D&D 5E (2014) The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Garthanos]

Yep. I do not care what it looked like in another edition except as that can provide fun ideas for thematically appropriate features and abilities.

Well it's definitely the version to beat for the concept.

 

[Hussar]

Yep. I do not care what it looked like in another edition except as that can provide fun ideas for thematically appropriate features and abilities.

Fair enough.

I think the point being, support classes in 5e do not gain extra attacks as a baseline. Neither bards nor clerics get it. So, if we're going to give it to baseline warlords, there should be a pretty compelling reason to do so. After all, as a support class, it's not supposed to be a front line combatant, same as a cleric or a bard (baseline - note, subclasses can fill in that niche)

So, why are we giving warlords an extra attack?

 

[cbwjm]

I think it has been tried on here many times actually

Yep, pretty sure I put forward some ideas back then too but the class didn't really get very far. Who knows, maybe it just needed a structure to the thread such as has been suggested in this forum.

 

[Undrave]

The past 5 or so pages ago seemed to get really sidetracked so I stopped reading after that.

I think you've mostly convinced me, that yes under certain conditions and in the right context a warlord class could work.

Did you see my post answering Lowkey:

Been meaning to answer this for a while...

1. Given the release schedule of 5e, where it appears that new classes are few, far between, and tied into a setting, how would you like the Warlord to be officially introduced? In a realistic way- not just, "In some sort of splat book."

I dunno all the settings, but I'd imagine, fittingly enough, a book with a 'war' theme with expended mundane options.

One where you could pick up proficiency in Siege engines for exemple (instead of 'Land Vehicle' for exemple, you'd get 'Catapult' or 'Ballista') and with rules for squad formations. I envision Formations as a thing anyone could become proficient in given a certain amount of downtime (shorter than other proficiencies, like maybe a week, top?) and the Warlord could have a little interaction with that system. Maybe the regular use of formations is that everyone proficient in it stands close to each other, but the Warlord can prepare his pals for a formation in only an hour of prep time (one formation per long rest) and thus make them easier to use? Just a thought.

I would also see that supplement including more detailed rules on trap making and trap laying.

2. What features are essential to a "true" Warlord? Are these features that you can easily make in 5e, or features that would require more extensive rules changes?

A lot of Warlord features are already in 5e, they're just spread out over multiple subclasses and feat. What is essential to me, though, is the idea that the Warlord can BE a Warlord every turn. He doesn't just issue two commands and then needs a one hour nap to be a Warlord again. The Warlord isn't going to be as strong in combat as a Fighter so he can't just fall back on that like the Battlemaster. In that way, he needs to be like a Caster with access to Cantrips, or a Monk who can punch as a bonus action or a Rogue with their Sneak Attack.

One aspect I think that needs to be added is ways to manipulate initiative, or abilities triggered by rolling initiative. I do think they'd need to be mindful of limited Reaction and need ways to either not require Reactions, or their ability instead affects the allie's next turn.

In short, a Warlord needs to (potentially) be able to : heal (temp HP or real HP, in or out of combat), make allies attack more often, allow allies to move around more easily, interact with initiative, improve the damage of allies, improve accuracy of allies, improve saves (especially saves to end effects), be better at using the 'Help' action, all the while having the tools to stand by the front line without being a drag.

The degree of effectiveness at which they are able to do each of those would depend on your build, including the subclass you choose. I don't expect EVERY Warlord to do all of these elements, just that they have the ability available should they choose it.

Also, their abilities need to improve and get stronger with level the same way everybody else does, and take into accounts the type of enemies being fought at higher levels. And they need more skills than a Fighter.

3. Given that the Warlord's genesis is in 4e, which has a reputation (if not always a reality) of being more grid-focused, do you think that the features of the Warlord work equally well in TOTM and grid?

I think the disparate features already available in 5e proves that it's possible. It's just a matter of synthesizing them together.

4. Finally, the most debate occurs around creating a Warlord class. But what types of archetypes (subclasses) are you expecting to see?

Returning:

• INT based Tactician (Best at granting additional attacks and initiative manipulation)
• CHA based Inspiring Leader (Best at temp HP and granting saves)
• CHA based Bravura (Best at melee combat, has 'push your luck' types of mechanic where they risk themselves to boost allies)
• WIS based Insightful Leader (Best at boosting skills and regular saves)

New-ish:

• Artillerist Warlord: has background in leading squads of archers or spellslingers or ballista crews (focus on improving ranged attacks)
• Chosen One Warlord: has supernatural luck and a divinely appointed destiny, good for the Lazylord or Sidekick build
• Bandit King: Dirty tricks and Rogue-like skill proficiency, boosts Stealth of allies
• WIS based Skirmisher subclass: Dash of 4e Ranger, good mobility powers and interacts with Trap rules, Survival skill (maybe has some spells/rituals but I'd prefer fully mundane)
• WIS based Combat Medic: Basically has the Healer feat as a class feature, good at out-of-combat healing, can make potions and healer kit charges, most straightforward in combat.
• An INT-based Formation specialist to interact with the Formation rules
• An INT-based Witch Hunter subclass: an Arcane dabbler with ritual casting and ways to defend groups against spells or make allies' weapons magical, no offensive spells of their own. Has skill in Arcana and additional Saving Throw proficiency.

Good enough?

I wouldn't mind your opinion on this stuff.

 

[Garthanos]

So, why are we giving warlords an extra attack?

Perhaps some are thinking of it as a form of resource that could be leveraged passed along and similar. Traded on dynamically for different things hmmmm. I have certainly considered doing that with the Battlemaster subclass allowing an extra attack to be traded for a superiority die for the next maneuvered attack you make ( its putting all of your eggs in one basket though so its a choice)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fair enough.

I think the point being, support classes in 5e do not gain extra attacks as a baseline. Neither bards nor clerics get it. So, if we're going to give it to baseline warlords, there should be a pretty compelling reason to do so. After all, as a support class, it's not supposed to be a front line combatant, same as a cleric or a bard (baseline - note, subclasses can fill in that niche)

So, why are we giving warlords an extra attack?

Because they’re a martial class that is in all but one or two cases thematically meant to be a competent warrior.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps some are thinking of it as a form of resource that could be leveraged passed along and similar. Traded on dynamically for different things hmmmm.

That occurred to me early on in trying to think of a warlord Archetype of Fighter. I don't think it can work. There are problems on several levels. One is that it makes the result strictly superior to the Fighter. It can do kewl stuff, or it can flail away like a Champion. It's irrelevant that most classes can do lots of kewl stuff and still belt out damage when they really need to, because it's too closely comparable.

To have any chance at being viable Support, the Warlord needs to jettison all the fighter's traditional baggage. The Warlord chassis can't afford to be even slightly better than the next class at any fighter-y thing … and should be decidedly less-fighter-y than the Ranger & Paladin (which, let's face it, were Fighter sub-classes). Heck, I'm not sure Warlords should get Combat Styles outside of some of their sub-classes, or if they do, they should be watered-down and/or re-focused.

I have certainly considered doing that with the Battlemaster subclass allowing an extra attack to be traded for a superiority die for the next maneuvered attack you make ( its putting all of your eggs in one basket though so its a choice)

And that sounds good the same way MDDs sounded good.

 

[Garthanos]

… and should be decidedly less-fighter-y than the Ranger & Paladin (which, let's face it, were Fighter sub-classes).

The clever/intelligent tactical strategic fighter was the arguable genesis of the warlord too if we are going that story based direction. Though my first BM modification would be making the Battlemaster uber versatile and able to do its various interesting maneuvers on a much more regular basis anyway so the Warlord would not be strictly better LOL.

MDD.... major depressive disorder?

 

[Garthanos]

Because they’re a martial class that is in all but one or two cases thematically meant to be a competent warrior.

That is true the exceptions really could simply have subclass adjustments on a second attack. Like a lazy lord your second attack is always given away to an ally or traded for a free friendly fire effect on an enemies failed attack.

 

[Garthanos]

Many of the At-wills from 4e translate directly into a fighting style which grant allies a bonus on damage who attack the same target you did.

The Brash version you would expect used by the risky Bravura enables both an enemy and an ally to get and extra attack one against him and the other against the enemy who takes the opening the allies attack is at advantage. Basically it seems allowing the Bravura at least to be tough is a good idea too.

The archer warlord taking his long draw is somewhat Bravura interestingly as they take aim.