D&D 5E 5e Warlord Demand Poll

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, even more narrow that that. If I have my official ninja (shadow monk), then warlord fans have their official warlord (the PDK). So they want more than an official WotC version, they want an official WoTC version that is it's own unique class.

The reason I don't think we'll see one any time soon is because if they do that, then they are admitting that material they already published (the PDK in the SCAG) is worthless and should be ignored. It's rare when a company releases a book and shortly later says "that old book is useless now, use this instead." Unless you're Apple with iPhones, I don't see it very often

That's a ridiculous suggestion. That would be like saying making the Theurge means they admit that the Cleric is pointless (but in reverse).

They clearly are happy with classes that do a thing, and subclasses that do a little of that thing. I think they are finding that it is preferable to multiclassing.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Jester David]

Considering it's been around for two years, [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION], if we were going to be satisfied with that, I'd think that we'd not be having this conversation.

Also, I've only got the first page of the class to look at. What do you want me to review and critique when I can't actually see the class?

You can drop a buck to En5sider on Paetreon and get the whole thing and a few years of monthly content to get the full thing. Then playtest and comment, making the final product even better, and probably given more feedback and testing than many of the official classes which were tested over six months... if even that.

So, really, what's your point? If a homebrew, 3pp class was going to do the trick, there's already half a dozen on DM's guild. Adding another one (or in this case, not actually adding anything) isn't really doing anything.

Okay... but Wizards of the Coast isn't going to make an official warlord class anytime soon. If ever.

Firstly, because they already did. The battle master and the valour bard and the purple dragon knight. It's mechanically and narrative covered territory. With the PDK very explicitly added to make the warlord fans happy. As far as WotC's staff are concerned, it's likely job done. Not everyone is happy, but you can't satisfy 100% of the people...

Second, because we haven't seen it in UA already. Which means it's unlikely to make it into the big rules expansion due in the fall. They likely have subclasses we haven't seen, but likely not classes. Given how many times they've needed to get the mystic and ranger down, they're unlikely to get the warlord in one either. And we're already edging on the period where the book needs to be finalised. They're not going to rush something huge in now (honestly, if they hold back the artificer I wouldn't be surprised...)

If it doesn't make it into the 2017 book it's not likely to be in the game for a while. We saw no new classes in 2015 or 2016 and no new content for existing classes in 2016. I doubt very, very much WotC is going to have more class options (let alone entire classes) in both 2017 and the 2018 fall books. That means a new class will be 2019 at the earliest. If even then. Big crunchy splatbooks with new class options might be even more spaced out. It could easily be 2020 before WotC decides there's time in the schedule for new classes...

So you can have a hard copy of the noble in six months and work to make it an awesome warlord replacement. Or you can post on message board that WotC doesn't read requesting a class that's unlikely to fit into a book for another two-and-a-half years. I know which option gets you playing the class you want sooner.

After all, in the fall of 2017 and 2018 - when they start really working on the next books - you can start another thread then and try and catch WotC's attention for a warlord class. And if in the meantime there was a Kickstarter that people threw money at and gained a lot of attention, that would also show there's an interest in new classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's a ridiculous suggestion.

Yes, it is, and if past performance is any guide, if you enumerate all the reasons it is, in fact, ridiculous, he'll yell at you & block you, even if you did support the actual notion of a ninja class (I think, like the PDK, it'd be ideal for a PRC) eventually being needed.

They clearly are happy with classes that do a thing, and subclasses that do a little of that thing. I think they are finding that it is preferable to multiclassing.

Nod. That was something that hit me about 5e design right away: You skim over the PH, and you find: A Soldier background, a fighter class, a wizard class, an EK sub-class, optional 3e=style Mcing, and an optioinal Magic Initiate feat. You don't find old-school MCing or an 'elf class.' But, the EK has elfin flavor to it, and from 3rd on, it advances in both fighter and wizardly abilities, and also offers a fighter/magic-user option should MCing be opted out of by your DM. To visit the other extremes, you could play a Champion or BM or any other class, and lift a hint of Wizard via Magic Initiate, or play a Wizard with a hint of martial ability from the Soldier background. More obliquely, but quite significant in it's own right, there was also the Bladelock, and even the Valor Bard. SCAG even kept building on that already rich collection of 'gish' options with the Bladesinger Wizard Tradition.

And, there's still some call for a 'real Gish Class.' (And maybe we'll see one. Has the Duskblade name been used up by a UA sub-class yet?)

 

[Satyrn]

Well, even more narrow that that. If I have my official ninja (shadow monk), then warlord fans have their official warlord (the PDK). So they want more than an official WotC version, they want an official WoTC version that is it's own unique class.

The reason I don't think we'll see one any time soon is because if they do that, then they are admitting that material they already published (the PDK in the SCAG) is worthless and should be ignored. It's rare when a company releases a book and shortly later says "that old book is useless now, use this instead." Unless you're Apple with iPhones, I don't see it very often

*cough* ranger *cough*


(Wow, 3e flashback!)

 

[Remathilis]

I'm probably going to regret this...

Would this sort of Warlord satisfy anyone?

Strength/Cha based
Martial Weapons, All Armors, Shields
d10 HD
2 Skills from Athletics, Intimidate, Insight, Persuasion, Perception, History (more or less)

The chassis is built around Superiority Dice. Unlike a BM, they get them at first level, get more of them than a BM, and get more powers.So while a might have 3 manuevers and 4 dice; a Warlord has 5-6 maneuvers to start and 6+ dice.

All the rules for BM maneuvers (Saving throw, refresh rate) apply.

They get all the maneuvers of a regular BM, plus more. Maneuver dice can be used for more advanced tactics (perhaps costing 2 or more dice to, save, allow every ally an immediate 10 ft move), healing (maneuver die + Cha to a ally who can hear you within 30 ft), etc.

A "Passive Aura" Ability that grants advantage to a certain type of dice rolls (strength saving throws,dexterity skills and ability checks) or a straight bonus to certain rolls (+1d4 to damage rolls). The aura is always on, though a character can only benefit from one aura at a time (so no multiple auras, even from multiple warlords. Too many cooks and all that). Warlords get a limited choice of these auras.

Extra attack at 5th level.

A capstone ability and some ribbons along the way.

Subclasses can focus on a type of leader; captains get abilities on ships/sailing crews; marshals are lazylords, and knights are "in front follow my lead" types emphasizing personal melee and even some defender abilities. You could also grant some "minor" spellcasting powers to one of the subs to have a "divine leader" or "master of arcane fighting style" for more of a wahoo option.

Essentially, moving the battle master mechanic from a subclass and making the emphasis/focus of a class and expanding the BM superiority dice to be "spell slot" of a warlord. They also get minor bonuses (akin to warlock invocations) that are always on; and can also serve as a tank/melee PC if needed.

The Battlemaster then retroactively becomes the "Eldritch knight" version of the warlord; for a fighter who wants to dabble in maneuvers but still focus on being a DPS machine.

That way, you get a warlord that can heal, buff, and provide tactical abilities, can also hold his own in combat, and uses established system (superiority dice/maneuvers) without straining the game too greatly.

Would this work as a warlord?

 

[Satyrn]

Would this work as a warlord?

Yes. It's essentially what we're all saying we want.



(So long as we can fluff that aura as inspirational, instead of magical )

 

[Lanliss]

Yes. It's essentially what we're all saying we want.



(So long as we can fluff that aura as inspirational, instead of magical )

And put it in an official book, with the Official WOTC seal of approval.

 

[Satyrn]

And put it in an official book, with the Official WOTC seal of approval.

Aye.

And rename the game Wizards & Warlords.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm probably going to regret this...

Would this sort of Warlord satisfy anyone?

Strength/Cha based
Martial Weapons, All Armors, Shields
d10 HD
2 Skills from Athletics, Intimidate, Insight, Persuasion, Perception, History (more or less)

The chassis is built around Superiority Dice. Unlike a BM, they get them at first level, get more of them than a BM, and get more powers.So while a might have 3 manuevers and 4 dice; a Warlord has 5-6 maneuvers to start and 6+ dice.

All the rules for BM maneuvers (Saving throw, refresh rate) apply.

They get all the maneuvers of a regular BM, plus more. Maneuver dice can be used for more advanced tactics (perhaps costing 2 or more dice to, save, allow every ally an immediate 10 ft move), healing (maneuver die + Cha to a ally who can hear you within 30 ft), etc.

A "Passive Aura" Ability that grants advantage to a certain type of dice rolls (strength saving throws,dexterity skills and ability checks) or a straight bonus to certain rolls (+1d4 to damage rolls). The aura is always on, though a character can only benefit from one aura at a time (so no multiple auras, even from multiple warlords. Too many cooks and all that). Warlords get a limited choice of these auras.

Extra attack at 5th level.

A capstone ability and some ribbons along the way.

Subclasses can focus on a type of leader; captains get abilities on ships/sailing crews; marshals are lazylords, and knights are "in front follow my lead" types emphasizing personal melee and even some defender abilities. You could also grant some "minor" spellcasting powers to one of the subs to have a "divine leader" or "master of arcane fighting style" for more of a wahoo option.

Essentially, moving the battle master mechanic from a subclass and making the emphasis/focus of a class and expanding the BM superiority dice to be "spell slot" of a warlord. They also get minor bonuses (akin to warlock invocations) that are always on; and can also serve as a tank/melee PC if needed.

The Battlemaster then retroactively becomes the "Eldritch knight" version of the warlord; for a fighter who wants to dabble in maneuvers but still focus on being a DPS machine.

That way, you get a warlord that can heal, buff, and provide tactical abilities, can also hold his own in combat, and uses established system (superiority dice/maneuvers) without straining the game too greatly.

Would this work as a warlord?

Seems top-heavy to first level. I'd spread some of that out a bit. Maybe make it medium armor and add heavy armor to a sub class too. Reduce the attraction to level-dip.

 

[The Old Crow]

I agree that there is too much good stuff at low level, and some of it needs to be moved up higher. Leave heavy armor, though, since it is for STR builds, and STR builds will be the only ones hurt by removing it.