Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Zardnaar]

I haven't seen the stream but he really ought to begin by stating what he thinks a Warlord should be able to do. If this list doesn't include the buzzwords "non-magical" "healing" "buffing" and "making others take action", then he might just as well not bother.

Making the Warlord a Fighter subclass is a restriction that should have been discussed and questioned before decided upon. Can you really fit all of what a true Warlord needs to be able to do into the Fighter chassi without making it too good?

At least tell me the actions it can make allies take are "real" actions - if there are silly restrictions disabling caster allies from casting non-cantrip spells or disabling martial allies from using "riders" (GWM, smiting, sneak damage, etc) let me just go siiiiigh

Since the character that is the Warlord could have been casting a Fireball or a Heal or making two Smite attacks or making five attacks with Precision and GWM... it really is wrong to think it's too powerful for it to enable its allies strong actions.

The only restriction needs to be on its ability to be all those classes (Sorcerer, Cleric, Paladin, Fighter), i.e. the Flexibility. And really, the only restriction needs to be that it is weakish on its own.

The warlord is supposed to be an excellent fifth wheel, having fun by glory through its allies. I really don't think its ability to command others need any meaningful restrictions. Especially if it eats their reactions, then it absolutely needs no other restrictions (and in fact, the class might turn out needing to be strong in itself, since no min-maxer will be happy to have somebody else use up their reaction)

I really think the Warlord would be best off if built as a standalone class modeled on the Cleric chassi. Not a Cleric subclass; a standalone class with the Cleric's armor proficiencies; a good selection of Cleric-level or at the very least Bard-level healing and buffing (though - and this is crucial - non-magical). That makes it a strong enough stand-alone character. Then add the ability to sacrifice an attack to make an ally do an attack (the class getting two attacks no later than level 6); and the ability to sacrifice its action to make an ally use up its reaction to do an action.

Done.

And that there is broken. Clerics have weak attacks so any warlord that can sacrifice their attack and heal as well as a cleric or druid is OP.
You would need to limit the attack granting or have a weaker healer. At will attack granting in 5E is OP as well due to Rogues, Paladins, Rangers.

 

[Leatherhead]

And that there is broken. Clerics have weak attacks so any warlord that can sacrifice their attack and heal as well as a cleric or druid is OP.
You would need to limit the attack granting or have a weaker healer. At will attack granting in 5E is OP as well due to Rogues, Paladins, Rangers.

Mearls implied the Warlord wasn't going to be able to heal as well as a Cleric, or Druid, or probably even a Paladin. Because he was referencing the rules for making custom spells, and using the spell progression of the Eldritch Knight, as the numeric guidelines for the Warlords powers.

 

[TwoSix]

At will attack granting in 5E is OP as well due to Rogues, Paladins, Rangers.

At-will attack granting can't be broken because of Rogues and Paladins (and Rangers?) because having a second Rogue or Paladin in the party, or even an all-Rogue or all-Paladin party, isn't broken. Now, if the action granting ability is sitting on a chassis that also gives a wide range of off-turn or out-of combat abilities, like a full caster, that could easily be broken.

 

[jaelis]

Is it just me or is the recording really glitchy? Mine kept skipping backwards a few seconds and repeating, make it hard to listen to.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

He just doesn't get it.

What, you mean 3-4 subclass features aren't enough to make a multi-attacking DPR beast into a support focused character?

I mean, why do we need wizards... we have eldritch knights!

 

[cbwjm]

From the base ideas he listed for what he wants the subclass to look like, it sounds like the warlord is going to be a great subclass. Looking forward to next week to see how it turns out.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I haven’t been heavily involved in 5e Warlord threads, but I’ve noticed a trend that I’m curious about. It strikes me that there’s usually a desire to replicate near-exactly previous action-granting or healing abilities in a system where action economy and healing/natural healing have changed since 4e. I wonder to what degree that’s a matter of the Warlord having only existed in one previous edition (unless we count the Marshall)? Those debates that I do see look to focus on fitting in a mechanic of choice (and then determining the effect) rather than deciding on the effect (and then finding an appropriate mechanic) — I’m reminded of how the Ranger’s “bonus vs. giant-type opponents has morphed over the editions in my thirty years of play into the various versions of Favored Enemy as the game’s monster ecology and classification of creature types has shifted.

5e uses various mechanics for refreshing abilities and actions. Has anyone (among designers or fans) looked perhaps a subclass who perhaps has a reaction ability to refresh the expended-until-rest or expended-until-turn actions of allies?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't see why the warlord can't break action economy when casters get to violate the "plot economy" by reading minds, scrying, charming, speaking with dead, etc. On noes, the rogue might get to sneak attack twice! You could add a bit more complexity and still not bring the amount that dropping a caster in the same spot would bring.

A good start, for me, would be something similar to the warlock chassis. d8HD, medium armor, shields, martial weapons, con/cha saves. The equivalent of invocations (tactics) would add riders to the help, attack or other actions and add "auras" similar to the paladin oaths. Then the short rest recharging spell equivalents (stratagems) could lift some ideas from 4E and be your big group dog piles or encounter long buffs. Some of which could require concentration as you're needing to coordinate your allies and that's hard to do when you're getting wailed on.

 

[Satyrn]

I haven’t been heavily involved in 5e Warlord threads, but I’ve noticed a trend that I’m curious about. It strikes me that there’s usually a desire to replicate near-exactly previous action-granting or healing abilities in a system where action economy and healing/natural healing have changed since 4e.

What you describe looks more like how the "opposition" describes what a warlord fan wants, rather than what warlord fans actually want.

I'm pretty sure that most of us want a warlord that captures the feel of a 4e warlord, with mechanics suited to 5e.

 

[jaelis]

What you describe looks more like how the "opposition" describes what a warlord fan wants, rather than what warlord fans actually want.

I'm pretty sure that most of us want a warlord that captures the feel of a 4e warlord, with mechanics suited to 5e.

So how would you describe the feel of a 4e warlord?