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

[doctorbadwolf]

I remember the Marshal, I think it was an aura based class if I remember correctly.

One of the strongest parts of the Warlord was it's triggering and interrupt abilities that were abundant in 4th edition but which aren't in 5th. Most of the people screaming for a Warlord are probably wanting the class to play very much like the one in 4th edition. We have several "Warlord" options in 5th edition but none seem good enough even though they do work.

No one is "screaming" for a warlord. Using that kind of language to describe a view you disagree with detracts from the civility of he discussion, and contributes to polarization in a thread.

I don't think anyone asking for a 5e version cares about it using the same specific mechanics as a previous edition.

We use previous editions when talking about things that aren't in the new one yet, sure. Just like we did with every single class during the playtest. It's a frame of reference, not an expectation of a "copy and paste".

And the games aren't that different, mechanically.

There is no need to change anything about the action economy, or deal in squares instead of feet, or whatever.

The Warlord needs to buff allies, create openings by rebuffing enemies, etc, all mechanics that are scattered around the game already, just in ways that you can't reasonably get a decent amount of them before being 12th level, and because they are all subclass features, they end up being a very small part of what your character does.

That is the crux of the issue. We aren't talking about introducing wildly divergent mechanics, here.

 

[Imaro]

I'm starting to wonder if a Fighter (Battlemaster)/Rogue (Mastermind) multi-class might not make a good warlord. Re-skin Sneak Attack as a tactical attack...help as a bonus action... BM Maneuvers... expertise...

 

[Tony Vargas]

And how many times did they use the spell slot?

I would have to say 'enough times.'
Seriously.

Though i do agree it would have been better if they started with it.

Oh yeah, there's a lot of coulda-shoulda-probablystillwouldn'ta

But, what's to do but start from where we are? Since we can't go back. (Well, I mean, we have done, but it's not worth repeating 4 years of edition warring and 2 of playtesting to so so again, I don't think).

Which other class can only do their thing 20% of the time?

1e Thieves?

And i'll bump that estimate to 30%.

Still not accounting for the paucity nor the relative effectiveness of warlord-ish maneuvers with that.

They did suck. But being underpowered is a math issue, not a conceptual issue.

I agree balance issues are not conceptual issues, but...

Just increase the right numbers in the right places and an underpowered class stops being underpowered.

Sometimes, though, it just then becomes overpowered (but still boring, for instance).

The main thing we learn from the marshal is that an aura-based class is kind of boring. This seems to be a lesson game designers are learning all over: emphasize active abilities over passives.

So the Marshal is a good object lesson in what not to do. ;P

Boggles my mind how folks don't seem to get that having a subclass that covers a concept doesn't replace having a class for it. Subclasses aren't very big in 5e. A character does, by a wide margin, mostly what their base class does.

The warlord-esque subclasses are more like multiclassing warlord than playing a warlord.

Nod. It's particularly obvious since the Fighter and Ranger both have wizard-esque multi-classing-alternative sub-classes, as well.

Or Captain.

Ima die on that hill.

I don't want to go charging it right now, wrong thread. May call in some artillery to keep you company later, though.

But hey I also hate "fighter". I mean...80%+ of characters could be described as a fighter, but most of those concepts would't fit the "Fighter" class.

Nod. That goes way, way back. Shouldn't it be enough that we just have class names we can use to refer consistently to about the same things they've referred to in the past?

 

[mellored]

I'm starting to wonder if a Fighter (Battlemaster)/Rogue (Mastermind) multi-class might not make a good warlord. Re-skin Sneak Attack as a tactical attack...help as a bonus action... BM Maneuvers... expertise...

I've done it, and it's not a bad start.
Human with inspiring leader, battlemaster 4 (shield master), master mind 3 / bard 1 (reflavoring healing word).

That's 8 levels... which mostly works in a system-mastery-sort of way...
But then what?

PDK's surge would be great, but I can't multi-class fighter/fighter, not to mention it's 10 levels up.
Lore bard is tempting, but it get's harder to keep pretending magic slots aren't magic slots...


Hence the dilemma.

 

[Corpsetaker]

No one is "screaming" for a warlord.

Mmmmmmm if the 100+ threads (exaggerating) don't give it away then I don't know what else will. They are *screaming* as much as their fingers will allow them to.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I agree balance issues are not conceptual issues, but... Sometimes, though, it just then becomes overpowered (but still boring, for instance).

Sure. There's even a phenomenon that you see in competitive games like Dota and LoL where a character is either underpowered or overpowered but never balanced -- usually because their abilities lack clear situational strengths and weaknesses, so when they're strong they're strong all the time and vice versa.

So the Marshal is a good object lesson in what not to do. ;P

And also that it's the warlord's granddaddy. From those two facts taken together, infer what you will.

But seriously, object lessons in what not to do are not lightly to be dismissed. "Those who do not learn from the past" and all that.

Nod. That goes way, way back. Shouldn't it be enough that we just have class names we can use to refer consistently to about the same things they've referred to in the past?

So, "marshal", then?

 

[Corwin]

Which other class can only do their thing 20% of the time?

IMO, you might better serve the discussion asking, "What other classes use integral short-rest recovery abilities, that are limited in quantity, such that they cannot be used even half the rounds of an average adventuring day?"

Monk ki for one. Warlock spell slots are another. How are they so dissimilar from superiority dice? Limited resources. Recoverable on a short rest. Each expendable flexibly across a list of possible uses.

See! Martial control is fun!

It totally is. Which is why I like 5e. It has everything I need already baked in.

And i'll bump that estimate to 30%.

Now you're just being crazy!

 

[mellored]

IMO, you might better serve the discussion asking, "What other classes use integral short-rest recovery abilities, that are limited in quantity, such that they cannot be used even half the rounds of an average adventuring day?"

Monk ki for one. Warlock spell slots are another. How are they so dissimilar from superiority dice? Limited resources. Recoverable on a short rest. Each expendable flexibly across a list of possible uses.

Monks main thing is being an unarmed combatant. They can do that each turn from level 1. And they get 1 ki per level, as well as a bunch of passive abilities.
Or are you suggesting the butler get's 1 die per level and pick up a bunch of passive abilities? That sounds fine.

As for warlocks, many of their spells last for multiple rounds. It's easy enough to have darkness for each round combat. And their second main feature is at-will/passive invocations, which they can pick damage/utility/defense.
Or are you suggesting the marshal get's a choice of battle-long buff, and an a choice of at-will/passive features. That sounds good too.


Maybe mix the 2. 1 ki per level, and a list of invocations to choose from.
Seems like a good baseline for a squire class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But seriously, object lessons in what not to do are not lightly to be dismissed. "Those who do not learn from the past" and all that.

True enough.

So, "marshal", then?

I'd rather not refer to an obscure failure or arbitrary/superfluous sub- class label, but to the only successful take on the Warlord, the Warlord.

(Darn, it'd be great to finally be able to say 'first successful take,' instead, when referring to the 4e Warlord ...
... or 'second-best!' )

 

[Imaro]

I've done it, and it's not a bad start.
Human with inspiring leader, battlemaster 4 (shield master), master mind 3 / bard 1 (reflavoring healing word).

That's 8 levels... which mostly works in a system-mastery-sort of way...
But then what?

PDK's surge would be great, but I can't multi-class fighter/fighter, not to mention it's 10 levels up.
Lore bard is tempting, but it get's harder to keep pretending magic slots aren't magic slots...


Hence the dilemma.

Well I think the concept could be realized earlier than that...

I would go Fighter: Battlemaster w/protection(re-skin as giving tactical advice) 3/Rogue: Mastermind 3

Human (versatile): Healer 1d6+4+6 hit points for each character per short rest

Battlemaster:
Second Wind
Action Surge (In a pinch he is a trained warrior)
3 Maneuvers (Commander's Strike, Maneuvering Attack, Rally)
Prof: Artisan Tool

Mastermind:
Expertise (2 skills): Intimidation, Diplomacy, Insight, Knowledge, etc.
Sneak Attack (Re-skin as Tactical Strike)
Thieve's Cant *Since this is mostly fluff I would ask the DM if I could change this to tactical signs and signals I can use with my group that others can't understand...
Cunning Action (Reskin as Tactical Movement)
Prof: Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit, Gaming Set *To me this is the most irking aspect of this combination for a warlord as it doesn't readily map... maybe ask the DM if you can replace them...
Master of Tactics (Bonus action: Help 30' radius)

NOTE: If you add another level then get Leadership feat, this is assuming ASI's are less important to a character whose primary function is to grant support to everyone else... which this character seems quite capable of doing.