D&D (2024) How should the Warlord be implemented in 1DnD?

[Incenjucar]

I am using class-agnostic to mean that it is not unique to a class and is therefore open to more classes. Most class abilities are not shared between classes because they define those classes, and are therefore not class agnostic. Second Wind is not class agnostic. Lay on Hands is not class agnostic. Bardic Inspiration is not class agnostic.

If I just look at Fighter, there is Second Wind, Action Surge, Weapon Expert/Adept, Indomitable, Unconquerable. The Champion shares none of its abilities with any other class or subclass (minus Additional Fighting Style).

A Warlord class would be the same way. There would be no way for a single-class bard to opt into the Lazylord abilities if it werepart of a Warlord class.

A Fighter and a Ranger can both be a "Captain" in the lore of the game. A "Warlord" should be treated the same. It shouldn't be its own unique thing any more than a "Captain" is.

A single class Barbarian Warlord should be able to exist alongside a single class Military Officer Fighter "Warlord".

So if we gave a warlord abilities with a unique name they would be non-agnostic abilities?

 

[Garthanos]

And this is why niche protection needs deletion.

Wizards only access to their high level spells is sort of mild niche protection at least eventually. I considered maybe the only reason battlemaster maneuvers are allowed easy access to anyone is because they remain super low level however the obvious martial feats were also made available to anyone and those are not minor or low impact.

5e's multi-classing if it worked well would basically be like abandoning classes. That is the tradition the idea butts up against.

 

[Garthanos]

And when people say they don't want D&D to be a generic fantasy system and others say nobody is advocating that, "delete niche protection" is one thing we're talking about. The less niche protection, the more generic the game becomes.

Look at 5e multiclassing LOL they are incredibly close to that niche protection being a thing of the past.
Wait ->Are you the one basically asserting that Warlords cannot have a niche because everyone should have all of their stuff and then you say this? Or am I mixing you with someone else?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I am using class-agnostic to mean that it is not unique to a class and is therefore open to more classes. Most class abilities are not shared between classes because they define those classes, and are therefore not class agnostic. Second Wind is not class agnostic. Lay on Hands is not class agnostic. Bardic Inspiration is not class agnostic.

If I just look at Fighter, there is Second Wind, Action Surge, Weapon Expert/Adept, Indomitable, Unconquerable. The Champion shares none of its abilities with any other class or subclass (minus Additional Fighting Style).

A Warlord class would be the same way. There would be no way for a single-class bard to opt into the Lazylord abilities if it werepart of a Warlord class.

A Fighter and a Ranger can both be a "Captain" in the lore of the game. A "Warlord" should be treated the same. It shouldn't be its own unique thing any more than a "Captain" is.

A single class Barbarian Warlord should be able to exist alongside a single class Military Officer Fighter "Warlord".

A single-class bard should absolutely be able to pick up some of the Warlord's low-end abilities through feats just as other characters can pick up a Bard's low-end spells through feats.

 

[Garthanos]

So if we gave a warlord abilities with a unique name they would be non-agnostic abilities?

second wind... healing yourself only once in a while is so unique.... smdh. Yeh its the name that matters.

 

[Garthanos]

Not being able to make a Lazylord though would suck though.

WOTC did not plan for the Prince(ss) / Lazylord build warlord to happen fans applied imagination to a diverse set of tools the specialist had and found something fresh and unusual.

 

[Incenjucar]

Classes really don't have unique abilities so much as different concentrations of them - which is good! Warlords can be to other leaders what wizards are to other spell-users.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Right so why is it so wrong to say they should be able to do a small amount of healing fast, or a large amount slow, but not a large amount fast unless it's magical or temporary hit points?

For example if people want the Warlord to use a bonus action to heal 2d6 hit points each round for 10 rounds in a row for a total of 20d6 in a single minute (Aura of Vitality) it should either be a magic ability of theirs (thus not able to work in an anti-magic field) or should grant temporary hit points instead. That's my position. I don't see what's so controversial about that. I don't think it's meaningfully different than how 4e handled the Warlord either - as that sort of top end healing was reserved for clerics in 4e too.

OK. I think I see it. - Warlords matching Clerics for healing would be bad, because healing is one of the Cleric's primary niches?
So Warlords should aim for healing at the level of secondary healers like Bards, Celestial Warlocks etc to preserve the Cleric's niche?

I think that we have agreement that a Warlord granting "Second Wind" to their allies would fit fine (probably using their HD though), would be fine? Would you have an issue with being able to affect multiple targets? So rather than a single big chunk of HP, or a single effect providing continuous sustained HP over time, the Warlord is slightly better at spreading less healing, but around to multiple allies.

 

[Garthanos]

no because they were better at buffing and handing out extra attack/actions... they both where leaders but warlords where better at offensive force multiplication and clerics were better at healing... and both could do the other decent.

Ironically Clerics were better at temp hit points too.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I don't think it should be just a fighter theme, I think it should be part of the core identity of the fighter.

I think the Fighter doesn't make any sense right now. Its just a dude who fights well. Isn't a barbarian a dude who fights well? Yeah yeah, Rage flavor, whatever.

Fighter should have everything it does now + everything a Warlord can do. Then, IMO, that would be a class that's equal to a caster while being a martial.

I think that's part of fighters problem, and why every single martial suggestion gets shoehorned into 'fighter subclass'. All a fighter is, is a guy who fights. Which applies to literally any martial. Meanwhile casters are all given a unique theme and split into lots of classes.

Personally I wouldn't mind fighter getting split into three. A heavily armoured juggernaut class, an agile swashbuckling class, and a sit at the back class doing buffing and leadership class.