Are we overthinking the warlord?

[TheCosmicKid]

I was going to make a thread with an idea for a warlord that I had, but since you already have I figured I should just stick it here.

If you want any real feedback it's probably a better idea to start your own thread. You can see how in this thread we're already barely discussing the warlord in the original post, much less the one buried on page 8. It is the nature of forums.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

As I say above, in the 5e design a big role of the "healer" character is casting spells like lesser restoration or raise dead. Which the warlord cannot do without actually casting spells or having magical abilities. Thus it cannot fill the role.

It cannot entirely "replace" the cleric as the healer. And it really doesn't have to, as its role as "cleric replacement" was a 4e design goal.
That's like looking at the psion/ mystic and saying "step one, it's a controller." Or trying to design an artificer and saying "it's a 3/4 Base Attack Bonus class with good Fort and Will". No. Those are design elements from dead editions. They have no bearing

Meanwhile, classes have a finite number of abilities. 16 or so class features spread over 20 levels.
Each time you add a healing one to the warlord, it takes away a warlordy feature from the class. Something unique to being a tactical leader and commander that no other class could do.

Especially at low levels. Because, if the warlord is the healer and all warlords despite build have to heal, then that's their first level feature. It's making restoring hp a more iconic part of the classs than granting actions or movement or increasing initiative or buffing ally attacks.
The design of the warlord should focus on the cool things of the class, not the expected things of its 4e role.

Bingo. I came to the conclusions I did just by looking at the fun unique distinctive things the warlord got. "Replacing the cleric" is not a fun unique distinctive thing: it is the opposite of that. So crunching the numbers and complaining that the warlord is not as good as the cleric at the thing the cleric is supposed to be good at is, say it with me now, overthinking it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Replacing the cleric" is not a fun unique distinctive thing: it is the opposite of that.

Didn't stop the Druid and Bard from pulling it off.

The thing about replacing the cleric is that the traditional cleric role (whether you call it Band-Aid, healer, Iconic Cleric, Leader, or support) is necessary to a functional party in D&D. So the more things that can replace it, the more fun unique things you can choose from - other than turning undead - while still enabling the party to succeed, when the fun 'unique' things they wanted were all Extra Attacks and Fireballs and the like.

So crunching the numbers and complaining that the warlord is not as good as the cleric at the thing the cleric is supposed to be good at is, say it with me now, overthinking it.

Doesn't need to be precise, but a random table with no support class that tells the last player to sit down that they 'need a cleric' should be able to accept a Bard, Druid, or Warlord without any qualms.

 

[Ratskinner]

Why is it so important to you that they aren't?

It's not, particularly. Mostly I'm a just bit over people arguing that this or that character concept "deserves" to be a class, regardless of popularity or feasibility within existing rules. As if being a class of it's own was some kind of "achievement" for the abstract idea which is a character concept. Also of note, the word "archetype", people throw that around a lot without seeming to know what it means.

With one sorta caveat from my other post. I feel like WOTC era D&D has been over specified. So, if we got rid of subclasses, sure class 'em out. But having subclasses means that you've got to have at least 2 mechanically distinct subclasses for each class...which I feel is a tremendous driver behind all the "meh” subclasses. If we sorta backed a step off the precision and specificity of the rules, I feel we could gain a lot in flexibility.

 

[Ratskinner]

Don't forget Barbarian, Rogue(Swashbuckler) & Monk.

Not sure about Monk...that class is always a little weird. Probably because its like trying to fit Kwai Chang Caine from Kung Fu into Ring of the Nei....Niebelunginigninegingen...gen Lord of the Rings.

However! Yes. I forgot about Barbarian (although I would prefer "Barbarian" to be a race and "Brute" or "Rager" to be the class...er...subclass) and Rogue. I might argue "Rogue" because of the Assassin and Acrobat types would seem to need a home that might be an odd fit in Fighter. The thief-y stuff should probably be just a matter of skill package, IMO.

Maybe there's some other superclass for Monk, Assassin, and Acrobat. That might be a good place for those who buckle their swashes.

But, it'd be a sadly cut-down Pally, Ranger, Warlord, &c to fit in the same class with the meh(Champion).

Or a wonderfully improved Champion! hunh? hunh? amirite? Seriously, though I think some "cutting down" of specificity might help the game some. Leave room for the players to go a little nuts and do some of the lifting.

It's really the 'Simple Fighter' imperative that necessitates breaking every other martial type (even the comparably big, dumb, hard-hitting, & simplistic Barbarian) out of the fighter chassis. Were it not for the demand that the Fighter be simple - or, as a compromise, have a blindingly simple sub-class - to the degree that it couldn't be balanced with any other class, there wouldn't be a need to break out so many martial archetypes. Rogue included (and, for that matter, Thief, in the first place).

Somehow, D&D over the decades painted itself into a corner in which the 'Fighter' had to be both simplistic to the point of strict inferiority, and the 'best' at one thing - 'fighting.' The 5e fighter is surprisingly successful at delivering that idiot-specialist paradox, but it can't be expected to pull that off, /and/ fit Paladin, Ranger, Warlord, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, and old-school Elf (among others) in that same class.
<snippage>

Well, Rogue and Monk are on you, bub. Though I generally agree on the historical problems with "Fighter". Death to the "Fighter", long live the "Fighter!"

I thought they missed the design mark a little, as well with 5e (even though I think its one of the better editions by a long stretch). I feel like they had the great idea about three pillars and then just about ignored it entirely. Within the context of D&D, it doesn't make sense to try to balance out the classes looking at the pillars as a whole so that Class A being the best at pillar 1 means that they are necessarily one of the worst at pillars 2 and/or 3. Instead, we should have seen more distinction, like how Backgrounds only affect Interaction (for the most part).

If I were to wave my magic wand... Background would stay pretty much as is, purely answering the question "Where did your character come from?" Class (and subclass, were it kept) would answer the question "How does your character contribute to a fight?" And some sort of skill-package feature...lets call it "Specialty" might answer the question "How does your character contribute in Exploration and/or Interaction?" Specialty is where "Thief" would live, but alongside "Scout", "Diplomat" and a few others. So to get a Traditional Ranger, you would need to pick "Fighter/Ranger" and "Scout". Heck, you could even go really old-school and have the Specialties each work differently, if that tested well. I know some people might object to having Specialties include things that are traditionally class features, but I think the flexibility would make up for it. I'm not 100% on the idea that there needs to be separate categories of specialty for Interaction and Exploration, because combat is just such a big deal, but that would probably be a playtesting thing. I might leave Feats where they are, capable of straddling the line. Because that is in the players' hand when available.

jeez I can ramble.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure about Monk...that class is always a little weird. Probably because its like trying to fit Kwai Chang Caine from Kung Fu into Ring of the Nei....Niebelunginigninegingen...gen Lord of the Rings.

It was more of the same, really. It's a class that fights really well, but because it's not wearing armor, it couldn't be a fighter, and had to get all weird. That's been long since fixed, but it doesn't seem to matter.

One hoary concept in D&D goes all the way back, and that's the conviction that being able to wear any armor, strap on any shield, and use any weapon is a HUGE advantage.

Think about the first 4 classes:

Magic-User: Armor? NONE Shield? NONE Weapons? Dagger/Staff Magic? All of it.
Cleric: Armor: Plate Mail! Shield: Yes! Weapons: Maces &c Magic? No fun stuff, just Band-Aids for you, but oh, here, turn some undead.
Fighter: Armor: Plate Mail! Shield: Yes! Weapons: All the Best, including the most-found-magic-weapon of them all the Longsword! Whoopee! Made of awesome!

Over time, the armor you wore became little more than cosmetic, everyone could maintain a decent to good AC with minimal effort, the fighter/cleric 'dependence' on heavy armor increasingly became a disadvantage.

Shields were never worth much by themselves, but magic shields used to add a lot to your AC. That's gone.

And the all-awesome, all-the-best-magical-versions Longsword? By 3.0 just about any weapon enchantment could go on just about any weapon.

The old armor/weapon/hps balancing magic & special abilities equation has been wrecked for a long time.

However! Yes. I forgot about Barbarian and Rogue. I might argue "Rogue" because of the Assassin and Acrobat types would seem to need a home that might be an odd fit in Fighter. The thief-y stuff should probably be just a matter of skill package, IMO.

In 5e, the fighter finally made the transition to being either DEX or STR 'based' relatively seamlessly. An acrobat or assassin or monk fighter in light/no armor would be pretty painless to design.

Or a wonderfully improved Champion! hunh? hunh? amirite?

Sure, that'd happen.

I thought they missed the design mark a little, as well with 5e (even though I think its one of the better editions by a long stretch). I feel like they had the great idea about three pillars and then just about ignored it entirely. Within the context of D&D, it doesn't make sense to try to balance out the classes looking at the pillars as a whole so that Class A being the best at pillar 1 means that they are necessarily one of the worst at pillars 2 and/or 3. Instead, we should have seen more distinction, like how Backgrounds only affect Interaction (for the most part).

Nod.

Backgrounds don't only affect interaction, and class affects interaction a lot, but the idea is sound.

Class: Combat (OK, 'primarily combat')
Background: Social/Interaction (because where you come from matters to people)

Exploration?

I'm thinking lift a term from 2e: Kit.

Backgrounds and Classes could be drawn from what's already out there, just re-focused.
Kits would have to strongly point at the exploration-pillar, including the few sub-classes/whatever that already seem focused there, Thief & Scout plus, IDK, a Sage who /knows/ all about various environments even if he hasn't visited them before?

If I were to wave my magic wand... Background would stay pretty much as is, purely answering the question "Where did your character come from?" Class (and subclass, were it kept) would answer the question "How does your character contribute to a fight?" And some sort of skill-package feature...lets call it "Specialty" might answer the question "How does your character contribute in Exploration and/or Interaction?" Specialty is where "Thief" would live, but alongside "Scout", "Diplomat" and a few others. So to get a Traditional Ranger, you would need to pick "Fighter/Ranger" and "Scout".
jeez I can ramble.

Nod. That's not overthinking the Warlord, that's overthinking everything.

It's not, particularly. Mostly I'm a just bit over people arguing that this or that character concept "deserves" to be a class

It sounds like you don't want to add classes, because you'd rather overhaul the entire class system.

 

[Ratskinner]

It sounds like you don't want to add classes, because you'd rather overhaul the entire class system.

Probably the shortest summation, yeah.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Didn't stop the Druid and Bard from pulling it off.

In the spirit of not overthinking things, I won't think too hard about your underlying premise that a class needs to maintain the same "role" from edition to edition, in particular as it applies to these two classes you're citing as example cleric replacements. Instead, I will observe that, from what people are saying about hit-point-restoring "leaders" being mechanically necessary, one would think that the 5E cleric, bard, and druid all have mandatory healing abilities... when none of them do.

The thing about replacing the cleric is that the traditional cleric role (whether you call it Band-Aid, healer, Iconic Cleric, Leader, or support) is necessary to a functional party in D&D.

False. Less false in 1E and 2E, I'll grant, but very false in 5E.

Doesn't need to be precise, but a random table with no support class that tells the last player to sit down that they 'need a cleric' should be able to accept a Bard, Druid, or Warlord without any qualms.

They should be able to accept any class without any qualms, because they don't actually need a cleric.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the spirit of not overthinking things, I won't think too hard about your underlying premise that a class needs to maintain the same "role" from edition to edition,

Support in 5e is not a role, it's a contribution. Clerics, Druids, Bards, Paladins - none of them just do support. Neither should the Warlord be limited the way it was in the 4e leader box - more of the capabilities of the concept can be explored.

one would think that the 5E cleric, bard, and druid all have mandatory healing abilities... when none of them do.

Actually, while a given cleric or druid could refrain from prepping healing on any given day, they all have the ability to do so, from level 1.

They should be able to accept any class without any qualms, because they don't actually need a cleric.

There's two or three alternatives, sure.

But if you're thinking, oh we'll get by with just HD, you will underperform a typical, less foolish party. ceteris paribus

 

[Jester David]

Wasn't the druid a controller in 4e? The shaman was the primal leader.
And yet... the druid seems to serve pretty well as the cleric replacement in 5e.