D&D 5E Class Mechanics Idea: The Warlord

[ZombieRoboNinja]

EDIT: See this post a few pages in for a bit of a redesign.

I was thinking about the warlord and how it might work in 5e. There are some big hurdles to consider:

1. A lot of people don't buy into "nonmagical healing."

2. Warlord is the only class from the 4e PHB1 not carried over from an earlier edition, so there's no real guidance how its mechanics might work outisde of AEDU.

3. Since the warlord schtick of inspiring allies could fit well with any class, it's a prime candidate for being demoted to a specialty. (The "leader" specialty they mentioned in the PA podcast sounded sweet!)

4. Healing in 5e is a daily resource, so whatever the warlord's new mechanics, he'd need to have a pool of daily powers to pull healing from.

Despite these hurdles, the class is a very cool concept, and it fills a niche that few other classes would: the non-Vancian healer.

So what would a 5e warlord look like? To my mind, it's a class that is tactically-minded above all else. That is to say, however his abilities are apportioned, they must be designed to be optimized for each skirmish the warlord faces. He's adept at fighting "with the army he has, not the army he wishes he had."

Oddly enough, I like the idea of the warlord's mechanics as a combination between the 5e warlock and sorcerer: the warlord can learn a fixed number of "tactics" (like a wizard learning spells), but can only prep himself and his part for a limited number of them at a time (let's say 2-3 at first level). Whenever he has a short rest with the party, he can brief the team on their tactics for next time - in other words, "encounter" powers are his primary forte. I've designed the sample maneuvers here to be semi-passive, so that you don't have to worry about "spamming" them.

He would also need at-will abilities, for those combats that last longer than 2 rounds. I think these could be called maneuvers, like a fighter's, but I'd also think they don't need a fancy expertise dice mechanic. Like a cleric, he should know a couple useful maneuvers at first level and learn a new one every few levels.

Finally, that daily resource pool. I'd call it "Morale points" and start it at 2 points/day. The trick is that certain maneuvers cost morale points. Everyone starts with a healing maneuver, but you can learn other "utility" maneuvers that might also cost Morale. (For example, "forced march" might let the party move double speed over long distances.)

With no further ado, the basic Warlord:

Warlord

HD/HD: d8
Armor Proficiencies: Medium
Weapon Proficiencies: All

Lvl  Atk  Morale  Tactics  Class Features
1    +3   2/day   2+Int    Drills, Combat Tactics
2    +3   2/day   3+Int
3    +3   3/day   4+Int    New drill
4    +3   3/day   5+Int        
5    +3   4/day   6+Int

Drills:
The warlord has drilled tirelessly in a number of maneuvers that aid his allies in combat and help fuse them into a deadly fighting force. These drills can be repeated as often as desired. Unless noted otherwise, drills are actions.
At first level, the warlord knows Triage and two other drills; he learns an additional drill of his choice every third level (3, 6, 9).

Combat Tactics:
The warlord has studied numerous clever tactics designed to enhance the effectiveness of his unit in combat. These tactics must be carefully plotted out and discussed with the party before the fighting starts. This means that however many tactics the warlord knows, he must choose only two of them to prepare for each combat. When he has a short rest, he can use the downtime to plot out new maneuvers for the next combat with his party. Any member of the party not present and conscious for the short rest will not be able to participate in or receive benefits from the warlord's tactics in the following battle.

In his detailed knowledge of the ways of combat, the warlord recognizes that morale is often the key to victory. An "inspiration" is a type of tactic typically used out of combat, which generally takes some time to perform but does not need to be prepared in advance. These inspirations cost "Morale." Morale represents the limit of the warlord's ability to inspire confidence and teamwork in his unit, and can only be recharged with a long rest. A warlord has 2 Morale Points per day at first level, increasing by 1 at each odd level (3 at 3rd, 4 at 5th, etc).

Every warlord knows the Inspiration Dig Deep and at least 1 other tactic of his choice. If his Int modifier is positive, he adds it to the number of tactics he knows. The warlord learns a new tactic every level.

List of Drills:
Triage
His vast experience on the battlefield allows the warlord to apply poultices and salves with military efficiency. When you use this ability on an adjacent ally, he may spend one of his Hit Dice to recharge hit points as if you were using a Healer's Kit outside of combat. At third level, he may spend up to 2 HD this way, increasing by an additional HD every 3 levels.

Distracting Strike
You make a melee or ranged attack against an enemy; if you hit, you deal half damage, but the enemy receives Disadvantage on their next attack before the beginning of your next turn.

Aid Ally
You grant an adjacent ally advantage on one roll of their choice before the beginning of your next turn.

List of Tactics:
Dig Deep (Inspiration)
You inspire an ally to channel reserved they didn't even know they had, granting them one extra Hit Die. This Hit Die disappears if it isn't spent by the time the warlord takes a long rest. You may target two allies at 3rd level and an additional ally every 3 levels after that; however, you can't inspire yourself with this ability.

Forced March (Inspiration)
Your military discipline encourages your party to move more efficiently, covering long overland distances twice as quickly as normal.

Group Presence (Inspiration)
With your guidance and careful rehearsal, the party acts in careful accord even in social situations. All members of your party gain advantage on Diplomacy, Intimidate, Barter, Bluff, and Insight checks for the next 10 minutes.

Slippery Movement
Instead of getting advantage on attacks of opportunity against your party, enemies receive disadvantage instead.

Nova Strike
As an action, the warlord may designate a single target to his allies; all allies deal +1d6 damage against that target. (This damage increases to +2d6 at level 5 and +3d6 at level 8.) The warlord may not designate another target until the party takes another short rest.

Back to Back
Enemies cannot receive advantage on attacks against a party member who is adjacent to at least one other party member.

Phalanx
Allies adjacent to the warlord (or adjacent to an ally who is) receive advantage on all saving throws and deal +1d6 damage on melee attacks. (Damage increases to +2d6 at 3rd level, +3d6 at 6th, and +4d6 at 9th.)

Devotion
The party is immune to fear and charm effects as long as the warlord is conscious and within 50 feet.

Strike as One
The warlord may call for an orchestrated attack against a single target. As a reaction, every member of the party can make an immediate melee or ranged attack against that target (if they are in range). The warlord can call for this attack at any time, not only on his turn, but only once per short rest.

So would this class be fun to play?

 

[Sadrik]

I want to bring it back a peg. So conceptually a warlord is a support class like the bard. It actually does a lot of things like a bard. Should the bard and the warlord exist together s separate and distinct? Support characters are generally not popular, in part this is why the cleric and the bard are not interesting to a lot of people. I think that the warlord as a build for other classes makes more sense. Paladin with a warlord theme and I can even see some of the warlord class features being a paladin or even ranger class feature. Ranger is a smart tactical character high on senses and tactical merit. I see no reason that a warlord should not fit in there. So again, as a build that a player actively chooses, to make his character a support character. YMMV!

 

[GameDoc]

I want to bring it back a peg. So conceptually a warlord is a support class like the bard. It actually does a lot of things like a bard. Should the bard and the warlord exist together s separate and distinct? Support characters are generally not popular, in part this is why the cleric and the bard are not interesting to a lot of people. I think that the warlord as a build for other classes makes more sense. Paladin with a warlord theme and I can even see some of the warlord class features being a paladin or even ranger class feature. Ranger is a smart tactical character high on senses and tactical merit. I see no reason that a warlord should not fit in there. So again, as a build that a player actively chooses, to make his character a support character. YMMV!

You know, people have been saying "Warlord as a type of fighter" but "Warlord as a type of bard" makes sense. Look at how they did the Dragon Sorcerer - upgrading weapon and armor capacity. Upgrade a bard's weapons and armor so it can handle frontline combat, and you might get a good warlord.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think "leader" should be a choice that any class can take (especially Fighters, who literally become warlords in classic D&D). While there could theoretically be an entire class based around telling other people what to do, it doesn't feel like a core class.

But for me Paladin and Druid don't feel like core classes either, and those are definitely going to be in, so sure, bring on the Warlord. (Just call it something other than Warlord.)

 

[Vikingkingq]

Overall, I like it.

I might change the names to something like Tactical Drills and Battle Strategies (in general, avoiding repetition of terms avoids confusion at the table), which better emphasizes the way in which the Warlord has practiced simpler maneuvers with their allies so much that they can pull them off at-will, whereas more complex plans require the Warlord to get together with their allies and talk through what they're going to do.

I'm not super-thrilled with the way in which some Tactics require Morale Points and others don't - I'd say either all Tactics require Morale Points, or you just have them be straight up Encounter abilities with no point system.

Also, maybe instead of allowing people to spend HD because it gets people's back up about healing, the Warlord instead allows people to spend HD to gain temporary Hit Points, which better represents the Warlord inspiring people to "push past the pain" until the battles over when they come down from the adrenaline rush.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If non-magical healing is a no-go, I think the alternative would be temporary hit points and/or damage reduction granting abilities.

As Limited Use Abilities
Inspiring Word
One ally that can hear you gains temporary hit points equal to its hit dice + your Charisma bonus.
You can still make a melee or ranged attack after you used Inspiring Word.

Shout of Warning
When one of your allies is hit by an attack, you can use this ability as a reaction. The ally reduces the damage taken by your Intelligence Modifier + 1/2 your level.


As Combat Superiority Options
Inspiring Word
One ally that gains temporary hit points equal to the combat superiority dice you spend.

Shout of Warning
When one of your allies is hit by an attack, you reduce the damage taken by the combat superiority dice you spend.


Now both probably will still need some numerical balancing, but I don't have the exact fighter mechanics in my heads right now to compare.

 

[Argyle King]

I was thinking about the warlord and how it might work in 5e. There are some big hurdles to consider:

1. A lot of people don't buy into "nonmagical healing."

2. Warlord is the only class from the 4e PHB1 not carried over from an earlier edition, so there's no real guidance how its mechanics might work outisde of AEDU.

some good ideas, but I have a minor nitpick

I'd say that the Marshal class from 3rd Edition was somewhat of a precursor for the Warlord. The Warlord might also have a little bit of the Knight class from 3rd Edition; I think Warlord and some of the 4E defenders had a few of their elements tested in the Knight class.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Overall, I like it.

I might change the names to something like Tactical Drills and Battle Strategies (in general, avoiding repetition of terms avoids confusion at the table), which better emphasizes the way in which the Warlord has practiced simpler maneuvers with their allies so much that they can pull them off at-will, whereas more complex plans require the Warlord to get together with their allies and talk through what they're going to do.

Good point. I'll change maneuvers to Drills, but AFAIK "tactics" isn't a technical term yet (is it?) so I'll keep the encounter/daily abilities as those.

I'm not super-thrilled with the way in which some Tactics require Morale Points and others don't - I'd say either all Tactics require Morale Points, or you just have them be straight up Encounter abilities with no point system.

I'm going to change one of the morale-using tactics because it breaks my cardinal rule (Morale only for healing or utility purposes). But the idea is that like warlocks choosing between minor and lesser invocations, a warlord can get a bunch of interesting "utility" Tactics that use Morale, or he can just use it for healing and get encounter Tactics instead.

Also, maybe instead of allowing people to spend HD because it gets people's back up about healing, the Warlord instead allows people to spend HD to gain temporary Hit Points, which better represents the Warlord inspiring people to "push past the pain" until the battles over when they come down from the adrenaline rush.

I think I'm going to refluff Second Wind so that it's (nonmagical) in-combat triage: you're slapping a poultice on your buddy's wounds and patting him on the back. I don't like the temporary HP approach, because then you're kind of screwing people out of their HD. HD are supposed to be a way to let characters heal without magic; converting them to temporary HP that evaporate once combat ends would be almost the opposite of a cleric, who adds extra ways to heal without costing HD.

 

[Minigiant]

I like it.

But I'd separate the Prepared and Morale tactics into 2 types: Tactics and Inspirations

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I like it.

But I'd separate the Prepared and Morale tactics into 2 types: Tactics and Inspirations

I like the idea but don't want to have to write "tactic or inspiration" 50 times, so I made "inspiration" a subtype of tactic. Thanks!

BTW, anyone who has a cool tactic or drill to suggest, please do so. I'm trying to mine the 4e PHB for good martial utility powers, and I'm coming up a bit short on non-combat ones.

 

[Argyle King]

I like the idea but don't want to have to write "tactic or inspiration" 50 times, so I made "inspiration" a subtype of tactic. Thanks!

BTW, anyone who has a cool tactic or drill to suggest, please do so. I'm trying to mine the 4e PHB for good martial utility powers, and I'm coming up a bit short on non-combat ones.

-Break Contact-

Allows allies to immediately take a withdrawal action without using their action for the round.

 

[cmbarona]

I don't know if this helps, but here's something I wrote in a WotC thread:

There are certainly different leadership components and styles, and I think there can be mechanics built into the Warlord to reflect this. The big three I'm thinking of are Strategy, Tactics, and Morale.

1. Strategy is what happens before a battle. This involves planning, practice, and coordination. This would key off of Intelligence, and would both reward and encourage setting up the right situation (flanking bonuses, bonuses for herding the enemy together, positive feedback for focus-firing on one enemy, etc.). Strategy is proactive.
2. Tactics is what happens during a battle. This involves quick planning, getting back on your feet, and taking advantage of an opportunity as it presents itself. This would key off of Wisdom, and would probably reward the extremes of combat. Is your side flanking? Great, here's a way to press the advantage. Is your side flanked? Don't worry, here's a way to get out of that. This could also make great use of Reactions, since Tactics is, well, reactive.
3. Morale is what happens throughout. This involves bringing a highly motivated team to the battlefield, and making sure they stay motivated throughout the battle. It doesn't focus on specific actions on the part of the team, rather Morale makes sure the team stays in tip-top shape so that players can be the best at what they do. This would key off of Charisma, and would focus on healing/buffing. Hopefully the dev team will think of more positive status effects; the Morale-based Warlord would hand these out like candy. Perhaps they start combat with a rallying cry as soon as they take a turn as a free action, giving the whole team a starting pool of temporary hit points. They continue to hand them out during the battle. Morale is both proactive and reactive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

2. Warlord is the only class from the 4e PHB1 not carried over from an earlier edition, so there's no real guidance how its mechanics might work outisde of AEDU.

I think this is a critical consideration. The wizard is unrepentantly Vancian, even though a lot of folks aren't down with Vancian, because it's always been Vancian. The Warlord should have martial healing and martial powers, because it's 'always' had them.

So some people don't like that and some people do - 5e is supposed to be an inclusive edition. If WotC is serious about that, it means the people who hate martial healing for breaking their verisimilitude or Vancian casting for trashing class balance or Monks for not being politically correct enough can't be allowed to have the final say.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

some good ideas, but I have a minor nitpick

I'd say that the Marshal class from 3rd Edition was somewhat of a precursor for the Warlord. The Warlord might also have a little bit of the Knight class from 3rd Edition; I think Warlord and some of the 4E defenders had a few of their elements tested in the Knight class.

Except the flaw in that thinking is Warlord isn't a Defender, it's a leader



And I agree with the above about inclusion. If you don't like non-magical healing, don't have it in your game. Don't forbid it from the book.

For all WOTC says about this is the game to pull 1st-4th all together the comments on these forums seem very heavily weighted to the 'don't include it if it wasn't in the addition I love.'

WOTC needs to make this the everything and the kitchen sink edition, if you don't like something throw it out.

I certainly intend to throw out wizards in the first game I run. I'd like to throw out all casters... That's where I need the warlord for non-magical healing.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There are definitely interesting ideas here, but I'm not convinced that recreating the Warlord class is the right path. Starting with the story, here are some things that need to be considered.

A major part of the warlord was based on his ability to inspire. There is definitely some similarity to the bard here. Clearly, we need good mechanics to describe inspiration.

Another aspect is the tactician element. On the whole, strategy and tactics are mostly a player concern, so a character who is a tactician has to be handled carefully. I'm a bit uncomfortable with making tactics a central mechanic for a class. If left vague, the mechanics don't warrant a class. If made detailed, they supersede some of the creativity of the players.

Lastly, the term warlord has strong story implications, and perhaps should be considered as a type of character one would play at higher levels, depending on how that's designed.

I do feel that, regardless of whether the warlord class returns, the inspiration and tactics parts of his character deserve to be specialties, because those would be great elements to layer on top of other classes. So, if there is to be a warlord, he would really have to be the best at those to justify his existence as a class.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For tactics, I suggest two mutually exclusive options, that the group can pick from:

• 4E-style tactical options, as you have listed.
• Options to violate "table-talk" rules and/or give modifiers to more general things.

For the latter, the idea is that "tactics" is some kind of player activity, not so much a character activity. But because of this, there isn't supposed to be table-talk, such as planning out options during a round. However, if the second option is picked, then when the warlord's action comes around, the party can discuss freely, to represent the warlord character's being on top of the flow. You might then give some modest bonuses to group initiative and other such general things, so that the party has a better shot of pulling off whatever they decide.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

There are definitely interesting ideas here, but I'm not convinced that recreating the Warlord class is the right path. Starting with the story, here are some things that need to be considered.

A major part of the warlord was based on his ability to inspire. There is definitely some similarity to the bard here. Clearly, we need good mechanics to describe inspiration.

Like you say, I'm guessing the bard and paladin will revolve around "inspiration" to a large degree, so I was trying to focus the warlord more clearly on the tactical side.

Another aspect is the tactician element. On the whole, strategy and tactics are mostly a player concern, so a character who is a tactician has to be handled carefully. I'm a bit uncomfortable with making tactics a central mechanic for a class. If left vague, the mechanics don't warrant a class. If made detailed, they supersede some of the creativity of the players.

The way the warlord is supposed to play out, IMHO, is that his abilities are very CONDUCIVE to group tactics. For example, the cleric can give everyone a flat buff to damage, but the warlord's buffs are dependent on the group focusing fire, staying in formation, etc. Plus, if it's done right, the warlord will be working on the strategic level to carefully select appropriate tactics for each combat, which reinforces the benefit of advance scouting (rogues) and pre-dungeon information gathering (lore, bardic knowledge, etc). For example, if he knows he's facing enemy wizards, he might prepare Phalanx to guard against AOE spells.

Lastly, the term warlord has strong story implications, and perhaps should be considered as a type of character one would play at higher levels, depending on how that's designed.

I'm not crazy about the name either but it's got a bit of history at this point and I wouldn't bother to change it.

I do feel that, regardless of whether the warlord class returns, the inspiration and tactics parts of his character deserve to be specialties, because those would be great elements to layer on top of other classes. So, if there is to be a warlord, he would really have to be the best at those to justify his existence as a class.

I agree completely. Ideally, just as the Magic-User, Defender, and Healer specialties complement the wizard, fighter, and cleric classes while also providing potential cross-role benefits, there would be Leader-type specialties and feats that do the same. I should be able to play a fighter who's tactically-minded, but I should also know that a Warlord could bring a whole other level of tactical prowess to bear.

 

[Minigiant]

The Commander Spec and Tactician Spec on my homebrew RPG works like the OP's idea. Oddly the Willpower Charisma based Commander had encounter based Inspirations and the Intelligence based Tacticians had group stances called Tactics like the 3.5 Marshal. My friend says using them turn you into a Zenith Exalt.



Inspirations:
Inspiring Words- A weak heal.
Incite Riot- Makes every into raging barbarians
Command respect- Forces the target to listen to you
Heartstring Pull- Makes the target sad
Face me!- Prevents an enemy from fleeing... well
No Bugglegum- Paralyzes enemy for a short time
You have my sword- Makes friend cowards fight, removes fear
Shake it off- Removes mental issues
Wartime Lie- Makes lies using stressful times believable.
Your mmoma so fat- Makes enemy unable to do complicated actions due to anger.
Gruesome kill- Makes your kills scare enemies
No Sell- Delay damage
BS Confidence- Inspire ally with false or exaggerated praise

Tactic
Run away- Boosts run speed of allies
Lead the Arrows- Boost archery bonuses of allies
Stomping party- Double flanking bonuses
Do it Again- Grants extra action

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The way the warlord is supposed to play out, IMHO, is that his abilities are very CONDUCIVE to group tactics. For example, the cleric can give everyone a flat buff to damage, but the warlord's buffs are dependent on the group focusing fire, staying in formation, etc. Plus, if it's done right, the warlord will be working on the strategic level to carefully select appropriate tactics for each combat, which reinforces the benefit of advance scouting (rogues) and pre-dungeon information gathering (lore, bardic knowledge, etc). For example, if he knows he's facing enemy wizards, he might prepare Phalanx to guard against AOE spells.

It's not that you're wrong here, but wouldn't these options be better if these abilities were available to all groups using an advanced tactical module, regardless if one of the players is playing a Warlord?

Now, perhaps it might work like the fighter and combat maneuvers. A module is going to let everyone do it, but the fighter does it best.

 

[pemerton]

the idea is that "tactics" is some kind of player activity, not so much a character activity. But because of this, there isn't supposed to be table-talk, such as planning out options during a round. However, if the second option is picked, then when the warlord's action comes around, the party can discuss freely, to represent the warlord character's being on top of the flow.

DragonQuest?