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

[Tony Vargas]

Even if my barbarian *does* look up to and respect the warlord, and find him an inspirational coach, no matter how hard I try I cannot influence the warlord or motivate him in return. At all. He gets zero reciprocity.

Nod, and no matter how angry the Warlord gets about it, he's not going to Rage, either.

That's one of the glitches that comes up when class-based systems start trying to model abilities that aren't founded in some clearly unique or supernatural trait. For the purely mundane, its NBD. Skill check? Anyone can roll that d20. But for any class ability, there's that issue. Why can't the barbarian have combat style? Why can't the Criminal Fighter with excellent stealth & high dex ever sneak attack?

Of course, 5e /does/ address those sorts of things a bit with more than one path to the same sorts of abilities. It's imperfect, but it helps. In 1e, a non-Thief just couldn't pick a lock, in 5e a Criminal character of any class can use thieves' tools. A non-BM character can pick up the Martial Adept feat. Then there's MCing.

There's already the odd option along those lines, like the Inspiring Leader feat, so it's a problem that's already partially solved going into it. Maybe a background or two that riff off the warlord concept a bit wouldn't hurt, either?

I mean, all those times I was lying there, bleeding to death, and a few terse words barked at me from my warlord buddy and I was back in the action. But when he's lying there in poor shape, try as I might I could never rile him up or motivate him to rise above his woulds and to carry on the fight.

Y'know, the HotFw 'Skald,' a hybrid arcane-martial Bard sub-class, had a Martial 'Skald's Aura' instead of the Bard's Arcane 'Majestic Word.' The fluff was inspirational healing, but the interesting variation was that either the skald or an ally could spend the minor action to use it. If the character needing healing spent the action, he just needed to be in the aura, but any character in the aura could use a minor to heal another character /they were adjacent to/. No particular fluff explanation given for that second bit. :shrug:

 

[Lanliss]

I was posting these thoughts in a different thread, when they really should have been here.

Thought 1: Spell-less ranger is a thing, can it be adapted to be a Warlord chassis? It already has non-magical healing, and a little BattleMaster, just needs its Nature stuff cut out.

Thought 2: Spell-less ranger is a thing, could we also make a Spell-less bard?

 

[Guest 6801328]

a specific nod to the concerns of Corwin and Elfcrusher (and the presumed thousands of characters that also refuse to be friends, be inspired by, or respect other characters in their party).

I"m afraid you grossly misunderstood my argument, or perhaps are merely intentionally distorting it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nod, and no matter how angry the Warlord gets about it, he's not going to Rage, either.

That's one of the glitches that comes up when class-based systems start trying to model abilities that aren't founded in some clearly unique or supernatural trait.

Oh, interesting. I think of the Barbarian Rage as supernatural.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, interesting. I think of the Barbarian Rage as supernatural.

The way I read it, the Totem Barbarian (and the UA sub-classes, it seems obvious) Rage is supernatural ('communion with fierce animal spirits' or something like that according to the PH intro to the class, seems a clear reference to that sub-class), but for other Barbarians it may be just literal rage.

(To the actual point that exceptional non-supernatural abilities still need to get portioned out to some classes and not others, I assume you wouldn't consider sneak attack or combat style supernatural?)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The way I read it, the Totem Barbarian (and the UA sub-classes, it seems obvious) Rage is supernatural ('communion with fierce animal spirits' or something like that according to the PH intro to the class, seems a clear reference to that sub-class), but for other Barbarians it may be just literal rage.

To the actual point that exceptional non-supernatural abilities still need to get portioned out to some classes and not others, would you consider sneak attack or combat style supernatural?

I like to see specific class features as subtle magic effects: maybe your character knows it, maybe he just think he is just naturaly better at swordfight than veteran swordsmen, like they did in Pillars of Eternity. In the game every features is linked to the power of the soul. In that game, the paladins dont have magic, but the shear will they manifest in their Exhortations (more or less shouts and commands) make their soul touch directly the soul of their companions.

I think a warlord (still dont like the name) in 5e could be a mix of the 4e warlord and the ardent: not someone logical who so intelligent he can tell the party rogue how to be better, but a inspiring presence of pure passion on the battlefield; the party rogue wont fight better because the warlord told him how to, but because having him at his side makes him give the better of himself.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like to see specific class features as subtle magic effects: maybe your character knows it, maybe he just think he is just naturaly better ...

Nod. Plausible deniability like that works for anything that both doesn't shut down when you walk into an anti-magic field, but still strains credulity at the level of RL-'realism.' It's not magical in any practical (or 'traditional') sense, but if it helps to think of it as being supernatural in order to accept it being extraordinary or super-human, nothing stops you from doing so.

I think a warlord (still dont like the name) in 5e could be a mix of the 4e warlord and the ardent

That's one sort of Warlord build - Inspiring - there were a lot of others. I do think the Ardent could work as well as a psionic Warlord sub-class as it might as a warlord-like Mystic sub-class (an Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger sort of distinction at that point).

 

[Aldarc]

Fun fact. Even if my barbarian *does* look up to and respect the warlord, and find him an inspirational coach, no matter how hard I try I cannot influence the warlord or motivate him in return. At all. He gets zero reciprocity. Is he too aloof and/or above his allies that they do nothing for him? Has he so little respect and admiration for his cohorts in return that he can only yawn at their attempts at rousing speeches or words of advice?

I mean, all those times I was lying there, bleeding to death, and a few terse words barked at me from my warlord buddy and I was back in the action. But when he's lying there in poor shape, try as I might I could never rile him up or motivate him to rise above his woulds and to carry on the fight. He must not be able to practice what he preaches or something?

The barbarian cannot do the same for a battlemaster either. And someone who has the "Inspiring Leader" feat will have an in-game mechanic that bolsters that roleplaying whereas someone who roleplays an inspiring leader without said won't. Nor will the warlord be able to rage regardless of how furious he is. Apparently the mechanic of barbarian rage is something above roleplaying too. So I'm not sure what your point is here, unless you are pointing out the inherent absurdities of the class system or of native D&D mechanics.

 

[Corwin]

Nod, and no matter how angry the Warlord gets about it, he's not going to Rage, either.

If you wish to consider rage as a purely mundane/martial concept, I suppose. However, I do not subscribe to such notions. To me, barbarians don't just "get angry."

There's already the odd option along those lines, like the Inspiring Leader feat, so it's a problem that's already partially solved going into it.

If its good enough to allow my barbarian to be an inspirational leader, why is it not good enough for making a battlemaster (or whathaveyou) a "warlord"?

Maybe a background or two that riff off the warlord concept a bit wouldn't hurt, either?

You mean like Noble, or Soldier? Maybe even Folk Hero? All potentially representative of a leader-ish type.

 

[Corwin]

The barbarian cannot do the same for a battlemaster either. And someone who has the "Inspiring Leader" feat will have an in-game mechanic that bolsters that roleplaying whereas someone who roleplays an inspiring leader without said won't. Nor will the warlord be able to rage regardless of how furious he is. Apparently the mechanic of barbarian rage is something above roleplaying too. So I'm not sure what your point is here, unless you are pointing out the inherent absurdities of the class system or of native D&D mechanics.

You should follow along with the conversation. Several people have already addressed that.