D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Tony Vargas]

Seems like most folks are thinking in terms of changing up the fighter (it's the thread title, after all) but wouldn't it be mechanically easier to start with the Ranger, or the "Spell-less Ranger" from UA?

That is the title of /this/ thread. An actual Warlord class, would, of course, do a much better job than a fighter sub-class, even one that altered the base class to an unprecedented degree.

Yeah, I don't know what the fixation is on altering the Fighter.

The fighter is one of the minority of 5e classes that includes non-spell-casting archetypes.

I just approach this particular thread as a discussion of a possible fighter archetype that would be /in addition/ to a full Warlord class. One that is to a potential Warlord what the Eldritch Knight is to the Wizard.

The reason is people want a non magical character with more options.

I want a fighter that can command a group. Not through magic but because he's a fighter and there are a bajillion mundane archetypes that should fit under fighter but don't.

The fighter is already covering too may literary/mythic archetypes for a single class. The game simply needs more non-magic-using builds and classes. There are exactly 0 (nil, none, nada, bupkis) classes in 5e that don't have at least some magical abilities. There are only 5 builds that don't have any magical abilities - the Champion (high DPR multi-attacking crit-fisher), Battlemaster (high DPR multi-attacking CS-dice nova), thief (high-DPR sneak attacker), assassin (high DPR sneak/death attack), and Berserker (high DPR rage). There's no way 5 high-DPR ('Striker') builds cover every non-magic-using archetype from heroic-fantasy/myth/legend/literature.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, you don't have to convince me that a warlord class has enough legs to stand on its own. I LURVE warlords. Not just my favourite 4e class, but, my favourite D&D class ever. This was a class that I'd been trying to make using existing mechanics in D&D since 1e. Had tried to fill the space with clerics, paladins and bards over the years. One of my players said it best, "When you play a warlord, you don't just play your character, you play the entire group." And that's exactly what I want out of the class.

But, that being said, I'm also realistic and I know that there are people out there who are pretty opposed to a warlord (and anything 4e) being ported into 5e and I am thinking that a fighter (or ranger) subclass might be a lot more palatable than a full class.

 

[epithet]

I never played a Warlord (or any 4e character, for that matter) so I help me out to understand the class. From what I've read, the Warlord used a couple of mechanics distinctive to 4e to control the battlefield, the first being the "healing surge," and the second being the "shift."

It seems like the Warlord in a 5e context could function similarly with abilities that grant allies temporary hit points and improve recovery from hit dice during a short rest, and abilities to grant allies the use of their reaction to attack or move on the Warlord's turn.

What non-combat functionality did the Warlord offer? Based on the name "Warlord" I suppose "none" is the answer I should expect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I never played a Warlord (or any 4e character, for that matter) so I help me out to understand the class. From what I've read, the Warlord used a couple of mechanics distinctive to 4e to control the battlefield, the first being the "healing surge," and the second being the "shift."

Briefly: Healing Surges are "reserve HP" made core, and put a (mostly) hard limit on HP recovery. Each Surge restores 25% of max HP. Classes have different amounts of surges (e.g. Wizards have few, only 6+; Paladins have lots, 10+). Out of combat, a five-minute rest lets you spend any number of healing surges. In-combat, Leaders are the primary (and better) source of surges, as they all get a basic power that lets the target spend a surge plus some more HP.

While the Warlord's ability to heal actual HP is often considered very important by most (but surely not all) fans of the class, in actuality, healing wasn't really its focus, and (like all Leaders) it had its share of THP-granting powers. Shifting--essentially an extension of 3e's "five-foot step" to variable distances--was definitely at least as big a part, but not the only or even necessarily the most iconic one. Granting ally attacks, creating openings for the party, and the potential to be a "lazy" character--these are the things fans frequently talk up. ("Lazy" was a purely player-side term: a "lazy Warlord" is one that, ideally, never ever makes an attack, and instead always has someone else make an attack for them).

Further, various sub-types of Warlord granted some kind of meaningful bonus to all nearby allies (the "command radius" as described on the previous page--the area over which a commander exerts a meaningful battle presence). Bravura Presence, for example, creates a more "gamble" type approach--offense or positioning benefits when spending an Action Point, but a risk of exposing people to danger. Tactical Presence gives a hit bonus when allies use an Action Point to make an attack, encouraging a more "nova" style (hence why it's so well-loved by combat optimizers). There are a good half-dozen presence options now, so hopefully one could pick at least three (one for each mental stat) to inspire 5e equivalents.

It seems like the Warlord in a 5e context could function similarly with abilities that grant allies temporary hit points and improve recovery from hit dice during a short rest, and abilities to grant allies the use of their reaction to attack or move on the Warlord's turn.

Restricting the Warlord to exclusively THP--even if it's a lot of THP--in combat would probably not be well-received, because a non-negligible (but not necessarily "iconic" either) aspect of the Warlord is that it can actually pick someone back up when they're down, not merely help them briefly trudge on before the severity of their wounds kicks in. Another problem with THP that true HP healing doesn't have: THP cannot revive the dying, the PHB is very explicit about this. They can shield a character against attacks, e.g. if a dying character is given 30 THP, they would need to take at least 31 damage in order to auto-fail a death save and would need to take 30+(max HP) to suffer instant death. But they can't stabilize nor revive the dying, and that's a cool (and IMO important) thing that 4e Warlords legitimately could do.

Reaction dependence is...dicey. Uses for a character's Reaction are already highly competitive; this is why, in 4e, all of the "basic Leader powers" (e.g. the Warlord's Inspiring Word) were Minor Actions, so you could heal in addition to whatever 'major' thing you wanted to do that turn. Since the Minor Action no longer exists as such, it might be better to come up with something that works similarly, rather than laying permanent claim to the Warlord's Reaction now and forever.

What non-combat functionality did the Warlord offer? Based on the name "Warlord" I suppose "none" is the answer I should expect.

Not so. All Warlords could choose one of three leadership styles:
Combat Leader. +2 Initiative to self and all allies within 50 feet that can see and hear you.
Battlefront Leader. Gain heavy shield proficiency, and a power that re-positions self, or one ally within 15 feet, at the start of each combat ("when you roll initiative").
Canny Leader. +2 to Perception and Insight to all allies within 50 feet that can see and hear you.

As you can see, one of them is effectively purely non-combat in nature, and would be quite useful in an intrigue- or exploration-heavy campaign. The other two both emphasize mobility, which is somewhat harder to achieve in 5e, since it already allows characters to interleave their movement and attacks. Otherwise, the class doesn't strictly grant particularly much, from what I can tell, but most classes don't in 4e--non-combat stuff is almost purely handled by skills.

 

[epithet]

...
Reaction dependence is...dicey. Uses for a character's Reaction are already highly competitive; this is why, in 4e, all of the "basic Leader powers" (e.g. the Warlord's Inspiring Word) were Minor Actions, so you could heal in addition to whatever 'major' thing you wanted to do that turn. Since the Minor Action no longer exists as such, it might be better to come up with something that works similarly, rather than laying permanent claim to the Warlord's Reaction now and forever.
...

Wasn't talking about using the Warlord's reaction. I was thinking in terms of the Warlord using an action or a bonus action to grant an ally the ability to make an opportunity attack or move a certain distance (half dash?) using the ally's reaction on the Warlord's turn. If you are concerned that reactions are too hot a commodity, perhaps it should be an opportunity attack that is like a reaction but does not use the reaction, limited to one opportunity attack per round. This is exactly the way the optional rule for marking targets is stated in the DMG (page 271.) The opportunity attack is made with advantage and doesn't consume the attacker's reaction, but cannot be made if some effect prevents the attacker from taking reactions (e.g. shocking grasp.)

With regard to restoring real hit points and standing up fallen allies, there are a couple of ways that could be done within the framework of 5e themes. There are the "special herbal poultices" of the "spell-less ranger" that are "free" healing potions. The Warlord could have an ability such that whenever the Warlord uses a healer's kit to stabilize an ally at zero hit points, the ally automatically regains one hit point.

I would be very hesitant, though, to give the Warlord an ability to restore a lot of hit points in combat.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I would be very hesitant, though, to give the Warlord an ability to restore a lot of hit points in combat.

In general, healing in 5E is pretty low, outside of Heal, so I dont think that's really a concern. It's OK for Heal to be class niche protection, but in general, warlords should have similar healing to the other healing spells. There are lots who just flat out object to the style of mechanics the Warlord would use. Designing the class to remove healing in order meet them halfway would just water it down. Better to let them ban it, and make it for the fans who would want it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Umm, how do you get people to do what you want without the persuasion proficiency? If I use intimidate, anyone I use that on becomes hostile. Pretty quick way to get thrown overboard IMO.

Well, in the first place, there's nothing about a Fighter that doesn't let them get Persuasion. Get Persuasion. Pick (or make) a background.

And in the second place: bounded accuracy. You can make Charisma checks as much as you want. Be a Sailor and don't scrimp on your CHA. Nothing is going to have an unbeatable DC - especially not normal grunt commoner NPC's. They'd probably listen to you with an 8 CHA just because you're tough.

You don't need a big shiny badge that WotC gives you that says "Official Ship Captain Class." Just be a ship captain. Say that's what you are. There's nothing stopping you. There's no narrow specific definition of "ship captain" that the fighter fails to meet.

And, note, nothing you listed actually is a part of the fighter class - background, is something anyone could do. Yet a ranger has all sorts of terrain powers that would definitely help in navigating a ship. A wizard has a bajillion spells that would make naval travel a lot easier.

The complaint I was addressing was this idea that you were somehow unable to be a decent ship's captain with the Fighter class. You can be a fine ship's captain with the Fighter class. You can be a fine ship's captain with any class. All you need to do to be a fine ship's captain is probably get some folks to listen to you on a ship, and you can do that in 5e as written regardless of class and almost regardless of ability scores/proficiencies.

Warlords had a number of powers which assisted skills. That right there would make him a good ship's captain.

Can Fighters not take the Help action?

Never minding that with a crew, having the ability to grant additional actions, movement and bonuses to those actions would make him a very effective ship's captain.

Useful, or required? These are two different goalposts. Multiple attacks are useful, too - what with the buckling of swashes and all.

Note, proficiency in water vehicles would be a big help here. That's true. But, like everything else, a fighter can be good but not great at anything other than beating on stuff with a lumpy metal item.

If you're looking for at official class features from WotC, that's just factually incorrect (see level 7).

Every other class can do what the fighter does and does it better.

No class can fight as good as the fighter. Also, no class can range as well as the ranger or sorcer as well as the sorcerer.

You'd think with subclasses like the battle master, a fighter would be the best at commanding a small group. But, every spell caster blows the fighter straight out of the water here. Heh, pun intended.

I don't buy it. Noncombat spells don't do much without skill checks to back 'em up (as I think you are reminded every time your druid has to roll a Persuasion check).

fighters make very poor commanders and that's a problem IMO.

Do Battlemasters not tell people to attack or give people advantage or rally people with temp hp or any of that?

To be a commander outside of combat, just do it. Be a sea captain (sailor) or a knight or a noble or an officer in the army (soldier) or whatever. Charisma might be employed, or it might not - certainly a low CHA doesn't stop orc chiefs from amassing armies.

Keep in mind, I don't have any problems bringing more warlord to 5e (I've got high hopes for the Purple Dragon Knight). Where you go off the rails is when you imply that the current fighter is somehow deeply flawed. You can want new warlord hotness without presuming that the 5e fighter is broken or weak as it is.

I mean, I can whip up a vanilla 5e battlemaster and have a character who, at level 5, can help on a skill check or heal an ally without spending their action (Action Surge with the Help action or a healing potion), and then on the same turn attack an enemy, give an ally advantage to hit it, and then give an ally next to it a free attack with extra damage or move a more distant ally closer to it. It could even have lower HP and lighter armor than most other fighters (a Dex-focused build with the 8 going into Con would work nicely), doing that with a bow if it wants to be really arrogant, or with a polearm or a "dueling weapon" like a rapier if it's a lead-from-the-front type. If I wanted to pump CHA (which, as established, isn't really necessary, but lets say I'm into this pretty pretty princess), my accuracy wouldn't suffer critically against most targets (thanks, Bounded Accuracy!). I might want to bust out a net or something to get advantage myself when the target is in heavy armor. Depending on my background, I have retainers (three NPC's the RAW lets me boss around), the respect of commoners, or the ability to secure passage on a ship.

I get that I don't have a lot of at-will buffs (though my nova potential is grand, and my action economy gives me room for things like the Help action or to initiate grabs), that I don't have true healing, etc. But that character is in no way a deficient as a leader, in combat or out of it.

I don't have any issues with bringing on more warlord-esque stuff, but when you tell me that the current fighter can't do something, I get suspicious. The "leader of men" is a thing in 5e. It might not be in exactly the mechanical framework you would find most ideal, but it's there.

 

[Hussar]

I don't buy it. Noncombat spells don't do much without skill checks to back 'em up (as I think you are reminded every time your druid has to roll a Persuasion check).

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?464013-Warlording-the-fighter/page22#ixzz3hACFcs59

I think that that Guidance spell that I keep spamming makes my druid's skills and the skill checks of the party considerably more effective than anything a fighter could do.

I mean, would it hurt to allow battlemasters a maneuver that grants bonuses to skill checks?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wasn't talking about using the Warlord's reaction. I was thinking in terms of the Warlord using an action or a bonus action to grant an ally the ability to make an opportunity attack or move a certain distance (half dash?) using the ally's reaction on the Warlord's turn. If you are concerned that reactions are too hot a commodity, perhaps it should be an opportunity attack that is like a reaction but does not use the reaction, limited to one opportunity attack per round. This is exactly the way the optional rule for marking targets is stated in the DMG (page 271.) The opportunity attack is made with advantage and doesn't consume the attacker's reaction, but cannot be made if some effect prevents the attacker from taking reactions (e.g. shocking grasp.)

Yeah, that'd be a reasonable compromise: "if the target ally has not taken their reaction..." kind of thing. Would encourage the Warlord to prioritize initiative and trying to actually lead the attack, which isn't a bad thing at all. (more on this at the bottom of the post)

With regard to restoring real hit points and standing up fallen allies, there are a couple of ways that could be done within the framework of 5e themes. There are the "special herbal poultices" of the "spell-less ranger" that are "free" healing potions. The Warlord could have an ability such that whenever the Warlord uses a healer's kit to stabilize an ally at zero hit points, the ally automatically regains one hit point.

I would be very hesitant, though, to give the Warlord an ability to restore a lot of hit points in combat.

It's a sticky issue. For some Warlord fans, the absolutely adamant perspective that Warlords should never have "real" in-battle healing is, essentially, people saying they don't actually want "the Warlord" to exist in their game. [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION]'s post, while somewhat more nuanced, is essentially that: why should people who don't play Warlords, and particularly un-fans or even anti-fans of the class, get to decide what it can and can't do? But then for other fans, whether or not the Warlord can grant "real," in-battle healing is a total non-issue, they don't give a crap. Such people have explicitly weighed in as such, earlier in the thread, though I'm not going to go digging just to get a reference.

Something to consider, here, is that you have structured it as "a lot" of HP. What is "a lot"? I assume something like 4e's Healing Surge (25% of max HP) would qualify as "a lot," but would rolling one Hit Die be too much? What about a static value, but limited to a number of uses per short rest (e.g. Int or Cha mod heal, for half proficiency mod uses/short rest)? If neither of those alone is too much, would they be too much together? (Obviously if either one alone is too much then the combination would also be.)

Or is it not quite specifically the amount per use, but the total amount over the day? E.g. you don't want Warlord heals to ever overshadow the amount gained from just rolling Hit Dice, or some other such standard?

I apologize if this sounds like an interrogation. Most people acting as the "opposition" (that is, the people who don't know the Warlord or who need/want to be 'convinced' to 'accept' it or w/e) tend to be vehemently, adamantly opposed to even the thought of "real" healing from a Warlord. You, on the other hand, seem to be at least open to the possibility, simply skeptical about the execution, so I'm trying to determine how exactly you feel about the prospect of martial HP restoration.

---

Now, to actually cover that "more below" thing I wanted to touch on. Warlords, at least in 4e, made their parties substantially more mobile. The shift, as you've noted, was one form of that, but tinkering with Initiative in one way or another was also an option. Things that affect Initiative in 5e are few and far between. It could be really neat if a Warlord class feature specifically interacted with that in a meaningful way, such as being able to swap places with an ally in the order, or having (say) Int-mod points which could be added or subtracted from allies' Initiative rolls at the start of combat (that is, before any players have taken their turns).

Similarly, a high-level Warlord ability might allow the party to re-roll Initiative in the middle of combat. This could be quite powerful, since there are special features of several classes which key off the phrase "when you roll Initiative." The Warlord could then act as a way to occasionally re-take/press the momentum of a fight; if it were keyed to a short rest, it could be seen as a moment of great inspiration for the whole party, but which requires everyone being on board together, and thus can't be demanded repeatedly without a break (though, of course, I'm sure people will still dislike it...) And really, I'm not even saying these would HAVE to be the thing to do. They're just one interesting way to explore the "planning," "coordination," and "inspiration" sides of having a Warlord in the party--even if they aren't the party face, they have a command presence on the battlefield and can make a substantial difference in a fight.

There are, of course, non-combat considerations. I still think the Grim World "Battlemaster" playbook (a supplement for Dungeon World) has a bunch of really cool ideas to mine.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that that Guidance spell that I keep spamming makes my druid's skills and the skill checks of the party considerably more effective than anything a fighter could do.

I mean, would it hurt to allow battlemasters a maneuver that grants bonuses to skill checks?

Well Guidance is sorta broken. Luckily fighters get a bonus feat to pick it up.

As for maneuvers for skill checks, I'm iffy on it. Maneuvers were designed for fighters for combat use. 4 easily renewed 1d8 would be huge if there iis no combat threat or a reliable rest stop nearby. You'd have to heavily limit its usage. And probably only to skill checks with combat applications. Else you could start vomiting dice all over nobles at low levels and napping an hour to do it again on a merchant

This is why guidance is broken, too easy. I don't even think warlocks have any spammable "skill" spells which lack a drawback.