Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Yunru]

I was actually being sarcastic and dismissive when I made the "That's nice." reply to the prior comment.

https://youtu.be/JddNDtC-Yrs

 

[Remathilis]

The design goal needs to be to create a warlord that warlord fans are generally happy with.

Wizard fans need to be generally happy with the wizard class. Elf fans need to be happy with the elf ancestry. Fighter fans need to be happy with the fighter class. No less, warlord fans need to be happy with the warlord class.

If that's the criteria, you've lost before firing your first bullet.

You can't make everyone happy. Nothing can. Even if we ignore all the h4ters and obvious negative opinions, there is a sharp divide among the "fans" as to what and how to do it. I mean, by your own posting history, I could safely say you are not a fan of either elves or clerics, since you are happy with neither.

Warlord faces some serious issues it needs to sort out before a consensus can be reached: the first being its frakkin name (its amazing how many people, even self-professed warlord fans, hate the name "warlord"). We can't even decide on if he's going to be called a warlord, marshal, banneret, captain, leader, noble, or simply "Sue".

Further, unlike all the other classes released so far, there isn't a non-4e version of the class to look at for a guide on how to mimic without the ADEU structure. (Well, there's the marshal, but most warlord fans tend to think he's lacking). Nearly all 5e classes start with a 3e-based version of the class and then layer on and change things from there (even artificer, though mystic seems to want to call back to the 2e psionicist rather than the 3e psion). Warlord has only one model; the ADEU one, and it struggles to fit in a game not defined by that power-structure and play-style. Paladins, Barbarians, Warlocks, and Druids all easily abandoned the ADEU structure because prior editions provided the tools (smites, spells, rages, invocations, wild shape) to make them work without it. Warlords lack that, and the attempts to make it work (via superiority dice, resolve points, hit dice, or even pseudo "spell" slots) haven't provided a generally agreed upon mechanic.

Even further than that, there is still a large gulf on of agreement on what a warlord should be able to actually do. The vague general terms (heal, buff, support, extra actions) seem a good starting point, but like how nobody agrees on what mechanic to have the warlord use, nobody really agrees on what the warlord's net effect should be. Take warlord healing: does he heal damage or provide temp hp? Does his healing use the recipients HD, the warlord's, HD, or some other resource? Can he heal a fallen ally or only if the recipient is still conscious? Should healing be a primary function (akin to cleric) or secondary (like a druid or bard)?

For another example, take support. This catch-all term generally means "can replace a cleric/druid/bard in a party" but its hard to say what the warlord is doing and how is he doing it nonmagically. A cleric, beyond healing hp, provides status-removal (lesser/greater restoration), information (divination, commune), transportation (word of recall, wind walk), even resurrection (raise dead, revivify). How does a warlord even begin to compete with those features "nonmagically"? In 4e, he could because the majority of a cleric's "prayers" were attacks with riders and more powerful effects like I mentioned got siloed into rituals (or some utility powers) than anyone could learn with a feat. A cleric's function in 4e wasn't defined by remove affliction, divination, or raise dead; but in 5e it is. A 5e warlord cannot replace a cleric unless he is able to replicate the effects of magic, which begins to defeat the purpose.

For me, it seems like a fool's errand to keep trying to replicate the 4e warlord in 5e. Yes, there room for a dedicated warlord class in 5e, one who can restore vigor, buff allies, and use brilliant tactics to aid in combat, but the minute you try to make him a non-magical cleric replacement, the class falls apart rapidly. At this point, it might be a better (and more fruitful) endeavor to stop asking "how do I recreate the 4e warlord in 5e?" and start asking "What does a tactical, inspiring martial leader look like given 5e's design paradigm?"

For me, he looks a lot more like a non-magical/non-divine paladin, but that's another topic.

 

[Pauln6]

I suppose the only way to be a Warlord from level 1 is to go for a human fighter or Rogue with martial adept or inspiring leader but then I suppose you could argue something similar for most martial builds. Fighter - Rogue or Rogue - Fighter builds probably have the most potential with Mastermind being the go-to subclass to grant allies advantage on initiative, skill checks, or attack rolls with a bonus action.

Battlemaster will work much better with the extra commander manoeuvres from 5MW, assuming that you don't go the whole hog and just pick the Commander subclass from that supplement.

I think the Banneret subclass falls short of a decent Warlord because of the absence of manoeuvres. I personally would grant a Banneret the equivalent benefit of the Martial Adept feat (choosing at least one manoeuvre from a limited list) as part of their level 3 subclass benefits plus an extra superiority die and Manoeuvre (from a limited list) at 7 and 15. That's still only 3d6 with 4 limited manoeuvres so I think it would add Warlord spice without stepping heavily on Battlemaster toes. They can always take more Martial Adept feats for more.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If that's the criteria, you've lost before firing your first bullet.

There's only a couple of 5e classes that had long-time fans of their up in arms - the Sorcerer and Ranger. That's not a terrible track record. Surely, you're not implying that WotC has suffered some drastic loss of game-design competence in the last few years? Or are you privy to some secret information, like Mike Mearls had a stroke and has been replace by an LMD?

You can't make everyone happy. Nothing can.

Right. And the first cohort we should remove from 'everyone' to get a potentially-please-able audience is:

Even if we ignore all the h4ters and obvious negative opinions

Yep, those guys.

, there is a sharp divide among the "fans" as to what and how to do it.

There's one vision of the Warlord: the 4e version, that all Warlord fans, by definition, were happy enough with. It's a model that 5e should have no trouble emulating, it will just have to add to it to fit the 5e paradigm.

Where warlord fans fall into sharp disagreements is in discussions like these where detractors keep asking for 'concessions' and demanding justifications for the class far in excess of what's ever been asked for with any other.
That individual fans come up with different things they'd be willing to part with - and some find one of those same things 'most-important' doesn't mean there's an unbridgeable gap among those fans. It just illustrates how varied and interesting the class was, and that all that breadth & interest needs to be realized in 5e.

Which is not a tall order. 4e was a more restrictive design environment than 5e. It'll be much easier than it was.

Warlord faces some serious issues it needs to sort out before a consensus can be reached: the first being its frakkin name (its amazing how many people, even self-professed warlord fans, hate the name "warlord")

It's the worst proposed name for an additional martial class beyond the fighter - except for all the others.

Seriously, the objection to the name is spurious nonsense. Spurious nonsense some warlord fans are willing to get behind if it means getting the class they want in all but name, and others are justifiably offended by.

Further, unlike all the other classes released so far, there isn't a non-4e version of the class to look at for a guide on how to mimic without the ADEU structure.

Yep, there's more freedom of design, there. Of course, AEDU /was/ used, loosely, as a framework for the Warlock (or you could say the 3.5 Warlock presaged AEDU), and it worked quite nicely. All casters now have at will (A) Cantrips, and of course, D&D has always had daily (D) spells, many of which have utility (U) beyond attacks. 5e even gives some casters a short-rest recharge of an otherwise daily spells, so the E is there in more than just the Warlock.

So, not an issue, really. Use a short-rest focused AEDU-ish framework, like the Warlock, or, y'know, show some design chops and come up with something unique that accomplishes the same goals in the context of 5e.

The only real challenge in creating the Warlord is in making it effective and versatile enough to stand in for a Cleric, Bard, or Druid (or, for a bravura warlord, Paladin, I suppose) without putting the party at a profound disadvantage. Simply porting the Warlord from 4e - strictly-limiting AEDU and role structures intact - would fall short.

Even further than that, there is still a large gulf on of agreement on what a warlord should be able to actually do.

The Warlord, Cleric, Bard, & (Sentinel) Druid were all leaders in 4e, and the Paladin was a strong secondary leader. In 5e, the Cleric, Bard, and Druid are all first-tier support classes, and do more than ever they did in 4e, besides. That's a clear target in necessary contributions, and nothing inhernet in the system stands in the way of it.

For another example, take support. This catch-all term generally means "can replace a cleric/druid/bard in a party" but its hard to say what the warlord is doing and how is he doing it nonmagically.

No, it's not hard to say. It's just that some people who already hate the warlord don't like what it's had to say on the subject.

That's why the warlord isn't for them, and, if I'm to get off my high horse and be pragmatic for a moment, why it was a 'good' that it was excluded from the PH. That makes it necessarily optional, so anyone who doesn't care for the narratives around martial support can just choose not to opt into the class for their campaigns.

There are some default narratives some folks just plain don't like. Vancian magic has probably repelled more potential D&Ders over the decades than will ever be exposed to a Warlord class, let alone repelled by it, but it remains, in somewhat bowdlerized (yet less restricted, even more versatile) form, none the less - and, with clear alternatives like the AEDU-ish Warlock available. Those who still can't stand it even have an optional spell-point rule in the DMG, too.
And, nothing really stops us from using mechanics, but rationalizing our own narrative that does work for us. And, nothing stops DMs from tweaking mechanics. Those that /did/ like classic Vancian, for instance, can't possibly find it difficult to just treat the three prepped casters as such, using slots as old-school daily spells. Heck, the game probably 'balances' a little better that way.

 

[epithet]

It seems to me that the only thing people don't connect with when it comes to the Warlord in 5e is the non-magical healing. I could be wrong.

The 4e Warlord, as I understand it, healed by giving an ally instant access to its hit dice, called healing surges in 4e. I have the impression that almost all healing (magical or not) was done using these healing surges. I don't see why the same thing can't be done in 5e. Rather than give the Warlord an ability that restores XdY + Z hit points to a targeted ally, why not directly carry over the 4e mechanism? Let the targeted ally use its hit dice for self healing as a reaction, with some bonus based on the WL stat or prof. bonus.

You can also let the WL, as a reaction, add some bonus (like a bard inspiration die sort of thing) to an ally's death saving throw, and if the number is 20 or greater treat it as a nat 20.

Tack on some fortifying temp hit points, and you've pretty much got a non-magical healer, right?

The other thing a WL does is grant attacks. Seems like you could give the WL an action that lets an ally move up to half speed an attack using its reaction. At a higher level let the WL make a weapon attack as a bonus action when using this action, and then at even higher level make the ally's attack have advantage. If it needs a kick to bring the WL up to par, let the ally's attack have advantage from the beginning, and add a 2nd ally at higher level.

I am of the opinion that once you step back from the idea that the Warlord has to heal like a 5e caster, it's pretty easy to find existing mechanics that do what a WL needs to do and that could be wrapped up in a character class without a ruckus.

Considering that the topic has been wrangled since 5e launched, however, I am obviously missing something.

 

[Jester David]

The design goal needs to be to create a warlord that warlord fans are generally happy with.

Wizard fans need to be generally happy with the wizard class. Elf fans need to be happy with the elf ancestry. Fighter fans need to be happy with the fighter class. No less, warlord fans need to be happy with the warlord class.

True, but that assumes there’s a singular group of warlord fans that all want the same thing. And presumes there’s a way to only get their feedback and not feedback from casual warlord fans or fans of D&D who might like a warlord.

Many “warlord fans” (aka the warlord supporters here) have really made the warlord into a way to edition war. It’s a way to attack 5e (and often Mike Mearls) for failing and breaking promises. There’s a lot of posturing and presenting certain aspects of the warlord as absolutely essential aspects. Such as healing, which is a vital aspect of the class solely that was the design in 4e. Or granting attacks because a popular fan build focused on that. And despite well over half the powers in the PHB not relating to granting attacks, and fewer powers in Martial Power 1 & 2 relating to that.

It’s never going to happen. But it doesn’t need to because its half about the warlord and half a way to attack and argue online.

 

[Yaarel]

True, but that assumes there’s a singular group of warlord fans that all want the same thing. And presumes there’s a way to only get their feedback and not feedback from casual warlord fans or fans of D&D who might like a warlord.

Many “warlord fans” (aka the warlord supporters here) have really made the warlord into a way to edition war. It’s a way to attack 5e (and often Mike Mearls) for failing and breaking promises. There’s a lot of posturing and presenting certain aspects of the warlord as absolutely essential aspects. Such as healing, which is a vital aspect of the class solely that was the design in 4e. Or granting attacks because a popular fan build focused on that. And despite well over half the powers in the PHB not relating to granting attacks, and fewer powers in Martial Power 1 & 2 relating to that.

It’s never going to happen. But it doesn’t need to because its half about the warlord and half a way to attack and argue online.

A survey can ask the question, How important is the warlord class to you? And then compare the results of the other questions according to those who have a strong interest.

If the warlord fan base is split on any topic, an archetype can be build for each preference.

 

[cbwjm]

Yep, we all really do like to argue online. Personally, if I was part of the design team and we were tasked with creating a warlord class, I would create it with past builds in mind. That is, I wouldn't make a consideration for the so-called lazy lord. I'd look at the variations that 4e included as baseline such as inspiring, tactical, and bravura as well as look at creating a couple others such as an arcane/divine subclass. Lazy lord might still be able to be built using the tools at hand, but it wouldn't be a driving focus.

Is it Thursdays (usa time) that the happy fun hour comes out? I'm looking forward to the next episode.

 

[Yaarel]

The ranger and the paladin exist as separate classes, even tho they made sense as fighter archetypes, similar to eldritch knight. There was even 1e fighter precedents to make them archetypes.

The warlord makes more sense as a separate class.



Nonmagical healing is a ‘sine qua non’ of the warlord class. But it is something D&D needs anyway. Because most damage in 5e is nonphysical fatigue with only superficial contact, warlord healing is easy to implement.

I would probably refer to warlord healing as ‘invigoration’ to emphasize the warlord inspires the restoration of nonphysical hit points, including alertness, guided skill, determination, and so on. Second wind works similarly restoring nonphysical hit points.

Similarly, a sports combatant benefits from a coach. Sometimes the coach is also the one bringing the butterfly bandage for an eyecut, and some sugar-salt water to rehydrate.



Heh, I would still rather call the class a tactician.

 

[Yaarel]

I wouldn't make a consideration for the so-called lazy lord. I'd look at the variations that 4e included as baseline such as inspiring, tactical, and bravura as well as look at creating a couple others such as an arcane/divine subclass. Lazy lord might still be able to be built using the tools at hand, but it wouldn't be a driving focus.

The ‘lazy lord’ is a salient favorite of the fanbase, is mechanically interesting, and probably makes a great subclass. The lazy lord is more like a coach. As someone who ‘leads from behind’, the lazy lord is a vivid archetype. Moreso than the other warlord subclasses, the lazy lord is especially the ‘tactician’.