Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[ChrisCarlson]

Can you quote me whining to WotC?

Can you quote me saying you are the one whining to WotC?

But I thought your claim was an impossibility one - that a warlord class can't be designed.

No. I guess you are having issues reading what I actually say. But I will repeat: A warlord class such as is being demanded by certain parties in this subforum cannot be designed in a way that will maintain 5e's balance expectations and design framework. What some people are asking for it too much. I hope this is plain enough english.

If, in fact, it is that there is no market for such a class, well that's a different claim and not one I personally have any strong view on. Nor care much about.

There's been several people pointing out how poorly the various warlord offerings are doing in the DMGuild. Make of that what you will.

 

[pemerton]

It s completely off for me, martial healing/buffing whatever.

Does this mean you don't use barbarian rage, or fighter second wind, indomtiable and action surge?

 

[jodyjohnson]

But I will repeat: A warlord class such as is being demanded by certain parties in this subforum cannot be designed in a way that will maintain 5e's balance expectations and design framework. What some people are asking for it too much. I hope this is plain enough english.

Making derogatory claims against a nebulous group of "unreasonable" posters may be plain english, but it is poor communication. With the low number of posters willing to put up with the dogpiling in this subforum, you might as well name names and be specific.

 

[ZickZak]

Does this mean you don't use barbarian rage, or fighter second wind, indomtiable and action surge?

I meant in more in a way that someone heals something else, or buffs... It would be even okay for me if the fighter healed somebody else this way or use indomitable on them... I bet they could be motivated a bit once per fight. But I wouldnt wanna see cleric dressed as warlord, that is all.

 

[mellored]

What am I missing? It is still a Fighter, definitely. It has extra attacks and Action Surge and all that. In addition he grants bonuses and attacks and temp hit points and lots of Warlordy things.

Which is too much. You have full attack progression (4 attacks), and full spell slots equivalent (level 9 foresight spell).

You have a class that can do 90% damage and 80% support. Too much.


Those features are nice, but they are balanced around low cantrip damage, not high fighter damage.

 

[mellored]

Thats my problem really. Why make a class that works exactly like whatever we have, just so we could have no-magic spells.

IMO, it's more about non-daily effects then non-magical effects.

If you made a marshal feature that gave 3 people +1d4 to hit and saves for upto 1 minute, and could use it 6 times a day. Then yea, that would be pretty pointless.

If you could use your bonus action to give someone +1d4 to hit and saves for 1 round. Then you've got a different class.

But I wouldnt wanna see cleric dressed as warlord, that is all.

I don't either.

 

[Sadras]

Same reason why eldrich knights don't get full spell slots. It would be overpowered.

Depends on what kind of powers you would like to give to your Warlord. If I were swapping out combat maneuvers for warlord maneuvers, I would at least attempt to equate the two.

Oh here's a thought. Errata the fighter so that multi-attack takes a bonus action.
Then you'll be able to trade off 1 bonus attack attack, for 1 bonus buff.

No, need for that. The design space for 5e is much broader I believe than people on this forum give it credit for and there is no need to adjust the entire base class.
What I'm suggesting is the Warlord be a subclass, and this subclass has the ability to substitute warlord-y actions in place of attacks.

So at level 5 a Warlord may
* Attack Twice
* Attack once and perform a Warlord-y Action
* Perform two Warlord-y Actions

I'm my personal view, the above undercuts the OP issue, limits the Warlord class nicely and allows the freedom for Warlord fans to draw an entire swathe of Warlord-y powers which "equate" to an additional attack.
What those Warlord-y powers may be, is for you, @Tony Vargas and the rest to determine.

Like the Battle Master, the Warlord selects a few he/she is able to perform, so as to create a specific type of Warlord.

I'm not a designer, but if I have overlooked something please let me know. I do believe the above provides a very good basis to design a Warlord.

 

[mellored]

No, need for that. The design space for 5e is much broader I believe than people on this forum give it credit for and there is no need to adjust the entire base class.
What I'm suggesting is the Warlord be a subclass, and this subclass has the ability to substitute warlord-y actions in place of attacks.

So at level 5 a Warlord may
* Attack Twice
* Attack once and perform a Warlord-y Action
* Perform two Warlord-y Actions

I attempted to make a sub-class that traded attacks for maneuvers, along with trading more attacks for higher level maneuvers here.

Balance was fine, but it was too unwieldy. Maybe you'll have better luck.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

...derogatory claims...

I find it interesting how you see it that way...

..."unreasonable"...

Also your word, not mine.

With the low number of posters willing to put up with the dogpiling in this subforum, you might as well name names and be specific.

Why are you efforting so hard to incite conflict? What do you hope to gain from poking sticks? Your words are bordering on inflammatory. Do you intend to actually contribute to the conversation at some point?

 

[Bawylie]

I feel like Chris' OP has a point. And the thread title is particularly on point.

There ARE a lot of warlord-y things out there. He's absolutely right - but none of them quite quench the thirst satisfied by the 4E version.

This is likely why we get the sort of "pile it all up and then let's see if it works" attempts at reconstructing the class, only to meet with "you want it to do Everything!" critiques.

For me, a warlord doesn't have to do Everything. That is asking too much. But they still haven't come up with quite the right feel I any of the subclasses (alone).

So, yeah, Chris is right. Options are out there and maybe they satisfy you and maybe they don't. For me, no, not quite. Warlords everywhere and not a one fit for battle.