D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Undrave]

Yeah, that sounds like a start for exactly the sort of warlord that I don't want to see. A weedy nerd that can't fight well and hides behind others. To me warlord evokes an image of a person who's a mighty warrior on their own right, leading a force of other warriors. And what sort of medieval general would go to war without their full plate?

While I get your concern, a good warlord class (one worth having) needs to encompass one that can lead from the front OR from the rear - depending on player preference. It's been a minute, but from what I recall, the 4e Warlord class handled both just fine.

Also, my idea was that subclass would grant the heavy armor proficiency, like the Cleric domains can do. He’d still have d10 HD and a shield.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

While I get your concern, a good warlord class (one worth having) needs to encompass one that can lead from the front OR from the rear - depending on player preference. It's been a minute, but from what I recall, the 4e Warlord class handled both just fine.

Yes, that was possible in 4e. But the cowardly lazy warlord is something I don't want to see at all. It was a stupid concept. Sorry to everyone who liked it, but that's how I feel.

 

[Mort]

Yes, that was possible in 4e. But the cowardly lazy warlord is something I don't want to see at all. It was a stupid concept. Sorry to everyone who liked it, but that's how I feel.

But isn't that the point? You don't like it but others might?

Heck a cowardly, lazy yet incredibly effective strategist/tactician who's plans and battlefield instructions are a huge boon - sounds like a fun concept.

Point is - you can do the class and various subclasses solidify concepts as @Undrave suggested.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the Paladin chassis is a better bet for the Warlord than the Fighter. It's still got a solid suite of melee stuff, but also a better defined set of other powers that you can swap out for Warlord-y stuff. Swap spells for more powerful per day abilities, change the auras up, and replace smite with some sort of Warlord dice mechanic, preferably based on using reactions rather than actions or bonus actions. It would work like a charm.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, that was possible in 4e. But the cowardly lazy warlord is something I don't want to see at all. It was a stupid concept. Sorry to everyone who liked it, but that's how I feel.

IMO the lazylord was a mechanical construct that existed solely because of 4e mechanics. There was no character or theme it was evoking.

I’m with you that the concept and theme of a warlord is a warrior that leads other warriors. A lazylord just doesn’t fit that bill.

 

[Minigiant]

The funny thing is.

No one would be even asking for a Warlord if either:
1) The Fighter had martial psychology, combat Awareness, and military tactics written in it's class features.

Or.

2) A majority of DMs actually let fighter players roleplay of the above have mechanical effect.


Hell. Fear, focus, and encouragement aren't even part of the base combat rules anymore. And flanking is optional.

 

[Fenris-77]

If you included enough choice in terms of auras and abilities I think the concept supports multiple interesting builds.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the Paladin chassis is a better bet for the Warlord than the Fighter. It's still got a solid suite of melee stuff, but also a better defined set of other powers that you can swap out for Warlord-y stuff. Swap spells for more powerful per day abilities, change the auras up, and replace smite with some sort of Warlord dice mechanic, preferably based on using reactions rather than actions or bonus actions. It would work like a charm.

Mechanically I agree. Conceptually no.

 

[Fenris-77]

Conceptually? Faugh, I disagree. Unless you thought I meant the Warlord should be a type of paladin, which is not what I was saying. I was still talking about a separate class, just using the Paladin as a base chassis to make the design side easier.

 

[FrogReaver]

Conceptually? Faugh, I disagree. Unless you thought I meant the Warlord should be a type of paladin, which is not what I was saying. I was still talking about a separate class, just using the Paladin as a base chassis to make the design side easier.

I see. Seems like a good starting point then.