log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Boop

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

  • Artificer

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Bard

    Votes: 25 39.7%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 8 12.7%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 28 44.4%
  • Monk

    Votes: 5 7.9%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 11 17.5%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Druid

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 9 14.3%

  • Total voters
    63

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
My point still stands. If you give the warlord the same martial DPR as a fighter, ranger, or paladin, do those classes have enough other abilities to be able to be traded off equitably (to ensure balance) and do everything warlord fans want out of the warlord? I don't think so. Based on what I'm seeing over the past few years, warlords fans want a warlord to:

  • be able to do something warlordy every round if needed, like a cantrip
  • have decent options of scalable bigger powers (like granting inspiration, healing, modifying initiative, etc)
  • have specialized subclasses like INT based, and CHA based. A tactician vs a brawler, etc.

And looking at how the ranger and paladin are set up, there aren't enough of those ranger or paladin abilities to be swapped out to give the warlord those features. Rangers and paladins don't even have cantrips, so they don't even have the first bullet point achievable. You gotta give something up to get what you want. And IMO, that extra attack lies better with a subclass warlord that doesn't get as many and/or as powerful support features.
Extra attack doesn’t give a class the same or comparable DPR as those classes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Look at it like this. Let's say the base warlord is on par with the base paladin, and also gets the extra attck at 5th level. Let's look at what the warlord would look like by the paladin giving up it's class features to be replaced by warlord features, as similar in power as I can think of

Give up divine sense, and warlord gets advantage on intimidation/persuasion checks a number of times = CHA modifier
Lay on hands replaced by inspiring word. . Pool = 5x your level of healing
Fighting style stays the same (warlords should have this)
Divine smite replaced by precision attack (use one of your warlord abilities to increase the damage of an attack by 2d8 for level 1, +1d8 for higher levels)
Divine health replaced by battlefield instruction, which allows you to send your precision attack to an ally within 30ft, up to a number of times per short rest = to INT modifier
Then you've got whatever subclass feature you want.
Replace spellcasting with maneuvers. You can learn a number of maneuvers = your INT modifier + half your level, rounded down.

So a 5th level warlord with an 18 INT (assuming they do this instead of CHA) would have 6 maneuvers, which could be used 6 times per long rest (4 at lower power, 2 at enhanced power) assuming you never used your precision attack. If you use precision attack a lot, then you don't have any warlord maneuvers you can use.

No warlordy things at will. And only 6 maneuvers learned maximum (probably less). And choose between using precision attack or said maneuvers; not both. is this what warlord fans would be happy with? I highly doubt that. Not from what I've read over the past few years.

That's the give and take I'm talking about. If it's a support class, then treat it like every other support class. We have plenty of examples of how that could be done. Git rid of extra attack for the ability to have a pool of at will warlord abilities that scale with level, or broaden the number of total maneuvers they can learn and utilize per long rest, something. But you can't do both. Not without having major balance issues. All the other warrior classes (fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian) don't have enough other things to trade out and still get the extra attacks
So make something at-Will.
Firstly, even in that setup, I’d make the added damage something you can always add to an ally attack. Why give it an extra cost to be used that way?
Second, give it the option of a DPR fighting style where the damage boost applies to the next ally attack against the target you hit.
third, replace Paladin Aura with an aura that gives an offensive bonus or a more mundane defensive bonus.
Then replace Spellcasting with at-will and SR ally boosts that can be applied as riders when you attack, like BM manuevers. The at wills are small but worth remembering, while the short rest ones are more in line with manuevers in power level. most of these are support, but have a decent mix of enemy debuffs, CC type effects, and even “mark” style effects that help create catch-22 situations for enemies.

I’d like to see an at Will ability to grant attacks at the cost of a single attack, but if it has to be a maneuver, that’s fine.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
So make something at-Will.
Firstly, even in that setup, I’d make the added damage something you can always add to an ally attack. Why give it an extra cost to be used that way?
Second, give it the option of a DPR fighting style where the damage boost applies to the next ally attack against the target you hit.
third, replace Paladin Aura with an aura that gives an offensive bonus or a more mundane defensive bonus.
Then replace Spellcasting with at-will and SR ally boosts that can be applied as riders when you attack, like BM manuevers. The at wills are small but worth remembering, while the short rest ones are more in line with manuevers in power level. most of these are support, but have a decent mix of enemy debuffs, CC type effects, and even “mark” style effects that help create catch-22 situations for enemies.

I’d like to see an at Will ability to grant attacks at the cost of a single attack, but if it has to be a maneuver, that’s fine.
See, this is giving the warlord more than anyone else again. I admit, as a designer, I view things like this foremost through a game design lens. Balance, etc.

For example, any time you're giving someone else bonus damage, it does come at an extra cost as opposed to you yourself getting that damage because it add more flexibility. Your ally might be able to attack the target where you couldn't so you're applying extra damage in a scenario that wouldn't be there if only you got that benefit. That's why there is an extra cost.

Secondly, that ability is a replacement for divine smite--something that is powered by spells. In your version, the warlord gets that, and also gets whatever you're replacing spells with, in this case at will and SR ally boosts. The paladin has to choose to use up spell slots to get divine smite, and you're giving the warlord both unrelated to each other.

This is what I'm talking about.

5e is very good at giving us templates (we know what happens at level 4, 8, etc. We know how casters work, etc). We need to build the warlord (and any class) within those templates. Otherwise you're inviting huge balance issues. So when you are using a warrior template (with extra attack), you need to balance that with how many options warrior template classes get and the power levels of said options when they appear.
 

OK. So before we decide on the power of at-will abilities vs limited-use, we need to decide what sort of balance between them we're going to have. - Which base class is the Warlord going to emulate?

Bard? - Fairly low power at-will capabilities. Very powerful support. Very powerful limited use (full caster.)

Cleric? - Medium at-will. Good support. Very powerful limited-use.

Artificer? - Powerful at-will. Good support. Reasonable limited-use.

As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?
Well, just like the Hobgoblin captain ''Leadership'' replicate Bless, I'd say replicate the effect of some level 9 spells, like Mass Heal, Power Word Heal, Foresight, Invunerability, on an ally.

Same for level 5: Swift Quiver, Legend Lore, Skill Empowerment, Conjure Volley, Greater restoration.

Change the name for something more appropriate and remove the need for components.
 

OK. So before we decide on the power of at-will abilities vs limited-use, we need to decide what sort of balance between them we're going to have.
Tactics, inspiration, planning, resourcefulness, insight, daring... the Warlord's concepts call for the kinds of gambits that work decisively when they can be set up and carried off successfully, under the right circumstance, so you'd want infrequent & high-impact support & control. Thus weighted toward limited-use, though exactly what limitation might be a place where some new design space could be explored, rather than just aping 4e's short/long rest recharge.

As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?
Equivalent, no, of course not - 5e has tried pretty hard to keep magic magical. Both the nominal effects and the qualifiers for casting would be quite a bit off, even more so than they are for psionics. However, the mechanical effects & power could be comparable.
For instance, I could imagine a 'perfect planning' sort of gambit mechanically similar to Foresight (9th) - probably quite different in the details of setting it up and ending it, of course. Similarly, the mechanical effect of Weird - frightened & psychic damage to nearby enemies - wouldn't be out of line for a top-level 'Hector's one-for-the-ages best intimidation effort.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
See, this is giving the warlord more than anyone else again. I admit, as a designer, I view things like this foremost through a game design lens. Balance, etc.

For example, any time you're giving someone else bonus damage, it does come at an extra cost as opposed to you yourself getting that damage because it add more flexibility. Your ally might be able to attack the target where you couldn't so you're applying extra damage in a scenario that wouldn't be there if only you got that benefit. That's why there is an extra cost.

Secondly, that ability is a replacement for divine smite--something that is powered by spells. In your version, the warlord gets that, and also gets whatever you're replacing spells with, in this case at will and SR ally boosts. The paladin has to choose to use up spell slots to get divine smite, and you're giving the warlord both unrelated to each other.

This is what I'm talking about.

5e is very good at giving us templates (we know what happens at level 4, 8, etc. We know how casters work, etc). We need to build the warlord (and any class) within those templates. Otherwise you're inviting huge balance issues. So when you are using a warrior template (with extra attack), you need to balance that with how many options warrior template classes get and the power levels of said options when they appear.
Your looking at what I’m saying, searching for any way to come to a conclusion you want to come to, and diving straight at that.

I’m done. Please stop crapping my thread.

also, I didn’t even present any hrs mechanics, and your talking about my “version”. Doesn’t exactly come across as good faith.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
OK. So before we decide on the power of at-will abilities vs limited-use, we need to decide what sort of balance between them we're going to have. - Which base class is the Warlord going to emulate?

Bard? - Fairly low power at-will capabilities. Very powerful support. Very powerful limited use (full caster.)

Cleric? - Medium at-will. Good support. Very powerful limited-use.

Artificer? - Powerful at-will. Good support. Reasonable limited-use.

As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?
I mean, we can do any of them using any class as a chassis, is the thing.
But, I’d say that it should be a short rest class if possible, with solid at-will performance.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Your looking at what I’m saying, searching for any way to come to a conclusion you want to come to, and diving straight at that.

I’m done. Please stop crapping my thread.
This thread is about what chassis people think would best fit the warlord. Not “agree with me or don’t comment”. I’m not crapping in your thread. I’m posting in accordance with the topic, and have given reasons why. I’m looking at your words, and explaining why how I feel they create imbalance issues. That’s all.

If you wanted an echo chamber of confirmation bias, you shouldn’t have posted a poll with various options. You should have just said “make it a warrior chassis” then.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
This thread is about what chassis people think would best fit the warlord. Not “agree with me or don’t comment”. I’m not crapping in your thread. I’m posting in accordance with the topic, and have given reasons why. I’m looking at your words, and explaining why how I feel they create imbalance issues. That’s all.

If you wanted an echo chamber of confirmation bias, you shouldn’t have posted a poll with various options. You should have just said “make it a warrior chassis” then.
No, you’re taking my words out of context and trying to claim that disagreements about what class chassis to use are why the warlord doesn’t exist in 5e already. You’re reading, “so make some of it at Will” and going on wild leaps to conclude that I’m trying to give them all manner of stuff I never mentioned or implied, as if I’d presented finished mechanics rather than broad strokes.
 

Wiseblood

Adventurer
I voted Ranger. It was a flash of brilliance (or madness) as soon as I looked at the list of potential chassi.(chassis’s, chassises?)


I think it could make a Great subclass of a spell-less ranger by giving tactical and strategic bonuses to allies. These bonuses could be enhanced when battling “favored enemies”.

@lowkey13 I think was pretty insightful suggesting monk.
 

Undrave

Hero
Okay so I had this idea: How about we use the Rogue? Hear me out... Instead of Sneak Attack, you get some sort of 'Strategic Dice' or something and an 'Expose Weakness' feature to use them. Basically when you hit you get to grant the next ally to attack a bonus to their damage equal to your Strategic Dice. Let's say you start low with 1D8 at level 1...

But you can also trade each individual dice for a different effect! Trade that extra damage for temp HP instead, trade it for a bonus to accuracy, trade it for a bonus to saves, that sort of thing. As you gain more dice you can keep SOME of them for the damage bonus and SOME for the other effect. Once you gto 3D8 you could grant an ally 2D8 of temp HP and an extra 1D8 or damage, or vice versa. Some effect would need more of these dice than others. Temp HP is just one dice, but to grant advantage you need two of them. Those effect would work with Spells that have attack rolls to, not just weapons.

You could also trade your entire acton for Commander Strike and allow someone to make an attack with their reaction.

And the subclass could offer other uses of those dice or your entire action.

And of course you'd get replacement for the other class features of the Rogue.

The Rogue is interesting in that it's basically the only purely at-will frame and it has a lot of bell and whistles to hang interesting features on.
 

TwoSix

The hero you deserve
Supporter
Okay so I had this idea: How about we use the Rogue? Hear me out... Instead of Sneak Attack, you get some sort of 'Strategic Dice' or something and an 'Expose Weakness' feature to use them. Basically when you hit you get to grant the next ally to attack a bonus to their damage equal to your Strategic Dice. Let's say you start low with 1D8 at level 1...

But you can also trade each individual dice for a different effect! Trade that extra damage for temp HP instead, trade it for a bonus to accuracy, trade it for a bonus to saves, that sort of thing. As you gain more dice you can keep SOME of them for the damage bonus and SOME for the other effect. Once you gto 3D8 you could grant an ally 2D8 of temp HP and an extra 1D8 or damage, or vice versa. Some effect would need more of these dice than others. Temp HP is just one dice, but to grant advantage you need two of them. Those effect would work with Spells that have attack rolls to, not just weapons.

You could also trade your entire acton for Commander Strike and allow someone to make an attack with their reaction.

And the subclass could offer other uses of those dice or your entire action.

And of course you'd get replacement for the other class features of the Rogue.

The Rogue is interesting in that it's basically the only purely at-will frame and it has a lot of bell and whistles to hang interesting features on.
I've always liked the Rogue chassis, so this makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe a core class feature like "As an action, you can grant an ally within 30' advantage on their next attack. If this attack hits, it does additional damage equal to your strategic dice." Scale the strategic dice to around Rogue level of progression.
 

Undrave

Hero
I've always liked the Rogue chassis, so this makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe a core class feature like "As an action, you can grant an ally within 30' advantage on their next attack. If this attack hits, it does additional damage equal to your strategic dice." Scale the strategic dice to around Rogue level of progression.
Maybe something along the line of "As an action, select one creature you could make a melee weapon attack against that you can see: one ally of your choice that can see and hear you gains advantage on the next attack roll against the selected target until the end of their next turn. If that attack hits, your ally adds X to their damage roll"

I could see 'X' being a stat (like in 4e) and that stat could be based on some level 1 feature like "Warlord Presence" that basically lets you pick if you're gonna be an INT, CHA or WIS Warlord? Even before your subclass so you have more freedom of build? With your "Presence bonus' being recurrent language?

Or that 'X' could just be some dice from the other feature we discussed.
 

Anoth

Adventurer
I voted fighter. Although I really think many suggestions otherwise on this thread are quite good. My reasoning is that I like a player being able to start out as a grunt fighter in the trenches and working his way up to a leadership. And I do not like multiclassing. And since fighter archetypes begin at 3rd level this works great for me.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
If you want to replace spells with abilities you lose spell slots, obviously, but you could use a point system to replace the spell slots. The class still has a range of powers and some choice about when to to use them but also has to make choices about expending resources. If you rationalized points to spell slots, and abilities to spell levels, it shouldn't be that hard to get a balanced system working. It seems like the easiest way to use the Paladin chassis while maintaining balance.

I like the Paladin chassis over fighter because there are more moving parts to play around with.
 

BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester
For me it's Bard. If you strip spellcasting, and combine Bardic Inspiration Dice with Superiority Dice you now have warrior that can use cool maneuvers to do cool things, some of which open opportunities for their allies, or they can buff allies directly by gifting those dice.
 

There is a lot of discussion about combat powers, but I think that its important to remember that the class will need things to do outside of combat, for skill usage and such.

Granting skill bonuses like the Bard is an option, as is doing things similar to the Rogue does with skills, just to other people.

Also bear in mind that even the most support-ty of support classes can hold their own, on their own, to some extent. The class should not be helpless or completely ineffective when its not on its own.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I've always liked the Rogue chassis, so this makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe a core class feature like "As an action, you can grant an ally within 30' advantage on their next attack. If this attack hits, it does additional damage equal to your strategic dice." Scale the strategic dice to around Rogue level of progression.
I’d still want most members of the class to attack when giving a bonus.
 


Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top