catch is, martial characters will *always* be designed to do better over multiple rounds.

I can't even really compare as information is lacking. How many rounds is that? What build of bard? IIRC a 11th level bard will have the 3rd level spells to buff that much for all three combats. Far fewer than the "every combat" you suggest. Maybe four or five if they dip into 5th level spells, but that seeems inefficient. And the stunning effect if the bard loses concentration is problematic. And that much hasting will cut into their use of healing word.

 

[Yunru]

Is it going to be identical to the 4e one? Nope. Not anymore than a swashbuckler using a multiclass battle master rogue swashbuckler will copy the 3e class or 2e kit. It's highly unlikely a warlord class will be 100% support every single round. That's 4e design, not 5e design. Neither the bard nor the cleric have baked-in at-will support options.
Will a warlord fighter build let you do warlordy things in almost every session of the campaign? Yes. Can you act the part of the warlord? Yes. Therefore it works.

Besides, the princess/lazylord is just one build. And a fanbuild, not one found in a printed book. All the official builds in the PHB, Martial Power, and Martial Power 2 relied on hitting people. The warlord in my 4e game spent most of her time smacking people.
Extra attack totally works for most warlord characters. Even if you don't want to deal damage you could push or grapple or attempt to trip.


Will it be identical? No. When did having to match another character be a requirement for being a fun build? Not contributing in the exact same way as bard doesn't mean it's not contributing or worth playing. Otherwise, why isn't there a bard in every table?

Also, do you really think a WotC warlord class would compare with that? Even for a second. Do you honestly believe they'd release a class for 5e that matched the bard that effectively note-for-note. The catch is, martial characters will *always* be designed to do better over multiple rounds.

I can't even really compare as information is lacking. How many rounds is that? What build of bard? IIRC a 11th level bard will have the 3rd level spells to buff that much for all three combats. Far fewer than the "every combat" you suggest. Maybe four or five if they dip into 5th level spells, but that seeems inefficient. And the stunning effect if the bard loses concentration is problematic. And that much hasting will cut into their use of healing word.

So in the same paragraph you mention how the Warlord shouldn't match the Bard, you address your own issue by noting that the Bard is underperfoeming to give the listed feats?

 

[Imaro]

So in the same paragraph you mention how the Warlord shouldn't match the Bard, you address your own issue by noting that the Bard is underperfoeming to give the listed feats?

What?? Where did he claim it was underperforming?

 

[Corwin]

So I guess Yunru quoted me? I have a notification of it, but s/he must have me on ignore because I don't see it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So I guess Yunru quoted me? I have a notification of it, but s/he must have me on ignore because I don't see it.

You were quoted as saying "That list is both misleading and, frankly, wrong-headed. I see no point to such an exercise in futility.", and the body of the post was "How so?"

 

[mellored]

That list is both misleading and, frankly, wrong-headed. I see no point to such an exercise in futility.

How is it misleading?