D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Thanks for the feedback, everybody. A lot of good stuff and exactly what's needed. I'm going to wait a little bit more to allow for others to give feedback, and then start collating the feedback this weekend and make changes - along with working on the unfinished stuff. I'm especially hoping for some feedback from @Tony Vargas , @Obryn , and @pemerton . Some of ENWorld's heavy-hitters have already posted above, but I'm hoping for those three also. I may not always agree with them, but they know their stuff; and I think their input is crucial.

I'm also hoping for @fuindordm . It's his thread after-all (and not saying that he isn't a heavy hitter :)). After the dedicated class I'm going to work on the Battlemaster - actually "Warlording the Fighter" - using the ideas we generated here, and then we can all do a side-by-side comparison. So, actually doing what fuindordm started in his OP.

Also, anybody else reading the thread (even if you haven't previously posted or were mentioned), please give feedback if you're so inclined. The more, the better.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

fuindordm

Adventurer
Hiya,

El Mahdi: Thanks for putting so much thought into this!
Moonsong: I haven't looked at the Noble class yet in EN5ider, but I'll be sure to check it out.

Regarding El Mahdi's suggested class powers: I kind of agree with others that a lot of them seem overcomplicated.

Command Presence: Asking for party consensus will slow the game. I'm generally not a fan of integrating Advantage/Disadvantage into class powers, but it's appropriate for the Warlord if limited somehow. That's why I suggested a fighting style or maneuver early in the thread where the Warlord could grant advantage to an ally if they were also at risk themselves (like the pack tactics monster power). If you want to also support a "lead from the back" warlord I would make it start at 1 use/short rest, and possibly increase it to 2/short rest at an otherwise dead level. But I personally prefer a pack tactics version.

Inspiring Word, Rally the Troops: I'm a big fan of martial healing in whack-a-mole combats, where the HPs clearly don't represent meat but luck, endurance, and skill. But I would just allow the target to spend a HD to heal HD + (Warlord's Cha bonus). At higher levels maybe you could let them spend 2 or 3 HD at once. Having a warlord in the party inspires you to draw on your deep reserves, letting you fight longer and harder, but you're still damn tired at the end.

Call of Restoration: I really like this one. You can try to get a PC back in the game, but the Warlord had better have a healing kit handy to stabilize them if they start bleeding out instead. :) I agree that the hearing restriction is not needed. This sounds more like emergency battlefield care: "Die on your own time, soldier, we need you now!"

Tactical Leader, Bonus Action: Messing with the action economy could be the warlord's core ability, but I think it needs to be more restricted and clearly defined. The extent of these abilities also depends on whether the warlord gets Extra Attack at L5 or L6. I would be conservative with these at first. For example, you could simply give them a power like Commander's Strike X times/short rest, adding Int bonus to the ally's damage. Then you could gradually expand the uses of the power to things like: "If the target has not used their bonus action, and an ally of the target is adjacent to their opponent, they can use a bonus action to take the Disengage or Dash action". "If the target has not used their reaction, they can use their reaction to Parry". I'm just spitballing here but I think it is easier to open up new uses of this power one at a time.
We could also make the argument that this sort of thing is redundant with Battlemaster maneuvers generally, and the Warlord would be better served by having a slightly different menu of maneuvers to simulate this kind of helping.

Action Inspiration: I personally think that 5E makes it too easy to get bonuses and advantage on skill rolls; it encourages DC inflation. So I don't like this one.

Strategic Leader: Very good once the mass combat rules stabilize. It would be fun to see PCs spontaneously organizing battles when the numbers are overwhelming, and transition seamlessly from individual combat into mass combat and back again knowing that the warlord gives them a big advantage in the mass combat setting.

That's it for the powers you suggested. There's nothing wrong with going this route. Personally, the more I think about it the more I see the warlord as a battlemaster/bard hybrid. It shouldn't be a fighter subclass, because the warlord doesn't need to go up to 3 and 4 attacks per action like the fighter. And it shouldn't be a bard subclass, because it shouldn't have spells. But a good base warlord would be like the Fighter, minus action surge, second wind, and the 3rd/4th attack at high levels, then given maneuvers and inspiration dice to make up for it. On top of that chassis, there is certainly room to add in some of the powers and abilities that El Mahdi suggested. And I would certainly give it some powers to heal allies in the form of temp HP or letting people spend their own HD in combat.

Cheers,
Ben
 


El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Moderators: I don't understand the move to House Rules/Conversions. We are attempting to do neither here. We are trying to assemble ideas - and yes, polish them to an usable state - in order to inform WotC to the feasibility and desire for an Official 5E Warlord - one that can be used with Adventurers League, and not just as a houserule or third party supplement.

Moving it from the main 5E forum limits its visibility (limiting the usefulness of the thread's purpose), and broke many of the links to/from other threads.

Not to mention, if it's now deemed a House Rule/Conversion thread, why wasn't it deemed so and moved from the very beginning two months ago? When @fuindordm stated up front: "Spinning off from another thread, what sort of tweaks to the fighter class would support the Warlord play style? The purpose of this thread is to propose and critique minor variations on the fighter that would help."

Granted, it has grown beyond just minor tweaks, but the purpose has remained the same.
 
Last edited:

aramis erak

Legend
No real notes from me, because quite frankly... while I'd be perfectly fine if a Warlord class came out in the future (since I have no problems with the class concept), I also have no problems with just taking bits and parts of the Bard, Battlemaster, and/or Cleric to create a Warlord as well. As CapnZapp says, several of the ideas you present are just slightly different rehashes of other abilities already in the game.

If I had someone who wanted to play a Warlord-type character... I'd personally just jury-rig a Bard by reducing their spellcasting pyramid to half-caster or third-caster levels and then import some Battlemaster maneuvers... making a more martial Bard than even the Valor is. And then just wipe away a lot of the Bard's "magic" fluff, as I'm perfectly happy with using spells for their mechanics, while just not calling it "magic". So no reason to create a "martial healing" variant that basically heals hit points like spells do but without calling them "spells". I personally do not see the gain. Healing is healing, restoration is restoration... call it "magic" or "mundane" however you like. No reason to reinvent the wheel.

I find myself of similar mind - I wouldn't object to a warlord, and the above is as good as any I've seen, but for what I need, it's just as well to use a Valor Bard or a Battlemaster Fighter. Or a multi-class of the two. Most of my plays are in AL....
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Something I meant to add, in my previous post, but forgot:

One of the interesting facets of the 4e Warlord was that it did not have to "lead" by pointing at an enemy and having someone else attack. That was certainly one important way of being a Warlord, but it was definitely something you intentionally 'built for' rather than a universal baseline. Most types of Warlords, including those who led more with their brains or perception than their charms, actually did make physical attacks semi-regularly. Often, these attacks are meant to be a "set 'em up, knock 'em down" kind of thing--the Warlord literally leading the attack against a particular opponent and thus amplifying their allies' attacks against it. You might be planning to handle this under the auspices of specific maneuvers or the like, but I think it might be more interesting, and more reflective of the "choose a stat to choose how you lead" concept that I've advocated, to make a baseline choice there.

Much like how the Warlock has a sort of "split subclass," in that it has both the Patron and the Pact, it might be worthwhile to have a two-part choice for the Warlord as well. For example, you could have a "School of Command" choice (Skirmishing fights on the front lines; Bolstering heals; Planning organizes and coordinates), and then a "Leadership Style" choice (Bravura leads by force of personality and daring ploys; Tactical leads by peerless strategy and forethought; Resourceful leads by adaptation, observation, and flexibility). This not only helps meet the desire for a Warlord that "never heals," since some people want that, but also emphasizes the great flexibility of the class--Warlords can lead in a lot of different ways, that all contribute in some meaningful way or other.

In fact, having presented it that way...perhaps people have been too quick to emphasize the Battlemaster as a model for the Warlord, and have overlooked how useful the Warlock could be as an inspiration for mechanics and structures. Short rest spells, vs. short rest maneuvers. Invocations that can vary in application and significance (some at-will, some short rest, some long rest) vs. tactical and strategic options of varying application. The classes have very different focuses, but at least as a rough analogy, I feel like a lot could be learned from its design.
 

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I'm going to try this one last time before the weekend gets here. I'm going to collate all the feedback and put it together this weekend, so...

...summoning [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] , [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] , and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for any feedback you care to give.

Tony hasn't posted since Tuesday so I don't know if he'd seen the ideas I posted on Monday.

Obryn hasn't posted since July, so I'm not holding out much hope there.

Pemerton has been posting all week, so if he doesn't respond to this I'll leave him alone from this point on.


Here's hoping the third time is a charm...
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Work's crazy-busy. I only glanced at what you posted, so can't comment on quality. Just in terms of quantity, obviously, there'd have to be a lot more to a finished class (the Warlord rivaled other leader classes in versatility/impact, doing so w/o leveraging the spell list like a Cleric or Bard would mean a lot of sheer column-inches devoted to filling out class abilities).

Good luck with your "House Rule/Conversion" of the warlord. If you hadn't done the shout-outs, I'd've assumed this thread had just gone dormant, again.
 


El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Work's crazy-busy. I only glanced at what you posted, so can't comment on quality. Just in terms of quantity, obviously, there'd have to be a lot more to a finished class (the Warlord rivaled other leader classes in versatility/impact, doing so w/o leveraging the spell list like a Cleric or Bard would mean a lot of sheer column-inches devoted to filling out class abilities).

Good luck with your "House Rule/Conversion" of the warlord. If you hadn't done the shout-outs, I'd've assumed this thread had just gone dormant, again.

That's Cool. Real life wins every time. Check it out when you can or want.:)
 

Remove ads

Top