D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[mellored]

So essentially at 5th level a sorcerer or wizard or bard can already allow another character to do an off turn reaction attack about every round. The battlemaster can do it about half the rounds of a typical adventuring day at that level.

As much as I dislike that they have done that, there are enough sources to justify a new warlord class getting something similar.

Come to think of it haste does the attack or disengage etc. and extra movement and extra ac all. That spell does almost everything we want our warlord to be able to do!

Yes, but you can only do it for 2 combats at level 5.

You can have it "at-will haste" by 11 though. Plus firebolt, shield spells, and whatever else you get (twin, inspiration, extra slots and rituals).

And at level 17, you have foresight.

So maybe grant an attack 3 times per day at level 1. 3 times per short rest at level 5. At-will at level 11. And with advantage at level 17.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think there are (roughly) the following types of Warlord fans-

1. People who want a more interesting martial character ... the people who look at the Battlemaster and go, "Eh, what else do you got?"

2. People who played the Warlord in 4e.

3. People who played 4e.

If I'm limited to those 3 then, I guess a combination of 1 and 2, but really I like having the option to run a low/less magic campaign and still have the dynamics of combat hit point recovery. Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, and a 'Warlord' to cover the missing support and healing since the campaign target is less magic - a fully martial campaign.

Plus the team aspect (rider and steed, boy and his dog, master blaster a la Mad Max, etc). Another trope owned by the magic casters - ranger beastmaster, necromancer, enchanter, summoner, paladin and steed, and the UA artificer and construct.

 

[raleel]

Warlords in 4e were not overpowered. They simply weren't. So, the presumption that warlords are coming from any sort of power gaming position is patently false.

In some parties, warlords were exceptionally potent force multipliers. In my own experience, I had a runepriest and a rogue and a barbarian in the party for a bit. The synergy between the runepriest and the warlord was really quite outstanding and the party felt like it was operating more like a 6 or 7 person party rather than a 5 person one.

In other parties, warlords were less of an augment, but still held their own just fine.

Warlords simply provided a very different play experience that some people really enjoyed. Considering this thread is talking about adding stuff to the game that is distinct from what is already in the game, I'd say that warlords should get a pretty open welcome.

Certainly one I enjoy. It offers a very deeply integrated team experience. For people who like to play that kind of character, but perhaps are less enthusiastic about playing a cleric due to past heal-bot issues, it was very much a watershed moment.

 

[raleel]

The battlemaster can do it about half the rounds of a typical adventuring day at that level.

Does anyone else think Commander's Strike is exceptionally expensive? I feel like it is the iconic example of how 5e had a mission of controlling the action economy. Spend an attack, bonus action, a superiority die, and their reaction to give them an attack with superiority die extra damage is a lot of resource expenditure!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd look to the AIME's Warden to poach ''martial support'' features. Its more or less just a spell-less bard, but if you add Extra attack to the class and the equivalent of BM's commander's strike costing a Inspiration dice, you could have a functional warlord.

Ex: At level 7, as a bonus action, you can allow an ally with an Inspiration dice within 30'' to spend the Inspiration to make a single attack as a reaction. The ally add the Inspiration dice to the damage dealt.

 

[FrogReaver]

Warlord's were OP in 4e. The weren't obviously OP as in being able to sit down and list one thing they just blew everyone else out of the water at. It was the combination of things they could do that was so powerful.

1. They could heal almost as good as a pacifist cleric.
(They had feats and utility powers that were very impressive when it came to healing).

2. Once they had their encounter powers set up they could cause almost as much damage as a striker over the first 1-2 turns of combat.
(In 4e number of attacks was what put you atop the DPR and Nova charts. 4e Warlords enabled about as many attacks as some of the better strikers could in the first turn)

3. They almost ensured the party went first.
(Huge Bonus to initiative for the party)

4. They got to position allies at the start of the fight so they could pwn the enemies.
(You do 0 damage if you are out of range and it's almost always better to focus fire. Warlord's helped make sure both happened with precombat party movement)

Yes. 4e Warlords were OP.

The other issue I have here is the actual theory crafting that goes on.

Let's look at the example of the wizard/sorcerer casting two fireballs. Ok, that's pretty powerful. However, there are two issues.

1. Anyone can already do this simply by taking a couple of levels of fighter - Action Surge allows two full spells in a turn per short rest. Since we haven't seen huge amounts of complaints about this, I would assume it's a rather moot issue.

2. Even if two fireballs go off, so what? Fireball is doing about 30 points of damage, half on a save. In the example, it was two groups of enemies getting blasted. If your encounter for your 5th/6th level party can be ended by each opponent taking 30 points of damage, how difficult did you actually expect this encounter to be? We're talking CR 1/4-1/2 opponents here against a 5th or 6th level party. Yes, with bounded accuracy they could deal some damage, but, by and large, this was going to be a pretty light encounter anyway. Is it really such a big deal that it ends on round 1 instead of round 2?

People in this thread have admitted to not playing 4e and having virtually no direct experience with seeing a warlord in play, yet they are criticizing the designs as being over powered or whatever. I'm sorry, but, if you've never seen it in play, and have only tangential knowledge of what's being talked about, why do you think your opinion should carry any water? Warlords in 4e were not overpowered. They simply weren't. So, the presumption that warlords are coming from any sort of power gaming position is patently false.

Warlords simply provided a very different play experience that some people really enjoyed. Considering this thread is talking about adding stuff to the game that is distinct from what is already in the game, I'd say that warlords should get a pretty open welcome.

 

[FrogReaver]

Does anyone else think Commander's Strike is exceptionally expensive? I feel like it is the iconic example of how 5e had a mission of controlling the action economy. Spend an attack, bonus action, a superiority die, and their reaction to give them an attack with superiority die extra damage is a lot of resource expenditure!

Using it for almost any character except the rogue yes!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord's were OP in 4e.

Sorry, no. They were quite competitive leaders, but not OP. Sure, there was synergy, there, but synergy exists on both sides of the combo.

Attack-granting, for instance, is powerful if you have someone who does a lot of damage with the right kind of attack. So is just having a second guy who can hit that hard all by himself.

 

[raleel]

Sorry, no. They were quite competitive leaders, but not OP. Sure, there was synergy, there, but synergy exists on both sides of the combo.

Attack-granting, for instance, is powerful if you have someone who does a lot of damage with the right kind of attack. So is just having a second guy who can hit that hard all by himself.

As much as I agree with you, it is important to remember, that is in the 4e context. Attacks were balanced pretty rigorously by comparison.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As much as I agree with you, it is important to remember, that is in the 4e context. Attacks were balanced pretty rigorously by comparison.

Balance is not the consideration in 5e that it was in 4e. Sure, classes are already imbalanced, and different class combos might highlight that more than others.

But, whether you have a Warlord keeping a Rogue up & fighting and attacking twice as often, or two rogues attacking twice as often and taking twice as long to bring down, or a Cleric Blessing a party full of GWMs & Sharpshooters, or just a party full of casters, you're in for some pain.