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

[Tony Vargas]

I think the Warlord should be based around the Warlock chassis a little more. I think the base warlock shouldn't have extra attack.

As far as resource mix? Solid at-will, spontaneous short-rest, fixed long-rest? Ironically, the Warlock has the cantrip equivalent of Extra Attack, too.

But, yeah, Extra Attack is all about the DPR, and shouldn't be in the warlord's class chassis. The Bravura sub-class, which was always more fighter-like, could use it, that's about it. It might well make more sense to have multi-attack maneuvers that a Warlord might learn or use, or not, depending on style and situation, then to use the Extra Attack feature, which is all-in & at-will.

I want the Noble/Lazylord to work better. I want it to be possible to make an Int/Cha heavy character with low strength and moderate dexteritu and still be able to function.I just don't want it to step on the Bard's toes too much. But, then again, the Cleric and Druid share a lot of toys.

Support characters necessarily do a lot of the same things. Cleric, Druid, and Bard do most of their support with spells, so, as a non-caster, the Warlord's going to be pretty unique, in spite of being one of several support-capable classes.

 

[generic]

Support characters necessarily do a lot of the same things. Cleric, Druid, and Bard do most of their support with spells, so, as a non-caster, the Warlord's going to be pretty unique, in spite of being one of several support-capable classes.

I second this.

Furthermore, one must remember that many support classes, even those other than the Bard, offer bonuses to rolls (Bless comes to mind) in the form of spells which can be cast almost as often as the Bard's inspiration can be used. By necessity, given the number of mechanics which can be buffed or exploited in the game, Support classes will overlap.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I have said the warlord will be created to play with minions/followers/sidekicks. I guess it will in a book about mass battles.

Today with an app in the mobile for the IA of the enemy army you can play solo wargames.

 

[cbwjm]

You should also have a look at monster abilities in the various monster books. Many of them have abilities that would fit a warlord.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

Gone for a few days and this thread explodes in 15+ pages of reading to catch-up on. I apologize if my meager contribution is redundant to past conversations, but I saw an argument (to sum) that having Int and Cha-based Warlords was somehow antithetical to 5e class design. The actual evidence does not support this thesis. Probably the counter-example is the Rogue. The Rogue has a variety of subclasses that support a variety of secondary stats. The Arcane Trickster is Dex + Int. The Swashbuckler is Dex + Cha. The Inquisitive and Scout are Dex + Wis. Dex is the Main Stat of the Rogue, but the subclasses are generally geared towards different Secondary Stats. So the idea of a Cha Warlord, an Int Warlord, or a Wis Warlord is particularly antithetical to how other subclasses are designed for 5e classes.

Never liked how the divine was handled by D&D RuneQuest spoiled me. The priests in RuneQuest felt way more distinct from anyone using battle magic or sorcery, and way more about actual sacrifice in return for some bit of temporary awesome and their miracles tied directly to actions which improve your relationship with the source were bound up in random chance also felt miraculous.

Agreed. As someone with an academic background in ancient religion, RuneQuest's take on religion, ritual, and magic is head and shoulders beyond D&D's tepid approach with its cleric. It's almost a shame that I discovered RuneQuest as late as I did in my hobby life.

(Mind you, never Rogue, my objections to it are more a matter of game design philosophy, and the 'fix' is too involved.)

I'm familiar with your objections to the Rogue (as "a matter of game design philosophy") from past discussions. Not to get too hooked on a tangent, but I have an admittedly pointed question about a possible "fix." From my understanding, your objection is, at least in part, with how the Thief gobbled design space that a hypothetical FIghting-Man could have used. But what if there were still multiple classes, but with a different design philosophy in mind? Here I have in mind Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved 3.X variant, which designed classes more around playstyle and the sort of archetypes people liked playing. So, for example, there was not a Rogue or a Fighter. Instead, there was the Warmain, which was about wearing heavy armor and using big weapons. Then there was the Unfettered, which was about wearing light armor and being more akin to a swashbuckling duelist. The "Skill Monkey" was actually the mystical Akashic class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm familiar with your objections to the Rogue (as "a matter of game design philosophy") from past discussions. Not to get too hooked on a tangent, but I have an admittedly pointed question about a possible "fix." From my understanding, your objection is, at least in part, with how the Thief gobbled design space that a hypothetical FIghting-Man could have used.

Nod.

Spoiler: tangent

Another way of looking at it is that, when the Thief (and Assassin, and Ranger, and Monk) were added to the game, there was no skill system, so things were handled with either just player describing actions or with 'special abilities' like the Thief "Hide in Shadows" & whatnot, or the Ranger's tracking. And, even though said abilities were not that special, they were class-exclusive and had to be 'balanced' relative to the already underwhelming fighter.
As soon as there was a remotely workable skill system - a mere 25 years later - those classes that existed in whole or in part as vehicles for 'special abilities' that were now simply skills, could have been consolidated. Instead, they were given other things to hang onto: sneak attack, spells starting at low level instead of name level, pets, etc.
Come 5e, and not only is there still a workable skill system, if not one as well suited to extraordinary stunting with skills, but the kind of niche protection that was providing such classes excuses to go on has also been largely abandoned.
But, the classes remain, with ever more tenuous holds on relevance - but if anything, it's the fighter that suffers for their inclusion, because, somehow, while it's fine for them to be tough or have DPR, it's not fine for the fighter to just get more skills and take over their schtick.

But what if there were still multiple classes, but with a different design philosophy in mind? Here I have in mind Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved 3.X variant, which designed classes more around playstyle and the sort of archetypes people liked playing. So, for example, there was not a Rogue or a Fighter. Instead, there was the Warmain, which was about wearing heavy armor and using big weapons. Then there was the Unfettered, which was about wearing light armor and being more akin to a swashbuckling duelist. The "Skill Monkey" was actually the mystical Akashic class.

That's pretty hypothetical, but the example is interesting, because, in 5e, the Fighter can go heavy armor/STR or light-armor/DEX with no particular issues, it's finally a fairly neat choice (it's a little favorable to DEX, but whatever, it's better than feat taxes), so the 'Warmain' & 'Unfettered' are just a stat and, maybe, combat style choice for the 5e fighter, not even sub-classes. Conversely the 'mystical skill monkey' Akashic is split up into Monk and Rogue, at a minimum, by 5e.
Class design is always a bit fraught, I guess: out of the whole set of possible things characters might do, how do you slice the pie and how do you balance the crumbs?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As far as resource mix? Solid at-will, spontaneous short-rest, fixed long-rest? Ironically, the Warlock has the cantrip equivalent of Extra Attack, too.

But, yeah, Extra Attack is all about the DPR, and shouldn't be in the warlord's class chassis. The Bravura sub-class, which was always more fighter-like, could use it, that's about it. It might well make more sense to have multi-attack maneuvers that a Warlord might learn or use, or not, depending on style and situation, then to use the Extra Attack feature, which is all-in & at-will.

Support characters necessarily do a lot of the same things. Cleric, Druid, and Bard do most of their support with spells, so, as a non-caster, the Warlord's going to be pretty unique, in spite of being one of several support-capable classes.

Hard disagree on Extra Attack, the more I consider it.
Give the Captain a unique way to trade attacks for something else (possibly multiple options), and give them Extra Attack.

IMO, the Captain should be a warrior support class, closer to the Paladin than to the cleric or Bard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hard disagree on Extra Attack, the more I consider it.

Extra Attack is very much a "striker" feature, at-will, single-target, DPR maximization, and the way 5e 6-8-encounter-balance focuses on average DPR over a long time, is too highly-valued for any more-versatile (as support must be) class to get more than one (like the Valor Bard for instance).

a unique way to trade attacks for something else (possibly multiple options), and give them Extra Attack.

Could run into the same issues as MDDs, where they couldn't strike a balance making the alternatives useful enough to be worth giving you the damage, some of the time, but not others.

IMO, the Captain should be a warrior support class, closer to the Paladin than to the cleric or Bard.

As a Warlord sub-class, like the Bravura, it could get a single helping of Extra Attack and better armor (there's certainly precedent for a sub-class adding things like that), more like a War Cleric than a Paladin, though, really, there's not a huge gulf between them, anyway. And, I suppose there could be one sub-class to bite the bulette and take up the mantle of literal party leader, with military rank or other legitimate authority, and all the baggage that goes with that.