Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Kinematics]

Let me say it this way. Any Character concept that maps to a rogue in 5e can easily map to a Rogue Subclass for Fighter in 5e. If you don't believe me then find me 1 character concept that maps to the 5e Rogue that would be impossible to map to a Rogue subclass in fighter?

Pretty much all of them? But sure, start with a simple one: Cat burglar.

I'm assuming you're not going to just duplicate the Rogue class as a subclass.

Considering he has me blocked this means nothing to me.

The details aren't important, only the relation, because that's what helps premise the idea I then expanded on.

Now you are starting to sound kinda like you are agreeing Warlord should be a class instead of a subclass?

I am completely neutral on the topic. I have never favored it as class or subclass, nor have I been for or against the warlord class as a whole. I only ask that if you wish to have it, you be able to justify it and handle the various objections, while shaping it to be something that performs its intended purpose properly. I don't like sloppy design.

By the way I don't know what the bolded means.

If you don't create a scale that shows where Warlord differentiates from other classes (or how it differentiates in similar ways), it won't differentiate, and will slide back into being a variant of Fighter.

It's pretty clear Merls does not think there is enough warlord variant to make a full class and 10+ sub-classes.

Why he's ok with that, I don't know, but that's how he's going. Few classes, many sub-classes.

So... we should actually try and figure out 10+ sub-classes.
Or a broader class that can fully fit a warlord as a sub-class along with 10+ other ideas.

I've been waiting for someone to do this. Surprised it's taken so long.

 

[mellored]

What fits into a sub-class depends on how open the base class is.

For instance, it would be really easy to put the cleric, sorcerer, wizard, and druid all together, just by saying "this subclass gets this spell list, and use this casting stat". Spell slots work for charm, fireball, flight, resurection, or whatever else. Easy enough to add in bard.

But the 5e fighters resource is multi-attack. Which is like making evoker the base wizard class, then trying to squeeze in bard.

 

[Enkhidu]

You have 5 levels worth of abilities over all 20 levels of fighter to introduce war lord abilities. On top of that there is definitely a certain power level that would be too much for those abilities. On top of that most of the warlord abilities need to be gained fairly early in the fighters career or playing whatever it is will not feel much like a warlord but a fighter with 1 party focused ability. I have reasons for why I think the subclass design space is insufficient. Do you have reasons for why you think it is?

Mechanically, the concept is simple, very flexible - the subclass can give its class features to other characters - and on-point to meet the stated must-have lists I've seen (looks like it checks all the boxes). But really, I don't really have to have reasons - and for that matter neither do you. I can see it working for me, and still not working for others. I will, however, choose to believe that their objections are solely subjective because the framework meets the goals as stated..

Purple Dragon Knight has the right kind of abilities (maybe a bit wrong on the flavor but meh, lets talk mechanics). He gets an ability that lets him heal allies! Awesome. He gets an ability that grants attacks. Heck, he even gets the ability to have an ally make a saving throw reroll. Who has almost all the abilities everyone wants a Warlord to have. The problem? He doesn't feel like he heals enough, he doesn't feel like he grants attacks early enough and the amount he can grant is so miniscule. Same thing with saving throw rerolls.

Unless you are telling me that it's okay for the new warlord subclass to greatly exceed the purple dragon knight in power I don't see where a fighter warlord subclass can give enough and give enough early on in your career to make you feel like you are playing a warlord.

I feel like you didn't actually read my original post, because I actually addressed some of these:

* Additional Second Winds that are granted to other characters (only - the Warlord can't use them directly)
* Grant attacks in your Attack action to other characters (and to be clear - that might mean all of them)
* Give someone else the Action Surge

The overall power level for the party isn't any greater here (give or take situational advantages/disadvantages) because the Warlord is "giving away" offense to other PCs. No net power gain/loss on paper, with the expectation that it will be a net gain as players use positioning and tactics to maximize the benefits.

 

[Hussar]

There is a huge swathe of rogue concepts that are not fighters. There is overlap in some ideas (eg: Conan, the Barbarian/Rogue), but everything from Gentleman Thief to Street Rat to Cat Burglar to Master Spy are pretty isolated from other character concepts. It is very easy to find a character concept that neatly fits within the Rogue concept space.

Pretty much all of them? But sure, start with a simple one: Cat burglar.

I'm assuming you're not going to just duplicate the Rogue class as a subclass.

/snip

Fighter in Leather Armor with proficiency in Stealth and Thieves Tools. Done. One cat burglar. Oh, wait, I guess he needs Athletics too since he needs to climb. That's a flat out class skill, so, that's not a problem. Criminal Background gives me Thieves tools and Stealth. Done. Next.

Gentleman Thief - again, not an actual class in 5e. That's a Fighter with a Spy or Charlatan background for Deception and Thieves Tools. Burn a feat for 3 Skill proficiencies and we're good to go.

Street Rat - wow, softballs. What is a Street Rat? Certainly not a character you'd expect to be able to do more damage in a single hit than any other character out there. But, anyway, again, just a background.

Everything you just listed is a background. Backgrounds that 100% cover the mechanical aspects of the concept.

Good grief, after this much time, can we PLEASE stop with the whole "why are we even talking about this" crap? Please stop trying to shut down conversations that don't affect you. You don't want a warlord. Fine and dandy. No one is going to make you use this.

What we want is an actual class (or subclass) that we can have a shared experience with and be able to discuss without constantly having to justify why we're having the discussion in the first place.

 

[Zardnaar]

May have been after my time. While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time. AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.

Mechanically, the concept is simple, very flexible - the subclass can give its class features to other characters - and on-point to meet the stated must-have lists I've seen (looks like it checks all the boxes). But really, I don't really have to have reasons - and for that matter neither do you. I can see it working for me, and still not working for others. I will, however, choose to believe that their objections are solely subjective because the framework meets the goals as stated..



I feel like you didn't actually read my original post, because I actually addressed some of these:

* Additional Second Winds that are granted to other characters (only - the Warlord can't use them directly)
* Grant attacks in your Attack action to other characters (and to be clear - that might mean all of them)
* Give someone else the Action Surge

The overall power level for the party isn't any greater here (give or take situational advantages/disadvantages) because the Warlord is "giving away" offense to other PCs. No net power gain/loss on paper, with the expectation that it will be a net gain as players use positioning and tactics to maximize the benefits.

Except some attacks are worth more than others.

I think my attack granting warlord can grant attacks perhaps 50 percent of the time give or take 10% if you focused on it.
Assuming you guys want the warlord to be effective in the support role you can't be dealing rogue or warrior level damage at will.

 

[Yaarel]

If warlord (or tactician) was the base class. The paladin would work well as one of its spellcasting subclasses.

 

[Zardnaar]

May have been after my time. While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time. AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.

If warlord (or tactician) was the base class. The paladin would work well as one of its spellcasting subclasses.

Different direction but there is room for a 1/3rd cleric or paladin warlord. You won't be very good at attack granting though. The chassis in theory will be able to do the bravura as well.
The Inspring one think non magical bard warrior.

 

[Pauln6]

You have 5 levels worth of abilities over all 20 levels of fighter to introduce war lord abilities. On top of that there is definitely a certain power level that would be too much for those abilities. On top of that most of the warlord abilities need to be gained fairly early in the fighters career or playing whatever it is will not feel much like a warlord but a fighter with 1 party focused ability. I have reasons for why I think the subclass design space is insufficient. Do you have reasons for why you think it is?

Purple Dragon Knight has the right kind of abilities (maybe a bit wrong on the flavor but meh, lets talk mechanics). He gets an ability that lets him heal allies! Awesome. He gets an ability that grants attacks. Heck, he even gets the ability to have an ally make a saving throw reroll. Who has almost all the abilities everyone wants a Warlord to have. The problem? He doesn't feel like he heals enough, he doesn't feel like he grants attacks early enough and the amount he can grant is so miniscule. Same thing with saving throw rerolls.

Unless you are telling me that it's okay for the new warlord subclass to greatly exceed the purple dragon knight in power I don't see where a fighter warlord subclass can give enough and give enough early on in your career to make you feel like you are playing a warlord.

This is why I think the Purple Dragon Knight needs a few superiority dice for a limited choice of Warlord manoeuvres. Even if you make them d6 like the feat, it adds a bit more utility per short rest.

Maybe you could add a class feature that allows them to forego one of their attacks to use a Manoeuvre without spending a SD so they can sacrifice some damage dealing for more at will tactical choices? It could make doubling up on sneak attack an at will problem I suppose but it does lead you more into lazy Lord territory.

 

[Aldarc]

Paul Farquhar asked for character examples, and the first response was a real-life team coach. The main problem is that the coach isn't playing the game. The adventurers are the players on the field. In order to bring the coach in as a playable character/class, you have to figure out how to get the coach out on the field with the team. So that entire analogy kind of falls apart. This is the same as my example of the strategist in the castle. He may be a warlord, but he's not an adventurer.

I never got the "coach" example. If someone were to use a sports analogy, I see the Warlord more as a Point Guard in basketball, at least if we are following the traditional five positions. Point Guards are often the playmakers who help run plays, control the ball and pace, set up screens and primary scorers, etc.

When I was coming up with my own list; I kept wanting to list "mentors" like Obi-Wan or Master Splinter, but they are far more defined as akin to paladins or monks than warlords. The same was true of characters like Skeletor (who is a mage/warlord it's there ever was one). I guess a character like Cobra Commander would be a full Warlord...

Part of the problem is that a lot of kid shows generally operated with the principle "the leader is the best," which frequently extended to being the best fighter.

You had earlier listed Optimus Prime before. But when I think of a "Warlord" in the Transformers Universe, my mind immediately goes to Prowl (the police car), who was Optimus Prime's 2nd in Command, and the chief military strategist of the Autobots. Though he would be approximate "equal level" to among many of the best and leading Transformers, he was not the best Fighter, especially not in the sea of Grade-A Fighters that Transformers produced. In that respect, he is simply outclassed as a traditional Fighter. His strength was his tactical and strategic mind in combat. But he wasn't anything really akin to a "wizard," "cleric," or a "rogue." Within the realm of D&D classes, the (Int) Warlord is the best approximation.

With real life examples, I primarily think of Julius Caesar in the Battle of Alesia where he is boosting morale across the battlefield. He wasn't necessarily a good "fighter," but his presence and tactical insight was a force multiplier for his outnumbered troops wherever he was.

For me, the warlord could fill the same design space as a barbarian; a warrior who could resemble a fighter when squinting, but has his own function and mechanics. Like a barbarian, he could fill the role of tank/Frontline combatant, but while doing so he is buffing, healing, and maneuvering. (Unlike a barbarian, whose abilities are all self-buffing, the warlord would be ally-buffing). This would probably mean the lazylord gets ignored, but I'd gladly trade that for a warlord that can fill in for the party warrior.

That's a good distinction, and I too am perfectly okay with losing the Lazylord.

 

[Jester David]

Heh. I get the feeling that [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis should really avoid warlord threads. I've been blocked for more than a year now because of the last go around when I called him on his crap for trying to shut down the conversation.

Which, to me, is why you never have any real conversation about warlords. This particular one has been a better one, and, at a guess, because it involves Mearls. The last time warlords got brought up, two warlord threads spawned half a dozen shout down threads, polls for blocking warlord discussion and multiple calls to force warlord discussions into their own discussion forum to stop "polluting" the main forum.

For every constructive post, you have to wade through a dozen garbage posts about how we should be content with what we have, how warlords don't belong in 5e, how we should just make it up ourselves ad nauseam.

This has been about the first time that any constructive conversation was even possible.

Funny how even in this thread, labelled as "productive" nothing has been actually created and the warlord is no closer to being built. No warlord is emerging from this thread and this discussion isn't going to be read by Mike Mearls and thus is in no way going to contribute to the subclass' design.
An actually productive thread in terms of the warlord would be something like this, which has seen less action in a week than this thread has seen in a day.

Ironic that warlord fans, like the warlord class, really seem to be all about shouting in a battle while not actually taking part.