Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana:Are they revealing limitations in the 5th edition system?

[Tony Vargas]

Minimizing base classes has been a design goal from word "Go" with this edition

Not true. Some months into the playtest we got some L&Ls going into the concepts of classes, and one that kinda-sorta committed to starting with just the classes that had been in at least one past-edition PH1.

After launch, there was something about wanting to do sub-classes more than full classes.

But there have been two full classes in UA, so far - one of them a second take on concept that was first tried as a sub-class, but wasn't adequate as such.

given that a healer isn't even needed for a balanced party

From the band-aid cleric of the classic game on, it's always been needed. 4e minimized that need with healing surges, short rests, & second wind, even as it expanded and formalized the role to 'Leader.'

5e has abandoned roles as a formal concept used as a basis for a class concept, but that's all. The range of contributions PCs can make, and the need for a goodly selection of them in the party, is the same as it's always been. And, with HD representing far less healing than surges, and second wind being both less healing and fighter only /and/ assumed 'days' being longer, 5e has a greater need of party healers than 4e had for a party leader.

There are multiple full casters (Cleric, Druid, Bard) that happen to provide support contributions, and one half-caster (Paladin) that can give them run for their money. The caster version of the Ranger falls behind those primary alternatives, and wouldn't be adequate by itself. The existing non-caster options for support don't even approach what the Ranger can do.

In a high-magic style of play, that's all fine, all those options will be readily available and appropriate, the party can have several of them. But that's not the only style of play there is, and supporting more styles really was a design goal from the word Go with this edition (w/in the first few L&Ls following the announcement of the playtest).

the mechanical niche isn't all that open

The mechanical niche is non-caster support, and it's wide open.

and the story niche is fairly small...

The 'leader of men' heroic archetype is pervasive, you'll find far more of them in genre than you will D&D-style Clerics, or (to use the UA full-class precedent alluded to above) Artificers. Nor was it the only thing you could do with a 4e Warlord - and a 5e warlord needn't be held back by Source & Role considerations.

given that we already gave subclasses that fill both, don't see a strong reason they would go beyond subclass for the concept...

The PDK dips an armored toe into the design space we're talking about, at best. The BM is barely a demo model of what could be done with maneuvers. There's parsecs of design space out there for non-caster classes & sub-classes. It's arcane casters that were packed into the available design space like occult sardines. The EK has far more wizard-like ability than the PDK has Warlord-like ability, but we have not only the EK and Wizard, but the AT, Sorcerer, & Warlock, all overlapping and filling in corners of the arcane-caster design space, even just in the PH. And UA's already brought us yet another arcane full class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are multiple full casters (Cleric, Druid, Bard) that happen to provide support contributions, and one half-caster (Paladin) that can give them run for their money. The caster version of the Ranger falls behind those primary alternatives, and wouldn't be adequate by itself. The existing non-caster options for support don't even approach what the Ranger can do.

Just want to point out that the healing from the Healer's Feat, and the temp hp from the Leader feat, are decently substantial. Combined with common potions being sold at most local retailers, and you can do a decent job healing with no casting if you are so inclined.

Now, all of that does nothing for poison, petrify ect, but I don't think Warlord would cover that design space very well either, people had a hard enough time with hp healing by warlords, I doubt they are going to find a Warlord breaking a curse by cussing it out acceptable...

Though I now have a visual that is 100% awesome of that happening.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Ardent?

Nod. This is 5e, afterall. There's always more than one way to get to a concept. Sure, you /could/ 'just' MC, but lets have an EK and Bladesinger and AT (and Mage-Commander? Spiral Tactician?) as well.

I would be ardent for the ardent. Old DM memory loss hit me, or I would have remembered that name. Thank you.

 

[Parmandur]

Not true. Some months into the playtest we got some L&Ls going into the concepts of classes, and one that kinda-sorta committed to starting with just the classes that had been in at least one past-edition PH1.

After launch, there was something about wanting to do sub-classes more than full classes.

But there have been two full classes in UA, so far - one of them a second take on concept that was first tried as a sub-class, but wasn't adequate as such.

From the band-aid cleric of the classic game on, it's always been needed. 4e minimized that need with healing surges, short rests, & second wind, even as it expanded and formalized the role to 'Leader.'

5e has abandoned roles as a formal concept used as a basis for a class concept, but that's all. The range of contributions PCs can make, and the need for a goodly selection of them in the party, is the same as it's always been. And, with HD representing far less healing than surges, and second wind being both less healing and fighter only /and/ assumed 'days' being longer, 5e has a greater need of party healers than 4e had for a party leader.

There are multiple full casters (Cleric, Druid, Bard) that happen to provide support contributions, and one half-caster (Paladin) that can give them run for their money. The caster version of the Ranger falls behind those primary alternatives, and wouldn't be adequate by itself. The existing non-caster options for support don't even approach what the Ranger can do.

In a high-magic style of play, that's all fine, all those options will be readily available and appropriate, the party can have several of them. But that's not the only style of play there is, and supporting more styles really was a design goal from the word Go with this edition (w/in the first few L&Ls following the announcement of the playtest).

The mechanical niche is non-caster support, and it's wide open.

The 'leader of men' heroic archetype is pervasive, you'll find far more of them in genre than you will D&D-style Clerics, or (to use the UA full-class precedent alluded to above) Artificers. Nor was it the only thing you could do with a 4e Warlord - and a 5e warlord needn't be held back by Source & Role considerations.

The PDK dips an armored toe into the design space we're talking about, at best. The BM is barely a demo model of what could be done with maneuvers. There's parsecs of design space out there for non-caster classes & sub-classes. It's arcane casters that were packed into the available design space like occult sardines. The EK has far more wizard-like ability than the PDK has Warlord-like ability, but we have not only the EK and Wizard, but the AT, Sorcerer, & Warlock, all overlapping and filling in corners of the arcane-caster design space, even just in the PH. And UA's already brought us yet another arcane full class.

As pointed out, non-caster support is doable now with feats, tools, etc. Just seems thin for a whole Class to be based around.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As pointed out, non-caster support

Actually, that pointed out only healing, using a combination of HD (perfectly OK, but inadequate by itself), feats (optional & limited) and magic items (possibly inappropriate in the low/no magic styles that'd be opened up by a non-caster support class).

is doable now with feats, tools, etc. Just seems thin for a whole Class to be based around.

Restoring hps was a consistent feature of of the Leader role 4e, and something like Inspiring Word is certainly called for, but it was not anywhere near the whole class. In 5e there is no such Role limitation on class design, support is more varied, and classes are not limited to the 'needed' contribution, nor held back by niche protection. The Warlord range of concepts could easily cover more than just the desperately-needed aspects of support in 5e, and should, given the 5e design philosophy.

 

[Parmandur]

Actually, that pointed out only healing, using a combination of HD (perfectly OK, but inadequate by itself), feats (optional & limited) and magic items (possibly inappropriate in the low/no magic styles that'd be opened up by a non-caster support class). Restoring hps was a consistent feature of of the Leader role 4e, and something like Inspiring Word is certainly called for, but it was not anywhere near the whole class. In 5e there is no such Role limitation on class design, support is more varied, and classes are not limited to the 'needed' contribution, nor held back by niche protection. The Warlord range of concepts could easily cover more than just the desperately-needed aspects of support in 5e, and should, given the 5e design philosophy.

*shrug*. That may be; but [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] just recently reiterated on Twitter that they haven't been able to square the story or mechanics for a full class Warloed...

 

[Tony Vargas]

*shrug*. That may be; but [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] just recently reiterated on Twitter that they haven't been able to square the story or mechanics for a full class Warlord...

That would be a disappointing failure on his part.

 

[Parmandur]

That would be a disappointing failure on his part.

Actually, the only character I played for more than one session of 4E was a Warlord: in the mechanical context of 4E, it worked. Given the nature of 5E, a Fighter subclass using some support maneuvers and having a good Charisma and Int fills the concept...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord: in the mechanical context of 4E, it worked.

It's not like the mechanical context is that different. 4e had surges; 5e has HD. 'Action economy' is still a thing.

The major relevant difference is that class design is much more open. A Warlord class wouldn't need to avoid abilities that would have stepped on the toes of controllers or defenders in 4e.

a Fighter subclass using some support maneuvers and having a good Charisma and Int fills the concept...

The 5e fighter, like the fighter in much of D&D's history is arguably too generic, and tries to cover too much conceptually with too little flexibility in it's design. The BM and PDK clearly illustrate that a fighter sub-class can't come close to covering the concepts possible with even the role-constrained 4e Warlord.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I suspect a big part of the issue is "you use your action tell all your buddies to make an attack" is basically a capstone level ability in 5e, where it was a heroic tier ability in 4e (much like how the warden was transformed early in his/her career in 5e, but the paladin gets that as a capstone). Attack support will be difficult, because CR (such as it is) is based on the notion that a party of 4 makes X attacks, not X+3 or X+2 if it takes the recipient's bonus action. Since they aren't going to redo CR for 1 new class, and they can't provide the warlord's signature offensive ability until it basically doesn't matter anymore without redoing CR, the 4e style warlord is unlikely in 5e.

It isn't hopeless, since it still leaves healing (which has been discussed enough), save support, and skill support (and maybe demotivation). Save and skill support seem pretty good if the number of people who can be motivated at one time increases as you level up (if you start at 2, it is better then the help action). Since I think attack support will show up at higher levels than a lot of warlord fans will be expecting and healing/save/skill support may not happen every round, it seems like demotivation is a good way to use the warlord's action, probably using something similar to the berserker's menace ability (although at a lower level) and takes advantage of the fact that charisma is probably not going to be a dump stat for warlords (thematically, the drill sergeant....I mean warlord is really good at yelling).

{Yes, this is built on my idea that 4e was pro wrestling, because obviously Sgt. Slaughter was the prototype for the warlord, just like Hulk Hogan and the Undertaker were for second wind, and the Rock was the patron saint of come and get it}