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

[Guest 6801328]

And what was Odysseus? A Hero.

Sure.

My issue isn't with taking one hero from history/fiction and saying, "That's a Warlord." My issue is with taking nearly all the heroes and saying, "Those are Warlords."

On a meta-note, although you are usually quite reasonable in your posts, I do notice that you don't seem to grant a single iota of validity to any of my concerns. Perhaps that's because this issue (sort of like elections based on plurality voting) has evolved into what seems like an all-or-nothing, black & white conflict. And maybe you genuinely feel that I'm 100% wrong, but nevertheless it doesn't feel like an invitation to debate/discuss.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure.

As in 'Hero' could be a name for a class. OK, a very broad class, like Fighter, Rogue, & Warlord - and Paladin - all wrapped together.

My issue isn't with taking one hero from history/fiction and saying, "That's a Warlord." My issue is with taking nearly all the heroes and saying, "Those are Warlords."

D&D does have a problem modeling heroes of myth & legend - and genre. No small part of that problem is the very limited set of abilities it's traditionally given the fighter and rogue, the only candidates to model most of those heroes, because casting spells and other feats of magic isn't exactly prevalent among them. A lot of heroes were great leaders in some sense, or cunning in some other sense, and the traditional fighter class consistently failed them.

5e /could/ have dashed off the Champion as the traditional fighter, left most of it's DPR baggage in that sub-class and gone off and done some things more interesting than the BM & EK with the rest of the class. It didn't, and the way it didn't leaves a need for an entirely new class. The Warlord is the remaining PH1 full class that hasn't been done by 5e, yet, and 5e isn't constrained by Role the way 4e was, so it could be stretched to cover quite a bit more than just support.

On a meta-note, although you are usually quite reasonable in your posts, I do notice that you don't seem to grant a single iota of validity to any of my concerns.

I think you did express a concern or two perhaps a single iota of validity, and I did address or acknowledge them as such. Balance isn't an invalid concern, for instance, just not a very relevant one in the context of 5e, where class balance is an after-market accessory installed & maintained by the DM.

But the kefluffle over the name when each objection to it is as or more cogent to other class names already in use? No iotas there. Sorry.

Ok, over lunch I thought about a "Warden". Curious if Warlord fans would like this class.

Even before it was a 4e Primal Defender, I'd used the name 'Warden' for a Ranger variant in 3.0, so the name has extra baggage for me, even beyond what the turning-into-a-tree-or-whatever version established.

I think I would.

That's certainly a strike against it, since you can't comprehend the appeal of the Warlord in the first place.

Medium or Heavy Armor (all the same to me), Shields, Martial Weapons
d8
MAD: Dex or Str, Intelligence*

*Descriptions of this class seem to rely on both Cha and Int.

Yes. Both INT & CHA should be there. Really, there's a case for WIS as an alternative to either, as well.

For a variety of reasons, including existing design space and trying to get away from the "Leader" concept, I'm leaving Cha totally out of it.

Strike 2. Like taking the STR option away from figthers - yeah, DEX fighters are cool and all, but the original kind need to stay in the game. Plus, avoiding or playing the 'Leadership' possibility of high CHA is something that can be left to players to figure out. Anyone with high CHA, let alone a background like Noble that implies authority, might be RP'd as a party-leader, or not. Mechanics that support using CHA to aid allies could be visualized as leadership, or cheer-leading, or even emotional attachment inviting rescue. It depends on what works for the players in question.

Abilities (rough sketch, not sure of order)
- If within 5' of an ally can use reaction to grant advantage on attack roll, saving throw, or Concentration check, or otherwise use Help action.

Help is a universal thing, and Advantage looses steam quickly in 5e because so many things grant it and it doesn't stack. Still, like the Mastermind's enhanced help, it's a neat little idea.

- If within 5' of an enemy can use reaction to impose Disadvantage on attack on somebody else (not self) or prevent an AoO on somebody else (not self)

Very similar to protection style.

- At 5th level, gets two reactions/round (instead of second attack)

Interesting, possibly alarming as it actually does mess with the action economy.

- Use Dex + Int for initiative, and any allies can choose to use your Int bonus instead of their own Dex bonus.

meh.

- As an Action grant scaling bonus HP to all allies within 30'. Int modifier times/short rest.

Not terrible, a little odd for INT, but not a suitable replacement for restoring hps.

If able to prepare for a combat for at least one round (before Initiative is rolled) and communicate with other characters, grant Inspiration to everybody.

Which Inspiration?

 

[Blue]

Still don't see 5e as as that starkly inferior. Sure, something that was neatly balanced in 4e might be broken in 5e - that's the case for every caster that was in both editions, for instance - that's just the way 5e design works, it's not balance-first, or even third. Balance is something the DM can impose if he wants, not something that determines what classes can exist in the game.

I'm sorry, I must have explained myself poorly. I'm not saying 5e is inferior or superior. I'm saying it is different and specific mechanics don't come over as well even if you can express them. If I wanted to pull over a 3.5 Fighter and said that "I get a point of BAB every level", that's something that breaks the 5e design. It's not that the system is inferior, it's just that mechanic not how you represents "good at weapon fighting" in 5e.

As for balance being "not even third", that's a large about of subjectivity in there because balance has so many factors. We do know that they have boosted the ranger when it was considered weaker and the published version of the storm sorcerer was nerfed from the UA version, likely from playtest feedback. So I personally feel they do care about balance, as least how it impacts fun around the table. But it's subjective: I can't say you are wrong. All I can say is that if you set out to create something without balance, it will likely not make it into my game and my guess is that it won't become official.

And since many are clamoring for an official warlord, why not design something within the guidelines we can glean from the existing rules? It's more likely to be accepted by many. And to that end, the designers have been very consistent in that extra action cost either more actions then they give, limited resources, or both.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Even before it was a 4e Primal Defender, I'd used the name 'Warden' for a Ranger variant in 3.0, so the name has extra baggage for me, even beyond what the turning-into-a-tree-or-whatever version established.

Yes, I have Ranger-like connotations for Warden as well.

That's certainly a strike against it, since you can't comprehend the appeal of the Warlord in the first place.

Interesting.

Very similar to protection style.

Yes, although requires positioning next to adversary rather than ally.

Interesting, possibly alarming as it actually does mess with the action economy.

Note that I'm not one of the people going on and on about action economy. That said, reactions are typically less powerful than actions (being, you know, reactive) and it's not action-swapping.

Which Inspiration?

The mechanical one that gives you advantage in the pocket to spend at will. Note that if you already have it this doesn't help, and it's perhaps slightly odd that if you don't use it in the combat you still have it. But it's a handy little buff nonetheless and, far more importantly, flavorful for the concept of "tactician".

 

[mellored]

Ok, over lunch I thought about a "Warden". Curious if Warlord fans would like this class. I think I would.

I don't much care which name it is. I never use class name in game.

*Descriptions of this class seem to rely on both Cha and Int. For a variety of reasons, including existing design space and trying to get away from the "Leader" concept, I'm leaving Cha totally out of it.

I'm fine with Int based. We have a Cha based leader as a bard.

Abilities (rough sketch, not sure of order)
- If within 5' of an ally can use reaction to grant advantage on attack roll, saving throw, or Concentration check, or otherwise use Help action.
- If within 5' of an enemy can use reaction to impose Disadvantage on attack on somebody else (not self) or prevent an AoO on somebody else (not self)
- At 5th level, gets two reactions/round (instead of second attack)
- Use Dex + Int for initiative, and any allies can choose to use your Int bonus instead of their own Dex bonus.
- As an Action grant scaling bonus HP to all allies within 30'. Int modifier times/short rest.
- If able to prepare for a combat for at least one round (before Initiative is rolled) and communicate with other characters, grant Inspiration to everybody.

I'd also like to think of some creative uses for bonus actions.

Those all look fine. Protection style and cutting words are already in the game.

Though I wouldn't add extra reactions. Warden 5/rogue 11/cleric 4 with warcaster and booming blade and a few command (flee) spells...
Breaking the action economy is what made the 4e warlord OP.

At very least, make it "you gain an special additional reaction, that can only be used for...." (like haste). Not an open ended generic reaction.



Like haste is becoming my warlord catch phrase....

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm saying it is different and specific mechanics don't come over as well even if you can express them.

Sure, specific mechanics don't. Can't go taking a minor action or partial action in 5e, for instance. The 3.x fighter paid a high price for full BAB, in 5e, everyone advances in the superficially-corresponding proficiency bonus at the same rate, instead, Extra Attack grants the corresponding benefit making the fighter a better fighter than the wizard, for instance.

But there's no need nor call to port over mechanics so specific. And, 5e is a much looser system with a lot more open design space, the freedom to do /more/ with the Warlord in 5e far out-weighs such minor technicalities.

And since many are clamoring for an official warlord, why not design something within the guidelines we can glean from the existing rules? It's more likely to be accepted by many. And to that end, the designers have been very consistent in that extra action cost either more actions then they give, limited resources, or both.

Those extra actions are in the context of the Battlemaster, sub-class of a class which is already very high DPR on it's own.

The mechanical one that gives you advantage in the pocket to spend at will. Note that if you already have it this doesn't help, and it's perhaps slightly odd that if you don't use it in the combat you still have it. But it's a handy little buff nonetheless and, far more importantly, flavorful for the concept of "tactician".

As opposed to the Bardic one, yes, I see. I think it's a little funny how 5e threw out three different version of 'Inspiration.' The word got thrown around a lot in the playtest in the context of the Warlord, and that was a strange response, but not an atypical one.

WotC has this weird thing with words (or maybe I do). For instance, in the 3.5 era, a lot of fans were big on restricting things to 'core only' the phrase got a lot of play. 4e comes out and virtually every book is labeled 'core.' C'mon. The 3.5 community also tended to call really broken combos 'exploits.' In 4e, the word Exploit was used as a label for martial powers. It's an odd little thread of coincidence I've noticed running through WotC's tenure with the IP.

 

[Guest 6801328]

At very least, make it "you gain an special additional reaction, that can only be used for...." (like haste). Not an open ended generic reaction.

Sort of like Cunning Action. Yeah, I like that better.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As opposed to the Bardic one, yes, I see. I think it's a little funny how 5e threw out three different version of 'Inspiration.' The word got thrown around a lot in the playtest in the context of the Warlord, and that was a strange response, but not an atypical one.

WotC has this weird thing with words (or maybe I do). For instance, in the 3.5 era, a lot of fans were big on restricting things to 'core only' the phrase got a lot of play. 4e comes out and virtually every book is labeled 'core.' C'mon. The 3.5 community also tended to call really broken combos 'exploits.' In 4e, the word Exploit was used as a label for martial powers. It's an odd little thread of coincidence I've noticed running through WotC's tenure with the IP.

6th Edition is going to define "metagaming" as a category of class powers.

 

[Aldarc]

They are clever political schemers, sure, which is somewhat related to the thing we are (or seem to be) talking about, but are they the same thing?

It's about like trying to determine whether we are dealing with a "ranger" or "just a fighter in the woods" type of scenario.

a) Available to all classes.
b) Almost no mechanical effect, and certainly not on other Player Characters.

Just as "acolyte" is available to all classes yet "cleric" and "druid" are also technically titles of rank or religious positions of authority. We just tend to ignore that point because we have been desensitized to the name in D&D over time. Some "warlords" may even pick acolyte, scholar, or noble instead of soldier.

I don't mind that, but (again) that sounds more like Tywin Lannister, less like Odysseus.

What name then would evoke Odysseus for you? The "Nobody" (or Οὖτις) perhaps? There is the "Marshal," but some attach too strong a military title to that as opposed to taking it to mean one who marshals people (i.e. verb. But names are tough when your requirements seek to take

 

[raleel]

Though I wouldn't add extra reactions. Warden 5/rogue 11/cleric 4 with warcaster and booming blade and a few command (flee) spells...
Breaking the action economy is what made the 4e warlord OP.

At very least, make it "you gain an special additional reaction, that can only be used for...." (like haste). Not an open ended generic reaction.

I like this actually, and as pointed out like Cunning Action. This very much is in the realm of defining powers. one could build a whole set of powers off this if you allow "warlord powers" as part of that reaction.