Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord

[Hussar]

Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?

3e had excellent rules for adding substitution class levels so that your variant class simply replaced whatever the base class got at that level. Worked quite well.

 

[Mistwell]

Is there a 5e third party warlord that folks are generally happy about?

Oh, I could see it, theoretically. For instance, a faux-Warlord fighter sub-class that could sacrifice it's Extra Attacks to do all sorts of maneuvers, dynamically. Extra Attack represents a pretty big chunk of power. It's just unprecedented, ATM, and it's not like Mearls is suggesting anything of the kind in his podcast.

And, yeah, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class. Heck, the BM's maneuvers are barely contained in the existing fighter, in either sense. They're both a bit much in terms of column-inches & complexity for 'just a sub-class' and constitue an entire, unique sub-system. The mechanical distinction between a Wizard and Sorcerer (ie, the metamagic sub-system) is arguably less profound than between a Champion and a Battlemaster (maneuver sub-system). That maneuver sub-system is then left with no room to grow or be adapted to other things.

A whole class that got most of it's capability from a larger list of level-gated BM-style maneuvers, for instance, could have sub-classes that cover a variety of Warlords, and other martial archetypes like the Bo9S Warblade and the Weaponmaster and 3.x fighter-based builds you just can't do yet, even with feats - heck, even the mythical 'martial controller.'

And, frankly, as neat as that may sound, I think they could do better.

I don't think it's unprecedented. Spellcasters sacrifice huge chunks of power to gain new abilities all the time. They don't feel like a new class just because they gained an entirely new ability in exchange for all or most of their highest spell slots.

I also do not think you need all the Warlord subclasses you listed by far. We didn't get all the 3e or 4e variations of tons of classes, and most people just shrugged. There were really only one or two primary Warlord styles which a majority of the Warlord fans were playing anyway.

 

[mellored]

Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?

Like wizards and cleric get to do with their spells?
Yea, that would be nice. It would open up a lot of different things.

Though 1/level would be better, like bards. As I don't feel martial characters shouldn't be trading their skills out every day, but still allow for some changing if you find a maneuver doesn't really fit.

 

[mellored]

Hmmm...

"Instead of gaining multi-attack, you may choose to gain an extra reaction. You can make this choice again at level 11 and 20."

Then have a bunch of reaction maneuvers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think it's unprecedented. Spellcasters sacrifice huge chunks of power to gain new abilities all the time. They don't feel like a new class just because they gained an entirely new ability in exchange for all or most of their highest spell slots.

True, but no spellcaster has a Champion sub-class sitting in it with 0 versatility to contrast to that. It'd look - wrong - for a sub-class that could swap out extra attack for huge amounts of versatility to be contrasted with the Champion, which might appear strictly inferior by contrast. A new class avoids that sort of appearance...

I also do not think you need all the Warlord subclasses you listed by far.

They're the kinds of things that a class might see down the road. Tactical, Inspiring or maybe Bravura, and a newish faux-MC martial-archetype/sub-class would do for a start. The potential for them to exist illustrates it could be a full class.

Only the wizard got such a huge complement of sub-classes up front. Guess it's special in a lot of ways. Most PH classes started with only 2 or three. When Mearls, in the podcast, says that a full class should have potential for 8-10 sub-classes, that's what he was talking about, for expansion, over years or a decade plus.

There were really only one or two primary Warlord styles which a majority of the Warlord fans were playing anyway.

I don't believe you have that data.
I certainly played 'em all. (OK, Insightful for like one season of Encounters and it was resoundingly meh, for me.) Not nearly all the Paths, though. There were more than I remember, actually...

Not that the majority of folks playing a class need to have played a given sub-class for it to be worthy of inclusion, let alone for it to serve as an example of the breadth of the class concept and it's potential for growth years down the line in 5e.
Are there a whole lot of folks playing each of the 8 wizard specialties, or is the inclusion of all 8 in the PH just completeness in homage to the old School classifications. (Rhetorical: I doubt we have that data, either.)

 

[Yaarel]

What if the tactician simply ‘inspired’ temporary hit points, rather than actually heal?

Additionally, the tactician is a medic with medicine skill expertise and bonuses to applying the herbal kit and bandages.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What if the tactician simply ‘inspired’ temporary hit points, rather than actually heal?

Additionally, the tactician is a medic with medicine skill expertise and bonuses to applying the herbal kit and bandages.

The way I see it, medieval first aid isn't anything to get too excited about. Though it fits the Resourceful archetype a bit.

Temp hps should totally be handed out, though. A tactical warlord could prepare his allies with defensive strategies to help weather attacks from the enemy, a resourceful one might have specific gear or improvise it. Temps. An Inspiring Warlord would remind a fallen ally of something that motivates him to get back up, a Bravura Warlord fighting on in a tough battle would serve as an example so his allies to fight on. 'Healing.'

Inspiring Warlords, reasonably enough, were the best at restoring hps.

 

[Zardnaar]

What if the tactician simply ‘inspired’ temporary hit points, rather than actually heal?

Additionally, the tactician is a medic with medicine skill expertise and bonuses to applying the herbal kit and bandages.

My one out right heals, the inspiring one can grant temporary hit points as well (if PC choose that option).

My warlord healing word equivalent is just going to be a bonus hit dice that you regain hp from. A fighter getting healed by a warlord gains 1d10+con, MC characters would use whatever hit dice they like as per a short rest. They will get 1 hd at level 1 with additional dice later, inspiring warlord is better at healing than the tactical one (which is better at damage enabling).

 

[Hussar]

As far as sub classes go though, while wizards got a bunch in the phb, clerics too for that matter, we’re what under 4 years into the edition and nearly every class has six or more subclasses.

It’s not it takes that long to rack them up. Ten subclasses is only base plus two or three supplements. I’m honestly not really convinced that a warlord actually has the legs for this. Too much toe stepping- a magic warlord is just a bard lite for example and takes space away from future bards.

Of any of the arguments against a warlord class this is the first one I can actually see any really validity to.

 

[Yunru]

As far as sub classes go though, while wizards got a bunch in the phb, clerics too for that matter, we’re what under 4 years into the edition and nearly every class has six or more subclasses.

It’s not it takes that long to rack them up. Ten subclasses is only base plus two or three supplements. I’m honestly not really convinced that a warlord actually has the legs for this. Too much toe stepping- a magic warlord is just a bard lite for example and takes space away from future bards.

Of any of the arguments against a warlord class this is the first one I can actually see any really validity to.

I'd say that's more an argument against bloat.