Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7040757" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>I've been debating whether or not to reply to this. And how much to say.</p><p>But, at the end of the day, I don't self censor well and have limited restraint. Plus this is a topic I have some strong feelings toward, which tend to outweigh my better judgement. </p><p></p><p>So… how do we make it happen?</p><p></p><p>Because the warlord was introduced with 4e, so many criticisms of the class came hand-in-hand with shots against the edition (both warranted and wholly unwarranted). So many people still equate discussing or critiquing the warlord with edition warring and respond as such. </p><p>Much like how for a long time it was hard to discuss the magic item Christmas tree and assumed wealth without using 3e edition war language. Or quadratic wizards & linear fighters. </p><p>But to have any kind of warlord, there *needs* to be a discussion on it's strengths and weaknesses. We can't have an entirely pro-warlord discussion because then any problems the concept has don't get fixed. You can't make improvements. </p><p>That's not how design works. There needs to be a give/take.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, because the warlord is seen as so iconic of 4e, its absence is often seen as a shot by the designers against that edition. And so every element of the warlord <em>needs</em> to be included on principle. If the warlord doesn't do everything it did in 4e, then it's a failure. </p><p>Up to and including the name. It can't be a commander or marshal or captain or tactician or strategist (and forget about purple dragon knight and bannerette). Personally, "warlord" throws me off for a couple reasons. First, "warlord" is used in the real world, and tends to apply to pretty horrible people. Very literally among the worst people currently in the world. Throw it into Google News for an example. Second, implies a certain level of rank and status. It's like having the wizard class be called the "archmage" or the cleric the "high priest". </p><p></p><p>With the above in mind, what is needed to make the warlord happen, is for it to stop being an edition war flashpoint. Which likely won't happen this edition. </p><p>Maybe for 6e. When enough time has passed for the topic to be discussed without pitchforks, WotC can try bringing it back.</p><p></p><p>That said, let's get into common abilities. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The catch is, everyone can do this. </p><p>A class feature where you can take the Help action as a bonus action and/or at range is certainly doable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It'd have to be a reaction, but also doable. </p><p>Extra damage isn't 100% necessary though. If you're granting an attack in place of your own, you're almost likely trading a lower damage attack for a higher damage one. That's already a bonus. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This was one of my favourite passive warlord bonuses, as so few things muck with initiative. </p><p>Granting the warlord proficiency on initiative checks might be a simple tweak. Or half proficiency to the party. </p><p></p><p>A flat bonus isn't very useful though. It's just something you write down and then forget about. Despite coming up in every combat, it's not memorable. </p><p>Having an ability to allow characters to reroll initiative, making it more active, would be much more interesting, even if it only affected one person or was usable once a short rest. Ditto having an option allowing the warlord to shift a character's position in the initiative order. Fun <em>and</em> tactical. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Less useful since exact positioning is less of a thing in 5e. </p><p>A limited use ability for off turn movement without provoking would be handy, to get people away from a creature they're base-to-base with. Good for squishies and ranged attackers. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Useful and very much in the wheelhouse of the 4e warlord. But it feels like one of those abilities that better fits the "leader" role and not the "tactical commander" concept. </p><p>It's a checkbox ability that feels less vital to the class concept and probably more at home at a healing subclass. </p><p>It could be a simple as also allowing the Help action to benefit a saving throw instead of an attack roll. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As simple as adding a "aid AC" to the Help action. A "Hinder" action if you will. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The big debate point. Gulp. Here we go…. </p><p></p><p>The issue is all warlord healed in 4e, but that was more a function of their class role rather than their class concept. In the same way marking isn't essential to the fighter or crowd control isn't essential to the wizard. You can make a character that does neither in 5e. Also, you don't expect the tactical genius to also work as the field medic. Those are two different archetypes. There's a finite number of options classes gain each level (and a very limited "hand size" for active powers). This list already includes almost a dozen powers. That's a lot. Getting them all at a reasonable rate would be tricky enough, so including healing as an assumed option likely means healing is coming at the expense of something unique to the warlord. It's losing a tactical option that would be distinct to the class in order to gain something a half dozen other classes can already do. </p><p></p><p>Really, there's only one class in the game with default healing options: the paladin. And that's a secondary healer at best. All other classes have to *choose* to heal. You can make a cleric or druid that never memorizes <em>cure wounds</em>. You can play a bard that literally does not know the spell. It seems odd to make the tactical warrior the only dedicated healer class in the game. </p><p></p><p>There's the giant elephant in the room of martial healing. Restoring real hit points versus temporary hit points. What hp represents. Etc. Which is the thread killer of a topic that has been hotly debated since OD&D. Gygax literally stuck his personal rant post on the topic into a 1e core rulebook. </p><p>Just to avoid the class dumping that debate onto tables, I think it's best not to have heavy warlord healing. Let them grant temporary hp at range and restore 1 hp at 5 feet. And allow people granted warlord temporary hp to get back up. That has the same function at the table (and allows you to "preheal" people).</p><p></p><p></p><p>This feels too much like a bard ability. There's room for some sharing of class features (see Evasion and Unarmoured Defence) but it should be avoided if possible. </p><p>This should be the last ability on the "to add" list. If there's a soft level that needs a boost, add it in. If not, then leave it out. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this was covered above. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This seems doable and in line with the power curve.</p><p>Instead of getting Extra Attack, when the warlord uses their "Grant Attack" ability (or whatever) they can also make an attack themselves. </p><p></p><p></p><p>It kinda works. But it's less interesting than granting an actual attack. And a little similar to bardic inspiration.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, my thoughts are complicated. </p><p></p><p>There is room for the warlord in the game. But there's room for lots of classes in the game. A shapeshifter, a shaman, a dedicated gish class (1/2 arcane), a summoner. My favourite example is, of course, the jester. But I don't want to see them all. We really don't need them all. New classes need to be chosen carefully. Maximum bang for the buck. </p><p>(The mystic/ psion is a good one because it's been in 3+ editions and brings in psionic spells that can also be added to other classes via subclasses. The artificer is also handy, especially if it can be merged with the alchemist. The more vastly different characters, archetypes, and roles can be filled by a new class, the stronger the case it should be added.)</p><p></p><p>The warlord in 4e also overlapped heavily with the bard. Both were often the charismatic leaders that buffed allies. There's already a lot of redundant classes in the game (paladin and ranger, I'm looking at you), so we really don't need more. The other classes get a pass because of legacy. Doubly so as the bard already overlaps with the arcane trickster. </p><p>To really work as it's own class the warlord needs to be distinct. Which means dropping the Charisma aspect of much of the class and focusing on Intelligence. Downplay the "inspiring" and double down on the "tactician and strategist". </p><p>But, as mentioned above, that's a change away from the 4e warlord, so such a class will be rejected by many warlord fans on sheer principle. </p><p></p><p>Thinking about the actual design, the best chassis for the warlord is probably still the cleric or the paladin. D8 Hit Dice, medium armour. Throw on martial weapons. Clerics get 3 cantrips and 2 daily spells. That's the class feature benchmark. </p><p>The cantrips are necessary as the clerics have no real offence, which isn't the case with our warlord. Those can mostly replaceable with a couple minor powers. Proficiency with initiative checks and the ability to grant an ally a bonus to initiative checks (or reroll) would also fit. And maybe the ability to restore 1hp to fallen allies or grant some temporary hit points. </p><p>Looking at the warlock, the 2 daily spells could also be reduced to a power equivalent to a spell that recharges on a short rest. That's our Grant Attack power right there. </p><p>From there you can divvy up abilities easily. Help as a bonus action at 2nd level, subclass at 3rd, ASI at 4th, attack after using Grant Attack at 5th, subclass ability at 6th, extra use of Grant Attack/ add movement to that ability at 7th, ASI at 8th, etc. The extra bonuses to the Help action (advantage to AC or a save) could be slipped in along the way. 7th level. Or maybe 5th. </p><p>The above covers everything except healing (which could be a subclass). </p><p>But it's not a particularly exciting class. It hits all the checkboxes, but doesn't break new ground or do anything amazing. </p><p></p><p></p><p>To me, the most interesting design happens not when you say "let's make a class that does exactly what it did in past editions" but instead ask "what <em>should</em> a character based on this concept be doing?" And then try to do something unique with the design and mechanics of the class. That's when interesting design happens. Like the hook of making the warlord a 1/2 or full manuever class (assuming the Battle Master is a 1/3rd manuever class in the same way the eldritch knight is a 1/3rd spellcaster).</p><p></p><p>I had some fun envisioning a tactician class that picked a handful of powers at the start of the day, when spells were memorized, each with their own triggers. Abilities that buffed the Ready action or taking a reaction. So rather than just granting an attack and *saying* the class is a master tactician and practiced with their teammate to find openings, the abilities actually reflected that and an opening being made. </p><p></p><p></p><p>But, again, this is a change.</p><p></p><p></p><p>How can a warlord happened? </p><p>Not easily, that's for sure. </p><p></p><p>Most 5e D&D players don't care. Seriously. More D&D players left during 4e than stuck around (judging by how Pathinder was outselling D&D despite having half the number of sales as 3.0 over more years). And there are more D&D players now than any time since the '80s. So right off the bat, >50% of players are unlikely to have strong warlord feelings. And even many 4e fans were likely apathetic to the warlord. </p><p>WotC has hard numbers for warlord players via the Compendium. They know who made a warlord and then levelled that warlord over time, reflecting play. They have a good idea of the ratio of warlord fans. And likely the people who made multiple warlords. They also have the surveys. Had both really shown strong interest in the warlord, we'd have seen one. </p><p></p><p>Buying and sharing the fan versions is one way. If there are several fan versions that sell *really* well on the DMsGuild, that will help get attention. </p><p>Raise awareness. Play or run a warlord in home games and then discussing those home games. Start a blog on your game or stream your game. Get others to play and talk about the warlord. Guest on podcasts and talk about the warlord. Go to conventions with the WotC and politely ask them about the warlord. </p><p>Getting Matthew Mercer to profess a love for the warlord wouldn't hurt…</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7040757, member: 37579"] I've been debating whether or not to reply to this. And how much to say. But, at the end of the day, I don't self censor well and have limited restraint. Plus this is a topic I have some strong feelings toward, which tend to outweigh my better judgement. So… how do we make it happen? Because the warlord was introduced with 4e, so many criticisms of the class came hand-in-hand with shots against the edition (both warranted and wholly unwarranted). So many people still equate discussing or critiquing the warlord with edition warring and respond as such. Much like how for a long time it was hard to discuss the magic item Christmas tree and assumed wealth without using 3e edition war language. Or quadratic wizards & linear fighters. But to have any kind of warlord, there *needs* to be a discussion on it's strengths and weaknesses. We can't have an entirely pro-warlord discussion because then any problems the concept has don't get fixed. You can't make improvements. That's not how design works. There needs to be a give/take. Similarly, because the warlord is seen as so iconic of 4e, its absence is often seen as a shot by the designers against that edition. And so every element of the warlord [i]needs[/i] to be included on principle. If the warlord doesn't do everything it did in 4e, then it's a failure. Up to and including the name. It can't be a commander or marshal or captain or tactician or strategist (and forget about purple dragon knight and bannerette). Personally, "warlord" throws me off for a couple reasons. First, "warlord" is used in the real world, and tends to apply to pretty horrible people. Very literally among the worst people currently in the world. Throw it into Google News for an example. Second, implies a certain level of rank and status. It's like having the wizard class be called the "archmage" or the cleric the "high priest". With the above in mind, what is needed to make the warlord happen, is for it to stop being an edition war flashpoint. Which likely won't happen this edition. Maybe for 6e. When enough time has passed for the topic to be discussed without pitchforks, WotC can try bringing it back. That said, let's get into common abilities. The catch is, everyone can do this. A class feature where you can take the Help action as a bonus action and/or at range is certainly doable. It'd have to be a reaction, but also doable. Extra damage isn't 100% necessary though. If you're granting an attack in place of your own, you're almost likely trading a lower damage attack for a higher damage one. That's already a bonus. This was one of my favourite passive warlord bonuses, as so few things muck with initiative. Granting the warlord proficiency on initiative checks might be a simple tweak. Or half proficiency to the party. A flat bonus isn't very useful though. It's just something you write down and then forget about. Despite coming up in every combat, it's not memorable. Having an ability to allow characters to reroll initiative, making it more active, would be much more interesting, even if it only affected one person or was usable once a short rest. Ditto having an option allowing the warlord to shift a character's position in the initiative order. Fun [i]and[/i] tactical. Less useful since exact positioning is less of a thing in 5e. A limited use ability for off turn movement without provoking would be handy, to get people away from a creature they're base-to-base with. Good for squishies and ranged attackers. Useful and very much in the wheelhouse of the 4e warlord. But it feels like one of those abilities that better fits the "leader" role and not the "tactical commander" concept. It's a checkbox ability that feels less vital to the class concept and probably more at home at a healing subclass. It could be a simple as also allowing the Help action to benefit a saving throw instead of an attack roll. As simple as adding a "aid AC" to the Help action. A "Hinder" action if you will. The big debate point. Gulp. Here we go…. The issue is all warlord healed in 4e, but that was more a function of their class role rather than their class concept. In the same way marking isn't essential to the fighter or crowd control isn't essential to the wizard. You can make a character that does neither in 5e. Also, you don't expect the tactical genius to also work as the field medic. Those are two different archetypes. There's a finite number of options classes gain each level (and a very limited "hand size" for active powers). This list already includes almost a dozen powers. That's a lot. Getting them all at a reasonable rate would be tricky enough, so including healing as an assumed option likely means healing is coming at the expense of something unique to the warlord. It's losing a tactical option that would be distinct to the class in order to gain something a half dozen other classes can already do. Really, there's only one class in the game with default healing options: the paladin. And that's a secondary healer at best. All other classes have to *choose* to heal. You can make a cleric or druid that never memorizes [i]cure wounds[/i]. You can play a bard that literally does not know the spell. It seems odd to make the tactical warrior the only dedicated healer class in the game. There's the giant elephant in the room of martial healing. Restoring real hit points versus temporary hit points. What hp represents. Etc. Which is the thread killer of a topic that has been hotly debated since OD&D. Gygax literally stuck his personal rant post on the topic into a 1e core rulebook. Just to avoid the class dumping that debate onto tables, I think it's best not to have heavy warlord healing. Let them grant temporary hp at range and restore 1 hp at 5 feet. And allow people granted warlord temporary hp to get back up. That has the same function at the table (and allows you to "preheal" people). This feels too much like a bard ability. There's room for some sharing of class features (see Evasion and Unarmoured Defence) but it should be avoided if possible. This should be the last ability on the "to add" list. If there's a soft level that needs a boost, add it in. If not, then leave it out. I think this was covered above. This seems doable and in line with the power curve. Instead of getting Extra Attack, when the warlord uses their "Grant Attack" ability (or whatever) they can also make an attack themselves. It kinda works. But it's less interesting than granting an actual attack. And a little similar to bardic inspiration. Okay, my thoughts are complicated. There is room for the warlord in the game. But there's room for lots of classes in the game. A shapeshifter, a shaman, a dedicated gish class (1/2 arcane), a summoner. My favourite example is, of course, the jester. But I don't want to see them all. We really don't need them all. New classes need to be chosen carefully. Maximum bang for the buck. (The mystic/ psion is a good one because it's been in 3+ editions and brings in psionic spells that can also be added to other classes via subclasses. The artificer is also handy, especially if it can be merged with the alchemist. The more vastly different characters, archetypes, and roles can be filled by a new class, the stronger the case it should be added.) The warlord in 4e also overlapped heavily with the bard. Both were often the charismatic leaders that buffed allies. There's already a lot of redundant classes in the game (paladin and ranger, I'm looking at you), so we really don't need more. The other classes get a pass because of legacy. Doubly so as the bard already overlaps with the arcane trickster. To really work as it's own class the warlord needs to be distinct. Which means dropping the Charisma aspect of much of the class and focusing on Intelligence. Downplay the "inspiring" and double down on the "tactician and strategist". But, as mentioned above, that's a change away from the 4e warlord, so such a class will be rejected by many warlord fans on sheer principle. Thinking about the actual design, the best chassis for the warlord is probably still the cleric or the paladin. D8 Hit Dice, medium armour. Throw on martial weapons. Clerics get 3 cantrips and 2 daily spells. That's the class feature benchmark. The cantrips are necessary as the clerics have no real offence, which isn't the case with our warlord. Those can mostly replaceable with a couple minor powers. Proficiency with initiative checks and the ability to grant an ally a bonus to initiative checks (or reroll) would also fit. And maybe the ability to restore 1hp to fallen allies or grant some temporary hit points. Looking at the warlock, the 2 daily spells could also be reduced to a power equivalent to a spell that recharges on a short rest. That's our Grant Attack power right there. From there you can divvy up abilities easily. Help as a bonus action at 2nd level, subclass at 3rd, ASI at 4th, attack after using Grant Attack at 5th, subclass ability at 6th, extra use of Grant Attack/ add movement to that ability at 7th, ASI at 8th, etc. The extra bonuses to the Help action (advantage to AC or a save) could be slipped in along the way. 7th level. Or maybe 5th. The above covers everything except healing (which could be a subclass). But it's not a particularly exciting class. It hits all the checkboxes, but doesn't break new ground or do anything amazing. To me, the most interesting design happens not when you say "let's make a class that does exactly what it did in past editions" but instead ask "what [i]should[/i] a character based on this concept be doing?" And then try to do something unique with the design and mechanics of the class. That's when interesting design happens. Like the hook of making the warlord a 1/2 or full manuever class (assuming the Battle Master is a 1/3rd manuever class in the same way the eldritch knight is a 1/3rd spellcaster). I had some fun envisioning a tactician class that picked a handful of powers at the start of the day, when spells were memorized, each with their own triggers. Abilities that buffed the Ready action or taking a reaction. So rather than just granting an attack and *saying* the class is a master tactician and practiced with their teammate to find openings, the abilities actually reflected that and an opening being made. But, again, this is a change. How can a warlord happened? Not easily, that's for sure. Most 5e D&D players don't care. Seriously. More D&D players left during 4e than stuck around (judging by how Pathinder was outselling D&D despite having half the number of sales as 3.0 over more years). And there are more D&D players now than any time since the '80s. So right off the bat, >50% of players are unlikely to have strong warlord feelings. And even many 4e fans were likely apathetic to the warlord. WotC has hard numbers for warlord players via the Compendium. They know who made a warlord and then levelled that warlord over time, reflecting play. They have a good idea of the ratio of warlord fans. And likely the people who made multiple warlords. They also have the surveys. Had both really shown strong interest in the warlord, we'd have seen one. Buying and sharing the fan versions is one way. If there are several fan versions that sell *really* well on the DMsGuild, that will help get attention. Raise awareness. Play or run a warlord in home games and then discussing those home games. Start a blog on your game or stream your game. Get others to play and talk about the warlord. Guest on podcasts and talk about the warlord. Go to conventions with the WotC and politely ask them about the warlord. Getting Matthew Mercer to profess a love for the warlord wouldn't hurt… [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.
Top