Playtest (A5E) Level Up Advanced 5E Playtest Document #9: Warlord

Welcome to the 9th Level Up: Advanced 5E playtest document. This playtest contains a candidate for the game’s warlord class. The warlord is a new class and — like our spell-less ranger — we have allocated two playtest slots for it. This is the first document; a revised playtest version may appear next week based on your feedback.

Note that this class references two rules elements which have not yet been previewed -- followers, and strongholds. Those will be revealed at a later date.

Level Up Playtest Document #9: Warlord — Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition (A5E)

Welcome to the 9th Level Up playtest document. This playtest contains a candidate for the game’s warlord class.

www.levelup5e.com

Download the playtest document here!

And take the playtest survey here:

Mailchimp Survey

us15.list-manage.com

 

[GKEnialb]

All of the classes have been fantastic so far (with the slight exception of Ranger v1 and the Sorcerer), but I have very mixed feelings about the Warlord. Perhaps it's because I wasn't able to get into 4E like I was with all the others (starting with the Basic box set).

The things that I really liked were the archetypes (especially the Gambling General) and the abilities that aided the party outside of the giving the extra attack (like Call to Arms, which is awesome and unique). The "base" concept of giving up your attack to give somebody else a chance to give up a reaction to get an attack seems weak (and really odd that they know your maneuver only when you're giving them that attack rather than letting them use a maneuver they know), especially since you've mentioned that more options for reactions are coming down the line. Also, having the player choose themselves what their reputation is ("hey, I've spent my first five levels slaughtering townsfolk, but I like the ability for Famous, so I'll say I'm that") isn't great and having your reputation be the same everywhere doesn't make sense (if you're famous in a town in one kingdom, shouldn't you likely be infamous in a town in a rival kingdom?).

Very excited about this project! Keep up the good work!

 

[Stalker0]

Also, having the player choose themselves what their reputation is ("hey, I've spent my first five levels slaughtering townsfolk, but I like the ability for Famous, so I'll say I'm that") isn't great and having your reputation be the same everywhere doesn't make sense (if you're famous in a town in one kingdom, shouldn't you likely be infamous in a town in a rival kingdom?).

Eh, this kind of thing exists all over the system. The blind wizard who picks up the observant feat. The raging barbarian that suddenly multiclasses into wizard.

I'm generally of the opinion that the role of the system is to provide you sound options that have good flavor....and its the job of the player and dm to decide how to integrate that in the campaign. If you have been slaughtering villages left and right and you wanted to take "famous", I as a DM would probably raise an eyebrow.

Or I could absolutely see a Dm and player go "ok in this town you get benefits for 'famous', but in Mangova where you are known as the "Mangovian Murderer" we will go with slaughterer instead.

 

[Garthanos]

I agree, skipping your own attack so that someone else can attack might come in handy sometimes, but doesn’t strike me as an interesting class feature.

doing it at range is handier ie you basically have a ranged attack without switching weapons.

This is true. Another limiter could be making the "free attacker" spend their reaction to make the out of turn attack, which for many classes would be a big ask and in some cases a usual no thanks situation.

Yes its not a transferred attack let alone free if you are spending the targets resources this has annoyed me seriously.

 

[Garthanos]

I loved that you could use the Warlord to build a character like Thufir Hawat or Piter De Vries. Which brings up a issue I have with this itineration, it seems to be designed (even the Tactician archtype) as a INT dumping class.

I considered mentats to be a mix of Warlord and Int based Monk

 

[Garthanos]

We’re not ready to share the rules yet (because they’re still in early draft form) but ‘followers’ are mechanically not NPCs so much as they are daily abilities you can use. They fade into the background until you use that ability, and then they fade right back again. You can almost think of them as spells. The basic idea is similar to the way its handled in Handwork Games’ Beowulf game, although the details are different. So there’s no follower management involved.

I love the followers idea by the way... In my endeavor to make a Marshal troops martial practice for 4e most of the elements work as a sort of ritual magic but every once in a while .... having your troops become a big daily style effect Archers Barrage and similar things could be a flanking component.