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

[Tony Vargas]

But you can already play 5e characters that adequately model character concepts like "that"

Not 'adequately' for a concept focused on that, but 'adequately' for the 'anyone should be able to do it' side of the design conundrum, certainly. That's already covered, and could be expanded if new optional mechanics are introduce.

*I'm intrigued by the shoehorning of such characters as Batman and Robin Hood into the warlord role now. Really? Don't those two, especially, seem like a bit of a stretch?

Not so much of a stretch with Robin Hood, since he was a classic 'leader' of a band of 'merry' men. (Nor Robin, who'd be more the sidekick type, for that matter, oddly enough). And, in 5e, where there's not the lead to keep the Warlord locked in the 'Leader'-Role box, 'tactical' could easily include tactics that use the terrain, or the enemy's proclivities (even strength) against them, as well as coordinating and enhancing allies in the more traditional 'support' way.

But, yeah, in the past 'Batman' has more often been used to refer to an optimized Wizard build, of all things.

That's more true if it triggers off a normal OA-triggering action, such as movement. My original conception was that it doesn't require movement, instead Captain Darebat just "presents an opportunity", e.g. he feints as if he's fleeing, or whatever.

I see. Yes, I can see how it'd get trickier to keep the mechanic viable/workable in the blanket anytime-you-provoke form, than in the active form. I was thinking it could be actively applied when you'd otherwise provoke, giving it a protection-from-OA side, as well, for instance, as a maneuver or something. For instance, you declare the maneuver when you perform a provoking action. If the enemy goes for it, you can roll your CS die, applying the result to both the enemy's OA (as a penalty) and the ally's (as a bonus).

Yeah, that way there's a meta-game incentive for the DM to take the OA, since not doing so leaves you the CS die and you can do it again later. A solid 'catch-22.'

No, not anybody. Player characters. Heroes. And most especially the ones who choose to fight without casting spells.

That last is certainly a much smaller set than 'all classes,' but it seems like 5e has many potential mechanisms to make new combat abilities embodied in a new version of a prior-ed core class available to members of other classes. The class write-up could include feats akin to Martial Adept, a Background evoking a bit of the class's ability, or even archetypes of other classes using the new sub-system; if that's an expanded the maneuver sub-system, it could lift the BM on the same tide;

I do understand the argument that if you make some heroes physically weaker than fighters and rogues and barbarians (smaller HD and less damage output, for example) then you make up for it with the ability to, well, fight like a hero. But I still think it's tricky ground.

If it weren't, any ol' fan could design it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've played a Bravura Warlord .

P.S. "Bravo" would make a halfway decent class name for this thing. The other interesting suggestion I saw upthread was "Heart", which of course is somewhat related.

 

[Corwin]

Not 'adequately' for a concept focused on that...

I'd like to see any kind of evidence that even *they* focus on *that*.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd like to see any kind of evidence that even *they* focus on *that*.

The idea came to Elfcrusher when he was binge-watching Daredevil. You could try that. I didn't care for it after the first couple episodes, myself.

P.S. "Bravo" would make a halfway decent class name for this thing. The other interesting suggestion I saw upthread was "Heart", which of course is somewhat related.

Moonsong's "Noble" used 'Heart' for the lazy-lord style sub-class, I think it could work well for that sort of thing. Bravo and Bravura are presumably the same root, and 'Bravo' was used in 4e for some Rogue feat chain, I think it was, so the Warlord build got the more obscure variation. So, yeah, could make a name for an Archetype, or a Background, for that matter.

 

[Corwin]

The idea came to Elfcrusher when he was binge-watching Daredevil. You could try that. I didn't care for it after the first couple episodes, myself.

Deflection. You put Odysseus, Robin Hood, Captain America and Batman in some kind of warlord camp. When questioned, you said they fight like *that*. I said they could already be modeled like *that*. You said, not so for them because they are focused on *that*. I doubted there is evidence that even *they* focus on *that*. Here you are brushing it off. If you are recanting your claim that those character focus on *that*, we're good, I guess. Just a weird way for you to go about it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You put Odysseus, Robin Hood, Captain America and Batman in some kind of warlord camp.

Again, that was Elfcrusher:

On the one hand it's a consistent...and great...trope from fiction/literature: Odysseus, Robin Hood, Captain America, Batman, etc.

(lack of threading strikes again, I guess)

I was just goin' with it in discussing the practicality of his idea. Which, I think, since 5e has so much open design space in that general area, is quite practical. FWIW.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Deflection. You put Odysseus, Robin Hood, Captain America and Batman in some kind of warlord camp. When questioned, you said they fight like *that*. I said they could already be modeled like *that*. You said, not so for them because they are focused on *that*. I doubted there is evidence that even *they* focus on *that*. Here you are brushing it off. If you are recanting your claim that those character focus on *that*, we're good, I guess. Just a weird way for you to go about it.

No, I grouped them together, and I'm as anti-Warlord as one can get.

I'm not saying they are all "warlords", and in fact the tendency to offer just about every hero from fiction/history as an example of a Warlord is one reason I hate the idea, but at the same time I think that list of heroes shares a common feature, which is that they make up for relative physical inferiority (whether 1v1 or in terms of numbers) with awareness, quick thinking, and clever tricks. I am acknowledging that this is a narrative theme/trope/whatever, and that it is valid to desire in-game mechanics that represent it.

 

[Corwin]

Again, that was Elfcrusher, I was just goin' with it in discussing the practicality of his idea. Which, I think, since 5e has so much open design space in that general area, is quite practical. FWIW.

It doesn't really matter who brought the flag onto the field. You picked it up and charged with it. It's yours now too. Unless you are saying that you disagree that those four examples belong in a warlord discussion. Is that it? You don't agree they belong in a warlord discussion?

 

[Guest 6801328]

It doesn't really matter who brought the flag onto the field. You picked it up and charged with it. It's yours now too. Unless you are saying that you disagree that those four examples belong in a warlord discussion. Is that it? You don't agree they belong in a warlord discussion?

This is B.S. rhetoric. Tony I hope you don't even deign to answer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is B.S. rhetoric. Tony I hope you don't even deign to answer.

::snips answer::

I'm not saying they are all "warlords", and in fact the tendency to offer just about every hero from fiction/history as an example of a Warlord is one reason I hate the idea

Nod, sorry about that, it must seem obnoxious.

It's just there are a /lot/ of heroes from fiction/history who ticked off more boxes than the Fighter had available (and, as you point out, didn't always tick of the fighter full-bore offense), and the Warlord did cover more of them in 4e (still not all) and could have the potential to do even better in 5e. So it's an opportunity.

but at the same time I think that list of heroes shares a common feature, which is that they make up for relative physical inferiority (whether 1v1 or in terms of numbers) with awareness, quick thinking, and clever tricks. I am acknowledging that this is a narrative theme/trope/whatever, and that it is valid to desire in-game mechanics that represent it.

One thought that's occurred to me on reading a recent comment about stats is that 5e is much more amenable to an 'all round' character, in theory, because of BA. The kinds of heroes you're talking about were often not as strong as the strongest, as fast as the fastest, and so forth, but they were often quite formidable across the board. A design that potentially rewarded broad based decent characteristics could be an interesting way to take it, too.