Is there though? Are you sure? Do you have any statistics that support this? I'm not saying there aren't a handful of people feverishly demanding a 4e warlord be ported directly into 5e. I'm questioning your implication that there has been enough demand to warrant even being considered a blip on the radar.
D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.
- Thread starter Paul Smart
- Start date
Aldarc
Legend
I will admit that I am not terribly concerned in creating a "must have" list of mechanics for the warlord. I do believe there is a place for a warlord-type class in 5E that is not filled by other classes or subclasses that is not detrimental to 5e's action economy. As others have stated, a lot of the proposed mechanics for a warlord are effectively already in the 5e game at present. One point that I find preposterous is the argument against low-level warlords in regards to a warlord telling X how to be a better X than a higher level X by virtue of its class abilities. I hate to break to these individuals, but that's also already possible in the game. A low-level battlemaster can tell a max-level champion fighter how to be a better fighter.
The problem IMHO is the class chassis. (And the name is just a label that can be squabbled over later.) In general, the chassis is where a lot of the contention rests for the various pro, anti, and those-in-between warlord camps. "Why play a warlord, when you can (or sometimes stated more strongly as should) play Xsub1, Ysub2, or Zsub3 instead?" Long story short, because the chassis does not feel right to emulate the flavor-niche of the warlord. The Mastermind is still a rogue with sneak attacks. The Cleric/Bard is still a spellcaster, with either a priestly or musical flavor (pick your poison). The Battlemaster is still a fighter with loads of extra attacks galore and above average HP. The Battlemaster is the closest in terms of flavor: martial/mundane with "spell-like" tactical/support options. But I suspect for a number of other warlord advocates, myself included, the Battlemaster feels like a 1/3 caster warlord, much as the Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster wizard with a more limited spell list that is built on the fighter chassis. And multiclassing to cherrypick all these warlord-esque abilities is a massive delay for both mechanical and character concept effectiveness that often results in picking up ineffective undesirables (e.g. sneak attack, spells, etc.) that don't particularly contribute to the concept.
Ideally, I would like to see the Warlord as something of a "full-caster" battlemaster with bits an pieces of other subclasses. In terms of a line-of-best-fit, most warlord advocates seem to see the warlord chassis as having a d8 HD, light or medium armor, shields, no spells, and often one extra attack. A potential warlord would also serve as an excellent opportunity to expand several points of the 5e gameplay.
1) It would provide more combat maneuvers for the game that could be integrated into other classes. Spellcasters can almost always expect expanded spell lists in supplemental splatbooks. Non-casters really only get feats or new subclasses.
2) Combat maneuvers provide a spell-like mechanic available for providing the sort tactical play available for casters to non-caster classes. This was one of the allures of 4E: the martial, mundane non-casters had more advanced tactical options than "I roll to hit." The warlord in many respects represented this tactical mindset and the group's point guard. One criticism of 4E was that every class played like a caster. However, we should not take that criticism to mean that advanced tactical options or caster-like options should be cordoned off from the mundane classes. And indeed, we see the battlemaster with a tantalizing hint of what these sort of mechanics could be in 5e. The warlord's combat maneuvers could even be organized into level tiers similar to spell structures It could just be only 3-4 tiers. For example, see the Arcana Evolved Ritual Warrior, which was largely designed by Mike Mearls himself. We could even see the BM Fighter perhaps more as a Fighter's Warlord subclass, but built with the Warlock's assumptions: pact/maneuver scales automatically. Perhaps the Warlord's effort surrounding combat maneuvers is on a per day/long rest rotation as opposed to the Battlemaster's per short rest resource?
Overall, the warlord provided the opportunity for giving mundane warriors the thrill of making the sort of broad and varied tactical options that were normally reserved for casters.
The problem IMHO is the class chassis. (And the name is just a label that can be squabbled over later.) In general, the chassis is where a lot of the contention rests for the various pro, anti, and those-in-between warlord camps. "Why play a warlord, when you can (or sometimes stated more strongly as should) play Xsub1, Ysub2, or Zsub3 instead?" Long story short, because the chassis does not feel right to emulate the flavor-niche of the warlord. The Mastermind is still a rogue with sneak attacks. The Cleric/Bard is still a spellcaster, with either a priestly or musical flavor (pick your poison). The Battlemaster is still a fighter with loads of extra attacks galore and above average HP. The Battlemaster is the closest in terms of flavor: martial/mundane with "spell-like" tactical/support options. But I suspect for a number of other warlord advocates, myself included, the Battlemaster feels like a 1/3 caster warlord, much as the Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster wizard with a more limited spell list that is built on the fighter chassis. And multiclassing to cherrypick all these warlord-esque abilities is a massive delay for both mechanical and character concept effectiveness that often results in picking up ineffective undesirables (e.g. sneak attack, spells, etc.) that don't particularly contribute to the concept.
Ideally, I would like to see the Warlord as something of a "full-caster" battlemaster with bits an pieces of other subclasses. In terms of a line-of-best-fit, most warlord advocates seem to see the warlord chassis as having a d8 HD, light or medium armor, shields, no spells, and often one extra attack. A potential warlord would also serve as an excellent opportunity to expand several points of the 5e gameplay.
1) It would provide more combat maneuvers for the game that could be integrated into other classes. Spellcasters can almost always expect expanded spell lists in supplemental splatbooks. Non-casters really only get feats or new subclasses.
2) Combat maneuvers provide a spell-like mechanic available for providing the sort tactical play available for casters to non-caster classes. This was one of the allures of 4E: the martial, mundane non-casters had more advanced tactical options than "I roll to hit." The warlord in many respects represented this tactical mindset and the group's point guard. One criticism of 4E was that every class played like a caster. However, we should not take that criticism to mean that advanced tactical options or caster-like options should be cordoned off from the mundane classes. And indeed, we see the battlemaster with a tantalizing hint of what these sort of mechanics could be in 5e. The warlord's combat maneuvers could even be organized into level tiers similar to spell structures It could just be only 3-4 tiers. For example, see the Arcana Evolved Ritual Warrior, which was largely designed by Mike Mearls himself. We could even see the BM Fighter perhaps more as a Fighter's Warlord subclass, but built with the Warlock's assumptions: pact/maneuver scales automatically. Perhaps the Warlord's effort surrounding combat maneuvers is on a per day/long rest rotation as opposed to the Battlemaster's per short rest resource?
Overall, the warlord provided the opportunity for giving mundane warriors the thrill of making the sort of broad and varied tactical options that were normally reserved for casters.
CapnZapp
Legend
Nah.
Nothing wrong with unrestricted action trading in 5e.
Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Sure, but every class name has alternate meanings. What matters is the most common connotation.
Honestly I think the best route would be to choose an obscure word, for which most people (except nerds like us) have no connotations, and perform a linguistic hijacking. (C.f. "Druid", "Paladin", etc.)
We have all hashed out our responses to the rest of this thread's arguments a thousand times, though, and I've never really cared about any of it that isn't focused on how to impliment and execute the class. You provided a well thought out, well written, post, and for that I give you some xp, even though I disagree with pretty much every word of it.
Fair enough!
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I find your assertion curiously lacking in supporting details while I've provided examples. Every case I've found either involves spending more actions (reactions, bonus actions), spending limited resources (superiority dice, spell slots, concentration), or both.
I put the onus on you to support your statement. I feel like I have already provided enough counter examples that it does not stand on it's own and ask for you to support it from the books.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
I have to admit as somebody who never played 4e, given the fanatical demand for Warlords it's pretty hard to shake the suspicion that Warlords were OP and that what's really going on is that a bunch of 4e players miss WTFPWNing the battlemat. For every post like Tony's (who knows his game and I tend to believe) saying that they weren't OP, there are 10 posts reminiscing about how effective they were. It's hard to ignore the pattern.
This is my own bias and perhaps failure of imagination, but I have a really hard time understanding why it's fun to visualize granting somebody else an attack. In my mind's eye I see gameplay like I'm watching a movie. I imagine my sneaky rogue stabbing somebody in the kidneys, or my archer pulling off pinpoint heart-shots, or my barbarian screaming and cleaving foes in twain...etc. But I try to imagine "granting an attack" and there's just no there there.
On the other hand, I do know the satisfaction of a build coming together in combat. E.g., an abyssal caster triggers my Paladin's Mage Slayer and I crit with Divine Smite (this actually happened at level 3 in CoD...it was wonderful.) But although I'm ok with enjoying those moments when they happen, I worry about a class whose whole raison d'être seems to be providing those moments in a consistent, reliable way.
Ideally we should assume that no matter which class/subclass we add to a party the combats should become easier by about the same degree. And although currently that is most definitely not true...both because party composition matters and because some builds are demonstrably more effective than others...I think making that even less true is a terrible rationale for the existence of a class.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Not that I have any influence whatsoever over WotC, and not that any of you should actually care what I think (unless you think I'm pretty typical for a non-4e player and together we have a voice), but if you really want to win me over to the Warlord you'll resolve the name first, rather than kicking that particular can down the road.
Give me a great name, colorful and evocative, to latch onto that helps me visualize a distinct archetype, with examples from history or fiction, and I'm on board.
The one historical figure that I think most resembles what you all are talking about is Odysseus. He was clever and charismatic, and is known more for his planning than for his prowess in arms. (Even his archery, as fine as it was, depended in key moments on his tactics.)
My own personal requirements, which you are of course free to ignore*:
- Can't imply seniority/primacy over other characters (Warlord, Captain, Commander). That honor is earned over time, not chosen at level 1.
- Can't be dryly descriptive (Tactician)
*AT YOUR PERIL!
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Oh, and one more thing: anybody looking for a low-magic campaign should consider C7's Adventures in Middle-earth. It's based on the 5e OGL. You don't have to play in Middle-earth, of course.
Caveat emptor: I'm an unabashed fan-boi of The One Ring and supporter of C7.
Caveat emptor: I'm an unabashed fan-boi of The One Ring and supporter of C7.
mellored
Legend
By default, every 4e weapon class had a SCAG cantrip like booming blade or green flameblade. You hit for normal damage, and it had some extra effect like punishing someone if they move.
Warlords granted only basic attacks, not cantrips. So a generic granted attack was about 80% of the normal damage (which is why it also added +int). As you level, your attack becomes even less, so the warlord adds more.
Essentials classes where built around making a single good attack (like the 5e rogue). They got extra damage built right into the basic attack, so a warlord could do 110% damage with then. Stronger, but not OP.
The real way warlords became OP was because of how many different kinds of actions there where. You could grant 2 attacks with your action, then another with your bonus action, and another with your reaction, all with a big bonus to hit or damage. So you do 80% * 5 attacks = 400% damage, or 110%* 5 = 550% with an essentials class, all in 1 turn.
The highest I manged was to grant 10 attacks in 1 round (+4 if allies took the right feat). Not that I actually took any of my builds to a real game.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ar-Op-Builds&p=6707511&viewfull=1#post6707511
It would be like having twin haste, purple dragon knights action surge, commander's strike all together, with crusader's mantle and foresight tossed in for good measure, with the rogue doing full sneak attack damage each time. (...and now i need to see the maximum amount of attacks I can grant in 5e...)
5e's cut down on most of that by having only action, bonus action, and reaction (4e had action, bonus action, reaction, free action, opportunity action). As well as the 1/turn thing for rogues, and concentration.
It should be noted that most of 4e errata's where adding "once per turn" to things. Something 5e started with.
Paul Smart
Explorer
Great response Aldarc. That sums up why I, and I believe a lot of people, want to play a warlord. To have that tactical presence on the battefield. Elfcrusher, what sort of name would be acceptable to you? Can you give an example?
Similar Threads
