D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Aldarc]

Inspirational HPs are in the PHB.

Inspirational THPs are in the PHB. Now Inspirational HPs are in the SCAG.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, and whoever said 4e's "commander's strike" was errated because it forced allies to attack was wrong. It was always an willing target.

It was errated because it was actually unusable as written. Though they took the opportunity to make it more clear that it was optional.

It wasn't unusable, just ambiguous/unclear & inconsistent by the standards of most of the rest of 4e. The errata was clearer and more in keeping with the design philosophy, but not appreciably different from a reasonable interpretation.

If there was one biggest driving factor, it was the bizarre assertion that it was useable at range - any range, as long as you could hear the Warlord - which relied on treating flavor text as rules text, something familiar from 3e RAW debates, but invalid in the context of 4e (or 5e for that matter, for different reasons). That spawned some monster threads.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The only way a warlord could be a fighter sub-class is if you could trade your own attacks for buffs.

And if it could have half a dozen infra-sub-classes.

But, this does sound like more nearly viable 1/3rd-Warlord Fighter-sub-class than the Battlemaster. So it's adequate for someone who wants to convert their Slayer McWarlord to 5e (not that I ever heard of such a thing).

Something like...
"Any time you would make an attack, including multi-attack and opportunity attacks, you can instead perform one of these support actions."

Otherwise, you there isn't room.

That's still a little iffy since it does leave the high-DPR function wide open, so you're paying the price for that, and for offense/support flexibility. That design could open up space for a level of support comparable to the Paladin, for instance. Better than the Battlemaster, certainly, not up to snuff for a Warlord.

Like a 1/2-caster class or 1/3rd-caster sub-class, it looks like something that'd be mainly a substitute for MCing where that option is unavailable or undesireable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

FYI- Purple Dragon mechanics...

Main feature - 2nd wind also heals 3 allies fighter level each
- pesuasion expertise
- action surge also gives additional attack to ally
- indomitable for allies

Excellent! Thank you for sharing this. From this we can conclude three very important things. That is, even within the beefy Fighter chassis with its loads of damage and personal survivability, it is balanced to have:
1. A small amount of (group) healing 1/short rest
2. A limited degree of truly granting extra attacks, 1/SR (at very high levels, 2/SR but only 1/round)
3. A limited degree of support against inflicted conditions (1, 2, or 3x per short rest)

My thoughts...
-I like the indomitable for allies since I think this is one area where the "warlord" could give advice, holler a warning out, etc. and it doesn't step on the toes of him doing the character's job better than them...

While I think your phrasing of the alternative is a little hyperbolic, I generally agree that this is a good choice when one wishes to remain wholly within the Fighter chassis. Straightforward but--hopefully--effective.

-The healing is a small amount, curious to see how they fluffed it but I never had a problem with the martial healing aspect

I'd have put a minor intensifier in front of "small" there. While it's only variably less than the amount healed by Second Wind (drops the 1d10), Second Wind already doesn't strike me as being up to the task of keeping the Fighter conscious. At level 3, 3 HP is (at very most) 1/4 of the squishiest possible character's health (Wiz or non-Dragon Sorc with a -1 Con)--for my Bard, it would be less than 1/7th, and is close (if not equal) to the minimum damage of most attacks monsters use.

This is is not at all to say that it's bad. It's good. I'm glad we have it. But as far as healing goes, it's strictly an auxiliary capacity--even a pair of PDKs would have trouble keeping up with damage dealt. As a fifth-wheel "we could use another support character" option, though, the PDK is quite nice indeed--in a party that already has a Cleric (esp. a Life Cleric) or a Bard, the PDK provides the strong Fighter contribution to damage and survivability, with a strong and useful slice of support.

-It's still a subclass and part of a larger archetype which is exactly what I feel the 5e "warlord" should be... (nearly all heroes inspire, give advice, help, etc... their comrades at some point in time when this trope is used) so I'm cool there as well.

The real question is will this be enough for the 4e die-hards and extreme proponents for a 5e warlord...

Personally, I think you've answered your own question with this third thought. Multiple arguments in favor of a full-class writeup remain in play even with the PDK. Some of the extreme ones ("it's impossible to play anything like it!") are defused now, but with now two different Fighter subclasses that get slices of the Warlord, it seems more applicable than ever to say, "I want the class that is 33% Battlemaster, 33% PDK, and 33% unique features."

The PDK is a major step in the right direction, and (hopefully) both its mechanics and its thematics can help resolve deep disputes. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, it seems reasonable to assume that 5e now has a (sub)class that is not explicitly magical, which can restore actual HP. That's a huge and divisive argument eliminated right there, if this is true.

"People"? How many "people"? Maybe 1 or 2 extremists? Okay. Because I think you are casting undue negative light on a bunch of other people who just do not feel a 4e-style warlord is a good idea for 5e. What are your thoughts on the equally hyperbolic folks around here who have stated that the absence of a warlord class is a direct insult to them and that it must be added by WotC in order to appease a large contingent of slighted players of a certain edition?

Several people, in threads currently visible in this temporary subforum. IIRC, [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], for example, has said that the addition of martial healing would be a dealbreaker. If I'm misrepresenting your position, Jester, please correct me on this front.

I don't think the lack of a Warlord class is an insult to 4e fans, though when thrown on the pile of other issues, I absolutely understand both how it can feel that way, and why it's become something of a rallying banner (heh) for them. (For a time, I even felt the same way, but time has given me the distance and reflection to overcome my emotional responses and take a more objective stance.) As I've said several times now, I strongly believe the devs fully intended to make a true, effective Warlord. Then they realized that it was a lot like the Fighter (which it should be, being "martial"), and tried to save space by merging them; an idea I think was unwise, but still workable in the early-to-mid playtest.

Then they dropped several overall game elements, rewrote the Fighter class 2-3 more times, and eliminated the "Fighter Warlord's" ability to actually heal (which was present as of August 2013, according to a Mearls tweet--barely over 2 months before the final public playtest packet). I believe they got backed into a corner and couldn't accomplish what they wanted anymore, not without a substantially longer playtest period. So they shelved the 5e Warlord concept, stopped talking about it, and hoped that enough people would be happy with what was available until they had the time and manpower to try again. Whether they were right--within the picocosm of Warlord fans, the nanocosm of 4e fans, and the microcosm of D&D players generally--is both hotly disputed and impossible to prove, so I think it pointless to make claims one way or the other.

This feels a little like a preemptive "neener-neener-neener"? Edgy.

Not really the intent, but alright. I was pointing out how some posters made an argument that seems directly controverted by the PDK's mechanics. My memory is a little fuzzy (just got up from a nap), but as I recall, you were one of the posters claiming that the Warlord does not fit in 5e because, at its root, it tells other people how to roleplay. If I am conflating you with another poster, I apologize--but I definitely know that at least one person on this forum made that argument, and I didn't see a single "anti-Warlord" poster comment on that argument being wrong, illogical, or inappropriate, from what I could tell. Perhaps it happened and I missed it.

I'm sure, at some point, a "boss other PCs around" commander-y feature (more than already present) will invariably be added to the game. But when it's still not enough for the hardliners here, I look forward to seeing how you reaction to their cries for more.

I have no interest in a "boss other PCs around" feature. I have interest in attack-granting (and possibly other action-granting) features being present on a full Warlord class. If such a feature were added, it would appeal to neither my interest in the class (assuming it wasn't added to a full-class "Warlord," by that name or another), nor my interest in its features.

Situational would be a better description. A small amount of hp (=lvl), once per rest, to everyone* or no one. It barely eeks out the power of a first level spell. It certainly isn't enough to match a paladin, let alone a caster.

It's a bit of give and take, technically speaking. If Rallying Cry works on unconscious individuals, and if you always get at least 2 (sometimes 3) short rests per "day," it's actually pretty good.

On the plus side, it IS a conceptual win; on the other hand it seems they don't want martial healing to match a cleric or paladin in potency. Also, with pdk, mastermind, battlemaster and valor bard, there is probably 0% chance of an official warlord class ever coming.

I hold out hope, though yes, it's a bit of a mixed blessing. Attack-granting of some form, martial healing to some degree, is a win. The possibility that WotC will sit back and feel satisfied that they've done everything they need to do is an unfortunate cost.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, with pdk, mastermind, battlemaster and valor bard, there is probably 0% chance of an official warlord class ever coming.

Nod. It would have been all too easy to jump to the conclusion, even when they'd just unveiled Inspiring Leade,r that they were intentionally poisoning the design space of the Warlord to avoid the controversy of trying to design one, even though that particular sort of cowardice would betray the bring-fans-of-every-edition-together rationale for even having 5e in the first place, branding it the "H4ter edition." Every time they present another tiny fragment of the Warlord's portfolio as part of something unrelated, they make it that much lower an athletics DC for anyone who want to make that leap.

I think it's still an unjust conclusion to jump to, though. 5e gives you multiple paths towards many a concept, and has classes sharing lots of mechanics and abilities, leaving bits of every class scattered all over the system. It just has a very open design philosophy, so design space can be utilized (even repeatedly), without being closed off.

Excellent! Thank you for sharing this. From this we can conclude three very important things. That is, even within the beefy Fighter chassis with its loads of damage and personal survivability, it is balanced to have:
1. A small amount of (group) healing 1/short rest
2. A limited degree of truly granting extra attacks, 1/SR (at very high levels, 2/SR but only 1/round)
3. A limited degree of support against inflicted conditions (1, 2, or 3x per short rest)

We can also conclude it went into the development pipe-line before they decided to test the PrC waters, since PDK really seems much more suited to a PrC than a sub-class.

 

[Remathilis]

I hold out hope, though yes, it's a bit of a mixed blessing. Attack-granting of some form, martial healing to some degree, is a win. The possibility that WotC will sit back and feel satisfied that they've done everything they need to do is an unfortunate cost.

At this point, I think a full-class warlord is purely in the realm of the home-brewers.

 

[Remathilis]

Nod. It would have been all too easy to jump to the conclusion, even when they'd just unveiled Inspiring Leader, that they were intentionally poisoning the design space of the Warlord to avoid the controversy of trying to design one, even though that particular sort of cowardice would betray the bring-fans-of-every-edition-together rationale for even having 5e in the first place, branding it the "H4ter edition." Every time they present another tiny fragment of the Warlord's portfolio as part of something unrelated, they make it that much lower an athletics DC for anyone who want to make that leap.

I think it's still an unjust conclusion to jump to, though. 5e gives you multiple paths towards many a concept, and has classes sharing lots of mechanics and abilities, leaving bits of every class scattered all over the system. It just has a very open design philosophy, so design space can be utilized (even repeatedly), without being closed off.

Exactly, there is now FOUR subclasses over three classes that can grant leadership abilities, plus two feats (Martial Adept and Inspiring Leader). They gave at-will helping, two different ways to grant actions/attacks, temp hp, inspirational healing, and some buffing abilities. What have didn't do is put it all in one class and name it warlord. There is literally NOTHING a warlord can do that these four subclasses can't, except do them all at the same time.

I may be wrong, but I think the w4rlord as a separate class is now a thing of the past. It has as much chance of being a new base class as Swordmage at this point.

 

[Jester David]

Several people, in threads currently visible in this temporary subforum. IIRC, [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], for example, has said that the addition of martial healing would be a dealbreaker. If I'm misrepresenting your position, Jester, please correct me on this front.

I don't think I've used the term "deal breaker", except possibly after being aggravated enough to make ridiculous sweeping statements.

I'll play 5e so long as house ruling it to work like want is less work and results in more fun than using another system.

If they add martial healing to one class that's awkward and I need to change that. Looks like I'll have to decide if Sword Coast Adventurer's Handbook is worth the effort. If (read: when) martial healing spreads to the rest of the game that's different.

If I have to carefully read every monster before using then new products become more work than they're worth and I might just stick with content I already have. I likely won't drop the game but I'll be spending my money elsewhere, which might mean finding other games that are more interesting and less work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Exactly, there is now FOUR subclasses over three classes that can grant leadership abilities, plus two feats (Martial Adept and Inspiring Leader).

Oh, you're counting the spellcasting Valor Bard. Sure, and there are 5 sub-classes that grant arcane spell casting outside the Wizard class, and, with the Baldesinger, 3 arcane 'gish' classes, plus Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate. It's not unusual for a class to have bits of it's schtick spread all over 5e. I'm not sure why they settled on that sort of design, maybe to allow some concepts with feats but not MCing, or MCing but not feats, or both or neither? :shrug: But they've done.

They gave at-will helping, two different ways to grant actions/attacks, temp hp, inspirational healing, and some buffing abilities. What have didn't do is put it all in one class and name it warlord. There is literally NOTHING a warlord can do that these four subclasses can't, except do them all at the same time.

Actually, there's a lot of things the Warlord did that those 3 non-caster sub-classes can't, but, even if there weren't, that's still a huge 'except.' Could you really cobble a reasonable Warlord out of those bits and pieces? No.

I may be wrong, but I think the w4rlord as a separate class is now a thing of the past. It has as much chance of being a new base class as Swordmage at this point.

I remember you were very concerned that accepting anything less than a full Psion class (like a Wild Talent feat and a Sorcerer and/or Warlock sub-class) would close off the possibility of a worth psionic class or classes entirely, so I see where you're coming from. (And, I'm glad you got something close to what you wanted, even if it was called the 'Mystic,' and too tightly linked to the Far Realms in the fluff.)
I just choose to be a little more hopeful that 5e will live ultimately up to it's goals, and give other fans the same consideration.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh, you're counting the spellcasting Valor Bard. Sure, and there are 5 sub-classes that grant arcane spell casting outside the Wizard class, and, with the Baldesinger, 3 arcane 'gish' classes, plus Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate. It's not unusual for a class to have bits of it's schtick spread all over 5e. I'm not sure why they settled on that sort of design, maybe to allow some concepts with feats but not MCing, or MCing but not feats, or both or neither? :shrug: But they've done.

Actually, there's a lot of things the Warlord did that those 3 non-caster sub-classes can't, but, even if there weren't, that's still a huge 'except.' Could you really cobble a reasonable Warlord out of those bits and pieces? No.

I remember you were very concerned that accepting anything less than a full Psion class (like a Wild Talent feat and a Sorcerer and/or Warlock sub-class) would close off the possibility of a worth psionic class or classes entirely, so I see where you're coming from. (And, I'm glad you got something close to what you wanted, even if it was called the 'Mystic,' and too tightly linked to the Far Realms in the fluff.)
I just choose to be a little more hopeful that 5e will live ultimately up to it's goals, and give other fans the same consideration.

I didn't come here to argue the same pointless debate we went though time and again. You want to keep propping up your strawmen and non-sequiturs, be my guest. My point is simple: you won the conceptual win: inspiration-based healing, buffing, and action-granting are all a thing in 5e. Nobody can now say there is no precedence for them. However, I don't believe WotC will draw from that well a third time anytime in the near future. If WotC ever gets off its duff and gives us settings beyond Realms, and if one of those settings is extremely non-magical and demands non-magical classes and variants to work, maybe we'll see a non-magical support class. But that is a lot of ifs, and I'm convinced WotC feels is covered the non-magical leader concept well-enough at this point.

Instead, I think the best alternative is to give up on WotC and go diy or 3rd party. There are some cool wips going on in this forum and the witch-hunter class was a well done 3pp 5e class. Focus your energy on creating what you want, rather than complaining WotC didn't give you exactly what you want how you wanted it.