Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7041363" data-attributes="member: 5142">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.</blockquote>

Verification