D&D 5E Defining Traits of the D&D classes

[Tony Vargas]

I don't have a problem with warlord's healing, but I don't think it should be their primary asset. I would be disappointed if warlords get a "channel divinity" like ability; it defeats the purpose of different mechanics.

I'm sure there's plenty of room for other abilities. Clerics get quite a bit of healing, and good armor proficiency, decent weapons, orisons and other, non-healing uses for channel divinity and spells. Healing may be of prime importance, but it clearly doesn't cost a lot of other abilities when balancing a class, so no worries on that front. I the warlord's healing contribution to a party is comparable to that of a Cleric, then they can stand in for eachother when one is inappropriate to the setting (such as Dark Sun), doesn't appeal to anyone at the table, or otherwise unavailable. Ideally, there should be a couple of other classes able to take up the 'band aid' burden, as well - the Bard and Druid have both had versions that could do so.

Each can also contribute the overall complexity of the game by doing so in a mechanically distinct fashion, of course.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sure there's plenty of room for other abilities. Clerics get quite a bit of healing, and good armor proficiency, decent weapons, orisons and other, non-healing uses for channel divinity and spells. Healing may be of prime importance, but it clearly doesn't cost a lot of other abilities when balancing a class, so no worries on that front. I the warlord's healing contribution to a party is comparable to that of a Cleric, then they can stand in for eachother when one is inappropriate to the setting (such as Dark Sun), doesn't appeal to anyone at the table, or otherwise unavailable. Ideally, there should be a couple of other classes able to take up the 'band aid' burden, as well - the Bard and Druid have both had versions that could do so.

Each can also contribute the overall complexity of the game by doing so in a mechanically distinct fashion, of course.

Actually, the druid and bard are pretty decent analogs to what I mean. A druid gets most healing spells (except raise dead) though some a level behind a cleric. A bard gets many good healing spells, but its ruined by his slow spell level progression not keeping up. Ideally, I'd like to see the NEXT versions of both classes have slightly better access to cure magic. They won't have access to some of the cleric abilities (channeling, raise dead, etc) or be able to remove all afflictions, but some mixing is fine. The warlord can join them, but without spell slots, I await to see how it will be balanced against Cure Light Wounds.

 

[GreyICE]

I think Cleric healing should start at a 5, and go to a 10 if they choose to specialize.

I think Warlord healing should start at a 4, and go to 8 if they choose to specialize.

In contrast, Cleric tactical ability and buffs should start at a 4, and go to 8, while Warlord's in-combat utility should start at a 5, and go to 10.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, the druid and bard are pretty decent analogs to what I mean. A druid gets most healing spells (except raise dead) though some a level behind a cleric. A bard gets many good healing spells, but its ruined by his slow spell level progression not keeping up. Ideally, I'd like to see the NEXT versions of both classes have slightly better access to cure magic. They won't have access to some of the cleric abilities (channeling, raise dead, etc) or be able to remove all afflictions, but some mixing is fine. The warlord can join them, but without spell slots, I await to see how it will be balanced against Cure Light Wounds.

The same way spell casters going to be balanced against non-spell-casters with the former having high-power dailies that the latter not: badly. But that's neither here nor there, the point is that Healing - real healing contribution to the staying power of the party - is one of the defining traits of the Warlord.

Though... take a look at this and tell me what you think:

Hypothetical 2e Warlord

 

[Remathilis]

The same way spell casters going to be balanced against non-spell-casters with the former having high-power dailies that the latter not: badly. But that's neither here nor there, the point is that Healing - real healing contribution to the staying power of the party - is one of the defining traits of the Warlord.

Though... take a look at this and tell me what you think:

Hypothetical 2e Warlord

I like so far. It grabs the feel of the class without necessarily shoe-horning the AEDU system in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like so far. It grabs the feel of the class without necessarily shoe-horning the AEDU system in.

Well, it's not a 5e or 4e Warlord, but a "what if there had been a Warlord in 2e" bit of alternate history. No AEDU in 2e, no healing surges, HD meant something else, etc...

But I think it illustrates that there could be ways of limiting daily healing without resorting to actual spell slots. It's just something I banged out in the course of forum discussions, though, I have no idea if it'd've been a practical class or over/under-powered...

 

[bogmad]

I like the idea Slobster put forward earlier in the thread. There's a lot of talk of the warlord being "just a type of fighter." Well, he is similar, give him similar armor proficiencies, etc. But whereas the fighter has expertise dice that all center on his actions, the warlord could use his dice to "lead" or affect the actions of others. It's a similar mechanic to the fighter sure, but defining in that it externally focused. Also, give him weaker attack bonuses than fighter since he is more of a strategist. Sure he can have the defenses to lead from the front, but not the martial prowess.

The question however turns back to what really separates him from the fighter if they end up making these "warlord maneuvers" available as something the fighter can select from.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, he is similar, give him similar armor proficiencies, etc. But whereas the fighter has expertise dice that all center on his actions, the warlord could use his dice to "lead" or affect the actions of others. It's a similar mechanic to the fighter sure, but defining in that it externally focused.
The question however turns back to what really separates him from the fighter if they end up making these "warlord maneuvers" available as something the fighter can select from.

5e's philosophy is to make classes distinct by giving them distinct mechanics and hearkening to their history. The Warlord's history is easy, because it is so brief, and in that brief history it was a Leader class, quite concerned with managing encounter, daily & action resources - it's own and the party's. The 5e fighter, whose resource-management is personal and round-by-round fails to evoke that at all, and is probably a poor foundation on which to build the Warlord. Not that the Warlord can't have some kind of dice pool if that's what all martial characters are getting, just as casters all cast spells, but it doesn't have to use them any more like the fighter does than the warlock needs to use spells like a wizard.

Also, give him weaker attack bonuses than fighter since he is more of a strategist. Sure he can have the defenses to lead from the front, but not the martial prowess.

Strategy & tactics arguably are a form of martial prowess. But, yes, the Warlord probably doesn't need to hit quite as well or as hard as the fighter, not any more than the cleric or other non-fighters do. The fighter needs to keep his claim to fame, afterall. But trying to build the Warlord from the fighter would, IMHO, be a mistake. Better to start with a class with comparable function, like the Cleric. Take away the Cleric's channel divinity and spells and replace them with Inspiring and Tactical actions, take away his orisons and replace them with a dice pool... you're getting pretty close to a Warlord and have a good idea of how potent each of those things need to be. Try to work from the fighter and you'll get a somewhat tactical fighter that might be interesting, but won't be a Warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

2) Right now, we don't need to worry about the core-four (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue). They are defined right now. We can still discuss sorcerer and warlock using what we know so far.

Has the Druid been brought up yet?

The Druid has had quite a history, from the last 0D&D class to see print, to Cleric sub-class, to Priest-Group class, to class in it's own right, to Primal Controller, to Primal Leader, to Primal Controller again.

I'm not familiar with the 0e Druid, but things that stood out about the 1e Druid:

• It hearkened to the apocryphal druidism of the 19th century Druid Revival in England: Misletoe, robes, spirals, stone cirlces and so forth.
• It had a unique, nature-focused spell list that varied quite a lot in power, including some elemental and summoning spells that were very powerful and lacked certain limitations (concentration to maintain) common to such spells in other lists.
• One of those spells, Animal Friendship, let it collect a menagerie of 'trained' animals.
• It could shapechange into animal forms from 7th level on.
• It had to fight other Druids to advance after a certain level and had a hard level limit, but recieved service from lower-level Druids. That is, there was a Druid Heirarchy.
• It had somewhat goofy armor & weapon restrictions.

Later versions of the Druid made Animal Friendship a powerful class feature instead of an abuseable 1st-level spell. Similarly, the Shapechange went from a mid-level 3/day ability, to a 1st-level ability with fewer restrictions. The Druid peaked in 3.5 as the D in CoDzilla, and the 4e Druid had to chop up it's abilities into 3 sub-classes to achieve any sort of balance. There was the 4e Controller Druid, who had watered-down shapechange and the Druids potent elemental spells, the Essentials Leader Druid that had the healing and animal companion, and the Essentials Controller Druid that got the powerful summoning spells.

Obviously, with the Druid having defining abilities like Shapechange (making him melee-effective), potent/problematic spellcasting, /and/ a 'second figure' feature in the Animal Companion, doing it justice while keeping it balanced in 5e is going to be a heck of a challenge...

 

[jrowland]

I am wondering if illusionist could be a very solid wizard tradition that would appeal to fans of illusionist as a separate class.

Early in 3E, I had a player make a wizard (illusionist) and he asked if it was possible for all his spells to be "unreal". That is, he chose things like fireball but it wasn't a real fireball, it was an illusion. Objects didn't burn, etc..people only thought they did.

We played with it, and it was pretty cool. We adopted some rules (better saves for creatures since the illusionist couldn't trick creatures as easily, eg.)

I used "subdual" damage (ie, I kept a separate list of the amount of "damage" the illusionist did. If it ever exceeded the targets current HP, the target would fall unconscious. We tried a save or die rather than unconscious too, seemed too swingy.)

The player moved and took the illusionist with him, but I've always felt it was something that with a little more work would be very cool.


In 5E it would be a Wizard, with the illusionist tradition. It would for all appearances "look" like a mage (a generalist). he would use the same spell list, but they would all be illusions. Fireball would be an illusion, eg. Some extra spells for his tradition (phantasmal killer) would be fine. He would get some kind of bonus for spells that are already illusions available to other wizards (such as mirror image). Not sure what...increased DC?

I think it is possible. What do you illusionist fans think?