D&D 5E I'm Not Sure We Need a Warlord - Please put down that rotten egg.

[tuxgeo]

"Synergist" -- not a very effective adventurer when working alone, but much more effective when working in a party with others.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Blizzard here in Maryland. Got time to post now, not trying to top-post I swear.

Those (existing mundane) sub-classes are too locked into DPR as their primary in-combat contribution.

All classes should contribute damage in the combat pillar. Your wording "locked-in" seems to acknowledge the existing 5e framework. They may be focused on damage (I disagree), but those classes are the only acceptable tool we have. Well, besides the eternally vague DMGuide guidelines.

The Warlord already bucks trend in a million ways. He gets pitchfork'd when we try to add more "special treatment" to him. I'll concede that tactical things can be implemented. As you said, all classes do their own fiddly bits anyway. But I'm not crossing my side of the fence in this "Vanilla Warlord vs Novel Approach" debate.

There is a niche for someone that can support others in a low magic campaign. Why does this have to be a class called Warlord?

Base Class: Strategist, Field Expert, Expert (3.5), Supporter, or Buffer (Like Fighter and Commoner)
Subclasses: Warlord, Intellect, Technician, Survivor, Ranger!

you 'want' a warlord, but I would prefer to buy into a support class that was not so limited.

Good point. Global Support vs. Combat-Pillar-Only support. That's tough.

Re: It steals the bard's sctick

Not really. Bards get more ShortRest options, more spells, music, more charisma options, more Exploration, can be chaotic, can't wear heavy armor. They are too Rogue-like. The warlord would be lawful, heavy armor, Intelligence based, no music, only 1 or 2 shortrest buffs / auras, and Exploration pillar will be limited to only "can Identify leaders in a group of people".

Besides, 90% of class fluff is the artwork on the first page. We all know the 4e Barbarians were notorious for their broken-jaw class feature. Just draw a warhammer in the artwork instead of a banjo, and viola.

 

[mellored]

Maybe some powers with triggers: when you and an ally both X then you get a bonus.

I think that would solve a lot of the "command" complaints.

The warlord could also be the king of readied actions, maybe being able to move in addition to making a regular action. They might have something akin to "delay" as a class feature. That keeps combats quick, since they're acting outside of their turn but not doing much on their actual turn.

Readied actions are pretty untapped.

 

[mellored]

Also +1 for mastermind

 

[MoutonRustique]

Honestly, I think the Mastermind subclass for rogues is my way of choice. Being able to grant advantage as a bonus action goes a long way right there. Maybe drop the sneak attack stuff in favour of some sort of healing abilities, and possibly later on some sort of buffing (or perhaps allow the Mastermind's ability to work out of combat) and you're a long way there.

Following up on the "trade sneak attack for something" - options for "when you would deal sneak attack by "flanking""

- you give your damage die to your helper's next attack (objectively weaker)
- you grant an ally that many thp (harder to judge off the top of my head)
- you grant advantage to the next ally to attack the foe (weaker on the whole, but some situations could make it worthwhile)
- allow an ally to make an attack as a reaction (seems a bit weaker to me), or free action (seems about equal to me)
- ... I'm out...

This is just a list of "straight ports" of the ability - not what would be equivalent were it to scraped and it's "value" to be added in another form.

 

[Miladoon]

Blizzard here in Maryland. Got time to post now, not trying to top-post I swear.

I was in Maryland in 96 and I have a picture of me standing on a mound of snow, which happened to also be my car.

Good point. Global Support vs. Combat-Pillar-Only support. That's tough.

Once a spell-less base class is fleshed out, a warlord subclass could plug in, for those fightey types. But yeah, I would rather support global and use the subclass system as it was intended.

 

[tuxgeo]

Blizzard here in Maryland. Got time to post now, not trying to top-post I swear.
< snip >
Not really. Bards get more ShortRest options, more spells, music, more charisma options, more Exploration, can be chaotic, can't wear heavy armor. They are too Rogue-like. The warlord would be lawful, heavy armor, Intelligence based, no music, only 1 or 2 shortrest buffs / auras, and Exploration pillar will be limited to only "can Identify leaders in a group of people".

Was the "identify leaders" thing ever a feature of the Warlord class in 4E? (I don't recall.)

Besides, 90% of class fluff is the artwork on the first page. We all know the 4e Barbarians were notorious for their broken-jaw class feature. Just draw a warhammer in the artwork instead of a banjo, and viola.

Yes, but realistically: is there any way we could ever estimate how many bards have been equipped with both "a banjo, and viola?"
[Emphasis added.]

 

[Miladoon]

I drew a wallah, once.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

"Identify Leaders" wasn't really a feature. I mentioned it more to give a nod to "Flavorful but Weak" mechanics to help add some fluff for the 'Lord. I mean, everything is written in prose for the class description anyway. So for the Ranger, they can write "The Ranger walks difficult roads, and can identify different types of mud". And for the Warlord, they can write "A commander's presence is always understood, whether by his mannerisms or his tactics. A Warlord can identify intelligent & tactical leaders amongst other groups."

I was reading the SRD on the Bard, and I think everything can still work without stepping on Bard's toes. It would have to be something like:
Base Class: Strategist (Intelligence)
Subclass: Warlord (Strength)
Subclass: Survivor (Charisma)

That will be tough, but I'll try to pencil something up the next time I have access to a desktop. I'll also try to add the accent on the "a" for the french phrases ;-) Can't find that key on my 'droid.

 

[Eltab]

... sounds like you can just reskin a paladin and you are good to go. AmIright?

Maybe not. My efforts at doing just this haven't "felt" like a Warlord ... yet.
(Although play at L4 did work out pretty well, but not afterward.)