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

[mellored]

Let's just stick with 'spell-less bard' for a name.


Since no one seems to get their panties in a bunch when a bard gives them extra attacks or inspires them to not miss.

 

[Paul Smart]

My problem is mostly the oxymoron.
"Apprentice warlord" is like "training archmage" or "rookie pope" or "inexperienced knight commander". A warlord is someone you expect to be leading armies, not just three other dudes. The narrative doesn't match the expectations. There's a disconnect.

D&D is a game of imagination. So when the scene you describe doesn't match the expectations it takes you out of the story.
The "hobgoblin warlord" in the Monster Manual is CR 6 compared to the regular CR 1/2 hobgoblin. If as a DM, I describe the PCs cresting and hill and seeing "the hobgoblin warlord and her forces", in your mind, what does that look like?
You're likely not picturing one hobgoblin solider, a goblin shaman, and a bugbear. I mean, even if each of the other three is also CR 6 and it's a deadly encounter for a level 10 party... it's still not what you expect. And so it's disappointing. Almost anticlimactic.

Picture it to new players at the game:
"What's your character?"
"I'm a warlord."
"Cool! What do you do?"
"Once per rest, I can let you attack an extra time."

Does that meet the expectations the name brings?

So the problem is the name in this case, not what the character does? I have no problem changing the name, just what should it be replaced with? I like Marshal. Other possibilities include Tactician, Strategist, Advisor.

 

[Corwin]

Yeah. I'm done. It's just not worth having this same discussion. It's pointless and utterly useless. It's based on hearsay and gut feeling and has absolutely nothing to do with actual facts.

Maybe try bringing something stronger to the table than that, then?

 

[Corwin]

I don't allow people who disruptively try to take advantage of others' good will into my home, much less my table...

...But none of that is actually the point, nor is any of it remotely comparable to playing a person whose presence inspires people, and/or whose tactical acumen makes the party as whole work better together.

Brilliant. So it is your opinion that you aren't being disruptive, nor taking advantage of my good will, by sitting down next to me at the table and telling me that my barbarian defacto looks up to, and respects, your warlord? And, furthermore, that he needs your character's expert advice on how to better swing his axe?

 

[Jester David]

So the problem is the name in this case, not what the character does? I have no problem changing the name, just what should it be replaced with? I like Marshal. Other possibilities include Tactician, Strategist, Advisor.

Yup.

Well... I have two problems. The name and martial healing. Dump the name and switch to temp hp and everything works out fine.
As I break down in this post ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...happen/page8&p=7040757&viewfull=1#post7040757) the basic mechanics can mostly be converted fairly effortlessly.
If someone had the time and inclination, one could hammer out a basic version of the warlord in an afternoon. Because the basics are so simple to implement. (Minus subclasses, which would take longer, as they require original design... )

 

[Corwin]

All of this reminds me of the fun we had a few times when we used to play 4e RPGA at conventions. There were a couple occasions where my buddy and I would end up at a table with someone playing a warlord up to the nines. You know, like, roleplaying being the boss and superior to everyone else. Eating up the attention of being the inspiration for us all. Typical arrogant leaderish BS. My buddy and I would turn it around and act like our characters were so inspired by the warlord that we fell instantly and madly in love with him. We swooned. We fetched him flowers. We would tend to his every whim with unbridled joy. Quibbling with each other over who loved him more. Making him uncomfortable by laying it on so thick. It was not only mischievous fun for us but it took away the obnoxious attempts to control and manage the table by instead turning it into something campy and humorous.

Good times. Good times.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My son doesn't play D&D. Someday, but not yet. He's still a little young. Too much reading, too many rules.
But right his, he's on a huge Dragonriders of Berk kick. New episodes on Netflix. If he was playing D&D, easy odds he'd want to be Hiccup with Toothless.
Could I make that work as a character? Sure. But at 1st level... at what the game describes as "apprentice adventurers"?
That's level 1-4.

What's an apprentice warlord look like? We could make a character that has a growing tacticical acumen, and helps the party. But that warlord and is associated "leader of armies" thing throws me off...

Again, I don't care about he names of classes, or expect them to have anything to do with their real world meaning. Druid sure doesn't represent actual Druids. But Druid means nature magic guy in dnd, so I just ignore it. Warlord, in dnd, means "tactical inspiration guy".

But I also don't care if the name gets changed. My preferred name is Captain, others prefer Marshal. Whatever, wotc can run a damn poll and use whatever is most voted for.

And Hiccup and Toothless absolutely, 100%, are 1st level in the first half of the first movie, and probably hit 3 by the end of it. And hitting 3 is supposed to be super fast, so that is fine.

I'd be fine with a dragon rider class. Your dragon is adolescent, just old enough to carry you in flight at lvl 1, and gets more powerful, and you more skilled at directing it, as you level.

I'd prefer the class be a little less specific, with subclasses for riding different creatures, but then again, at some point dragon and griffon just aren't equals.

An apprentice tier character doesn't need to actually be an apprentice, either. It's just the name of a group of levels. "Apprentice rogues" are highly expert in multiple skills, way beyond what I would expect from an apprentice.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can always take Noble or Soldier at level 1 if you want to build around that concept. But so can any class. You can have a Paladin farm boy or a Wizard farm boy. A Cleric noble or a Rogue noble.

Those kinds of "who you are" concepts belong in Backgrounds, where anybody can take them and mechanical effects are minimal.

So, yeah, if you're at my table and offer King Arthur or Aragorn as your template, I'll say, "Cool! Do you want to take Noble, or do you want to design your own background?"

You can also do that with the conceptual inspirations for the cleric, Druid, paladin, ranger, thief, and probably others I'm not thinking of right now.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't also be a class.

 

[tuxgeo]

I'm fine with that. Read back a few pages where I proposed something like that (that I called the "Warden" as a place-holder).

I think it's challenging to write non-offending fluff, but not impossible. Made harder by the requirement that it's definitely not magic.

Except for the fact that polls on these forums come from highly distorted, self-selecting samples, the interesting poll would be one in which you ranked, in order, your requirements for this class. < snip > I'd be curious to know how many people actually cared about which aspects.

Off the top of my head such a list might include (the language would need to be tweaked):
- Int based
- Cha based
- Wis based
- Fluffed as a leader
- Attack and perform tactics with same action
- Healing equivalent to a cleric
- Combat equivalent to base Fighter
- Strictly non-magical
- Support healing
- Action swapping
- Unlimited action swapping
- Temp HP granting
- Tactical buffs
- Tactical debuffs
- ...
Etc.

For my own purposes, I would leave out the INT-based or WIS-based or CHA-based poll options, and instead ask whether the poll respondents favor a set of features in the various Warden subclasses that would apply on a limited schedule (per rest, or when someone else spends a limited resource), and have those various subclasses differ on whether that feature was INT-based or WIS-based or CHA-based. That is, the Warden (or whatever we call it) might be STR-based, but the secondary ability score could vary by subclass.

I would add a lot more "Fluffed as" choices:
"Fluffed as having a distinctive voice that can be loud and sharp enough to be heard clearly through the din of battle" might be one.
"Fluffed as being vigorous enough and spirited enough that others view that Warden as being a hard-charger" might be another one.
"Fluffed as being grating and caustic enough that others view that Warden as being someone who has pronounced opinions that may have been developed through hard-won and valuable experience" might be a third.

Instead of attacks and grants a benefit as the same action, I would be more inclined to offer an option for the Warden to be able to "Grant a tactical buff as a bonus action when taking the Attack action." (This would clearly be limited to once per round, because a character can only take one bonus action per round.)

Certainly not offering the same healing as a Cleric or the same fighting ability as a Fighter. That's trampling on toes. The Warden should be lesser than those classes at those signature abilities.

Certainly "strictly non-magical," but that's so fundamental that it shouldn't even be in the poll at all, because it's not even a question: Without that feature, the result would not be the Warlord class that people have been asking for; and the player should just as well play a bard instead.

The "Support Healing" and "Action Swapping" poll questions are fine.

Temp HP granting is fine. Tactical buffs are fine.

Tactical debuffs are questionable, because that's more the Wizard's thing; but listing it in the poll could be an informative exercise.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because I want to be an equal, not a sidekick to the hero?

That isn't a thing. The warlord, even if directly ported with the same fluff as in 4e, is not "the hero", does not make your character the sidekick, or less equal, or secondary, or force your character to look up to them, or any of that.

That is, and I mean this with absolutely no malice, entirely a thing which exists in your arguments, and nowhere else. It isn't an actual part of the game, or the class, or the concept.