D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Eubani]

You can scale the damage capability by scaling the number of attacks it can grant others. Instead of giving the Warlord an extra attack, let it grant 1 more attack per turn than it otherwise would of.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You can scale the damage capability by scaling the number of attacks it can grant others grant. Instead of giving the Warlord let it grant 1 more attack per turn than it otherwise would of.

Quite so.

 

[Eubani]

Another lever would be scaling any damage bonuses granted to allies. Does it matter if an extra dX+ stat is delivered by the Warlord or by someone else as long as it happens. When all said and done you largely play a Warlord to pass the ball to the kicker not to be the kicker yourself.

 

[Mecheon]

Honestly, I'm not sure a crowd sourced based design is the way to go. Probably better would be to have a few different complete attempts and then people can pick the ones they like. IOW, exactly the way all the other 5e classes have been designed.

I do agree. Taking a big ol' review of the options available and just going from there could be a thing

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Out of 6 or 8 builds, only the Bravura shaded into the fighter's bailiwick enough to yoink some of its mechanics, it's the only sub-class that should definitely have one extra attack, as not much more than a "yeah, we bad" ribbon, really.

The Paladin has silo'd support features, it cant easily be built not to. But it can easily fall into being mainly tanky DPR, like the Fighter, and just provide basic support from those silos. That's the wrong emphasis for the Warlord, personal asskickery needs to be strictly secondary, if it's to come through a faithful rendition.

seriously?

like I already said, having Extra Attack doesn’t preclude having support features or being a support class. But the “warlord” should be a support warrior.

And you keep bringing up “one extra attack”, but that is what the extra attack feature is.”
only the fighter has more than one extra attack. More than one isn’t a normal part of the feature. By default, it grants a singular additional attack as part of the attack action.

Lastly, and by far most importantly, trying to duplicate the mechanics exactly from 4e is a mistake. The goal should be to take the concept and make it work in 5e, while feeling like a new 5e class that could have been in the phb.

In place of personal extra damage features (which extra attack isn’t, it’s the feature weapon users have to output normal damage), it should add to other character’s damage, but it should by default be making attacks of its own as well. A subclass that is focused on replacing those attacks with ally attacks and granting bonuses is fine, but the primary concept is a warrior who inspires and leads the group in battle.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, yeah, but then people actually have to do the whole thing. OTOH, crowdsourcing would allow people to contribute to building it without haveing to commit to building a whole class themselves.

YMMV.

@doctorbadwolf & @Undrave - if you want, I'd set up the + homebrew thread and be responsible for making edits (be person A); y'all would have to decide which SRD class you want to use as the base chassis* and who makes the determination as to when a feature is set (person B). Or not.

*I'd recommend a non-spellcaster to keep things simple .... certainly for the first try to see how it works.

Sure, I’ll volunteer for person b. I’m not attached to specific mechanics, even the ones I think make the most sense.

I think the best chassis is the Paladin ( I know I know) or Warlock with EA rather than cantrips, but the Monk could be worked with as well. Any non-fighter warrior class works, since they get EA and a variety of other features. Fighter would be hard becausewhen you take out thehigher level adds to EA, there isn’t much left to work with.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not convinced a "striker" warlord is justified. Isn't that just a fighter?

The highest-DPR 4e Warlord builds didn't deliver much of that DPR, themselves, so definitely not trying for a conventional fighter style if Extra-attack driven DPR.
But there was one warlord build that was more personally oriented that way, an aggressive, showy, warrior in his own right, though still no fighter.
So no more % fighter than a sub-class like War Cleric.

It seems to me that a "tank" warlord would be more appropriate - it's a front-liner, but it is focused on controlling the battlefield, not doing damage itself. And it's not something fighters do all that well.

Yes, definitely. One of the Warlord sub-classes brainstormed on here in the past was more a Defender.
Though, in 4e Striker & Defender were distinct and you couldn't be full-on primary Striker & Defender at the same time, in 5e, you can be full-on DPR and tank as well as the system allows (which falls short of the 4e defender, if by less for some of the post-PH sub-classes out there).

I would still give it extra attack - which I would definitely NOT make a core warlord ability (see how it got removed from the core artificer, because it was basically a useless ability for some of the subclasses).

That seems the most reasonable way to go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, I'm not sure a crowd sourced based design is the way to go. Probably better would be to have a few different complete attempts and then people can pick the ones they like. IOW, exactly the way all the other 5e classes have been designed.

The only purpose of the exercise would be to "prove no one can agree on what the Warlord should be." As has been pointed out, such attempts drown in minutia and have high turnover.

I mean, we buy games & discuss them on-line, instead of write them ourselves for a reason.