Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[ChrisCarlson]

No, i can't. Not the one i want.

I'm sure there are players out there who want all sorts of odd things not provided in, or able to be provided in, 5e. Not sure why that should be actionable.

I accept that the battlemaster, and PDK, are sub-classes in the spirit of the marshal and warlord.

Just like every single one of the other classes and subclasses in 5e. They are all likewise in the spirit of their former iterations.

Accept that they are still mostly fighters.

Whatever that even means. "Fighter" covers a crapton of ground. Including what a warlord is/should be.

 

[mellored]

"Fighter" covers a crapton of ground. Including what a warlord is/should be.

We're talking about the 5e fighter. Stay on subject.

And the 5e fighter is not a support class. It's a DPR and tank class.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

We're talking about the 5e fighter. Stay on subject.

Interesting request considering how much you go back to the 4e (or 3.5) well to discuss, and justify, your warlord.

And the 5e fighter is not a support class. It's a DPR and tank class.

Tell that to the battlemaster and PDK. They disagree with you. As do I. As does 5e and its devs.

 

[Jester David]

It's not that the warlord couldn't be a sub-class. It just can't be a sub-class of the current 5e fighter.

Illusionist fit into a wizard, because spells are modular. You can readily swap an evoker feature for an illusionione feature. i.e. you lose burning hands, and gain silent image. The current 5e fighter can't lose multi-attack to gain inspiring word. I did attempt a warlord sub-class that swapped multi-attack for maneuvers, but it was very clunky, and you still had multi-attack.

The warlord could, for instance, have easily been a part of the playtest fighter (superiority dice and maneuvers). Just by making warlord maneuvers.

I'm not sure why maneuvers are necessary. The 4e warlord made lots of choices each level and round, but so did every 4e class. That's not a design of the class but of the edition.
It's not necessary for the concept.
The point should be to design a class that fulfills the story and narrative of the class while doing what you would expect that archetype to do. The character at the table should do what one would picture a literary or cinematic version character doing. When possible, feeling somewhat similar in play is nice. Feeling similar when leveling up is not.

Similarly, the marshal, which was the 3e version of the warlord (in flavour if not mechanics), didn't choose many maneuvers, instead picked auras from a list, which would work nicely as a subclass feature. And is just as valid and historic a design as being a princess warlord.

 

[mellored]

I'm not sure why maneuvers are necessary.

Because maneuvers would.... (IMO).

fulfill the story and narrative of the class while doing what you would expect that archetype to do.

Tripping someone to give the rogue advantage, distract an enemy so an ally can move without provoking, shouting a word of warning, slam your shield into a dragons mouth right before he breaths fire to reduce it's impact, ect...

It should be different then the passive buffs like bless, haste, or paladin's aura. We have enough classes that do that.

That said, i'm certainly open to ideas.

Similarly, the marshal, which was the 3e version of the warlord (in flavour if not mechanics), didn't choose many maneuvers, instead picked auras from a list, which would work nicely as a subclass feature. And is just as valid and historic a design as being a princess warlord.

To me, auras feel more like a psionic ability then martial abilities.

Though i do hope to see a support mystic.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Tripping someone to give the rogue advantage,

Anyone can already Shove. PHB page 195.

distract an enemy so an ally can move without provoking,

Anyone can already Help. PHB page 192.

shouting a word of warning,

Roleplaying. Or is this supposed to "do something" in particular?

slam your shield into a dragons mouth right before he breaths fire to reduce it's impact,

That's awfully specific. Do you anticipate this is something a warlord feature should spell out and administer to? And if so, do you really expect a warlord to waste one of their limited ability choices on being able to do this? As opposed to something more generally useful or comes up more than once in a great while?

ect...

And here's the really telling part. This is where your desire for a kitchen-sinker steps in and rears its ugly head again. What shouldn't a warlord be able to do? The list is virtually endless. AmIright?

 

[jayoungr]

To me, auras feel more like a psionic ability then martial abilities.

What's the mechanical difference between an aura and "Your very presence allows X to happen"? Because the latter is a core part of the warlord concept, or at least of a warlord concept.

 

[mellored]

AmIright?

No.

You're still not right.

 

[mellored]

What's the mechanical difference between an aura and "Your very presence allows X to happen"? Because the latter is a core part of the warlord concept, or at least of a warlord concept.

Can't say i've ever played, or seen play, a warlord who allowed things to happen simply because of their presences.

Even the marshal's aura was flavor as you doing things. The DR1/- aura was because you continually kept a sharp eye out for attacks, and advised, encouraged, cajoled, on every attack.

Having people gain power from your presence seems more like a paladin thing.
Or psion's mind influence.
Maybe bard, though only when he's actively singing.


Not to discourage anyone from playing a warlord that way if they want.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No.

You're still not right.

That's not what "amIright" is for. But okay. You are still no authority on the matter.