Considerations when Designing a Warlord.

[FrogReaver]

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.

Interesting: that may even work with granting so many single attacks to allies instead of just attack actions.

So we do have a way to semi balance warlord at will attack granting. I like the concept.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Gotcha, warlords shouldn't be able to help rogues do rogue things. Should this also apply to casters doing caster things?

Preferably, in keeping with the core identity of the class. I mean, we're talking about commanding people to make weapon attacks, so it makes way more sense that the warlord should be commanding a fighter to swing a sword, rather than commanding a rogue or wizard to swing a dagger.

Did rogues get to apply their sneak attack when they were the target of Commander's Strike, back in 4E? I know wizards couldn't really take advantage of that ability, since it specified a basic melee attack.

Warlords are a martial class, inspiring and coordinating their fellow martial types in open combat. They're not nearly as useful when it comes to skulduggery or magic. Unless your idea of a warlord is way different than what was in the 4E PHB, that is; I have no idea what the class might have mutated into, by the end of that edition.

 

[mellored]

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.

That's fair. I was focused on balance over the fluff.

Though i'm not sure -5 is better fluff then 1/2 damage.

"You give an ally an opportunity to make attacks against an opponent, though there is not enough time to wind up for the full impact."
vs
"You give an ally an opportunity to make attacks against an opponent, though there is not enough time to wind up for the full accuracy."

It would also be very swingy.

 

[mellored]

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.

The only thing you need to be careful of is bonuses to a d20 roll (i.e. bless / advantage). Since those auto-scale.

It's also ok to allow some dipping. Warlords shouldn't be any better/worse then dipping monk, barbarian, or rogue.


Some appropriate 1-4 ideas.
Granting an attack for 1/2 damage is a cantrip level. Same as giving firebolt, it's ok for people to dip for it.
"The next ally who hits the target deals an extra 1d6 damage". Damage can Scale with warlord level.
Diplomacy Expertise, or Guidance, or other out of combat thing.
As a bonus action, 1 ally gain THP equal to 1/2 your warlord level.
As an action, 1 ally in reach regains 1 HP, that ally can only benefit from this once per short rest. Nice utility that is appropriate to dip for.
As a bonus action, 1 ally can move 1/2 it's speed as a reaction. Weaker, but more flexible cunning action.


At 5+ you get deep enough to get affect d20 rolls. Like bonus action to give everyone +1d6 to hit a target for at turn. Which works well as your serious power buff.


As you go up you can add breath to the d20 buffs like +1d4 to AC/Saving throw/DCs/skills/initiative. Maybe bump the bonus to +1d8 or doing it as a reaction (probably 11).
Also scaling the rest of your features, like 'mass' THP/movement grant, or granting cantrips and spells.
Not to mention the 5 ABI.

 

[mellored]

Preferably, in keeping with the core identity of the class. I mean, we're talking about commanding people to make weapon attacks, so it makes way more sense that the warlord should be commanding a fighter to swing a sword, rather than commanding a rogue or wizard to swing a dagger.

Warlords could also grant magic missile in 4e, in addition to a select few other magical attacks with the correct keywords.

I'm on the fence about the balance of granting cantrips. Maybe as a high level (14) ability. Maybe with 1/2 damage.

Did rogues get to apply their sneak attack when they were the target of Commander's Strike, back in 4E? I know wizards couldn't really take advantage of that ability, since it specified a basic melee attack.

Yes.

Though for the most part, sneak attack didn't add much. Maybe 20% more damage, less at higher levels.
The majority of the power and class identity in 4e was in the powers themselves. Which wasn't something you could grant.

5e is somewhat similar, in that you find much of the power of a class is in action surge, spell slots, rages, cunning action, or ki. However it varies a lot more.

Warlords are a martial class, inspiring and coordinating their fellow martial types in open combat. They're not nearly as useful when it comes to skulduggery or magic. Unless your idea of a warlord is way different than what was in the 4E PHB, that is; I have no idea what the class might have mutated into, by the end of that edition.

While they may have more things that apply to martial classes, I see no reason to leave casters out entirely.

i.e.
Giving saving throws throw penalties. Though smaller and/or higher level then the to-hit bonus since spells have more umph.
Grant spell casting. Since you don't grant slots as well, it's a strategic choice. Though again, at higher level, and probably a limit on spell levels as well.
Maybe give allies "uncanny dodge" against other ally spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh there is one other consideration when building a warlord, how do you make such a class not be too good to dip into?

Same way 5e addressed that issue with every other class.

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

Spellcasting, for instance. Powerful, extremely flexible, gained at 1st level by full casters, 2nd by paladins & ranger.

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).

They get Style & Second Wind at 1st and Action Surge at 2nd. Second Wind and Action Surge are unique to the fighter.

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.

A choice of a number such abilities or a fairly flexible feature would be better.

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.

In typical play it should be fine either way, PCs are likely to be very close to eachother in level. Tying the damage potential of granted attacks to the lower of the ally or granting character's levels, though, would be one way to prevent abuse (though a level of abuse-prevention effort heretofore unseen in 5e).