What makes a Warlord differ from a Bard?

[mellored]

That said, I have elsewhere said very similar things. The fundamental mechanical effects of invocations--passive effects that meaningfully tweak the character's basic abilities and can even open entirely new avenues of play--seems appropriate to Warlord "training" that is always effective.

I agree.

An "invocation" that let's you use commander's strike at-will.
Another to grant movement.
Another to give everyone a passive +int to their intuitive checks.
Another that prevent's enemies you attack from taking an OA.
Another that works with skills.
Another let's you heal once per short rest.
ect..

Then you pick a 8 or so as you level.

It also fit's the 4e feel of having a big list of powers to choose from, and you get a few.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And of course a Warlord built using the fundamental mechanical structure of the Warlock (Invocations, bipartite subclass distinction, short-rest resources) shouldn't necessarily get any particular ability the Warlock got. That would be as ridiculous as assuming that a new spell-slot-based class would get access to, say, Druid- or Cleric-specific spells.

Considering that there's yet to be a 5e spell-slot-based class with an entirely unique spell list, that's not as ridiculous as it should be.

 

[Xeviat]

I came into this subforum to make almost this very same post. Back in 4E, I was one of those who was constantly arguing that the Ranger should have been a Primal class and that it lost a lot of it's identity by becoming a martial class. I would argue that the Ranger had to be magical in a D&D world, because magic is how a lot of those mysterious little knacks of woodsmen are translated into the D&D world. I've never seen anyone demand a spell-less Paladin, even though crusaders in the real world didn't have magic.

Somehow, I never noticed that the same logic could be applied to the Bard and the Warlord. In a non-magical setting, I can very much see the need for a Warlord, but I'd also want to see a spell-less Ranger in such a setting.

What can a Warlord do that a Valor Bard with some new spells couldn't do? A cantrip could be made to grant attacks or movement to allies. I sat down and made a level 20 bard, choosing spells that could be justified as not overtly magical, and it can easily be done. You get inspiration for allies, you get healing for allies, you get some control on enemies, and you get to swing a weapon around while you do it. A bit of intelligence support would be nice, but that could be done with a new Bard archetype for a "lead from the rear" type if Lore Bard isn't enough for you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Back in 4E, I was one of those who was constantly arguing that the Ranger should have been a Primal class and that it lost a lot of it's identity by becoming a martial class.

That's another topic. The 3.5 Scout or 4e Ranger could handle a much broader range of concepts for not being automatically tied to spellcasting or the primal source. 'Handle broader range of concepts' and 'have a clear class identity' are both desirable, yet also antithetical.

I would argue that the Ranger had to be magical in a D&D world, because magic is how a lot of those mysterious little knacks of woodsmen are translated into the D&D world.

I think that's mostly for want of any mechanics to cover them in the early versions of the game. The Ranger got some spells, much like the 'elf' did, to cover things that the game just didn't have other mechanisms for. In 5e, since the design investment's already been made in spells, it's always easier to just throw a few 'works as such-and-such-spell' notations at a potential class ability than to design a new, but similar mechanic - even though, ironically, part of the point of 5e was to get away from re-cycling mechanics or presentation that way.

Somehow, I never noticed that the same logic could be applied to the Bard and the Warlord. In a non-magical setting, I can very much see the need for a Warlord, but I'd also want to see a spell-less Ranger in such a setting.

It's an interesting point. If D&D simply had no room for non-magical character concepts, it'd be entirely valid. Every class does use some sort of magic in 5e, even the fighter (EK) literally casts spells, so there's an undeniable emphasis on magic.

But, there are also a few sub-classes that do not use magic, and more have been added. So it doesn't seem to be 5e's intent to completely exclude fans of martial concepts from the game.

Perhaps the case could be made that the Warlord, like the Fighter or Barbarian, would need at least one spell-casting or magic-using sub-class? An Arcane-Commander or Warmage or something?

 

[mellored]

I'M it's less about "magic" and more about daily slots.

I would like more classes like warlocks. Or monks.

 

[Xeviat]

It's an interesting point. If D&D simply had no room for non-magical character concepts, it'd be entirely valid. Every class does use some sort of magic in 5e, even the fighter (EK) literally casts spells, so there's an undeniable emphasis on magic.

But, there are also a few sub-classes that do not use magic, and more have been added. So it doesn't seem to be 5e's intent to completely exclude fans of martial concepts from the game.

Perhaps the case could be made that the Warlord, like the Fighter or Barbarian, would need at least one spell-casting or magic-using sub-class? An Arcane-Commander or Warmage or something?

I don't think D&D has no room for nonmagical concepts, but I think certain concepts are inherently magical. Heck, Rage is functionally a magical effect, with its tremendous ability to shrug off damage. Really, only 2 Fighter and 2 Rogue archetypes are entirely non-magical.

My thought isn't just that the concept should be magical, by existing precidence, but that it doesn't do anything that the bard doesn't already do or couldn't already do with some new spells.

I'M it's less about "magic" and more about daily slots.

I would like more classes like warlocks. Or monks.

This is a very valid concern. Then again, I have it about the whole of 5E; I find a mixture of encounter and daily resources provides better balance across long and short days.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think D&D has no room for nonmagical concepts, but I think certain concepts are inherently magical.

There's nothing inherently magical about the Warlord, though, indeed, like the fighter, it's quite to opposite. Nor is the concept necessarily magical for some of the classes that do have all-spellcasting sub-classes - if only because some of them, like the Bard, draw on RL archetypes that obviously weren't actually magical, what with magic not being real.

Heck, Rage is functionally a magical effect, with its tremendous ability to shrug off damage. Really, only 2 Fighter and 2 Rogue archetypes are entirely non-magical.

The Barbarian description gives both a non-magical and magical (Totem) rationale for rage, so one of the Barbarian sub-classes is at least plausibly non-magical.

'Functionally magical' is an interesting way of putting it. Magic isn't really about function, but about the origin or nature of an ability. Fireballs aren't magical because of their function (doing fire damage to a lot of enemies at once) - a vat of burning oil dumped from atop a castle wall could fulfill much the same function.

My thought isn't just that the concept should be magical, by existing precedence

Good, because the existing precedent of the Warlord is non-magical.

, but that it doesn't do anything that the bard doesn't already do or couldn't already do with some new spells.

There is nothing a caster couldn't do with some new spells, so that's in the realm of meaningless tautologies.

This is a very valid concern. Then again, I have it about the whole of 5E; I find a mixture of encounter and daily resources provides better balance across long and short days.

5e's theoretical balance of mostly-daily-resource classes with few-resources or mostly-short-rest-recharge classes is pretty fragile. But, in practice, 5e balance doesn't rest on class mechanics, but is in the realm of the DM. FWIW.

 

[Arnwolf]

In a dark ages, medieval setting, renaissance setting where nobles have to be masters with a sword because they have to duel to protect their honor I think very much a Warlord needs to be a Fighter Archetype. In settings where they don't have to do that, not so much.

 

[pemerton]

In a dark ages, medieval setting, renaissance setting where nobles have to be masters with a sword because they have to duel to protect their honor I think very much a Warlord needs to be a Fighter Archetype.

This seems to entail that no cleric, bard, MU etc is a noble. But I'm not sure whether you intended that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In a dark ages, medieval setting, renaissance setting where nobles have to be masters with a sword because they have to duel to protect their honor I think very much a Warlord needs to be a Fighter Archetype. In settings where they don't have to do that, not so much.

Noble is a Background that characters of any class can take in 5e. So, I guess a setting that tightly coupled martial skill to nobility would need some specific house rules to address that.