D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[mellored]

blade ward are pretty damn useless in 90% of cases.

Exactly my point.
Having barbarians rage at-will is too weak to use.


There's nothing inherently broken about having at-will abilities.

 

[mellored]

I realize this is a spit ball, but..

I assume you are using the 1d4 -> 3d12 from the other thread here, correct. If so, RIP bounded accuracy. As written, a fighter rolls to hit (for fun, let's give him gwm, that -5 means nothing now). He's fighting Orcus (CR 26, but only AC 20). He rolls a 9; even with his bonus and gwm penalty, he won't hit. But the warlord keys him roll 3d12 and add the highest. I'm not statistician, but I'm sure that one will roll high enough to break AC 20. Even if he doesn't use all three on one roll, 1d12 to hit alone might be enough to crack most AC, and he can give that bonus to two others as well.

And he can do that every round. Basically three nearly guaranteed hits per round.

Dice and reactions are 1/round.

3d12 take the highest = +9.48

So a high level warlord can guaranteed 1 hit per turn at the cost of his own damage.


And just for math... warlord using the dice as his own damage, vs boosting a fighter's hit vs cantrip.
2d6+15 (fighter) = 22 damage
vs
3d12 (warlord) = 19.5
vs
4d10 (firebolt) = 22


That seems to be pretty well in line. For an at-will ability.

 

[Ristamar]

Dice and reactions are 1/round.

3d12 take the highest = +9.48

So a high level warlord can guaranteed 1 hit per turn at the cost of his own damage.


And just for math... warlord using the dice as his own damage, vs boosting a fighter's hit vs cantrip.
2d6+15 (fighter) = 22 damage
vs
3d12 (warlord) = 19.5
vs
4d10 (firebolt) = 22


That seems to be pretty well in line. For an at-will ability.

So the bonus doesn't apply to all of the fighter's extra attacks?

 

[Aldarc]

The current vibe has been for either using healing kits (like the healer feat) or the recipients HD to fuel healing.

Healers, whether primary (cleric) or secondary (bard or druid, depending on focus), have a number of healing options available to them in their tool kits. I don't see the warlord as a primary healer. I see the warlord more on the level of the druid, bard (sans secrets), or paladin. It's not necessarily their primary focus but they could do it depending on party composition and needs.

As such, I would not expect that the warlord would be as good as a cleric in healing - and would perhaps like to see some alternative HP mitigation/management used - but it would be nice if the warlord had multiple healing options available that required the warlord to make strategic choices to use.

Edit: Here's an idea! The Battle Master picks a set of 'known' maneuvers and that's the extent of their maneuvering prowess. What if the Warlord mimics spellcasters in that they have a list of 'known maneuvers' but also a smaller list of 'readied/prepared maneuvers'? This further gives the Warlord a similar degree of strategic choice from a 'martial class' (or however you want to call it) that you would from a caster. It's not as if known and prepared maneuvers would be outlandish for a Warlord either. It's that whole trope of "Doh! I hadn't planned on my foe/adversary doing that!"

 

[mellored]

So the bonus doesn't apply to all of the fighter's extra attacks?

Just 1 attack (as i've written it). Since it's a reaction.


I could see another maneuver that's proactive.
"Guided Assault: Use your action to give someone dice for all their attacks. Take the highest."

Let's math... boosting a GWM fighter.
+9.48/20 = 0.474

2d6+15 * .474 = 10.428 * 4 = 41.712

So a warlord, with his action, all his dice, teamwork, and level 20 can deal 41.712 damage per round.
Rogues do... 11d6+5 * .55 = 23.925

So yea, that would be too much. Too bad.
Best leave it with 1 reaction = 1 attack.

 

[Remathilis]

Healers, whether primary (cleric) or secondary (bard or druid, depending on focus), have a number of healing options available to them in their tool kits. I don't see the warlord as a primary healer. I see the warlord more on the level of the druid, bard (sans secrets), or paladin. It's not necessarily their primary focus but they could do it depending on party composition and needs.

As such, I would not expect that the warlord would be as good as a cleric in healing - and would perhaps like to see some alternative HP mitigation/management used - but it would be nice if the warlord had multiple healing options available that required the warlord to make strategic choices to use.

Even then, you're only talking HP healing. He'd lack the other tools to be an effective healer: lesser/greater restoration and a way to revive the dead. Clerics, druids, bards, and even paladins can do that. A warlord would be probably on par with a ranger (cure wounds IV, lesser restoration), give or take.

 

[pemerton]

Everything comes with some form of "baggage" when you MC.

<snip>

More over, this is just an RP thing, as well as the healing. "I MCd cleric but it has no god and heals are non-mgical" Then it depends with what GM you play.

It's not just an RP thing, though. D&D - and especially 5e - is not a game of free descriptors, where you can just strike out one description (say "divine spells") and write in another description (say "rousing words") and nothing else changes.

Spells come with all sorts of mechanical baggage that has meaning in the gameworld - memorisation, casting times and components, the possibility of being disrupted, counterspelled, dispelled, anti-magiced etc.

I don't think anyone would ever suggest playing a wizard by building a fighter and then describing your armour as bracers of defence, your sword as a magical death-touch and your archery as a force missile. That sort of approach works in a free descriptor-style game like HeroWars/Quest, Fate or Marvel Heroic RP, but isn't really suitable for D&D (not even 4e, which is the closest D&D has come to the free descriptor style).

The same things goes for building a warlord out of spellcasting classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even then, you're only talking HP healing.

Yep, and just because that's all he was talking about in that one post is no reason to jump to the conclusion that's all the Warlord could do. Allowing an ally to repeat a saving throw with a bonus to end a condition, for instance, was something Warlords could do that'd translate fairly neatly to 5e, even though save mechanics are somewhat different.

He'd lack the other tools to be an effective healer: lesser/greater restoration and a way to revive the dead. Clerics, druids, bards, and even paladins can do that. A warlord would be probably on par with a ranger (cure wounds IV, lesser restoration), give or take.

Well, 5e classes are not supposed to be cookie-cutter copies of eachother, so that's not an entirely bad thing. By the same token, Clerics/Druids/Bards/Paladins don't grant actions to their allies, while the Warlord traditionally does.

The only function of (Greater) restoration that seems entirely problematic is reversing Petrification. Breaking a charm or curse for instance might well be possible by exhorting a sufficient act of will from the victim. You couldn't 'remove' blindness or deafness without magic (unless it was something that, like a disease or poison might run it's course at any time depending upon the health & resolve of the subject), but you might help the victim compensate for the disadvantages of them.

The function of a spell like Regeneration or Raise Dead OTOH, does seem entirely beyond the pale, though it might be unfair to imply that they're strictly necessary to be considered a functional support character, /at all/. Revivify, OTOH, with it's 1-min time limit isn't that much crazier than hp restoration.

Edit: Here's an idea! The Battle Master picks a set of 'known' maneuvers and that's the extent of their maneuvering prowess. What if the Warlord mimics spellcasters in that they have a list of 'known maneuvers' but also a smaller list of 'readied/prepared maneuvers'?...It's not as if known and prepared maneuvers would be outlandish for a Warlord either. It's that whole trope of "Doh! I hadn't planned on my foe/adversary doing that!"

That could be particularly appropriate for ally-affecting maneuvers that he must 'drill' his allies in, so that they're all able to benefit from them. Other players could decide whether they're up for such training, and with which maneuvers - so you might be able to Command the Strike for the Archer & Soldier in the party, execute a Pincer Maneuver with the Assassin (or coordinate the Soldier & Assassin without participating yourself), while the Wizard drills with you just enough for you to help him Disengage from melee on your turn. Lovers of bookkeeping could even have an optional system to track using downtime to drill different maneuvers with different allies - those who would rather keep it simple, the warlord just picks certain maneuvers to be available each day for use with any ally.

That's the kind of thing that could only be considered in a system as open as 5e.

 

[Remathilis]

Yep, and just because that's all he was talking about in that one post is no reason to jump to the conclusion that's all the Warlord could do.

Eh. Someone said that healings =/= regaining hp, so I figured I'd discuss healing in total vs. one aspect of it.

 

[mellored]

Resuscitate: You can revive a creature who recently died as long as it was not from massive damage. This takes 30 minutes of intense concentration, uses 5 whole healing kits, and you need to start within 1 minute of death. If your concentration is broken or you use an action, bonus action, or reaction for anything else you cannot revive them. After 30 minutes, they are stabilized with 0 hit points. They cannot regain hit dice for 2d4 days unless they are healed by magic, during which time they need to be fed and taken care of.