Level Up (A5E) What would you call a 'Warlord' class? (+)

[Minigiant]

Warlord: Charisma-primary support class with a variety of healing and buffing abilities, as well as abilities that grant allies extra attacks and/or allowed them to reposition.

It's more Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma secondary.
Theidea is that your warrior can pour their mind into combat without using magic.Focusing on Tactics (INT), Insight and Resources (WIS), and Morale (CHA).

The "warlord" chooses Melee (STR), Ranged (DEX) or Backline (CON) then chooses Tactics (INT), Insight (WIS), and Morale (CHA).

That's why I dislike the Tactician or Commander names. It limits it to tactics and backline pointing only.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Synergist.

They're not about leading the group, they're not even necessarily about dictating tactics. They're about bringing out those combinations that make the team more than the sum of its parts.

In that vein, since it seems a lot of folks don’t really know how Captain has been used in a similar way, and it does have rank and leadership meanings, I like Exemplar or Paragon.

To me, Aragorn and Boromir are Captains, not because they can literally marshal and command troops, but because they stand tall in a metaphorical sense, and excel in ways that inspire others to be better. A lot of the great athletic geniuses are like that as well. The people they work with get better because they are being challenged by someone who is an exemplar.

Of course, that angle is also why I think the fighter should just be the warlord/marshal/captain/exemplar, to begin with.

 

[Lord Twig]

Hiya!

Probably gonna get roasted for this...

I'd call it a "War-Speaker". I'd also allude to virtually all of the 'abilities' that let the War-Speaker force others to move or act in some way as being "magical in nature" (kind of like a Clerics Turn Undead, for example).

If presented like that, I could (as well as my players...if we ever get to meet up again and play! Stupid viruses...!) get behind the concept.

But, as it stands, the "Warlord" being a guy who "knows battle so well he can force an opponent to do something stupid...even if that opponent is thinking 'Uh, no...that would be stupid...I'm going to stay here and keep doing what I was doing' (re: forcing a Player to make his character do something they don't want him to do)...that I can't get behind. It annoys me to no end.

But...make it "magic", and now we're ok. Now I can RP the aftermath as "He was a War-Speaker! Their devilish tongue can beguile the mind into making stupid mistakes in battle!", or some other such 'not my fault' excuse.

The only way "around" that would be to allow some sort of "consequences" result; almost like a 'reverse-saving throw'. So the Warlord would use a 'power' that forces the PC to move 5' in some direction of the Warlords choosing. With the 'drawback' being that if the Player STILL chooses to stay there and NOT move the 5' in the direction the WL wanted him to...then the PC suffers some bad thing; AoO's from anyone with missile weapons, a bonus to hit and damage for the next attack from the WL or his friends/side/minions, or automatically drops initiative to the bottom of the heap, etc.

The RP'ing afterward could make sense then: "I KNEW he was trying to get me to move a bit back...but I didn't know why! I figured he might be trying to set me up for some AoE spell from his wizard or something. Huh. Turns out I probably should have just stepped back...I didn't see the spearman to my side before his spear tip was tickling my liver!".

^_^

Paul L. Mingz

I would say it is magical in the same way as Bardic Inspiration. And just saying that the buffs effect "a willing creature" pretty much removes the "I don't want to be forced to do things!" argument. If you did it, you were willing. If you are not willing, you don't have to do it. If it is a debuff targeted at an opponent I would assume a saving throw would be involved.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And I assume this is why a Fighter subclass is just not functional for a Warlord type design. It's too good at 'fighting' and so is busted if its also able to buff and support/heal?

IMO, a subclass just needs the ability to cash in on fighter features and make them team powers, in addition to the added subclass abilities.

So, trade attacks in the attack action for team buffs. Spend Action Surge to grant an action to someone else. Give someone else a reroll on a save. Etc.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Ringleader?

Less war, more circus.

 

[Aldarc]

And just saying that the buffs effect "a willing creature" pretty much removes the "I don't want to be forced to do things!" argument. If you did it, you were willing. If you are not willing, you don't have to do it. If it is a debuff targeted at an opponent I would assume a saving throw would be involved.

So it would work exactly like it did in 4e?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I might suggest Advisor, Aide, Coordinator or Guide
This class should work for both combat and out of combat, and those names also reduce the implication that the character is ordering the others around.

 

[Lord Twig]

So it would work exactly like it did in 4e?

Yes. Just wanted to point out it would only affect "willing" targets. So nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

Unless it is the enemy, which then prompts a saving throw. And even then it wouldn't be, "move here!" and you move against your will if you miss your save. I'm sure there will be some other flavor text that explains it as a deception, or a feint, or a misdirection, or a fear effect, or something else.

 

[Lord Twig]

The more I think about it the more I like Commander. The only real downside is people worrying about the "I'm the leader!" issue, and I think that would be pretty rare. And in many cases the character that the Warlord/Commander embodies is a leader or commander type character.

On the criticism of Tactician being too focused on intelligence, what stat is this character class going to use? Do you honestly expect a class that can use intelligence, wisdom or charisma? Any of the three? That would be unique among all of the character classes. Wouldn't it be best to just pick one and stick with it? If the character class is focused on intelligence I think the tactician would be a good name. But I think Commander feels more powerful, and would fit regardless of the primary stat used.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes. Just wanted to point out it would only affect "willing" targets. So nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

Unless it is the enemy, which then prompts a saving throw. And even then it wouldn't be, "move here!" and you move against your will if you miss your save. I'm sure there will be some other flavor text that explains it as a deception, or a feint, or a misdirection, or a fear effect, or something else.

If the support abilities use language like "can" or "may", that also removes the idea that the class compels allies to take actions.

The more I think about it the more I like Commander. The only real downside is people worrying about the "I'm the leader!" issue, and I think that would be pretty rare. And in many cases the character that the Warlord/Commander embodies is a leader or commander type character.

On the criticism of Tactician being too focused on intelligence, what stat is this character class going to use? Do you honestly expect a class that can use intelligence, wisdom or charisma? Any of the three? That would be unique among all of the character classes. Wouldn't it be best to just pick one and stick with it? If the character class is focused on intelligence I think the tactician would be a good name. But I think Commander feels more powerful, and would fit regardless of the primary stat used.

The way I handled it, I had a common pool of maneuvers based on the BM ones, and different subclasses of the class focused on different Abilities and maneuvers. For example the Intelligence-based archetype got bonuses to maneuvers that granted AC, Attacks, and Ability checks, but they could still pick and use the Charisma-based Rally maneuver that granted (temp) HP.