D&D 5E Class Mechanics Idea: The Warlord

[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?