D&D 5E (2014) Warlords: Martial Healing is where it is meant to be

[MoonSong]

There really needs to be some action economy cost for the character taking the action as well as the warlord. If there isn't you get absurd scenarios with a 'party' of one puissant archer and X warlords; by the end of round 1 the archer has unleashed a waggonload of arrows (as each warlord gives the archer an action) and lain waste to the enemy army...

Yeah, pretty extreme. But nothing really limits something along the lines of "you can use your action to grant an ally a free attack against an enemy, each ally can only benefit from this ability once per round. At higher levels you can grant a free attack to two allies" (you know the same limit they put in 4e, no matter how many warlords you had, each ally could only be commanded to attack once each round).

 

[Warbringer]

Yeah, pretty extreme. But nothing really limits something along the lines of "you can use your action to grant an ally a free attack against an enemy, each ally can only benefit from this ability once per round. At higher levels you can grant a free attack to two allies" (you know the same limit they put in 4e, no matter how many warlords you had, each ally could only be commanded to attack once each round).

My concern is that granting another use of a classes best ability to fit the situation (choosing that this round the cleric turns again, or the fighter has another attack or the mage casts another spell (the latter the most powerful)) in a system that only has actions and reactions, is really quite powerful. Yes it burns resources quicker (in the case of the mage) but that makes the 5MWD more likely, so that is an issue.

At higher level, 2 for 1 is an increase in party power by simple nature of a warlord(s) presence.

I'd prefer this has a reaction cost as part of the action benefit

 

[MoonSong]

My concern is that granting another use of a classes best ability to fit the situation (choosing that this round the cleric turns again, or the fighter has another attack or the mage casts another spell (the latter the most powerful)) in a system that only has actions and reactions, is really quite powerful. Yes it burns resources quicker (in the case of the mage) but that makes the 5MWD more likely, so that is an issue.

At higher level, 2 for 1 is an increase in party power by simple nature of a warlord(s) presence.

I'd prefer this has a reaction cost as part of the action benefit

I said an attack, not the equivalent of an action, that would mean an improved chance for the rogue to do extra damage or another mook that bites the dust on the fighter's hands. I don't see anything wrong with it, after all that is what a warlord is about, the warlord makes a little contribution by himself, but helps the party to do better. Something that wouldn't be possible if the fighter lose the reaction he needs to parry or to defend others, in other words a tanking fighter would be better off without a warlord in the party.

 

[Warbringer]

I said an attack...

I was still thinking 4e "attack" parlance

Well a tanking fighter would be unaffected by a lazy warlord, but that could just be "I don't need no sissy warlord telling me I need to grin and bear the pain. I live for pain".

I'm sure the warlord can bring plenty of other benefits to the table for the tank, even in this limited scope

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm not a fan of warlords--to me this is another instance of mistaking the benefit of levels for a discrete class. But, I'm not sorry to see some inspirational healing get in there.

A warlord subclass is not going to make me fling the books across the room in anger.

 

[Warbringer]

A warlord subclass is not going to make me fling the books across the room in anger.

Nope, saving that one for the warlock ...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Nope, saving that one for the warlock ...

I don't know why warlocks generate such anger; I had one player tell me having a warlock PC in the same game as him impacted on his fun.

Although they're not the best-designed class, I get that.

 

[Warbringer]

I don't know why warlocks generate such anger; I had one player tell me having a warlock PC in the same game as him impacted on his fun..

Just being humorous knowing that they draw the same response

Personally, I'm not throwing any book hat cost $40, less so if its an ebook

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I am glad that the warlord is going to make into Type V D&D. It was just about the only thing that I liked from Type IV.

 

[Salamandyr]

I always liked the idea of the warlock...unfortunately I never liked the execution. My fave warlock so far has been the one in the 5e playtest one, so here's hoping they get it right this time.

In my B/X campaign, I made the warlock an alternative class for the cleric, since they're very similar. The cleric worships greater powers; the warlock makes deals with them.

In both cases, I changed the spellcasting mechanic to a reaction check. You had to convince the greater power to make whatever spell you wanted to happen, and you might have to power it with your own, or anothers, energy (hit points).