D&D 5E What is a Warlord [No, really, I don't know.]

[Miladoon]

I will admit to devil's advocate. But still, all we are doing is agreeing to different levels of acceptability. It won't bother me if WoTC puts out a dedicated marital support class. As Andor and I predict, this class will fit into the 'Ranger Prediction' simply because it will fail to please warlord fans, because of different levels of acceptability.

I do cringe at the idea that the warlord will be so overwhelmingly needed in the party that it will be absurd to adventure without one. Baseless fear? Perhaps. But lets move to this new thread and discuss.

Miladoon.

 

[Aldarc]

I will admit to devil's advocate. But still, all we are doing is agreeing to different levels of acceptability. It won't bother me if WoTC puts out a dedicated marital support class. As Andor and I predict, this class will fit into the 'Ranger Prediction' simply because it will fail to please warlord fans, because of different levels of acceptability.

I do cringe at the idea that the warlord will be so overwhelmingly needed in the party that it will be absurd to adventure without one. Baseless fear? Perhaps. But lets move to this new thread and discuss.

Miladoon.

You mean like how a cleric, bard, or other healing class are already commonly viewed?

 

[Miladoon]

Yeah, but I am heading over to that new thread, because...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes.

Martial support. With bards and clerics being examples of magical support.

And, it worth noting that they do a lot more than just support, as well.

Stock answer: The same reason why an eldrich knight not enough of a wizard.
You can't fit a full class into a sub-class.

Not buying that.

You can make an eldritch Knight subclass of wizard.

You're not understanding it. Want to play a Wizard? Here, have an eldritch knight, it's just as good as a wizard cause it can cast some of the same spells! To make it a solid analogy to a Battlemaster with delusions of being a Warlod - you EK-as-Wizard-substitute can only ever learn 1st-level spells, and only 4 of them are actually on the wizard list.

And, while it's not the point, how would you make an EK as a wizard sub-class? Sub-classes don't remove class features, the Wizard's spellcasting doesn't leave much room for EK features. WotST, maybe, though it'd be much more appropriate as a PrC.

I do cringe at the idea that the warlord will be so overwhelmingly needed in the party that it will be absurd to adventure without one. Baseless fear?

Yes.

You mean like how a cleric, bard, or other healing class are already commonly viewed?

That would make it a viable alternative to those high-magic caster classes, yes.

 

[Hussar]

You are 100% right. I don't know what I was envisioning while typing that. In my head I was thinking about Shield Master, which does very much depend on initiative order.



What's this "you folks"? You don't allow rogues to get a second Sneak Attack when they get to use a Reaction? If so I'm pretty sure you're not playing by RAW. But interested to hear an alternative interpretation.



Why broken? Sure, it's a ton of damage and would be a fun setup, but that doesn't "break" the game. You'd have to have one or more players interested in playing the role of "buffing the rogue".

No, I wouldn't allow sneak attack on a reaction. A reaction is not a "turn". I rule that rogues get their sneak attack on their turn, just like every other class gets their bonus damage on their turn. But, again, that's not the point. You claimed that a rogue with several warlords granting him actions would be broken. But, Battlemasters already do that right now. A rogue with three battlmasters could get 4 sneak attacks per round. If that's not broken or a problem, why would it be a problem for a rogue with three warlords granting him actions?

So this hypothetical warlord action granting ability is a limited resource as well? Whew. You had me worried for a second there...

By and large, yup, I'd see that as a limited resource. Perhaps not as limited as a Battlemaster - spending Superiority dice and losing an attack to grant someone an attack is pretty limited. An 8th level battle master could, at best, grant 5 attacks per short rest. I presume 10 rounds of combat between rests as a baseline (2-3 combats seems about right), so, at best, the BM is granting an extra attack every other round. And that's the limit of what he could do. He couldn't also grant bonus movement or heal. That's not enough to make a warlord. If I could grant a bonus attack every other round AND a bonus movement every other round AND grant some healing (in whatever form) that would be a warlord.

It's not enough to be a warlord if you're only actually a warlord half the time and the other half, you are a poor man's fighter (since you blew all your Sup Dice on granting actions, you can't do anything else - you're not even as good of a fighter as the Champion at that point).

For it to be an at will thing, you'd have to spend an Action - as in no attacks for you. That would likely balance out fairly well.

Then again, the simplest solution to things like Smite and Sneak Attack is for granted actions to occur on allies turns. So, I give up my action on my turn and on your turn, you gain some sort of action - bonus single attack, bonus movement, something like that. No different than how buffing magic works.

 

[MoonSong]

No, I wouldn't allow sneak attack on a reaction. A reaction is not a "turn". I rule that rogues get their sneak attack on their turn, just like every other class gets their bonus damage on their turn. But, again, that's not the point. You claimed that a rogue with several warlords granting him actions would be broken. But, Battlemasters already do that right now. A rogue with three battlmasters could get 4 sneak attacks per round. If that's not broken or a problem, why would it be a problem for a rogue with three warlords granting him actions?



By and large, yup, I'd see that as a limited resource. Perhaps not as limited as a Battlemaster - spending Superiority dice and losing an attack to grant someone an attack is pretty limited. An 8th level battle master could, at best, grant 5 attacks per short rest. I presume 10 rounds of combat between rests as a baseline (2-3 combats seems about right), so, at best, the BM is granting an extra attack every other round. And that's the limit of what he could do. He couldn't also grant bonus movement or heal. That's not enough to make a warlord. If I could grant a bonus attack every other round AND a bonus movement every other round AND grant some healing (in whatever form) that would be a warlord.

It's not enough to be a warlord if you're only actually a warlord half the time and the other half, you are a poor man's fighter (since you blew all your Sup Dice on granting actions, you can't do anything else - you're not even as good of a fighter as the Champion at that point).

For it to be an at will thing, you'd have to spend an Action - as in no attacks for you. That would likely balance out fairly well.

Then again, the simplest solution to things like Smite and Sneak Attack is for granted actions to occur on allies turns. So, I give up my action on my turn and on your turn, you gain some sort of action - bonus single attack, bonus movement, something like that. No different than how buffing magic works.

A rogue with 4 Battlemasters in the party can still only attack once out of turn. Battlemasters attacks cost a reaction, and you only get one reaction between your turns. At most we are talking about one extra sneak attack,(because it is not a guarantied thing) and it would be done at the cost of the warlord's own attacks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A rogue with 4 Battlemasters in the party can still only attack once out of turn. Battlemasters attacks cost a reaction, and you only get one reaction between your turns. At most we are talking about one extra sneak attack,(because it is not a guarantied thing) and it would be done at the cost of the warlord's own attacks.

True. No between-turn free actions in 5e, are there? So you can't model the voluntary nature of a granted attack in a neat mechanical way, without also neatly limiting how often it can be granted.

 

[mellored]

True. No between-turn free actions in 5e, are there? So you can't model the voluntary nature of a granted attack in a neat mechanical way, without also neatly limiting how often it can be granted.

Granted attacks where always voluntary.

But it's still a good thing to restrict the actions. There was more then 1 infinite loop because of free actions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Granted attacks where always voluntary.

This is just trivia, but the original Commander's Strike was errata'd in part because it's RAW phrasing made it involuntary.

But it's still a good thing to restrict the actions. There was more then 1 infinite loop because of free actions.

Until they were finally errata'd 'updated,' yes. Good to learn from past mistakes.

Limitations can be as important to an ability and the realization of a class or character concept as the positive utility of the ability.

 

[Hussar]

A rogue with 4 Battlemasters in the party can still only attack once out of turn. Battlemasters attacks cost a reaction, and you only get one reaction between your turns. At most we are talking about one extra sneak attack,(because it is not a guarantied thing) and it would be done at the cost of the warlord's own attacks.

That's right too. Good point. I forgot that. Sigh. Still learning the game.

But, then again, that's a pretty easy way to limit our potential warlord no?