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

[Satyrn]

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.

Now there's yet another thread . . .

It almost seems like there's a conspiracy here to make the warlord fans look rabid and zealous. Like y'all are inflating the thread count so you can point to it and say "see, you just never shut up about it!"


But I assure everyone that my warlord indeed landed on the moon, and I'll have him grant Buzz Aldrin an action to punch anyone who says otherwise!

 

[mellored]

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
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.

It's a good start. I agree.

But then what?

You can't get more battelmaster dice (1 more via the feat), help doesn't scale well with multi-attack, and PDK is out of reach.

 

[Imaro]

It's a good start. I agree.

But then what?

You can't get more battelmaster dice (1 more via the feat), help doesn't scale well with multi-attack, and PDK is out of reach.

Well you could go for Rogue 9 at which point you'd get...

Uncanny Dodge (Re-skin as Battlefield Awareness)...good for when the support character gets hit
Evasion (Re-skin as Preternatural Combat Awareness)... again good for those unexpected hits that might take you out
Feat: BM Die & maneuvers
Insightful Manipulator: (I'd use this to better direct spellcasters against which saves are weak vs. opponents)

NOTE: I'd be using bonus action Help to make sure the big hits by the Rogue or spell attacks land... and less about the dedicated warriors who logically would need less help as they progress in combat prowess (though it can still make a difference when disadvantage or other conditions are in play). Also it is used for any ability check not just attack rolls so any action that's not an attack, benefits from it.

The other route is to go further into BM... you are becoming a warlord with a more combat oriented focus at that point with new maneuvers, more dice and more feats...

 

[mellored]

Well you could go for Rogue 9 at which point you'd get...

Uncanny Dodge (Re-skin as Battlefield Awareness)...good for when the support character gets hit
Evasion (Re-skin as Preternatural Combat Awareness)... again good for those unexpected hits that might take you out
Feat: BM Die & maneuvers
Insightful Manipulator: (I'd use this to better direct spellcasters against which saves are weak vs. opponents)

So 2 defensive features...
More damage.
And 2 warlord-y features.

The other route is to go further into BM... you are becoming a warlord with a more combat oriented focus at that point with new maneuvers, more dice and more feats...

It takes 7 extra levels to get 1 extra die and 1 more maneuver. Rogue is winning here.


So battlemaster 3/mastermind 9 is about 50% warlord.

What's the next 8 levels?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The "100+ threads" isn't the biggest exaggeration in the above statement.

Making a thread about what abilities a warlord should have isn't "screaming". The only reason to call it that is to try to deligitimise the position of wanting 5e to have a warlord.

 

[jodyjohnson]

When writing up the Marshal/Warlord for publication on DMs Guild, I had a short list of design goals:
1. It would be non-magical (martial as non-magical or mundane, not martial as a warrior). There are plenty of magical support class options.
2. It would have room in the subclasses for being an entourage or team class with mechanical support (magical options include ranger beastmaster, conjurer, necromancer, artificer/golem, paladin/steed, wizard/familiar, chain pact warlock). The mechanical support would be beyond what all classes can do with a mount, hireling, henchman, or pet.
3. It would have options to potentially recover the HP of others, aid the attacks of allies (or hinder the defense of enemies), hinder the attacks of enemies (aid the defense of allies), and help avoid or remove other harmful effects within reason. All with some advantage (however slight) to the general actions available to all classes and creatures.

In hindsight, I also added aspects of the 'Expert' NPC class from 3.x as each of the subclasses steer the class toward a specific skill set or proficiencies.

Entourage subclasses: chevalier and beast handler (commander and the others could be included if hireling or henchman were appropriate).

Experts: Healer - medicine, Diplomat - persuasion, Skald - performance, Chevalier - horsemanship and combat, Beast Handler - combat and animal handling, Commander - combat and leadership like the Battle Master and Purple Dragon Knight but on the Support/Encourager chassis.

I think there would be room in the subclasses for others like the Butler, the chemist, the Investigator, the Cook, and others. Kind of a Commoner/Expert class that could function as an adventurer by increasing the actions of the rest of the party while having a solid niche in interaction and roleplaying.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...people are actively arguing that 5e should exclude specific styles best supported by 4e in the past...

That's a mischaracterization of people saying that the specific thing being declared as minimum requirement to qualify as including the specific style in question might not actually fit.

You can read that into it, I can't stop you.

Actually, I've already detailed how you can in fact stop that particular thing being read into your statements. Much like I have stopped you from reading racism into my posts (before this point, at least) by not specifically bringing up one or both of our races (whatever they might be) because they are not of direct and immediate relevance to the points I am seeking to make (by which, so that this is as clear as it can be, I mean that my points can be made without those mentions, and my points are not weakened in any way by not including those mentions).

...demanding a relevant historical fact never be mentioned...

This is not a demand that anyone has made. "Demand" is even too strong a word. I did not make a demand of anyone, I made a recommendation, and that recommendation was to not mention a (vaguely, in most cases) relevant historical fact at every opportunity, which is a massively different number of instances from "never."

 

[Corwin]

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.

The more you talk, the more I'm convinced you will not be happy until you make 5e look exactly like 4e. I mean, look at what you just did here. Again. You want these classes to have the same structures. The same feel. The same mechanisms. You want everything to mirror exactly. That's why I tried to reword your question in my last post. Because the *way* I asked your question at least made it relevant. Your way seems to be demanding homogeneity. Well that's 4e. No thanks. If I want 4e I'll go play 4e. Maybe you should consider the same? That's not a bad thing. After all, it gets you what you really want. And it's that the important thing?

 

[mellored]

The more you talk, the more I'm convinced you will not be happy until you make 5e look exactly like 4e. I mean, look at what you just did here. Again. You want all the classes to have the same structures.

I have no idea why you think that, but it's simply wrong.

I suggested mixing 2 current class structures to make a new one.


But to the original point. Monk and warlock get to do monk and warlock things all the time.
The 5e thing is that you get to do your class shtick all of the time. Even wizards always get to cast spells all the time. They no longer need to throw darts like 3e.

So, no. Battlemaster doing it's thing 30% of the time is not a 5e thing.

 

[Corwin]

So, no. Battlemaster doing it's thing 30% of the time is not a 5e thing.

Wait, so you have a problem with *all* battlemasters? The whole subclass? Used even to make non-warlord-y battlemasters? If so I think I'm starting to see the underlying problem more clearly. And my last post may still be relevant. Or are you saying the battlemaster is a failure primarily because you can't lazylord 100% of the time. Because that would be ludicrous.