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

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
There's at least one classic (if we can call 11yo 'classic') build that calls for exactly that. And, really, also mainly one that calls for attacking all the time. Really, it just needs to be a class that gives the player a lot of choice.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Which one do you think will work best?
I voted, but I did not consider the lazylord, which I think will be a bit devisive in terms of chassis. From my point of view, lazylord isn't a subclass of the 4e warlord class, it's an artifact that there happened to be non-attack powers available at enough levels to dump what was otherwise a primary part of the class, melee attacks.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I voted, but I did not consider the lazylord, which I think will be a bit decisive in terms of chassis. From my point of view, lazylord isn't a subclass of the 4e warlord class, it's an artifact that there happened to be non-attack powers available at enough levels to dump what was otherwise a primary part of the class, melee attacks.
I agree.
 

I voted, but I did not consider the lazylord, which I think will be a bit decisive in terms of chassis. From my point of view, lazylord isn't a subclass of the 4e warlord class, it's an artifact that there happened to be non-attack powers available at enough levels to dump what was otherwise a primary part of the class, melee attacks.
There weren't enough such in the PH1, it didn't stop players from going on about the build, and essentially ignoring some of their dailies & encounters to do it. There were quite a few added in Martial Power, making it practical to go all-in on attack-granting without 'wasting' encounter/daily attack choices.

So, yeah, it started as an unintended oddity, but it ended up fully-supported.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
There weren't enough such in the PH1, it didn't stop players from going on about the build, and essentially ignoring some of their dailies & encounters to do it. There were quite a few added in Martial Power, making it practical to go all-in on attack-granting without 'wasting' encounter/daily attack choices.

So, yeah, it started as an unintended oddity, but it ended up fully-supported.
And that's why I think it will be divisive. To some, the lazylord is a warlord build that needs to be supported by whatever chassis we pick in 5e. To others, the chassis should strongly support the PH1 warlord. I don't think either is "the one true path". But I do think that it will shift choice of existing classes as a chassis in non-trivial ways.
 

And that's why I think it will be divisive. To some, the lazylord is a warlord build that needs to be supported by whatever chassis we pick in 5e. To others, the chassis should strongly support the PH1 warlord.
The PH1 Warlord was just 2 out of 6-8 builds (Archer & Lazy didn't have a specific Presence, so might be arguable), and part of the deal with 5e is classes are supposed to be able to support 6+ (or maybe it was even 10?) sub-classes...
...so focusing on just 2?

I don't think either is "the one true path". But I do think that it will shift choice of existing classes as a chassis in non-trivial ways.
I actually question the wisdom of using an existing class as anything more than a sort of resource template, if that.
Sure, there are 5e classes that are prettymuch the same, with different splat slotted into each space - Cleric & Druid, most obviously; Paladin & Ranger, for another - but there are also reasonably unique ones, like the Warlock.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The PH1 Warlord was just 2 out of 6-8 builds (Archer & Lazy didn't have a specific Presence, so might be arguable), and part of the deal with 5e is classes are supposed to be able to support 6+ (or maybe it was even 10?) sub-classes...
...so focusing on just 2?

I actually question the wisdom of using an existing class as anything more than a sort of resource template, if that.
Sure, there are 5e classes that are prettymuch the same, with different splat slotted into each space - Cleric & Druid, most obviously; Paladin & Ranger, for another - but there are also reasonably unique ones, like the Warlock.
In 5e I wouldn't expect 6+ subclasses, 4e had a different design philosophy - or perhaps more honestly a differnet publishing rate philosophy that steered design. If we're doing 3-ish subclasses for a class, what can cover the most range of the warlord?

I would put forth that the PH1 parts of the warlord are the most "iconic" to be covered, and then see what else can be fit in from there.

But I'm not wedded to that. The thing I do feel very strongly about is that if we make a 5e Warlord, we put just as much emphasis on "5e" as on "Warlord" and make it a good, seemless, fit.
 

In 5e I wouldn't expect 6+ subclasses, 4e had a different design philosophy - or perhaps more honestly a differnet publishing rate philosophy that steered design.
Apparently we should not just (eventually) expect 6+ sub-classes for any given class, but not having the potential for that many has been sited as justification for excluding a class from the edition entirely.

The thing I do feel very strongly about is that if we make a 5e Warlord, we put just as much emphasis on "5e" as on "Warlord" and make it a good, seemless, fit.
Nod. Simply porting the 4e warlord over in mechanical transliteration would be under-versatile, under-powered, and non-viable as a party's sole support contributor. No 5e support class is as constrained from stepping on other roles, particularly controller, as they were in 4e. etc..
 
Last edited:

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.
Except for a build or two, the 'lazy' Prince(ss) builds that work by inviting rescue or the tactician who's more theoretical than practical, or the sidekicks who's pluck and heart far exceed their skill.

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.
And, it seems, Bard is the clear winner.
 


Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I'd like to see both the Bard and Paladin builds personally, I see a lot of potential in both. If I were picking I'd do Paladin, but I've always had a pretty martial vision of what the Warlord should be than some folks. There's more than one way to skin a Warlord though, so YMMV.
 


Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
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. ;)
Getting all that righteousness off afterward is a pain, I know. I'd recommend nitrile gloves and a good astringent.
 

I'd like to see both the Bard and Paladin builds personally, I see a lot of potential in both. If I were picking I'd do Paladin, but I've always had a pretty martial vision of what the Warlord should be than some folks. There's more than one way to skin a Warlord though, so YMMV.
Nod. The Paladin is tempting, solid melee + solid support, the issue, of course is that it is, itself, a class that can barely justify not simply being a fighter sub-class and even then, mainly on the strength of a history that started with Greyhawk Supplement I. The callow newcomer Warlord, with only one much-maligned & short-lived edition to it's credit, daren't fly so close to a Big 4 class's sun.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I like Paladin because the moving parts start off so close to what I think is needed. You get a 1 extra attack martial base, you get defensive auras, you get an offensive die pool to play with (D Smite) and spells to add buff, debuff and control elements. Personally I'd probably end up circling back in something on like the monk build and exchanging the spell slots for points and running both the die pool and the buffs of that. I've always like a more martial feeling Warlord anyway though. Lazylord fans will almost assuredly prefer the Bard chassis, which would also do a fine job IMO.
 

I like Paladin because the moving parts start off so close to what I think is needed. I've always like a more martial feeling Warlord anyway though. Lazylord fans will almost assuredly prefer the Bard chassis, which would also do a fine job IMO.
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... ;)
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Repurposing existing chassis is a good way to get some practice licks in and spend some quality time thinking about rocks and ribbons while avoiding some of the heaviest design lifting. I bet if we had a semi-workable Monk, Paladin and Bard version mocked up it would be a great place to start a conversation about ground up design, taking the best ideas and creating some interesting new ways to integrate and realize them.
 

I bet if we had a semi-workable Monk, Paladin and Bard version mocked up it would be a great place to start
As disappointed as I ultimately was with Lowkey & drbadwolf's attempt, I suspect the Monk could make a fair Template for an expanded & enhanced version of the Marshal for 5e.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
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. Mind you, I have no Warlord baggage of any kind, so I might be easier to please then your average bear.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top