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

[Corwin]

One should be doing way more than just taking a feat to be honored as a "warlord".

So its supposed to be some honor more esteemed than what most PCs can take no earlier than 4th level. But some people still want to be it at 1st level?

Otherwise, it is just self-entitlement.

I pray you caught the irony in those words.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I pray you caught the irony in those words.

I'm betting he crafted said irony with care.

 

[jodyjohnson]

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

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. 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.

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.

I could build a martial class on this chassis. I think the close range of the 'Help' reactions might be tough to coordinate in the wild. Since reactions need to be triggered it would add a team tactical element for positioning. It has a nice synergy with an ally using Protection style.

In a 'no feats' campaign I think it would be less attractive since the 'reaction' feats like Sentinel and Polearm Mastery are off the table and the 'Warlord' feats Healer and Inspiring Leader are also out.

I think an action granting aspect could involve some sort of special forced Opportunity Attack. There is some baggage with stock OAs in that multiple people (all adjacent enemies) can take advantage of them rather than a single target.

In other Warlord action granting (i.e. Commander's Strike), I usually think of the granted attacks as forcing the target of the attack to draw a pseudo-OA that only a single target can take advantage of.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In other Warlord action granting (i.e. Commander's Strike), I usually think of the granted attacks as forcing the target of the attack to draw a pseudo-OA that only a single target can take advantage of.

4e Commander's Strike was badly named and initially poorly written. There was a big controversy early on about whether it was basically useable at LoS or melee reach. It turned out the intent was melee reach, so it really made a bit more sense as a 'create opening' sort of exploit, the mechanics were also cleaned up substantially, including requiring a free action so the 'Command' wasn't technically irresitible nor useable on Stunned/Unconscious/Dead allies. Ah, the wonders of jargon. 'Command the Strike,' with a range, was added later to fill in the misconstrued version, since a lot of folks seemed to like it.

Anyway, a create-opening or force-OA maneuver would be an appropriate thing for the Bravura, in particular, to have, since they're the poster boy for the get-in-and-fight lead-from-the-front warlord, though Tactical in the intended (not CharOp 'lazy') sense would also make a lot of sense.

 

[Satyrn]

4e Commander's Strike was badly named and initially poorly written. There was a big controversy early on about whether it was basically useable at LoS or melee reach. It turned out the intent was melee reach, so it really made a bit more sense as a 'create opening' sort of exploit, the mechanics were also cleaned up substantially, including requiring a free action so the 'Command' wasn't technically irresitible nor useable on Stunned/Unconscious/Dead allies. Ah, the wonders of jargon. 'Command the Strike,' with a range, was added later to fill in the misconstrued version, since a lot of folks seemed to like it.

Anyway, a create-opening or force-OA maneuver would be an appropriate thing for the Bravura, in particular, to have, since they're the poster boy for the get-in-and-fight lead-from-the-front warlord, though Tactical in the intended (not CharOp 'lazy') sense would also make a lot of sense.

When I first read 4e's Commander's Strike - while noticing that magic missile was a baasic attack - I thought "Oh sweet, I can use the other players as my ranged weapon while I wade into melee."

I never realized my mistake until long after I stopped playing a warlord.

*sigh*

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I first read 4e's Commander's Strike - while noticing that magic missile was a baasic attack - I thought "Oh sweet, I can use the other players as my ranged weapon while I wade into melee."

I never realized my mistake until long after I stopped playing a warlord.

*sigh*

Even Command the Strike doesn't work too well for that, since it was ranged instead of Close Burst (1 ally in burst) - again, jargon, yay...

...something else a 5e Warlord could improve upon without trying - no reason to couch such a thing as a 'ranged attack' when you're not attacking, and no AoOs for a ranged attack in melee even if it were.

 

[Satyrn]

Even Command the Strike doesn't work too well for that, since it was ranged instead of Close Burst (1 ally in burst) - again, jargon, yay...

...something else a 5e Warlord could improve upon without trying - no reason to couch such a thing as a 'ranged attack' when you're not attacking, and no AoOs for a ranged attack in melee even if it were.

I don't recall what my exact misreading was, but I know I played it as granting an ally a basic attack (with damage bonus) against a target of my choice, without any concern for how far that ally was from me.

It's the way the power looked like it was intended. Anyway, It was my first 4e character, and I only played it a few sessions. But it was a highlight of 4e for me.

And I really would have liked it ported over into the 5e PH as a class of its own.

 

[Aldarc]

I could build a martial class on this chassis. I think the close range of the 'Help' reactions might be tough to coordinate in the wild. Since reactions need to be triggered it would add a team tactical element for positioning. It has a nice synergy with an ally using Protection style.

In a 'no feats' campaign I think it would be less attractive since the 'reaction' feats like Sentinel and Polearm Mastery are off the table and the 'Warlord' feats Healer and Inspiring Leader are also out.

I think an action granting aspect could involve some sort of special forced Opportunity Attack. There is some baggage with stock OAs in that multiple people (all adjacent enemies) can take advantage of them rather than a single target.

In other Warlord action granting (i.e. Commander's Strike), I usually think of the granted attacks as forcing the target of the attack to draw a pseudo-OA that only a single target can take advantage of.

This does seem to be an important point that often gets neglect mention in the conversation: the optional status of feats (or even multiclassing). Any hypothetical warlord class should be designed to be functional 1) single-classed, and 2) without needing feats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This does seem to be an important point that often gets neglect mention in the conversation: the optional status of feats (or even multiclassing). Any hypothetical warlord class should be designed to be functional 1) single-classed, and 2) without needing feats.

I don't think any class (even the fighter) has been designed to need feats or need multiclassing. Quite the contrary, there are a number of sub-classes (even classes) that seemed designed in lieu of traditional multiclassing options (EK, AT, Paladin, Ranger, Bladesinger, Valor Bard, several Cleric domains...) - and a Warlord sub-class or two like that wouldn't hurt, IMHO.

 

[Barolo]

I don't think any class (even the fighter) has been designed to need feats or need multiclassing. Quite the contrary, there are a number of sub-classes (even classes) that seemed designed in lieu of traditional multiclassing options (EK, AT, Paladin, Ranger, Bladesinger, Valor Bard, several Cleric domains...) - and a Warlord sub-class or two like that wouldn't hurt, IMHO.

I understood by [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] post that warlords should be available regardless of optional rules availability, in contrast to the current hypothetical options for warlord-y heroes, that hang on those optional rules.