D&D 5E (2014) For the Record: Mearls on Warlords (ca. 2013)

pick what ever spell you want. eldrich knight will never match a will never match a wizard in casting.
and i have no idea what the power level of lead-the-charge is., so i can't relate it to a spell level.
3d6 of burning hands = one person charges for +1d6 damage.
8d6 of fireball = 5 allies charge for +2d6 damage
20d6 of meteor swarm = an army charges for +3d6 damage.

balance also depends on how often it can be used. again, it's all in the numbers, if +1d6 is too much, it might be 1d4, or +1d8.
I'd say lead the charge would hit+knock back every enemy adjacent t the captain at the end of the charge, and a damage bonus for allies who hit enemies that were knocked back. At later levels, add thp per enemies hit, with different subclasses getting different riders, perhaps. Subtract some of those extras if it's not a central feature of the class.

Just because I can't refuse saying it: you and whose army? Seriously, even at 20th level, who takes an army to adventure?
Who says you are adventuring, rather than leading armies, ruling lands, or whatever else?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



What other kinds of characters can be made using the same premise of having mastery of combat tactics and warfare?

That was the point. The master of tactics is one concept. The class can be much more than that, which is why so many warlord fans want a name change.
The master of manipulation/influence, the plan maker (Cloony in Ocean's 11,) the vanguard guy who always has point and inspires their comrades to go beyond their normal limits, the guy with limitless connections, the scholar who always knows the weaknesses of monsters/has knowledge to help overcome obstacles, basically any character who uses knowledge, charisma, intelligence and possibly connections to contribute, with little to no magic.

Others have repeatedly cited more concepts, but you are too stuck on disliking it to listen.
 

That was the point. The master of tactics is one concept. The class can be much more than that, which is why so many warlord fans want a name change.
The master of manipulation/influence, the plan maker (Cloony in Ocean's 11,) the vanguard guy who always has point and inspires their comrades to go beyond their normal limits, the guy with limitless connections, the scholar who always knows the weaknesses of monsters/has knowledge to help overcome obstacles, basically any character who uses knowledge, charisma, intelligence and possibly connections to contribute, with little to no magic.

Others have repeatedly cited more concepts, but you are too stuck on disliking it to listen.

4e actually ended with 6 types of Warlord

Tactical: Combat Tactics
Inspiring: Combat Morale
Bravura (aka Risky): Combat Risk Assessment
Resourceful:Combat Intelligence
Insightful: Combat Perception
Skirmishing: Combat Logistics
 

Ok. I'm not sure of the relevance of that to what I said? I mean no offense, I just don't see the connection. Are yOu perhaps pointing out room for mechanical breadth, in addition to the conceptual breadth I was referencing?

Idk. Imo, most 4e warlord types are pretty close to the same concept, with different tactics, rather than distinct but related archetypes like the ideas I referenced. Which is again why I ink one has to look to saga nobles as well as 4e warlords, and perhaps even look at leadership and non magical support stuff from other games and even media.
 

Ok. I'm not sure of the relevance of that to what I said? I mean no offense, I just don't see the connection. Are yOu perhaps pointing out room for mechanical breadth, in addition to the conceptual breadth I was referencing?

Idk. Imo, most 4e warlord types are pretty close to the same concept, with different tactics, rather than distinct but related archetypes like the ideas I referenced. Which is again why I ink one has to look to saga nobles as well as 4e warlords, and perhaps even look at leadership and non magical support stuff from other games and even media.

I was pointing out the mechanical breadth as well as more concepts.

For example, a warlord PC with a logistics focus could have both appraisal and tracking bonuses and work well for nobles and merchants. Discounts on crafting and purchases, rerolls on tracking, and access to alchemy.

An insightful warlord could have all kinds of wisdom bonuses for medicine, perception, and insight. Good for a combat medic or adventurous archaeologist.

Basically the mental side of D&D out side magic is woefully underdeveloped and underutilized.
 

looks like we're actually coming to some kind of agreement.
and i do agree, that the 4e warlord sub-classes can be combined (4e sub-classes where pretty shallow), as well that we should look at other games, like the starwars noble.
 

4e actually ended with 6 types of Warlord

Tactical: Combat Tactics
Inspiring: Combat Morale
Bravura (aka Risky): Combat Risk Assessment
Resourceful:Combat Intelligence
Insightful: Combat Perception
Skirmishing: Combat Logistics
As someone who never got farther than the PH, what is the difference? Why would I pick a tactical over a resourceful? What is different, both mechanical and rp/in-world would be nice.
 

As someone who never got farther than the PH, what is the difference? Why would I pick a tactical over a resourceful? What is different, both mechanical and rp/in-world would be nice.

tactical = lazier lord, int based bonuses to-hit
inpiring = bard, cha bonus to (T)HP
bravada = barbarian, reckless attack, enemies get advantage against you, allies get advanatge against enemies.
resouceful = variety, int or cha bonuses your choice.
insight = forget... wis bonus to...? (Edit: defenses)
skirmishing = ranger, bow and movement granting

Again, 4e sub-classes where pretty shallow, only 1 feature, and access to few feats (which where much smaller in 4e).
Like a dragon sorcerer getting +cha to fire damage, and that's it.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top