Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[cbwjm]

So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?

That seems to be the way WotC are going which I think is great move with the concept.

 

[Yunru]

So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?

I argued the exact same thing for the mystic. Thing is, the mystic was same stuff, different source. The warlord's different stuff, same source.

 

[Satyrn]

So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?

A warlord subclass for each class would be neat thing to do, and I think lots of warlord fans would lke that, and those subclasses would likely also grab the interest of plenty of other people, too.


As for your literal question - why not just do that? - the answer is because a warlord class would be neat option to have, too, just like even though we have wizard subclasses for several classes (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcana domain, way of the 4 elements to name four ), it's neat to have a wizard class.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?

I think you nailed what I was really getting at with why you need all the different ____-lords because other classes have some of that already, so have the fighter version focused on attacks, and the sneaky one be the rogue(mastermind kind of already is) etc etc

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Although I like the warlord subclass for each class idea, if it was a class maybe changing it to Watchman (person, member of the Watch, Sentry) would remove any stigma of controlling others, and lead to some interesting abilities and subclasses.

The basic stat is wisdom (good for perception), with subclasses for patrol (also uses dex, wisdom/dex--sneaky guys will hate you), detective (also uses int), and interrogator (also uses charisma). Rallying cry makes sense (the party is at rest, you notice someone coming, you rally the party).

Thanks to the ubiquitous cop shows (and other media), people have become used to the notion of law enforcement in just about any circumstance. Plus some of the best modern fantasy (Terry Pratchett, Glen Cook's Garret series) involves cops (or detectives) in fantastic settings.

I got to run, but I will think on class abilities later.

 

[Yunru]

To expand on my previous post:

Look at every class and subclass.
The classes all do something differently.
Each subclass does the same as their base class, differently.

So why not make the warlord a bunch of subclasses for others?
Because there is no class that does what the warlord does.



I mean, at this point I'd be fine with:
Puppeted Strike
Enchantment cantrip
Choose a creature. It makes an attack against a target of your choice.

Maybe with a save if the chosen creature is hostile.

 

[Yunru]

I think you nailed what I was really getting at with why you need all the different ____-lords because other classes have some of that already, so have the fighter version focused on attacks, and the sneaky one be the rogue(mastermind kind of already is)

Sure, and have the sorcerer be a wizard subclass, the warlock be a wizard subclass, the paladin be a cleric subclass, the rogue be a fighter subclass, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because there is no class that does what the warlord does.

At the unacknowledged 'role' layer, the Cleric, Bard, Druid & even Paladin all do what the Warlord did - they still have their "leader" capabilities, just more besides (the Paladin was only a secondary leader, and didn't exactly keep all his Defender toys, but that's another issue).

But, viewed that way, every class does stuff other classes do, just differently (or not so differently, but with different fluff (or with similar fluff, but different emphasis (OK, I'm still having trouble with Druid v Cleric v Paladin here:sigh:))).
Anyway, 4 classes do support, they all do it, in large part, with spells. There's not a precedent for scraping full-casting off a class with a sub-class. It'd seem an inelegant solution even by D&D standards.

A warlord subclass for each class would be neat thing to do, and I think lots of warlord fans would lke that, and those subclasses would likely also grab the interest of plenty of other people, too
...
a warlord class would be neat option to have, too, just like even though we have wizard subclasses for several classes (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcana domain, way of the 4 elements to name four ), it's neat to have a wizard class.

Doing both (/some/ of the former, anyway, not every class needs a sub-class of every other class) would be very much in keeping with 5e design - existing fractional-wizard sub-classes as you point out, and, for that matter, the Bladesinger on the other side of that coin - and, it would increase the chances of being able to choose some sort of Warlord-lite when dropping in on a random campaign, even if the 'controversial' full Warlord class were unavailable, you still might be able to play something better than a PDK. Which is kinda the point. As Mearls said, the Eldritch Knight is there so you can play a fighter/magic-user even if the DM is too young to get that reference, and didn't opt into MCing. OK, I'm paraphrasing, there.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

As for your literal question - why not just do that? - the answer is because a warlord class would be neat option to have, too, just like even though we have wizard subclasses for several classes (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, arcana domain, way of the 4 elements to name four ), it's neat to have a wizard class.

We already have an Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, why do we need a wizard?

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

deleted