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

[Aldarc]

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.

Yes, I meant that a hypothetical warlord/warden/whatever should be self-sufficient as its own class apart from the assumptions of common optional rules (e.g. multiclassing, feats, etc.). How does one make a warlord, for example, at the table of a DM who rules no feats or multiclassing? Healer and Inspiring Leader are now off the table. Dipping bard, cleric, or mastermind, as some have proposed, are off too. But it's not as if a battlemaster could dip into a purple dragon knight anyway, so that conundrum remains unchanged.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I've been flogging this hobby horse too much. Bowing out now. Sorry folks, let my personal bugaboos get the better of me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

The reason I was going for the 5' range is to suggest that the Warden needs to do something physical, as opposed to just shouting.

Thinking more about this Warden, I think what I'd like abilities that affect the adversary rather than the teammate. So instead of giving your ally advantage by giving him advice ("try choking up on that axe a little more with your right hand...") you give him advantage by confusing/hampering the target.

I'm going to keep working on this...I have some new ideas to (hopefully) post soon.

 

[Aldarc]

The reason I was going for the 5' range is to suggest that the Warden needs to do something physical, as opposed to just shouting.

Thinking more about this Warden, I think what I'd like abilities that affect the adversary rather than the teammate. So instead of giving your ally advantage by giving him advice ("try choking up on that axe a little more with your right hand...") you give him advantage by confusing/hampering the target.

I'm going to keep working on this...I have some new ideas to (hopefully) post soon.

The range could work as paladin auras: a relatively short range of 10 foot at level X and then have that radius expand.

 

[mellored]

The range could work as paladin auras: a relatively short range of 10 foot at level X and then have that radius expand.

It could also be base on a secondary stat. Say 5' per Int. (So 20' with +4 Int).

 

[Aldarc]

Thinking more about this Warden, I think what I'd like abilities that affect the adversary rather than the teammate. So instead of giving your ally advantage by giving him advice ("try choking up on that axe a little more with your right hand...") you give him advantage by confusing/hampering the target.

I'm going to keep working on this...I have some new ideas to (hopefully) post soon.

It may interest you Elfcrusher, if I were to point out that despite the name "warlord" or their shoehorned 4E role as "leader," the 4E warlord played mostly as you describe here: creating opportunities for their teammates to act as they will. For example, one of the at-will powers for a level 1 Warlord in 4E was "Viper's Strike":

You trick your adversary into making a tactical error that gives your ally the chance to strike.

Or the encounter power, Guarding Strike:

With a calculated strike, you knock your adversary off balance and grant your comrade-in-arms some protection against the villain’s attacks.

The warlord also created favorable tactical conditions, such as with Wolf Pack Tactics:

Before you attack, you let one ally adjacent to either you or the target shift 1 square [5 feet] as a free action.

Or "Steel Monsoon":

You leap into the fray with a wild, whirling attack—but your movements are carefully calculated to distract nearby enemies and give your allies a chance to move into position.

There was also another ability, whose name escapes me at present, that would cause the warlord to give foes opportunity attacks against the warlord, which would, in turn, give allies the chance to make opportunity attacks against the foes. The warlord had a tremendous amount of tactical depth in its abilities, a number of which did operate in terms of risk vs. reward.

The warlord even had abilities that were about teamwork that gave others warlord-esque battlefield control abilities, such as "White Raven Onslaught":

You lead the way with a powerful attack, using your success to create an opportunity for one of your allies. Each of your comrades in turn seizes on your example and begins to display true teamwork.

Which entailed more concretely:

Until the end of the encounter, whenever you or an ally within 10 squares of you makes a successful attack, the attacker slides an adjacent ally 1 square.

So if that attacker is another player, they could essentially move the warlord as well. The warlord was a tactically-cooperative class. Note that the "leading" here is by example and not by command, and that it's not coaching but cooperative. This is one reason why I have described the Warlord as a playmaker or point guard. "White Raven Onslaught" could easily be renamed as "Setting Up Screens."

Sure the Warlord had a number of "inspiring" abilities that boosted the morale of others, but the number of abilities in which they were said to command allies was surprisingly rare, and most abilities explicitly refer to a "willing" ally. There was Commander's Strike, which has been discussed ad nauseum, but that's apparently acceptable for the 5E Battlemaster to have. Most of their support abilities were akin to the ability "Shake It Off," where you bolster yourself or an ally to shrug off a condition, or "Inspiring Reaction," which allowed other players to spend one of their hit dice to heal in combat plus your Charisma bonus.

This is why I suspect that there has been a culture of misinformation about the 4E Warlord: namely, its abilities (both flavor text and mechanical effects) and how it actually operated in practice.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It may interest you Elfcrusher, if I were to point out that despite the name "warlord" or their shoehorned 4E role as "leader," the 4E warlord played mostly as you describe here: creating opportunities for their teammates to act as they will. For example, one of the at-will powers for a level 1 Warlord in 4E was "Viper's Strike":
Or the encounter power, Guarding Strike:


The warlord also created favorable tactical conditions, such as with Wolf Pack Tactics:
Or "Steel Monsoon":
There was also another ability, whose name escapes me at present, that would cause the warlord to give foes opportunity attacks against the warlord, which would, in turn, give allies the chance to make opportunity attacks against the foes. The warlord had a tremendous amount of tactical depth in its abilities, a number of which did operate in terms of risk vs. reward.

The warlord even had abilities that were about teamwork that gave others warlord-esque battlefield control abilities, such as "White Raven Onslaught":
Which entailed more concretely:
So if that attacker is another player, they could essentially move the warlord as well. The warlord was a tactically-cooperative class. Note that the "leading" here is by example and not by command, and that it's not coaching but cooperative. This is one reason why I have described the Warlord as a playmaker or point guard. "White Raven Onslaught" could easily be renamed as "Setting Up Screens."

Yeah, for the most part that's what I'm talking about. Kind of silly names (I guess they were running out of namespace in 4e) but those sorts of mechanics (and fluff) don't impinge as much on player agency. Affect NPCs, not other PCs.

I especially like the "provoke AoO in order to provoke one for your allies on the target." That's a great trade-off to make. I would love to see an ability like that make it into 5e. (Might want to let the target make a Wisdom save before he takes the shot.)

Sure the Warlord had a number of "inspiring" abilities that boosted the morale of others, but the number of abilities in which they were said to command allies was surprisingly rare, and most abilities explicitly refer to a "willing" ally. There was Commander's Strike, which has been discussed ad nauseum, but that's apparently acceptable for the 5E Battlemaster to have. Most of their support abilities were akin to the ability "Shake It Off," where you bolster yourself or an ally to shrug off a condition, or "Inspiring Reaction," which allowed other players to spend one of their hit dice to heal in combat plus your Charisma bonus.

This is why I suspect that there has been a culture of misinformation about the 4E Warlord: namely, its abilities (both flavor text and mechanical effects) and how it actually operated in practice.

Yup. If it lost the "charismatic leader" fluff, and got a better name, I think it would go a long way toward gaining broader acceptance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, for the most part that's what I'm talking about. Kind of silly names (I guess they were running out of namespace in 4e)

100+ powers for each class'll do it, but at least some those specific ones, I think, may have been lifted from the 3.5 Bo9S. The inexplicable Gormengast 'White Raven' references, for sure.

I especially like the "provoke AoO in order to provoke one for your allies on the target." That's a great trade-off to make. I would love to see an ability like that make it into 5e.

Classic Bravura Warlord stuff.

(Might want to let the target make a Wisdom save before he takes the shot.)

Most such powers in 4e just left it up to the DM "....target may take an OA..." kinda phrasing.

If it lost the "charismatic leader" fluff, and got a better name, I think it would go a long way toward gaining broader acceptance.

[sblock="Warlord is really the best name..."]... at least the best name that comes anything close to suggesting the tip of the iceberg of archetypes the class concept suggests while sounding appropriately fantasy-genre-esque (military ranks are even narrow, connote legitimate authority, and tend to sound more modern to our ears, since they're still in use). It's negative connotations are /less/ than those of existing classes, like the Warlock, or sub-classes like the Assassin, which made it in without a hint of complaint - the most nearly cogent complaint, the use of the term in the media to describe terrorist leaders is, ironically, equally applicable to the Cleric, used by the same media with equal frequency and greater scope to describe fatwa-issuing nominally-spiritual leaders of those same terrorists. Again, something which garnered not the least hint of controversy for that class.[/sblock] And, as alluded to, above, the name space is crowded, not just with 5e classes & sub-classes & backgrounds, but with past-edition Classes, Kits, sub-Classes, and PrCs, bringing the risk of calling back something completely unrelated. Perhaps why 5e used the most recent past-edition name for every full class in the PH?

...

Fluff, OTOH, as long as it's left mutable, is the kind of thing easily changed by a player to fit the character he wants, or even by negotiation among DM & players, to achieve the best fit to the setting, campaign, and group playstyles. That should certainly be left as open as possible.

In fact, I think the most interesting concepts opened up the Warlord aren't the most obvious ones, and it would be nice to have the quasi-non-combatant contributions that were possible with the 4e Warlord get an appropriate sub-class to make them a clearer option.

Of course, that would need a better name than the CharOp 'lazylord,' or even Garthanos's evocative (but too old-fashioned) 'Princess build.' Moonsong called her corresponding sub-class 'Heart,' which wasn't bad. You and I have said 'side-kick' which gets the idea across, but's about as appealing as having a class called 'protagonist.' Any other ideas? "Icon" springs to mind, perhaps only because I've been watching Star Trek re-runs on H&I.

 

[CapnZapp]

Possibly related to the discussion - ponder the ability given to the NPC Warlord in Volo's:

This is one of his Legendary Actions, so this action is taken on other people's turn, and doesn't cost the Warlord himself any of his action, bonus action or reaction - only 1 out of 3 legenday actions:

Command Ally. The warlord targets one ally it can see within 30 feet of it. If the target can see and hear the warlord, the target can make one weapon attack as a reaction and gains advantage on the attack roll.

You might think players would kill for something this good.

Problem is, this fell completely flat in my level 15 game.

Noone of my characters were interested, to but it bluntly. (I did treat the ability as voluntary)

They had already planned other things to do with their reactions. (The Eldritch Knight wanting to retain the ability to cast Shield, the Warlock needing to be able to Counterspell, the Monk... actually, TBH I'm not quite sure what the Monk uses his reaction for, but my player clearly said "thanks but no thanks"). I believe my Cleric player, who is noticeably less of an optimizer, might have been able to use this, but he was stuck inside a Forcecage at the time. (Besides, a basic attack from a Wis/Con Cleric build isn't exactly a stellar use for something like Command Ally)

Also, getting to do one more weapon attack when you're already doing 4 or more, even with advantage... well, it's not nothing, but staying within that short range is often not worth it. You need the mobility more at high level.

Just an illustration of why the "completely free" and unrestricted action trade needs to happen for a Warlord-y build, at least at high levels, at least a few times a day.

That is, I don't know, something like:

Action.
Command Ally. The warlord targets one willing ally it can see within 300 feet. If the target can see and hear the warlord, the target gets to take an additional action on the Warlord's turn (apart from its regular action and bonus action on its own turn).

Yes, this means the Rogue will love the Warlord. But I simply don't see any restriction that prevents nova riders* that's simple enough for 5th edition.

This, and this alone, will cut it at high levels. No restrictions. Just a simple "you get to use my action". The warlord gets to decide which of his allies does the most good at any given time. The range is taken from the War Leader minor property (DMG page 143), something I believe needs to be baked in for all a Warlord's high level abilities.


*) Nova riders being my catchall term for stuff like applying feats, spells, bard inspiration dice, superiority dice, and yes, sneak dice on the additional action. This is optimal since instead of two people having to take, say, a feat, the fighter can take it alone and yet the group gains twice the usage, while the Warlord can free up the offense-focused characters from having to consider the group support feats (like Healer or Inspiring Leader, feats that aren't optimal for the damage dealers to take, since they work equally well if off-loaded on somebody else).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Bah, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]! I say bah to you!

Captain is the best name. By leagues!

lol I don't really care that much I just think warlord is a silly name. I'd take Noble over it, even with its misleading connotations.

But Captain literally means the archetype being discussed. From sports, to business, to war, to fantasy characters, Captain *is* the name of the set of archetypes that 4e called the warlord.