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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Good analogy. And as I told corwin, it's not that I don't think those players exist. "The spectre of x" can mean that, I suppose, but it is generally used to mean, IME, that the thing referenced (here, the existence of a-hole players) is not cause for the alarm/panic/extreme response being suggested.

See: any public debate about voter fraud or terrorist attacks. One side talks about the thing like its something folks need to be actively worried about and on guard against, and the other side argues that the spectre of such things does not warrant travel bans or stricter voter registration laws, because it is being blown out of proportion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thank you, Lowkey13, for that quick response. If all D&D summons worked that well, no one would be asking for a Binder.

(and I wanted so much to give both XP and a laugh!).

Seriously, Charisma? Why do they make charisma a key stat for Paladins? "Hi, I'm Sir Jerky McJerkface, and I have a 20 Charisma, because REASONS."

One thing I haven't been able to help but notice over the years is that many, many gamers (this may conceivably have something to do with the nerd stereotype of 'poor social skills' or resentment of said stereotype), even those not otherwise jerks in any obnoxious sense, can't seem to portray* a high-CHA character in anything resembling a positive way. The PC end up coming off as arrogant, or entitled, or silly, or condescending, or obnoxious, or obsequious, or pompous, or ... anything but actually charismatic or even remotely likable.
(Similarly, but less horribly, it seems like low-CHA often gets played as merely gruff or perhaps rude - that is, when it's not ignored completely.)

it's not that I don't think those players exist. "The spectre of x" ..is generally used to mean, IME, that the thing referenced ... it is being blown out of proportion.

Sorry for the brutal edit, but I think that's a fair take on it. Personally, I don't see it as that negative, either. It's not to suggest that such things aren't scary, or that there's no reason to be afraid, merely that there's reason not to go too far in forestalling the thing feared.

The same reasoning comes up in discussions of balance, for instance. There are sufficiently committed, proficient, and inconsiderate powergamers out there who will take the slightest imbalance and leverage to the hilt, ruining the game for everyone else if they possibly can. But there are a lot more powergamers who'll just optimize a build for concept and add to the game, or be fine with the DM 'nerfing' some combo they found. On the other extreme, there are groups of comparably-proficient powergamers having a great time with their about-equally optimized builds under the most broken of systems. Then there's the vast excluded middle.

The Spectre of destructive powergaming shouldn't suggest that game-balance must be absolutely bullet-proof, and the polar-opposite (I suppose Pollyanna) extreme shouldn't suggest that there's no need for balance at all.
















* can't find the right word, here... it's not RP (which is broader), but speaking in character, I suppose, that's where the problem seems to be...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

1. It's not so much that the Paladin makes the jerk, or the jerk makes the Paladin, so much as they make each other, with the Paladin amplifying the jerkiness. As in, it's a natural class ability ... like smite, but more like ...

Starting as soon as the Paladin joins the table, when ever they condescend to the rest of the table, they can expend one jerk slot to deal smarm damage to the table, in addition to their natural jerkiness. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level jerk slot, plus 1d8 for every time they say, "Listen, Brah, my Paladin would totally do this because of his code ...," to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 when the target cares whatsoever about the basic rules of civility or fairplay that should govern the universe.

2. For all of the talk about edition wars, I would hope that the one thing that fans of all editions could come to agreement on is this- yeah, Paladins are terrible.

3. Seriously, Charisma? Why do they make charisma a key stat for Paladins? "Hi, I'm Sir Jerky McJerkface, and I have a 20 Charisma, because REASONS."

3. Because wisdom would be even weirder?

But seriously, even as a DM for multiple great, 0% jerk, Paladins, I lol'd.

I've seen jerk Paladins, but right now I'm lucky enough to not have had one at a table I've played in or DMed for in....probably 6 years, at least.

But when they are bad....they are "smug Jedi" bad.

In case it helps anyone, I've found it useful to ban certain character concepts related to the Paladin.

1. The Inquisitor. This Paladin seeks to root out any evil, anywhere they go. This is the type that attacks poor kids for stealing food. At my table, you cannot play a paranoid zealot who sees "sin" everywhere, unless you are intentionally playing the character growth angle, and agree to put the fun of other players above your damn concept, and the other players agree to it. Any objections and it's out. Even then, ya gotta agree to give the character a life changing revelation if it gets annoying and we are tired of them.

2. The psychopath in shining armor. No murder-hobos. Your oath doesn't require you to slaughter surrendering bandits. How do I know? Because I'm the ing DM, and I said so. (This is the only type of situation where I believe in playing that card)

3. The "letter of the oath" jusgemental hypocrite. Note: the version of his who drinks and womanizes and sleeps in every day, and doesn't care if you do as well, ie, Aramis, is fine. What isn't allowed is the guy who will bring down the wrath of god upon your sorry head for stealing food, and then go use a loophole in the wording of the oath to justify getting drunk and wenching. A Rules lawyer warlock makes sense, and can be very fun. Paladin? Not so much. Unless it's Aramis.

Basically, I allow the class, by only if you agree to not play a judgemental, zealous, hard-liner.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I don't want to text-wall twice in a row, so I'll be brief.

Totally fair edit.

Agreed on all points.

The fact that some a-hole will ruin some table somewhere's fun by insisting on being the leader of the group simply because his concept is the natural leader, or his class name evokes leadership, is not a reason to exclude the concept or class name.

Especially when there are already options in the game with the same connotations.

In a world with little communication and travel, like many DnD worlds, Bards would be treated with great respect and gratitude. In fact, their historical equivalents in the Middle Ages were treated with great respect and gratitude. And caution, in many cultures. Yet, if a player insists on such deference from other PCs, he is just being a douche. That is a player issue, not an issue with the class.

 

[Hussar]

I have tested it with the noble class. Its a bad idea just like removing concentration off certain spells.
If you want specifics.
The way it interacts with rogue sneak attack.
Interaction with the -5/+10 feats.
The way it interacts with warlocks eldritch blast.
The way it interacts with spells in general.

*Ducks back in rather sheepishly after acting badly*

Hrm, there's a possibility here that occurs to me that's a bit fiddly, and I'm not sure if it works, but, I think it might:

Warlord grants an action every (or nearly every) round. If the action is an attack, it is only a single attack, not a full suite of attacks. The attacker gains a bonus to the attack equal to the warlord's Cha or Int score (depending on the type of warlord) but, since the attack is hasty, it also takes disadvantage. That would seem to get rid of a lot of the attacking issues here - no sneak attack, the -5/+10 feats are nowhere near as effective too.

If the action is a spell that grants a saving throw, because the spell is cast hastily, targets gain Advantage on their saving throws.

Yup, it's a bit fiddly - adding a bonus and disadvantage is a bit wonky - but, it would seem to satisfy all the balance issues.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

"one weapon attack?" "15th level game?" You're surprised? ;P

(Eldritch Knight, Monk, Cleric)

No Rogue?

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.

"A few time per day" you can get away with just about anything in 5e, without 'balance' issues, really. 3/day? There's 3-5 encounters/day where it doesn't happen. Must be OK. 1/day? Whatever - cast Wish, even - s'all good.

. But I simply don't see any restriction that prevents nova riders* that's simple enough for 5th edition.

Not everything in 5e is nor should be simplistic. Optional classes, surely, can be a bit more involved.

*) 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.

Combos, yeah. The game has 'em, any addition to the game may add some more. In 5e's loose spotlight balance, as long as you can't bring the combo every time - n/day, concentration, etc, situational factors - it's probably OK.

*Ducks back in rather sheepishly after acting badly*

Hrm, there's a possibility here that occurs to me that's a bit fiddly, and I'm not sure if it works, but...

I'm not sure I see the issue with action-granting. Even taking an Action to grant an unrestricted Action isn't exactly action]-economy-breaking (the party takes exactly the same number of net actions that actually do anything).

The difference is that when the Rogue's actions are the most valuable, he's taking two of them, and when the Wizard's actions are most valuable, he's doing two of those actions.

So it's a spotlight balance issue. The issue being: the Warlord's behind the 'spotlight' making it /brighter/.

Its very very broken in 5E.

Oh, 5e's not /that/ broken. Little paint, few nails...

 

[Jester David]

*Ducks back in rather sheepishly after acting badly*

Hrm, there's a possibility here that occurs to me that's a bit fiddly, and I'm not sure if it works, but, I think it might:

Warlord grants an action every (or nearly every) round. If the action is an attack, it is only a single attack, not a full suite of attacks. The attacker gains a bonus to the attack equal to the warlord's Cha or Int score (depending on the type of warlord) but, since the attack is hasty, it also takes disadvantage. That would seem to get rid of a lot of the attacking issues here - no sneak attack, the -5/+10 feats are nowhere near as effective too.

If the action is a spell that grants a saving throw, because the spell is cast hastily, targets gain Advantage on their saving throws.

Yup, it's a bit fiddly - adding a bonus and disadvantage is a bit wonky - but, it would seem to satisfy all the balance issues.

But if they get a +5 from the warlord's Int that cancels out the disadvantage.
And if they can ever get advantage, the disadvantage goes away and they just have a +5 bonus. Which, with the -5/+10 bonus feats means they attack normally and get +10 damage.

It does cancel sneak attack tho.

 

[Paul Smart]

OP here. I never expected the tread to get this long or be this interesting. Lots of great discussion and ideas. Lets keep in going in the respectful way it has been.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Popping by to add my 7 cents:

1) I'm not sure I buy that the Warlord "controversy" is driven by 4e-haters who have chosen the Warlord as the poster child for everything they didn't like about that edition (or whatever that exact reasoning was.) Given that the number of classes exploded in 3 and 4, and now we only have a handful, I have to wonder where the zealous, uncompromising defenders of those other missing classes are? Sure, here and there is somebody looking for a Hexblade or a Runepriest or a...something (look I'm making this part up because I don't know what those classes are) but nowhere is there a relentless drumbeat of demand that comes anywhere close to that for the Warlord. So clearly there's pro-Warlord zealotry going on.

2) Just to distinguish my concerns from Corwin, I'm not basing my opposition on the fear that some jerk is going to play the leader aspects of his Warlord to the hilt and be a nuisance at the table, any more than I'm concerned about some jerk playing the pious aspects of his Paladin to the hilt and being a nuisance at the table. That concern has nothing to do with my argument about the nature of a "Leader" class, which is based on the premise of such a class itself, not its vulnerability to abuse.

3) I love paladins. (On the other hand, I loathe the rapier, so I'm with lowkey on that one and agree with pretty much everything he said in that thread, but couldn't say so because he has me blocked...)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not sure it's accurate or fair to call consistently talking about how to model a thing in 5e, and such, "zealotry".