5E Best Chassis For A Warlord?

What is the best Chassis for a 5e Warlord class?

  • Artificer

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Bard

    Votes: 20 43.5%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 7 15.2%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 16 34.8%
  • Monk

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 9 19.6%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Druid

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 8 17.4%

  • Total voters
    46
So I bet Nietzsche and you raise me Carruthers? I see how it is.

If this work seems so threatening, this is because it isn't simply eccentric or strange, but competent, rigorously argued, and carrying conviction.

So there.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Criticism of others is always an oblique form of self-commendation.

We think we make the picture hang straight on our wall by telling our neighbor that all his pictures are crooked.
 
As much fun as this is I'm going to wave the white flag so we don't crap all over this thread. Nice playing the dozens with you sir.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
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... ;)
What happens if one adds Bravura bits to the Valor Bard ;p
 
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.
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.
I'll keep an open mind and look at the result if something comes of it.

Mind you, I have no Warlord baggage of any kind, so I might be easier to please then your average bear.
There is a lot of lingering edition-war animosity towards the class, still, yes. And comparable defensiveness in reaction to it.

What happens if one adds Bravura bits to the Valor Bard ;p
The Valor sub-class seems analogous to the Bravura, Lore to the Hector & Lazy, room for most everything else between...

...But Cleric strikes me as a slightly better template.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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. ;)
Honestly if things go well in the monk version, I’m maybe gonna tinker a rework of the fighter that simply turns the fighter base class into a “warlord”, leveraging at-will control and support instead of personal DPR.
Mostly because the Captain is what the fighter shoulda been, IMO. A paragon of martial prowess who is so damn good they raise the morale of their allies and dismay their enemies.

I don’t really see the value of the bard to the concept, though. It’s just a full caster with a short rest heal and a dice mechanic that you either throw out to bring in a new mechanic, or emulate directly, at which point you haven’t built a class, you’ve just...reflavored the bard.
 
Honestly if things go well in the monk version, I’m maybe gonna tinker a rework of the fighter that simply turns the fighter base class into a “warlord”
I have to admit to that line of thought, at times, too. A class based around manuevers, just more, more varied, more customizable, more versatile - and level-gated.

From that you could build a fighter that takes up a combination of tanking, single or multi- target DPR, support, or even control, depending on build, tactics and weapon mix. Done well, with 5e's fairly seamless STR/DEX decision, you might even fold rogue into it.

It's tempting, like the thought of consolidating arcane casters into a Mage class, or divine classes into a Priest.

leveraging at-will control and support instead of personal DPR.
At-will abilities are pretty limited. Guidance is an example of at-will support. It's oddly controversial. At-will healing is hard to imagine.

I don’t really see the value of the bard to the concept, though. It’s just a full caster
Its a template of at-will to short to long rest recharges, weighted towards the last, which is where critical support functions fit. Cleric or Bard, really.

The trick is to use a different, martial resource, like manuevers, but moreso...
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I have to admit to that line of thought, at times, too. A class based around manuevers, just more, more varied, more customizable, more versatile - and level-gated.

From that you could build a fighter that takes up a combination of tanking, single or multi- target DPR, support, or even control, depending on build, tactics and weapon mix. Done well, with 5e's fairly seamless STR/DEX decision, you might even fold rogue into it.

It's tempting, like the thought of consolidating arcane casters into a Mage class, or divine classes into a Priest.

At-will abilities are pretty limited. Guidance is an example of at-will support. It's oddly controversial. At-will healing is hard to imagine.

Its a template of at-will to short to long rest recharges, weighted towards the last, which is where critical support functions fit. Cleric or Bard, really.

The trick is to use a different, martial resource, like manuevers, but moreso...
So, make new spells, but call them something else. I just...can’t be inspired by that.

it’s okay to not have reality warping power once a day, and instead have significant power that will change the course of every scene in a day.

anyway, I’d not try to fold too much into one class, and I don’t agree that it could ever be flexible enough to do both the Cavalier and the Rogue justice, but otherwise I’m interested in making the fighter more interesting.

my ideal Fighter class would have leaned toward captain/paragon from the start, and would have gained Legendary Actions instead of Extra Extra Attacks.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Guidance is an example of at-will support.
Your aura of martial supremacy causes the enemy overreach and stumble ie make guidance into a presence which for warlord types can affect enemies negatively as well

...But Cleric strikes me as a slightly better template.
?
anyway, I’d not try to fold too much into one class
They made two martial classes and whelp we are done... those ought to be uber versatile no?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Honestly if things go well in the monk version, I’m maybe gonna tinker a rework of the fighter that simply turns the fighter base class into a “warlord”, leveraging at-will control and support instead of personal DPR.
Mostly because the Captain is what the fighter shoulda been, IMO. A paragon of martial prowess who is so damn good they raise the morale of their allies and dismay their enemies.

I don’t really see the value of the bard to the concept, though. It’s just a full caster with a short rest heal and a dice mechanic that you either throw out to bring in a new mechanic, or emulate directly, at which point you haven’t built a class, you’ve just...reflavored the bard.
I think it depends on how you are viewing the "chassis" concept. Here's what I was thinking-

When you're building a class (any class, not just a Warlord) it's easy to say you want every feature under the moon. Especially when you're adapting features from a past edition, or edition(s).

The challenge comes when you're making those features specific to 5e, and also making them balanced with other classes.

One way that is often useful to create a "rough" balance is to start with a different class and build from it; you can substitute out abilities and features and proficiencies and you can see that the class is roughly balanced (parity) with a class that has already been designed. IMO, this is especially useful when you're trying to collaborate with multiple people, given that so many will have divergent ideas, and this will give you a rough framework to begin the discussion. After you finish the class, you can then tweak some things to either balance it a little more, or differentiate it a little more.

You can always build a class from scratch, but that's much harder to do when you have multiple people, and certainly much harder given the inherent difficulties of this forum and the ad hoc system we are using.

An issue with basing a Warlord-type class off of the fighter is that my understanding is that not only is the design space very different, but a number of core features are also different (such as hit dice, ASIs, etc.) which would result in it being difficult to achieve that initial balance. But that might be an incorrect understanding. The advantage of a spellcasting class as a basis is that you could substitute in maneuvers/effects/martial abilities for the spells.
 
Last edited:
The bard has some healing, dice used to help allies and hurt enemies, and full spell casting to convert into other abilities as needed. There's a reason why people though it was a good chassis for the Warlord. Personally, I like the Paladin better, but that's just me.
 

Advertisement

Top