Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition

[Hussar]

As myself and others have said ad naseum, not every warlord is a lazylord. And none of the published builds fit that description, so it's not even an "official" build. While it should be part of the class, it's not a mandatory part: being a princess warlord is a build. A choice. A character decision. And in 5e, the main decision of your character is their subclass. You opt into that. Which means the action/ movement granting aspects should be in a subclass.

Not caring about "lazy lord". EVERY SINGLE WARLORD granted actions. It's iconic to the class. It's not some minor element that's shunted to a 10th level ability. You couldn't make a warlord that never granted any actions, be they movement or attacks. At least, you can't with the PHB.

And, note that the "warlord" elements that made it into the 5e PHB, are GRANTING ACTIONS! It's so iconic that that's the ONLY THING from warlords that made the port into 5e.

/snip
Granting a full action is just too good. Because it's trading your two attacks for one an amazing rogue attack or three fighter attacks or a high level wizard spell. The cost you pay (what you could do on your action) is so much lower than the benefit (one of your allies' actions). Especially when you consider the action of the support character is likely not going to deal as much damage, since they're not going to have taken those feats or prioritised those ability scores.
Even trading an attack for an attack runs into the same problems, as their attacks can be so much better than yours. The "cost" seems slightly less since you still need to be in a position to make an attack, but then that means the "princess" warlord still has to make attacks to grant an attack, which removes the potential of just having the character direct actions from the back.

So, you make an action that costs two attacks. By 10th level a rogue is doing what, weapon+5d6 damage on a sneak? Guess what? That's about 5 points more than what the warlord could do by himself. A Battlemaster is so far ahead of your class that it's not even funny.

No.
Because your argument is also fairly disingenuous. Are all wizards strikers then because they can choose to memorise a spell that deals damage? Would you make the exact same claim about the druid as you do about the cleric, given druids have access to just as much healing as clerics?

The POINT of that argument is that the cleric =/= healer. They can heal, and when they have enough spells to prep they might feel comfortable wasting one on healing, but you can also build a cleric that is a tank (War cleric) or a face (Trickster cleric) or the party sneak (also Trickster cleric) or blaster (Light cleric, Tempest cleric). You can now have a buffing cleric that isn't a healer (Forge cleric). Because 5e classes are not bound to a single role.
You don't expect the cleric of Loki or Ares or or Tiamat or Shar to heal. To focus their attentions on curing wounds over doing something else with their action.

Ballocks. EVERY CLERIC played in D&D will have healing spells. EVERY CLERIC can have healing spells after a long rest. Same with druids.

Heck, I play a Forge Cleric. Guess what? He casts healing spells. Shock, surprise. I just can't believe it. How you figure that a Forge cleric is a buffing cleric I don't know. But, anyway, yeah, you could play a cleric that never casts a healing spell, but, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that virtually no one ever does.

/snip

Meanwhile, the warlord is expected to be tanking or dealing damage. If one of their major abilities is focused on healing rather than a generic role-neutral ability, then that means they have an ability that does not fit their build and serves little purpose. They're less good at the role they chose to fill—what the player wants to do—and
better and something they explicitly chose not to do.

Why would you expect a class to do something that it has never done before? Warlords don't tank. Do you want to change the mechanics so that rogues and wizards can tank? After all, there's no reason that someone couldn't have the Criminal background and take most of the Rogue's schtick. So, rogues should have tank subclasses.

Meh. Like I said earlier. Don't let people who hate a concept design that concept. You very obviously have chased down a very strange rabbit hole where you've decided that the game needs a class that can do anything, so, we need to make such a weak sauce class that doesn't actually accomplish anything. Good grief, why on earth would anyone play this and not a Battlemaster?

 

[Jester David]

1. I think you are confusing what the unique feature of full casters are... Hint (it's spells)

How is that relevant? Warlords aren’t spellcasters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If an 'iconic ability' has to be one that all members if the class posses, non-optionally, with no alternatives, then the Warlord's iconic abilities were Inspiring Word and Combat Leader.
But, that's getting hung up on mechanics. In 5e, inspiring word could be just another gambit.

 

[FrogReaver]

As such, the warlord should also not be bound into the single role of the healer, and should have to opt into that build. And as I said above, the decision point for characters is typically the subclass. So a healing subclass would be just fine. Just like the default sorcerer or warlock who also need to subclass into those spells/ abilities.

Which is why most of the people in this thread have already started making a Warlord that has a flexible mechanic that can include healing if the Warlord player chooses to take the healing ability within that mechanic. This leaves the Warlord unbound from the role of healer. So it's really not required to be in the subclass.

 

[FrogReaver]

How is that relevant? Warlords aren’t spellcasters.

That doesn't mean they can't have a single unique feature that lumps all their iconic abilities into it and let's them proportion them out however they want.

 

[Jester David]

Not caring about "lazy lord". EVERY SINGLE WARLORD granted actions. It's iconic to the class. It's not some minor element that's shunted to a 10th level ability. You couldn't make a warlord that never granted any actions, be they movement or attacks. At least, you can't with the PHB.

Every warlord in 4e, maybe. Why should the 5e warlord be as limited in the design of powers?

5e classes updating an old class should look at the concept first, focusing on and its flavor and design from there instead of just updating powers. The design of the 4e warlord is just a first step. A source of inspiration. Not a template to replicate.

Each edition reinterprets and reimagines classes. After all, it’s not like all 5e fighters can mark. Or have weapon focus like in 3e. Or weapon specialization like in 2e granting extra attacks only with that weapon.

Why should the warlord be treated differently? Why can’t it be reimagined and improved?
Was the 4e warlord perfect? Are you saying it’s impossible to improve the 4e warlord?

Again, in my test class, every Marshal warlord can grant attacks. And they can grant movement at 3rd level. That’s the 4e style warlord. (And every warlord can use Stratagem at level 6 to get an off turn attack with an ally.) But I move beyond the 4e concept for the other subclasses.

So, you make an action that costs two attacks. By 10th level a rogue is doing what, weapon+5d6 damage on a sneak? Guess what? That's about 5 points more than what the warlord could do by himself. A Battlemaster is so far ahead of your class that it's not even funny.

And?
Doesn’t that just prove that the warlord trading their action for another character's is broken?

Ballocks. EVERY CLERIC played in D&D will have healing spells. EVERY CLERIC can have healing spells after a long rest. Same with druids.

Heck, I play a Forge Cleric. Guess what? He casts healing spells. Shock, surprise. I just can't believe it. How you figure that a Forge cleric is a buffing cleric I don't know. But, anyway, yeah, you could play a cleric that never casts a healing spell, but, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that virtually no one ever does.

I’ve seen non-healing cleric and druids. The Moon druid in my current game has never prepared let alone used cure wounds, because we have a Life cleric. And in another game, the druid never healed as we had a Lore bard serving as the leader.
But, clerics and druids do have unlimited spells known. In contrast, not every bard will know healing despite every bard having healing in 4e. Most bards in 5e probably don’t learn cure wounds. As a martial class the warlord should probably have fewer powers known each level than a spellcaster like a bard. So why on earth would every warlord have healing?

Also, if someone wants to play a Life cleric, shouldn’t it be possible for someone to also play a warlord in that group without overlapping roles? In the same way that there is a tanking Moon druid and healing Life cleric like my current game?

Why would you expect a class to do something that it has never done before? Warlords don't tank.

Warlord’s didn’t tank. In 4e. But neither could a cleric or a barbarian. Now both can. Why should the warlord be limited and pigeonholed by the role limitations of a past edition?
Why should the warlord be stuck ONLY being a healer when no other class in 5e has a mandated character role?

They shouldn’t. Classes in 5e don’t have roles. Characters do. The warlord player should absolutely be able to make a character that is a healer. But they should also be able to make a character that isn’t a healer. And they shouldn't be penalised for playing against type and daring to make a warlord that isn't a healbot.

Do you want to change the mechanics so that rogues and wizards can tank?

Wizards can tank. See the bladesinger. The abjurer can also semi-tank.

And the warlord would be a d8 Hit Dice class wearing heavy armor. Why can’t they take a tanking role? If the War cleric can do it, why not the warlord?

Meh. Like I said earlier. Don't let people who hate a concept design that concept.

And you probably also shouldn’t let people fixated on single past interpretation of a concept design future interpretations of the concept.

And I don’t hate the warlord. I hate the attitude of warlord fans. The creative shackling of the design. The mandating of designing the class exactly like it was in a previous edition.
The 5e warlord shouldn't be required to be exactly like the 4e warlord anymore than it has to be exactly like 3e marshal.

You very obviously have chased down a very strange rabbit hole where you've decided that the game needs a class that can do anything, so, we need to make such a weak sauce class that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

I fail to see how wanting it to do more than just heal and grant attacks is going down a rabbit hole.
It doesn't need to do everything but it should at least have as much flexibility as the cleric. There should be just as much variety.
Otherwise Mearls is right and it should just be a subclass.

So which is it? Is the warlord a one trick pony that only fits a single should then just be a fighter subclass?
Or is it a flexible class with as much potential as the other classes and able to fill more roles than just restoring hit points?

Good grief, why on earth would anyone play this and not a Battlemaster?

Okay then, let's see yours.
What's your example of the warlord class that's as good as the 4e version and better than the Battle Master.

I've put the work in to make a class, even though I'm only so-so a fan of the warlord. Just to give warlord fans more ideas and something else to riff off.
If you're really a warlord fan, then where's your version?

 

[Jester David]

That doesn't mean they can't have a single unique feature that lumps all their iconic abilities into it and let's them proportion them out however they want.

We've been over that before. And I disagreed with that design.

In part because if it's that broad, then it's not very iconic, making it a poor fit for the low levels of the class. There's a reason the rogue doesn't choose "sneak attack" from a list or four or five powers. It's just "spellcasting" with a different name.
And it's a higher level ability, then it's a choice you're making after level 3 or 4. So why not make it a subclass then?

 

[FrogReaver]

We've been over that before. And I disagreed with that design.

In part because if it's that broad, then it's not very iconic, making it a poor fit for the low levels of the class. There's a reason the rogue doesn't choose "sneak attack" from a list or four or five powers. It's just "spellcasting" with a different name.
And it's a higher level ability, then it's a choice you're making after level 3 or 4. So why not make it a subclass then?

You mean the ability to cast cleric spells isn’t iconic?

 

[Jester David]

You mean the ability to cast cleric spells isn’t iconic?

Not really. Casting spells is generic. Four classes have that. It’s as iconic as Extra Attack. Or wearing heavy armour.

Turning undead is iconic. As is channeling divinity to a lesser degree.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not caring about "lazy lord". EVERY SINGLE WARLORD granted actions. It's iconic to the class. It's not some minor element that's shunted to a 10th level ability. You couldn't make a warlord that never granted any actions, be they movement or attacks. At least, you can't with the PHB.

And, note that the "warlord" elements that made it into the 5e PHB, are GRANTING ACTIONS! It's so iconic that that's the ONLY THING from warlords that made the port into 5e.



So, you make an action that costs two attacks. By 10th level a rogue is doing what, weapon+5d6 damage on a sneak? Guess what? That's about 5 points more than what the warlord could do by himself. A Battlemaster is so far ahead of your class that it's not even funny.



Ballocks. EVERY CLERIC played in D&D will have healing spells. EVERY CLERIC can have healing spells after a long rest. Same with druids.

Heck, I play a Forge Cleric. Guess what? He casts healing spells. Shock, surprise. I just can't believe it. How you figure that a Forge cleric is a buffing cleric I don't know. But, anyway, yeah, you could play a cleric that never casts a healing spell, but, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that virtually no one ever does.



Why would you expect a class to do something that it has never done before? Warlords don't tank. Do you want to change the mechanics so that rogues and wizards can tank? After all, there's no reason that someone couldn't have the Criminal background and take most of the Rogue's schtick. So, rogues should have tank subclasses.

Meh. Like I said earlier. Don't let people who hate a concept design that concept. You very obviously have chased down a very strange rabbit hole where you've decided that the game needs a class that can do anything, so, we need to make such a weak sauce class that doesn't actually accomplish anything. Good grief, why on earth would anyone play this and not a Battlemaster?

An option for it is fine at will maybe not. Natural spell got shunted to level 18 from 6 after all.