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

[mellored]

+1.
That's the real trick, isn't it? There would have to be enough flexibility built into the class to allow many different variations. I get the impression that the "Noble" class by Moonsong (available in EN5ider) goes a lot of the way there, and it does so by starting with a stripped-down base chassis for the class, with most of the variation appearing in the different subclasses. That seems to be the best approach, at least as far as the challenge of appealing to many different desires goes.

Or use maneuvers.

The reason why you can have an illusionist, conjurer, and an evoker in the same class is you can select spells a-la-cart.

The wizard base-class is literally
1: You cast spells. More often and bigger spells as you level.
2: You cast more spells.
18: You cast a selected low level spell at-will.
20: You cast some spells once per short rest.

From there you can build support, disabling, utility, illusions, blasting, or whatever combination you feel like.


Now imagine a martial class that way. With a simple base class, and a-la-cart maneuvers.

1: You do a maneuver. Bigger maneuvers as you level.
2: You learn a passive maneuver. More as you level.
18: You can do a selected low level maneuver each turn for free.
20: One per short rest, you can do 2 maneuvers at once.

Maneuvers include sneak attack, multi-attack, cunning action, second wind, defensive maneuvers, commander's strike, rally, rage, etc...
Passive maneuvers would be stuff like blind sight, slippery mind, fighting style, favored enemy, danger sense, unarmed defense, ect...

You could easily have fighter, rogue, warlord, (spell less) ranger, and barbarian, all in the same class. Possibly even monk.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't disagree.

Problem is finding an ability that is weak enough to be balanced, yet powerful enough to not suck.

So far, every single attempt from WotC has landed squarely in the Suck Camp, so I wanted to showcase what definitely doesn't.

I thought it more constructive to begin with an ability that definitely works (players will use it, it makes its class desirable, etc) and then discuss ways to perhaps limit it for general use.

Mind you, I think a Warlord class could gain the ability as stated, if it does so at high level. At levels 15+ and, say, your Charisma number of uses per rest it definitely isn't out of place.

But let's focus on scaled-down efforts that a Warlord can get to use throughout his career, beginning already at low levels.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The concept is fine just at will. Give them superiority dice I suppose but they get more at a faster rate than the BM fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The warlord seems to me a risky class to invest into developing because it causes so much controversy.

The class does not cause controversy.

D&D was briefly but brutally afflicted with the edition war, and has been perennially afflicted with a martial|magic double-standard. The rejection of 4e by a sub-set of fans already well-served by an open-source version of the game, and the entrenched expectation that casters should be held to much looser and more forgiving standards* of balance & realism than non-supernatural alternatives, are the sources of the controversy you're alluding to.

The Warlord is a convenient focus for them, since it's a martial class that was very nearly balanced with casters, and was introduced by 4e, challenging one side, I guess you could say the 'establishment' side, of both controversies.

Divorced of both issues - for instance, if appearing in a game not technically D&D, and/or in a form that wouldn't in any way challenge the dominance of magic - it would not be caught up in much, if any, controversy.

And I am not saying it because of the people that show up around expressing strong feelings against warlords in general, they may even be a non-significant issue.

Then you're saying it for the wrong reason, because that is the biggest problem plaguing these discussions, and the reason that they were exiled to a discussion ghetto (much to the delight of the instigators).

And, also a reason they barely get into the next issue, let alone reach a consensus regarding it...

The bigger difficulty seems to be able to produce something that actually pleases the fans of the class, all of them (or most at least), simultaneously, with the same single class.

That is a non-trivial design challenge faced by all classes, particularly the broader their concept and appeal might be. You see it with the Sorcerer and the Ranger in 5e, and even 5e's slot-casting paradigm isn't entirely acceptable to all long-time fans of the Vanican tradition.

It's also a design and playtesting and feedback issue that WotC needs to address (as it already has, valiantly, with other classes, and varying degrees of success - the Ranger possibly the poorest example). It's not something that can be expected to be conclusively dealt with in a community discussion (where consensus of any sort is rare, even on issues amenable to objective analysis) - though those can be very fruitful in terms of getting ideas out there.

























* to put the most charitable spin on it - but there are also clear expectations of absolute caster supremacy out there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can already see the hissyfits. "Cummon guys, I'm your captain! I chose this class for a reason. I'm supposed to be your leader! Your characters need to start doing what I say!"

Yeah, I'm not ok with options people want being excluded on the basis of the spectre a-hole players existing.

 

[Corwin]

Yeah, I'm not ok with options people want being excluded on the basis of the spectre a-hole players existing.

That's cool. I think its great how you were able to so easily dismiss my actual experiences playing D&D as "specters". Yeah, that's not dismissive, like, at all. Well played.

Also: "...options people want..." Nice. That's not vague. You almost made it sound like not only a lot of people wanting something, but a specific something to boot. That's a twofer! Well played again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I'm not ok with options people want being excluded on the basis of the spectre a-hole players existing.

To be fair, it's the spectre of at least /two/ a-hole players, of opposing schools of a-ness, existing, at the same table, at the same time.

It's still something that's gonna happen (seriously, can any of us say we've /never/ seen player conflict happen?), but it's not really anything that has to do with a particular option being available or not. Two such players can find something to butt heads over, regardless. So as far as that goes, yeah, it's not a valid reason, even though it is certainly a valid fear.

Since I love goofy analogies: it's like wanting to have concrete (or, sure, pianos) banned, because you'd hate to be crushed between a falling piano and a concrete sidewalk. When, really, the issue is that movers need to use proper care in delivering large heavy items to upper-story apartments, and pedestrians need to avoid walking under such items, especially where proper care isn't being exercised.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, I'm not ok with options people want being excluded on the basis of the spectre a-hole players existing.

It's not all that different from s playing bards to be the party face. This is not a new phenomenon to D&D.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not all that different from s playing bards to be the party face. This is not a new phenomenon to D&D.

I'm sure [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] could tell us a thing or three about such players with Paladins....

Other than banning classes (or friends) from your table, anyone have ideas how to head off such problems..? The old stand-by, a respectful conversation between responsible adults, is a well-known one - that has obvious prerequisites which may not always be fulfilled.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's cool. I think its great how you were able to so easily dismiss my actual experiences playing D&D as "specters". Yeah, that's not dismissive, like, at all. Well played.

Also: "...options people want..." Nice. That's not vague. You almost made it sound like not only a lot of people wanting something, but a specific something to boot. That's a twofer! Well played again.

Try again, perhaps, with clearer wording?

Because you did not indicate, in any way, that you were referencing personal experience. In fact, your wording indicated the opposite. Ie, a hypothetical situation. I also didn't suggest that a-hole players don't exist, but simply that they aren't a reason to leave something out of the game.

As an aside, my spelling was perfectly fine. I certainly don't need "correction" from you.

Now, that all said, what exactly was unclear to you about my statement?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*