D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We started here with an innocent thread, asking, "Hey, how can I do this with the fighter class?"

Some variation ("Well, you can do it with a cleric, or a bard.") seems reasonable. But, I don't see where *anyone* got the idea that it would be okay to come into such a thread and argue, "Well, nobody liked this, so you shouldn't do it at all!" Or, "It doesn't have much history, so you shouldn't do it!" Or, "Well, you think this is more important than certain other core concepts, so you shouldn't do it."

How about you let people who want to do a thing do that thing! They are consenting people, in their own games. What they do at their own tables is not your problem. If you don't like what they are trying to do, nobody is making you go along, or even making you take part in the thread. Go find somewhere you can be a positive part of a discussion, instead of a negative one. This is a hobby that is in large part about creativity. Please allow others the space to create.

Thank you.

 

[fuindordm]

OK, here's another question:

Assume that the warlord is a full class, with a few major features such as inspiration, maneuvers, extra attack, and mechanics to let allies spend HD during a combat.

Is this broad enough to have at least two subclasses?

What would those subclasses be?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, here's another question:

Assume that the warlord is a full class, with a few major features such as inspiration, maneuvers, extra attack, and mechanics to let allies spend HD during a combat.

Is this broad enough to have at least two subclasses?

What would those subclasses be?

I think we look at the 4e subtypes inspirational and tactics are from 4e phb and then the bravado and the one that mixed hit miss effects

So we have 4 or 5 to start from...

 

[MoonSong]

OK, here's another question:

Assume that the warlord is a full class, with a few major features such as inspiration, maneuvers, extra attack, and mechanics to let allies spend HD during a combat.

Is this broad enough to have at least two subclasses?

What would those subclasses be?

Won't say too much details, but I found basically three, the lazy one, the lead from the battlefront, and the lead with strategy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This entire thread is how the Battlemaster falls short. Nod or not, it's a poor substitute.

As for the rest, it's just a matter of finding the right balance and method. You can't preemptively claim it's broken.

It's about how the BM falls short for 4e expectations. You can't compare 4e to 5e. We saw all this in the other thread I linked to earlier. What people wanted was basically a class that

* fought as effective as a fighter
* had all the maneuvers and more of a BM
* had the healing and protec ability of a cleric

So when you've got what comes down to all the stuff two or three subclasses have in one class, you don't have to do the math to know it's broken. You've got to give up something. It would be like saying I want a fighter class that does everything the BM does AND what the assassin sublcass for the rogue does, but without needing to multiclass. So if you don't to give any of that up and want a class exactly like the 4e warlord? Stick with 4e.

The bottom line is that Mearls never promised they would put the warlord in 5e. Speaking of links GMfPG, do you have one where he says that? They did say the would pull inspiration from every edition, and they did it. Just because they didn't do it close enough to your preferences doesn't mean they didn't do it. They didn't put in Save or Die, so does that mean I can say they ignored all us AD&D players, and they didn't pull anything from 1e? Of course it doesn't.

 

[Obryn]

* fought as effective as a fighter
* had all the maneuvers and more of a BM
* had the healing and protec ability of a Cleric... . So if you don't to give any of that up and want a class exactly like the 4e warlord? Stick with 4e.

The bottom line is that Mearls never promised they would put the warlord in 5e. Speaking of links GMfPG, do you have one where he says that? They did say the would pull inspiration from every edition, and they did it. Just because they didn't do it close enough to your preferences doesn't mean they didn't do it. They didn't put in Save or Die, so does that mean I can say they ignored all us AD&D players, and they didn't pull anything from 1e? Of course it doesn't.

Uh. What?

It should not be as good at fighting as the fighter. That's the entire discussion. Read the earlier parts of the thread. The fighter chassis has too much offensive ability baked in for that to end up balanced whatsoever. As good as a war cleric? Sure. Fighter? No. That's not a warlord's job.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's about how the BM falls short for 4e expectations. You can't compare 4e to 5e. We saw all this in the other thread I linked to earlier.

that is a strawman at best

* fought as effective as a fighter

not needed

* had all the maneuvers and more of a BM

not needed

* had the healing and protec ability of a cleric

is one way to go with it...

So when you've got what comes down to all the stuff two or three subclasses have in one class, you don't have to do the math to know it's broken. You've got to give up something. It would be like saying I want a fighter class that does everything the BM does AND what the assassin sublcass for the rogue does, but without needing to multiclass. So if you don't to give any of that up and want a class exactly like the 4e warlord? Stick with 4e.

great your answer to "I want something that was in a prev edition updated to this edition" is "No go play that edition"... how is that helpful in anyway? all you are doing is shutting down conversations. Try helping us come up with a BALANCED 5e style warlord...

The bottom line is that Mearls never promised they would put the warlord in 5e.

he did say everyclass from every phb1... and some got moved to sub classes (looking at you assassin) but there isn't a subclass warlord.... there is a battlemaster fighter that if you multi with war college bard you can get close...

Speaking of links GMfPG, do you have one where he says that?

no I don't are you claiming he didn't say that?


edit:

Mearls: So there are some classes that, you will be able to play a character of that type and not necessarily have the character class name on your character sheet. One of the things we said back in the day was "We want you to be able to play all the -- if it's appeared in a Player's Handbook, it's going to appear in this Player's Handbook."

here is mike admitting him saying it... and that it fell short...
http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3669306

They did say the would pull inspiration from every edition, and they did it. Just because they didn't do it close enough to your preferences doesn't mean they didn't do it. They didn't put in Save or Die, so does that mean I can say they ignored all us AD&D players, and they didn't pull anything from 1e? Of course it doesn't.

here goes the strawman again, I'm not asking to reprint 4e warlord, I want a warlord in 5e style with 5e subclasses... heck I would even except a warlord subclass for fighter, but battlemaster ain't it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I like the idea of giving them a bonus action thing like rogue... but can be used to help or first aid only (later a sub class will let them use it to grant a move as well)

I think mixing the inspiration dice from bard with some basic maneuver that refresh on a short rest is cool too.

d8's for hp are good, I think the main class not giving heavy armor is ok too.

fighting style and second attack are good too (but not a 3rd or 4th)... maybe even only 1 sub class get the second attack.

Look at mutants and masterminds have a feat 'master plan' maybe work that around as a class feature...

 

[Sacrosanct]

OK, I think I'm done. For one, you clearly don't know what 'strawman' means, because you keep using it in a way that doesn't make sense. Secondly, you seem to assume that 4e is the only edition out there by your interpretation of Mearls' comment. And thirdly, I find your sig to be pretty darn ironic considering how you are always complaining about 5e.

And no, it's not shutting down conversation to tell someone who keep saying, "Man, X in edition Y is the best! This version sucks. It needs to be like in edition X" to stick with the edition where they clearly had the most fun playing. I didn't go into 4e threads when it came out and bitched non stop about how AD&D did it better, and even if I did, I wouldn't accuse someone of trying to shut me up if they told me to stick with AD&D since I clearly don't like 4e.

 

[Ashrym]

I've thought for a long while that a Rogue subclass was the best way to do the so called "lazylord" (I'd probably call it the Mastermind). It would be especially nice if it provided a way to get advantage through an Investigation roll.

Lore bard works very well for the lazylord style.