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

[Aldarc]

Sure. I think the big step is taking the warlord/martial leader out of the fighter chassis. A spell-less paladin might be one way to do it, or at least to start towards it.

5E is a robust system, particularly with the subclass system, but WotC likely shot themselves a bit in the foot by having so much unevenness between classes and subclasses in terms of 1) how much is gained via the subclass or chassis and 2) when classes gain their class vs. subclass abilities. In this case, though a Fighter could ideally provide a chassis for the Warlord, the sheer baggage of the 5E Fighter chassis makes such a design incompatible.

 

[Guest 6801328]

5E is a robust system, particularly with the subclass system, but WotC likely shot themselves a bit in the foot by having so much unevenness between classes and subclasses in terms of 1) how much is gained via the subclass or chassis and 2) when classes gain their class vs. subclass abilities. In this case, though a Fighter could ideally provide a chassis for the Warlord, the sheer baggage of the 5E Fighter chassis makes such a design incompatible.

Slightly off-topic, but I wonder if a Fighter sub-class that replaced every ability with "Pick a Feat" would create an interesting base. Would probably want some new Feats to choose from.

 

[Tony Vargas]

WotC likely shot themselves a bit in the foot by having so much unevenness between classes and subclasses in terms of 1) how much is gained via the subclass or chassis and 2) when classes gain their class vs. subclass abilities.

It doesn't exactly help with 3.5-style Multi-Classing, either.

Slightly off-topic, but I wonder if a Fighter sub-class that replaced every ability with "Pick a Feat" would create an interesting base. Would probably want some new Feats to choose from.

I couldn't hurt to call back a design an neat as the 3.x fighter class, but it probably couldn't be done in a way that really delivered the same elegance and customizeability. Especially under 5e's 'feats are big' design rubric. And, of course, it'd have to be bonus feats, not ASIs, since too many of those would both get crazy, and, ironically, diminish in value.

Maybe new, smaller or more detailed or flexible 'fighter bonus feats' for use with the archetype could work? Or feats that challenged some of the limitations 5e put on combat & the action-economy in the name of fast combat? Or higher-impact feats (or maneuvers) with higher level preqs?

IDK, the fighter 'chassis' still seems to limit what you can do with an archetype.
I'm surprised disappointed they didn't make the fighter more 'in the archetypes' with a more skeletal base-class chassis, and much more extensive archetypes - considering they were trying to squeeze both the simplest-of-the-simplistic Champion, and the whole 'tactical combat depth' of the past two editions* as the BM, into the same class, as archetypes.
It's too late to 'fix' that, so at least one 'new' martial class is called for.













* the Battlemaster was left to cover the 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster & Knight), 3.5 Warblade, 4e Warlord, and arguably, 3.5 Knight and 4e (martial-only) Ranger, as well. And all it could cash in to try to cover all that was Improved & Superior Critical, 'Remarkable' Athlete, Survivor, and an extra fighting style.

 

[mellored]

Slightly off-topic, but I wonder if a Fighter sub-class that replaced every ability with "Pick a Feat" would create an interesting base. Would probably want some new Feats to choose from.

it's certainly a step twoard a modular fighter, but you still have the same core issue of multi-attack being so powerful that there isn't room for other things.

Unless you have a sub-class that explicitly replaces multi-attack (like the new ranger does), I don't see it working.

 

[Guest 6801328]

it's certainly a step twoard a modular fighter, but you still have the same core issue of multi-attack being so powerful that there isn't room for other things.

Unless you have a sub-class that explicitly replaces multi-attack (like the new ranger does), I don't see it working.

I think the solution for multi-attack is to give a hypothetical sub-class options for the extra attacks. E.g., "You can forego one or more of your attacks in order to..." So it doesn't actually remove the ability, which would be irregular, but instead turns the extra attack(s) into a resource.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the solution for multi-attack is to give a hypothetical sub-class options for the extra attacks. E.g., "You can forego one or more of your attacks in order to..."

I've thought about that in the past. One issue is that the fighter's design uses those extra attacks to deliver 'best at fighting' DPR, justified, in part, by the obvious fact that it really can't do a lot else. So adding versatility without taking away the high at-will DPR, just trading it in when something else would be situationally even better, then going back to it any/every round that it's the best choice, could be seen as 'broken.' (It's really not, IMHO, because the margin of 'best' given by the fighter's DPR doesn't justify it's overspecialization and limited utility in other areas - but that's a very hard point to make against decades of D&D tradition.)
Then, you have to 'balance' the extra-attack alternatives so they actually will be better than just grinding out extra attack at least some of the time, so they'll all have to be pretty potent, as well, and any of them might be judged 'broken.'
Then, since they're all at-will, if one does turn out to be OP it gets spammed relentlessly.

So, yeah, good idea, but a harder solution to pull off than it might seem.
Thus, new class(es), that don't have to deal with unwinding the fighter's already very locked-in/arguably-overvalued features, nor shoulder its decades of everyman-baseline-class baggage.

 

[Aldarc]

It doesn't exactly help with 3.5-style Multi-Classing, either.

Indeed. 1) Some classes are more "front heavy," in terms of features provided, and/or rewarding for dipping than others. 2) The risk vs. reward system with losing ASI/feat progression. 3) The slowed progression of concept features for multiclassed characters.

If one could theoretically make a hybrid class out of a mastermind rogue, fighter (and its two subclasses), or whatever other classes float your Warlord boat that progressed evenly, then that could potentially work. But by that point, you are better off designing a new class entirely. And indeed, there may be more tinkering required to make a proper MC/Hybrid Warlord work than building a new one.

* the Battlemaster was left to cover the 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster & Knight), 3.5 Warblade, 4e Warlord, and arguably, 3.5 Knight and 4e (martial-only) Ranger, as well. And all it could cash in to try to cover all that was Improved & Superior Critical, 'Remarkable' Athlete, Survivor, and an extra fighting style.

I would also add that the Battlemaster was also likely meant to cover the 3.X Expertise feat chain fighter.
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I share a similar concern with Tony Vargas in terms of attempting to balance tactical feats with Fighter's extra attacks, not to mention how the creation of new feats increases balance complexity across all classes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm beginning to understand/agree that there is an area in the design space that isn't covered. To reiterate the argument(s): the problem with the Fighter as the 'generic' chassis is that the base class has too much built into it, and not enough delegated to the sub-classes. Consequently the base class does so much damage that there isn't enough space left over to add significant functionality, and it also comes with some features (e.g. Heavy Armor) that maybe you wouldn't want in the sub-class.

So what I'm picturing, and I agree (with caveats) that it could be fun, is a class with d8 HP, medium armor/shields/all weapons, at least 7 ASIs, then just a handful of Int and skill-based abilities. Everything else would be delegated to sub-classes.

(I know some of you think it should also be Cha-based, but my inclination would be to leave that to a sub-class as well, in the way that Arcane Trickster does: sure, Int is useful for Rogues, but not formally so until the sub-class.)

So what kind(s) of abilities? I could see:
- Add Int bonus to Initiative
- Expertise (identical to Rogue/Bard ability)
- I'm still partial to the mechanic I've suggested a couple of places, where if you can study a battleground for a minute before combat starts you and anybody you can communicate with get Advantage to spend on one roll in the battle. (I now agree with Tony: it can't be Inspiration itself, because you would have to lose it if you don't use it before the combat ends, so it's really a different mechanic.)
- I'd love to see something somewhat akin to Warlocks Pacts, where you get one of N choices of cool features, regardless of which sub-class you choose.

Then lots of Sub-Class features.

The "Charismatic/Inspirational Leader" some of you want could be a sub-class. The Daredevil/Batman type of scrapper, with lots of stunts and tricks, could fit. A mobile, shield specialist (including shield throwing, of course) could fit. The "Squire/Sidekick" concept would fit.

So, in other words, a "generic" fighter in the sense that a Wizard is a generic caster. Where the Wizard customizes via spell choices, this class would customize via sub-classes.

This does raise the question of why it has to be in the sub-classes. So an alternative could be sub-class features more in line with other classes, and then add a analogue to Warlock Invocations to the base class. That is, a couple of dozen features that you get to choose from, only changing them when you change levels. (Which is really quite similar to Feats, so you might want to rein in the ASIs.)

I could see what this would be fun. My caveat, though, is that it just doesn't feel like D&D to me. It feels, philosophically, like a different game. In D&D the choice of class is supposed to be constraining, not an opportunity for a la carte class customization. I'm not saying the latter is bad, it's just different. There are other games where you can mix-and-match and basically design your own class, but I don't love the idea of doing that in D&D.

And even though I acknowledged above that the Wizard class (and really any caster class) effectively does that, again it feels different when it's spell selection. I'll have to ponder more why it's different, and perhaps the reason is simply that it's what I'm used to. But that's not necessarily a bad justification. "What we're used to" drives a lot of preferences for all of us.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm beginning to understand/agree that there is an area in the design space that isn't covered. To reiterate the argument(s): the problem with the Fighter as the 'generic' chassis is that the base class has too much built into it, and not enough delegated to the sub-classes. Consequently the base class does so much damage that there isn't enough space left over to add significant functionality.

Too much of one thing, DPR, done one way, multi-atttacking, yes. And that in service to one clear concept: 'best at fighting.' All of which is fine & dandy and captures the 2e fighter pretty well at a high level, IMHO (leaving out the 2e fighter's OP double-specialized-dual-weapon/archery options; and it's nice saves across the board at high level, that is). So it's not an argument to change or replace the 5e fighter, but simply to add another, optional 'martial' class that can cover some of the missing ground the poor BM is currently spread so thinly and inadequately over...

and it also comes with some features (e.g. Heavy Armor) that maybe you wouldn't want in the sub-class.

Heavy Armor I'm not even worried about, it was a big deal back in the day, but since 3.0, it's prettymuch just been a way for STR-based builds to be competitive with DEX-based. Any class that's meant to have a broad choice of weapons (not be dedicated ranged or primarily finesse), and thus able to choose to emphasize either STR or DEX, probably needs heavy armor. Which, now that I think of it, is maybe still a tad over-valued in 5e.

So what I'm picturing, and I agree (with caveats) that it could be fun, is a class with d8 HP, medium armor/shields/all weapons, at least 7 ASIs, then just a handful of Int and skill-based abilities. Everything else would be delegated to sub-classes.

ASIs I'm pretty cool to, mainly because I tend not to use feats as a DM, I suppose, but also because they're highly-valued, even to the point of being talked up a bit too much.

(I know some of you think it should also be Cha-based, but my inclination would be to leave that to a sub-class as well, in the way that Arcane Trickster does: sure, Int is useful for Rogues, but not formally so until the sub-class.)

Agreed.

So what kind(s) of abilities? I could see:
- Add Int bonus to Initiative
- Expertise (identical to Rogue/Bard ability)
- I'm still partial to the mechanic I've suggested a couple of places, where if you can study a battleground for a minute before combat starts you and anybody you can communicate with get Advantage to spend on one roll in the battle. (I now agree with Tony: it can't be Inspiration itself, because you would have to lose it if you don't use it before the combat ends, so it's really a different mechanic.)
- I'd love to see something somewhat akin to Warlocks Pacts, where you get one of N choices of cool features, regardless of which sub-class you choose.

Then lots of Sub-Class features.

The "Charismatic/Inspirational Leader" some of you want could be a sub-class. The Daredevil/Batman type of scrapper, with lots of stunts and tricks, could fit. A mobile, shield specialist (including shield throwing, of course) could fit. The "Squire/Sidekick" concept would fit.

So, in other words, a "generic" fighter in the sense that a Wizard is a generic caster. Where the Wizard customizes via spell choices, this class would customize via sub-classes.

This does raise the question of why it has to be in the sub-classes. So an alternative could be sub-class features more in line with other classes, and then add a analogue to Warlock Invocations to the base class. That is, a couple of dozen features that you get to choose from, only changing them when you change levels. (Which is really quite similar to Feats, so you might want to rein in the ASIs.)

I could see what this would be fun. My caveat, though, is that it just doesn't feel like D&D to me. It feels, philosophically, like a different game.

Nod. One point of going all 'modular' with 5e is to allow you to deviate from the classic feel that's built so admirably into the standard game.

In D&D the choice of class is supposed to be constraining, not an opportunity for a la carte class customization....And even though I acknowledged above that the Wizard class (and really any caster class) effectively does that, again it feels different when it's spell selection. I'll have to ponder more why it's different,

Obviously, it's maaaaaaagic!

and perhaps the reason is simply that it's what I'm used to. But that's not necessarily a bad justification. "What we're used to" drives a lot of preferences for all of us.

It's fine, and the standard game of the PH-without-options thoroughly caters to it. An optional, more customizable martial class, like the 3.5 fighter, would be an alternative. A martial class that was also more flexible in play, like any 4e martial class, could represent a broader set of alternatives, opening up play & campaign style options even more. (But, particularly, the conspicuously missing Warlord - or, really, all 4e martial classes combined, since there's no formal Role in 5e. Kinda like how the invoker is really part of the Cleric in 5e, and 4e needed to chop the Druid up while 5e was able to restore it.)

 

[mellored]

I'm beginning to understand/agree that there is an area in the design space that isn't covered. To reiterate the argument(s): the problem with the Fighter as the 'generic' chassis is that the base class has too much built into it, and not enough delegated to the sub-classes. Consequently the base class does so much damage that there isn't enough space left over to add significant functionality, and it also comes with some features (e.g. Heavy Armor) that maybe you wouldn't want in the sub-class.

So what I'm picturing, and I agree (with caveats) that it could be fun, is a class with d8 HP, medium armor/shields/all weapons, at least 7 ASIs, then just a handful of Int and skill-based abilities. Everything else would be delegated to sub-classes.

I'm on the fence about using actual feats though. On one hand, it covers the "why can't anyone do this" aspect. Nothing stops a wizard from grabbing one and granting attacks (or whichever).
On the other, it can limit the what the features actually are. Since each one will be available to each class, and available at level 1. So you can't have high level maneuvers. And you want to avoid feat trees.

So what kind(s) of abilities? I could see:
- Add Int bonus to Initiative
- Expertise (identical to Rogue/Bard ability)
- I'm still partial to the mechanic I've suggested a couple of places, where if you can study a battleground for a minute before combat starts you and anybody you can communicate with get Advantage to spend on one roll in the battle. (I now agree with Tony: it can't be Inspiration itself, because you would have to lose it if you don't use it before the combat ends, so it's really a different mechanic.)

Those all look good.

- I'd love to see something somewhat akin to Warlocks Pacts, where you get one of N choices of cool features, regardless of which sub-class you choose.

This is the biggest point for me.

Between pacts, patrons, invocations, and spells, you can make a lot of different kinds of warlocks.

This does raise the question of why it has to be in the sub-classes. So an alternative could be sub-class features more in line with other classes, and then add a analogue to Warlock Invocations to the base class. That is, a couple of dozen features that you get to choose from, only changing them when you change levels. (Which is really quite similar to Feats, so you might want to rein in the ASIs.)

I could see what this would be fun. My caveat, though, is that it just doesn't feel like D&D to me. It feels, philosophically, like a different game. In D&D the choice of class is supposed to be constraining, not an opportunity for a la carte class customization.

IMO, it's less about constraints, and more about a having a role or identity. I think sub-classes are enough to provide that, but leave the rest open for customization.

Like saying your a divination wizard gives you a identity. But it doesn't stop you from spending every slot casting fireballs and hypnotic patterns.


For instance, you might have....

Open base class with generic name (warrior, fighting-man).
5 features from a sub-class with a theme and evocative name that gives you your role (guardian, myrmidon, brawler, silver dragon knight, battle butler, ect...).
5 ASI
5 chooseable maneuvers (at-will - cantrip-esk abilities)
5 chooseable talents (passive invocations)


So if you choose to play a brawler you have an identity, but 75% of your abilities are open to choice.