D&D 5E "Warlord" Fighter sub-class from MMHFT podcast. Further duscussion.

[CapnZapp]

totem

:thumbs up:

 

[Geeknamese]

Placing effects on areas?

That's a totem warrior if I ever saw one.

Please drop the ridiculous idea a "tactician" needs to "study" a (small) area and whose benefits somehow are restricted to just that area.

This class needs a supernatural explanation, stat.

Don’t get why it doesn’t make sense that the tactician can only focus on one area. Mearls specifically pointed out that this is a leafs from the front battle tactician so if you have to think of it in simulationist terms, in the heat of battle, he’s really only going to be able to pay attention to one area while fighting. This isn’t a lazy lord up on a hill surveying the entire battlefield.

The class feels warlordy, it offers tactical choices that are warlordy. Seems a decent step in the right direction for me. If I play a warlord, I’m playing it because I want to feel like a warlord which means a battle commander that is able to influence allies as well. Support/Controller is what I’m looking for. My defining aspect for Warlord isn’t something mechanical like “must grant free attack”.

 

[BookBarbarian]

The only substantive objection I have to this is the name "Warlord" which remains one of the worst class names ever.

It's so easy to get bogged down in the names.

I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with the "Barbarian" name. Person from a tribal culture is now reflected in the Outlander background. And that was a great move.

But now the Barbarian class seems to now be filled with a hodgepodge of guy that gets angry/nature guy that get's angry or maybe has primal instincts that look like getting angry/getting angry with godly power/getting angry with elemental power/getting angry with ghost power. Should all those things be associated with "Rage?" At what point does "Rage" start to take take on a whole new meaning, or a bunch of new meanings?

From a mechanics standpoint I really like it. From a conceptual standpoint I keep thinking "What is this mess?"

I apologize for the thread de-rail, feel free to ignore me.

Back on topic. I don't think you're wrong. A non-leadership style but Tactician like name would be great. And like the Favored Soul Sorcerer it wouldn't surprise me to see the concept get a new name if it ever does come to fruition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's so easy to get bogged down in the names.

I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with the "Barbarian" name. Person from a tribal culture is now reflected in the Outlander background. And that was a great move.

But now the Barbarian class seems to now be filled with a hodgepodge of guy that gets angry/nature guy that get's angry or maybe has primal instincts that look like getting angry/getting angry with godly power/getting angry with elemental power/getting angry with ghost power. Should all those things be associated with "Rage?" At what point does "Rage" start to take take on a whole new meaning, or a bunch of new meanings?

Nod.
A name is doing good if it manages to suggest some of the abilities or some of the more iconic concepts covered by the class. Barbarian & Warlord aren't really so bad, by that criterion, when you consider all the sub-classes...

But, this is a sub-class and a pretty specific one...

A non-leadership style but Tactician like name would be great. And like the Favored Soul Sorcerer it wouldn't surprise me to see the concept get a new name if it ever does come to fruition.

Leadership can be part of it ("lead from the front" got repeated a number of times), just not legitimate authority or implied superiority. A character that allies follow, not because they have to, but because he's usually going the right way.

One of the 6 official builds of the Warlord was 'Tactical' and this sub-class seems heavily focused on that one build, so Tactician, though not at all implying the 'lead from the front' bit, nor the tremendous personal weapon combat/DPR focus of the fighter, sounds obvious. The Warlord build that more suggested the Tank aspects of the fighter that necessarily come to the forefront with any fighter sub-class was the Bravura, a pretty obscure name.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Nod.
Leadership can be part of it ("lead from the front" got repeated a number of times), just not legitimate authority or implied superiority. A character that allies follow, not because they have to, but because he's usually going the right way.

One of the 6 official builds of the Warlord was 'Tactical' and this sub-class seems heavily focused on that one build, so Tactician, though not at all implying the 'lead from the front' bit, nor the tremendous personal weapon combat/DPR focus of the fighter, sounds obvious. The Warlord build that more suggested the Tank aspects of the fighter that necessarily come to the forefront with any fighter sub-class was the Bravura, a pretty obscure name.

Yeah, I would lump in Bravura with Banneret. As in I have no idea what it actually is or what the word is meant to convey to me as a concept beyond being brave or carrying a banner.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I would lump in Bravura with Banneret. As in I have no idea what it actually is or what the word is meant to convey to me as a concept beyond being brave or carrying a banner.

The bravura build was typically tougher than other warlords and emphasized risk-taking and aggression, encouraging the same in his allies.
It's only a fit to this one because of a fighter sub-class necessarily being tougher and much harder-hitting than any warlord.

As to definitions:

Definition of bravura
1 music : a musical passage requiring exceptional agility and technical skill in execution
2 : a florid brilliant style
3 : a show of daring or brilliance

(ie being brave)

banneret
: a knight leading his vassals into the field under his own banner

(ie: carrying a banner)

 

[BookBarbarian]

The bravura build was typically tougher than other warlords and emphasized risk-taking and aggression, encouraging the same in his allies.
It's only a fit to this one because of a fighter sub-class necessarily being tougher and much harder-hitting than any warlord.

As to definitions:

Definition of bravura
1 music : a musical passage requiring exceptional agility and technical skill in execution
2 : a florid brilliant style
3 : a show of daring or brilliance

banneret
: a knight leading his vassals into the field under his own banner

As much as you define them for me today, I'll likely forget them tomorrow.

 

[AmerginLiath]

When it starts talking about Tactical Area and Tactical Insight, all I can think is that it just needs to borrow the basic Aura rules of the Paladin but offer different effects (the 4e Warlord being an evolution of the aura-based 3.5 Marshall), with an increase in the number of known and active auras as the character progresses. 5e simply doesn’t work off the same level of bookkeeping that this demands (I’m suddenly reminded of my taxes).

 

[Bawylie]

I’ve now seen all 3 videos and the version presented in them exceeded my expectations for Warlord as a subclass. My expectations were middling, though.

I’m cautiously optimistic. I’d playtest this. I still don’t like fighter as a base class and would definitely trade to something more like a clerics base (essentially trading attacks and heavy armor for more frequent uses of the inspiration, gambits, etc.).

 

[mellored]

I think "Tactician" is a good enough. Perhaps not the most fantasy-ific name, but straight forward and uncontroversial.