Considerations when Designing a Warlord.

[The Crimson Binome]

That's not a unique thing, it's doing a unique thing a second time.

Simultaneously stopping the regeneration of two trolls is a unique thing that the warlord enables which the party could not otherwise do with just a flametongue, in much the same way that casting Fireball is thematically and mechanically distinct from casting Firebolt. You could try to argue that it's all the same, because you're just dealing some amount of fire damage to some number of targets, but the relative amounts of damage and areas of effect are actually important distinguishing details.

If you just want to generalize, 60% of everything you can do is all the same because it's just dealing damage along various vectors, and 80% of everything is the same because it's dealing damage and/or status conditions. The degree to which you are trying to generalize this would make all discussion pointless; the freedom to use the same sword twice in a round is meaningfully distinct from being limited to using it once per round whenever we care about analyzing the game at the level of complexity at which it is designed and played. It is at least as important as the distinction between Fireball and Firebolt.

 

[mellored]

Benefit (or detriment) from using a particular damage type is pretty minimal in 5e.

Less then +1 damage would be. Maybe +2 at high levels.

 

[FrogReaver]

So anyways I', starting to think mellored's suggestion for half damage is a great mechanical fix. I'm not sure that it can be fluffed up to make sense. And since we are playing a fantasy game and this is a non-magical effect then we do need some kind of justification.

So I would like to offer an alternative to mellored's suggestion that may be even more interesting strategically while being easier to explain the fluff. Instead of halving damage, instead lower the attack roll by around 1d10 or 1d12 or -5 or -6 and let the character do full damage. -5 or -6 will tend to half attack rates which will result in halving DPR. Except it's probably easier to find an explanation for why the warlords granted attack hits less often than does less damage.

 

[jayoungr]

Instead of halving damage, instead lower the attack roll by around 1d10 or 1d12 or -5 or -6 and let the character do full damage. -5 or -6 will tend to half attack rates which will result in halving DPR.

Disadvantage is generally considered to shake out at about a -5 penalty. How about if the extra attack is made at disadvantage?

 

[FrogReaver]

Disadvantage is generally considered to shake out at about a -5 penalty. How about if the extra attack is made at disadvantage?

Considered and discarded because of rogues.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh there is one other consideration when building a warlord, how do you make such a class not be too good to dip into? Especially while giving players warlord esque-abilities early enough to make them happy.

Basically every class gets it's primary abilities by level 2. Then those abilities just grow and grow as the game progresses.

Paladins get smites.
Rogues get sneak attack.
Barbarians get Rage.
Monks get Ki
Rangers get hunter's mark.
Warlocks get eldritch blast and boosts and hex.

Fighters are really the odd man out because they arguably don't get any class defining trait till way later. (Master of number of attacks at level 11).

So if I was going to build a warlord he needs some kind of daily or encounter or at will based ability by level 2 that differentiates the class from the others.

Further his ability to deal damage should nearly double at level 5 (As extra attack style features do). Such a damage increase should depend on him hitting level 5 and not his allies hitting level 5.

 

[jayoungr]

Considered and discarded because of rogues.

Darn, I always forget about the rogue thing. Probably because I haven't played or DM'd for one yet.

Fighters are really the odd man out because they arguably don't get any class defining trait till way later.

The subclasses are differentiated at level 3, which is when Battle Masters get their maneuvers; the BM maneuvers are at least subclass-defining, in the sense that no other class or subclass gets them. Maybe a proposed warlord could have something like that.

 

[Jester David]

Oh there is one other consideration when building a warlord, how do you make such a class not be too good to dip into? Especially while giving players warlord esque-abilities early enough to make them happy.

So if I was going to build a warlord he needs some kind of daily or encounter or at will based ability by level 2 that differentiates the class from the others.

Further his ability to deal damage should nearly double at level 5 (As extra attack style features do). Such a damage increase should depend on him hitting level 5 and not his allies hitting level 5.

This raises an interesting design problem.
The warlord - especially if he's a lazylord - would be heavily dependent on allies to deal damage. Which works if the other players are building damage dealers, but doesn't if fewer party members build a DPR/striker character, or are effective at that sort if thing. And in a game where not all characters are the same level (which works quite well in 5e) the warlord would feel weaker than they should be. The class really puts its power in the hands of other players.

 

[MoutonRustique]

This raises an interesting design problem.
The warlord - especially if he's a lazylord - would be heavily dependent on allies to deal damage. Which works if the other players are building damage dealers, but doesn't if fewer party members build a DPR/striker character, or are effective at that sort if thing. And in a game where not all characters are the same level (which works quite well in 5e) the warlord would feel weaker than they should be. The class really puts its power in the hands of other players.

That can be a problem, but it could also be a feature. This kind of [warlord] is the inverse of the [jack of all trades]. While the latter gives you a character that fills the holes but doesn't really help out in areas of strength, the former increases the party's strengths, while not really filling holes.

So a very strong [warlord] doesn't increase a party's power as would a very strong [caster class], but on the other hand, a very weak [warlord] probably contributes more than a very weak [something else].

It might not be everyone's preference, but it's something interesting none-the-less, and would be something fairly new/unique to 5e mechanics : mechanical teamwork.*

*Yes, I know, you can already make a caster that only uses buffs and such - casters can do everything so saying that a caster can already do it is self-evident and thus, not useful.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Considered and discarded because of rogues.

That's actually way better. It would solve the problem of rogues being ten times better than anyone else at being used by the warlord, and it would shift the warlord's preference to the fighter-type with a big sword - which is exactly who the warlord should be good at working with.