D&D 5E Working on a Warlord Full Class

[the Jester]

I'm going to suggest the same rotation I've suggested to other people.

In general, 5e classes and subclasses are either how you combat or why you combat. Classes where both the class and subclass are how you combat tend to be a bit hollow (the Fighter is an example of this).

Okay, I've been puzzling over this for a while now. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give some examples of existing "why you combat" subclasses?

 

[NotAYakk]

Okay, I've been puzzling over this for a while now. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give some examples of existing "why you combat" subclasses?

Rogue: Assassin
Rogue: Thief
Rogue: Swashbuckler (to a lesser extent)
Rogue: Revived
Most Paladin subclasses, very explicitly.
Bard: Whispers (and other colleges to a lesser degree)
Warlock: Most Patrons (but not Hexblade, which is a thinly-wrapped How you Combat. The patron is "mysterious" and overly undefined.)

When you answer "why are you adventuring" with a subclass, you tend to get a lot of foundation for non-combat mechanics to be added to your class. The designers of subclasses don't always use this room.

Some classes, like Wizard, carry some additional "why they adventure"; wizards traditionally are searching for arcane knowledge. Mechanically this is reflected in the fact that they can collect a nearly unbounded collection of spells (which is an example of a feature informed by a "why"). A "why" baked into the class reduces the draw for "why" subclasses.

You can treat a "Why" subclass as a "How" subclass, but the abilities of the subclass often contain things that are based off Why. For example, the assassin gets disguise abilities of low worth in-combat. Why? Because that is something assassins need to do, practically.

 

[the Jester]

Is there a litmus test you can outline? Is it more or less "Does this subclass have a story?" Is it about whether there's a reason for it to exist outside of strictly mechanical options?

To try to get some clarity on this, let me give you a couple of examples of custom subclasses in my game. I have a fighter subclass that is the devoted defender. It's basically a bodyguard. Its subclass abilities are focused on defending a designated charge. Would that qualify as a how or a why subclass?

Or how about the warrior of Chaos- another custom fighter subclass. It gets various Chaos traits as it levels up, and can trigger chaotic, random effects when it uses things like Action Surge or Second Wind. Is this a how or a why subclass?

I'm interested in the distinction you're drawing but am not sure exactly where or how you're drawing it. The swashbuckler, for instance- it seems like it's more of a "how" subclass than a "why" subclass to me.

 

[NotAYakk]

My advice? Replace devoted defender with bodyguard. "Devoted Defender" could easily fall into the trap of "protection styles in combat". "Bodyguard" is a profession, and there are things outside of combat a Bodyguard does (if limited).

Even better would be to have some pseudo-religious mercenary order that protects a charge. Now you can wrap fiction around the subclass, and justify non-combat features. (For example, Dave Duncan's "order of blades"; they go through a ritual to make them fanatically loyal to the being they are protecting, and capable of skipping sleep if there isn't another blade on duty).

---

Warrior of Chaos? Pact Knight, or Demonblood Warrior, could have much if the same mechanics/feel, but now there is a concrete story.

Even Chaos Knight has more story to it.

Yes, the subclass ends up less generic. That is half of the point.

A "fighter who uses chaos magic" has fewer hooks than "a fighter infected with demon blood" or "a fighter who traded for power with a demon".

And if you don't have hooks, you often end up a bundle of combat abilities. Which is, in my opinion, a failed subclass.

 

[Undrave]

Is there a litmus test you can outline? Is it more or less "Does this subclass have a story?" Is it about whether there's a reason for it to exist outside of strictly mechanical options?

To try to get some clarity on this, let me give you a couple of examples of custom subclasses in my game. I have a fighter subclass that is the devoted defender. It's basically a bodyguard. Its subclass abilities are focused on defending a designated charge. Would that qualify as a how or a why subclass?

Or how about the warrior of Chaos- another custom fighter subclass. It gets various Chaos traits as it levels up, and can trigger chaotic, random effects when it uses things like Action Surge or Second Wind. Is this a how or a why subclass?

I'm interested in the distinction you're drawing but am not sure exactly where or how you're drawing it. The swashbuckler, for instance- it seems like it's more of a "how" subclass than a "why" subclass to me.

Personally I like to ask myself why there is more than one person in the world that fit that subclass. How did the style arose, where would one learn that style and what other options would exist.

For the White Raven Tactician, I made it a famous military school. Maybe you attended, maybe you were thought by a formee student, you learned from watching them, or, even, you stole training manuals.

it helps with the ribbon abilities.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

and that doesn't tread on verisimilitude (martial healing, I'm looking at you).

Can I ask why this is so important to most of the people making warlords? It kills the appeal of the class for me. For me the biggest draw of the Warlord is so I can do things like "Ok for this campaign there are no gods, so no divine classes allowed" and have the math still work.

 

[the Jester]

Can I ask why this is so important to most of the people making warlords? It kills the appeal of the class for me. For me the biggest draw of the Warlord is so I can do things like "Ok for this campaign there are no gods, so no divine classes allowed" and have the math still work.

I can only speak for myself, but the notion of instantly healing major wounds by telling someone to buck up just doesn't pass the sniff test. Now, I don't treat all hit point damage as actual deep cuts or major impact wounds, but I do have a 'colorful critical hit' system that flavors crits that do enough damage vs. your current hit point total as, well, deep cuts, major impacts, etc. That's typically how you lose body parts in my game- which is not common, but is common enough to make the regenerate spell valuable even in editions where it doesn't heal hps.

I get what you're saying, but for me, "does this make sense?" is more important than "does this math work?". That's why my tentative set up for Get Up! doesn't actually heal- it's designed so that you can keep going (and the warlord can also use inspiring word on you on the same turn) even though you're beat to hell. I really don't want a martial healing option that has no explanation. Even the Healer feat requires you to use bandages and sutures and whatnot (in the form of a healer's kit charge)- it's on the edge of what I consider to be believable.

And don't get me wrong; none of this is meant to disparage "real" martial healing for those who like it. It's just not suited to my taste.

 

[Undrave]

Can I ask why this is so important to most of the people making warlords? It kills the appeal of the class for me. For me the biggest draw of the Warlord is so I can do things like "Ok for this campaign there are no gods, so no divine classes allowed" and have the math still work.

Personally, I made a subclass of my Warlord that basically get the Healer's Feat for free, specifically for that purpose. It also folds in a pseudo Song of Rest effect that improves hit dice spent on short rest. They can also, later, make their own potions, antitoxin and healer's kit.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I like the idea of a warlord full class in 5e. Since it's not 4e it doesn't need healing. I'm not a fan of D&D without "gods" (or equivalent, looking at you Eberron) except for Dark Sun, which was quite different and made magical healing available without gods.

It also fits very few archetypes from fantasy fiction. Even Aragorn could not heal people in combat (he could just keep them from dying when they got poisoned by a magic weapon, using herbal lore rather than morale management).

The 4e warlord got healing because 4e leaders heal. This was important to 4e, but not any other editions.

I want a class that can include the lazylord archetype- the character who looks like a helpless princess or princeling but who is actually really helpful by means of their ally-enabling abilities.

I could be wrong but this is probably the second-most controversial part of the warlord beyond the healing. While there's definitely a flavor overlap I simply cannot see this as using the same chassis as a more typical warlord. I also don't think it attracts people who like to roll dice. I contrast it negatively with the 4e cleric: most cleric buffs were either part of an attack (even if it was an effect, so you got to buff allies if you missed) or it was a minor action (so the cleric could still dish out something themselves).

 

[Undrave]

I could be wrong but this is probably the second-most controversial part of the warlord beyond the healing. While there's definitely a flavor overlap I simply cannot see this as using the same chassis as a more typical warlord. I also don't think it attracts people who like to roll dice. I contrast it negatively with the 4e cleric: most cleric buffs were either part of an attack (even if it was an effect, so you got to buff allies if you missed) or it was a minor action (so the cleric could still dish out something themselves).

Eh, I don't think it's that controversial. I think it was actually well liked by people who didn't want to play combatant. It was still able to participate in battle without being a character who can swing a sword.

You don't need much to make it possible, you just need the ability to trade off your own attacks for your allies' and it's mostly a question of your build being geared towards it or not and if you choose to not attack.