(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I kind of like the proposed warlord here, but I'd reorder the abilities and drop the healing. Tactical Instructions looks like a 1st-level ability, while Commanding Strike seems very strong.
D&D 5E Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
a) What healing? You mean the specialty? Yeah, part of the deal with those is that it's expected to swap 'em out.
b) Something I noticed about the 5e Maneuvers is that they don't have prerequisites or level limits or even actual class limits. If you were a rogue, you could fill up your entire list of maneuvers from things fighters get at level 10, hypothetically. I think it's really cool like that -- they're all the same "tier," so they're easy to mix-n-match.
Quickleaf
Legend
So, I notice that everyone else in this thread (except KM) feels like his proposed warlord is providing magical healing when, in fact, it's providing damage reduction. Flavor-wise that's a pretty significant difference because it's much easier to explain a reaction narratively: the warlord shouts a warning or inspiration and at the last minute you partly parry the blow or brace yourself thru sheer grit. Simple, not controversial.
It really fails to be unique in any way. It just takes the Fighter mechanics and offloads them. Instead of the Fighter doing damage, the Fighter-Warlord does damage... with other people! Instead of the fighter parrying damage the fighter parries damage... for other people! (and only when it knocks them unconscious, but we can quibble about bad mechanics if the entire concept even worked) It lets someone move... 5 feet!It can't possibly provide healing to replace the cleric (because... I dunno).
Where's the ability to really change the flow of combat, like Lamb to the Slaughter provides? Where's the nifty do-over ability No Gambit is Wasted provides? Where's the game-changing ability of Reorient the Axis or the cool and flavorful fun of Provoke Overextension?
I think I finally understand why people think the Warlord can be rolled into the fighter. They don't know what a Warlord is.
I really think it should be mandatory that anyone who does one of these writeups must have ACTUALLY PLAYED A WARLORD FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS.
Where's the ability to really change the flow of combat, like Lamb to the Slaughter provides? Where's the nifty do-over ability No Gambit is Wasted provides? Where's the game-changing ability of Reorient the Axis or the cool and flavorful fun of Provoke Overextension?
I think I finally understand why people think the Warlord can be rolled into the fighter. They don't know what a Warlord is.
I really think it should be mandatory that anyone who does one of these writeups must have ACTUALLY PLAYED A WARLORD FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
GreyICE said:
Does it fail to feel like a battlefield commander, though? If so, how?
I don't see uniqueness in and of itself as something that is commendable. Like balance, it's something that must be used in service of a goal. I don't think that a battlefield commander must be especially unique or different to capture the archetype.
GreyICE said:
The 4e warlord had very close to the same mechanics with their at-wills. I specifically drew inspiration from Inspiring Word, Wolf Pack Tactics, and Commander's Strike, which I feel are some of the 4e warlord's most distinguishing features (due to them being usable every round), and also matched the "at-will" usability of 5e's maneuvers. If you've got a 4e Warlord ability that isn't replicated there that you feel gets this idea across better, which one is it? I'm sure it could be implemented, too.
I also don't know what is so bad about mechanics that are largely similar to the existing 5e mechanics. Compare Inspiring Words to Parry, for instance: in exchange for range, the warlord has a restriction of a slightly more limited circumstance. How is that specifically problematic?
GreyICE said:
Your main problem here seems to be the lack of martial daily or encounter powers, which isn't something within the scope of what I'm doing. It's fairly easy to say, in an opt-in sort of way, "here's a bunch of metagame mechanics you can add for added butt-kicking if you want, like not regaining ED until a short or extended rest, or doing metagamey things like recharing powers or forcing enemy actions." That caveat in mind...
[sblock=here they are]
LttS is a daily, and dictates enemy action, and so is inherently more of a dramatic, more metagame ability. Including martial dailies is out of the realm of what I'm attempting here. Powered-down to at-will levels of power and stripped of the pseudomagical dictation of enemy action, it would lose the ability to change the flow of combat, but would otherwise essentially be Commanding Shout, only allowing a charge instead of a melee attack. Hypothetically, you could include a ramp up in power in exchange for not being able to regain your spend Expertise util your next extended rest, which could bring it in line with LttS. However, though I still think the metagamey function of forcing an enemy's movement would leave it too divorced from the reality of the gameworld to keep it viable, that's pretty much just, like, my opinion, man, so why not.
NGiW is an encounter, and its "do-over" nature also rests on a codified Encounter and Daily system. However, the free-attack-on-a-miss nature of the thing could be fairly easily duplicated within the maneuvers system a la:
Maneuver: Lunge At The Opening
When an enemy dodges your ally's attack, you make use of the move to strike yourself.
Effect: When an ally misses an attack against an enemy you are within reach of, you can make a melee attack against that creature as a reaction. Roll all the expertise dice you spent, add up their results, and increase your damage by the total.
Like with LttS, you could include an option to not regain your spent expertise dice until the end of the encounter, and ramp it up in power, including preserving whatever attack the ally missed with, though this again gets pretty metagamey. Again, not a problem if you opt-into it, really.
Reorient the Axis is just Tactical Instructions +, so you could ramp that up like the others. Provoke Overextension is similarly just Commanding Shout +, so you can ramp it up similarly.
[/sblock]
The big takeaway point being, given that Expertise is an at-will option, I limited myself to things that were at-will options in 4e. It's easy enough to ramp up the power and add in metagame mechanics if you'd like, but it's my impression that this would conflict with some of the core philosophy of basic 5e, so I didn't. You could, though. It's even kind of trivial to do it.
GreyICE said:
Been there, done that. But also, you don't get to make that call, so...look at that thought experiment I did!
Last edited:
You could get as much or as little warlord as you want out of a fighter just by having 5 maneuvers for the fighter that let you spend your expertise dice on others instead of yourself. Let various ones add your Int, Wis, or Cha to their total.
Instead of healing damage after the fact, he warns or inspires his comrade to better avoid the brunt of the attack (damage prevention). He could have a maneuver that allows him to roll expertise and give the total as a bonus to damage for an ally's next attack in the round, then he makes his regular attack with a weapon (like a Word of Power spell).
Similar treatment would work for the Rogue/Assassin.
If we're going down this road, though, we've got to be even handed.
That means rage-style Maneuvers that can't be used in heavy armor, two-weapon maneuvers that require finesse weapons, and martial-arts maneuvers using no armor. The "Barbarian" (really a battle-rager since Barbarian is a background that applies to even non-warriors), Dervish, and Martial Artist / Brawleer styles really out to be open alongside the squad leader style.
- Marty Lund
Instead of healing damage after the fact, he warns or inspires his comrade to better avoid the brunt of the attack (damage prevention). He could have a maneuver that allows him to roll expertise and give the total as a bonus to damage for an ally's next attack in the round, then he makes his regular attack with a weapon (like a Word of Power spell).
Similar treatment would work for the Rogue/Assassin.
If we're going down this road, though, we've got to be even handed.
That means rage-style Maneuvers that can't be used in heavy armor, two-weapon maneuvers that require finesse weapons, and martial-arts maneuvers using no armor. The "Barbarian" (really a battle-rager since Barbarian is a background that applies to even non-warriors), Dervish, and Martial Artist / Brawleer styles really out to be open alongside the squad leader style.
- Marty Lund
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
a) What healing? You mean the specialty? Yeah, part of the deal with those is that it's expected to swap 'em out.
Ah, I re-read it. I still don't think it fits. I think it makes more sense if warlords could cancel fear and morale effects, like a bard. I don't recall if morale is part of the game rules, but I figure a team of classed humanoids would be less likely to retreat if backed up by a charismatic warlord.
As a fan of roles, I'm ... not a fan of that.
No, badwronglies.
My major problem is that extra damage and preventing damage isn't INTERESTING.
It's just numbers.
A Warlord, as a class, is an interesting class. They change the nature of the battlefield. They create situations where the party can easily win encounters that would normally be tough, they can rearrange the entire nature of combat. No other class has anywhere NEAR that level of control over the course of battle, excepting a 3E Batman Wizard (which was rather... broken).
Reducing them to numbers is reducing them to a boring class. I literally do not believe you've played a Warlord if your interpretation of them is "a Warlord is a bunch of numbers added to combat dice." That's not what they do at all.
It literally does not matter how you want to add the mechanics. Maybe the Warlord needs specific conditions to trigger some of his maneuvers. Maybe the Warlord needs to build up some sort of reserve, or observe his enemy for a certain length of time to allow him to use certain skills. Maybe he needs to take a certain amount of damage, or move a certain distance, or maybe the monsters get an intelligence save the second time he tries a maneuver (because intelligent monsters can realize they're being manipulated the same way twice).
But it has to be more interesting that "oh look, here's some numbers." If every ability boils down to numbers, then combat in D&D Next is a drawn out math problem.
Last edited:
Not in the 4e PH it seems (unless I've missed them). Just so I don't get too lost, which book are those from?
I do like the idea of seeing the field of battle and manipulating it (just not shouting to seal up gaping wounds)...
Some of those are pretty powerful. What mechanic would you use to control how often they can be used (does it fit with the other 5e mechanics and record keeping).
Why can't those abilities couldn't be subbed in for different fighter feats/whatnot to allow the character design to range from mostly controlling to all hacking and slashing, with everything in between?
1) No idea. Been a long time since I looked abilities up in a book.
2) I suggested some above. To summarize in list form:
- Enemies get an Intelligence Save to avoid the maneuver after they see it once, maybe with bonus (thematic in that maneuvers stop working on smart enemies quickly, but work on mindless drones like zombies or elementals indefinitely)
- The Warlord must observe the battle for a certain length of time (round based) or observe the enemies for a certain length of time (roleplay based)
- Battlefield conditionals (combat advantage, flanking, etc.)
- Party spends stamina dice (they use some stamina reserves to carry out the maneuvers)
- Warlord spends stamina dice
- Triggered by some things (ambush, start of battle, first enemy falls, ally falls, etc.)
These are all limited, non-daily, non-encounter mechanics.
3) Why couldn't spellcasting be substituted in the fighter mechanics for expertise dice, with the fighter giving up expertise dice to gain further ranks of spellcasting? Why do we need wizards again?
For the purposes of having the "Core 4" (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric) be simple classes, options should probably be kept to a bare minimum on all of them. The game is meant to be expanded from those 4 core classes, and all of them should be at lower levels of complexity, which trigger maneuvers don't provide.
Similar Threads
