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

[Fenris-77]

what kind of adjustments to the class system are we talking about?

Well, if you want to add a Warlord you have two initial problems. One, it needs to be mechanically different enough from the fighter to not just seem like a tacked on bit of fluff. Two, the current class and subclass system doesn't actually leave a lot of design room for what a Warlord should be good at without stepping on some siloed class toes. Personally, I'd want to unbuckle subclasses into a list of abilities and let people take them that way, which would actually leave a ton of design space to realize a Warlord just by adding abilities. I'd probably go with a list of general abilities and then bespoke lists of class specific abilities (replacing subclasses). The abilities themselves would probably need pre-req's to make things work.

A step farther is to unbuckle classes themselves into a master ability list, but I can't see WotC going that far.

 

[Maxperson]

yeah, but people want the real thing not two things duck-taped together with a coat on top.

This is the same issue with the Psion. I personally hate Warlords, but I want to see a good one made, because a lot of people enjoy the class. I don't get all the people who want to prevent others from enjoying something that they don't like.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'd be worried optional healing would just make magical healing even more powerful and important.

Nit really, since you regenerate those spells way less and so you'd rather try to avoid healing with spells.
The healing domain cleric's channel divinity is big however. But that is his signature.
All in all, only regenerating at one 7th the normal rate makes a week of travelling with 1 encounter per day as dangerous or probably 3 days of adventuring with 2 short rests in between and then a week of rest a good pacing.
Actually we play with resting rules somewhere between gritty and normal (one full day of rest is a long rest) and it works out just fine.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, if you want to add a Warlord you have two initial problems. One, it needs to be mechanically different enough from the fighter to not just seem like a tacked on bit of fluff. Two, the current class and subclass system doesn't actually leave a lot of design room for what a Warlord should be good at without stepping on some siloed class toes. Personally, I'd want to unbuckle subclasses into a list of abilities and let people take them that way, which would actually leave a ton of design space to realize a Warlord just by adding abilities. I'd probably go with a list of general abilities and then bespoke lists of class specific abilities (replacing subclasses). The abilities themselves would probably need pre-req's to make things work.

A step farther is to unbuckle classes themselves into a master ability list, but I can't see WotC going that far.

Stepping on a few toes is fine. Stepping on an entire foot is not. I think that there's room for a good Warlord class.

 

[Undrave]

Well, if you want to add a Warlord you have two initial problems. One, it needs to be mechanically different enough from the fighter to not just seem like a tacked on bit of fluff.

That’s easy enough! Just cut the following:

Heavy Armor proficiency
Second Wind
Fighting Style
Action Surge
Third and Fourth Attack
Indomitable
A few ASI

And then give them an incentive to run mental stats.

Then build from there. It won’t feel like a Fighter anymore.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That’s easy enough! Just cut the following:

Heavy Armor proficiency
Second Wind
Fighting Style
Action Surge
Third and Fourth Attack
Indomitable
A few ASI

And then give them an incentive to run mental stats.

Then build from there. It won’t feel like a Fighter anymore.

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?

 

[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?

A samurai?
Aside from the Fighter, most other fightey types only ever get two attacks so there’s room to cut there.

 

[Fenris-77]

On the other hand a Warlord can't be as good a fighter as the Fighter, or why play a fighter at all?

 

[Fenris-77]

A samurai?
Aside from the Fighter, most other fightey types only ever get two attacks so there’s room to cut there.

That doesnt matter until higher levels though.

 

[Mort]

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.