Warlord Homebrew Collaboration (+) (Create a 5e Warlord)

[Tonguez]

I really like these four subclasses and the flavours they bring to the Marshal Captain, I suppose if its really needed one of the Cha-based subclasses could be granted a few magic effects (Healing and buffs/debuffs) too

I think there should be four starting Subclasses:

MARSHAL Int focused - tactical warlord, geared more for lead from the rear but with choices of manuevers so one can build a true Lazylord or a more martial tactician. Focuses mostly on attack granting and improving attacks.

BANNERET Cha focused - inspiring warlord, geared more for leading from the front but could be from the rear. Focuses more on healing/temp hp and defense improvement and overcoming conditions, inspires you to fight on.

WARDEN Wis focused - observant warlord, geared more for "controlling" the enemy by predicting their actions. Would be doing a bit of the attack improvement from tactical and defense improvement from inspiring, but through debuffs on the opponent.

VANGUARD Martial focused - bravura or other style in your face lead from the front type, fighter-light. Heavier armor, extra attack, leads by example. Probably leans charisma, but I think it deserves to be separate.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Do we need to do sublcasses really? Why not just make the one Marshal, and identify which effects would be subclass abilities were we to add other SC options. Once class seems like a big enough job. So we can leave the attack in but tagged as a potential swap out for later subclass design work.

Some folks seem to want the class to be multi-ability SAD, which would necessitate the subclass coming online at first level. My preference is INT primary, with secondaries based on subclass.

 

[Garthanos]

Do we need to do sublcasses really? Why not just make the one Marshal, and identify which effects would be subclass abilities were we to add other SC options. Once class seems like a big enough job. So we can leave the attack in but tagged as a potential swap out for later subclass design work.

In some sense they are indeed just specializations but I think thinking of them helps assure the foundations for them are in the mix. I think thinking about subclasses like LL and Bravura and Hector are important to get one to think in terms of characters who do things beyond the basic like take extra risk for extra results or who use friendly fire or induce fear in enemies and the like. They do not have to be segregated off in all cases though that ability to Trade taking risks of enemy attacking you to gain an ally opportunity absolutely is not exactly core class.

Speaking of Bravura. There was a very bravura maneuver that allowed one to race to your allies side and the more enemies took an opportunity attack as you went the bigger the boost to your aid you provide to your ally

 

[TwoSix]

Some folks seem to want the class to be multi-ability SAD, which would necessitate the subclass coming online at first level. My preference is INT primary, with secondaries based on subclass.

My preference is for the class to be STR/DEX flexible for its weapon attacks and AC; and uses a subclass derived mental stat for its support abilities. I always vote for subclasses at level 1, I just think it's stronger design on general, and particularly useful on a class with concepts that lean towards favoring different stats.

 

[Garthanos]

My preference is for the class to be STR/DEX flexible for its weapon attacks and AC; and uses a subclass derived mental stat for its support abilities. I always vote for subclasses at level 1, I just think it's stronger design on general, and particularly useful on a class with concepts that lean towards favoring different stats.

Me three... A lazylord being a variant where the secondary becomes primary.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Do we need to do sublcasses really? Why not just make the one Marshal, and identify which effects would be subclass abilities were we to add other SC options. Once class seems like a big enough job. So we can leave the attack in but tagged as a potential swap out for later subclass design work.

On the nomenclature side we could run with the more generic 'command points' that can be spent issuing commands or managing effects in the Marshal's command radius. I like 'gambit' better because it's got some flavor and feels fresher than command points, but whatevs..

@ Garthanos - the range for the aura would scale, that was the discussion anyway.

I still think that gambit sounds like a distinct ability or move, while Morale is a resource you can draw upon.

could even have a higher level ability where you regain Morale when an ally you can see gets a crit, or something.

 

[Garthanos]

I still think that gambit sounds like a distinct ability or move, while Morale is a resource you can draw upon.

I agree a gambit is the tactical maneuver but verve/moral/focus errr ki is the resources applied to initiate them.

 

[Garthanos]

could even have a higher level ability where you regain Morale when an ally you can see gets a crit, or something.

I was doing a action economy variant where one used an action like scanning the field to gain more resources for doing a bigger move if we are improving ones ability to do the thing the Warlord isn't inspired by a crit he seeks out knowledge... though he might gain knowledge about how to duplicate that Crit on that enemy next round and with a flurry of commands let everyone do a boom boom.

 

[Fenris-77]

Gambits for discrete actions works for me. Morale for the aura doesn't because most of the stuff we've thrown around has nothing to do with morale unless you want to seriously elasticize the meaning of the word. Maybe tactical control area? IDK...

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Me three... A lazylord being a variant where the secondary becomes primary.

Then the subclass would definitely need to come online at level one.