# Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord



## Leatherhead (Mar 6, 2018)

For those of you who do not know:

Mike Mearls hosts a stream where he designs subclasses, this week he took a stab at the highly demanded (Fighter)Warlord.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/235935943

Edit: Oh wait, I should mention this is unofficial and not even UA playtest material, before everyone gets here.


----------



## Valetudo (Mar 7, 2018)

He just doesn't get it.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 7, 2018)

And he stops halfway through! Darnit. XD

-The Gneech


----------



## darjr (Mar 7, 2018)

First ones free.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 7, 2018)

The_Gneech said:


> And he stops halfway through! Darnit. XD
> 
> -The Gneech




Well, he did say near the beginning that this one was more complicated or complex or something and he would be taking two weeks to flesh it out. So we have to wait til next week to get the second part.


----------



## darjr (Mar 7, 2018)

Is there a 5e third party warlord that folks are generally happy about?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 7, 2018)

darjr said:


> Is there a 5e third party warlord that folks are generally happy about?



People can't be "generally" happy with third party solutions, since lots of groups play with WotC official material only, or play in the Adventurer's League.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 7, 2018)

Valetudo said:


> He just doesn't get it.



Please elaborate


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 7, 2018)

Leatherhead said:


> For those of you who do not know:
> 
> Mike Mearls hosts a stream where he designs subclasses, this week he took a stab at the highly demanded (Fighter)Warlord.
> 
> ...




I haven't seen the stream but he really ought to begin by stating what he thinks a Warlord should be able to do. If this list doesn't include the buzzwords "non-magical" "healing" "buffing" and "making others take action", then he might just as well not bother.

Making the Warlord a Fighter subclass is a restriction that should have been discussed and questioned before decided upon. Can you really fit all of what a true Warlord needs to be able to do into the Fighter chassi without making it too good?

At least tell me the actions it can make allies take are "real" actions - if there are silly restrictions disabling caster allies from casting non-cantrip spells or disabling martial allies from using "riders" (GWM, smiting, sneak damage, etc) let me just go siiiiigh

Since the character that is the Warlord *could have* been casting a Fireball or a Heal or making two Smite attacks or making five attacks with Precision and GWM... it really is wrong to think it's too powerful for it to enable its allies strong actions.

The only restriction needs to be on its ability to be all those classes (Sorcerer, Cleric, Paladin, Fighter), i.e. the Flexibility. And really, the only restriction needs to be that it is weakish on its own. 

The warlord is supposed to be an excellent fifth wheel, having fun by glory through its allies. I really don't think its ability to command others need any meaningful restrictions. Especially if it eats their reactions, then it absolutely needs no other restrictions (and in fact, the class might turn out needing to be _strong in itself_, since no min-maxer will be happy to have somebody else use up their reaction)

I really think the Warlord would be best off if built as a standalone class modeled on the Cleric chassi. Not a Cleric subclass; a standalone class with the Cleric's armor proficiencies; a good selection of Cleric-level or at the very least Bard-level healing and buffing (though - and this is crucial - non-magical). That makes it a strong enough stand-alone character. Then add the ability to sacrifice an *attack* to make an ally do an *attack* (the class getting two attacks no later than level 6); and the ability to sacrifice its *action* to make an ally use up its reaction to do an *action*.

Done.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the stream but he really ought to begin by stating what he thinks a Warlord should be able to do. If this list doesn't include the buzzwords "non-magical" "healing" "buffing" and "making others take action", then he might just as well not bother.




Non-magical: Yes. Explicitly so. 
Healing: He did mention it, but I'm not sure if he's intending to actually use that.  There were a lot of comparisons to other things going on. 
Buffing: No.  In fact, he's treating it as an anti-pattern.  Basically, if it trends too much towards buffing, it's getting too close to being a bard. 
Making others take action: Yes.  He threw out a few ideas on how to make it happen, but no actual details were had in this week's episode.  It was just brainstorming the framework. 



> Making the Warlord a Fighter subclass is a restriction that should have been discussed and questioned before decided upon. Can you really fit all of what a true Warlord needs to be able to do into the Fighter chassi without making it too good?



The restriction went in the other direction: Can Warlord support 10 years of expansion and new subclass development, as a main class?  Initial feeling was "no". (Note: It doesn't mean it's not possible, just that he doesn't feel like it could.)  Thus, he went the subclass route instead.



> At least tell me the actions it can make allies take are "real" actions - if there are silly restrictions disabling caster allies from casting non-cantrip spells or disabling martial allies from using "riders" (GWM, smiting, sneak damage, etc) let me just go siiiiigh



Such detail isn't available.  As I said, this was just a framework episode.  He considered things like giving extra attack actions to others, or moving others (analogous to castling in chess), and maybe messing with the initiative order in order to create combo actions.  There were also a few other suggestions thrown out in the chat sidebar, such as removing the warlord from the standard initiative order, and taking actions more like legendary actions.



> Since the character that is the Warlord could have been casting a Fireball or a Heal or making two Smite attacks or making five attacks with Precision and GWM... it really is wrong to think it's too powerful for it to enable its allies strong actions.



He specifically addressed this in terms of actions other allies might take.  Namely, he explained that they don't balance with respect to the strongest use case (eg: allowing a thief to get an extra attack, which might allow an additional sneak attack, vs just another normal attack from a multi-attacking fighter), but focus on the 'normal' use case — something two or three steps removed from the strongest.  Allowing people to use their stronger combinations with it just means that they get to do their super amazing stunts and have fun with it, rather than implicitly forcing everyone other than "the best" to be "below average".



> The warlord is supposed to be an excellent fifth wheel, having fun by glory through its allies. I really don't think its ability to command others need any meaningful restrictions. Especially if it eats their reactions, then it absolutely needs no other restrictions (and in fact, the class might turn out needing to be strong in itself, since no min-maxer will be happy to have somebody else use up their reaction)



Again, part of why it was based on the Fighter class was so that it has a strong chassis to start with.  The basic Fighter with no subclass can still perform quite well.  He explicitly noted the idea of weakening a character to "balance out" the power they can give others, and said they avoid doing that because that's a poor design path.


Another notable aspect is having Concentration effects.  Namely,  that Concentration effects are self-limiting (you can't have more than  one active at a time), the details are maintained by the player (don't  add extra burden to the DM), and they open up freedom to add more  complexity to what can be done than what you can do with simpler  one-shot effects.

There was an explicit desire to aim for "unique" abilities, so that the Warden can stand out in its own niche.  However even with that, there was the idea floated that a new Fighting Style might be added to the list, for anyone to take, if something interesting can be found to fit there.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I haven't seen the stream but he really ought to begin by stating what he thinks a Warlord should be able to do. If this list doesn't include the buzzwords "non-magical" "healing" "buffing" and "making others take action", then he might just as well not bother.
> 
> Making the Warlord a Fighter subclass is a restriction that should have been discussed and questioned before decided upon. Can you really fit all of what a true Warlord needs to be able to do into the Fighter chassi without making it too good?
> 
> ...




And that there is broken. Clerics have weak attacks so any warlord that can sacrifice their attack and heal as well as a cleric or druid is OP.  
You would need to limit the attack granting or have a weaker healer. At will attack granting in 5E is OP as well due to Rogues, Paladins, Rangers.


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 7, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> And that there is broken. Clerics have weak attacks so any warlord that can sacrifice their attack and heal as well as a cleric or druid is OP.
> You would need to limit the attack granting or have a weaker healer. At will attack granting in 5E is OP as well due to Rogues, Paladins, Rangers.




Mearls implied the Warlord wasn't going to be able to heal as well as a Cleric, or Druid, or probably even a Paladin. Because he was referencing the rules for making custom spells, and using the spell progression of the Eldritch Knight, as the numeric guidelines for the Warlords powers.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 7, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> At will attack granting in 5E is OP as well due to Rogues, Paladins, Rangers.



At-will attack granting *can't* be broken because of Rogues and Paladins (and Rangers?) because having a second Rogue or Paladin in the party, or even an all-Rogue or all-Paladin party, isn't broken.  Now, if the action granting ability is sitting on a chassis that also gives a wide range of off-turn or out-of combat abilities, like a full caster, that could easily be broken.


----------



## jaelis (Mar 7, 2018)

Is it just me or is the recording really glitchy? Mine kept skipping backwards a few seconds and repeating, make it hard to listen to.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 7, 2018)

Valetudo said:


> He just doesn't get it.




What, you mean 3-4 subclass features aren't enough to make a multi-attacking DPR beast into a support focused character?

I mean, why do we need wizards... we have eldritch knights!


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 7, 2018)

From the base ideas he listed for what he wants the subclass to look like, it sounds like the warlord is going to be a great subclass. Looking forward to next week to see how it turns out.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Mar 7, 2018)

I haven’t been heavily involved in 5e Warlord threads, but I’ve noticed a trend that I’m curious about. It strikes me that there’s usually a desire to replicate near-exactly previous action-granting or healing abilities in a system where action economy and healing/natural healing have changed since 4e. I wonder to what degree that’s a matter of the Warlord having only existed in one previous edition (unless we count the Marshall)? Those debates that I do see look to focus on fitting in a mechanic of choice (and then determining the effect) rather than deciding on the effect (and then finding an appropriate mechanic) — I’m reminded of how the Ranger’s “bonus vs. giant-type opponents has morphed over the editions in my thirty years of play into the various versions of Favored Enemy as the game’s monster ecology and classification of creature types has shifted.

5e uses various mechanics for refreshing abilities and actions. Has anyone (among designers or fans) looked perhaps a subclass who perhaps has a reaction ability to refresh the expended-until-rest or expended-until-turn actions of allies?


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 7, 2018)

I don't see why the warlord can't break action economy when casters get to violate the "plot economy" by reading minds, scrying, charming, speaking with dead, etc. On noes, the rogue might get to sneak attack twice! You could add a bit more complexity and still not bring the amount that dropping a caster in the same spot would bring.

A good start, for me, would be something similar to the warlock chassis. d8HD, medium armor, shields, martial weapons, con/cha saves. The equivalent of invocations (tactics) would add riders to the help, attack or other actions and add "auras" similar to the paladin oaths. Then the short rest recharging spell equivalents (stratagems) could lift some ideas from 4E and be your big group dog piles or encounter long buffs. Some of which could require concentration as you're needing to coordinate your allies and that's hard to do when you're getting wailed on.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 7, 2018)

AmerginLiath said:


> I haven’t been heavily involved in 5e Warlord threads, but I’ve noticed a trend that I’m curious about. It strikes me that there’s usually a desire to replicate near-exactly previous action-granting or healing abilities in a system where action economy and healing/natural healing have changed since 4e.



What you describe looks more like how the "opposition" describes what a warlord fan wants, rather than what warlord fans actually want.

I'm pretty sure that most of us want a warlord that captures the feel of a 4e warlord, with mechanics suited to 5e.


----------



## jaelis (Mar 7, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> What you describe looks more like how the "opposition" describes what a warlord fan wants, rather than what warlord fans actually want.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that most of us want a warlord that captures the feel of a 4e warlord, with mechanics suited to 5e.




So how would you describe the feel of a 4e warlord?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 7, 2018)

His comments on warlord as a base class show exactly why “warlord, as such, as bass class” is the wrong goal. 

Make the warlord as one type of a class focused on leading, inspiring, and promoting teamwork. 

Captain, Noble, whatever. Pick one, and just make a good class.

also, I think Fighter should have been a lvl 1 archetype class.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 7, 2018)

jaelis said:


> So how would you describe the feel of a 4e warlord?



Very carefully. 



Anyway, What I'm specifically saying is that I simply do not want to "replicate near-exactly" the 4e mechanics, and I seriously doubt any other warlord fan wants to.  It is a misrepresentation of our opinion, hoisted on us by those trying to shout us down.


----------



## tglassy (Mar 7, 2018)

Every time I read what a Warlord Fan wants, it basically reads as “He should be able to heal like a Cleric, but OMFG no magic plz, and he should be able to buff like a Bard, but again, no mag, and he has to be able to, like, control every other character on the field, cause he’s so cool and a warden and stuff, but if you make him use magic of any kind I am done with you.”

I really don’t see why this has to be a thing. Letting other people take actions is cool, I guess, and makes sense for a leader, but traditionally the Fighter is the leader of the group, so just make a Fighter be able to trade his actions so others can use theirs and be done with it.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 7, 2018)

*sigh*


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 7, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> I don't see why the warlord can't break action economy when casters get to violate the "plot economy" by reading minds, scrying, charming, speaking with dead, etc. On noes, the rogue might get to sneak attack twice!




Apparently, having watched the video, they don't care if the rogue gets a second sneak attack in a round, they don't balance powers based off the best use (rogue or smiting paladin). According to Mearls they base if off something like the fighter and, especially as this is a fighter subclass, they want to it be worth granting an attack to another fighter so that the player of the warlord doesn't stop and go "Why not just make the attack myself?"


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Mar 7, 2018)

Storywise, I figure the warlord as a prestige class (if those were a thing in 5e) would probably be the best:  you were a soldier, now you are a drill sergeant (inspiration if you go full Sergeant Slaughter and call the other PC's scum and maggots); you were just a thief, and now you are the kingpin; you were a wizard, and now you are Dumbledorf (or Gandolph); you were a warlock, and now you are a cult leader; and you were a mystic, now you are Professor X....

Leadership seems independent of class, but you also have to have something else if you are in field (smart leaders give the PC's a good speech and let them go in the dungeon).  "I wouldn't ask my men to do anything I wouldn't do" and all that....


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 7, 2018)

jaelis said:


> So how would you describe the feel of a 4e warlord?




Awesome.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 7, 2018)

If we're throwing ideas around, I'd imagine the Warlord with some kinda aura that requires Concentration to maintain - barking out commands, monitoring the ebb and flow of battle, barking orders. While active it grants a bunch of boons and benefits, with the greatest of them ending the aura. A finite number of aura-uses per day, based on Charisma.

Too Bardy? Perhaps. Then what about leading by example - when the Warlord crits, folks get a better chance of critting or hitting. When the Warlord is crit, folks get a bonus to damage. When the Warlord expends the Fighter-class's Second Wind, folks get a health boost. Leading from the front.


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist (Mar 8, 2018)

Every time I see a 5e Warlord thread, I have the same reaction.

"Please acknowledge that Warlord is already in 5e.  They beat the heck out of it with the Nerf Bat and called it Battle Master Fighter."
Grants ally attack - Check
Grants ally move - Check
Melee attacks with bonus riders (Disarm, slow, etc) - Check
Healing - Here's the biggest nerf, but Grant Temporary Hit Points - Eeesh *gritted teeth* - Kinda check


I liked the Warlord, I'd have loved for it to get a proper 5e treatment, I'm firmly in the camp that says "It doesn't ALL have to ALWAYS be magic."

But.  Seriously.  That Horse is years dead.  All that's left is a rancid mash of rotted meat and bone shards.  Put the stick down and walk away, no matter how hard you hit it it's not gonna get up and run.  At this point even a Necromancer is gonna throw their hands up and look for fresher material to work with.


[Please Note: If I am ever proved wrong by a published first party supplement I will be ecstatic]


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 8, 2018)

TiwazTyrsfist said:


> Every time I see a 5e Warlord thread, I have the same reaction.
> 
> "Please acknowledge that Warlord is already in 5e.  They beat the heck out of it with the Nerf Bat and called it Battle Master Fighter."
> Grants ally attack - Check
> ...




It's not just the battlemaster, WotC have granted warlord style abilities to various subclasses. Mastermind, valour bard, purple dragon knight, even the totem barbarian have some abilities that provide some support style abilities in the same vein as the warlord, the mystic also has some disciplines that mimic warlord abilities and one of the other subclasses Mearls has worked on was the cleric Order domain that also had similar effects. It seems that the D&D team prefer that there be warlord style options throughout the 5e classes rather than create a single dedicated class. 

I also wouldn't be surprised if we see the warlord currently being worked on by Mearls to come out in a future UA, not much reason to create these subclasses and not have people playtest them. Of course, if this community is anything to go by there will be a relative handful of players who like what Mearls does, and two larger groups with one saying "Not my Warlord!" and another saying "Don't tell my character what to do!"


----------



## Valetudo (Mar 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Please elaborate



Look, the warlord is too big to stuff in one chassis. Especially on a selfish class like the fighter. There are multiple ways to play a warlord. The lazylord is one. The drill sgt. is another. Splash in some magic and an eladrin and you had a sweet support/controller back in the day. Yes the warlord was a pretty good healer, second to the cleric ofcourse. He was also a great buffer. Now does all of that fit into one subclass tacked on to a class designed to be focused only on itself at its core.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 8, 2018)

Gardens & Goblins said:


> If we're throwing ideas around, I'd imagine the Warlord with some kinda aura that requires Concentration to maintain - barking out commands, monitoring the ebb and flow of battle, barking orders. While active it grants a bunch of boons and benefits, with the greatest of them ending the aura. A finite number of aura-uses per day, based on Charisma.
> 
> Too Bardy? Perhaps. Then what about leading by example - when the Warlord crits, folks get a better chance of critting or hitting. When the Warlord is crit, folks get a bonus to damage. When the Warlord expends the Fighter-class's Second Wind, folks get a health boost. Leading from the front.




Not bad...


----------



## Yunru (Mar 8, 2018)

jaelis said:


> So how would you describe the feel of a 4e warlord?




Personally one of the old guides summed it up for me:
How to wield a barbarian one-handed.

Obviously exaggerated and whatnot, but the core's there.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Mar 8, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> It's not just the battlemaster, WotC have granted warlord style abilities to various subclasses. Mastermind, valour bard, purple dragon knight, even the totem barbarian have some abilities that provide some support style abilities in the same vein as the warlord, the mystic also has some disciplines that mimic warlord abilities and one of the other subclasses Mearls has worked on was the cleric Order domain that also had similar effects. It seems that the D&D team prefer that there be warlord style options throughout the 5e classes rather than create a single dedicated class.
> 
> I also wouldn't be surprised if we see the warlord currently being worked on by Mearls to come out in a future UA, not much reason to create these subclasses and not have people playtest them. Of course, if this community is anything to go by there will be a relative handful of players who like what Mearls does, and two larger groups with one saying "Not my Warlord!" and another saying "Don't tell my character what to do!"




That’s a key point. The Role and Power Source features of 4e divided abilities up discretely among classes instead of intermixing them (look how Rangers lost their magic, for example). Because Warlord is the main class original to 4e, the class is easy to think of in that single form (compare it to Warden and Avenger, which have both similarly been broken up into various classes in 5e).


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Please elaborate




Its not a 20 level, multi-subclassed class that can do everything a bard and/or cleric can do, but nonmagically.

I give Mearls credit for tackling the topic, because I'm pretty sure at this point nothing he could do would make people happy.


----------



## outsider (Mar 8, 2018)

jaelis said:


> So how would you describe the feel of a 4e warlord?




A support character that's just as good at supporting as the other support classes, without needing to use magic.

That's the gist of it.  It would be good if the warlord could heal as well as a cleric, buff as well as a bard, and give party members extra actions.  Despite what naysayers claim, Warlord fans aren't actually demanding for one character to be able to all those things.  They want the class to be able to do all of those things.  Healing, buffing, and extra actions can all come under different builds, as long as you can compete with casters at it without magic.  It's a flavor thing.

And notice that the warlord fans are objecting to making it a fighter subclass.  It's because fighting as well as a fighter is actually -not- part of what they want, and they realize that the subclass will never be as good at support as what they want, due to being stapled to such a powerful combatant as the base class.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> At-will attack granting *can't* be broken because of Rogues and Paladins (and Rangers?) because having a second Rogue or Paladin in the party, or even an all-Rogue or all-Paladin party, isn't broken.  Now, if the action granting ability is sitting on a chassis that also gives a wide range of off-turn or out-of combat abilities, like a full caster, that could easily be broken.




 Those classes do not also heal though, at least as well as a cleric. Something has to give either the attack granting or the healing rate and I do nto think attack granting at will is a good idea in 5E (you could use more superiority dice than the BM fighter) because of how it interacts with things like Rogues (any), Hunter Rangers (basic atack + 1d6+1d8 is great vs clerics anaemic damage).

 A battlemaster fighter with the right 2-3 feats is probably better than anything Mearls can come up with anyway. A proper 5E Warlord needs to lose at will attack granting and be an independent class for the same reasons a 5E wizard/CoDzilla can't do everything they could do in a previous edition. 

 The 4E fans basically expect 5E tp make all the sacrifices to enable an OP class when other classes made sacrifices to fit into the 5E design paradigm. Even in 4E a warlord was not as good at healing as a Cleric so you can start looking at perhaps Druid or Bard levels of healing. 

For example look at he 5E Paladin a warlord should heal better than that yes? So strip out lay on hands and the spells that gives you some design room, strip out the smites the extra attack and Paladin Aura and thro in perhaps X2 or X3 healing via a lay on hands replacement, more superiority dice than a BM fighter (+50-+100% more perhaps) and you still have room for support abilities. 

 A Warlock chassis is another class I think you could write in WL abilities instead of invocations and replace spells. A Bravura Warlord could still get a 2nd attack at level 5 or 6 jut not the extra stuff classes like Fighter/Ranger/Paladin get to make their attack better. 

 If you want at will attack granting at best you get Paladin levels lay on hands healing, and Battlemaster Fighter levels of anything else tactical. 

 Put it another ray the warlord gets 4 pillars and you can rate how strong you want the warlord to be in the 4 pillars on a scale of 1-10.

Attack Granting
Support
Healing
Combat

  At will attack granting costs you 10 points, 10 points of combat gets you fighter/paladin/ranger levels of combat, 10 points of healing gets you life cleric level, 10 points of support gets you perhaps a buff focused lore bard level of ability.

You get 20 points. Knock yourselves out.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> The 4E fans basically expect 5E tp make all the sacrifices to enable an OP class when other classes made sacrifices to fit into the 5E design paradigm.




[Citation needed]


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Those classes do not also heal though, at least as well as a cleric. Something has to give either the attack granting or the healing rate and I do nto think attack granting at will is a good idea in 5E (you could use more superiority dice than the BM fighter) because of how it interacts with things like Rogues (any), Hunter Rangers (basic atack + 1d6+1d8 is great vs clerics anaemic damage).




Trying to heal as well as a Cleric is not a feasible goal, to be honest. 
If you are going by raw HP, it's doable but totally unnecessary, thanks to how HP works in 5e.  A Warlord would be sitting comfortably in that chair by just cloning _Healing Word_ (Into a totally non-magical "martial power" of course) and *Song of Rest*. They wouldn't even need a clone of _Spare the Dying_ because Healers Kits and the Medicine skill will cover that.

However, the true healing potential of a Cleric lies in their ability to remove Conditions, Diseases, Other forms of non-hp damage (such as getting your arm cut off), and ultimately Death itself.

It's a stretch for a Warlord to have non-magical clones of _Lesser Restoration_ and _Revivify_. But seriously, how do you non-magically replicate the effects of _Greater Restoration_ or _Regenerate_?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2018)

Leatherhead said:


> Trying to heal as well as a Cleric is not a feasible goal, to be honest.
> If you are going by raw HP, it's doable but totally unnecessary, thanks to how HP works in 5e.  A Warlord would be sitting comfortably in that chair by just cloning _Healing Word_ (Into a totally non-magical "martial power" of course) and *Song of Rest*. They wouldn't even need a clone of _Spare the Dying_ because Healers Kits and the Medicine skill will cover that.
> 
> However, the true healing potential of a Cleric lies in their ability to remove Conditions, Diseases, Other forms of non-hp damage (such as getting your arm cut off), and ultimately Death itself.
> ...




I meant in hp regain not raise dead etc. That stuff should require magic IMHO (science maybe with cloning perhaps). Non magical prevention/mitigation can also work (morale bonus to saves, reroll to negate conditions etc).


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2018)

Yunru said:


> [Citation needed]




 General online insistence for at will attack granting (see this thread). 

 5E has a different paradigm its not D&D Tactics: The Miniatures JRPG game.


----------



## i_dont_meta (Mar 8, 2018)

If you read the intro to the Bard in the PHB, you'll find they already planted the seeds for the Warlord many moons ago, like so many other Easter Eggs you can find in the Core 3...


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2018)

i_dont_meta said:


> If you read the intro to the Bard in the PHB, you'll find they already planted the seeds for the Warlord many moons ago, like so many other Easter Eggs you can find in the Core 3...




Mearls out right stated they split it between the BM Fighter and Valor Bard.

 I don't think nayone cares to much about the Warlord concept existing a few 4E players want fully functional 4E warlords and then get upset when WoTC won't give it to them.

 5E Paladins and Wizards do not work the way it used to, Speciality priests died with 2E. Is it reasonable to expect a Warlord in 5E yes, is it reaosnable to expect a fully functioning/empowered 4E style warlord in the game well not really.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Those classes do not also heal though, at least as well as a cleric. Something has to give either the attack granting or the healing rate and I do nto think attack granting at will is a good idea in 5E (you could use more superiority dice than the BM fighter) because of how it interacts with things like Rogues (any), Hunter Rangers (basic atack + 1d6+1d8 is great vs clerics anaemic damage)..



To be an in-combat healer in 5e, you really only need one function; the ability to bring someone from 0 hp to positive hp.  Out-of-combat healing in 5e is either addressed with Hit Dice, or someone has taken one of the many ways to make it almost trivial (Life Cleric + Goodberry, Healing Spirit, Lore Bard w/Aura of Vitality).  

This is the way I look at action granting.  Would you rather have a party of either:

1)  Fighter + Cleric + Wizard + Rogue + Class X.
2)   Fighter + Cleric + Wizard + Rogue + Magic Stick that lets one of the other characters take one extra action each turn?

To my mind, it's pretty obvious that I'd rather have Class X, no matter what class X is.  The magic stick provides actions, but produces no resources.  Even if magic stick uses the Wizard's action to cast Fireball, you're not getting twice as many fireballs, you're simply getting a fireball on Magic Stick's initiative count, instead of the Wizard's count on round 2.  It's a tactical strength, sure, but shouldn't that be the exact kind of flavor a warlord should provide?  

And since there's some daylight the capabilities between Class X and Magic Stick (my stand in for a warlord with at-will action granting, which I hope was obvious), that means there must exist a theoretical class chassis that supports it.  I would say something like Rogue strength, with a scaling action granting feature replacing sneak attack.  Add some flavor abilities, and some minor healing abilities, and it's pretty much good to go.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Mearls out right stated they split it between the BM Fighter and Valor Bard.
> 
> I don't think nayone cares to much about the Warlord concept existing a few 4E players want fully functional 4E warlords and then get upset when WoTC won't give it to them.
> 
> 5E Paladins and Wizards do not work the way it used to, Speciality priests died with 2E. Is it reasonable to expect a Warlord in 5E yes, is it reaosnable to expect a fully functioning/empowered 4E style warlord in the game well not really.



[Citation (actual citation, not the "go look" rubbish) needed]


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> *D&D Tactics: The Miniatures JRPG game.*




I would play the heck out of that...


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2018)

darjr said:


> Is there a 5e third party warlord that folks are generally happy about?






CapnZapp said:


> People can't be "generally" happy with third party solutions, since lots of groups play with WotC official material only, or play in the Adventurer's League.




I think you mistook the tone there Capn. From my read, Darjr is asking if there is a third party solution people like which WOTC could model their official version on. No reason to jump on him as if he said you should all be using the third party products and like them or else.


----------



## VisanidethDM (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> General online insistence for at will attack granting (see this thread).
> 
> 5E has a different paradigm its not D&D Tactics: The Miniatures JRPG game.




I love the smell of edition warring in the morning.


However, I fundamentally agree with the point made: the core problem with recreating the Warlord in 5E is... 5E.

5E is a very, very, very, very simple game. The core game's engine doesn't have the bandwidth to handle a class like the 4E warlord. You can't simply take concepts from different editions and try to adapt them to games that work with fundamentally different action economies and mathematical engines.


So to follow from your example (but removing the edition warring bit), if 4E is chess, 5E is Uno. You can't port mechanics from one to the other.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 8, 2018)

VisanidethDM said:


> I love the smell of edition warring in the morning.
> 
> 
> However, I fundamentally agree with the point made: the core problem with recreating the Warlord in 5E is... 5E.
> ...



Except you can. It was done without complaint for the oh-so-cherished Wizard and their Haste spell.

It's also pretty easy maths.
The system expects that with 5  people there's, say, 5 attacks.
4 people making one attack and 1 person letting someone make an extra attack comes out to 5 attacks.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Mar 8, 2018)

How about Warlord's non-magical healing ability gives options to spend Hit Dice during combat.

There's already precedent with the Dwarven Fortitude feat from Xanathar's Guide.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 8, 2018)

VisanidethDM said:


> However, I fundamentally agree with the point made: the core problem with recreating the Warlord in 5E is... 5E.



 I have to disagree.  For one thing, I don't think it's constructive to try to make a case for 5e being a strictly inferior edition that is simply unable to handle the character concepts of a prior edition, and has thus hard-failed in it's Next-playtest-proclaimed goal of being for fans of all prior editions.

But, for another, 5e is actually a very loose system.  It's not that consistent, it's not that "balanced," it's not that locked-in, it has a lot of slack & wiggle-room for the DM - part of empowerment - and plenty of space for the designers.



> 5E is a very, very, very, very simple game.



 No RPG is simple.  Some - and 5e is not one of them* - load that complexity on the GM and/or players, some provide tools for dealing with it, but, ultimately, the complexity of the activity is unavoidable.  

What 5e is, though, is familiar, that makes it feel simple (easy, intuitive) to those of us long familiar with D&D - and to those whom we introduce to it.  The Warlord is not familiar in the same way, it was not in the classic game, even if the Fighter name-level concept presaged it just a bit in retrospect.  So it clashes in an aesthetic sense - as do Sorcerers, Warlocks, Dragonborn, etc - rather than a mechanical one.  



> The core game's engine doesn't have the bandwidth to handle a class like the 4E warlord.



 It actually has a lot of bandwidth - like I said above, it's a looser system - most of the classes already in the game (the fighter & barbarian the clear exceptions) consume far more than any 4e class ever did.  Now, the fighter absolutely lacks bandwidth or design space to handle a class like the Warlord - or Wizard for an instance like the Eldritch Knight.  But that's one class, arguably a very tightly focused one, not the whole game.



> You can't simply take concepts from different editions and try to adapt them to games that work with fundamentally different action economies and mathematical engines.



 You totally can, and 5e has.  5e's action economy is actually very close to that of 3e or 4e (or any other d20 game).  It's just, again, not as tight nor as balanced, there's more room to mess with it, not less.



> So to follow from your example (but removing the edition warring bit), if 4E is chess, 5E is Uno. You can't port mechanics from one to the other.



 Sounds more like reversing the edition warring.  Which, I guess, is a way of countering it.

But, 5e is not some gimped version of D&D.





* edit:  OK, 5e /does/ load some complexity on the DM, price of Empowerment.


----------



## VisanidethDM (Mar 8, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> But, 5e is not some gimped version of D&D.




I'm not suggesting it's "gimped". I understand that hearing "the system you like is simplier and less "powerful" than the others" can trigger that kind of reaction, but I think it's simply a matter of knowing what you want and what you can do. You can't have a system with the level of internal consistency and emulation properties of 3E AND a game that is balanced and easy to run at the table. You can't have the complex tactical nuance and rich decisionmaking of 4E AND a game that is fast and loose at the table.

5E knows perfectly what it wants to be, and it knows what it has to sacrifice to be it. It may not be my favourite incarnation of D&D, but it's definitely the version of D&D I would suggest to a newcomer, and the version of D&D I run when I can't run my actual favourite. There's a few hiccups and some mistakes in the design, but the way the system works and what it can do is the opposite of "gimped". It's focused.

I admit that playing 5E frustrates me to no end because it's too simple and straightforward for my tastes, but that's the beauty of it.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2018)

Still no progress on my all-magic warlord?


----------



## Azzy (Mar 8, 2018)

Personally, I can't wait to see next week's (and the week's after that) installment to see how this evolves. I eschewed 4e (for many reasons), but from what I've heard of the Warlord from 4e players, I really like the idea and I hope Mike does a good job of implementing it in 5e.


----------



## LapBandit (Mar 8, 2018)

I assumed the Warlord would be:

Bardic Inspiration + BM Maneuvers: Rally, Commander's Strike + Mastermind Rogue 3rd level ability + Paladin Auras


----------



## mellored (Mar 8, 2018)

The best 'attack granting' I've seen is to let someone reroll an attack as a reaction.  Works with the fighter, rogue, and firbolt.
Possibly add +int to the new roll.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 8, 2018)

VisanidethDM said:


> I'm not suggesting it's "gimped". I understand that hearing "the system you like is simplier and less "powerful" than the others" can trigger that kind of reaction



 I'm glad you can see how one might get that impression.    5e still isn't simple, though.  It's familiar to those who've played a lot of D&D in the past, it's easy for them to wrap their heads around (OK, except for neo-Vancian casting, that take's a little effort), but it's not any less complicated at it's core than any other d20 game.  It has less material out, and that slower pace of release gives it less "shelf shock," and, not coincidentally, evokes the feel of the classic game, back when TSR would wait for the proceeds of one book to fund the publication of the next... 



> I think it's simply a matter of knowing what you want and what you can do. You can't have a system with the level of internal consistency and emulation properties of 3E AND a game that is balanced and easy to run at the table. You can't have the complex tactical nuance and rich decisionmaking of 4E AND a game that is fast and loose at the table.



 You could do either or both.  OK, it'd be a lot easier to run 4e fast-and-loose (the DM could just do it - heck, I have) than to balance 3e and make it easy to run (that'd be deep re-design).  

5e mechanics could conceivably even be used as the core of such a system.  



> 5E knows perfectly what it wants to be, and it knows what it has to sacrifice to be it. It may not be my favourite incarnation of D&D, but it's definitely the version of D&D I would suggest to a newcomer, and the version of D&D I run when I can't run my actual favourite. There's a few hiccups and some mistakes in the design, but the way the system works and what it can do is the opposite of "gimped". It's focused.



 I feel like 'focused' isn't exactly the opposite of gimped...

And 5e has had something of an identity crisis.  When it was first put forward, the idea was a D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D, regardless of edition.  But, from the beginning, the focus when they came looking for feedback always seemed to be emulating the 'classic game' (without defining that, I assume TSR era, or 1e or B/X or the like).  

Clearly, the Core 3 books and their content point most heavily at the classic game.  Catering to those who loved D&D of other editions/periods than the classic one was put off to optional rules and later supplements.  The Warlord is increasingly overdue to become part of that.  



> I admit that playing 5E frustrates me to no end because it's too simple and straightforward for my tastes, but that's the beauty of it.



It is neither.  It's D&D.  Needlessly complicated and counter-intuitive to the new player.  But, yes, that's the beauty of it.


----------



## mellored (Mar 8, 2018)

LapBandit said:


> I assumed the Warlord would be:
> 
> Bardic Inspiration + BM Maneuvers: Rally, Commander's Strike + Mastermind Rogue 3rd level ability + Paladin Auras



Except those are all buffs.  Something Merls said he wanted to avoid.


----------



## mellored (Mar 8, 2018)

IMO:  And admittedly a somewhat watered down version of what I would really like.

New Fighting Style:
First Aid: As a bonus action, a creature within reach can spend any number of their hit dice, regaining hit points as normal.  A creature can only benifit from this once per short rest.


Warlord
Level 3: Direct the strike
When a creature who can see and hear you, other than yourself, misses with an attack, you can use you reaction to let them reroll the attack.  If you are within 5' of the target, the new attack gains +Int to-hit.

Level 7: Warlords Gambit: When you roll inititive, select a creature you can see and hear.  They gain a bonus or penalty to their inititve equal to your Int modifier.  You can use this after you see the results of the rolls, but before battle starst.

Level 10: Tactical Maneuvers: Once per turn, when a creature with 30' provokes an oppertunity attack, you can have them not provoke an oppertunity attack.

Level 15: Onslaught.
If you use direct the strike, you can use it a second time without taking a reaction.  You must use it before the start of your next turn, but not on the same attack.

Level 18: Saver: When an ally takes an action that fails, including casting a spell, attack, or ability check, you can expend your action surge to warn them of their impending failure.  That action did not happen, and they can take a different action instead.  You can use this feature after you see the results of a roll, but before it takes effect.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Mar 8, 2018)

LapBandit said:


> I assumed the Warlord would be:
> 
> Bardic Inspiration + BM Maneuvers: Rally, Commander's Strike + Mastermind Rogue 3rd level ability + Paladin Auras




I've always thought the Bardic inspiration Dice and Superiority Dice could be combined to both fuel buffing others and fueling your own abilities.

I also think it could be expanded to include thing like adding the Bardic Insp. die roll to a hit die and regain hitpoints during combat.


----------



## Raith5 (Mar 8, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I have to disagree.  For one thing, I don't think it's constructive to try to make a case for 5e being a strictly inferior edition that is simply unable to handle the character concepts of a prior edition, and has thus hard-failed in it's Next-playtest-proclaimed goal of being for fans of all prior editions.
> 
> But, for another, 5e is actually a very loose system.  It's not that consistent, it's not that "balanced," it's not that locked-in, it has a lot of slack & wiggle-room for the DM - part of empowerment - and plenty of space for the designers..





I agree with this. I think 5e has a lot of space for different class concepts - it has the possibility of being very "modular"  in allowing classes and races to be ignored and have various levels of complexity. This is evident in the way the BM has a wide range of non-magical abilities. 

I have always interpreted the absence of warlord as being more about marketing and making a decisive break with the prior edition (and its real and imagined baggage), rather than any lack of capacity/bandwidth of the game or the designers.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Except you can. It was done without complaint for the oh-so-cherished Wizard and their Haste spell.
> 
> It's also pretty easy maths.
> The system expects that with 5  people there's, say, 5 attacks.
> 4 people making one attack and 1 person letting someone make an extra attack comes out to 5 attacks.




Haste got nerfed hard.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 8, 2018)

Raith5 said:


> I agree with this. I think 5e has a lot of space for different class concepts - it has the possibility of being very "modular"  in allowing classes and races to be ignored and have various levels of complexity. This is evident in the way the BM has a wide range of non-magical abilities.
> 
> I have always interpreted the absence of warlord as being more about marketing and making a decisive break with the prior edition, rather than any lack of capacity/bandwidth of the game or the designers.



 That's a diplomatic way of putting it.  The way I chose to see it was that for essentially diplomatic, post-edition war reasons, the Warlord was pointedly excluded from the PH - just like too-3e feats & MCing were made optional, but, y'know, harder.  
The core of the game strongly evokes the classic game, the free pdf version evokes the old basic game, and if you add in feats & MCing, it at least drops a few crumbs to appeal to 3.5 preferences. 

There are things about 4e that 5e literally can't deliver, but the Warlord class certainly isn't one of them.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Haste got nerfed hard.



It's still a more than suitable basis to work off of.

Strip the duration and concentration, the AC boost, the speed boost and then ability to do anything other than attack with it and you've got what, a 1st level spell at most?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 8, 2018)

Yunru said:


> It's still a more than suitable basis to work off of.



 'Nerfed' is relative.  Haste is nerfed relative to giving multiple targets double attacks in 1e or letting you cast a second (or third) spell in one round in 3e.  That's because it was broken, then, and would have been even more wildly overpowered working either of those ways in the context of 5e.   

But, there's still a Haste spell, and it still makes you faster and able to attack more often.  



> Strip the duration and concentration, the AC boost, the speed boost and then ability to do anything other than attack with it and you've got what, a 1st level spell at most?



 The BM's 'Commander's Strike' comes on line at 3rd level, the same time the EK gets first level spells, so that fits.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's a diplomatic way of putting it.  The way I chose to see it was that for essentially diplomatic, post-edition war reasons, the Warlord was pointedly excluded from the PH - just like too-3e feats & MCing were made optional, but, y'know, harder.
> The core of the game strongly evokes the classic game, the free pdf version evokes the old basic game, and if you add in feats & MCing, it at least drops a few crumbs to appeal to 3.5 preferences.
> 
> There are things about 4e that 5e literally can't deliver, but the Warlord class certainly isn't one of them.




5E can handle a warlord  but the 4vengees won't budge on at will attack granting.  Haste is nerfed to fit the 5E paradigm. The classic wizard also did not make it either.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 5E can handle a warlord  but the 4vengees won't budge on at will attack granting.  Haste is nerfed to fit the 5E paradigm. The classic wizard also did not make it either.



[Citation needed]

At this point it sounds more and more like flamebaiting.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 8, 2018)

Yunru said:


> [Citation needed]
> 
> At this point it sounds more and more like flamebaiting.




 How is it flamebaiting to point out that spells got nerfed along with attack granting which is Limited now?


----------



## Yunru (Mar 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> How is it fkamebaiting to point out that spells got nerfed along with attack granting which is Limited now?



Hmmm... you keep going on about "4vengers" in an insulting way and never give clarification or evidence thereof. Gee I wonder.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Hmmm... you keep going on about "4vengers" in an insulting way and never give clarification or evidence thereof. Gee I wonder.




 Same people that were paid up members in the WoTC forums, Tony Vargas for example. People have literally designed warlords for for them and they move the goalposts.

 Or play the old citation game from the wotc forum.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Same people that were paid up members in the WoTC forums, Tony Vargas for example. People have literally designed warlords for fur them and they move the goalposts.



So the standard commercial design process then?


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 9, 2018)

Off-the-cuff attempt, based on Mearl's framework.

I think, _conceptually_, I would veer towards the types of generals in the "Kingdom" manga — either instinctual, or strategic.  The Strategic generals work off of careful planning, while the Instinctual ones react to the 'feel' of the battlefield on the fly.  Given that the strategic types tend to lead from the rear, while the instinctual types tend to lead from the front, as a character class the instinctual types would be the easier match for a PC.

Types of features/abilities:

Battlefield Awareness.  A concentration effect.

While Battlefield Awareness is active, various abilities may be available (gain over levels?):

• Increases passive perception while active (easier to spot enemies trying to hide or sneak up on you).
• Hidden creatures cannot get advantage on any attack against any ally that can hear you. (range?)
• You may use a reaction to grant allies advantage on a saving throw against an area effect spell or attack.
• When an ally moves, you may use a reaction to prevent opportunity attacks against him.
• When an ally retreats behind another ally, you may use a reaction to command the second ally to assist the fleeing one. Enemies may not pursue past the intervening ally during this round. (battlefield control element; makes Disengage more valuable when retreating)
• You recognize a section of the battlefield as critically important, and a key point for events to happen.  You designate this area at the start of combat. (size?)  On activation (using a bonus action), until the end of your next turn, all allies within that region have advantage on their attacks, and enemies in that region have disadvantage on attacks against your allies and saving throws.  Causes one level of exhaustion when it expires.

Command:  You may expend an Action Surge in order to allow an ally to immediately take an action as a reaction. (Essentially, giving Action Surge to another player) 

Charge: [Folded this into Command.  An Action Surge can be used to Dash, so if you want to give someone a free move, that doesn't require a different ability.]

Formation: As an action, you may call for the repositioning of all allies within range.  All allies may immediately move 10' towards a prepared formation of your design.  Opportunities Attacks have disadvantage against those who move.

Draw In: You may use a reaction on your turn and designate yourself or an ally. Enemy units have their attention drawn to the designated individual.  Those that are not currently engaged will treat the designated individual as their primary target, barring other direct commands, and move towards that person at the next available opportunity.

Prescience (stolen from mellored, renamed): When an ally takes an action that fails, including casting a spell, attack, or ability check, you can expend your action surge to warn them of their impending failure. That action did not happen, and they can take a different action instead. You can use this feature after you see the results of a roll, but before it takes effect. 



This setup uses reactions as a major resource, which is not in conflict with a fighter's standard design.  It also uses Action Surge as a resource, so the player is more likely to hold onto it, rather than spend it immediately, as most fighters would.  It focuses on giving you advantages, and preventing the enemy from getting advantages.

I avoided others of mellored's suggestions, as the tactician's role is to put people in the best position to do what they do best, not to "make them better", which bleeds into buffing (such as the example of Bless that Mike Mearls referenced).  That means helping people move (either granting a bonus Dash action, preventing Opportunity Attacks, or allowing other allies to interfere with pursuit of a retreat), and preventing the enemy from gaining advantage from its own positioning.

However that's leaning more strongly towards defensive features, and we want some offense, too.  Command gives an ally the ability to "strike while the iron's hot", so to speak, giving another person the ability to act in your place, when they're better positioned to do so.  And the "key battlefield zone" gives you a chance to nova with the entire party. (I'm not sure whether it's over- or under-powered, though.)  Formation and Draw In can be used as a combo to pull the enemy into your key battlefield zone.

The Battlemaster does have access to some of these features, but the maneuvers available to them are more tightly bound to individuals and individual fights, while the Warlord should be attempting to work on the entire party.  This take on the idea focuses on maneuverability, and then being able to nova off of good repositioning tactics.


Anyway, I didn't try to fit this into a leveling structure.  It may be too much for a subclass, particularly for a class where it comes in at 3rd level.   Taking a quick once-over, it'd be something like:

3: Battlefield Awareness (improving over levels), proficiency in Insight (tactics)
7: Command
10: Formation, Draw In
18: Prescience

Eh.. it's a rough sketch.  Since most of it is folded into Battlefield Awareness, it might not even really be a problem, leveling-wise.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 5E can handle a warlord  but the 4vengees won't budge on at will attack granting



 It's 4venger.  A 'vengee would be the one getting 'venged,' no?   

But, yes, 5e can handle the warlord, there's no need to 'budge' on anything for it to do so.  Mechanically, there are no obstacles.  

Likewise, if the 5e paradigm can handle haste, it can handle limited action-granting.  The only question is exactly what limits.  5e lacks a simple way of limiting a granted action not only to an attack, but to a carefully-balanced, relatively low-impact melee attack.  It's a price that 5e pays in added complexity for emphasizing natural language over jargon.  It's been a high price at times, but it's never flinched from paying it, before.   



> Haste is nerfed to fit the 5E paradigm. The classic wizard also did not make it either.



 5e neo-Vancian casting is more flexible and less restricted than that of the magic-user (/the/ classic wizard).  I'd not complain about a more flexible, less restricted Warlord.   Haste was nerfed relative to 3e & AD&D, sure, but the Warlord isn't an overpowered spell coming from those editions, it's a class that was balanced in 4e.

Really, for 5e, the Warlord will need to be powered up to fit the paradigm, like the 5e versions the other classes that were assigned the Leader role in 4e have been.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> So the standard commercial design process then?




 Just be honest you're not going to play 4E and there's nothing wotc can do to get you to play. Stay with 4E, go write a clone or your own D&D that's what we did, admitted we don't like 4E and moved on.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Hmmm... you keep going on about "4vengers" in an insulting way and never give clarification or evidence thereof. Gee I wonder.



 4vengers, like H4ters were a real thing, and we may have mostly stopped warring, but many of the same folks are playing 5e, now.  

Some with everything they wanted from the game, some still waiting....


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power to grant attacks at will.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Mar 9, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Still no progress on my all-magic warlord?




It's called a bard. Now go back to CM.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

I mean, we do already have the precedent for granting other people actions with Commander's Strike, plus since it still would be the fighter, spending an attack to do it wouldn't be too bad.

Maybe it starts off with simple stuff, but, in addition to the extra stuff you would get, and every level where you get an Archetype class ability, you can grant people better actions? Like at 3rd level you grant them one attack, then at 7th you can yell at a caster to throw out a cantrip, at 15th you can allow someone to take a full attack action, then at 18th you can tell a caster to throw out an actual spell. You could do that an amount of times equal to your CHA modifier once a long rest.

prolly not balanced completely, but it's an idea.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 9, 2018)

So I got around to watching the video, and it was interesting.  Not the discussion of the Warlord, which is an exercise in futility from "fighter sub-class" on, but in the insights into Mike Mearls's design process.  The frustration we had with him in the 4e era, when he'd pop off stuff like Magic of the Feywild, is a lot more understandable having seen the creative process in action.  It confirmed a number of fairly obvious, but occasionally controversial ideas, like that balance just is not a priority in 5e designs.  A consideration, but not a priority.  Or that magic is at the center of the game not just in thematics as a fantasy rpg, but as a core design touchstone.  

I probably shouldn't bother, but listening to the dismissal of the Warlord as a full class, because it's just too narrow a concept, and then focusing exclusively on the Tactical Warlord as if that were the whole thing... I'm sorry, Mike, it's a tad disingenuous, really.  

I'm not sure if it points to anything - maybe this is just an exercise in sharing the creative process, so why mention all the cribbing from past editions - but it is odd that, when I open a 5e book, I can't help but recognize very familiar stuff from past editions, sometimes virtually verbatim, but when tackling the warlord, he's just kinda brainstorming, rather than reviewing the many builds, alternate class features, and hundreds of powers already developed for the class in it's brief history.  The cynical reason might be that h4ters wouldn't stand for it, of course, but with all the other things taken from 4e, whether bowdlerized, or, again, virtually verbatim, and, besides, 4 years in on some podcast - why?  Is he still that worried about a hypothetical h4ter backlash?  Y'know, most h4ters I've talked to only know of a handful of warlord powers or builds, anyway.  They fulminated over Commander's Strike and Inspiring Word and Come & Get It, and hardly cracked the book, otherwise.  

And, it's not like the few minutes of brainstorming came up with anything new.  Move allies around?  Lots of powers.  Like 'castling' in chess, well, there was a power called King's Castle in direct reference to that (though it wasn't even a Warlord power, all martial classes got cool toys in 4e)  Mess with initiative?  Guileful Switch.  Grant actions?  The well-known Commander's Strike, of course, and the also-chess-referent 'Knigtht's Move,' among many others (Hammer & Anvil was a nice one at low level).   Concentration?  Sustained powers were common in 4e, like concentration, plus cost an actual action.

The decision to go with dailies was also weird.  Oh, healing could be a daily resource if it's that all-fired important - heck, take a serious page from 4e and have Warlord 'healing' simply trigger hit dice in combat, done.  But martial dailies were a major, major controversy.  Why even contemplate going there?

'Gambits' isn't a bad label, though.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2018)

I always have to laugh when people talk about warlords being OP.

Virtually EVERY SINGLE mechanic that warlords had is available in 5e.  Every single one.  

Does that not mean that a character  with levels in Battlemaster, Bard, and Mastermind Rogue would be massively overpowered?  After all, you have all the functions of a warlord right there.  

It's so much edition warring garbage from people who can't seem to get over the idea that they must protect 5e from 4e cooties.  

Sorry folks, you lost that race years ago.  The warlord abilities are here to stay.  All that's left is actually rebuilding the class.


----------



## VisanidethDM (Mar 9, 2018)

I think an important thing that is getting overlooked is the fact that the ability of the Warlord to grant Basic Attacks had a certain weight in 4E because 4E was a game where "basic attacks" kind of sucked. You could build synergies and builds (expecially after Essential Classes were released) in order to maximize the worth of those attacks, but still, in a game where Encounter and Daily powers existed for all classes, that one basic attack the Warlord granted was a minimal benefit over him attacking on his own. You would literally compare your at will with a striker's basic attack and go fish for those few more damages he would do.

Which leads us to a big point: it was mostly about the flavour. It's not "power", it's visualizing a style of character that was different from anything else. The senior swordsman taking the enemy's full attention in order to let his allies hit past their guard. The sergeant locking blades with the orc chieftain while the rogue stabs him in the back. The war veteran simply telling a guy how to kill that pesky goblin.

What happens with 5E? 5E doesn't have a nuanced action system. If you're a melee combatant your god-action is the attack action. It's the best thing you can ever do, and you're gonna get some once-per-round riders, maybe once-per-turn if you're a rogue, but that's it. So if someone else grants you an attack action, they're granting you the best thing you can possibly do, not a throwaway move. It's a much tougher balancing act and a place where the simplicity of the 5E engine doesn't help, because in 4E everyone did a lot of things in their turns, often the riders and movers were the meat of the game, and one guy getting a basic attack was nice but hardly gamebreaking. In 5E things are different, and I can see balance issues arising. 



And honestly, as a 4E fan, I don't think it's crucial to have a warlord in 5E. I just don't see it happening: the warlord is built around the structure of 4E and that's something 5E isn't equipped to replicate. The Warlord, to me, was about improvising and executing complex battle plans that exploited every square of movement and every bit of positioning and pushing and pulling to obtain the best possible effect. I don't really feel the need for  a class that will enable me to roll to hit once more per turn. Different classes for different games.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

VisanidethDM said:


> What happens with 5E? 5E doesn't have a nuanced action system. If you're a melee combatant your god-action is the attack action. It's the best thing you can ever do, and you're gonna get some once-per-round riders, maybe once-per-turn if you're a rogue, but that's it. So if someone else grants you an attack action, they're granting you the best thing you can possibly do, not a throwaway move. It's a much tougher balancing act and a place where the simplicity of the 5E engine doesn't help, because in 4E everyone did a lot of things in their turns, often the riders and movers were the meat of the game, and one guy getting a basic attack was nice but hardly gamebreaking. In 5E things are different, and I can see balance issues arising.



Well sure, if you go out of your way to give them an attack action. But ehy would you when you can just give them an attack?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 9, 2018)

Y'know, the point about warlords not having enough legs to be a full class in 5e is an interesting one.  If the idea is that a base class should have eight or ten sub classes (and we seem to be headed that way), then, yeah, I can see Mearls' point.  Sure, I can think of three, maybe five sub classes for warlords, but eight or ten?  No, I can't actually think of that many variations on "martial support character".  

Kind of cool that they seem to think that 10 years from now, we'll still be playing 5e as well.

On a side note, that does make some classes REALLY hard to build in 5e.  An alchemist class doesn't have 10 variations.  Even the Psionicist is stretching pretty hard to get that many.  Possible, I suppose, if they start emulating other classes with psionic classes.  But, if that's the design philosophy going forward - that any new base class needs enough design space for 10 or more sub classes, I think many people are going to be pretty disappointed.


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Y'know, the point about warlords not having enough legs to be a full class in 5e is an interesting one. If the idea is that a base class should have eight or ten sub classes (and we seem to be headed that way), then, yeah, I can see Mearls' point. Sure, I can think of three, maybe five sub classes for warlords, but eight or ten? No, I can't actually think of that many variations on "martial support character".



Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self-sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord. That's 8. I'm sure others can think of more.
*Yes, charisma lord.  I'm not worried about stepping on the bard's toes when eldrich knight is standing directly on the wizards foot.


IMO: The only way to fit a "full" warlord class is to trade base features away.
i.e. a fighter can trade 1 attack to let someone move without provoking.


Or possibly the rogue trading away sneak attack dice. Which may be even better since skillful trickster -> smart tactician is a small jump. And, they already require team work for their own sneak attack.
Hmm... yea, actually, i'm liking the rogue better.

They have a dice pool to trade.
Trade 3d6 sneak attack damage to grant an attack.
Trade 2d6 sneak attack damage to let someone cast a 1 level spell. (4d6 for a level 2 spell, 6d6 for a level 3 spell, and so on).
Trade Xd6 sneak attack dice on your first turn, to give out the Xd6 bonus to initiative.
Trade Xd6 to make a diplomacy check, giving an ally xd6 temporary hit dice (once per ally per rest).

Reactions and bonus actions to trade.
A reaction to give someone your uncanny dodge.
A reaction to roll stealth in place of an allies stealth (with disadvantage).
As a bonus action, one person can disegange.

And flavorful skills.
Succeed on a DC 10+enemy level knowledge check and all your allies deal extra damage to the target.
Succeed on a DC 10+spell level arcana check to give someone advantage on their saving throw against that spell.
Make an Intimidate check opposed by an Insight check, if you succeed, the creature is afraid of you for a turn (1/enemy).

Plenty of stuff.




> On a side note, that does make some classes REALLY hard to build in 5e. An alchemist class doesn't have 10 variations.



Alchemist seems pretty open to me.
Potions (buffs), Guns (damage), Constructs (Golems), Wands (effects), Mech Suits (melee), Traps, Healing, Magic Items maker. That's 8 off the top of my head. And I haven't thought of it much.

Or perhaps, "Investor" as the base class, and "Alchemist" being the potion sub-class.
Tons of tropes and variation about inventors.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

I fail to see why all classes need to be able to bloat three-fold. What's wrong with a good old fashioned 3 subclass class?


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 9, 2018)

mellored said:


> Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord.   That's 8.  I'm sure others can think of more.




So in this scenario what is the warlords main stat because you have highlighted strength, dex, charisma, constitution, and int. Also some of these don't even make sense. What does a fear lord mean? What does a charismatic lord mean? What does a pacifist lord even mean? This is just word vomit with no real class idea. Replace lord in there with fighter and you will see why none of this makes sense


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2018)

mellored said:


> Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self-sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord. That's 8. I'm sure others can think of more.
> *Yes, charisma lord.  I'm not worried about stepping on the bard's toes when eldrich knight is standing directly on the wizards foot.




Arcane Lord???  I thought the whole point was to have a support class without magic...


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> So in this scenario what is the warlords main stat because you have highlighted strength, dex, charisma, constitution, and int. Also some of these don't even make sense. What does a fear lord mean? What does a charismatic lord mean? What does a pacifist lord even mean? This is just word vomit with no real class idea. Replace lord in there with fighter and you will see why none of this makes sense



Int would be the main stat.  With a flexible secondary stat.

Fear lord would be using intimidation to control enemies.  Breaking their moral, causing fear (disadvantage, movement penalty), possibly some psychic damage.  Maybe call it Doomsayer.
Charisma would be the inpsiring leader.  Call it a marshal, after the 3.5 marshal.
Pacifist would not deal any damage themselves and would try to resolve things peacefully.   Diplomat would be a good name.

There's plenty of room for a non-magical class that focuses on non-damaging effects.  No need to limit yourself to just the 4e version of the armored tactician.  That's just one example.


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

Imaro said:


> Arcane Lord???  I thought the whole point was to have a support class without magic...



And the whole point of a wizard is to cast spells, yet there is a bladesinger.
Or the whole point of a fighter is to fight, yet there is an eldrich knight.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

Actually I kinda like the idea of a Rune Scribe as a non-magical magical buffer.


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Actually I kinda like the idea of a Rune Scribe as a non-magical magical buffer.



Rune Scribe sounds like a good Artificer sub-class to me.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2018)

mellored said:


> And the whole point of a wizard is to cast spells, yet there is a bladesinger.
> Or the whole point of a fighter is to fight, yet there is an eldrich knight.




No I mean one of the fundamental tenets I've seen Warlord fans state is that a Warlord has to be non-magical...


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

Bah, Artificer arshmifiter.
I'd rather have the Rune Scribe as an Arcane subclass to the Warlord and no Artificer than have the Rune Scribe as a subclass to the Artificer and no Warlord.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 9, 2018)

mellored said:


> Int would be the main stat.  With a flexible secondary stat.
> 
> Fear lord would be using intimidation to control enemies.  Breaking their moral, causing fear (disadvantage, movement penalty), possibly some psychic damage.  Maybe call it Doomsayer.
> Charisma would be the inpsiring leader.  Call it a marshal, after the 3.5 marshal.
> ...




All this seems to go against one of the things Mearls was trying to avoid. Fear Lord sounds like it would be a College of whispers Bard, Marshal already exists as the Valor Bard, Pacifist is essentially the redemption Paladin(there was also the tranquility monk).


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> All this seems to go against one of the things Mearls was trying to avoid. Fear Lord sounds like it would be a College of whispers Bard, Marshal already exists as the Valor Bard, Pacifist is essentially the redemption Paladin(there was also the tranquility monk).



And the Sorcerer is already the Wizard, the Paladin is already the Cleric.

Yeah, I don't buy it.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> And the Sorcerer is already the Wizard, the Paladin is already the Cleric.
> 
> Yeah, I don't buy it.




Honestly my real problem is that he essentially wants this one class to do everything. There is not near enough flavor space for 10 _______-Lords. He is just trying to justify a second class when conceptually there is just not enough there


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Bah, Artificer arshmifiter.
> I'd rather have the Rune Scribe as an Arcane subclass to the Warlord and no Artificer than have the Rune Scribe as a subclass to the Artificer and no Warlord.



Fair.
Also, here are some better names for sub-classes.

Detective (Perception/Insight)
Diplomat (Persuasion)
Doomsayer (Intimidate)
Impostor (Deception)
Marshal (Inspiring)
Martyr (Endurance)
Medic (Medicine)
Rune Scribe (Arcana)
Spy (Stealth)
Warlord (Warfare)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 9, 2018)

VisanidethDM said:


> I think an important thing that is getting overlooked is the fact that the ability of the Warlord to grant Basic Attacks had a certain weight in 4E because 4E was a game where "basic attacks" kind of sucked. ... that one basic attack the Warlord granted was a minimal benefit over him attacking on his own.



 Yep.  With Essentials, they gave the Thief SA /per turn/ and 'updated' the Rogue to work the same way, from then on, if you were a Princess Build*, and there was a rogue in the party, you used Command the Strike or whatever on him every round, heck, at least every round, if you could maybe slip him an attack with your immediate action you'd do that, too, because, y'know, damn(age).  At release, the 4e Rogue's SA was /per round/ and the dynamic with the Warlord was kinda cool, and not even arguably broken.  When the Rogue missed or couldn't get CA on his turn, his SA was 'wasted' - unless he got an OA, or the Warlord granted him an attack with Commander's Strike or Hammer & Anvil (preferably while flanking) or Surprise Attack (free CA as a bonus).  

That was nice, and, yeah, the structure of 'powers,' including Basic attacks and the three-action turn did make it simple.  The way each power and feature worked was clear, the structure of the round was defined, and the dynamic came together naturally.  Nearly to the point of elegance, even.  




> Which leads us to a big point: it was mostly about the flavour. It's not "power", it's visualizing a style of character that was different from anything else. The senior swordsman taking the enemy's full attention in order to let his allies hit past their guard. The sergeant locking blades with the orc chieftain while the rogue stabs him in the back. The war veteran simply telling a guy how to kill that pesky goblin.



 Really, though, the flavor was up to the players.  That was one of the things about the way 4e presented 'powers.'  They were bundles of mechanics, they came with an evocative name and a bit of sample flavor text, but you were free to change it.  Some Warlords' "Commanders Strike" could be a literal command.  Others could be a tricky maneuver.  Others could just be a cry for help.  

Putting a little wiggle room between the mechanics and the narrative opens up a lot of freedom & creativity for the player in expressing his character and contributing to the fiction - but, it needs very clear mechanics, so that freedom doesn't bring the game up short, mechanically.  /That/ is antithetical to 5e's style of DM Empowerment.  

But, it's not a problem, it's an opportunity...



> What happens with 5E? 5E doesn't have a nuanced action system.



 Actually, it does, it's little more than nuance, really.  You get an action, which can be almost anything you care to declare, a move, which can't it's just moving, well and standing up & moving and maybe something else if your DM says so, and may or may not get a bonus action, a ruled-not-an-action-action, an object-interaction-action, and, between times, (one and only one) reaction action.  Really, it's action-packed.  But it's not neatly structured or carefully balanced, it's just a guideline, a starting place like everything else in D&D.  
Ultimately, players declare actions and DMs decide how to resolve them.  



> If you're a melee combatant your god-action is the attack action.



 I don't see it that way:

If you're a fighter, it's your /Extra/ Attack & action surge.
If you're a rogue it's your SA.
If you're a Paladin, it's your smite.
If you're a Barbarian, it's your Rage.
etc...

A simple attack isn't a "god-action" (a 'bring-it!' A-game, peak power, whatever you want to call it).  5e just lacks a simple term for simple attack.  
Because 5e doesn't really do simple.  It does familiar, it does natural language, but it does it all with a familiar, natural helping of classic-D&D-evocative complexity.

Just an attack in 5e is just an attack.  It's not simply defined in one word - "Basic" like in 4e - it's described in natural language, so it's a more complex concept to state, but it's an intuitive one.  In 4e, you'd say something like "Effect:  An ally of your choice w/in 5 squares can make a Basic Attack as a free action."  That's blindingly simple, but it's loads of information & restrictions.  In 5e, between reliance natural language and the more nuanced, less structured system, it just has to be spelled out in more detail, even at the risk of being a tad complicated.  "You can use your action to command an ally who you can see, and who can hear you, to make an attack with a weapon he has at hand against an enemy you designate, or  if he has not used a spell slot to cast a spell on his last turn, to use a cantrip that takes an attack roll, (and insert more if new classes insert their own unique alternatives to regular & enhanced attacks).  The ally you choose must have his reaction available, but does not expend it to make the attack.  The ally can make only a single attack inflicting damage based on his weapon and his STR or DEX as appropriate, only.  Even if normally entitled to Extra Attacks or using two weapons, and cannot expend resources like spell slots or CS dice to it, nor make the attack into an SA (insert more his as needed to get the simple idea of a 'basic attack' across in natural language).

OK, maybe I hammed that up a little.  Point is, 5e doesn't make it impossible to do anything, just potentially more complicated.  And, with a late-addition, non-core, optional class, that's not a major downside.   You won't be using a class like the Warlord (or any caster, or anything but a Champion Fighter, really) if you're all that allergic to complexity.



> In 5E things are different, and I can see balance issues arising.



 One of the major differences with 5e is that balance isn't so much of an issue.  



> I just don't see it happening: the warlord is built around the structure of 4E and that's something 5E isn't equipped to replicate.



 Not too sound too defensive, here, but, again, 5e is not gimped, it is not incapable of handling an awesome class concept just because that concept's primary appearance was in a more structured edition.  It'll just handle it differently.  
Every class in 4e was build around the structure of 4e, and a bunch of them, including 3 that, like the Warlord, were 'Leaders' in 4e, have been successfully done in 5e.  The impediment is illusory.  

The Bard is a particularly good example, I think.  In prior eds, the Bard was a lackluster, much-mocked 5th-wheel 2nd-rate caster with a goofy schtick giving out a minor bonus.  But, built into the Role/Source structure of 4e it gained a clear functional vision, an Arcane Leader, and kept it's schtick (with less goofy, or at least optional fluff) while becoming an equal to other 'leaders.'  It worked pretty nicely, as did the Skald (now Valor Bard), and when the 5e Bard was developed, it wasn't just cloned from prior-ed's fuzzy, mildly ridiculous, 2nd-rate magic-dabblers and made a Rogue sub-class, instead it was made a full class, a full caster and a functional support alternative, while keeping the positives of it's fluff and heritage.   In the process, it's /more/ than the 4e bard was - for instance, it can go a lot further in the 'control' direction than would have been 'balanced' or Role-appropriate in 4e.  
The Warlord would have to be, too



> The Warlord, to me, was about improvising and executing complex battle plans that exploited every square of movement and every bit of positioning and pushing and pulling to obtain the best possible effect.



 And modeling that will take more design space than is available on the Fighter chassis.  Mearls seems to acknowledge that, really, when looking at the fighter and realizing that there's nothing in it that supports the Warlord concept prior to wedging in the sub-class.  And, again, when deciding on the EK as his template based on it doing 'healing' (hp restoration). 



> I don't really feel the need for  a class that will enable me to roll to hit once more per turn. Different classes for different games.



 While a Fighter sub-class might only have room for just enabling an ally to roll to hit once more per turn, the result wouldn't be a Warlord.

In spite of all the pointless angst over attack-granting, it's not the only thing Warlords did, nor even a defining thing.  It was defining for a fan hack that arose on top of the official builds...




Imaro said:


> No I mean one of the fundamental tenets I've seen Warlord fans state is that a Warlord has to be non-magical...



  A warlord does, to call back the original, definitely.  All 5e Warlord sub-classes, OTOH, not s'much.  One thing 5e does, quite profligately, is to cover quite specific concepts that, in 3e would require MCing (or Hybriding in 4e) or 20-level feat-tree builds, with a one-and-done sub-class choice.  Nothing stopped you from taking an MC feat, or even hybriding your Warlord with a class from some other source ('caster' in real-D&D parlance), in 4e.  Something very well could in 5e:  called the DM not using feats or MCing!  Instead (or, rather, as well), sub-classes.  
It's the 5e way, and another way 5e is, in fact, potentially able to handle characters from all prior eds.




Hussar said:


> Y'know, the point about warlords not having enough legs to be a full class in 5e is an interesting one.  If the idea is that a base class should have eight or ten sub classes (and we seem to be headed that way), then, yeah, I can see Mearls' point.  Sure, I can think of three, maybe five sub classes for warlords, but eight or ten?  No, I can't actually think of that many variations on "martial support character".



 Mearls, apparently, couldn't think of a third variation on beatstick before resorting to the EK. ;P

Seriously, though, 4e gave us 6 official 'builds,' plus an alternate feature, each of which would map to a 5e sub-class:

Tactical
Inspiring
Resourceful
Bravura
Skirmishing
Insightful
and Archery

Add to that the fan-favorite 'Lazy' build and that's 8 Warlord sub-classes, minimum.

Then there's all those Warlord-focused Paragon Paths, any of which might also inspire a sub-class. (Or a PrC.  Have I mentioned, lately, that 5e could really benefit from 3.5-style PrCs?  I think I have.)

That could get the class over 10 before Mearls even has to come up with anything actually new, himself.

But 5e classes aren't as focused as 4e classes were.  The Warlord could stray into 'controller' and striker functions, as well, could literally lead bands of NPCs (perhaps under the sub-class name 'Marshal' as in "marshalling the volunteers"), and, of course, could go ahead and like the Fighter & Rogue, have a spell-casting sub-class or two.  



> Kind of cool that they seem to think that 10 years from now, we'll still be playing 5e as well.



 I'll believe it at year 11, but it is nice to hear.   



> On a side note, that does make some classes REALLY hard to build in 5e.  An alchemist class doesn't have 10 variations.  Even the Psionicist is stretching pretty hard to get that many.  Possible, I suppose, if they start emulating other classes with psionic classes.  But, if that's the design philosophy going forward - that any new base class needs enough design space for 10 or more sub classes, I think many people are going to be pretty disappointed.



 Bundling is a possibility.  Bundle the Artificer & Alchemist together, for instance.  Psionics shouldn't be a problem.  I mean, from prior eds we have:  Psionicist, Psion, Wild Talent, Soul Knife, Psychic Warrior, Ardent, Battlemind, and Monk.  Plus all the PrCs, PPs, Themes, and whatnot.  /Plus/ the 5e penchant for MCing/hybridizing with sub-classes.  Really might need at least two Psionic classes (and I say that as someone who's never much cared for psionics).











* Garthanos coined that one, I like it better than 'Lazy'


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> Honestly my real problem is that he essentially wants this one class to do everything. There is not near enough flavor space for 10 _______-Lords. He is just trying to justify a second class when conceptually there is just not enough there



So... which is it?  Does the class do too much, or does it not do enough?


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> Honestly my real problem is that he essentially wants this one class to do everything. There is not near enough flavor space for 10 _______-Lords. He is just trying to justify a second class when conceptually there is just not enough there



Not at all, it's several ways to do the same thing: support other players.
Sure each of the has a splash of something else, but that's the point of subclasses.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

Imaro said:


> No I mean one of the fundamental tenets I've seen Warlord fans state is that a Warlord has to be non-magical...




Absolutely, we want to be able to play a warlord without any magical abilities.

But I'm sure we're also flexible enough to accept that there be the option to gain a splash of magic for those that want that.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

I just feel like Warlord shouldn't be it's own class, and they should just use subclasses to get the ideas of the warlord.

Same with Gunslingers in my opinion.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 9, 2018)

3 more subclasses on top of the 4E ones. Psionic, arcane and divine. 1/3rd casters.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 3 more subclasses on top of the 4E ones. Psionic, arcane and divine. 1/3rd casters.




And primal!

Maybe call it the woodlord.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

You forgot 4e's Shadow source, gotta have an Edgelord!


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> You forgot 4e's Shadow source, gotta have an Edgelord!




Danggit! That's the joke I should've made.



Well done, sir.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 9, 2018)

I dont know if Mearls and co. look the work of 3PP sometime, but I'm positive that they could find inspiration for a great martial support class that fits the power level of 5e by mixing features from AiME Scholar and Warden to create a base class that uses its wits to influence the ebbs and flows of the battle, while being wise enough to avoid them first. Both class are great take on spell-less healers/support that use 5e mechanics; they are just a little underpowered in a regular game where fullcaster are a thing.

Warden
1d8, medium armor + shield, martial weapons, save in Wis and Str
lvl1: Wounds Binding: Healing Die pool (on short rest), Watchfulness: Investigation test in a region to gather a all rumors, Momentum Die (as bard, 1d6 lvl1, 1d8 lvl11, 1d10 lvl 17), on Long Rest, 1+Int/day)
lvl2: Field Triage: Gain prof. in Medicine and Healers Kit, if already have it, double.
lvl3: Archetype Feature
lvl4: ASI
lvl5: Extra attack
lvl6: Battle Harmony: as a bonus action when Attacking OR Using an action to heal an ally, the warden can spend a Momentum Die to let an ally make an attack, adding the die to attack)
lvl7: Archetype feature
lvl8: ASI
lvl9: Stall tactic: 1/Short rest,  when Initiative is rolled, enemy musk make a Int check against 10+your Insight skill or receive a - Int penalty to Initiative.
lvl 10: Find a Way: Allies within 30 have advantage on survival, perception and investigation check to navigate or find hidden features.
lvl 11: Archetype Feature
lvl 12: ASI
lvl13: Hidden resources: 1/day you or an ally can use an expanded ability that's recovered on long rest one more time.
lvl 14: Unto the Breach: When you or an ally roll a nat 20, choose an ally within 30, he receives 1 free Momentum Dice.
Lvl 15: Archetype feature
lvl16: ASI
Lvl17: Unspoken tactics: Ally within sight no longer need to talk to communicate, all have advantage against target of an AO when it is next to an ally.
lvl18: The right word: can replace any Persuasion, Deception or Intimidate roll with a 15, Int/day.
lvl19: ASI
lvl20: Tireless: Start every encounter with 1 momentum die.

*Archetypes*
Banner of the Healer: Remove more stuff with healing Pool, maximize healing items, ally can share HD on short rests, Camps are under a Sanctuary-like spell. 
Banner of the Emissary: Expertise in cha-skills, create Calm Emotion-like effect, defeated enemies charmed, Insight Check to give enemy disadvantage in all social skill against you. 
Banner of the Sentinel: avoid Surprised condition, ally can add Momentum to defenses, health-surge on critical, 1/2 damage when next to a 0 HP ally. 

I think that would be an interesting class.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> And primal!
> 
> Maybe call it the woodlord.




By divine I meant Druid/cleric types. 

 You don't need 10 classes all at once I would do 2 (tactical/inspiring) at least initially.

 5E can support a warpord you just have to translate it to 5E design paradigms. A 5E fighter doesn't get weapon specialization from ad&d 5E wizards are weaker than 3.X.  At will attack granting doesn't play nice in 5E but there's no reason they can't be better at it than the BM fighter.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> At will attack granting doesn't play nice in 5E but there's no reason they can't be better at it than the BM fighter.



[Citation needed]


----------



## Imaro (Mar 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Absolutely, we want to be able to play a warlord without any magical abilities.
> 
> But I'm sure we're also flexible enough to accept that there be the option to gain a splash of magic for those that want that.




So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 9, 2018)

Imaro said:


> So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?



That seems to be the way WotC are going which I think is great move with the concept.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

Imaro said:


> So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?



I argued the exact same thing for the mystic. Thing is, the mystic was same stuff, different source. The warlord's different stuff, same source.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

Imaro said:


> So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?




A warlord subclass for each class would be neat thing to do, and I think lots of warlord fans would lke that, and those subclasses would likely also grab the interest of plenty of other people, too.


As for your literal question - why not *just* do that? - the answer is because a warlord class would be neat option to have, too, just like even though we have wizard subclasses for several classes (eldritch knight, arcane trickster,  arcana domain, way of the 4 elements to name four ), it's neat to have a wizard class.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 9, 2018)

Imaro said:


> So why not just make a warlord subclass for each class?




I think you nailed what I was really getting at with why you need all the different ____-lords because other classes have some of that already, so have the fighter version focused on attacks, and the sneaky one be the rogue(mastermind kind of already is) etc etc


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Mar 9, 2018)

Although I like the warlord subclass for each class idea, if it was a class maybe changing it to Watchman (person, member of the Watch, Sentry) would remove any stigma of controlling others, and lead to some interesting abilities and subclasses.

The basic stat is wisdom (good for perception), with subclasses for patrol (also uses dex, wisdom/dex--sneaky guys will hate you), detective (also uses int), and interrogator (also uses charisma).  Rallying cry makes sense (the party is at rest, you notice someone coming, you rally the party).

Thanks to the ubiquitous cop shows (and other media), people have become used to the notion of law enforcement in just about any circumstance.  Plus some of the best modern fantasy (Terry Pratchett, Glen Cook's Garret series) involves cops (or detectives) in fantastic settings.

I got to run, but I will think on class abilities later.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

To expand on my previous post:

Look at every class and subclass.
The classes all do something differently.
Each subclass does the same as their base class, differently.

So why not make the warlord a bunch of subclasses for others?
Because there is no class that does what the warlord does.



I mean, at this point I'd be fine with:
*Puppeted Strike*
_Enchantment cantrip_
Choose a creature. It makes an attack against a target of your choice.

_Maybe_ with a save if the chosen creature is hostile.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I think you nailed what I was really getting at with why you need all the different ____-lords because other classes have some of that already, so have the fighter version focused on attacks, and the sneaky one be the rogue(mastermind kind of already is)




Sure, and have the sorcerer be a wizard subclass, the warlock be a wizard subclass, the paladin be a cleric subclass, the rogue be a fighter subclass, etc.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Because there is no class that does what the warlord does.



 At the unacknowledged 'role' layer, the Cleric, Bard, Druid & even Paladin all do what the Warlord did - they still have their "leader" capabilities, just more besides (the Paladin was only a secondary leader, and didn't exactly keep all his Defender toys, but that's another issue).

But, viewed that way, every class does stuff other classes do, just differently (or not so differently, but with different fluff (or with similar fluff, but different emphasis (OK, I'm still having trouble with Druid v Cleric v Paladin here:sigh:))). 
Anyway, 4 classes do support, they all do it, in large part, with spells.  There's not a precedent for scraping full-casting off a class with a sub-class.  It'd seem an inelegant solution even by D&D standards.



Satyrn said:


> A warlord subclass for each class would be neat thing to do, and I think lots of warlord fans would lke that, and those subclasses would likely also grab the interest of plenty of other people, too
> ...
> a warlord class would be neat option to have, too, just like even though we have wizard subclasses for several classes (eldritch knight, arcane trickster,  arcana domain, way of the 4 elements to name four ), it's neat to have a wizard class.



 Doing both (/some/ of the former, anyway, not every class needs a sub-class of every other class) would be very much in keeping with 5e design - existing fractional-wizard sub-classes as you point out, and, for that matter, the Bladesinger on the other side of that coin - and, it would increase the chances of being able to choose some sort of Warlord-lite when dropping in on a random campaign, even if the 'controversial' full Warlord class were unavailable, you still might be able to play something better than a PDK.  Which is kinda the point.  As Mearls said, the Eldritch Knight is there so you can play a fighter/magic-user even if the DM is too young to get that reference, and didn't opt into MCing.  OK, I'm paraphrasing, there.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> As for your literal question - why not *just* do that? - the answer is because a warlord class would be neat option to have, too, just like even though we have wizard subclasses for several classes (eldritch knight, arcane trickster,  arcana domain, way of the 4 elements to name four ), it's neat to have a wizard class.




We already have an Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, why do we need a wizard?


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 9, 2018)

deleted


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Doing both (/some/ of the former, anyway, not every class needs a sub-class of every other class)





But the grid needs filling! 




(No, it really doesn't)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> But the grid needs filling!
> (No, it really doesn't)



  I actually kinda like grid-filling.  But n-dimensional matrix filling might be a bit much.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I actually kinda like grid-filling.  But n-dimensional matrix filling might be a bit much.



Then just set n=0. 

Play a game without classes.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> But the grid needs filling!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You sure about that because I love blackout bingo


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> You sure about that because I love blackout bingo




I am sure about nothing. (Except what I'm paid to say, so long as I continue getting paid to say it)


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

I, like Einstein, am certain about two things:
The universe is infinite and human stupidity.
And I'm not so sure about the universe.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 9, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I am sure about nothing. (Except what I'm paid to say, so long as I continue getting paid to say it)




Shill!


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> Shill!




It's a fair cop.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 9, 2018)

mellored said:
			
		

> Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self-sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord. That's 8. I'm sure others can think of more.
> *Yes, charisma lord. I'm not worried about stepping on the bard's toes when eldrich knight is standing directly on the wizards foot.



So: Fighter Warlord, Ranger Warlord, Wizard Warlord, Bard Warlord, Paladin Warlord, Warlock Warlord, Cleric Warlord, and Rogue Warlord?

Sadly, by the time I got around to posting, others have already figured out the same joke.


I really like what Mike Mearls is doing with his video series, but this thread reminds me of why I usually bail on every thread that dips into Warlord territory.  People aren't listening to what he's saying, and are trying to turn the series into something it's not.

For those that are throwing around adjectives like they mean anything, can you try to provide a proper thematic description for the class, it's core purpose, at least a framework of the mechanics, and in what way the proposed subclasses are unique enough to be worth building?  And don't just say, "What 4E did." I have literally never touched a 4E book.  Try to be convincing with your own words.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 9, 2018)

Well, this thread exploded.

So, some ideas meant to be constructive.... 

All of you that would like a 5e Warlord, and that have ideas for what abilities and such a 5e Warlord should have, please go over to Mike Mearls' Twitter page and let him know about it (politely would probably be best). This is probably the best way to get your views heard and acknowledged.

It's probably also best to not engage those that are not being constructive—haters gonna hate, and all that. No amount of logical and rational discourse is going to change the minds of those that are intent on being negative. So, let's skip them and try to keep on chugging.


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> For those that are throwing around adjectives like they mean anything, can you try to provide a proper thematic description for the class, it's core purpose, at least a framework of the mechanics, and in what way the proposed subclasses are unique enough to be worth building?  And don't just say, "What 4E did." I have literally never touched a 4E book.  Try to be convincing with your own words.



Core purpose: Using skill (not magic) to provide utility and support to the party.

Framework: There's been may suggestions, but IMO the basic form would be to hand out instant bonuses.  Which feels different from casters pre-bonuses like bless, greater invisibility, or haste.
i.e.
when an ally misses with an attack, you can use your reaction to let them reroll the attack.  (possibly let them take an extra attack as a bonus action, or whatever).
when an ally would provoke an OA, you can prevent the OA.
when an ally rolls inititive, you can swap with your inititive.
when an ally rolls a skill check, you can give them advantage.
when an enemy does.... you can....

Get's an extra reaction at 5, 11, and 17.  (Or something similar).

As well as non-combat stuff like expertise, extra languages, etc.


Sub-classes: Boosts a particular tactic or maneuver.  Or adding a more powerful one.
i.e.
Spy: When you let an ally reroll a skill check, they gain +bonus.
Doomsayer: When an ally scores a critical hit against an enemy, they are afraid of that ally until the start of your allies next turn.
Watchman: Initiative bonus to all allies.  You can use your abilities at a longer range.  You can't be surprised.
Martyr: Extra armor.  When an ally is hit, you push them out of the way and take the damage yourself.  Reduce damage at higher level.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

So why can't that be done by subclasses for the classes we already have in the game?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 9, 2018)

The idea of having a ''leader-y'' (as in the 4e term) archetype for many classes is a good one; archetype that doesnt decide actions for another player, but instead favor teamwork and the pooling of resources. The PDK was too conservative in its design, but the basic idea is good: extend your class features to benefit your party. Rogue has Mastermind, Paladin has Crown, Fighter has PDK (could benefit from a stronger alternative), Druid has Dream, Bard as Valor, whats missing?

- Community/Civilization/Travel (as in traveling group) Cleric Domain (party taking rest together gets bonus, see Circle of Dream druid/bard's song of rest)
- Legendary Ruler origin for Sorcerer (Can Metamagic spells of allies)
- Thane barbarian (Inspire rage?)
- Circle Mage wizard (Shared spellslot and concentration)
- Warlock of an Organization: its a strange trope that I see frequently on Reddit, a Warlock making a pact with a powerful organization instead of a specific entity, that gives him powers to further its agenda. Interesting. (I could the Harpers or Zentharim in FR, a great House of Eberron or the Templars from Dark Sun if you see them as protector of a group of rulers and not of a specific SK)


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So why can't that be done by subclasses for the classes we already have in the game?



Well let's count the number of non-magical support classes it could be a subclass of...
Oh. Zero.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

vincegetorix said:


> The idea of having a ''leader-y'' (as in the 4e term) archetype for many classes is a good one; archetype that doesnt decide actions for another player, but instead favor teamwork and the pooling of resources. The PDK was too conservative in its design, but the basic idea is good: extend your class features to benefit your party. Rogue has Mastermind, Paladin has Crown, Fighter has PDK (could benefit from a stronger alternative), Druid has Dream, Bard as Valor, whats missing?
> 
> - Community/Civilization/Travel (as in traveling group) Cleric Domain (party taking rest together gets bonus, see Circle of Dream druid/bard's song of rest)
> - Legendary Ruler origin for Sorcerer (Can Metamagic spells of allies)
> ...




All of these are great ideas, but since some of them have magic involved, it doesn't mean anything, because you can't support people with magic.



Yunru said:


> Well let's count the number of non-magical support classes it could be a subclass of...
> Oh. Zero.




I guess Wolf Totem, Mastermind, and Commanding Strike don't exist then.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 9, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> I really like what Mike Mearls is doing with his video series...



 This is the first I'd heard of it.  It does seem an interesting peek into the design process, at least, a one-man version of it.  I'm sure it's a little different in real development when he's delegating more of the grunt work, not just brainstorming by himself, etc...



> For those that are throwing around adjectives like they mean anything



 Adjectives are a perfectly cromulent part of speech.... ;P  



> , can you try to provide a proper thematic description for the class, it's core purpose, at least a framework of the mechanics, and in what way the proposed subclasses are unique enough to be worth building?



 "Unique enough to be worth building" is a very, very low bar, if you consider that every sub-class to see print so far in 5e must have cleared it.  I mean, how unique is an EK from a Bladesinger?  A PDK from an OotC?  A battlerager from a berserker? A War Cleric from a Paladin?  Heck, whole classes are rather lacking in uniqueness - Sorcerer vs Wizard vs Warlock.  

5e design, perhaps only as a side effect of trying to integrate so much that had come before or in trying to keep certain things optional, tends to give a player multiple paths to very similar concepts or even the same concept.  A classic icon of early D&D was the Elf, able to fight and cast spells.  An elven Eldritch Knight, in 5e, covers that concept.  So does a SCAG Bladesinger.  So does an MC'd Fighter/Wizard.  A wizard with the Soldier Background and Martial Adept feat or a Fighter with the Sage background and Magic Initiate feat might not even be that far off.  

And, while 5e, to the extent it's balanced at all (and after watching this podcast, I have even less confidence about that), is at worst spot-light balanced, it does not go so far as niche-protection.  You don't "need" a Cleric to heal - Bards, Paladins, and Druids can heal quite well, too.  You don't "need" a Thief to open locks - anyone can take the criminal background and pick up proficiency with Thieves' Tools. 

There is tremendous overlap, both functional and conceptual, among the classes, sub-classes, backgrounds & feats.

To understand what's missing, consider if an existing class were missing, but it's overlapping bits were still there:  Imagine there's no Wizard.  It's easy, if you try.   But, there's still the EK & AT, there's still the Warlock and Sorcerer?  What's missing?  Couldn't maybe a Tome-pact Warlock or a new "Pure-Blood" (as opposed to muggle!) Sorcerer do the trick?  What's so unique about a wizard?  Books?  Really, that's it?  Anyone can surround themselves with some books...

Sounds pretty grim, but there's actually a lot that vanishes with the Wizard.  The Wizard is the only arcane class that prepares its spells, the rest have a limited known-spells.  There are 33 spells that'd vanish from the game with the Wizard - they're not on any other list.  The wizard also represents something of an extreme point in the design, being traditionally the lowest-hp, least-skilled-with-weapons, most-magically-inclined of all the classes.  And, it uses INT as it's caster stat, heck, it's virtually the only class to make significant use of INT.

As to it's practical contributions, yeah, it's a lot like a Sorcerer or Warlock (or Cleric, Bard or Druid), it casts spells a lot of them, of quite a variety, but it leans towards offensive & utility spells, and isn't 'burdened' by the presence of healing and other 'support' spells putting pressure on it's slots.  So it's a Sorcerer/Warlock-type class in contribution, but subtly different in concept & mechanics.

You can see how the wizard, had it been in the game only a few years, might seem superfluous given all that, but, even then, it wouldn't actually be, given even a small toe-hold, it'd be unique enough.  


To plug the Warlord into that analogy, there are bits of it sitting around.  D&D without the wizard still has the EK and AT, without the Warlord, it still has the Battlemaster, which uses vaguely similar mechanics, and the Mastermind.  Sub-classes that hint at a bit of the whole.  The Cleric, Druid & Bard make similar contributions, but in very different ways both mechanically and conceptually.  The Bard is closer, conceptually (the Bard even has a minor feature called 'Inspiration'), but where the Wizard in our analogy hangs it's hat on casting some different spells, and doing so using INT instead of CHA, the Warlord is unique from the Bard in not being a caster, /at all/, a huge conceptual difference.

That's it in a nutshell.  A non-caster (non-magical, even, at least, at it's base, sub-classes in 5e can tack on that sort of thing), that makes primarily support-oriented contributions substantial enough to replace the traditional Cleric's contributions (or the Druid or Bard alternatives).  

The game has elements that point to the ability of non-casters (even if entirely non-magical) to make support contributions:  A few BM maneuvers, the feat, Martial Adept, that lets you tap one, the Inspiring Leader and Healer feats, the PDK sub-class doing non-magical healing, the Mastermind sub-class, and a few other odds and ends.  But, it has no class that's primarily about that.  Adding one - the Warlord, which did just that in 4e quite nicely - doesn't just open up character-concept options for players, it makes campaigns that de-emphasize or remove PC casting entirely suddenly much more practical.



> I have literally never touched a 4E book.



 Maybe you should?  There's no small amount of stuff from 4e in 5e, and it might give you some insights.  Same goes, obviously, for other prior editions, especially AD&D.  5e is very much shaped by the legacy and history of the game.  


4e gave us 6 official 'builds,' plus an alternate feature, each of which would map to a 5e sub-class.  I've already listed them, but, until you get the chance to touch not one, but three 4e books, I'll throw in a brief description of the concept, and how it might be done in 5e.

Tactical - a canny warlord, who excels at devising & coordinating cunning plans.  This is the one that Mearls was talking about in the podcast as if it were the whole class, so, in 5e would use INT and 'Gambits' that map, vaguely, to spells in the way Mearls went into, only, to do it 'right,' it'd map more to the casting of Druid or Wizard than an EK.  It would emphasize 'Tactical Gambits' in the same sense that an Evoker emphasizes blasty spells, an emphasis, being better at it, not in the sense of being unable to use everything else. 

Inspiring - the original opposite number to the tactical warlord, the inspiring warlord did exactly what it says on the tin, bolstered his allies (hps, both healing &temps and handed out buffs), mainly keyed off CHA.  It tended to be less about maneuvering & commanding and more about leading & aiding.  In 5e, it would use the same Gambits & Maneuvers as other warlords, but better at the ones that hand out bonuses and hps, probably by the simple expedient of tacking his CHA mod onto them.  

Resourceful - where the tactical warlord plans & orchestrates, the resourceful warlord reacts to opportunity - he has contingencies. The resourceful sub-class in 5e might be like the still unrealized generalist wizard, it'd be reasonably good at all the various sorts of Gambits, and it'd benefit a little, from both INT & CHA.  Or, it could emphasize gambits that react to the enemy and leverage the environment. 

Bravura - Mearls also hinted a this one, just a bit, in talking about the benighted pre-sub-class Warlord-heading fighter.  It's the lead from the front type.  It leads by example, is all about showing and inspiring bravery - and intimidating the enemy, something 5e could afford to emphasize more than 4e did.  In 5e terms, this'd be the faux-fighter-multi-class sub-class, analogous to a war cleric, valor bard, or bladesinger.  It'd get an actual extra attack of it's own, get slightly better weapons or armor, and do better with Gambits that involved getting in there and mixing it up to make things happen, rather than those that provoke or trick the enemy or direct or coordinate allies.

These next three were the last gasp of the warlord before essential (keep in mind, everything Warlord in 4e came out in a 2-year period, as soon as Mearls took the helm, the Warlord got nothing - except getting slapped with the 'Marshal' sub-class label) got less support than the others, so they're not as fleshed out...

Skirmishing - Emphasized mobility for both itself and it's allies.  Skirmishing is RL military tactic, of course, in 4e, there were plenty of exploits that involved movement.    In 5e, it could get a more evocative treatment, maybe emphasize DEX and light armor, and gambits best used by similarly mobile allies, and, of course, be particularly good at those gambits that involved maneuvering allies, quick in-and-out attacks and the like.

Insightful - 'Watchful' might've been a good name for this one.  Specialized understanding the enemy and staying alert for their plans and actions.  Mechanically it didn't much deliver, it mostly just subbed WIS for INT or CHA when handing out bonuses.  In 5e it could get a more interesting "know your enemy" sort of treatment, shading over into what in 4e would have been off-limits 'controller' functions, and imposing conditions and actions on the enemy, metaphorically 'getting in their heads' and predicting & manipulating them.  Could be very good at a few such gambits that are otherwise marginal in the hands of most other warlords.

and Archery - though the distinction isn't important, this was not a build, but an alternate feature ::shrug:: - 4e was not super flexible about the choice of range vs melee weapons, STR vs DEX, so the Warlord was mostly STR/Melee.  This version was able to do ranged.  It was the sole official exception to the 'lead from the front' idiom, it would shoot enemies and set them up for allies.  In 5e, it'd be a lot less convoluted to emphasize ranged weapons, and an Archer-Warlord could simply do so, and excel at Gambits involving archery, his own or coordinating with his allies.

Then, there's the 'Lazy' build, it wasn't spelled out, but players strung together some tactical 'exploits' (maneuvers or gambits), that didn't involve the warlord attacking (or often, even acting, at all), into a build that aided allies primarily by funneling actions to them.  The concepts this opens up are surprising - Garthanos called it a 'Princess Build,' because it could be used to let you play a seemingly-helpless side-kick or damsel in distress sort of character, yet still fully-contribute to the success of your party.  Instead of imperiously commanding your allies to attack, you scream for help.    In 5e, this sub-class could de-emphasize weapons & armor, emphasize CHA and Gambits that involve heroics on the part of their allies.  

Then there's all those Warlord-focused Paragon Paths, any of which might also inspire a sub-class. (Or a PrC.  Have I mentioned, lately, that 5e could really benefit from 3.5-style PrCs?  I think I have.)

There's 38 of them, in all.  One, the Purple Dragon Knight, already a fighter sub-class (really, really, should have been a PrC, just say'n... OK, I'll shut up about it for a few minutes.).

For another instance, there's an 'Arcane Battlemaster' (I think Mage-Captain, might've been a good name), that actually did get a few (3) spells.  That could be the EK-like faux-multi-class-Wizard sub-class.  But the cool potential, with this sub-class is applying all those mostly-martial-focused gambits & tactics to casters.  Free attack?  How 'bout a free cantrip?  How about I help you maintain your concentration...?  Need a forward observer for that fireball?\
yeah.  ;>

Some of them are race-specific (Spiral Tactician, Earthfast Brigadier), like the Battlerager in SCAG is, so would seem to be OK for a 5e sub-class.

Some are religious (Platinum Warlord, Dujun of Erathis, Battlord of Kord), they could be bundled into a pally or cleric faux-multiclass.

Combat Veteran was one I rather liked, the Path that gave us the grizzled drill sergeant vision of the Warlord.  

etc... too much to go into, really...

But 5e classes aren't as focused as 4e classes were.  The Warlord could stray into 'controller' and striker functions, as well, could literally lead bands of NPCs (perhaps under the sub-class name 'Marshal' as in "marshalling the volunteers"), and, of course, could go ahead and like the Fighter & Rogue, have a spell-casting sub-class or two.  

The Marshal, BTW, was a Battlesystem class - not in the league of most 3.x PC classes, but better than an NPC class - that vaguely presaged the Warlord.  It really was in a tactical miniatures game, and it's thing was 'auras' that gave fairly bland bonuses to allies in them.  Yippee.

So, finally:
I like the idea of re-imagining the Marshal as a sub-class that focuses on larger numbers of (necessarily NPC) allies.  Like the old-school Fighter and his (generally useless) band of men-at-arms he attracted for building that enormously expensive keep.  But, y'know, not so generally useless. 
Could specialize in gambits that involve the whole party, or the tired 'organize the villagers to defend themselves' trope.  Would have been untenable in 4e because launching volleys of missle fire or setting up shield walls or whatever other modest-scale military maneuvers would have stomped into 'controller' territory.  In 5e, it'd be fine to have some gambits like that, and a sub-class that was particularly good at them.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> To plug the Warlord into that analogy, there are bits of it sitting around.  D&D without the wizard still has the EK and AT, without the Warlord, it still has the Battlemaster, which uses vaguely similar mechanics, and the Mastermind.  Sub-classes that hint at a bit of the whole.  The Cleric, Druid & Bard make similar contributions, but in very different ways both mechanically and conceptually.  The Bard is closer, conceptually (the Bard even has a minor feature called 'Inspiration'), but where the Wizard in our analogy hangs it's hat on casting some different spells, and doing so using INT instead of CHA, the Warlord is unique from the Bard in not being a caster, /at all/, a huge conceptual difference.
> 
> That's it in a nutshell.  A non-caster (non-magical, even, at least, at it's base, sub-classes in 5e can tack on that sort of thing), that makes primarily support-oriented contributions substantial enough to replace the traditional Cleric's contributions (or the Druid or Bard alternatives).
> 
> The game has elements that point to the ability of non-casters (even if entirely non-magical) to make support contributions:  A few BM maneuvers, the feat, Martial Adept, that lets you tap one, the Inspiring Leader and Healer feats, the PDK sub-class doing non-magical healing, the Mastermind sub-class, and a few other odds and ends.  But, it has no class that's primarily about that.  Adding one - the Warlord, which did just that in 4e quite nicely - doesn't just open up character-concept options for players, it makes campaigns that de-emphasize or remove PC casting entirely suddenly much more practical.




To a point, this is true, but I don't really see a point to adding something as narrow as the Warlord to the full class selection.

For the Artificer, yes, I can 100% see that. Someone who creates things and uses those things is a wide enough berth to give a new class to. Same with the Mystic, It adds basically a whole new form of magic to the game, and I don't think just putting that into subclasses would reach the idea that people want to make.

However, with something like the Warlord, I don't really see it. If you'll allow me to repeat myself, it feels like a Gunslinger. Something that's cool and fills a niche, but it just doesn't seem like something you could base a whole class around.

I also feel like keeping the number of classes down is in the best interests of the game.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 9, 2018)

The 5 minute work day maneuvers and commander supplement was fun.  It listed new manoeuvres,  many of which were Warlord based.  It also had a passable Warlord fighter subclass using SDs that can share the benefit of action surge, add a bonus to your allies' initiative rolls, and  regain one SD as a bonus action.

Even without the subclass,  the extra Warlord 'command manoeuvres' can also add flavour to other classes and subclasses using the Martial Adept feat on top of the other existing Warlord style feats.   I personally would just tweak the Banneret subclass with a free Martial Adept feat choosing only from one of the 12 command manoeuvres.  

If an official version will build on this sort of thing, it could be fun.  There are also multiclass options such as Mastermind Rogue or Valour Bard that can add further variations.   There is a lot of Warlordy fun to be had.


----------



## mellored (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So why can't that be done by subclasses for the classes we already have in the game?



There are 2 non-magical classes.  Both do a high amount of at-will damage tied into their base class, leaving little room for support.
A mastermind's rogues primary function is still to deal damage.

I've seen/tried a few attempts at trading out damage for maneuvers, but they've been pretty clunky.  Fighters and rogues just don't have the readily swap-able power like casters do, who can easily choose between fireball and haste.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

mellored said:


> There are 2 non-magical classes.  Both do a high amount of at-will damage tied into their base class, leaving little room for support.
> A mastermind's rogues primary function is still to deal damage.
> 
> I've seen/tried a few attempts at trading out damage for maneuvers, but they've been pretty clunky.  Fighters and rogues just don't have the readily swap-able power like casters do, who can easily choose between fireball and haste.




Maybe I'm just stupid, or maybe I just don't get it, but I really don't understand why people are so up in arms about the class not being magical or not doing too much damage.

I'm honestly beginning to think that trying to do a Warlord is almost worthless because people are gonna be upset about it no matter what.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Maybe I'm just stupid, or maybe I just don't get it, but I really don't understand why people are so up in arms about the class not being magical or not doing too much damage.



Well...
We could have _yet another caster_ or high-damage low-support martial class, or sonething actually different from what we've got.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Well...
> We could have _yet another caster_ or high-damage low-support martial class, or sonething actually different from what we've got.




I mean, the game is *explicitly* magical.

If I wanted to be a jackwagon I could say that the very idea of a Warlord is magical because of Vocal components to spells and the Bard using words to cast spells.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I mean, the game is *explicitly* magical.
> 
> If I wanted to be a jackwagon I could say that the very idea of a Warlord is magical because of Vocal components to spells and the Bard using words to cast spells.



No, the game explicitly _has magic_. That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean everything in the game has to be magical.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> No, the game explicitly _has magic_. That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean everything in the game has to be magical.




The game also has martial characters in it.

That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that everything in the game has to be martial.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The game also has martial characters in it.
> 
> That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that everything in the game has to be martial.



Then why are you complaining about people wanting a martial niche that's absent filled?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 9, 2018)

Double post (citation).


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 9, 2018)

Where I am sitting now is warlord=non magical bard, 2 sub groups initially.

Inspiring Warlord gets bard dice

Tactical gets battlemaster dice and is focused on buffing individuals, the inspiring one is the group buffer. 

They get a few extra dice as they level up over Bards and Battlemaster.

 Both use the Warlock chassis replacing invocations with basically 4E type powers. They get a big effect 2/short rest like warlocks basically being a spell effect at least in scope. 

 An effect like haste would map to the tactical warlord while 4E powers become "invocations", if they had a charisma rider on it they are for inspiring ones, int rider tactical (like how certain invocation are tied to specific warlock pacts). 

 In other news posters that spam citations get added to ignore list (citation).


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Then why are you complaining about people wanting a martial niche that's absent filled?




Because I feel it would be better served as subclasses.

Hell, there already are a few that are based around support. Mastermind (which apparently doesn't count because rogues do too much damage), Wolf Totem Barbarian (which doesn't count because it can cast a whole 2 spells), Ancestral Guardian, (which doesn't count because it can cast 1 spell and people can't stand reflavorings) Banneret (which doesn't count because it doesn't give attacks), and Cavelier (which doesn't count because it attacks too much).


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> IN other news posted that spam citations get added to ignore list.




I have a similar policy. Posts that make bold statements and refuse to provide actual evidence get ignored.

Also double posted there.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Because I feel it would be better served as subclasses.
> 
> Hell, there already are a few that are based around support. Mastermind (which apparently doesn't count because rogues do too much damage), Wolf Totem Barbarian (which doesn't count because it can cast a whole 2 spells), Banneret (which doesn't count because it doesn't give attacks), and Cavelier (which doesn't count because it attacks too much).



And how would you suggest one character go about getting all of those _without_ totally gimping themselves?
Especially given two of those are seperate subclasses of the same class.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 9, 2018)

Non-magical healing is pretty much baked into the game from day one so I don't see it being that much of a jump to have a natural healing warlord.

I'm anti-non-magical healing personally but the game supports the concept.

It interests me that 5e found a middle ground that really struck a positive nerve in the general gaming community.  It's obviously a successful game.  It's a ground though that seems antithetical to me.  In my sternest old many voice I'll just say I don't get the younger generation.  

How are you enjoying 5e Zardnaar?  Any house rules?  Maybe send me a private message as it's probably off topic.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Where I am sitting now is warlord=non magical bard, 2 sub groups initially.
> 
> Inspiring Warlord gets bard dice
> 
> ...




Not a bad idea, give a Fighter some might-as-well-be-Bardic-Inspiration dice and let them give bonus to other people using those dice when they attack or on your turn to make them do something.

pretty sure you just ignored me though



Yunru said:


> And how would you suggest one character go about getting all of those _without_ totally gimping themselves?
> Especially given two of those are seperate subclasses of the same class.




Do you honestly need _all_ of those to feel effective and do what you want to do?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Because I feel it would be better served as subclasses.
> 
> Hell, there already are a few that are based around support. Mastermind (which apparently doesn't count because rogues do too much damage), Wolf Totem Barbarian (which doesn't count because it can cast a whole 2 spells), Ancestral Guardian, (which doesn't count because it can cast 1 spell and people can't stand reflavorings) Banneret (which doesn't count because it doesn't give attacks), and Cavelier (which doesn't count because it attacks too much).




 I don't thinkk the Warlord concept is a great concept but its not really served well by being a subclass (along with Psions, artificer and alchemist).


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Not a bad idea, give a Fighter some might-as-well-be-Bardic-Inspiration dice and let them give bonus to other people using those dice when they attack or on your turn to make them do something.
> 
> pretty sure you just ignored me though
> 
> ...



Not at all. I can get by with a Mastermind/Bard/[Sorcerer/Warlock] spamming Haste and bonus action help. But that's very janky, doesn't fit the flavour (especially with all the clearly magical benefits of haste) and takes forever to come online. Not to mention comes with a tonne of abilities I don't want, yet have to basically pay for with my levels.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Not at all. I can get by with a Mastermind/Bard/[Sorcerer/Warlock] spamming Haste and bonus action help. But that's very janky, doesn't fit the flavour (especially with all the clearly magical benefits of haste) and takes forever to come online. Not to mention comes with a tonne of abilities I don't want, yet have to basically pay for with my levels.




and why wouldn't a Subclass that can do those things help you?



Zardnaar said:


> I don't thinkk the Warlord concept is a great concept but its not really served well by being a subclass (along with Psions, artificer and alchemist).




I like the idea, mainly because I love support characters.

I just think people are asking _waaaaay_ too much and aren't looking for alternate solutions aside from their pet ones. very much aware of the hypocrisy, thank you


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> and why wouldn't a Subclass that can do those things help you?



Because there's no suitable chasis for such a subclass.
All the martial ones have too mich attack orientation, all the magical ones are, well, magical.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 9, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Because there's no suitable chasis for such a subclass.
> All the martial ones have too mich attack orientation, all the magical ones are, well, magical.




Again, that sounds like a problem with your idea, not with the subclasses themselves.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 9, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Again, that sounds like a problem with your idea, not with the subclasses themselves.



Well that's just flat out the wrong approach.
You're basically saying "If you can't make you character concept, you're character concept's wrong." Rather than "If you can't make your character concept, there's an unexplored niche a class could fill."


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 10, 2018)

Yunru said:


> No, the game explicitly _has magic_. That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean everything in the game has to be magical.




I feel the need to point out that the game is, in fact, _explicitly magical_. As in the rocks, the trees, the air you breathe, and even the people you talk with, are all filled with magic. PHB page 205, if you feel like reading.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

Leatherhead said:


> I feel the need to point out that the game is, in fact, _explicitly magical_. As in the rocks, the trees, the air you breathe, and even the people you talk with, are all filled with magic. PHB page 205, if you feel like reading.



Filled with, yes. Actively use, no.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Well that's just flat out the wrong approach.
> You're basically saying "If you can't make you character concept, you're character concept's wrong." Rather than "If you can't make your character concept, there's an unexplored niche a class could fill."




I'm just trying to limit class bloat here. 5E hasn't had any official additional classes added yet for a very good reason.

People need to find more ways to pare down their ideas to subclasses and not just throwing up their hands and saying "This won't work, make a new class!"


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I'm just trying to limit class bloat here. 5E hasn't had any official additional classes added yet for a very good reason.
> 
> People need to find more ways to pare down their ideas to subclasses and not just throwing up their hands and saying "This won't work, make a new class!"



Except as we discussed, this won't wprk, it needs a class! 

They made a lot of unnecessary decission due to edition warring, such as the mess that is how they describe bonus actions because... it was too close to 4e to state it plainly?

Martial support being cut seems to have been another.


----------



## mellored (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> However, with something like the Warlord, I don't really see it. If you'll allow me to repeat myself, it feels like a Gunslinger. Something that's cool and fills a niche, but it just doesn't seem like something you could base a whole class around.



Or the barbarian, or ranger, or sorcerer, or the fighter, or druid...

But no one is saying warlords need to be alone.
There's also demand for non-magical rangers.  Using your nature skills to "lead" the party through the forest, setting up ambushes, heal with herbs, and so on.
And for non-magical bards.  Using performance skill to inspire allies.

They can all fit together nicely.


Though honestly, if I could, I would remake the fighter to be more modular.  Have a big list of stuff to choose from, some support, some damage, some out of combat, some simple (+crit range, +1 HP), some fancy, and an action pool to spend on them.
Then it wouldn't be a problem to fit the warlord, ranger, bard, and gunsligner in as a sub-class.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2018)

mellored said:


> Armored lord (warlord), Stealth lord, arcane lord, charismatic lord, self-sacrificing lord (provoke an OA to grant an attack), fear lord, passifist lord (lazy lord), trickster lord. That's 8. I'm sure others can think of more.
> *Yes, charisma lord.  I'm not worried about stepping on the bard's toes when eldrich knight is standing directly on the wizards foot.




A lot of other people have jumped on this, but I think its a fair place to start from.

What you described is, at best, 8 builds rather than 8 archetypes. An armored lord is a warlord who excels at heavy armor use while a stealth lord probably prefers light armor and hiding, but the question is "are those two archetypes compelling enough to develop beyond the obvious (giving the warlord the heavy-armor mastery feat or being proficient in the stealth skill)?" A better question would be "what archetypes can the warlord class hold?"

A quick brainstorm for me comes up with (and note, names are subjective).

* Marshal - Bog standard military officer. "Default subclass"
* Chieftain - a more primal/savage leader
* Noble - A charismatic/diplomatic/inspirational
* Knight - Defensive/lead-from-the-front 
* Tutor - a learned, possibly lightly magical, scholarly type

So, there's five that make a lot more sense than "stealth lord".


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

Yunru said:


> Except as we discussed, this won't wprk, it needs a class!
> 
> They made a lot of unnecessary decission due to edition warring, such as the mess that is how they describe bonus actions because... it was too close to 4e to state it plainly?
> 
> Martial support being cut seems to have been another.




I'm still not convinced of that.

Here's another idea I had, use the Battlemaster chassis, however, instead of adding riders to your attacks, add them to someone elses.

Simple, and doesn't require bloat.

And it's useless to complain about stuff being dropped from 4E, the rules of 5E have been made, let's work within them instead of trying to add new stuff just to make pet ideas work.



mellored said:


> Or the barbarian, or ranger, or sorcerer, or the fighter, or druid...
> 
> But no one is saying warlords need to be alone.
> There's also demand for non-magical rangers.  Using your nature skills to "lead" the party through the forest, setting up ambushes, heal with herbs, and so on.
> ...





I'll be honest, this just feels disingenuous, all of those I feel have enough of a mechanical difference to be allowed to exist.

Barbarian is the guy/gal with the big dumb anime super mode, Ranger is the character who knows terrain and creatures well enough to be distinct from the others, Sorcerer is the person who is filled with magic and knows how to manipulate it to their liking, The Fighter is the normal person who can push themselves beyond the physical limit via training, and Druid is a nature caster who can turn into animals.

Warlord is the guy/gal who is good enough at yelling at people that they can do things better, I personally don't feel like something like that is worthy of it's own class.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 10, 2018)

I'm actually fine with the warlord being a fight subclass since I tended to see them as just another kind of fighter in 4e (and yes, I'm aware of the differences between 4e's leaders and defenders). I'm not against a full class but I don't really think it is necessary. I feel the same way about the artificer as well, I don't really think it needs a full class and that subclasses could do the trick but I'm not against it being added, I just won't use it in my games.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> like the idea, mainly because I love support characters.
> I just think people are asking _waaaaay_ too much and aren't looking for alternate solutions aside from their pet ones. very much aware of the hypocrisy, thank you



 heh.  OK, I think I see where you're coming from, now.



> and why wouldn't a Subclass that can do those things help you?



 Because it's not possible.  Sub-classes in 5e don't all follow a fixed formula or pattern, but there's some things that are unprecedented to do with a sub-class.  One of them is to yoink major, class-defining, abilities like full casting or Extra Attack.  That prettymuch disqualifies ever last class.  If you start with a full-caster bard or a high-DPR fighter or Rogue, you just don't have enough design space left to do all that fun stubbornly-not-magical support stuff.  

Even if we set the precedent, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class, anyway.  And, besides, it gets you one sub-class.  As I've laid out above, the Warlord, even in it's brief 4e tenure, had the equivalent of at least 8 sub-classes- I suppose, like the Fighter & Rogue, they'd be "martial archetypes."   Over 40 if you really stretch the point.



FlyingChihuahua said:


> I'm just trying to limit class bloat here.



 The Barbarian could have been a background.  We really only needed one of the Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard arcane triumvirate.  The Bard was a Rogue sub-class in 2e.  The Druid could have been a Cleric sub-class.  The Paladin and Ranger could have been done with MCing.  

Trying to limit class bloat was not a priority in 5e.  Clinging to that so selectively is, well, hypocrisy.  I'll take the assertion seriously when you start threads to get rid of the Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Druid, and, especially, Barbarian, and they rack up 200 pages each.


----------



## mellored (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The game also has martial characters in it.
> 
> That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that everything in the game has to be martial.



Are you worried a full warlord class would hurt the cleric's support-class niche or something?

I don't get it.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

mellored said:


> Are you worried a full warlord class would hurt the cleric's support-class niche or something?
> 
> I don't get it.




I've said it many times.

I do not think The Warlord is good enough on it's own to carry a whole class. It is that simple.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

So your saying a half-dice martial support character, for example, doesn't have enough flex?

Despite there being no current martial support class?

It's not like "martial support" is a narrow field.


----------



## mellored (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I'm still not convinced of that.
> 
> Here's another idea I had, use the Battlemaster chassis, however, instead of adding riders to your attacks, add them to someone else.
> 
> Simple, and doesn't require bloat.



And then you quickly run out of dice and go back to multi-attacking things again.  You're a warlord for 4 turns, and a fighter for 12.


Unless you have some way of trading away the multi-attack for support, it won't be balanced.
And i haven't seen a good method yet.  Maybe you can do better.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 10, 2018)

The warlord (Id rather call it the tactician) can be nonmagical healer. It helps to formalize what hit points represent.

Fresh: maximum hit points.
− nonphysical hit points = increasing fatigue, receiving negligible nicks and glancing blows.
Bloodied: half maximum hit points.
− bloody hit points = defenses are sloppy, receiving bleeding cuts and enduring bruises.
Downed: zero hit points.
− life or limb = ‘stab thru the gut’, character might bleed out, lose consciousness, die, break an arm, lose an eye, or so on.



The tactician can ‘reinvigorate’ nonphysical hit points, by inspiration and tactical guidance.

The tactician can remedy bloody hit points using herbal kit and bandages, and similar.

The tactician is less effective at healing if a character hits zero hit points.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> heh.  OK, I think I see where you're coming from, now.




That was meant to be a cheeky nod. The reason why we're doing this debate is because we both have our ideas that we won't let go and one of us is trying to convince the other of the One True Way to yell at people to make them do things.



Tony Vargas said:


> Because it's not possible.  Sub-classes in 5e don't all follow a fixed formula or pattern, but there's some things that are unprecedented to do with a sub-class.  One of them is to yoink major, class-defining, abilities like full casting or Extra Attack.  That prettymuch disqualifies ever last class.  If you start with a full-caster bard or a high-DPR fighter or Rogue, you just don't have enough design space left to do all that fun stubbornly-not-magical support stuff.




Take the idea of Commander's Strike and add it to a whole bunch of new Martial Maneuvers.

There you go, a Warlord.



Tony Vargas said:


> Even if we set the precedent, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class, anyway.  And, besides, it gets you one sub-class.  As I've laid out above, the Warlord, even in it's brief 4e tenure, had the equivalent of at least 8 sub-classes- I suppose, like the Fighter & Rogue, they'd be "martial archetypes."   Over 40 if you really stretch the point.






Tony Vargas said:


> The Barbarian could have been a background.  We really only needed one of the Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard arcane triumvirate.  The Bard was a Rogue sub-class in 2e.  The Druid could have been a Cleric sub-class.  The Paladin and Ranger could have been done with MCing.




With what they've done with Barbarian, I feel like making it just a background or a subclass would've been dumb. Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard each have completely different stories as to how they got their magic, and I feel they have been differentiated enough in mechanics to make the distinction matter. Adding Wild Shape to the Cleric would've been silly. Paladin and Ranger are similar to the Warlock, Wizard, and Sorcerer. They have different enough stories from the Fighter/Cleric and Fighter with Outlander background to matter and they've done a good enough job using mechanics to separate them.



Tony Vargas said:


> Trying to limit class bloat was not a priority in 5e.  Clinging to that so selectively is, well, hypocrisy.  I'll take the assertion seriously when you start threads to get rid of the Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Druid, and, especially, Barbarian, and they rack up 200 pages each.




Considering the design philosophy of 5E, (that being, from what I can tell is "Keep it simple, Stupid) I honestly fail to see how it's hypocrisy.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

mellored said:


> And then you quickly run out of dice and go back to multi-attacking things again.  You're a warlord for 4 turns, and a fighter for 12.
> 
> 
> Unless you have some way of trading away the multi-attack for support, it won't be balanced.
> And i haven't seen a good method yet.  Maybe you can do better.




Maybe have it so you don't actually have to use dice for it? Maybe you just get maneuvers you can trade attacks for?

It was an idea for people to jump off of, although I could've worded that part better.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 10, 2018)

I feel the tactician aka warlord works best as its own class.

The fact the tactician is nonmagical is an asset, opening up more salient options without relying on the flavor of magic.

There are enough concepts to make very different subclass archetypes:
• medic
• leading from the front
• leading from behind


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Adding Wild Shape to the Cleric would've been silly.



You're right, you just give the Druid subclass a Channel Divinity that lets them turn into animals.

Or the Barbarian subclass the likes of Reckless attack, brutal critical, etc. All the things that make them Barbarian-y sans-rage.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I feel the tactician aka warlord works best as its own class.
> 
> The fact the tactician is nonmagical is an asset, opening up more salient options without relying on the flavor of magic.




And I still say why does being non-magical matter so much?

End result would be the same.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> And I still say why does being non-magical matter so much?
> 
> End result would be the same.



Because otherwise it doesn't fill the "non magical support" niche?

It's like asking why the Wizard being magical matters so much.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

Yunru said:


> You're right, you just give the Druid subclass a Channel Divinity that lets them turn into animals.
> 
> Or the Barbarian subclass the likes of Reckless attack, brutal critical, etc. All the things that make them Barbarian-y sans-rage.




So just get rid of the key part of a Barbarian and neuter a key part of the Druid and it's all fine?

I feel like you're trying to make a point here.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> And I still say why does being non-magical matter so much?
> 
> End result would be the same.




It is necessary to have decent nonmagical class options because not all settings have magic. Not all players want to play a magical character.

Personally, I love magic, and only play magical characters.

However, the nonmagical tactician aka warlord is such an important salient option, that I want to see 5e offer it as a core part of the game, for players who do want it.

Also as DM, even tho I prefer high magic settings, there will be regions and cultures that lack magic, and I want to see the tactician as part of my tool kit for world building.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 10, 2018)

Also, I like modern settings where most characters lack magic. I need a nonmagical tactician aka warlord with effective healing to make this kind of setting work optimally.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> It is necessary to have decent nonmagical class options because not all settings have magic. Not all players want to play a magical character.
> 
> Personally, I love magic, and only play magical characters.
> 
> ...




Honestly, I am starting to get convinced of the Warlord as a full class. Not because of the non-magical distinction because that's just silly in the context of D&D, but on the idea that the Warlord might have some stuff neutered if it was just a subclass.

Saw that with the idea of making a Barbarian just a Fighter subclass and making the Druid just a Cleric subclass.

There's enough of a mechanical difference from the other classes, which, IMO, is enough to push it into full class territory and it's not just people wanting their specific thing done their own special way.

So that bring the total of classed that I feel 5e needs to add to about 4 or so.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So just get rid of the key part of a Barbarian and neuter a key part of the Druid and it's all fine?
> 
> I feel like you're trying to make a point here.



I am. Rage isn't key to a Barbarian. It increases skill checks, adds damage and reduces incoming damage. What's key to a Barbarian is the relentless, reckless attacking.

And "neuter a key part of the druid"? What would that be? Wildshape is a 2/rest mechanic to turn into an animal. CD: Wildshape is an up to 3/rest mechanic to turn into an animal.

My point is that your points for the barbarian, druid, etc. all being seperate are far less substantial than your points against the warlord.

All of the mentioned classes _could_ be folded into other classes. But they have a much better identity and more uniqur mechanics as a class.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Because it's not possible.  Sub-classes in 5e don't all follow a fixed formula or pattern, but there's some things that are unprecedented to do with a sub-class.  One of them is to yoink major, class-defining, abilities *like *full casting or* Extra Attack*.  That prettymuch disqualifies ever last class. * If you start with a full-caster bard* or a high-DPR fighter or Rogue, you just don't have enough design space left to do all that fun stubbornly-not-magical support stuff.




Umm...Tony? 









> Even if we set the precedent




We did.



> , it'd be tantamount to creating a new class, anyway.




It wasn't.

[I misunderstood...clarified below]


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Umm...Tony?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do believe joink is being used as slang for "remove" not add.

In which case, look at the UA Ranger. They made the entire feature a subclass feature rather than have a subclass feature remove a class feature.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 10, 2018)

Yunru said:


> I am. Rage isn't key to a Barbarian. It increases skill checks, adds damage and reduces incoming damage. What's key to a Barbarian is the relentless, reckless attacking.
> 
> And "neuter a key part of the druid"? What would that be? Wildshape is a 2/rest mechanic to turn into an animal. CD: Wildshape is an up to 3/rest mechanic to turn into an animal.
> 
> My point is that your points for the barbarian, druid, etc. all being seperate are far less substantial than your points against the warlord.




We'll agree to disagree on the first part, but yeah, I now feel that Warlord should be it's own class with that distinction.

Something might be lost or an archetype of the Warlord might not be possible if it was just a Subclass. Same with the Artificer, Mystic, and an Eidolon user thing (someone come up with a better name, I've heard Avatar, which might work.)


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 10, 2018)

Yunru said:


> I do believe joink is being used as slang for "remove" not add.
> 
> In which case, look at the UA Ranger. They made the entire feature a subclass feature rather than have a subclass feature remove a class feature.




Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?


----------



## mellored (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Maybe have it so you don't actually have to use dice for it? Maybe you just get maneuvers you can trade attacks for?
> 
> It was an idea for people to jump off of, although I could've worded that part better.



I've tried, it turned out pretty clunky.

I await your version.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 10, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> And I still say why does being non-magical matter so much?
> 
> End result would be the same.




Because, frankly, if we were happy with a magical support character, we'd just play a bard, cleric or wizard.  I mean, there's hardly a lack of magical support characters in the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?



 Oh, I could see it, theoretically.  For instance, a faux-Warlord fighter sub-class that could sacrifice it's Extra Attacks to do all sorts of maneuvers, dynamically.  Extra Attack represents a pretty big chunk of power.  It's just unprecedented, ATM, and it's not like Mearls is suggesting anything of the kind in his podcast.

And, yeah, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class.  Heck, the BM's maneuvers are barely contained in the existing fighter, in either sense.  They're both a bit much in terms of column-inches & complexity for 'just a sub-class' and constitue an entire, unique sub-system.  The mechanical distinction between a Wizard and Sorcerer (ie, the metamagic sub-system) is arguably less profound than between a Champion and a Battlemaster (maneuver sub-system).  That maneuver sub-system is then left with no room to grow or be adapted to other things.  

A whole class that got most of it's capability from a larger list of level-gated BM-style maneuvers, for instance, could have sub-classes that cover a variety of Warlords, and other martial archetypes like the Bo9S Warblade and the Weaponmaster and 3.x fighter-based builds you just can't do yet, even with feats - heck, even the mythical 'martial controller.'   

And, frankly, as neat as that may sound, I think they could do better.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?




3e had excellent rules for adding substitution class levels so that your variant class simply replaced whatever the base class got at that level.  Worked quite well.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 10, 2018)

darjr said:


> Is there a 5e third party warlord that folks are generally happy about?






Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, I could see it, theoretically.  For instance, a faux-Warlord fighter sub-class that could sacrifice it's Extra Attacks to do all sorts of maneuvers, dynamically.  Extra Attack represents a pretty big chunk of power.  It's just unprecedented, ATM, and it's not like Mearls is suggesting anything of the kind in his podcast.
> 
> And, yeah, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class.  Heck, the BM's maneuvers are barely contained in the existing fighter, in either sense.  They're both a bit much in terms of column-inches & complexity for 'just a sub-class' and constitue an entire, unique sub-system.  The mechanical distinction between a Wizard and Sorcerer (ie, the metamagic sub-system) is arguably less profound than between a Champion and a Battlemaster (maneuver sub-system).  That maneuver sub-system is then left with no room to grow or be adapted to other things.
> 
> ...




I don't think it's unprecedented. Spellcasters sacrifice huge chunks of power to gain new abilities all the time. They don't feel like a new class just because they gained an entirely new ability in exchange for all or most of their highest spell slots. 

I also do not think you need all the Warlord subclasses you listed by far. We didn't get all the 3e or 4e variations of tons of classes, and most people just shrugged. There were really only one or two primary Warlord styles which a majority of the Warlord fans were playing anyway.


----------



## mellored (Mar 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Ah I see what he's saying. I am not sure why you couldn't though. Why couldn't you say, "At the beginning of each day, you may sacrifice your use of Ability X and gain Ability Y for that day. Once you've made this decision, you may not gain Ability X again until a long rest."?



Like wizards and cleric get to do with their spells?
Yea, that would be nice.  It would open up a lot of different things.

Though 1/level would be better, like bards.  As I don't feel martial characters shouldn't be trading their skills out every day, but still allow for some changing if you find a maneuver doesn't really fit.


----------



## mellored (Mar 10, 2018)

Hmmm...

"Instead of gaining multi-attack, you may choose to gain an extra reaction.  You can make this choice again at level 11 and 20."

Then have a bunch of reaction maneuvers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I don't think it's unprecedented. Spellcasters sacrifice huge chunks of power to gain new abilities all the time. They don't feel like a new class just because they gained an entirely new ability in exchange for all or most of their highest spell slots.



 True, but no spellcaster has a Champion sub-class sitting in it with 0 versatility to contrast to that.  It'd look - wrong - for a sub-class that could swap out extra attack for huge amounts of versatility to be contrasted with the Champion, which might appear strictly inferior by contrast.  A new class avoids that sort of appearance...



> I also do not think you need all the Warlord subclasses you listed by far.



 They're the kinds of things that a class might see down the road.  Tactical, Inspiring or maybe Bravura, and a newish faux-MC martial-archetype/sub-class would do for a start.  The potential for them to exist illustrates it could be a full class.  

Only the wizard got such a huge complement of sub-classes up front.  Guess it's special in a lot of ways.    Most PH classes started with only 2 or three.  When Mearls, in the podcast, says that a full class should have potential for 8-10 sub-classes, that's what he was talking about, for expansion, over years or a decade plus.



> There were really only one or two primary Warlord styles which a majority of the Warlord fans were playing anyway.



I don't believe you have that data.  
I certainly played 'em all.   (OK, Insightful for like one season of Encounters and it was resoundingly meh, for me.)  Not nearly all the Paths, though.  There were more than I remember, actually...

Not that the majority of folks playing a class need to have played a given sub-class for it to be worthy of inclusion, let alone for it to serve as an example of the breadth of the class concept and it's potential for growth years down the line in 5e.  
Are there a whole lot of folks playing each of the 8 wizard specialties, or is the inclusion of all 8 in the PH just completeness in homage to the old School classifications.  (Rhetorical:  I doubt we have that data, either.)


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 10, 2018)

What if the tactician simply ‘inspired’ temporary hit points, rather than actually heal?

Additionally, the tactician is a medic with medicine skill expertise and bonuses to applying the herbal kit and bandages.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> What if the tactician simply ‘inspired’ temporary hit points, rather than actually heal?
> 
> Additionally, the tactician is a medic with medicine skill expertise and bonuses to applying the herbal kit and bandages.



The way I see it, medieval first aid isn't anything to get too excited about.  Though it fits the Resourceful archetype a bit.

Temp hps should totally be handed out, though.  A tactical warlord could prepare his allies with defensive strategies to help weather attacks from the enemy, a resourceful one might have specific gear or improvise it.  Temps.  An Inspiring Warlord would remind a fallen ally of something that motivates him to get back up, a  Bravura Warlord fighting on in a tough battle would serve as an example so his allies to fight on.  'Healing.'

Inspiring Warlords, reasonably enough, were the best at restoring hps.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 10, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> What if the tactician simply ‘inspired’ temporary hit points, rather than actually heal?
> 
> Additionally, the tactician is a medic with medicine skill expertise and bonuses to applying the herbal kit and bandages.




My one out right heals, the inspiring one can grant temporary hit points as well (if PC choose that option).

 My warlord healing word equivalent is just going to be a bonus hit dice that you regain hp from. A fighter getting healed by a warlord gains 1d10+con, MC characters would use whatever hit dice they like as per a short rest. They will get 1 hd at level 1 with additional dice later, inspiring warlord is better at healing than the tactical one (which is better at damage enabling).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 10, 2018)

As far as sub classes go though, while wizards got a bunch in the phb, clerics too for that matter, we’re what under 4 years into the edition and nearly every class has six or more subclasses. 

It’s not it takes that long to rack them up. Ten subclasses is only base plus two or three supplements. I’m honestly not really convinced that a warlord actually has the legs for this. Too much toe stepping- a magic warlord is just a bard lite for example and takes space away from future bards. 

Of any of the arguments against a warlord class this is the first one I can actually see any really validity to.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> As far as sub classes go though, while wizards got a bunch in the phb, clerics too for that matter, we’re what under 4 years into the edition and nearly every class has six or more subclasses.
> 
> It’s not it takes that long to rack them up. Ten subclasses is only base plus two or three supplements. I’m honestly not really convinced that a warlord actually has the legs for this. Too much toe stepping- a magic warlord is just a bard lite for example and takes space away from future bards.
> 
> Of any of the arguments against a warlord class this is the first one I can actually see any really validity to.



I'd say that's more an argument against bloat.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Too much toe stepping- a magic warlord is just a bard lite for example and takes space away from future bards.



 Seems flatly irrelevant in the context of 5e.  You've got 1/3rd wizard fighters and 1/3rd fighter wizards as sub-classes.  They don't just step on eachother's toes, they stand in the same shoes.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 10, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Seems flatly irrelevant in the context of 5e.  You've got 1/3rd wizard fighters and 1/3rd fighter wizards as sub-classes.  They don't just step on eachother's toes, they stand in the same shoes.




Kinda sorta. Sure there is som overlap but not a lot. 

And generally it’s two similar subclasses. Not a subclass acting as a replacement for a base class. IOW an eldritch Knight doesn’t replace a wizard even though they might share spells. 

A caster warlord we already have. It’s called a bard. Because the conceptual space of a caster warlord doesn’t really tie into any genre archetypes that bards don’t already cover.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Kinda sorta. Sure there is som overlap but not a lot.
> 
> And generally it’s two similar subclasses. Not a subclass acting as a replacement for a base class. IOW an eldritch Knight doesn’t replace a wizard even though they might share spells.



 Well, that's all a caster Warlord would reasonably be: some 1/3rd-caster faux-MC martial archetype in an otherwise non-magical class, like an EK.



> A caster warlord we already have. It’s called a bard. Because the conceptual space of a caster warlord doesn’t really tie into any genre archetypes that bards don’t already cover.



 Bard hasn't really wiggled free of it's old idiom, but if not a Bard, an Artificer, or a War Cleric.  There's plenty of full-caster support options already, they're just in no way Warlords.



Hussar said:


> As far as sub classes go though, while wizards got a bunch in the phb, clerics too for that matter, we’re what under 4 years into the edition and nearly every class has six or more subclasses.
> 
> It’s not it takes that long to rack them up. Ten subclasses is only base plus two or three supplements.



 10 was Mearls's number.  I'm not going to argue the number, just that the Warlord wouldn't have any trouble meeting it.

At least 8 solid sub-classes just in heroic-level 4e, plus a bunch of Paragon Paths, plus fairly obvious 5e-style faux-MC sub-classes.  Could have 20.

Would probably be pretty darn good with only 4 or 5.  Tactial & Inspiration could be the first two to harken back to the PH1, but I feel like a Bravura and Lazy archetype would be a fun starting place.  The Big Damn Hero on one extreme, the sidekick on the other.  Contrast.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 10, 2018)

I feel you are conflating build with archetype. Lazy lord is just a mechanical build not something that can actually be role played. There’s no difference between bravura and lazy. They do identical things, just flavoured slightly differently.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I feel you are conflating build with archetype. Lazy lord is just a mechanical build not something that can actually be role played. There’s no difference between bravura and lazy. They do identical things, just flavoured slightly differently.



Clearly you've never played either.
There's more difference between the two playstyles than there is between the Barbarian and Cleric.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 10, 2018)

Not really. In one you attack and cause a rider. In the other you give up the attack to cause a rider. 

Meh. That’s not enough to build an entire subclass out of. A single subclass can cover both quite well. 

Lazy lord isn’t an archetype. It’s just a way you could play any tactical or inspirational warlord.


----------



## Lord Twig (Mar 10, 2018)

Personally I think the whole non-magic support role is ridiculous. I also think non-magic healing is silly. It's like wanting to be a brain surgeon without surgical tools. "I don't need your science crutch! I can fix his brain with my bare hands and some soothing words!"

Magic is what allows dragons to fly. Magic is not a crutch, it is the science of D&D. It is the physics of Faerun.

Instead of assault rifles, kevlar armor and night vision googles, D&D fighters have magic swords, rings of protection and goggles of night. Instead of calling in air strikes you have flying wizards throwing fireballs. If someone goes down, instead of a medic using modern medicine to stabilize them before calling for an evac, you have a paladin laying on hands.

Don't tell me that instead of a modern medic you can just have your grizzled sergeant yell at you to 'walk it off' and it is just as good.

Non-magic rangers are equally ridiculous. Why wouldn't they use magic? It would be like refusing to use a compass to tell direction "because that's cheating". The ultimate survivors would use every tool at their disposal, and magic is just one of those tools.

Ultimately I would say if you want to run a non-magic game, D&D is not the system you should be using.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 10, 2018)

Lord Twig said:


> Personally I think the whole non-magic support role is ridiculous. I also think non-magic healing is silly. It's like wanting to be a brain surgeon without surgical tools. "I don't need your science crutch! I can fix his brain with my bare hands and some soothing words!"




That's nice.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 10, 2018)

Lord Twig said:


> Magic is what allows dragons to fly. Magic is not a crutch, it is the science of D&D. It is the physics of Faerun.




If you're claiming this, you're actually illustrating why "non-magical" Warlords are completely valid, ironically enough (I mean I assume that _wasn't_ your intention).

How so? Because you're illustrating the difference between "magic" and _magic_.

Maybe a dragon does fly in D&D because of "magic", but it does not fly because of _magic_. You cast dispel magic on a dragon, or flies through an anti-magic zone or whatever, and it just keeps on trucking. Is it realistic in a real-world sense? Obviously not, but as you say, the underlying physics of D&D are magical in a sense. Dragons couldn't fly, probably could barely move around IRL, but in it's not because they are casting spells or outwardly using magic in D&D that they can, or even that magic is coursing through their veins (note many other "impossible" things can fly in D&D too) - it's because they can.

Likewise with Warlords in D&D. Yes, maybe there is some underlying "magic" to the D&D world, that, despite not closing the wound, despite not making a beautiful glow, despite not involving an incantation or components or whatever, a Warlord can increase the remaining HP of a character, get them to keep fighting. That is indeed absolutely analogous to the "magic" which means a dragon can fly despite not working with RL laws of aerodynamics and so on (first person to mention bumble bees has to buy us all a beer). But it's very different to the outward facing, obvious magic that a wizard or cleric uses, and somewhat similar to the "magic" that allows a bard to increase how much everyone heals on a short rest, or the Second Wind available to Fighters (which is obvious non-magical healing but arguably "magical" in the sense you are describing).

I mean, re: Mearls, it's always been an issue that, like a number of game designers, and even some writers, even some very successful ones (looking at you, George Lucas), he doesn't really understand his own premises in some cases, and seemingly isn't capable of taking on board explanations from other people (which I find weird but Mearls has consistently shown an inability to even process what people are saying on stuff like this - and it's not uncommon to find people who just can't process certain ideas). This seems to me to be pretty easy stuff.

Even if you really want to be difficult about it you could just allow Warlords to trigger HD usage with massive bonuses and call it an adrenaline surge or something - maybe also let them grant HD on a similar basis. Is that "magical"? Perhaps. But it's not _magic_.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 10, 2018)

Azzy said:


> That's nice.




I realise that many people struggle with the notion but non magical healing is as much pulling yourself together,  summoning an Adrenaline rush,  and ignoring the pain of those cuts, bruises, and strains as it is sealing up those wounds permanently.  

I view barbarian damage resistance as brawling through the pain and ignoring broken bones rather than skin getting tougher.


----------



## GreenTengu (Mar 10, 2018)

Mearls is clearly just an idiot.

You cannot make a functioning Warlord as a Fighter subclass because what variation one can squeeze out of a subclass is never going to allow you to make something that functions as a support class as well as a Cleric or a Bard.

The main class of Fighter already dictates so much of what the class does too that no matter what you make out of it-- it is ultimately just going to be better or worse at being the melee tank that the class dictates anyone playing it, regardless of their subclass, is ultimately going to be.





Lord Twig said:


> Personally I think the whole non-magic support role is ridiculous. I also think non-magic healing is silly. It's like wanting to be a brain surgeon without surgical tools. "I don't need your science crutch! I can fix his brain with my bare hands and some soothing words!"






Lord Twig said:


> Magic is what allows dragons to fly. Magic is not a crutch, it is the science of D&D. It is the physics of Faerun.
> 
> Instead of assault rifles, kevlar armor and night vision googles, D&D fighters have magic swords, rings of protection and goggles of night. Instead of calling in air strikes you have flying wizards throwing fireballs. If someone goes down, instead of a medic using modern medicine to stabilize them before calling for an evac, you have a paladin laying on hands.
> 
> ...






This is easy enough to resolve...
Warlords do use magic. They use a mix of divine and psionic magic that harnesses the power of human(oid) mind and soul in order to get others to overcome the limitations they place upon themselves, iron their will, infuse their bodies with speed and strength and enlighten their hearts with courage.

Everyone in the D&D world is capable of magic, the Warlord (or whatever other name it could have) just brings out the magic people didn't know they had within them.

Seriously-- why does hacking to death a certain number of other living creatures mean you can be hacked at so much more? Surely that alone has to be some kind of insane magic. Someone is a 10th level fighter, so I need to make the same "cut off his head" attack that killed the 1st level fighter outright and hit with it just exactly the same and roll exactly the same on the damage 5 times before he dies? That is what you are stating by insisting that hit points relate directly to meat. So clearly there is some sort of super wonkiness happening in your world with all creatures that inhabit it.

Which is putting aside that any number of other abilities might just be giving people situational advantages by calling out openings in the enemy's formations and battle styles that probably aren't obvious from other vantage points.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 10, 2018)

I think you are exaggerating the difficulties a bit. I don't know much about 4e classes, but you could use some of the fighter's existing resources: Action Surge, extra attacks, Indomitable to fuel the Warlord abilities, thus preventing the player from doing fighter stuff if they do warlord stuff.

And dragon sorcerer gets +1 hp per hd, why not -1 hp per hd?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Also, I like modern settings where most characters lack magic. I need a nonmagical tactician aka warlord with effective healing to make this kind of setting work optimally.




Well, considering the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons" and not "Generic Fantasy Simulator d20", I think a modern setting where characters lack magic should use its own system where its own considerations should be into account. This is like saying some "I like modern settings, so the PHB should have rules for firearms and motor vehicles". 

Not saying it should disqualify a warlord from existing, but the notion its needed because some people don't play D&D with its expected tropes is basically a non-issue.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 10, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Not saying it should disqualify a warlord from existing, but the notion its needed because some people don't play D&D with its expected tropes is basically a non-issue.




I concur that reasoning is bizarre, but it's trivially easy to come up with a Warlord with "non-magical" healing (as pointed out, as much ANYTHING is "non-magical" in D&D, which is to say "pretty magical, just not actually a magic spell), and I am rather astonished people are still acting like this is some sort of dilemma or difficulty. In 2018. I'm particularly astonished Mearls is.

Again, if anyone is really stressed and sweating about the concept, just get them to burn HD with a bonus for permanent heals. That way they are burning something that is a real resource specific to the character they're affecting, no more "out of thin air" than anything else. They could also grant a bunch of temporary HP which are frequently granted in "non-magical" ways. Combination of the two could make them a potent but different healer.

How is this hard? I ask because I am so mystified generally, not to ask you specifically.



Paul Farquhar said:


> I think you are exaggerating the difficulties a bit. I don't know much about 4e classes, but you could use some of the fighter's existing resources: Action Surge, extra attacks, Indomitable to fuel the Warlord abilities, thus preventing the player from doing fighter stuff if they do warlord stuff.
> 
> And dragon sorcerer gets +1 hp per hd, why not -1 hp per hd?




Bonus and penalties aren't interchangeable in 5E, and 5E shies away from penalties, with good reason.

Fueling abilities with other actual abilities, rather than genuine resources is also some pretty scrubby and unnecessary design, whether you're doing it or WotC is. Extra attacks aren't a resource at all, not even arguably, and suggesting they are indicates a basic misunderstanding of the action-economy of 5E, I'd suggest.

It would be vastly cleaner and more efficient to simply come up with a new class. It doesn't matter one tiny bit if the theme is somewhat similar to an existing subclass (Battlemaster). If it did, we wouldn't have, for example, the excellent Scout, a Rogue subclass which is, to all intents and purposes, a take on Ranger (a far worse sin than merely resembling a subclass!).


----------



## Lord Twig (Mar 10, 2018)

Ruin Explorer said:


> If you're claiming this, you're actually illustrating why "non-magical" Warlords are completely valid, ironically enough (I mean I assume that _wasn't_ your intention).
> 
> How so? Because you're illustrating the difference between "magic" and _magic_.
> 
> ...




Actually, I think we agree!

If it was explicit that the Warlord's healing and inspirational abilities worked as innate, low-level magic, I would be fine with it. We already have the Bardic Inspiration which enhances the abilities of a teammate. And from the PHB, p51 it says, "In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain." So if you had a sentence like that for the Warlord I think resistance to it would fade quite a bit.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 10, 2018)

Lord Twig said:


> Actually, I think we agree!
> 
> If it was explicit that the Warlord's healing and inspirational abilities worked as innate, low-level magic, I would be fine with it. We already have the Bardic Inspiration which enhances the abilities of a teammate. And from the PHB, p51 it says, "In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain." So if you had a sentence like that for the Warlord I think resistance to it would fade quite a bit.




Indeed, good quote, and in fact I'm impressed with how clear the PHB is there on the _inherent_ magic of the D&D world. A shout is not just a shout, in D&D, not necessarily (in fact, not ever, but to varying degrees).

What people object to isn't really "magic" in that sense, it's _magic_ in the sense of magic spells or anything resembles a magic spell. But it's easy to escape those latter two. You could be really indirect and never use the word "magic" and still make it clear Warlords were just part of the magical world of D&D. I don't think you need to be explicit, like, calling it magic, just choose your language carefully (I know they have writers capable of this, they just need designers who aren't trapped inside their own mental boxes, which, unfortunately, Mearls is).

I seem to recall the 3.XE predecessor of the Warlord had some sort of quasi-magical deal going on without ever being explicitly magic, but I can't remember very well.


----------



## Lord Twig (Mar 10, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> I realise that many people struggle with the notion but non magical healing is as much pulling yourself together,  summoning an Adrenaline rush,  and ignoring the pain of those cuts, bruises, and strains as it is sealing up those wounds permanently.
> 
> I view barbarian damage resistance as brawling through the pain and ignoring broken bones rather than skin getting tougher.




It is not as explicit as the bard, but the barbarian does mention "a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience." So superhuman, as in more than is physically possible by a mundane human. Again, why can barbarians soak up punishment and resist sword blows that shouldn't be possible? For the same reason dragons can fly in an anti-magic zone. It is magical physics.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 10, 2018)

> Extra attacks aren't a resource at all, not even arguably, and suggesting they are indicates a basic misunderstanding of the action-economy of 5E, I'd suggest.
> 
> It would be vastly cleaner and more efficient to simply come up with a new class.




There are several class features that already use "attacks" as a resource: Commander's Strike, commanding a ranger companion, pact of the chain familiar attacks).

It might be "cleaner", but remember, the Warlord comes from the despised-by-many 4e. Making it a full class (and the first official new full class at that) would give the impression of backsliding. I.e. not a good move from the point of view of commercial politics. Slipping it in as a subclass would be a concession to those few strange people who actually liked 4e that would not anger those who didn't.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 10, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I think you are exaggerating the difficulties a bit. I don't know much about 4e classes, but you could use some of the fighter's existing resources: Action Surge, extra attacks, Indomitable to fuel the Warlord abilities, thus preventing the player from doing fighter stuff if they do warlord stuff.
> 
> And dragon sorcerer gets +1 hp per hd, why not -1 hp per hd?




In recent UAs we've seen class expending resources in new ways, like the Spore Druid or Mike's idea of using Barbarian rages for something else. A martiall support class built as a fighter archetype can use figthers ressouces, like the Banneret did, but a little more ''leader-y''; while the Banneret could use its ressources and allow some players to also benefit from it, the new archetype could make the fighter sacrifice his benefits from the feature to let more players benefit from it. Something like this:

Spur to Action: at lvl X, you can use your Action Surge feature to allow your companions to storm the battlefield. Any extra attack Action Surge would normally grant to you can instead be made by one willing character of your choice. You cant benefit from those attack yourself.

Turn the Tide: at lvl Y, when you find a split second to take your breath, you can quickly signal your companions to do the it instead. When you use Second Wind, you can forgo healing yourself to grant 1+Int allies the chance to spend HD up to your level? Cha/Int mod?

Bastion of Hope: at lvl Z, as long as your Indomitable features isnt spent, allies gain Advantage in Con, Wis and Cha saves.

Indomitable Presence: at lvl W, you can expend you Indomitable feature to allow an ally to re-roll a social check.


----------



## mellored (Mar 10, 2018)

3.5 used the term "extraordinary" for special things that where specifically not "magic".

I see no reason 5e can't also use that term.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 10, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> There are several class features that already use "attacks" as a resource: Commander's Strike, commanding a ranger companion, pact of the chain familiar attacks).
> 
> It might be "cleaner", but remember, the Warlord comes from the despised-by-many 4e. Making it a full class (and the first official new full class at that) would give the impression of backsliding. I.e. not a good move from the point of view of commercial politics. Slipping it in as a subclass would be a concession to those few strange people who actually liked 4e that would not anger those who didn't.




There aren't enough eyerolls in the world for the stacked deck of silly business this post contains.



mellored said:


> 3.5 used the term "extraordinary" for special things that where specifically not "magic".
> 
> I see no reason 5e can't also use that term.




5E doesn't use specific keyword-type terms to describe abilities or spells in that way, so that's why it couldn't. Sage Advice has bumped into this topic quite a few times (especially when Dispel Magic comes up).


----------



## bedir than (Mar 10, 2018)

I read a lot of the Warlord debate and rarely participate.

One of the ways I would implement on the Fighter chassis would be to use Superiority Dice as the pool, but instead grant the maneuvers to others rather than self. One could also use these to power Hit Dice healing, sacrificing a maneuver to instead inspire health.

Switching a few of the other Fighter abilities from self to "ally within X feet" would gain many of the benefits which Warlord fans want.


----------



## GreenTengu (Mar 10, 2018)

To make the Warlord, one would be far better off starting with the Bard than the Fighter.

From the Bard, you simply remove the wizard-like spellcasting and the Rogue-like skill focus.

Add in some better weapon/armor options so that you could possibly have a Strength-based one.

Mix in the Superiority Dice shtick of the Battle Master, but give them considerably more superiority dice and the ability to use them far more frequently for better effects as they increase in level.

The primary Fighter class is so focused on granting the most ability score improvements and the most attacks of any class that you can't really carve out a subclass for it that can have particularly potent or specific powers without it being imbalanced because it will always fundamentally have the ability to run right up to a monster and hit it more often for harder than anyone else. So any other abilities will either have to be quite imbalanced or simply inferior to just hitting something a lot with your weapon.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 10, 2018)

mellored said:


> 3.5 used the term "extraordinary" for special things that where specifically not "magic".
> 
> I see no reason 5e can't also use that term.




Listening to Crawford discuss the rules, they do. Abilities use words like "magic" and "magical" very deliberately in class features for that reason, using plain text to denote the mundane from the magical.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 10, 2018)

For the the true D&D should be like a martial adept (3.5 Tome of Battle: book of nine swords) with the school "White Raven" or the warder and warlord classes for Pahtinfer: Paths of War by Dreamscarred Press.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 10, 2018)

The design goal needs to be to create a warlord that warlord fans are generally happy with.

Wizard fans need to be generally happy with the wizard class. Elf fans need to be happy with the elf ancestry. Fighter fans need to be happy with the fighter class. No less, warlord fans need to be happy with the warlord class.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

Hussar said:


> There’s no difference between bravura and lazy. They do identical things, just flavoured slightly differently.



 Way off base.  

Even mechanically, they were quite distinct:

A bravura build was high-STR, with enhanced defense and strong offense in its own right.  Exploits it's particularly good at invited attacks, protected allies, and even marked - and if they keyed off a secondary stat, typically used CHA.  

A lazy build would put lower-priority on - even intentionally dump - STR and offense in general - the powers it was best at tended to key off INT, and obviously, to grant attacks and other actions or provide comparatively passive benefits.  



Hussar said:


> Not really. In one you attack and cause a rider. In the other you give up the attack to cause a rider.



 That's a gross oversimplification often used in the edition war to criticize 4e class designs, in general.  Yeah, 4e simplified things down to attack rolls to resolve all attacks, instead of using saving throws and one-off mechanics.  That didn't render any two given 'builds' (really alternate feature choices: the 4e equivalent of a 5e sub-class) the same any more than it rendered all classes the same.  

It'd be like saying there's no difference between the 5e Cleric and the 5e Warlock because they both cast spells.  By that standard, most 5e classes have no standing to exist.

Aside:  One mildly annoying thing WotC sometimes does is to take terms widely used in the community - like 'exploit' and 'build' and even 'Core' and give them an official meaning somewhat at odds with that usage.  4e called a choice of a defining class feature that could ripple through the class's capabilities and powers from 1st through 30th, a 'build.'  Essentials called an alternate version of a class with often radically different mechanics and role, a sub-class.  5e calls a set of alternate class features a sub-class (or in the case of martial classes, an archetype).  Archetype actually means something in natural language, too, but 5e departed from it's jargon-avoidance long enough to co-opt it.  :shrug:

Anyway, upshot is that the 6 official Warlord 'builds'  (and the Archer warlord)  were more like 5e sub-classes than char-op builds...



> Lazy lord isn’t an archetype. It’s just a way you could play any tactical or inspirational warlord.



 "Lazylord" was a build in the CharOp sense.  You could use it as an archetypal imperious commander barking out orders, or a stereotypical plucky side-kick shouting encouragement, or a 'victim' (because damsel in distress would be sexist) inviting rescue.  Where it really shone, IMHO, was in the latter sorts of concepts, they're something you've never been able to do in D&D without simply being useless.  

In the first case, the imperious commander shouting orders, sure, tactical builds could do it, too.  (Technically, because the Lazylord was a charop build, it used some official-build's toys, too, typically the Tactical warlord, though Resourceful could work, too - it just wasn't a big part of the build - in fact, had it been an official build, it probably would have granted allies extra actions when they spent action points, with it's own 'lazy presence').  

Anyway, if the warlord design is as flexible as it probably should be to be a functional support character, any given warlord probably could use a gambit emblematic of any given other warlord archetype - including gambits that whatever less flippant label we put on Lazy  (I like "Icon") is best at using.

The idea that one sub-class being able to use another's tricks somehow invalidates both is absurd on the face of it in the context of 5e.  Look at the Wizard Traditions, any wizard of any Tradition can cast spells from any other's bailiwick, just like that.  By the standard you've constructed for the Warlord, the Wizard has literally no valid sub-classes, and is not fit for inclusion as a full class.

Same's true of most sub-classes really.

Honestly, the same is true of every objection to including the Warlord as a class - were they applied even-handedly, they'd eliminate half the extant classes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 10, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The design goal needs to be to create a warlord that warlord fans are generally happy with.



 And that wouldn't even be hard, since there's only one model, the 4e version, to work from.  By definition, if you're a Warlord fan, you're a fan of that Warlord (well, one or more of the 8 de-facto sub-classes of it).

Contrast that with the challenge of designing the Mystic.  Psionics has changed quite radically with each edition.  In AD&D it was an add-on special ability, randomly determined.  In 2e, a single class.  In 3e several of them.  In 4e a Source, including the Monk (wtf).  And psionics went from definitively (or controversially) not-magic, to DM-picks magic or different, to the distinction being kinda irrelevant.  

Didn't stop them from tackling the Mystic.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 10, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> I realise that many people struggle with the notion but non magical healing is as much pulling yourself together,  summoning an Adrenaline rush,  and ignoring the pain of those cuts, bruises, and strains as it is sealing up those wounds permanently.
> 
> I view barbarian damage resistance as brawling through the pain and ignoring broken bones rather than skin getting tougher.




I was actually being sarcastic and dismissive when I made the "That's nice." reply to the prior comment.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 10, 2018)

Azzy said:


> I was actually being sarcastic and dismissive when I made the "That's nice." reply to the prior comment.




That's nice.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 10, 2018)

Azzy said:


> I was actually being sarcastic and dismissive when I made the "That's nice." reply to the prior comment.



https://youtu.be/JddNDtC-Yrs


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The design goal needs to be to create a warlord that warlord fans are generally happy with.
> 
> Wizard fans need to be generally happy with the wizard class. Elf fans need to be happy with the elf ancestry. Fighter fans need to be happy with the fighter class. No less, warlord fans need to be happy with the warlord class.




If that's the criteria, you've lost before firing your first bullet.

You can't make everyone happy. Nothing can. Even if we ignore all the h4ters and obvious negative opinions, there is a sharp divide among the "fans" as to what and how to do it. I mean, by your own posting history, I could safely say you are not a fan of either elves or clerics, since you are happy with neither. 

Warlord faces some serious issues it needs to sort out before a consensus can be reached: the first being its frakkin name (its amazing how many people, even self-professed warlord fans, hate the name "warlord"). We can't even decide on if he's going to be called a warlord, marshal, banneret, captain, leader, noble, or simply "Sue".

Further, unlike all the other classes released so far, there isn't a non-4e version of the class to look at for a guide on how to mimic without the ADEU structure. (Well, there's the marshal, but most warlord fans tend to think he's lacking). Nearly all 5e classes start with a 3e-based version of the class and then layer on and change things from there (even artificer, though mystic seems to want to call back to the 2e psionicist rather than the 3e psion). Warlord has only one model; the ADEU one, and it struggles to fit in a game not defined by that power-structure and play-style. Paladins, Barbarians, Warlocks, and Druids all easily abandoned the ADEU structure because prior editions provided the tools (smites, spells, rages, invocations, wild shape) to make them work without it. Warlords lack that, and the attempts to make it work (via superiority dice, resolve points, hit dice, or even pseudo "spell" slots) haven't provided a generally agreed upon mechanic. 

Even further than that, there is still a large gulf on of agreement on what a warlord should be able to actually do. The vague general terms (heal, buff, support, extra actions) seem a good starting point, but like how nobody agrees on what mechanic to have the warlord use, nobody really agrees on what the warlord's net effect should be. Take warlord healing: does he heal damage or provide temp hp? Does his healing use the recipients HD, the warlord's, HD, or some other resource? Can he heal a fallen ally or only if the recipient is still conscious? Should healing be a primary function (akin to cleric) or secondary (like a druid or bard)? 

For another example, take support. This catch-all term generally means "can replace a cleric/druid/bard in a party" but its hard to say what the warlord is doing and how is he doing it nonmagically. A cleric, beyond healing hp, provides status-removal (lesser/greater restoration), information (divination, commune), transportation (word of recall, wind walk), even resurrection (raise dead, revivify). How does a warlord even begin to compete with those features "nonmagically"? In 4e, he could because the majority of a cleric's "prayers" were attacks with riders and more powerful effects like I mentioned got siloed into rituals (or some utility powers) than anyone could learn with a feat. A cleric's function in 4e wasn't defined by remove affliction, divination, or raise dead; but in 5e it is. A 5e warlord cannot replace a cleric unless he is able to replicate the effects of magic, which begins to defeat the purpose.

For me, it seems like a fool's errand to keep trying to replicate the 4e warlord in 5e. Yes, there room for a dedicated warlord class in 5e, one who can restore vigor, buff allies, and use brilliant tactics to aid in combat, but the minute you try to make him a non-magical cleric replacement, the class falls apart rapidly. At this point, it might be a better (and more fruitful) endeavor to stop asking "how do I recreate the 4e warlord in 5e?" and start asking "What does a tactical, inspiring martial leader look like given 5e's design paradigm?" 

For me, he looks a lot more like a non-magical/non-divine paladin, but that's another topic.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 11, 2018)

I suppose the only way to be a Warlord from level 1 is to go for a human fighter or Rogue with martial adept or inspiring leader but then I suppose you could argue something similar for most martial builds.  Fighter - Rogue or Rogue - Fighter builds probably have the most potential with Mastermind being the go-to subclass to grant allies advantage on initiative, skill checks, or attack rolls with a bonus action. 

Battlemaster will work much better with the extra commander manoeuvres from 5MW,  assuming that you don't go the whole hog and just pick the Commander subclass from that supplement.  

I think the Banneret subclass falls short of a decent Warlord because of the absence of manoeuvres.   I personally would grant a Banneret the equivalent benefit of the Martial Adept feat (choosing at least one manoeuvre from a limited list) as part of their level 3 subclass benefits plus an extra superiority die and Manoeuvre (from a limited list) at 7 and 15.  That's still only 3d6 with 4 limited manoeuvres so I think it would add Warlord spice without stepping heavily on Battlemaster toes.  They can always take more Martial Adept feats for more.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 11, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> If that's the criteria, you've lost before firing your first bullet.



There's only a couple of 5e classes that had long-time fans of their up in arms - the Sorcerer and Ranger.  That's not a terrible track record.  Surely, you're not implying that WotC has suffered some drastic loss of game-design competence in the last few years?  Or are you privy to some secret information, like Mike Mearls had a stroke and has been replace by an LMD?



> You can't make everyone happy. Nothing can.



 Right.  And the first cohort we should remove from 'everyone' to get a potentially-please-able audience is: 







> Even if we ignore all the h4ters and obvious negative opinions



 Yep, those guys. 



> , there is a sharp divide among the "fans" as to what and how to do it.



There's one vision of the Warlord: the 4e version, that all Warlord fans, by definition, were happy enough with.  It's a model that 5e should have no trouble emulating, it will just have to add to it to fit the 5e paradigm.

Where warlord fans fall into sharp disagreements is in discussions like these where detractors keep asking for 'concessions' and demanding justifications for the class far in excess of what's ever been asked for with any other.  
That individual fans come up with different things they'd be willing to part with - and some find one of those same things 'most-important' doesn't mean there's an unbridgeable gap among those fans.  It just illustrates how varied and interesting the class was, and that all that breadth & interest needs to be realized in 5e.  

Which is not a tall order.   4e was a more restrictive design environment than 5e.  It'll be much easier than it was.



> Warlord faces some serious issues it needs to sort out before a consensus can be reached: the first being its frakkin name (its amazing how many people, even self-professed warlord fans, hate the name "warlord")



 It's the worst proposed name for an additional martial class beyond the fighter - except for all the others. 

Seriously, the objection to the name is spurious nonsense.  Spurious nonsense some warlord fans are willing to get behind if it means getting the class they want in all but name, and others are justifiably offended by.



> Further, unlike all the other classes released so far, there isn't a non-4e version of the class to look at for a guide on how to mimic without the ADEU structure.



 Yep, there's more freedom of design, there.  Of course, AEDU /was/ used, loosely, as a framework for the Warlock (or you could say the 3.5 Warlock presaged AEDU), and it worked quite nicely.  All casters now have at will (A) Cantrips, and of course, D&D has always had daily (D) spells, many of which have utility (U) beyond attacks.  5e even gives some casters a short-rest recharge of an otherwise daily spells, so the E is there in more than just the Warlock.

So, not an issue, really.  Use a short-rest focused AEDU-ish framework, like the Warlock, or, y'know, show some design chops and come up with something unique that accomplishes the same goals in the context of 5e.

The only real challenge in creating the Warlord is in making it effective and versatile enough to stand in for a Cleric, Bard, or Druid (or, for a bravura warlord, Paladin, I suppose) without putting the party at a profound disadvantage.  Simply porting the Warlord from 4e - strictly-limiting AEDU and role structures intact - would fall short.  



> Even further than that, there is still a large gulf on of agreement on what a warlord should be able to actually do.



 The Warlord, Cleric, Bard, & (Sentinel) Druid were all leaders in 4e, and the Paladin was a strong secondary leader.  In 5e, the Cleric, Bard, and Druid are all first-tier support classes, and do more than ever they did in 4e, besides.  That's a clear target in necessary contributions, and nothing inhernet in the system stands in the way of it.



> For another example, take support. This catch-all term generally means "can replace a cleric/druid/bard in a party" but its hard to say what the warlord is doing and how is he doing it nonmagically.



 No, it's not hard to say.  It's just that some people who already hate the warlord don't like what it's had to say on the subject.  

That's why the warlord isn't for them, and, if I'm to get off my high horse and be pragmatic for a moment, why it was a 'good' that it was excluded from the PH.  That makes it necessarily optional, so anyone who doesn't care for the narratives around martial support can just choose not to opt into the class for their campaigns.

There are some default narratives some folks just plain don't like.  Vancian magic has probably repelled more potential D&Ders over the decades than will ever be exposed to a Warlord class, let alone repelled by it, but it remains, in somewhat bowdlerized (yet less restricted, even more versatile) form, none the less - and, with clear alternatives like the AEDU-ish Warlock available.  Those who still can't stand it even have an optional spell-point rule in the DMG, too.  
And, nothing really stops us from using mechanics, but rationalizing our own narrative that does work for us.  And, nothing stops DMs from tweaking mechanics.  Those that /did/ like classic Vancian, for instance, can't possibly find it difficult to just treat the three prepped casters as such, using slots as old-school daily spells.  Heck, the game probably 'balances' a little better that way.


----------



## epithet (Mar 11, 2018)

It seems to me that the only thing people don't connect with when it comes to the Warlord in 5e is the non-magical healing. I could be wrong.

The 4e Warlord, as I understand it, healed by giving an ally instant access to its hit dice, called healing surges in 4e. I have the impression that almost all healing (magical or not) was done using these healing surges. I don't see why the same thing can't be done in 5e. Rather than give the Warlord an ability that restores XdY + Z hit points to a targeted ally, why not directly carry over the 4e mechanism? Let the targeted ally use its hit dice for self healing as a reaction, with some bonus based on the WL stat or prof. bonus.

You can also let the WL, as a reaction, add some bonus (like a bard inspiration die sort of thing) to an ally's death saving throw, and if the number is 20 or greater treat it as a nat 20.

Tack on some fortifying temp hit points, and you've pretty much got a non-magical healer, right?

The other thing a WL does is grant attacks. Seems like you could give the WL an action that lets an ally move up to half speed an attack using its reaction. At a higher level let the WL make a weapon attack as a bonus action when using this action, and then at even higher level make the ally's attack have advantage. If it needs a kick to bring the WL up to par, let the ally's attack have advantage from the beginning, and add a 2nd ally at higher level.

I am of the opinion that once you step back from the idea that the Warlord has to heal like a 5e caster, it's pretty easy to find existing mechanics that do what a WL needs to do and that could be wrapped up in a character class without a ruckus.

Considering that the topic has been wrangled since 5e launched, however, I am obviously missing something.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 11, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The design goal needs to be to create a warlord that warlord fans are generally happy with.
> 
> Wizard fans need to be generally happy with the wizard class. Elf fans need to be happy with the elf ancestry. Fighter fans need to be happy with the fighter class. No less, warlord fans need to be happy with the warlord class.



True, but that assumes there’s a singular group of warlord fans that all want the same thing. And presumes there’s a way to only get their feedback and not feedback from casual warlord fans or fans of D&D who might like a warlord. 

Many “warlord fans” (aka the warlord supporters here) have really made the warlord into a way to edition war. It’s a way to attack 5e (and often Mike Mearls) for failing and breaking promises. There’s a lot of posturing and presenting certain aspects of the warlord as absolutely essential aspects. Such as healing, which is a vital aspect of the class solely that was the design in 4e. Or granting attacks because a popular fan build focused on that. And despite well over half the powers in the PHB not relating to granting attacks, and fewer powers in _Martial Power_ 1 & 2 relating to that. 

It’s never going to happen. But it doesn’t need to because its half about the warlord and half a way to attack and argue online.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 11, 2018)

Jester David said:


> True, but that assumes there’s a singular group of warlord fans that all want the same thing. And presumes there’s a way to only get their feedback and not feedback from casual warlord fans or fans of D&D who might like a warlord.
> 
> Many “warlord fans” (aka the warlord supporters here) have really made the warlord into a way to edition war. It’s a way to attack 5e (and often Mike Mearls) for failing and breaking promises. There’s a lot of posturing and presenting certain aspects of the warlord as absolutely essential aspects. Such as healing, which is a vital aspect of the class solely that was the design in 4e. Or granting attacks because a popular fan build focused on that. And despite well over half the powers in the PHB not relating to granting attacks, and fewer powers in _Martial Power_ 1 & 2 relating to that.
> 
> It’s never going to happen. But it doesn’t need to because its half about the warlord and half a way to attack and argue online.




A survey can ask the question, How important is the warlord class to you? And then compare the results of the other questions according to those who have a strong interest.

If the warlord fan base is split on any topic, an archetype can be build for each preference.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 11, 2018)

Yep, we all really do like to argue online. Personally, if I was part of the design team and we were tasked with creating a warlord class, I would create it with past builds in mind. That is, I wouldn't make a consideration for the so-called lazy lord. I'd look at the variations that 4e included as baseline such as inspiring, tactical, and bravura as well as look at creating a couple others such as an arcane/divine subclass. Lazy lord might still be able to be built using the tools at hand, but it wouldn't be a driving focus.

Is it Thursdays (usa time) that the happy fun hour comes out? I'm looking forward to the next episode.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 11, 2018)

The ranger and the paladin exist as separate classes, even tho they made sense as fighter archetypes, similar to eldritch knight. There was even 1e fighter precedents to make them archetypes. 

The warlord makes more sense as a separate class.



Nonmagical healing is a ‘sine qua non’ of the warlord class. But it is something D&D needs anyway. Because most damage in 5e is nonphysical fatigue with only superficial contact, warlord healing is easy to implement.

I would probably refer to warlord healing as ‘invigoration’ to emphasize the warlord inspires the restoration of nonphysical hit points, including alertness, guided skill, determination, and so on. Second wind works similarly restoring nonphysical hit points.

Similarly, a sports combatant benefits from a coach. Sometimes the coach is also the one bringing the butterfly bandage for an eyecut, and some sugar-salt water to rehydrate.



Heh, I would still rather call the class a tactician.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 11, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I wouldn't make a consideration for the so-called lazy lord. I'd look at the variations that 4e included as baseline such as inspiring, tactical, and bravura as well as look at creating a couple others such as an arcane/divine subclass. Lazy lord might still be able to be built using the tools at hand, but it wouldn't be a driving focus.




The ‘lazy lord’ is a salient favorite of the fanbase, is mechanically interesting, and probably makes a great subclass. The lazy lord is more like a coach. As someone who ‘leads from behind’, the lazy lord is a vivid archetype. Moreso than the other warlord subclasses, the lazy lord is especially the ‘tactician’.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The ‘lazy lord’ is a salient favorite of the fanbase, is mechanically interesting, and probably makes a great subclass. The lazy lord is more like a coach. As someone who ‘leads from behind’, the lazy lord is a vivid archetype. Moreso than the other warlord subclasses, the lazy lord is especially the ‘tactician’.



Even so, I wouldn't use a specific way people built a warlord as a design consideration. If they can still build a warlord in that same manner, that's fine, but I wouldn't use that as a basis for a subclass.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Because it helps to distinguish between nonphysical hit points and physical hit points, I do the following.

All hit points from Constitution are physical. All other hit points, especially from class, are nonphysical. It is impossible to reduce physical hit points unless nonphysical hit points are at zero, and the character unable to effectively defend themselves because of fatigue and sloppiness.

(It works even better if characters start off using the Constitution *score* for hit points at level 1. This makes less fragile low level characters. But most characters have a moderately high Constitution anyway, generally a +2 toward physical hit points.)


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Even so, I wouldn't use a specific way people built a warlord as a design consideration. If they can still build a warlord in that same manner, that's fine, but I wouldn't use that as a basis for a subclass.




Out of curiosity, why not?

It seems to me, the way players build a warlord evidences the desire of the customer. The goal is to make a product that satisfies the desire.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 12, 2018)

Remathilis is correct, using 5e framework a warlord would be built off the Paladin chassis in a nonmagical/nondevine way.  Paladin is sort of a warlord with inspiring healer granting THP, save bonuses, Aura of Life, etc.  

I still think 5e should use HD more to heal, even with spells. This makes a larger hit die more important then just the roll for HP and some out of combat healing, the side effect would make Durable feat more valuable.  Since activating HD to heal is an untapped source, this could be used for Warlords.  Its also limited, which is good.

From the old 4e, I always greatly preferred Bravura, especially with Brash Strike and such, risking something to get something.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Remathilis is correct, using 5e framework a warlord would be built off the Paladin chassis in a nonmagical/nondevine way.  Paladin is sort of a warlord with inspiring healer granting THP, save bonuses, Aura of Life, etc.




Heh, if a nonmagical paladin became the chassis for a warlord, then it would actually better justify the *paladin* as deserving its own class.

So, warlord or tactician, the ‘neutral’ paladin? (True neutral, true good, true evil, lawful neutral, chaotic neutral.)

It is thinkable because the 5e paladin inspires by means of *ethics* (alignment) rather than by means of religion. So, there is conceptual space for nonmagical inspiration.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 12, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Further, unlike all the other classes released so far, there isn't a non-4e version of the class to look at for a guide on how to mimic without the ADEU structure.



Not quite true. 13A has the Commander class, which is another solid chassis to start from - and arguably a better one, since 13A doesn't have an emphasis on tactical combat.


----------



## mellored (Mar 12, 2018)

> A cleric, beyond healing hp, provides status-removal (lesser/greater restoration), information (divination, commune), transportation (word of recall, wind walk), even resurrection (raise dead, revivify). How does a warlord even begin to compete with those features "nonmagically"?



Status removal -> Prevent status in the first place. (reroll a failed save).
Information -> skills
transportation -> bonus to overland travel.
resurrection -> Prevent death in the first place. (THP, bonus AC).

Also, they tend to be more offensive support than clerics. (bonus to-hit, damage, attacks, and probably spells too).
Closer to a twin-haste spamming support sorcerer than a cleric. Clerics should keep their niche as best healer.


But yes, it's a new idea that doesn't have decades of people refining it.
Though you still find plenty of aruments over weather the barbarian should be a fighter sub-class. Or what a ranger is supposed to do.



> For me, he looks a lot more like a non-magical/non-divine paladin, but that's another topic.



More or less.  Butnot as focused on defense.
Or a non-magical bard.
Or a non-magical ranger. (the boy scout/nature guide kind, not the hunter/sharpshooter kind).

Probably all of them, depending on the sub-class.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

I see modern police officers as a kind of ‘paladin’. So, a nonmagical paladin doesnt bother me.

Plus, the reallife paladins of Charles the Great, seem more like D&D warlords.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> A survey can ask the question, How important is the warlord class to you? And then compare the results of the other questions according to those who have a strong interest.
> 
> If the warlord fan base is split on any topic, an archetype can be build for each preference.



Right... but that's favouring a disproportionately small percentage of the fanbase. There are almost as many new fans of D&D as old, and of the old fans most probably were indifferent to the warlord. 
Why make a class and then purposely cater it towards a small minority? 

Isn't the best design to make the class as popular with as broad an audience as possible so the most people will play it? What's the point of making content that the majority of the fanbase is not interested in?



Yaarel said:


> The ‘lazy lord’ is a salient favorite of the fanbase, is mechanically interesting, and probably makes a great subclass. The lazy lord is more like a coach. As someone who ‘leads from behind’, the lazy lord is a vivid archetype. Moreso than the other warlord subclasses, the lazy lord is especially the ‘tactician’.



But, of course, the lazy lord or "princess warlord" is a fan build that doesn't appear in any books. So making it a major basis of the basis of the class feels a little odd. 
Given the majority of D&D fans don't ever visit the forums, it stands to reason the majority of warlord fans will have no idea what the lazylord is.

(It was also popular because it focused on breaking the warlord, by making the secondary stat the primary one granting bonuses higher than normal making it unusually strong. But it was also a late edition build. A noteworthy thread on the subject being in 2010 and also dipping into bard.)



mellored said:


> Status removal -> Prevent status in the first place. (reroll a failed save).
> [...]
> resurrection -> Prevent death in the first place. (THP, bonus AC).



Right, but it's not going to negate them. Even with a cleric or a bard at the table, a character can still die or be turned to stone. Sometimes the dice are just cold. 

The whole point of _lesser restoration_ and _greater restoration_ and _raise dead_ is getting the character back after something bad happens, and the warlord simply cannot replicate those effects. They'll never have full symmetry with a cleric/bard /druid / sorcerer/ warlock that is specced to be the "healer". 

So... why try and fit into that design space? The warlord is a square peg and the 5e leader role is a round hole, and it's doing a disservice to the squareness of the peg to shave down its sides and make it less square just to cram it into that hole. Let it embrace its squareness. 

It feels a little like trying to make a wizard a tank. Sure, you can get it to work a lot of the time, and it can hold its own under ideal circumstances but it will never be remotely as effective as even a half-assed fighter.  
Seems more effective to focus on making the warlord something else than a replacement cleric for an edition that doesn't really need more replacement clerics.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2018)

Obryn said:


> Not quite true. 13A has the Commander class, which is another solid chassis to start from - and arguably a better one, since 13A doesn't have an emphasis on tactical combat.




I've played one. It's a very focused design, but it could inspire a litterally military sub-class, and definitely provides some possible mechanics, in particular the way the abilities are use-limited.  Instead of recharging or cooling down, you build up to them as the Battle progresses....


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Remathilis is correct, using 5e framework a warlord would be built off the Paladin chassis in a nonmagical/nondevine way.  Paladin is sort of a warlord with inspiring healer granting THP, save bonuses, Aura of Life, etc.
> 
> I still think 5e should use HD more to heal, even with spells. This makes a larger hit die more important then just the roll for HP and some out of combat healing, the side effect would make Durable feat more valuable.  Since activating HD to heal is an untapped source, this could be used for Warlords.  Its also limited, which is good.
> 
> From the old 4e, I always greatly preferred Bravura, especially with Brash Strike and such, risking something to get something.






Yaarel said:


> Heh, if a nonmagical paladin became the chassis for a warlord, then it would actually better justify the *paladin* as deserving its own class.
> 
> So, warlord or tactician, the ‘neutral’ paladin? (True neutral, true good, true evil, lawful neutral, chaotic neutral.)
> 
> It is thinkable because the 5e paladin inspires by means of *ethics* (alignment) rather than by means of religion. So, there is conceptual space for nonmagical inspiration.




I'm meaning more in terms of mechanics than story...

Strip away all the fluff from a paladin, and you get a class that has the following features.

* martial weapons, all armors and shields
* d10 HD
* two attacks at 5th
* Fighting Style
* Smites
* Healing
* Defensive Auras
* Spells
* Minor Divine abilities (detect evil, channel divinity)
* Strength and Charisma focused

Now, we just do some switching around. The Spells and Minor Divine powers need to go; these get swapped to some manner of martial ability that creates its "warlordy powers". I'm a big proponent on using Superiority dice and maneuvers (with a warlord getting many more dice and maneuvers than a battlemaster). Superiority dice don't re-invent the wheel too much, synergize with the Martial Adept feat, and as a bonus new maneuvers that are invented for the warlord can be retroactively added to the battlemaster, which becomes the "eldrich knight" version of the warlord. 

As for healing; lay on hands can easily be replaced by inspiring word. The mechanics of it be a pool of hp (like lay on hands) or a pool of dice (akin to the dream-druids summer balm healing pool). They could probably get some sort of kicker that lets HD be more effective (akin to a bard's Song of Rest) as well. A warlord isn't removing diseases, poisons, or raising the dead, but he can be a perfectly servicable hp healer and maybe grant some type of "morale" bonus to give advantage to saves to remove them.

Further a paladin can grant "auras" that grant protection against fear, charms, etc. Since the proto-Warlord was the marshal, I find it appropriate to give the 5e warlord a similar "aura" ability that grants minor bonuses (such as adding bonuses to damage or saves) or major ones (immunity to fear or charm at higher levels). These augment the abilities given by the maneuver/superiority dice and would allow for warlordy things on rounds the warlord chooses to attack or not use a superiority dice. 

Smite seems to be a good way to model the extra-actions concept. A paladin's big ability is being able to trade spell slots for handfuls of d8s with an attack. Rather than a buffed out single attack by the paladin, the warlord could use some mechanic to provide his allies a buffed out attack. Rather than granting the ally a free "attack action", though, it would have to be worded to avoid abuse (no bonus SA, no bonus from GMW/SS, no stunning fist or paladin smite) but giving a character a bonus attack with extra damage would be a good way to have the warlord have his awesome attack. 

The rest is fairly trivial. You could have the warlord be primarily Strength (for melee, as the warlord is still considered a melee character) and either Int or Cha as secondary (I personally would want Str/Int, as paladin already has Str/Cha). 

In the end, I'd see...

* martial weapons, all armors and shields
* d10 HD
* two attacks at 5th
* Fighting Style
* Grant Attacks (with riders)
* Inspiring Word
* Commanding Auras
* Superiority Dice
* Maneuvers
* Strength and Intelligence focused

Now granted, he's more apt to replace a fighter than a cleric, but I think it would work to capture the flavor of the warlord while not radically altering the 5e design paradigm and would integrate into the game without introducing yet-another resource mechanic.


----------



## mellored (Mar 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The whole point of _lesser restoration_ and _greater restoration_ and _raise dead_ is getting the character back after something bad happens, and the warlord simply cannot replicate those effects. They'll never have full symmetry with a cleric/bard /druid / sorcerer/ warlock that is specced to be the "healer".



That's ok.

You want situations where you would say "I wish we had a cleric" and situations where you would say "I wish we had a warlord".



> So... why try and fit into that design space? The warlord is a square peg and the 5e leader role is a round hole, and it's doing a disservice to the squareness of the peg to shave down its sides and make it less square just to cram it into that hole. Let it embrace its squareness.



Agreed.
But language only works with a common reference point.  Otherwise, it's like making up words.

i.e.
"I want a new class that can blumpikah while also bliperating, and with blerghera once per blaque."
You have no idea what that could mean because you've never seen anything like it before.

But saying "i want a class that's similar to a cleric, but without magic" and you at least have a ballpark idea of what I'm talking about.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> I'm meaning more in terms of mechanics than story..




D&D 5e blends ‘story’ and ‘mechanics’ descriptions, inseparably. This is especially so if one is an immersive theater of the mind style DM, where narrative adjudication takes priority over mechanical resolution.

To make the paladin mechanically nonmagical, makes the paladin narratively nonmagical. The healing would function in nonmagic zones and so on, and other narrative implications.

But a nonmagical paladin makes narrative sense. It is ok.

The paladin can already handle many of the needed warlord mechanics. Moreover, the paladin benefits. Adding more options to the paladin for more effective healing and ‘lazy lord’ tactician attacks enriches the flavor of the paladin.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

The ethic of a neutral-alignment tactician paladin is: discipline and dedication.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 12, 2018)

Yunru said:


> The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power to grant attacks at will.




You'd think so, the way some people act.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 12, 2018)

mellored said:


> That's ok.
> 
> You want situations where you would say "I wish we had a cleric" and situations where you would say "I wish we had a warlord".



And that would be good. 



mellored said:


> Agreed.
> But language only works with a common reference point.  Otherwise, it's like making up words.
> 
> i.e.
> ...



But the cool things about the sorcerer and the warlock isn't that they're like the wizard. That's probably the lamest elements of them. 
When someone asks you what the hook is with a warlock or sorcerer, you shouldn't start with "they're a wizard that...". Instead it's "a sorcerer is an arcane spellcaster that innately casts spells because its in their blood or part of their heritage" and "a warlock is someone who made a deal with a powerful godlike being for magic". 

When describing a warlord and what a warlord does "it's like a cleric... but without magic" is probably the lamest and most boring description imaginable. Not just because it requires knowledge of what a cleric is, but also because it doesn't so much tell you what it does but what it does NOT do.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 12, 2018)

Imaro said:


> No I mean one of the fundamental tenets I've seen Warlord fans state is that a Warlord has to be non-magical...




The warlord must be able to be non-magical, the way a fighter or rogue can be non-magical.  When most people say they want a non-magical warlord, they mean that the abilities ingrained into the class and not gained from subclass choices must be non-magical.  I don't personally have an issue with two magical warlord subclasses: one using arcane magic and the other using divine magic.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

The warlord paladin probably emphasizes Charisma. (Maybe also Intelligence.)

This means a paladin could prioritize Charisma, perhaps even dropping Strength. (An intelligent warrior might also be possible.)

All of this enhances the scope and customizability of the paladin class.

Nonmagic paladin.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 12, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 3 more subclasses on top of the 4E ones. Psionic, arcane and divine. 1/3rd casters.




Let's be frank though, you just wouldn't use a warlord class anyway.  So it really shouldn't matter to you how many subclasses they get as long it doesn't chew up too much page space.

And, even as a fan of the warlord, I can't really see a need for more than 5 subclasses for it.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Paladins normally use spell slots for smites anyway. Switching spell slots for a nonmagical use, I doubt anyone would notice much difference.


----------



## Yunru (Mar 12, 2018)

MechaPilot said:


> Let's be frank though, you just wouldn't use a warlord class anyway.  So it really shouldn't matter to you how many subclasses they get as long it doesn't chew up too much page space.
> 
> And, even as a fan of the warlord, I can't really see a need for more than 5 subclasses for it.



As someone making their own, I just want to go back to 4e's hybrid system so I'd don't _have to_ come up with subclasses.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The warlord paladin probably emphasizes Charisma. (Maybe also Intelligence.)
> 
> This means a paladin could prioritize Charisma, perhaps even dropping Strength. (An intelligent warrior might also be possible.)
> 
> ...




I think you could even take back some of the features of the defunct pacifist Paladin from UA and push them as one of your nonmagic Paladin's archetype to make a ''lazy-ish lord''.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 12, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I've said it many times.
> 
> I do not think The Warlord is good enough on it's own to carry a whole class. It is that simple.




History would indicate otherwise.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

The 3e Psion had the ability to generate massive temporary hit points, relative to the spell points. It was an efficient alternative to healing spells.

The point is, granting a bulk of temporary hit points before a battle can be a viable alternative to resurrection after battle. This is ‘preventative medicine’ sotospeak, so as to avoid death in the first place.


----------



## mellored (Mar 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But the cool things about the sorcerer and the warlock isn't that they're like the wizard. That's probably the lamest elements of them.
> When someone asks you what the hook is with a warlock or sorcerer, you shouldn't start with "they're a wizard that...". Instead it's "a sorcerer is an arcane spellcaster that innately casts spells because its in their blood or part of their heritage" and "a warlock is someone who made a deal with a powerful godlike being for magic".
> 
> When describing a warlord and what a warlord does "it's like a cleric... but without magic" is probably the lamest and most boring description imaginable. Not just because it requires knowledge of what a cleric is, but also because it doesn't so much tell you what it does but what it does NOT do.



Here's the description from 3.5.

Marshals inspire trust in those they lead. They earn that trust by slogging through harsh landscapes, dangerous battlefields, and haunted catacombs along with those under their command. With a look, they can see where to best deploy their resources or come up with a sneaky ruse to fool their enemies. A marshal has a tactician's mind, a cartographer's overview of the disputed landscape (or dungeon warren), and a way with words that can inspire battle-hardened fighters to give it their all when melee breaks out.

Trained in the basics of fighting, marshals possess a general knowledge of weapons and armor. Their real strength is their ability to lead those who follow them to success they might not otherwise reach in combat. Marshals make passable warriors themselves, when personal danger finds them.


And from 4e.

Warlords are accomplished and competent battle leaders. Warlords stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering their allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand. Warlords know how to rally a team to win a fight.  Your ability to lead others to victory is a direct result of your history. You could be a minor warchief looking to make a name for yourself, a pious knight-commander on leave from your militant order, a youthful noble eager to apply years of training to life outside the castle walls, a calculating mercenary captain, or a courageous marshal of the borderlands who fights to protect the frontier. Regardless of your background, you are a skillful warrior with an uncanny gift for leadership.

Your leadership takes the form of quick commands, cunning strategies, and tactical superiority. Your powers guide your allies to extra and more powerful attacks, as well as helping them move quickly in combat situations. You also assist your allies by moving your enemies around or knocking them prone. You use Strength for your attack powers, so make that your best ability score. Intelligence is secondary, because your Intelligence determines just how effective a leader you are. Charisma should be your third best score


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

vincegetorix said:


> I think you could even take back some of the features of the defunct pacifist Paladin from UA and push them as one of your nonmagic Paladin's archetype to make a ''lazy-ish lord''.




Good idea, adding elements of the pacifist paladin to the warlord paladin.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

So a paladin is fundamentally a nonmagical class, but has subclasses that can gain spell slots, similar to the way eldritch knight subclass does.

For some reason, this feels more like the 1e paladin − a fighter subclass that can get spells.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Personally, I see the warlord abilities in from most important to less important: 
Charisma › Intelligence › Strength

Possibly: 
• Charisma = ‘inspiration’, healing, buffing
• Intelligence = ‘tactics’, granting extra attacks

Splitting up inspiration and tactics makes Charisma and Intelligence about equally valuable.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 12, 2018)

mellored said:


> Here's the description from 3.5.
> 
> Marshals inspire trust in those they lead. They earn that trust by slogging through harsh landscapes, dangerous battlefields, and haunted catacombs along with those under their command. With a look, they can see where to best deploy their resources or come up with a sneaky ruse to fool their enemies. A marshal has a tactician's mind, a cartographer's overview of the disputed landscape (or dungeon warren), and a way with words that can inspire battle-hardened fighters to give it their all when melee breaks out.
> 
> ...



Which sounds like the best way to design the class.
Pull out its flavour and the flavour of its most iconic powers and base the class on that. Design the mechanics on the story of the class and what that says it should be doing, and not how that story was implemented a design generation ago.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Personally, I see the warlord abilities in from most important to less important:
> Charisma › Intelligence › Strength
> 
> Possibly:
> ...




Charisma really seems like the purview of the bard. It's the inspiring class. That's it’s niche. And it's also the stat of the warlock and sorcerer.

No class but the wizard uses Intelligence. The smart warrior is very different from other characters and distinguishes the warlord.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Charisma really seems like the purview of the bard. It's the inspiring class. That's it’s niche. And it's also the stat of the warlock and sorcerer.
> 
> No class but the wizard uses Intelligence. The smart warrior is very different from other characters and distinguishes the warlord.




There is a need for an intelligent warrior. Making the paladin able to benefit from Intelligence works well. It also ties into the paladin being an upper class, educated, military school, warrior. A military officer.

The psionic Mystic will use Intelligence (but probably it makes more sense to use Charisma to impact others, especially regarding telepathic mind magic).



Any class uses Charisma to interact with others, just like any class uses Strength to wield a longsword.

No class monopolizes any ability.

A difference is, the bard is high magic and a full caster. The warlord is nonmagic. But inspiration is inspiration.


----------



## mellored (Mar 12, 2018)

IMO: Have both Cha and Int.

And something like, "You can use Int in place of Dex for to-hit rolls (not damage) when making weapon attacks."


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

mellored said:


> IMO: Have both Cha and Int.
> 
> And something like, "You can use Int in place of Dex for to-hit rolls (not damage) when making weapon attacks."




Alternatively, it could be the other way around: add Intelligence to damage, because you studied anatomy and know the where the weak and vulnerable points are.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> There is a need for an intelligent warrior. Making the paladin able to benefit from Intelligence works well. It also ties into the paladin being an upper class, educated, military school, warrior. A military officer.
> 
> The psionic Mystic will use Intelligence (but probably it makes more sense to use Charisma to impact others, especially regarding telepathic mind magic).
> 
> ...



Inspiration is inspiration, but a charismatic inspiring warlord really steps on what makes the bard special and unique. It's like giving another class rage or sneak attack. The inspiring warlord makes the bard less interesting while also not filling a unique role itself. 
Better to move the warlord away from the bard and let it stand alone as the tactician and strategist. The inspiring charismatic leader is the bard or characters with the inspiring leader feat. The smart tactical genius is the warlord.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Magic classes have significant overlap. Even sharing spells, rituals, familiars, etcetera.

Nonmagical classes can have significant overlap too.

Compare ranger with scout rogue for overlap. Zealot and samurai with berserker. And so on.

As long as the concept is fun and salient, go for it.

Avoid ruining one class because of an imagined monopoly by an other class.



Plus, if the warlord is an aspect of the paladin, the paladin itself personifies inspiration.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

The tactician can be especially useful to spell casters, by using inspiration to restore a broken concentration on the tacticians round, after the concentration was lost.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Inspiration is inspiration, but a charismatic inspiring warlord really steps on what makes the bard special and unique. It's like giving another class rage or sneak attack. The inspiring warlord makes the bard less interesting while also not filling a unique role itself.
> Better to move the warlord away from the bard and let it stand alone as the tactician and strategist. The inspiring charismatic leader is the bard or characters with the inspiring leader feat. The smart tactical genius is the warlord.




Bards and Warlords coexisted in 4e just fine.  I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to in 5e.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 12, 2018)

Can I just say that if there was a spell-less paladin it would not have aura's (non-magical auras make no sense).  It would not have lay on hands (as divine healing by touch makes no sense).  Basically almost everything that makes a paladin a paladin would have to be taken away for a spell less paladin.  It would be so Un-paladin at that point I don't know why anyone would call it a paladin.  

That being said if there was a spell-less paladin class it probably would be a fine warlord chassy as it would be more or less a blank slate that could easily be about inspiring others.  (Oath of inspiration?  anyone?)


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

Ruin Explorer said:


> There aren't enough eyerolls in the world for the stacked deck of silly business this post contains.




Pretty sure "Read my mind to understand why I am objecting to your position" doesn't work very well. Whatever your argument is, it's not self evident.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> D&D 5e blends ‘story’ and ‘mechanics’ descriptions, inseparably. This is especially so if one is an immersive theater of the mind style DM, where narrative adjudication takes priority over mechanical resolution.
> 
> To make the paladin mechanically nonmagical, makes the paladin narratively nonmagical. The healing would function in nonmagic zones and so on, and other narrative implications.
> 
> ...



Thank you for not reading another word of my post and then completely going off on a wild tangent if your own making. You failed to grasp even the basics of what I was trying to say and instead have made this now about changing the paladin class.

Sigh. One day I'll learn to avoid Warlord threads. They aren't about actually creating a Warlord class, they are about stealth edition warring. 

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 12, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Bards and Warlords coexisted in 4e just fine.  I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to in 5e.



4e was an edition a LOT less concerned about flavour and tonal overlap though. You had the warlord steal the thunder of the bard (and their place in the PHB1), you had the invoker that was basically a wizard... of the gods, the avenger that was basically a holy rogue, the runepriest that was a dwarven cleric, the seeker than was a magical ranger, the swordmage was a wizard that good at surviving melee. Etcetera, etchetera, etcetera. 

The sneakiest character in the game should be the rogue. The smartest character in the game should be the wizard. The toughest character in the game should be a barbarian. The character best in the wilds should be the ranger. The character best at fighting should be the fighter. Etc. Every class has something it should be the best at. It's wheelhouse. 

The problem in 5e is that the bard, by it's nature, doesn't do a lot of unique things. It's always been a rogue/wizard with a minstrel feel (with a dash of fighter). So it does roguey things and wizardy things. The one unique thing it does is inspire people. (Which is already a feat.) But it should be the _best _at inspiring people. 

So what is the warlord best at? It can't be inspiring people then. So if the design focuses on that, it's making a character that can never be the best at its role. Like a new class that's a less sneaky rogue or a barbarian that isn't as angry. Otherwise, again, it's a class making another class irrelevant. 

Ideally, the design of the class should be flexible enough that you could make Charisma your second or third highest Ability Score and still be inspiring if you chose. 
And instead of being the best at inspiring people, the warlord could be the best at directing people. The best at tactics and strategy. The best at commanding people.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 12, 2018)

> Here's the description from 3.5.
> 
> Marshals inspire trust in those they lead. They earn that trust by slogging through harsh landscapes, dangerous battlefields, and haunted catacombs along with those under their command. With a look, they can see where to best deploy their resources or come up with a sneaky ruse to fool their enemies. A marshal has a tactician's mind, a cartographer's overview of the disputed landscape (or dungeon warren), and a way with words that can inspire battle-hardened fighters to give it their all when melee breaks out.
> 
> ...




So then they are a fighter subclass then. Every bit of that flavor text says yeah this is a fighter subclass.


----------



## mellored (Mar 12, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> So then they are a fighter subclass then. Every bit of that flavor text says yeah this is a fighter subclass.



The 3.5 marhsal had the same attacks as the as the 3.5 cleric.

"Trained in the basics of fighting" is not the same as being a full fighter.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 12, 2018)

mellored said:


> The 3.5 marhsal had the same attacks as the as the 3.5 cleric.
> 
> "Trained in the basics of fighting" is not the same as being a full fighter.



The 3.5 marshal was also a fairly badly designed class. I'm pretty sure it could have benefited from a d10 hd and full Bab.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 12, 2018)

mellored said:


> The 3.5 marhsal had the same attacks as the as the 3.5 cleric.
> 
> "Trained in the basics of fighting" is not the same as being a full fighter.




I will say the marshal is the less fightery of the two, but honestly just sounds like the valor Bard. The warlord as described is straight up a fighter subclass.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Personally, I see the warlord abilities in from most important to less important:
> Charisma › Intelligence › Strength.



 I suspect it should vary with sub-class (and gambit), as it did in 4e.  Plus, in 5e the STR/DEX decision is pretty seamless.

WIS covers perception and insight in D&D, unlike some other games that use int for per, so it could also be a focus for 'know your enemy' type gambits.

That would make an attempt at a generalist godwarlord (in the godwizard sense, not that there's any plausible risk of that) MAD, as well.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Thank you for not reading another word of my post and then completely going off on a wild tangent if your own making.




How come you never thank me when I do that to you?

I feel neglected.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> How come you never thank me when I do that to you?
> 
> I feel neglected.



It would require me actually reading what you wrote. ;-)


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Paladins normally use spell slots for smites anyway. Switching spell slots for a nonmagical use, I doubt anyone would notice much difference.




That depends.  Paladins will use Aura of Life, and will use Spirit Guardians as it is the best reason to take Crown.  Bless is always great.  But I get your point.

A nonmagical Bless effect for a Warlord aura would be great, especially if it is based of CHR or INT.  But it could also be way overpowered, so it would need limited use.  INT might affect to hit rolls, CHR might affect damage.

I would prefer THP granting, instead of healing.  THP is proactive and would be unique to the Warlord, but no amount of inspiration or brains will help you when at 0 HP.   When playing a Paladin I always take Inspiring Leader, that's just way to much temp HP to give up every short rest, I could see that feat being removed and given as class power to Warlords or something along those lines.  I could see granting temp HP using the hit dice mechanic i.e. limited to 1/2 HD per long rest but you get CON and Durable bonus.


I would greatly prefer a warlord class, its exactly how I play every Paladin.  Aid stacked with Inspiring Leader is a large chuck of HP for some classes, and is a subtle but effective tactic.  


As a sort of playtest, I will run my Crown paladin (5th level now)

1.  using "bless" all the time but with my CHR mod as opposed to 1d4.  CHR to damage I think would work best as its more of a "Bravura" type
2.  Inspiring leader whenever possible.
3.  Aid right off the bat every day.
4.  No smites.
5.  A few other things that I think of.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 12, 2018)

As a side note, Mearls decision to base Warlord off the fighter chassis is a mistake IMO.  Action Surge is the iconic fighter talent, as is 3 and then 4 attacks per round and more feats or ABI.  

I could see it if you could give your action surge to another person to use.  But you want the fighter to be distinctive, and that’s what makes it distinctive.

I get the arguments that BM can be the warlord, but it really isn’t .  Action economy isn’t in favor of Commanders strike,  the movement one is too situational, and the superiority dice favor using them in other ways.

IMO the fighter chassis is too strong in essence to use as a warlord chassis and then add other stuff on top of it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> As a side note, Mearls decision to base Warlord off the fighter chassis is a mistake IMO.  Action Surge is the iconic fighter talent, as is 3 and then 4 attacks per round and more feats or ABI.
> 
> I could see it if you could give your action surge to another person to use.  But you want the fighter to be distinctive, and that’s what makes it distinctive.
> 
> ...




Its not just you have to convince of that its Mearls. 

 But there is not enough WL fans, you need a lot more people to get on board and push for it. Blind insistence on certain things to replicate the 4E version 100% won't get you far. All the classes got changed from previous editions. What does a wizard do cast spells, a cleric, casts spells, fights, turns undead.

 Rather than looking at exact mechanics peple should look at the concept. What does a warlord do? It heals, support, fights, does tactical things, it inspires. If a 5E version does that you have a warlord it does not have to 100% reflect the 4E version of it and it could even borrow a few things from the 3.5 Marshall (auras or what have you). 

 I suppose players of previous editions stuff are happy with the concepts not the exact implementation I mean I am really cut up I can't play CoDzilla anymore.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 12, 2018)

In another thread they are discussing how at-will attack granting won't work due to the nature of 5e.  It really belongs here, as part of the warlord thread.   It already is in the game with Commanders Strike also, but the action economy doesn't favor it.  However, lets say action economy would favor it, say it only cost a reaction by that party and didn't cost you a bonus action.  Then the problem is in general its a poor trade because your attack is better then most other party members except someone with sneak attack or a smite or some other rider to thrown on.  Its still a poor choice in most cases.

Now lets say though the Warlord gets a similar ability but gets a risk/reward scenario like the old Brash Assault with say a superiority die + Charisma bonus thrown in as a damage rider.  For those that don't remember you attack the enemy and then:

"The target can make a melee basic attack against you as a free action and has combat advantage for the attack. If the target makes this attack, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of the target can make a basic attack against the target as a free action and has combat advantage for the attack."

Now maybe its more usable.  You get your attack in, and then the enemy gets to attack you leaving itself open to an attack from your ally with a rider thrown in.  You are essentially trading your AC and HP for an ally to send in an attack with a big rider like (superiority die + CHR in this case) with advantage.  By getting that advantage + DMG rider now a lot more allies can use it, and you are trading a different resource (HP) to do more damage to the enemy.  It also requires a player to think about when to use it, which is good, you want a Warlord PC to think at the table.

Limiting a Warlord to 2 attacks in total would limit abuse of this also.

Any warlord build needs things like that, and more of them, and if you use superiority dice they need to be ally focused and not yourself focused.   They also need them earlier in the PC, you don't want to be just a worse fighter until you hit higher levels.  That's why it cant be a subclass and wait to 3rd level, any Warlord needs its own class.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Because I feel it would be better served as subclasses.
> 
> Hell, there already are a few that are based around support. Mastermind (which apparently doesn't count because rogues do too much damage), Wolf Totem Barbarian (which doesn't count because it can cast a whole 2 spells), Ancestral Guardian, (which doesn't count because it can cast 1 spell and people can't stand reflavorings) Banneret (which doesn't count because it doesn't give attacks), and Cavelier (which doesn't count because it attacks too much).




Because there isnt enough space in a subclass. The battlemaster is a fighter with a splash of warlord. The eldritch knight is a fighter with a splash of wizard. We need the parent warlord class. If they can waste space on the sorcerer which is basically just fluff and an alternative casting stat, they can add the warlord.  

I don't see why a class needs 8 subclasses though. The barbarian is pretty limited and half its subclasses seem redundant to each other (berserker, battle rager, zealot) in terms of design space.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Pretty sure "Read my mind to understand why I am objecting to your position" doesn't work very well.




It works fantastically well for my wife. But it might be her accompanying stare that really seals it.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 12, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its not just you have to convince of that its Mearls.
> 
> But there is not enough WL fans, you need a lot more people to get on board and push for it. Blind insistence on certain things to replicate the 4E version 100% won't get you far. All the classes got changed from previous editions. What does a wizard do cast spells, a cleric, casts spells, fights, turns undead.
> 
> ...






Warlord should in order

1.  Support
2.  Tactical things
3.  Inspire
4.  Fight
5.  Grant THP

They should not heal unless it a healer feat type affect, otherwise that's another classes prime or second ability.  In no way should a Warlord substitute for healing classes and healing should be done "up front" through THP and not actual healing.  Granting of THP could use the hit dice mechanic in game for healing on a rest but with a rider like INT or CHR.  For example to a barbarian you could grant THP using a d12 + con + your rider on some type of action.  Or do the same with your warlords superiority dice mechanic if that's how it goes with the targets CON and your rider to make it more effective.  Like Rally for BM but with a bigger rider since its more of a core ability.

Inspiration should be attack rolls or damage rolls, same with tactical things, and much more than a Bard.  Bards in play use inspiration dice for saving throws bonuses or turn enemy hits into misses, sometimes for a PC attack roll when a big attack is coming.  Otherwise Bards are about spells.  

Support should/could be about AC bonuses but should mostly be around offensive things, like INT bonuses to hit or CHR bonuses to damage with limited uses along the lines of superiority dice or spell slots as to hit bonuses replicate Bless spells.  Maybe a power like I described for Brash Assault, a personal favorite of mine.  How about a power that grants advantage, for example the Warlord's allies gets to use the flanking rules in the DMG when he/she flanking with an ally; but only the ally gets the benefit.   This could be expanded just to be if the ally and the warlord are in reach of the same target to make it more generally effective.  This would encourage thoughtful positioning also, which is good for team play. 

Whatever they are they should be limited to seeing or hearing (and understanding) the Warlord and should never apply to things like animated objects or animal intelligence summons.  This would also give the Warlord a weakness, silence or fog cloud would be a problem, which is good for the DM.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Lets start a brainstorm for different features that a Warlord Paladin might have. They can be general or specific, or different ways of doing the same thing if there is disagreement about how best to do something. Think of marshal and warlord features, 13Age commander features, warlord features already in bard and fighter, also pacifist paladin, and ways to repurpose standard paladin features in nonmagical ways for a nonmagical character or setting. We can organize and evaluate this list, separately, later. This is just a place to jot down any ideas 

*Warlord Paladin*

*Rallier *(Charisma)
- Coach: dramatic verbal healing of nonphysical hit points, before reaching zero hit points.
- Medic: modest touch healing of physical hit points, with bandages, antiseptic, balm, if at zero hit points.
- Invigorator: temporary hit points, vigor, also as ritual or during rest to prepare for combat.
- Aura: when in vicinity and in heat of battle, is a symbol to inspire courage.
- Intimidator: force hostiles to surrender.

*Tactician* (Intelligence)
- Lead from behind: grant extra attack.
- Lead from the front: buffing for those imitating warlord attack.
- Fight dirty: debuff hostiles.
- Fight dirty: aiming for anatomical weaknesses adds Intelligence to damage.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> *Warlord Paladin*
> 
> *Rallier *
> *Tactician*



 First of all, it's gotta be "Oath of _______"

Second of all, scrubbing that much divine flavor & magic off a class seems a bit much for the 5e paradigm.  

No, neither of those are serious objections.  Carry on.  



ehren37 said:


> I don't see why a class needs 8 subclasses though. The barbarian is pretty limited and half its subclasses seem redundant to each other (berserker, battle rager, zealot) in terms of design space.



 It sounds like another of those criteria that's just pulled out of thin air.  But, the Warlord met it, even within the limited design space of 4e (ie only Martial Leader archetypes need apply).



smbakeresq said:


> As a side note, Mearls decision to base Warlord off the fighter chassis is a mistake IMO.



 It's only a mistake if the intent is to actually have a Warlord at the end of the exercise.  If the intent is to conclude "oh, so sorry, Warlord turns out to be impossible" or to deliver another disappointment containing the word 'warlord' in an apparent typo, like PDK, then it could be a very shrewd choice, indeed.  ;P  







> Action Surge is the iconic fighter talent, as is 3 and then 4 attacks per round and more feats or ABI.
> IMO the fighter chassis is too strong in essence to use as a warlord chassis and then add other stuff on top of it.



Nod.  Even the secondary-support-contribution Paladin doesn't have 'room' (design space/balance) for another Extra Attack (let alone two), nevermind the signature Action Surge.  Primary support necessitates backing off the whole Tank thing.

Even the tankiest warlord - the Bravura - was a lot less tanky than a Fighter or Paladin (in 4e, in 5e tanks are even tankier in terms of offense).


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 12, 2018)

Paladin spell slots offer an amount of design space, that can be repurposed for almost anything, from extra attacks to healing.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> As a side note, Mearls decision to base Warlord off the fighter chassis is a mistake IMO.  Action Surge is the iconic fighter talent, as is 3 and then 4 attacks per round and more feats or ABI.
> 
> I could see it if you could give your action surge to another person to use.  But you want the fighter to be distinctive, and that’s what makes it distinctive.
> 
> ...



I think basing it off the fighter chassis is perfect for the subclass. It's not just a case of best fit for the classes that are currently available in 5e but also because I always felt that the warlord was just a different kind of fighter. I don't agree with the people who claim that the fighter's number or attacks or action surge is too much for the warlord. For me, it all seems to fit really well for a warlord.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 12, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I think basing it off the fighter chassis is perfect for the subclass. It's not just a case of best fit for the classes that are currently available in 5e but also because I always felt that the warlord was just a different kind of fighter. I don't agree with the people who claim that the fighter's number or attacks or action surge is too much for the warlord. For me, it all seems to fit really well for a warlord.



The problem is that a Warlord needs to be able to do powerful stuff. Combined with fighter stuff it gets too good.

Rather than not granting the Warlord his toys, the obvious solution is not to base it on Fighter.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

Looking at DMs Guild, one of the top rated Warlord classes there is a fighter subclass.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 12, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I think basing it off the fighter chassis is perfect for the subclass. It's not just a case of best fit for the classes that are currently available in 5e but also because I always felt that the warlord was just a different kind of fighter. I don't agree with the people who claim that the fighter's number or attacks or action surge is too much for the warlord. For me, it all seems to fit really well for a warlord.



Personally, I like using a Rogue chassis, with the action grant replacing sneak attack progression.  Or just make it strictly a Rogue subclass.  The opportunity cost of giving someone else an attack is a lot heavier when you're forgoing your own sneak attack.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Looking at DMs Guild, one of the top rated Warlord classes there is a fighter subclass.




Good for the person that wrote it. Now can you bow out of the warlord discussion? This isnt for you. You're like a vegetarian constantly telling a steakhouse how not to cook the steak they didnt order and dont want to eat. 

If WOTC can waste space on the sorcerer being its own class, they can use some on the warlord. There isnt enough design space in a subclass. They need to make a class for those that want to play a warlord, not try and appease those that don't want it to exist.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> Good for the person that wrote it. Now can you bow out of the warlord discussion?




No.  WOTC appears to be going in the direction of a fighter subclass for Warlord. You don't appear to like that. So you can make your own homebrew now. But, if anyone should bow out (and I don't think anyone should) it would probably be the guy insisting on something that won't exist.



> This isnt for you.




Why not, because I like something about the Warlord different from what you like? Should everyone who doesn't want exactly what you want vacate the thread now?



> You're like a vegetarian




I am not like one. I *am* one. Since 1989. 



> constantly telling a steakhouse how not to cook the steak they didnt order and dont want to eat.




Nope. I want a Warlord. I just think it works fine as a fighter subclass. You don't. But somehow you think I shouldn't express my opinion because it differs from yours. Maybe write a blog or something, if you don't like contrary opinions about this topic?

Or you could put me on ignore if reading my opinion is so problematic for you. But...I am pretty sure you policing the thread for incorrect opinions is not really your job.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2018)

It's nice you're happy with scraps, but since you could already do that with the tools provided, a new piddly subclass shouldnt even matter to you. So why exactly are you campaigning against the rest of us getting the class we want?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> It's nice you're happy with scraps, but since you could already do that with the tools provided, a new piddly subclass shouldnt even matter to you. So why exactly are you campaigning against the rest of us getting the class we want?




I am not complaining about anything (aside from your inappropriate attack). I am not sure why you thought I was.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I like something about the Warlord different from what you like?



 What do you like about the Warlord?  

(And, for clarity, first, what do you mean by 'the Warlord?'  the 4e Class?  the general concept?  John Carter?  Travis Morgan?  a specific Afghani _Kahn_?

...

Terry Scott Szopinski?)


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> What do you like about the Warlord?
> 
> (And, for clarity, first, what do you mean by 'the Warlord?'  the 4e Class?  the general concept?  John Carter?  Travis Morgan?  a specific Afghani _Kahn_?
> 
> ...




I really liked the 4e class. I don't think it translates great in all respects to 5e but some core features can. I just prefer it as a subclass of one of: Fighter, Paladin, or Bard. I don't really think it brings enough to the table for a full class, for me at least. I can see why others do want a full class, but was trying to work towards outlining a subclass that some meaningful portion of Warlord fans might like.

 [MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION] earlier had asked if there was a 3rd party Warlord people liked, and I mentioned that on DMs Guild there did seem to be one, and it was a Fighter subclass. And that's when Ehren when on the attack, all irked that I wanted something different than he wanted. Which is not the first time he's done that here.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 12, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Lets start a brainstorm for different features that a Warlord Paladin might have.




*cough*



Remathilis said:


> Strip away all the fluff from a paladin, and you get a class that has the following features.
> 
> * martial weapons, all armors and shields
> * d10 HD
> ...




Of course, right now I'd be willing to accept it be elf-only and requiring you to worship a D&D God to get your warlord powers...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I really liked the 4e class.



 What did you like about it?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> What did you like about it?




Much of the same things I like when I play a bard. The support role aspects. The "I make everyone else around me better at what they do" aspects. So, granting attacks, inspiration, and auras pretty much. Minor healing as well.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I really liked the 4e class. I don't think it translates great in all respects to 5e but some core features can. I just prefer it as a subclass of one of: Fighter, Paladin, or Bard. I don't really think it brings enough to the table for a full class, for me at least. I can see why others do want a full class, but was trying to work towards outlining a subclass that some meaningful portion of Warlord fans might like.
> 
> [MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION] earlier had asked if there was a 3rd party Warlord people liked, and I mentioned that on DMs Guild there did seem to be one, and it was a Fighter subclass. And that's when Ehren when on the attack, all irked that I wanted something different than he wanted. Which is not the first time he's done that here.




If you think a fighter subclass has enough, there are already 2: the battlemaster and the purple dragon knight. Bard or Paladin won't work, because if someone was OK with just refluffing spells they'd already be playing those.

But we shouldnt stop pushing for a full class. Which is why its frustrating to see requests for one shouted down. It's like some kid in Oliver piping up "Actually I think we're good with what we have. No more for us please!". If you're satisfied, then great. No need to hold the rest of us back. You're right, we'll probably doomed to getting another half ass subclass and nothing more. But that's not because the design space isnt there, it's because of people being willing to settle and WOTC's fear of 4E haters.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> If you think a fighter subclass has enough, there are already 2: the battlemaster and the purple dragon knight.




Neither do it for me. Or apparently some meaningful number of other people.



> Bard or Paladin won't work, because if someone was OK with just refluffing spells they'd already be playing those.




It's not just fluff though. There are things the Warlord does (in my mind) which neither class can do. Maybe with a subclass they could though.



> But we shouldnt stop pushing for a full class. Which is why its frustrating to see requests for one shouted down.




What the hell is your problem? Serious question. I didn't ask anyone to "stop pushing for a full class". And I didn't "shout down" anything. In fact I wasn't even replying to you to begin with...someone else had asked if there was a third party Warlord that people liked and I mentioned one. I cannot think of a rationale interpretation of my one sentence post which concludes it was an attempt to "shout down" your opinion.



> It's like some kid in Oliver piping up "Actually I think we're good with what we have. No more for us please!". If you're satisfied, then great.




I am not satisfied, I'd like a Warlord subclass from WOTC thankyouverymuch. That would be what this thread was about, if you didn't notice. 



> No need to hold the rest of us back.




Nobody is holding you back. Me expressing my opinion that I think this can work as a subclass is not mutually exclusive with you expressing your opinion that you want it as a full class. I have no idea why my mentioning my preference takes anything away from you mentioning your preference, but it seems bizarre and over the top.  Why are you so bugged I want something different?



> You're right, we'll probably doomed to getting another half ass subclass and nothing more. But that's not because the design space isnt there, it's because of people being willing to settle and WOTC's fear of 4E haters.




I actually WANT it as a subclass...not "settling" it's my actual desire. And I certainly am not a 4e hater! I was the guy who probably took some of the most heat for promoting 4e. I made an infamous prediction about how it was going to crush the competition and everyone was going to change over and Paizo was doomed. And now I am a "4e hater" because I want something as a subclass instead of a full class?

Maybe take the outrage down a notch?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Much of the same things I like when I play a bard. The support role aspects. The "I make everyone else around me better at what they do" aspects. So, granting attacks, inspiration, and auras pretty much. Minor healing as well.



 So, when you played a 4e Warlord (and it's not a requirement, but feel free to wax eloquent about a specific one if you like), how often did you get to do stuff like that?  Would you say it was closer to once every-other combat, every combat, or every round?  Did it kick in at 1st level or take a while to get going?

And how often do you get to do that sort of thing when you play a 5e bard?   Does it kick in at 1st level?  Does it continue to build substantially as you level up?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, when you played a 4e Warlord (and it's not a requirement, but feel free to wax eloquent about a specific one if you like), how often did you get to do stuff like that?  Would you say it was closer to once every-other combat, every combat, or every round?  Did it kick in at 1st level or take a while to get going?
> 
> And how often do you get to do that sort of thing when you play a 5e bard?   Does it kick in at 1st level?  Does it continue to build substantially as you level up?




I can't honestly remember that level of detail from when I played a 4e Warlord. It was too long ago, and too many characters ago. Though you do have me curious to try and dig up my old PC sheet.

For Bard I can say I did it almost every combat on some level. I had picked up Bless and Guidance as well, and was physically handing a die to someone almost every combat for them to roll. A d4 for Bless or Guidance, a d6 for Bardic Inspiration, a d6 for Song of Rest, a d20 for the Help action or for transferring my Inspiration die to them, etc..

I don't need it that often for Warlord, but I do think they should be able to meaningfully boost those around them twice per short rest in some manner (or so).


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I can't honestly remember that level of detail from when I played a 4e Warlord. It was too long ago, and too many characters ago. Though you do have me curious to try and dig up my old PC sheet.
> 
> For Bard I can say I did it almost every combat on some level. I had picked up Bless and Guidance as well, and was physically handing a die to someone almost every combat for them to roll. A d4 for Bless or Guidance, a d6 for Bardic Inspiration, a d6 for Song of Rest, a d20 for the Help action or for transferring my Inspiration die to them, etc..
> 
> I don't need it that often for Warlord, but I do think they should be able to meaningfully boost those around them twice per short rest in some manner (or so).



This is completely aside from this conversation, but speaking of finding old PC sheets, I found one for an old 4e dwarf invoker. On it, it had the "falling dwarf" maneuver, not as a power but as a note. What exactly happened to me that I decided to note that down.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I can't honestly remember that level of detail from when I played a 4e Warlord. It was too long ago, and too many characters ago. Though you do have me curious to try and dig up my old PC sheet.



 IMX, it varied a bit with build.  I've played Tactical (not technically 'lazy,' mind you) Warlords who rarely ever let a round go by without at least shifting someone with Wolf Pack Tactics.  I've played a Bravura (last night, in fact, kinda a coincidence given how rarely everyone in that group can show up, probably less than 1/month), who often makes basic attacks on his turn, because so many of his best tricks are off-turn, and because, at our current level, monsters' OAs hit too easily and too hard for Brash Assault to be remotely worth it. Quite a bit in between.  But certainly, no combat goes by where they're not leadery - and a completely non-leadery round that didn't involved being dazed, stunned, or otherwise out of the fight almost completely tends to be rare.

Even at first, every encounter, you have two inspiring words, an encounter exploit, and your at-wills, both of which likely do a little something.



> For Bard I can say I did it almost every combat on some level. I had picked up Bless and Guidance as well, and was physically handing a die to someone almost every combat for them to roll. A d4 for Bless or Guidance, a d6 for Bardic Inspiration, a d6 for Song of Rest, a d20 for the Help action or for transferring my Inspiration die to them, etc..



 Sounds good... 

...how did you find the Bard's level of flexibility?  We're some of your other spells offensive, defensive (self), utility, or 'control' in any sense, or did you stick to the support stuff?  Or did you just not play to a level where you had many spells known?



> I don't need it that often for Warlord.



 Interesting.  Why not?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 13, 2018)

TiwazTyrsfist said:


> I would play the heck out of that...




Me too. Some people think that is what 4e was, which is obvious rubbish


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> IMX, it varied a bit with build.  I've played Tactical (not technically 'lazy,' mind you) Warlords who rarely ever let a round go by without at least shifting someone with Wolf Pack Tactics.  I've played a Bravura (last night, in fact, kinda a coincidence given how rarely everyone in that group can show up, probably less than 1/month), who often makes basic attacks on his turn, because so many of his best tricks are off-turn, and because, at our current level, monsters' OAs hit too easily and too hard for Brash Assault to be remotely worth it. Quite a bit in between.  But certainly, no combat goes by where they're not leadery - and a completely non-leadery round that didn't involved being dazed, stunned, or otherwise out of the fight almost completely tends to be rare.
> 
> Even at first, every encounter, you have two inspiring words, an encounter exploit, and your at-wills, both of which likely do a little something.
> 
> ...






Brash Assault required a choice by the player, which is good.  I used it all the time with Menacing Brute which gave another ally advantage until EONT, which means the team could send it in against the enemy, but I get your point.


If ported over to 5e, I would use it in the right situation, which is what a Warlord should do.

What I liked about the Warlord was you always had a choice of something to do, something that generally encouraged team play.  That choice of what when where and how was important and sometimes changed the whole combat around.  It was like playing chess when others where playing checkers.

Other martial classes had better high points, Barbarians just blowing away someone right away, polearm fighters just sucking up huge amounts of space and enemies, etc.  But those classes were more "on their own" as opposed to "ok team, lets go!"


As far as using the fighter chassis, IMO only champion fighters should get 4 and maybe even 3 attack per round.  BM have their dice, giving them one more each time but never getting to 3 or even 4 attacks per round is enough.  Eldritch Knight gets spells.  By giving only Champion fighter more than 2 attacks per round they become very unique and buffs the Champion a little.  

The basic problem and subject of another thread is that the fighter chassis is fine  but the champion is underwhelming compared to the other options for fighter subclasses.  The other fighter subclasses though are very good because you get the whole fighter chassis with good riders all over since the fighter chassis is front loaded.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Brash Assault required a choice by the player, which is good.  I used it all the time with Menacing Brute which gave another ally advantage until EONT, which means the team could send it in against the enemy, but I get your point.
> 
> 
> If ported over to 5e, I would use it in the right situation, which is what a Warlord should do.
> ...




I would rate the champion as consistent, battlemaster front loaded and the EK switching on to late.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 13, 2018)

Part two is tomorrow and it may get interesting. Here is what Mike just posted on Twitter:

"Turns out this flight was exactly what I needed to crack the warlord. It’ll be fun to talk about tomorrow on the Happy Fun Hour."


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2018)

The warlord I played in 4e, as I recall, was doing something "tactical" pretty much every round.  Either moving an ally with wolf pack tactics, granting attacks a la Hammer and Anvil or various other goodies.  So, to me, that's primary of what a warlord should be doing - if we want a class that just buffs and heals, well, we already have the bard for that.  Action granting, to me, is what sets warlords apart.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 13, 2018)

ehren37 said:


> If you think a fighter subclass has enough, there are already 2: the battlemaster and the purple dragon knight. Bard or Paladin won't work, because if someone was OK with just refluffing spells they'd already be playing those.
> 
> But we shouldnt stop pushing for a full class. Which is why its frustrating to see requests for one shouted down. It's like some kid in Oliver piping up "Actually I think we're good with what we have. No more for us please!". If you're satisfied, then great. No need to hold the rest of us back. You're right, we'll probably doomed to getting another half ass subclass and nothing more. But that's not because the design space isnt there, it's because of people being willing to settle and WOTC's fear of 4E haters.




Being against class bloat does not mean that you are against the warlord.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 13, 2018)

Hussar said:


> The warlord I played in 4e, as I recall, was doing something "tactical" pretty much every round.  Either moving an ally with wolf pack tactics, granting attacks a la Hammer and Anvil or various other goodies.  So, to me, that's primary of what a warlord should be doing - if we want a class that just buffs and heals, well, we already have the bard for that.  Action granting, to me, is what sets warlords apart.





I believe the  "problem" with the Warlord concept is it should have never been giving healing powers as that steps all over the cleric prime ability.  If the warlord gives out THP that's a different story and more appropriate to the theme and concept.  

Likewise, the Warlords should be a support and buffing class, but combat focused much more than Bard, which is the best at the social pillar support and also supports the healing, recovery, magical and skill based things while chipping in for direct combat.


The niche that Warlord can fill is the combat buffing role through granting damage bonuses, to hit bonuses, initiative and movement bonuses and granting THP, which models being "inspired."  In combat right now there party wide and group wide to hit bonuses through bless spells and damage bonuses through the Mantle spells, the Warlord can replicate those in a more focused but bigger way through a secondary stat + proficiency bonus to one attack.  I could see using the flanking rules in the DMG as a Warlord class feature, ADV + rider to damage would be good benefit. THP is done through Inspiring leader and a few other things, something like that can be replicated.  Granting reaction based attacks and moves is already there also in BM moves and other things also.  Putting them into one thematic package is what is needed and wanted.  

Doing the above and basing it off CHR ("Follow me to victory!!!!") or INT ("Listen close, here is how we win") is the 2 packages to go, with STR or DEX as a main or co-main stat would work best, you are a combatant after all. Make the range of all powers to be must see or hear and understand the Warlord as a limiting factor, this increases the value of communication within the party and staying together (and makes Rary's telepathic bond a great ritual.)


----------



## mellored (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I believe the  "problem" with the Warlord concept is it should have never been giving healing powers as that steps all over the cleric prime ability.  If the warlord gives out THP that's a different story and more appropriate to the theme and concept.



The 4e warlord didn't step over the cleric.
It's healing was only ever healing surges (hit die) + bonus.  Where a cleric got flat healing.

Specifically, it was.

Inspiring Word
Minor action
Burst 5  (Burst 10 at level 11, and burst 15 at level 21)
The target can spend a healing surge. If the target does so, he or she regains 1d6 additional hit points.
Level 6: 2d6 additional hit points
Level 11: 3d6 additional hit points
....
You can use this power twice per encounter.  But only once per round"


So adjusting to 5e's numbers, style, and hit dice, you would get...


Inspiring word:
As a bonus action, you can let an ally with 20' spend a hit die. If the target does so, they regain an extra 1d4 hit points.  You can use this feature twice per short rest.
At level 5, they can spend 2 hit dice and gain a 2d4 bonus.  The range increases to 30'.
At level 11, they can spend 3 hit dice and gain a 3d4 bonus.  You can use this power 3 times per short rest.
At level 17, they can spend 4 hit dice and gain a 4d4 bonus.  The range increases to 40''


Inspiring Warlord sub-class.
...
Level 6: When you use Inspiring word, you can add your Charisma modifier to the amount healed.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I believe the  "problem" with the Warlord concept is it should have never been giving healing powers as that steps all over the cleric prime ability.



 Nonsense.  Druids & Paladins have been healing since 0e, Rangers since 1e, Bards since 2e, they could all use WCL in 3e, and they all heal in 5e.

The Band-Aid Cleric's niche-protection stayed functional right through the TSR era, because the others just couldn't keep up with the healing needs of a party the way a cleric could, particularly at lower levels (only the cleric & paladin could heal at 1st level, and the paladin just a few points, while a cleric with good WIS could cast CLW three times).  Since 3.0, the cleric has been marginally better at healing, but there have been many alternatives that could shoulder that burden in its stead, should no one wish to play the Cleric (or, in 3.x, if the Cleric insisted on going all CoDzilla on the campaign).


----------



## GreenTengu (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I believe the  "problem" with the Warlord concept is it should have never been giving healing powers as that steps all over the cleric prime ability.  If the warlord gives out THP that's a different story and more appropriate to the theme and concept.




Anyone who played a video game can tell you that the holy trinity is tank, healer, and damage. If the Cleric is literally the only actually effective healer in the game, it is an absolutely essential class for every single party. The whole point of the Warlord was to make the Cleric non-essential, or in 5E, allow Clerics to spec as anything but a healer without screwing over the party.

The tank, or defender, was a concept built around damage prevention and target redirections. If the Warlord did that, it would just be identical to the fighter. There are also dozens of situations, situations which are encountered frequently, in which damage absolutely cannot be avoided and no amount of buffing damage will make up for or prevent those situations. 

Also, any number of monster abilities can render a PC inoperative in a single action and if there is only one class in the game that can reverse or prevent that-- then the party absolutely MUST have that class and any other class invented that is supposed to be an alternative but has absolutely no way of reversing these effects or restoring HP may as well not exist. It isn't an alternative at all-- it is simply and flatly a trap for inexperienced players who don't know better.

So whether you like it or not, whatever the Warlord does, it must be able to be a support class option that can do all of the essential support options that a Cleric or Bard can do. Of course, it doesn't need to have the turn undead ability or offensive spell-casting abilities of the cleric nor the illusion magic or superior skills of the Bard.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 13, 2018)

mellored said:


> The 4e warlord didn't step over the cleric.
> It's healing was only ever healing surges (hit die) + bonus.  Where a cleric got flat healing.
> 
> Specifically, it was.
> ...






My point is they shouldn't be allowed to heal like that all.  While they were not as GOOD as clerics, they were an effective substitute.  In all the 4e groups I played in I saw a Warlord every time, only a few had a cleric at all, and all were pacifist healers except mine.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> My point is they shouldn't be allowed to heal like that all.  While they were not as GOOD as clerics, they were an effective substitute.  In all the 4e groups I played in I saw a Warlord every time, only a few had a cleric at all, and all were pacifist healers except mine.




No bards, ardents or shamans? 

Your table must've really liked what the warlord brought.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Nonsense.  Druids & Paladins have been healing since 0e, Rangers since 1e, Bards since 2e, they could all use WCL in 3e, and they all heal in 5e.
> 
> The Band-Aid Cleric's niche-protection stayed functional right through the TSR era, because the others just couldn't keep up with the healing needs of a party the way a cleric could, particularly at lower levels (only the cleric & paladin could heal at 1st level, and the paladin just a few points, while a cleric with good WIS could cast CLW three times).  Since 3.0, the cleric has been marginally better at healing, but there have been many alternatives that could shoulder that burden in its stead, should no one wish to play the Cleric (or, in 3.x, if the Cleric insisted on going all CoDzilla on the campaign).




That's my idea, is that no class should be as good a healer as the cleric options.  None, its should be their thing.  


Using Mellored and the 4e Warlord quote above, if all those where THP that would be much better IMO.  THP are not as good as real healing but are able to be used proactively, which goes more with the Warlord theme of preventing damage by making the party more effective.  Just like Inspiring leader feat which I mentioned many times and is a great feat.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 13, 2018)

TheHobgoblin said:


> Anyone who played a video game can tell you that the holy trinity is tank, healer, and damage. If the Cleric is literally the only actually effective healer in the game, it is an absolutely essential class for every single party. The whole point of the Warlord was to make the Cleric non-essential, or in 5E, allow Clerics to spec as anything but a healer without screwing over the party.
> 
> The tank, or defender, was a concept built around damage prevention and target redirections. If the Warlord did that, it would just be identical to the fighter. There are also dozens of situations, situations which are encountered frequently, in which damage absolutely cannot be avoided and no amount of buffing damage will make up for or prevent those situations.
> 
> ...





You don't need to play a video game for that, its been around in D&D way before video games were a thing.  Video games took the idea from D&D and its ilk.

Otherwise you are along the right path.  It should never be a replacement for a dedicated cleric.  Bards are the 5th wheel type class that can cover for another class partially, Warlords should be along that rail but with a more (much more) martial bent.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 13, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> No bards, ardents or shamans?
> 
> Your table must've really liked what the warlord brought.






Older group that has been playing D&D since basic.  Bards yes, but ardents and shamans no, they just didn't hook anyone.  The pacifist cleric we had was a pacifist cleric of Asmodeus who healed you on the theory if you stayed alive long enough eventually you would be corrupted, its was just a matter of time.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> That's my idea, is that no class should be as good a healer as the cleric options.  None, its should be their thing.



 In 5e, the cleric optimized for healing presumably still edges out the Bard/Druid/Pally similarly optimized, sure.  But not by such a margin that the standard-issue versions can't stand in for eachother.  

Rather like how the Fighter is meant to have the 'best at fighting' (with weapons, before magic) crown, but having Barbarians & Paladins in your party instead of fighters (and a Warlock instead of an Archer) will hardly cause you to lose every combat, or even any combat you wouldn't have lost with the fighters just as badly.



smbakeresq said:


> It should never be a replacement for a dedicated cleric.  Bards are the 5th wheel type class that can cover for another class partially,



 Bards _were_ that, in 3.x and earlier.  Bards in 4e were full-function 'leaders' and Bards in 5e didn't back off from that at all, but, like the Cleric & Druid, were significantly powered up.  They can stand in well enough for Cleric as a party's sole support-contributor - the party may have an easier time in social challenges, and a harder time taking on undead, but it's not like going bard instead of cleric when you have no one else to fall back on for support would be suicide.  (I know, it's not like the Empowered DM can't block even the most determined suicide attempts, either.)


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Nonsense.  Druids & Paladins have been healing since 0e, Rangers since 1e, Bards since 2e, they could all use WCL in 3e, and they all heal in 5e.
> 
> The Band-Aid Cleric's niche-protection stayed functional right through the TSR era, because the others just couldn't keep up with the healing needs of a party the way a cleric could, particularly at lower levels (only the cleric & paladin could heal at 1st level, and the paladin just a few points, while a cleric with good WIS could cast CLW three times).  Since 3.0, the cleric has been marginally better at healing, but there have been many alternatives that could shoulder that burden in its stead, should no one wish to play the Cleric (or, in 3.x, if the Cleric insisted on going all CoDzilla on the campaign).



Bards from 1e (I assume that access to druid spells meant access to healing), skipping 2e, and then back to healing from 3e onwards.

I don't know how much the warlord needs to heal, its inspiring word was there because it was a member of the leader role and they all pretty much had their own version of healing word. I think it should have some healing, not sure it needs as much as the cleric. As is, we'll see how much Mike Mearls puts in. He did say that he wanted the subclass to have healing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 13, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Bards from 1e (I assume that access to druid spells meant access to healing)



 At 2nd level spells, which the 1e Ranger and Bard didn't get until relatively high level.



> I don't know how much the warlord needs to heal, its inspiring word was there because it was a member of the leader role



 Since 4e, everyone has been able to self heal pretty fast (in 4e everyone had second wind), so it's established that you don't need magic to heal, even instantly, even in 5e (fighters still have 2nd wind, PDKs do instant, non-magical, healing). So there's no reason to take healing away from Warlords.  Similarly, healing remains critical to support an adventuring party, so every reason to keep it.

Rather, in 5e, support has expanded and gotten less formal, and support characters uniformly gained in versatility and power that, in 4e, would have trampled on other roles.



> . I think it should have some healing, not sure it needs as much as the cleric. As is, we'll see how much Mike Mearls puts in. He did say that he wanted the subclass to have healing.



 He's using the EK as a template, so likely less healing than the ranger.  (1/3rd caster vs 1/2)


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 13, 2018)

Was anyone watching the stream or do we need to wait for youtube


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 13, 2018)

I just finished watching it.  Very interesting.

Here's the link to the twitch replay: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/238420670

Anyway, it felt like he was pulling ideas from my initial idea writeup on page 4, but he took it in slightly different directions.  He seemed to take more inspiration from Final Fantasy Tactics (which is certainly a good source).  I can write up a summary for continued discussion.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 13, 2018)

Three general categories of utility/power:

*Inspiring/Insightful Heal*
Can heal or boost damage
Overhealing becomes temporary hit points
Does not do condition removal (eg: no Lesser Restoration equivalent)
Spread dice across tactical focus (see notes on dice)
Applies only to area of Tactical Focus

*Tactical Smarts*
Add your Int bonus to weapon damage rolls

*Cunning Plan*
Tactical Focus (TF) – Choose four 5'x5' squares that you can see within 100'.  Each must share a side with one other.  That set of squares is your tactical focus.  You can change this area once per turn. (method not specified) Grows with level.

Allies must be able to hear you to gain specified benefits.

Cantrip-like abilities
Use these as part of an attack action (don't want to use bonus action, doesn't want to interfere with two-weapon fighting).  Only one active at a time?

Enemies can't make opportunity attacks (OA) allies moving out of the Tactical Focus area. 
Hitting an enemy in the TF area can be moved 5'. (no saving throw) 
Ambush: As a reaction (by the Warlord) when an enemy enters a TF square, you/allies may move half your speed. Does not use allies' reaction. 
As part of move, can swap positions in TF area using 10' of movement. 

Spell-like abilities
Once per battle, lasts for one round.  Maybe reactions?

Get Down! – Characters can move out of an AOE. (exact distance you can move not specified; not guaranteed that you can leave AOE area) 
Call Down Death – Bonus on damage against targets in TF area. 
Control effects: Force movement, charm someone, etc. 
Spot Weakness: Drop AC, or give accuracy 
Negate Cover (not full cover) 
Defensive Formation: Allies gain AC bonus while in TF area. 

~~~

As far as dice, he converted the spell pool of the Eldritch Knight into an abstract pool of dice that could be used per long rest, to 'fuel' powers.  Most likely going to be mainly directed at the healing/damage section.  The exact usage is not defined, but the table should give a guide to how much can be pushed into that ability.


LevelUsesDice322d10432d10532d10632d10753d10853d10953d101063d101163d101263d101365d101465d101565d101665d101765d101865d101967d102067d10


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

The cleric is inappropriate for some settings, and inappropriate for some players.

Healing is a fundamental aspect of the D&D game.

I strongly oppose any cleric monopoly over healing.

There should be as many classes that heal, as there are classes that deal damage.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

I support classes that heal: Bard, Druid, Paladin, Cleric, and Warlord.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

I would be happy to see healing spells in the abjuration school of wizardry.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 13, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I would be happy to see healing spells in the abjuration school of wizardry.




Healing spells are generally necromantic or conjuration (positive energy). I suppose you could make an argument for alteration.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> *Tactical Focus* (TF) – Choose four 5'x5' squares that you can see within 100'.  Each must share a side with one other.  That set of squares is your tactical focus.  You can change this area once per turn. (method not specified)




Many 4e fans want more grid tactics. Tactical Focus as any four contiguous ‘squares’ grants this.

For myself, I mainly use mind style (theater of the mind). So I am trying to translate these squares into a more realistically vivid description.

So far, the tactical focus seems something like the melee range of one character (≈ 1 to 3 meters from a character), or alternatively a throwing range in a line from one character (≈ 10 meters).

In game, I go by these distances: ‘hit’, ‘reach’, ‘throw’ (nearby, close), and ‘shoot’ (far away, distant).

If measurements matter, I hand waive these ranges as 1m, 3m, 10m, and 30m, respectively. 1 meter ≈ 1 yard.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Healing spells are generally necromantic or conjuration (positive energy). I suppose you could make an argument for alteration.




I realize there is a fad to associate healing with ‘necromancy’, namely death magic.

But in my view, the negative energy of death magic, is literally the opposite of the positive energy of life magic. One literally has nothing to do with the other.

So, negative energy can animate an undead corpse, but cannot imbue real life.

Thus, in my own game, resurrection, healing, and restoration use positive energy. I organize spells by themes (more like domains), so healing positivity is a subset of life magic, which includes plants and animals, organic shapeshifting, and psychometabolism.

If wanting to see healing magic for the official wizard, then healing belongs in the official school of abjuration, because it is literally protective, restorative magic.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 13, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I realize there is a fad to associate healing with ‘necromancy’, namely death magic.
> 
> But in my view, the negative energy of death magic, is literally the opposite of the positive energy of life magic. One literally has nothing to do with the other.
> 
> ...



I don't think it is a fad, it's just how these spells were organised in the past via the 8 schools of magic. Healing effects in past editions were:
2e: necromantic 
3e: conjuration [creation]
4e: just healing?
5e: evocation (I think)

Like you, I do kind of like associating them with the positive/negative energy planes (in the world I'm brewing these would be the greater planes of Life and Death) so cure wounds is positive energy and inflict wounds is negative energy.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

Ah. I didnt realize there was a 2e precedence for organizing healing into necromancy. But necro makes less sense to me.

I probably agree most with 4e, that healing is its own distinctive kind of magic, but see it as part of life generally.

It makes sense to me, the Druid accesses healing magic, precisely because of specialization with life magic.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

Relatedly, I spin the cosmology as follows.

Ethereal Plane + Positive Energy = Feywild
Ethereal Plane + Negative Energy = Shadowfell

Thus fey magic, especially where it associates with living plants and animals, inherently accesses healing magic.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 13, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Ah. I didnt realize there was a 2e precedence for organizing healing into necromancy. But necro makes less sense to me.
> 
> I probably agree most with 4e, that healing is its own distinctive kind of magic, but see it as part of life generally.
> 
> It makes sense to me, the Druid accesses healing magic, precisely because of specialization with life magic.




2E Necromancy did not automatically equal death magic they even explained it back then. Things like clone for example were also necromantic. Necromantic magic was life, death and doing things with the flesh and spirit that were not altering it (which were transmutation). Necromancy magic could be used to preserve corpses/clones etc and necromancers did not have to be automatically evil. Mending wounds basically fit into the fixing the flesh side of necromancy. Resurrection and raise dead were necromantic effects along with regeneration. 

 I think 3E tied negative energy to being evil. Positive nergy did not exist as stongly in AD&D they had the energy planes of course but it was not so baked in.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

Negative energy can be used in ethically good ways.

I just see it as radically different from positive energy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 13, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Ah. I didnt realize there was a 2e precedence for organizing healing into necromancy. But necro makes less sense to me.



  In 1e all healing spells were Necromantic - and reversible, that may have had something to do with it.  Healing was positive energy, reversed healing negative.  Good clerics tended to heal, evil to reverse it, and, IIRC, there was an obscure rule that you couldn't memorize both at the same time (or it could have been an obscure mis-reading some DM used when I was young & impressionable).  



Yaarel said:


> Many 4e fans want more grid tactics.
> For myself, I mainly use mind style (theater of the mind). So I am trying to translate these squares into a more realistically vivid description.



 Meh.  4e's use of squares (cubes, really) was nice enough for tactics, but mostly I liked it because it was much simpler to track everything, map or not.  It was simpler to count whole squares than diagonals, easier to visualize how cubic areas aligned with eachother than circular/conical/fans/spreads/etc doing so (either because you're not using a map, or because you're using a 2d map for a 3D combat, which I tended to do a lot).

Plotting a circle (like a fireball) to a grid is such a PitA that for 3.x we'd use wire templates to do it.  In 4e, they're just all cubes.  Simple.
Back in the day, I remember plotting areas and deciding if characters near the edge took fool effect or 1/2;save:none or a save bonus or something else...



> Tactical Focus as any four contiguous ‘squares’ grants this.



 Not so sure it does, honestly.  Simply nominating an ally or enemy (/or/ terrain feature or item of importance) could have worked fine, not caused odd effects, and worked more seamlessly with TotM.

By odd effects, I mean you decide you want the party to protect a certain NPC, you stick that NPC in your tactical focus, the DM has him wander out of it, directly thereafter... 



Kinematics said:


> Three general categories of utility/power:
> 
> *Inspiring/Insightful Heal*
> Can heal or boost damage



 MDD's were a dice-based damage boost in the playtest, sounds like the idea may not be entirely dead.  



> As far as dice, he converted the spell pool of the Eldritch Knight into an abstract pool of dice that could be used per long rest, to 'fuel' powers.




5e has become unnecessarily complicated in how it handles a number of somewhat similar things - bless/guidance, inspiration, bardic inspiration, CS dice, Aid, advantage, help, HD, re-rolls, etc...

I feel like they could have consolidated a number of 'expendable-dice' mechanics into one unified sub-system that could have been readily adapted to different applications, keeping the game simpler.  Too late now, obviously.  5.5,maybe?  



> Overhealing becomes temporary hit points



 That one's been tossed out many times over the years, and it's potentially pretty impactful.  Surprised he went with it.



> Does not do condition removal (eg: no Lesser Restoration equivalent)



 Bad idea, but this, by definition, is just a gimped 1/3rd-caster-equivalent, just getting a few abilities tacked onto the fighter's primary/overriding tank functions.




> *Tactical Smarts*
> Add your Int bonus to weapon damage rolls



 On top of STR/DEX or instead of it?  Neither's good, mind you...   'On top of' just doubles-down on the fighter's already serious DPR, 'instead of' is essentially, of use if your INT is higher than your STR/DEX, but, this is still a fighter, with Extra Attack, and gambits seem to key off attacking a lot, so you'd be really hurting yourself as far as landing anything goes in order to benefit from it.  

If it was hit, but not damage rolls, that might be workable, but just, in general, a warlord design should not be worrying overmuch about its own sustained DPR.



> *Cunning Plan*
> Tactical Focus (TF) – Choose four 5'x5' squares that you can see within 100'.  Each must share a side with one other.  That set of squares is your tactical focus.  You can change this area once per turn. (method not specified)



 Mildly bizarre given 5e's fetishization of TotM.  It's not like it'd be at all hard or TotM-incompatible, to move allies around /relative/ to eachother & enemies.  Also, I think the word 'contiguous' could have helped, there, it sounds like a 4e 'Wall 4'

Of course, 5e's love affair with TotM has not exactly delivered a lot of actual support for TotM, anyway.  :shrug:  



> Cantrip-like abilities
> Use these as part of an attack action (don't want to use bonus action, doesn't want to interfere with two-weapon fighting).  Only one active at a time?
> 
> Enemies can't make opportunity attacks (OA) allies moving out of the Tactical Focus area.
> ...



 Strangely complicated, almost as if being complicated were the point... ("Oh, you want a complex fighter?"  No, we want a fighter with meaningful options & significant agency, we'll put up with the complexity if we have to.  "So, you want complexity, then, OK!")... Ambush doesn't sound like an 'at will,' exactly, but that could just be how it sounds... 'converge on the tactical area,' I guess, is what it's getting at.



> Spell-like abilities
> Once per battle,



 Pleasant surprise, that.  Per encounter (ie, between rolling initiative and dropping out of initiative order) makes a lot more sense for gambits than recharging on a rest.  Pull one trick in one fight, probably won't be able to pull it again right away.  "fool me once..."



> Get Down! – Characters can move out of an AOE. (exact distance you can move not specified; not guaranteed that you can leave AOE area)
> Call Down Death – Bonus on damage against targets in TF area.
> Control effects: Force movement, charm someone, etc.
> Spot Weakness: Drop AC, or give accuracy
> ...



 Reasonable enough as a brainstorming list, I guess.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

Still, abjuration is a miscellaneous assortment of different kinds of magic. The only thing these spells have in common is, they are all protective and restorative.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 13, 2018)

The tactical focus idea is terrible IMO.  First off he is thinking in 2 dimensions.  Second, you are a Warlord, you don't focus on areas, you focus on leading people.

Saying the BM can already grant attacks is true, however the ability is terrible due to action economy.  Maybe other people use it, but I haven't seen it. 

After hearing these podcasts and seeing some of the spells in Xanathars I wonder if they actually playtest the games in the office or even bother to check in on the community.  The ideas presented here by posters are better than what came out.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The tactical focus idea is terrible IMO.  First off he is thinking in 2 dimensions.  Second, you are a Warlord, you don't focus on areas, you focus on leading people.
> 
> Saying the BM can already grant attacks is true, however the ability is terrible due to action economy.  Maybe other people use it, but I haven't seen it.
> 
> After hearing these podcasts and seeing some of the spells in Xanathars I wonder if they actually playtest the games in the office or even bother to check in on the community.  The ideas presented here by posters are better than what came out.




Granting attacks is very good as the BM, as long as you have another heavy hitter or a Rogue. One of my PCs had a dex based melee character and the granting attack thing was a bit better since he did not go for the great weapon thing. Its also really good when you have a ranged encounter and an archer in the party and you're a strength based duelist style with a shield for example or if the Rogue switches to ranged attacks and qualifies for sneak attacks. 

 Alot of 5E players espicially younger ones that I have seen do not get hte co-operative aspects of 5E much. They want to be the ones dealing the uber damage not helping someone else do it (and some of them expect someone else to heal them as well).


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The tactical focus idea is terrible IMO.  First off he is thinking in 2 dimensions.  Second, you are a Warlord, you don't focus on areas, you focus on leading people.




I like the focus on a particular fight. But you are right, it needs to emphasize the people, not the vacant space. And must be 3-dimensional, to function while flying, or swimming − nevermind jumping down from a balcony or a tree or dropping in on a rope in an ambush, or fighting against the surface of a cliff. In other words, *tactics*.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The cleric is inappropriate for some settings, and inappropriate for some players.
> 
> Healing is a fundamental aspect of the D&D game.
> 
> ...




Are you not the guy who wants D&D to not really support deities though? I mean, I get that, but it's also never ever going to be a mainstream well-supported option.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Are you not the guy who wants D&D to not really support deities though? I mean, I get that, but it's also never ever going to be a mainstream well-supported option.




Heh, I wish I could give you ½ an xp!


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 13, 2018)

General review---

As a carry-over from the Acrobat video, we need to keep in mind action economy conflicts.  Avoid bonus action abilities, as those conflict with two-weapon fighting. Reactions are generally OK.  Most features will probably fit in the main attack action, though, and most likely in conjunction with an attack, rather than a replacement for it. This isn't taking away the Warlord's ability to contribute to the combat.  By the same token, this isn't the lazylord, nor is it trying to cater to those that want that.

Mike did not make anything concentration-based, despite the earlier brainstorming.  It's entirely possible to make the Tactical Focus area have a concentration requirement, and then just allow the Warlord to change the area it covers each turn.  Several concentration effect spells (eg: Alter Self) allow you to modify them as a bonus action each turn, but since we don't want to be in constant conflict with the bonus action, it's likely just going to be "something you can do".  Maybe use that free object interaction action slot for it, if they feel they absolutely _have_ to assign it to an action slot.

On the other hand, since he's clearly allowing the Warlord to get fully invested in combat (not having to sacrifice actions for the subclass's benefits), concentration may itself be too much of a penalty, since presumably the Warlord will be taking hits as well.  So dropping concentration entirely may be fine.

* This contrasts to my original idea of specifying a "key battlefield area" in that mine was more leaning towards a larger size, but would be unable to move. And since it was concentration-based, and exchanged the Warlord's own resources to give advantage to other party members, it encouraged the Warlord to avoid combat.

Being able to move the area freely each turn allows you to react to changes in the battlefield, and not need to be a "master strategist" to figure out how to define where the major conflict would arise.  It also allows for more minor effects (the cantrip-level effects) that allow you to shift and shape the battle on the fly, and feel like you're actively contributing.

Mike's design has more _options_ in its setup.  Rather than the cruder ideas of sacrificing an action or reaction in order to grant another player the ability to move or attack or whatever, he creates an area where any ally can gain those benefits _if they choose to use them_.  That removes some of the problem with "The Warlord tells you what to do!"  It's giving other players _opportunities_ rather than _commands_.

By tying the benefits to the Tactical Focus area, while also limiting its size, you can make things happen in the area of the battle that actually _needs_ that focus.  You can let the Wizard slip out of that ambush without taking opportunity attacks, or set up an ambush of your own when an enemy enters your TF area.  Maybe swap positions so that when the enemy thought they had the Wizard trapped, the Paladin suddenly takes his place.


Anyway, the cantrip-level abilities are things that will be running all the time.  The spell-level abilities are major effects, able to affect things that could potentially swing the battle.  They're only once per battle, but realistically you should only really need one in any given battle, given the average battle length.  Yelling a warning to let people dodge out of the way of a big AOE is _always_ going to be useful (*grumble*Fireball*grumble*Cone of Cold*grumble).  Preventing a few dozen HP of damage for a bunch of the party members is easily better than having to worry about healing that much damage.  Getting everyone focused on the big target in your TF area may let you beat the big bad before it can do the next nasty trick it had up its sleeve.  'Charming' someone in the middle of battle can disrupt the enemy's battle plan.  And so forth.

As laid out in the notes, these things would likely be reaction-based.  Use them when the right opportunity shows up.  Take out the enemy archers.  Dodge the Fireball. Beat down the demon.  They are about recognizing what's most useful for the party, at the time the party most needs it.  And that absolutely fits the _feel_ of what the character class represents.  You aren't just moving dice and numbers around, you're _playing_ the Warlord.


The Tactical Smarts aspect is relatively minor.  Being a 'smart' fighter, it adds Int mod as a bonus to damage, representing recognizing weaknesses in the opponent's defense, or maybe recognizing the opponent's fighting style, and knowing how to counter it, etc.  Mostly it just rewards the fighter for not dumping Int, because he's _supposed_ to be smart.

The Inspiring/Insightful Heal/Damage thing will need more mechanics behind it to really evaluate.  This is the bit that's most strongly tied to the available dice pool.  Maybe give a few temp hit points before the fight starts, or urge the paladin to keep fighting when he's just about to fall over.  On the other side, it might grant damage boosts, though I'm rather unsure in how that might be applied that isn't in conflict with the other ways of boosting damage that the Cunning Plan offers.

~~~

Overall, I'm already very much liking the design.  It provides an easy hook to readily expand its minor cantrip-level abilities, and even spell-level abilities, and it maintains the essence of "flavor before mechanics" design.  Even in this incomplete state, I'm very much interested in playing it.

 [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] provided this list of 4E Warlord builds earlier in the thread:


Tony Vargas said:


> Tactical - a canny warlord, who excels at devising & coordinating cunning plans. This is the one that Mearls was talking about in the podcast as if it were the whole class, so, in 5e would use INT and 'Gambits' that map, vaguely, to spells in the way Mearls went into, only, to do it 'right,' it'd map more to the casting of Druid or Wizard than an EK. It would emphasize 'Tactical Gambits' in the same sense that an Evoker emphasizes blasty spells, an emphasis, being better at it, not in the sense of being unable to use everything else.
> 
> Inspiring - the original opposite number to the tactical warlord, the inspiring warlord did exactly what it says on the tin, bolstered his allies (hps, both healing &temps and handed out buffs), mainly keyed off CHA. It tended to be less about maneuvering & commanding and more about leading & aiding. In 5e, it would use the same Gambits & Maneuvers as other warlords, but better at the ones that hand out bonuses and hps, probably by the simple expedient of tacking his CHA mod onto them.
> 
> ...




Interestingly, Mike's proposal touches on a lot of what these builds supposedly bring to the table.


Tactical - Tactical gambits. Coordination of team members.
Inspiring - Boost HP, temp HP.
Resourceful - Reacting to opportunities.
Bravura - Lead from the front. Don't sacrifice combat ability to grant the Warlord buffs.
Skirmishing - Emphasize mobility.  Tricks involving the the TF area.
Insightful - Stay alert to enemy plans, and be able to react to them.
Archery - Not relevant in 5E.
'Lazy' - Not supported.

As simple as Mike's Warlord is, it already incorporates a huge chunk of what the former Warlord class was able to do, thematically. (At least as described by Tony.)


----------



## outsider (Mar 13, 2018)

TBH, "Martial Cantrips" would make me like 5E -way- more.  What I really want is to A) have tactical mechanical options to use every single round and B) not have to use magic to get those options.  I don't like the mechanical play of "I hit it with my sword!" every single round, and I don't like the thematic play of  "I use supernatural forces to destroy my enemies!".  There aren't many character options for people like me in 5e.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 13, 2018)

Yeah, he did do really good on getting to the idea. Probably why he's a professional game designer.

Also: I feel like a Warlord with an Order Cleric would be cool. Hell, you could even multiclass the two if you want to be the best in the world at yelling at people.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 13, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> 5e has become unnecessarily complicated in how it handles a number of somewhat similar things - bless/guidance, inspiration, bardic inspiration, CS dice, Aid, advantage, help, HD, re-rolls, etc...
> 
> I feel like they could have consolidated a number of 'expendable-dice' mechanics into one unified sub-system that could have been readily adapted to different applications, keeping the game simpler. Too late now, obviously. 5.5,maybe?



Yeah, that would have been useful.  Feels vaguely similar to the spell points mechanic, which ended up a very low-tier optional rule.  On the other hand, you may still want to be able to use those dice in different ways, and even if they had a universal system on the design side, it may not manifest that way in what the player can see (the actual implementations), and what the player can see is what users have to work with when designing their own subclasses.  Again, it's showing another tool that a player could use to figure out what would work, even if they don't have the tools that WotC has at their office.



> On top of STR/DEX or instead of it? Neither's good, mind you...



The Int damage bonus is on top of Str/Dex.  He did mention that it might be too powerful, but set it aside as an issue to be dealt with on Jerry's side (general balance adjustments) or playtesting.



> If it was hit, but not damage rolls, that might be workable, but just, in general, a warlord design should not be worrying overmuch about its own sustained DPR.



He did actually mention that he considered the possibility of adding it to the attack roll rather than the damage roll, but had decided against it, after other considerations. I don't remember exactly what he said, though.



> Mildly bizarre given 5e's fetishization of TotM. It's not like it'd be at all hard or TotM-incompatible, to move allies around /relative/ to eachother & enemies. Also, I think the word 'contiguous' could have helped, there, it sounds like a 4e 'Wall 4'
> 
> Of course, 5e's love affair with TotM has not exactly delivered a lot of actual support for TotM, anyway. :shrug:



The Warlord was being explicitly designed for those who are more interested in the tactical nature of the game, and thus more suited to those who might use miniatures and maps.  Having a more complex design was explicitly considered OK.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

It makes more sense to define the Tactical Focus as within 10 feet (3 meters) from any particular ally. (In other words, a 10-foot aura centered on an ally.) This allows for 3-dimensional combats, and for other allies to enter the Focus.

Meanwhile, the warlord can simply switch allies if wanting to change the location of the Focus.

Finally, it is simpler to visualize in mind style. But also doable on grid.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 13, 2018)

I still feel the paladin (½ caster) makes a better design space for building a warlord, than the eldritch knight (⅓ caster) does.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 13, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Are you not the guy who wants D&D to not really support deities though? I mean, I get that, but it's also never ever going to be a mainstream well-supported option.



 D&D isn't mainstream, and likely never will be.  Though, I suppose a D&D that didn't step into the minefield of vaguely promoting polytheism, and instead eschewed all mention of religion, just might have a better shot at going mainstream. :shrug:  

Over the years, I've seen many players put off by the religious aspect of the Cleric and Paladin.  Moreso than put off by Demons & Devils, now that I think of it.



smbakeresq said:


> After hearing these podcasts and seeing some of the spells in Xanathars I wonder if they actually playtest the games in the office ....



 It's clearly an idea in the earliest stages.  But I do find seeing the process interesting, and it is consistent with the kind of material we've seen from him over the years.  I've always felt like his stuff exudes a certain enthusiasm and a sense of improvisation, and I feel like I've seen where that comes from, now.



Yaarel said:


> Still, abjuration is a miscellaneous assortment of different kinds of magic. The only thing these spells have in common is, they are all protective and restorative.



 Magic that's all protective isn't miscellaneous, it's protective.  Intent is significant in magic in a way it's not in physics.   
Though I'm used to abjuration being protect or dispel, more than protect or restore.  'Abjure' means to reject.  



Yaarel said:


> I still feel the paladin (½ caster) makes a better design space for building a warlord, than the eldritch knight (⅓ caster) does.



 And the Cleric or Bard, better still.  In the sense of spending a budget of spell-equivalency.  (Though, I's still a little surprised that's what he's working from.). 

Also, the alternate recharge scheme of the Warlock might be more useful as a touchstone...



Kinematics said:


> Interestingly, Mike's proposal touches on a lot of what these builds supposedly bring to the table.



 There's nothing 'supposedly' about it, 7 of them were in B&W, built right into the class options, and used certain exploits better than others.  The 8th, ironically, is probably the most-talked-about.  

But, sure, in the sense that a hypothetical 1/3rd caster with a dozen 1st-3rd level spells, at least one of which came from each of 6 of the 8 schools would "touch on a lot of what the wizard brings to the table."



> As simple as Mike's Warlord is



 I would characterize it as oddly, perhaps needlessly, complex.  







> it already incorporates a huge chunk of what the former Warlord class was able to do, thematically. (At least as described by Tony.)



 I once ballparked the BM as representing about 3% of the Warlord, I might spot this attempt a few more percentage points.  Maybe even low double-digits - heck, if it's completed and the ultimate expression of the sub-class turns out to be just superlative, it might even rise to a 1/3rd Warlord in the sense the EK gets characterized as a 1/3rd-caster.  That'd be pretty sweet.  
Even then, though, it'd just tick the Bravura box.  Because it is ultimately still a fighter, and the Bravura was the faux-fighter-MC 'build' that'd off-tank.



Kinematics said:


> Yeah, that would have been useful.  Feels vaguely similar to the spell points mechanic, which ended up a very low-tier optional rule.  On the other hand, you may still want to be able to use those dice in different ways, and even if they had a universal system on the design side, it may not manifest that way in what the player can see (the actual implementations), and what the player can see is what users have to work with when designing their own subclasses.



 Nod.  There seems to be a "expendable dice mechanic" being vaguely suggested.  Maybe it's in a black box, and, unlike the spell-slot/damage table, they haven't published it, or maybe it's just a matter of convergent designs suggesting a connection that isn't really there. :shrug:

The use of dice you choose when to use up for some benefit based on the result of rolling that die seems to have cropped up several times.  Maybe I see it more because of MDD's in the first playtest having had several incarnations, and the playtest proficiency even having been a die for a bit.   CS dice are the obvious example, but there's also bardic inspiration and, of course, HD, in the PH.  The there's rolled but not expended dice-as-modifiers like bless/guidance.  Then there's re-rolls, like inspiration, and, taken proactively, even Adv/Dis, again.  
If he does add these dice to another fighter sub-class, without just making them CS dice in some sense, that'd be yet another.  If they get used for a full class years down the road, then, just like CA consolidated multiple modifiers and modifier-negators into one simple bonus, and Adv/Dis eschewed modifiers almost altogether, all those uses of dice, almost like dice pools in some other games, might be ripe for simplification & consolidation.



> The Int damage bonus is on top of Str/Dex.  He did mention that it might be too powerful, but set it aside as an issue to be dealt with on Jerry's side (general balance adjustments) or playtesting.



 I'm glad to hear he gets to delegate something!  



> He did actually mention that he considered the possibility of adding it to the attack roll rather than the damage roll, but had decided against it, after other considerations. I don't remember exactly what he said, though.



Since it is a fighter build that's apparently supposed to invest more in INT and/or CHA, letting it shore up the fighter's own attack rolls if he prioritizes one of those over STR or DEX doesn't sound like a bad idea.  So long as it doesn't lead to dumping STR like the 'lazy' build could (fine for that archetype, not plausible for a fighter sub-class). 

But, yeah, it seems to move in the opposite direction from the general idea, even of the Bravura.  Now keying buffs of INT or CHA, certainly. 



> The Warlord was being explicitly designed for those who are more interested in the tactical nature of the game, and thus more suited to those who might use miniatures and maps.  Having a more complex design was explicitly considered OK.



 'Tactical' <> 'grid dependence.'  
That conflation has been going since the edition war, heck, since criticisms of 3.0 or maybe even C&T, for that matter (I kinda lost track of 2e around that time).  
And, like I alluded to, above, complexity is something that has to be worth it, it's a side-effect you put up with to get where you want, not a goal in itself.
So, yeah, a more complex design for a Warlord class?  Certainly.  Just not needlessly so.  Leverage as much as you can out of any added complexity.  And, really, that dovetails with adapting the class to 5e.

There'd be less added complexity to the game, overall, for instance, if instead of creating entirely new sub-systems for yet another mutually-incompatible fighter sub-class, the Warlord class were done with Gambits (of which Maneuvers could be the Apprentice-tier sub-set) that used CS (or 'Inspiration') dice, in a ratio to the BM, comparable to the Full-Caster:EK ratio.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

It makes sense, via tactical coaching, for the warlord to grant to an ally, the Intelligence bonus to damage.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Heh. Instead of ‘insightful’, Mearls accidentally wrote ‘inciteful’.

Here is an example of ‘Inciteful’ Heal: 

‘You lazy maggot, move your ɑss!’


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Heh. Instead of ‘insightful’, Mearls accidentally wrote ‘inciteful’.
> 
> Here is an example of ‘Inciteful’ Heal:
> 
> ‘You lazy maggot, move your ɑss!’




That's one way to play a Warlord to be honest.

Just go full Drill Sergent.


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

IMO: call it "zone of control"

Otherwise, I like the basics.

As an action, you set up a zone.
As a reaction, you can do stuff in that zone.  Some maybe 1/battle.
You get extra reactions as you level.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

The brainstorming by Mearls is focusing too much on nonmagical characters.

A more fleshed out warlord needs to orchestrate magical attacks as part of the team effort.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The tactical focus idea is terrible IMO. First off he is thinking in 2 dimensions. Second, you are a Warlord, you don't focus on areas, you focus on leading people.
> 
> Saying the BM can already grant attacks is true, however the ability is terrible due to action economy. Maybe other people use it, but I haven't seen it.
> 
> After hearing these podcasts and seeing some of the spells in Xanathars I wonder if they actually playtest the games in the office or even bother to check in on the community. The ideas presented here by posters are better than what came out.




You don't actually understand tactics, do you?  Spend some time playing chess, or go, and you'll realize that the map is just as important as the combatants, and possibly even more so.  You need to consider threat zones, future conflicts, opportunity attacks as people move, traps, terrain features, regions with advantage or disadvantage, AOE radiuses, and much, much more.  The people occupying those squares are just one element of the overall consideration (and their own players, at that, which means that creating opportunities for them to exploit is much better than just telling them what to do).

You _do_ need to handle the 3rd dimension, but I'm not sure you need to get any fancier than 4 contiguous square to achieve that.  Overcomplicating rules for edge cases is an explicit anti-pattern.



Tony Vargas said:


> D&D isn't mainstream, and likely never will be.  Though, I suppose a D&D that didn't step into the minefield of vaguely promoting polytheism, and instead eschewed all mention of religion, just might have a better shot at going mainstream. :shrug:
> 
> Over the years, I've seen many players put off by the religious aspect of the Cleric and Paladin.  Moreso than put off by Demons & Devils, now that I think of it.



False equivalency in order to create a strawman to attack.  That was clearly not how he was using the term, and you are arguing in bad faith.



Tony Vargas said:


> There's nothing 'supposedly' about it, 7 of them were in B&W, built right into the class options, and used certain exploits better than others.  The 8th, ironically, is probably the most-talked-about.



'Supposedly', in the sense that I do not have comprehensive knowledge of how the class was built and integrated into the 4E system. All I have to go on is your descriptions, which are clearly just summaries.  There could very well be details that alter the degree of similarity, but since I have no access to them, I'm being conservative in my assertion.

On the other hand, if you assert that those descriptions are fully complete, then you're confirming my statement, and discrediting your own dismissal further down your post.



Tony Vargas said:


> I would characterize it as oddly, perhaps needlessly, complex.   I once ballparked the BM as representing about 3% of the Warlord, I might spot this attempt a few more percentage points.  Maybe even low double-digits.  At best, when it's finished, it could tick the Bravura box.  Because it is ultimately still a fighter, and the Bravura was the faux-fighter-MC 'build' that'd off-tank.



I really am surprised at you characterizing this build as "needlessly complex", given the background of comparing this to a 4E class.  Further, at this stage, it's less complex than the Eldritch Knight that it was framed on, so you characterizing it as such comes off as merely antagonistic for the sake of it.


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> It makes more sense to define the Tactical Focus as within 10 feet (3 meters) from any particular ally.



Why not just allow both?

Zone of Control: As an action, you can choose area or a target creature.  If you choose a creature, your zone of control extends 5' from the target and remains centered on the target if it moves.
At level X your zone size increases.."

So you can say "I'm watching the doorway." or "I'm watching the dragon."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Heh. Instead of ‘insightful’, Mearls accidentally wrote ‘inciteful’.
> 
> Here is an example of ‘Inciteful’ Heal:
> 
> ‘You lazy maggot, move your ɑss!’



 Heh.  First 4e party I was in, we had backstories that included several of us being childhood friends.  My Warlord and the Rogue had that kind of relationship where we'd throw insults at eachother.  The first time I used an Inspiring Word to stand up a dropped ally, it was him:  "Get up Stig, no one's buying the possum routine!"  The other characters he had different relationships with. 




mellored said:


> IMO: call it "zone of control"
> 
> Otherwise, I like the basics.
> 
> ...



 I think there was one Warlord exploit that did that.  Created a Zone in a Wall area that did something for allies in it.  
Complicated (OK, not as complicated as spelling out Wall for just the one power), not worth it for the perk, IIRC, and, well...
Zones could be dispelled, so, just, weird.

Yeah, they can't all be gems.  ;(


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

The warlord has to heal meaningfully at level 1.

Healing boosts can come later, level 3 and up, as spell slots avail.

But there must be a healing method in place at level 1.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Granting extra attacks remains a desideratum for the warlord brainstorm.

If the extra attack only applies to an ally in the Tactical Focus, thats fine.



Probably the best definition for Tactical Focus is, a 10-foot aura centered on a choice of an ally or a hostile, within 100 feet.

I like the image of the Tactical Focus being able to be a 100 feet away. It reminds me of the medieval conceit of generals on luxurious points of elevation overseeing the battlefield. The warlord can be either aloof or in the mix, depending on the flavor that player is going for. The personal competence in combat makes in the mix an appealing option.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> Why not just allow both?
> 
> Zone of Control: As an action, you can choose area or a target creature.  If you choose a creature, your zone of control extends 5' from the target and remains centered on the target if it moves.
> At level X your zone size increases.."
> ...




I can live with that, but especially a 10-foot radius aura centered on a ‘target creature’.

The 10-foot radius allows better combat space. For example, the auraed ally, a hostile next to the ally, and one or two allies attacking the hostile from behind, plus some moving around, maybe to try get between the hostile and the auraed ally. More tactics. 

More over, the 10-foot radius works out to be something like a 25 foot diameter from one side of the aura, plus the space of the auraed creature, to the other side of the aura. This appoximates the ‘wall’ of contiguous squares being 20 feet across.



How about ‘Zone of Focus’. I enjoy the image of the warlord, attentive and alert, and responding to anything that can happen.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

TheHobgoblin said:


> So whether you like it or not, whatever the Warlord does, it must be able to be a support class option that can do all of the essential support options that a Cleric or Bard can do. Of course, it doesn't need to have the turn undead ability or offensive spell-casting abilities of the cleric nor the illusion magic or superior skills of the Bard.




The problem is, you can't do that in 5e without magic. A Warlord can't remove status ailments like poison or disease. He can't raise a dead ally. He has no access to divination or transportation magic. No access to survival magic like goodberry, create food or rope trick. And at high level, he's going to lack even reasonable buffs and debuffs that can match mindblank, antipathy, or holy aura. There is no way to match these abilities without magic or extreme handwaving. 

There is no way to make the warlord match the cleric or bard in 5e without giving him 9 levels of spells. The best you can do it match a paladin, barbarian or ranger in terms of "warrior with special powers", but a character that tries to do a cleric or bard's job without magic is doomed to fail.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Granting extra attacks remains a desideratum for the warlord brainstorm.
> 
> If the extra attack only applies to an ally in the Tactical Focus, thats fine.
> 
> ...




Put mine up, healing at level 1 its even a generous amount if you look at it.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?625334-Zards-Warlord-2-0


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> The problem is, you can't do that in 5e without magic. A Warlord can't remove status ailments like poison or disease. He can't raise a dead ally. He has no access to divination or transportation magic. No access to survival magic like goodberry, create food or rope trick. And at high level, he's going to lack even reasonable buffs and debuffs that can match mindblank, antipathy, or holy aura. There is no way to match these abilities without magic or extreme handwaving.
> 
> There is no way to make the warlord match the cleric or bard in 5e without giving him 9 levels of spells. The best you can do it match a paladin, barbarian or ranger in terms of "warrior with special powers", but a character that tries to do a cleric or bard's job without magic is doomed to fail.




I have not designed some high level exploits but posted my WL. There are high level action surge type things for the entire group. 

 The inspiring ne might be a mix of the 4E one+ 3.5 Marshal basically powerful auras and 4E type powers/ exploits.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

I like how there are ways that the warlord can heal, that the bard/druid/cleric cant. And visaversa.

It makes healing more flavorful, and a more interesting aspect of the game.



I appreciate how Mearls actualizes flavor into mechanics. He wants the flavor of a tactical character to happen during actual gameplay. Nice.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> Why not just allow both?
> 
> Zone of Control: As an action, you can choose area or a target creature.  If you choose a creature, your zone of control extends 5' from the target and remains centered on the target if it moves.
> At level X your zone size increases.."
> ...




Hmm.  There are advantages, but also disadvantages, to the idea.

Let's look at the cantrip-like abilities that are predicated on it being a fixed region, rather than tied to a person.

1) Enemies can't make opportunity attacks (OA) against allies moving out of the Tactical Focus area.

If you target an enemy, it mostly means that that enemy cannot ever take opportunity attacks. But it also limits the scope of your ability to provide a safe channel for people to move through, to escape an area of enemies.  It feels like a weaker choice.

If you target an ally, it gives them freedom from all opportunity attacks (if you even allow it to work when the ally is never moving 'out' of a given region) for their entire movement.  It feels like possibly too strong of a choice?

2) Hitting an enemy in the TF area can be moved 5'. (no saving throw)

If you target an enemy, this means you can perpetually move them on each hit, since the region moves with them.  This seems overpowered at first thought, but then again, you can do the same thing to a selected enemy if you shape the region correctly, for up to 4 attacks.  It just feels a bit cheap in that you can knock the enemy back any which way without any planning associated with it.

If you place it on an ally, it means basically anyone they hit, they can knock back.  Again, it's possible to make this work with the region definition, but it feels cheap without it because it doesn't require any planning. Just tell the barbarian to go hit that guy.  It seems to lose the sense of being the tactician.

3) Ambush: As a reaction (by the Warlord) when an enemy enters a TF square, you/allies may move half your speed. Does not use allies' reaction.

This has no real use when placed on an enemy, since they'll always be in the TF square.

If you place the TF on an ally, you get the same effect as if you had placed the region next to the ally, waiting for an enemy to approach them to within melee range.  It does require you to figure out which side is their weak side, though, since you can only cover half of the area around them.

4) As part of move, can swap positions in TF area using 10' of movement.

This appears to be pointless for both setting the TF on an enemy and on an ally.  The advantage of a position swap is being able to move people several squares at once; they can be up to three squares away from each other.

~~~

Most of what you can do when targeting an individual can be done using the region definition.  There are a couple things that don't work quite as well going in the other direction.  The _feel_ of how they work when arranged in a region vs targeted on a creature, though, feels more like tactics when in a region, and more like a buff/debuff when targeting a creature.

Targeting a region is more difficult in Theater of the Mind settings, but far from impossible.  Target a band between your allies and the enemy.  Create a strip through the enemy line that gives an exit route.  Focus on this area of the hallway, or the region in front of the door.  Focus on the area the boss is standing, and the area behind him leading to the cliff.  Just adding some mental 'space'  seems pretty sufficient.


If we can think up more ideas of things we can do with the TF area, though (ie: more cantrip-level gambits), it can help define whether creature-targeting is useful, or whether it detracts from the design concept.  I'll try to come up with a few.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Heh, Im wondering about abbreviating druid/bard/cleric as the ‘drubacle’.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I have not designed some high level exploits but posted my WL. There are high level action surge type things for the entire group.
> 
> The inspiring ne might be a mix of the 4E one+ 3.5 Marshal basically powerful auras and 4E type powers/ exploits.




But do those abilities equal the opportunity cost of a spellcaster in that role?

Take raising the dead. Clerics and Bards get Raise Dead as a 5th level spell. Druids get Reincarnate. Both of those spells will bring a fallen ally back to life hours or days later. What power can a Warlord have that possibly equals that and doesn't either a.) re-write reality (turns out Bob wasn't dead after all...) or b.) Isn't magic? And if he can't bring the dead back, why should someone play him over a druid, bard, or cleric? 

I mean, buffing is fine and all, but I certainly wouldn't want a Warlord over a Cleric, Druid or Bard in my party if it means lacking access to Lesser/Greater Restoration, or Raise Dead/Reincarnate. Take a look at those three classes spell lists and find the overlaps; THOSE are the effects a Warlord MUST mimic if he is to hang with them. That is what the Leader/Healer/Support role looks like in 5e.


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> The problem is, you can't do that in 5e without magic. A Warlord can't remove status ailments like poison or disease. He can't raise a dead ally. He has no access to divination or transportation magic. No access to survival magic like goodberry, create food or rope trick. And at high level, he's going to lack even reasonable buffs and debuffs that can match mindblank, antipathy, or holy aura. There is no way to match these abilities without magic or extreme handwaving.
> 
> There is no way to make the warlord match the cleric or bard in 5e without giving him 9 levels of spells. The best you can do it match a paladin, barbarian or ranger in terms of "warrior with special powers", but a character that tries to do a cleric or bard's job without magic is doomed to fail.




More for consideration:
Healing isn't worth as much as it used to be. 
In combat healing only needs to function as a way to prevent people from bleeding out and grant them consciousness. It isn't necessary to heal nearly every round as a bonus action, only sometimes using whatever means you have.
Out of combat healing is greatly accelerated, to the point where the game designers basically consider being topped off multiple times a day to be the normal (see the discussions around _Healing Spirit_)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> Why not just allow both?
> 
> Zone of Control: As an action, you can choose area or a target creature.  If you choose a creature, your zone of control extends 5' from the target and remains centered on the target if it moves.
> At level X your zone size increases.."
> ...




Sounds good, and doesn't fall into the trap of dogmatically assuming that TotM can't accommodate tactics.

Especially tactics in the sense of modeling a character being adept at tactics, rather than  giving a player a tactical challenge.


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I can live with that, especially the 10-foot aura centered on a ‘target creature’.



I'd start with 5', and expand to 10' at higher level. Possibly even 15'.
But yea, on enemies, allies, and even yourself for the lead-from-the-front warlord.

Though, i'd make the area useage a bit bigger.

Edit: or even objects.  Because, why not keep an eye on the artifact.



> How about ‘Zone of Focus’. I enjoy the image of the warlord, attentive and alert, and responding to anything that can happen.



Ehh.... Zone of Control already has useage in other tactical war games.
Though, it's usually used the same way as D&D uses opportunity attacks, hampering movements of adjacent enemies. So might not be the best term.

How about "Overwatch Zone"?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 14, 2018)

So basically Mearls is ignoring the basic use case of rogue sneak attack in all his attack granting use cases.  Great.  What could possibly go wrong...

At least this subclass won't suffer the fate of most of the other martial subclasses that focus on support (being to weak).  It will sadly be to strong and will have to be banned any time someone wants to play a rogue


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> But do those abilities equal the opportunity cost of a spellcaster in that role?
> 
> Take raising the dead. Clerics and Bards get Raise Dead as a 5th level spell. Druids get Reincarnate. Both of those spells will bring a fallen ally back to life hours or days later. What power can a Warlord have that possibly equals that and doesn't either a.) re-write reality (turns out Bob wasn't dead after all...) or b.) Isn't magic? And if he can't bring the dead back, why should someone play him over a druid, bard, or cleric?
> 
> I mean, buffing is fine and all, but I certainly wouldn't want a Warlord over a Cleric, Druid or Bard in my party if it means lacking access to Lesser/Greater Restoration, or Raise Dead/Reincarnate. Take a look at those three classes spell lists and find the overlaps; THOSE are the effects a Warlord MUST mimic if he is to hang with them. That is what the Leader/Healer/Support role looks like in 5e.




 That is kind of the clerics niche as Druids and Bards do not get all of those spells either or they have limits on how many spells they do know (Bards). 

 The 4E WL could not do a lot of  that either non magically. 

 5E has more ways of healing without a dedicated healer (healer feat, hit dice etc) or ways to gain extra hit points. 

 Alot of those spells you do not need access to all of the time (if ever) and you may need to find an NPC with raise dead capabilities. Its a cleric niche Druids for example do not get raise dead or prayer of healing. Niche protection I suppose even 4E had it (Rangers were the best at damage dealing).

 Basically if you want all the best healing things be a cleric, if you want to b the best at that be a life cleric, if you want a lot of it and better offensive magic be a Druid, if you play a lore bard its up to you how many spells known/stolen you devote to it.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Personally, I would like hitting *zero hit points* to more clearly mean, ‘life and limb’.

Such as, the possibility of remaining conscious but breaking an arm. In this case, no risk of death, but instead an ongoing condition, until the bone heals.

I havent decided the best mechanic to use to allow for both possibilities, limb damage and death from internal bleeding (shock).

So, for example, if someone gets hit by a sword on the neck, maybe no vital damage happened, but the collar bone broke. Now the victim cant move their arm and is probably stunned from having the wind knocked out of them.



When zero hit points has the risk of enduring conditions, the phenomenon of ‘wack-a-mole’ will subside to more realistic levels.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Personally, I would like hitting *zero hit points* to more clearly mean, ‘life and limb’.
> 
> Such as, the possibility of remaining conscious but breaking an arm. In this case, no risk of death, but instead an ongoing condition, until the bone heals.
> 
> ...




Buy 2E combat and tactics and use their critical hit rules for when you are reduced to 0hp or write a module for bad things happen at 0hp.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 14, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So basically Mearls is ignoring the basic use case of rogue sneak attack in all his attack granting use cases.  Great.  What could possibly go wrong...
> 
> At least this subclass won't suffer the fate of most of the other martial subclasses that focus on support (being to weak).  It will sadly be to strong and will have to be banned any time someone wants to play a rogue



He went over this in the first warlord stream. They don't balance around best case scenario, they want those players who play these combos to feel powerful.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Buy 2E combat and tactics and use their critical hit rules for when you are reduced to 0hp or write a module for bad things happen at 0hp.




The tradition of wounds at 0 hp is valuable.

But, I dislike rolling random outcomes on a variegated table.

I want a more flexible mechanic that follows the narrative context, and yields organic outcomes.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The tradition of wounds at 0 hp is valuable.
> 
> But, I dislike rolling random outcomes on a variegated table.
> 
> I want a more flexible mechanic that follows the narrative context, and yields organic outcomes.




Simple rule? Gain a level of exhaustion when reduced to 0hp? Makes things like whack a mole with healing word and healer feat mean something.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Simple rule? Gain a level of exhaustion when reduced to 0hp? Makes things like whack a mole with healing word and healer feat mean something.




On and off, I tinker with something like the use of exhaustion levels. If there is a seemless way to equate certain exhaustion conditions with certain physical trauma conditions, it can probably work well.

Hit zero too many times, it increases the exhaustion level, in other words, might aggravate the wound or inflict new wounds. It can make sense.

Moreover, using the exhaustion table as the gauge, the DM can decide how such a condition translates narratively into a certain kind of wound.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The warlord has to heal meaningfully at level 1.
> 
> Healing boosts can come later, level 3 and up, as spell slots avail.
> 
> But there must be a healing method in place at level 1.




No, it doesn't. There is nothing about the Warlord which screams "must heal immediately, as a multiclass level dip healer option". None.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 14, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> He went over this in the first warlord stream. They don't balance around best case scenario, they want those players who play these combos to feel powerful.




If all the best case scenario takes is having a rogue in the party then that's surely not the same kind of overly optimized best case scenario that he was implying didn't get looked at.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> No, it doesn't. There is nothing about the Warlord which screams "must heal immediately, as a multiclass level dip healer option". None.




4E one could do that and its not unreasonable in concept (unlike say action granting at will). Even if its a bit better than a clerics healing word they can't turn it into a guiding bolt or bless spell so trading a bit of power vs versatility is fine. A Warlord holy word could deal 1d8 instead of 1d4 for example.

 What i am struggling with is how to scale the warlords healing vs say a cleric who gets upgrades at level 2 with things like song of healing and more spell slots. Currently thinking the WL may be better at it at lower levels and then fall behind as the cleric levels up and the cleric is still better at removing conditions- death, disease, missing limbs etc.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 14, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> If all the best case scenario takes is having a rogue in the party then that's surely not the same kind of overly optimized best case scenario that he was implying didn't get looked at.




I didn't explain it right. When I said best case scenario, I should have said best damage. So rather than balancing around a rogue's sneak attack or paladin's smite they look at the 3rd best damage. I believe when he was considering the cost of giving up an attack he was looking at other fighters. As in, it has to be worth giving up an attack and giving it to another fighter. I still haven't seen the latest video, I intend to watch it tonight, but yeah, sneak attack isn't what they think of when designing abilities like this. Actually, one of the best things about this series (I feel like I've mentioned this before) is seeing how they go about the design process.


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> .
> There is no way to make the warlord match the cleric or bard in 5e without giving him 9 levels of spells.



Warlords Foresight.
At level 17, you become a master at predicting what's going to happen.  Select a creature, they gains advantage on all attacks and saving throws, and creatures have disadvantage when they attack them.

Straight level 9 spell works fine.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 4E one could do that and its not unreasonable in concept (unlike say action granting at will). Even if its a bit better than a clerics healing word they can't turn it into a guiding bolt or bless spell so trading a bit of power vs versatility is fine. A Warlord holy word could deal 1d8 instead of 1d4 for example.
> 
> What i am struggling with is how to scale the warlords healing vs say a cleric who gets upgrades at level 2 with things like song of healing and more spell slots. Currently thinking the WL may be better at it at lower levels and then fall behind as the cleric levels up and the cleric is still better at removing conditions- death, disease, missing limbs etc.




I didn't say it was an "unreasonable concept" I said there is nothing about the Warlord that makes healing a "must" for first level. It would be just as reasonable to have it happen at level 3 for example.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> The problem is, you can't do that in 5e without magic.



 For one thing, there's no Warlord.  

Seriously, 5e has neither mechanical deficiencies nor complete conceptual blind spots that prevent it from handling non-magical archetypes from genre or history.

There is a pervasive attitude, born from the inertia of the classic game, and who knows what pathologies from the dark depths of the nerd psyche, that in D&D, magic can do virtually anything, and that, contrarywise, without magic, virtually nothing is possible. 

 Look at the rules of the early game, before the Thief, the only non-magical endeavor detailed with any meaningful reference to the ever-growing-with-level abilities of characters was combat.

Over 40 years, and the prime contribution of the handful of non-magical sub-classes in the PH is DPR.  There's at least a cursory skill system, but in it, skill is just a modest proficiency bonus to a check literally anyone could attempt.

Fortunately, it doesn't end there, there's all sorts of things beyond just big hps and big damage pointing to characters being able to do more than just the most mundane things.  They're just scattered about, some feats, a couple fighter features, etc...  HD, of course.

Its a matter, on the design side, of bringing them together, scaling them up, and putting together something that delivers.

It's a matter, on our side, of getting other players and DMs to open their minds enough to give it a chance.  And, 5e seems like a better environment for that than 4e was.



> A Warlord can't remove status ailments like poison or disease.



 He shouldn't be able to, literally, he's not some kind of medieval ER doc.  But, inspire an ally to ignore the penalties one inflicts for a round or a combat, sure, maybe even make the difference between surviving or succumbing as it runs it's course.



> He can't raise a dead ally.



 Resurections certainly off the table but saving one at the brink of that last death save should be fine.


> He has no access to divination or transportation magic.



 Spies and smugglers have gotten information and people and things where they shouldn't be for centuries. 


> No access to survival magic like goodberry, create food or rope trick.



 Amazingly, sufficiently competent and determined people survive incredible hardship without being able to conjure food & shelter from nothing.


> And at high level, he's going to lack even reasonable buffs and debuffs that can match mindblank, antipathy, or holy aura.



 Antipathy gets subjects to avoid something.  Manipulation can do that.  

Similarly much of what mindblank does could be mental discipline.  



> There is no way to match these abilities without magic or extreme handwaving.



 You don't have magic, either, without some 'extreme handwaving,' so I'm fine with waving away as much as it takes.  

The ally we saw die was an imposter? An evil twin? The artifact hasn't really been taken to the 481st layer of the abyss, it's hidden right in this building?  Sure.  Call it 'author force' call it melodrama...

And, y'know, that gets closer to a lot of genre bits than D&D magic...
...not that that's a high bar.




> There is no way to make the warlord match the cleric or bard in 5e without giving him 9 levels of spells.



Of course there is, just give it equally useful, but non-magical capability.  After all, 9th level spells are a 1/day thing restricted to the highest levels.



> The best you can do it match a paladin, barbarian or ranger in terms of "warrior with special powers", but a character that tries to do a cleric or bard's job without magic is doomed to fail.



 Sorry, no.  D&D is not so dysfunctional as that, no matter how many if it's fans may be.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I didn't say it was an "unreasonable concept" I said there is nothing about the Warlord that makes healing a "must" for first level. It would be just as reasonable to have it happen at level 3 for example.




All the other support characters heal at level 1 along with classes like paladin and self heal fighter.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> If all the best case scenario takes is having a rogue in the party then that's surely not the same kind of overly optimized best case scenario that he was implying didn't get looked at.



 Rogue was the specific example he gave. 
 Balance:  just not a big deal.



Mistwell said:


> No, it doesn't. There is nothing about the Warlord which screams "must heal immediately, as a multiclass level dip healer option". None.




If you're saying there shouldn't be multiclass healer 1-level dips, you're several classes too late.



Mistwell said:


> I didn't say it was an "unreasonable concept" I said there is nothing about the Warlord that makes healing a "must" for first level. It would be just as reasonable to have it happen at level 3 for example.



 At first level, a lucky shot can drop your dpr star, first round, putting the party behind the curve, and spiral to a tpk. Support characters interrupt that spiral.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Simple rule? Gain a level of exhaustion when reduced to 0hp? Makes things like whack a mole with healing word and healer feat mean something.




Sometimes simple is best. Reaching zero means, the character did get a wound. So, automatically a level of exhaustion.



It would be nice to coordinate the exhaustion level with extent of damage.  For example.

Exhaustion 2 (speed ½) can mean an arm bone was fractured, about 2d6 weeks to heal.
Exhaustion 5 (speed 0) can mean a complication takes 2d6 months to heal.
Exhaustion 6 (death) can mean the arm amputated or permanently paralyzed. (Maybe only spell level 7 or higher can regenerate?)



Some kind of translation from exhaustion to injury.



Maybe the first death save if successful means you stay conscious. Failure means stunned. The second failed death save means unconscious.



By the way, superficial ‘bloodied’ damage when less than half hit points, like black eyes and bleeding cuts, tend to heal within 2d6 days. So prepare to wear bandages for some days after a fight − even while at full hit points!

As a gaming convenience.
• Half hit points: 2d6 days to heal negligible marks of combat
• Zero hit points, exhaustion 2: 2d6 weeks to heal
• Zero hit points, exhaustion 5: 2d6 months to heal
• Zero hit points, exhaustion 6: permanent injury


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 14, 2018)

By the way, if anyone wanted to watch the episode, it's archived on Twitch right now.

It's right here, actually


----------



## Azzy (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> The problem is, you can't do that in 5e without magic. A Warlord can't remove status ailments like poison or disease. He can't raise a dead ally. He has no access to divination or transportation magic. No access to survival magic like goodberry, create food or rope trick. And at high level, he's going to lack even reasonable buffs and debuffs that can match mindblank, antipathy, or holy aura. There is no way to match these abilities without magic or extreme handwaving.




While removing certain conditions may not make sense, conditions like Frightened and Charmed seem like easy candidates for non-magical removal. Then, there's also room for condition mitigations (where the condition isn't removed, but temporarily halted or otherwise mitigated) that can be explained without magic.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Rogue sets a precedent with nonmagical Slippery Mind, if I recall correctly.


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I didn't say it was an "unreasonable concept" I said there is nothing about the Warlord that makes healing a "must" for first level. It would be just as reasonable to have it happen at level 3 for example.



I don't see any issue with minimal healing at 1st.  Even if it's only 1 HP per short rest.  That's enough to stand someone back up.
Hmm...

As a bonus action, you can give someone 1 HP + THP equal to your warlord level.  You can use this twice per short rest.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2018)

For the existing classes, some signature abilities come at first level, while others come at later levels, depending on the class. For example, Druid Shapechange, Fighter Action Surge and Extra Attacks, Paladin Smites, Monk Ki,  these all come at later levels. However Rogue Sneak Attack and Barbarian Rage come at first level.

My point is, it can go either way for Warlord as well. There is no "must have" about healing at first level for this class. And as I think it should be a sub-class, I think it's probably best fit to be at a later level unless it's some variant on the fighter's self-healing.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

If I understood Happy Hour correctly.

The warlord properly heals. The unusual aspect is, ‘overhealing’. Extra healing is retained as temporary hit points.

For example, a level 1 character has, say 13 hit points. Takes damage and is now at 8. The warlord inspires 8 hit points of healing. This brings the fatigued character from 8, back to 13, with an extra 3 hit points as temporary hit points. So, for a duration of time, the character is now entering combat with a total of 16 hit points.

I really like this. It covers both aspects of truly healing nonphysical hit points − and also instilling extra confidence, alertness, coached tactical acumen.

The flavor is awesome.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> "must have"




4e designs the warlord class for the ‘leader’ role, as an alternative to cleric, at level 1.


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Reaching zero means, the character did get a wound.



That gives me an idea.

"When an ally is reduced to 0 HP, and does not die from massive damage, you can use your reaction to have it reduced to 1 HP instead.  They also gain THP"

It's not "healing" if they never reach 0.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> 4e designs the warlord class for the ‘leader’ role, as an alternative to cleric, at level 1.




So? All classes had powers in 4e as well. This isn't the 4e Warlord, it's the 5e Warlord. 5e classes often build slowly over the first several levels.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> So? All classes had powers in 4e as well. This isn't the 4e Warlord, it's the 5e Warlord. 5e classes often build slowly over the first several levels.




There are 4e fans. The warlord as the primary healer is a must. Even for the lowest levels.

Otherwise, there is no choice. Every group that starts at level 1, must have a magical healer if they want a primary healer.

I want a nonmagical *alternative*, like the 4e warlord was. A real alternative for a primary healer.

That means level 1.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> There are 4e fans. The warlord as the primary healer is a must.




Sure, and the Fighter with Extra Attack is a must, and the monk with Ki is a must, and a Druid with Shapechange is a must, and a Paladin with Smites is a must.

You know what's NOT a must for those in 5e? That it come at first level. 

I liked 4e too. This isn't about being a fan or not a fan of 4e. It's about how to adapt this class to the 5e style. And the 5e style is to not dump all the key abilities into first level if you can help it. They tend to spread out over the first 5 levels.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> That gives me an idea.
> 
> "When an ally is reduced to 0 HP, and does not die from massive damage, you can use your reaction to have it reduced to 1 HP instead.  They also gain THP"
> 
> It's not "healing" if they never reach 0.




Evading injury might be a good spell slot equivalent? It sorta reminds me of Feather Fall, being a reaction.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I liked 4e too.




I know youre a fan of 4e.

Im a fan of a nonmagical healer.


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Im a fan of a nonmagical healer.




I'm not. But I am also against the idea that combat healing should be a role at all. It totally messes with the narrative flow of combat if people keep having their hp go up and down like a piston. Keeping people from bleeding out is good enough for me. Now if there was some way to become a surgeon, that would be an interesting non-magical healer, but you can't really perform an operation in the middle of a battlefield.

As for what that means for Warlords: Nothing really. A Warlord wouldn't function well as a healer, even if they can give you HP back at level one, because healing involves more than just HP damage. Which is fortunate for Warlord fans, as they seem to be more interested in the shuffling people around and giving out extra attacks aspect of the class to begin with.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> That gives me an idea.
> 
> "When an ally is reduced to 0 HP, and does not die from massive damage, you can use your reaction to have it reduced to 1 HP instead.  They also gain THP"
> 
> It's not "healing" if they never reach 0.




As a short rest power like half orc sure. Not at will.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Hmmm.


Every fighter gains Second Wind at level 1. Effectively healing 1d10 + level, per short rest.

What if? The warlord gains the ability to reuse this Second Wind for any team member (including oneself).

This would mean the level 1 warlord would be able to heal about 1d10 hit points per short rest.

This seems to make the warlord effective for a level 1 healer, but at the price of being less tanky than a standard fighter.

Then level 3 gains other healing methods.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> Every fighter gains Second Wind at level 1. Effectively healing 1d10 + level, per short rest.
> ...






Along these lines make this kind healing available to any level 1 fighter.

Second Wind + Fighting Style.

So, say, a ‘Fighting Style’ called Rally grants the fighter the ability to use Second Wind on someone else.

Maybe Rally also allows ‘overheal’ when applying Second Wind to someone.


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> As a short rest power like half orc sure. Not at will.



Well yea.  Not at-will.

Maybe 1/ally per long rest.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> Well yea.  Not at-will.
> 
> Maybe 1/ally per long rest.




Could even be short rest. 
Might have to remember racial abilities that can borrowed for WL powers.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> That is kind of the clerics niche as Druids and Bards do not get all of those spells either or they have limits on how many spells they do know (Bards).
> 
> The 4E WL could not do a lot of  that either non magically.
> 
> ...



Do you own a 5e PHB? Have you ever opened it? All three of those classes get lesser and greater restoration. Two get raise dead, with druid getting reincarnate (which restores life to an ally in a different form). Support is not just hp recovery in 5e.

All I know is that if I'm in a dungeon and I get blinding sickness, I'd rather have a cleric, druid or bard on my team than what is being proposed as a warlord.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> Warlords Foresight.
> At level 17, you become a master at predicting what's going to happen.  Select a creature, they gains advantage on all attacks and saving throws, and creatures have disadvantage when they attack them.
> 
> Straight level 9 spell works fine.



So at 17th level, a warlord becomes clairvoyant. Nothing magical about that!


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Do you own a 5e PHB? Have you ever opened it? All three of those classes get lesser and greater restoration. Two get raise dead, with druid getting reincarnate (which restores life to an ally in a different form). Support is not just hp recovery in 5e.
> 
> All I know is that if I'm in a dungeon and I get blinding sickness, I'd rather have a cleric, druid or bard on my team than what is being proposed as a warlord.




Yes I have but Druids do not get some spells clerics do so they can't do everything clerics do or even heal as well as they miss out on prayer of healing for example.

 Bards do get a few spells like that but they do not get a  lot of spells known similar to the Divine Soul Sorcerer. 

 Either way they are not as good at being a healer as a cleric although they may be able to come close in some fields (hp regain for example) or if they dedicate enough resources to that goal.

 They don't get the all of the spells clerics do.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Yes I have but Druids do not get some spells clerics do so they can't do everything clerics do or even heal as well as they miss out on prayer of healing for example.
> 
> Bards do get a few spells like that but they do not get a  lot of spells known similar to the Divine Soul Sorcerer.
> 
> ...



Doesn't matter, they all get *those* spells, and a warlord needs to match them with the option to get similar effects or be the subpar option.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> There are 4e fans. The warlord as the primary healer is a must. Even for the lowest levels.
> 
> Otherwise, there is no choice. Every group that starts at level 1, must have a magical healer if they want a primary healer.
> 
> ...




Well people in hell want ice water. Why are all these warlord fans so demanding?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> Well people in hell want ice water. Why are all these warlord fans so demanding?



Because if the warlord cannot do exactly what it did in 4e using 5e rules, then 5e is a failure.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Because if the warlord cannot do exactly what it did in 4e using 5e rules, then 5e is a failure.




Yeah things change. 5e has different design considerations, so to expect and demand everything remain the same is just ridiculous.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> There are 4e fans. The warlord as the primary healer is a must. Even for the lowest levels.
> 
> Otherwise, there is no choice. Every group that starts at level 1, must have a magical healer if they want a primary healer.
> 
> ...




And how is that supposed to work exactly? They give someone a good talking to and their severed arm grows back? It makes absolutely no sense for non-magical healing to be as good as magic. That was one of the reasons 4e flopped: it put game mechanics ahead of common sense.

It's worth noting that in Starfinder they have super-advanced medical technology - and it still can't heal as effectively as magic.


----------



## iserith (Mar 14, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And how is that supposed to work exactly? They give someone a good talking to and their severed arm grows back?




Yep. But really LOUD otherwise it doesn't work.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Along these lines make this kind healing available to any level 1 fighter.
> 
> Second Wind + Fighting Style.
> 
> ...




Yeah that I like. Adding a fighting style that lets you use second wind on someone else, or a second time on someone else, is something I like.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Yeah that I like. Adding a fighting style that lets you use second wind on someone else, or a second time on someone else, is something I like.



That would basically allow for one to potentially double-up on the Battle-Master and Banneret, which moves everything closer to a Warlord. One could also potentially then just MC Fighter / Mastermind Rogue to get closer still to something more akin to the Warlord.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> 5e style is to not dump all the key abilities into first level if you can help it. They tend to spread out over the first 5 levels.



 This is a case where it can't be helped. Parties need meaningful support from level one.  In a party with two or more such classes, they can split those duties - the warlord can lay off inspiring back hps while the cleric and pally heal, for instance.  

 Gambit aren't granted powers like turn undead or lay on hands, or inborn sorcerous magic - not fixed/absolute abilities.  They should be more fluid and versatile than in 4e: the tactical warlord might have one set of battle plans briefed and ready.  That may or may not include priming them for a come-from behind win (having inspiring word available).  For a lot of parties, especially those with no magical booboo-banishing to fall back on, it might.  The game construct of level shouldn't really come into it - beyond a higher level warlord with a higher level party being able to have them ready to execute more battle plans, more consistently, of course....


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

Leatherhead said:


> I am also against the idea that combat healing should be a role at all. It totally messes with the narrative flow of combat if people keep having their hp go up and down like a piston.



 You're not wrong.  While the come-from-behind-wins and sense sense of jeopardy and painting of the bad guys as a deadly threat of that 'pistoning' fit the flow of genre combats beautifully, the image of the glowy-handed healer, standing behind 'hero,' closing his wounds fast as they're opened does not.

The Warlord, of course, does not make wounds, even the minor ones hps theoretically represent, just close up. It doesn't, in the narrative, trivialize the price paid in blood for victory, nor take the credit for or meaning of that victory away from those who actually won it.  The Warlord inspires, offers tactics, but the toughness and the execution have to come from his allies, they're not just puppets animated by life force magically pumped into them.

That's why the Warlord as a viable support alternative isn't just needed for players who relish that kind of contribution, but not the high-magic concepts that currently provide it, but also for DMs who want to give campaigns a more heroic genre feel by eliminating the highest-magic class options, and the glowy-healing weirdness they bring with them.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 14, 2018)

You can play a low magic game with little or no healing. Just adjust the encounter difficulties to compensate.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 14, 2018)

Personally, I want to see the following:

A restriction on healing. No healing if character falls to 0 and fails a death save.
 "Don't you die on me!" Bonus to Death Saving Throws , if character fails a Death saving throw, grants another save (with adavantage?), or automatically stabilize. Must be adjacent to target. The target must be able to hear you
"Keep Moving": Forced March: Reduce DC or Grant Advantage for Con Save on forced march. Altneratively, dely or negate the first failed roll
"Snap out of it!: grant another save (with advantage) vs Charmed or stunned. Must be adjacent to target. The target must be able to see and hear you
"Pull yourself together: grant another save (with advantage?) vs.Frightened. Must be adjacent to target. The target must be able to see and hear you


----------



## iserith (Mar 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The Warlord, of course, does not make wounds, even the minor ones hps theoretically represent, just close up.




Right, not to mention that the whole "shouting a hand back on" argument is just dumb and it makes the people using it look silly. It's basically saying "I'm not describing the effects of damage in a way the game intends and, whether I'm willfully ignorant of that fact or just legitimately unaware, I'm still going to base my criticism of non-magical healing on it."


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Because if the warlord cannot do exactly what it did in 4e using 5e rules, then 5e is a failure.




5E is doing fine.  5E warlord doesn't need to do everything a 4E one does just like a 5E Druid or Wizard or whatever doesn't do everything a 3.5 one does and functions differently than a 4E one.

 The concept is more important warlord supports heals fights tactics is the idea of the class.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 5E warlord doesn't need to do everything a 4E one does



 Actually, it needs to do more, or it will be dreadfully inadequate compared to the powered-up 5e versions of it's fellow support classes.  







> just like a 5E Druid or Wizard or whatever doesn't do everything a 3.5 one does and functions differently than a 4E one.



 To be clear:  The 5e Wizard or Druid does /far more/ than it's 4e counterparts.  In 4e, there was a Druid that was a Leader, the Sentinel, there were also controller druid sub-classes, one that shapechanged (sorta) and one that summoned (in a way tuned to 4e's action economy).  The 5e Druid is a full support class, that shapechanges, does area and single-target control, and summons.  

Comparing the 5e Cleric or Druid to the 3.x CoDzilla is a smokescreen.  Yes, we all know how broken the Tier 1 classes were in 3.5, it was overwhelming.  But taking something without that history of extreme brokenness out of the 4e leader box and bringing into 5e as a viable support alternative means powering up, not down, and expanding versatility and flexibility, not paring away most of it.

The question real is, what can we reasonably add to the Warlord to bring it up to snuff?  Rituals aren't some separate hand-wavy sub-system for out-of-combat support & utility, virtually unrestricted by class in 5e, they're heavily gated, there's no 'martial practice' type alternatives established.  The Warlord /will/ need abilities of the same caliber and level, just, clearly, backed by very different narrative, and working with at least somewhat different mechanisms.

I think the Warlord needs to go further into 'Author Stance' as it gains levels.  That would pull the campaign towards a more 'narrativist,' more player-driven mode, so it's just as well the Warlord was put off from the PH and made so profoundly opt-in optional.  (Face it, there's optional-in the PH, optional in a supplement, and optional in a late-edition supplement that hits the shelves in the dropping-off fatigued tail of the edition cycle.)  But, even so, it's a perfectly legitimate style, and there's no reason not to let DMs who choose to so exercise their Empowerment, opt into things that'd support it.



Paul Farquhar said:


> You can play a low magic game with little or no healing. Just adjust the encounter difficulties to compensate.



 You can play a band of bullies wandering around, beating up chumps that have no chance against them.  Hps & the restoration thereof is how D&D manages to present the impression of jeopardy, while allowing heroes to survive many 'deadly' dangers over 20 levels.  Even then, it tends to have Raise Dead as a back-up.  A low-magic game with non-magical healing such as the Warlord might have would still be performing without a net for want of that - a little grittier, a little more meaningful.  But, wiith just HD?  It's performing without a trapeze, just jumping out there and doing a swan-dive into the ground.  

Sure, you can do it from 3' up instead of 30, so you survive every time, but it's not looking so daring anymore, and still no fun...

_Edit:  OK, that's a bit harsh.  There's a level of 'gritty' where that's just the sort of thing you want.  You want to face PCs with a stark choice of cynicism - and survival - or heroism, and very probable death.  With 'very probable' actually delivering death most of the time.
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't be able to go there - they can, currently, by banning 4 or 5 classes, creating a warlord just gives them a 6th to ban, a trivial hardship, while it opens up the game to less profoundly gritty, potentially heroic, yet still low-/no- magic campaigns.  
And, sure, gonzo if you wanna go there... _



iserith said:


> Right, not to mention that the whole "shouting a hand back on" argument is just dumb and it makes the people using it look silly. It's basically saying "I'm not describing the effects of damage in a way the game intends and, whether I'm willfully ignorant of that fact or just legitimately unaware, I'm still going to base my criticism of non-magical healing on it."



 Even Mearls, when he went there, immediately admitted he was being ridiculous.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

I think I like the idea a warlord can use 2nd wind on other people I think I will use that.  They might need a few more as they should not be as good at healing as a cleric the do need some abilities to replace clerical spells. 

Watched Mearls video and he added up how much healing a Eldritch knight could do if those spell slots were used for healing. I'll do the same thing with clerics and assume about a third or half the spells get used for healing and have that feature baked in the main class plus some sort of 2nd wind ability.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> YEven Mearls, when he went there, immediately admitted he was being ridiculous.




Don't bring facts into this!


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 5E is doing fine.  5E warlord doesn't need to do everything a 4E one does just like a 5E Druid or Wizard or whatever doesn't do everything a 3.5 one does and functions differently than a 4E one.
> 
> The concept is more important warlord supports heals fights tactics is the idea of the class.



So, what are you willing to sacrifice of the 4e Warlord to make it work in 5e?


----------



## mellored (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> So at 17th level, a warlord becomes clairvoyant. Nothing magical about that!



It didn't take magic for me to predict someone would make that type of response.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

To go just slightly off topic for a moment, another interesting thing, from both podcasts, is the use of spell slots as a primary resource-balancing mechanism.  Toting up those dice as healing or damage.  

It's interesting in that it ignores what made the classes shake out into Tiers in 3.x:  versatility.   

A hypothetical class that just knew single-target blasting spells - one spell for each spell level, no player choice involved - but with the same slots as a wizard, would be valued the same as said wizard (or cleric or druid) under the scheme as outlined so far.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> So, what are you willing to sacrifice of the 4e Warlord to make it work in 5e?




 Most of my current thinking is here. Note its still rough.

 I am looking at the concepts of the 4E warlord. Healing, support, tactics, combat. 5E doesn't use healing surges for example so its going to need more than 2 uses of 1d6 healing word per short rest.

 A Warlord subclass might also be a good idea for explicitly magical things. Mostly I want the 2 4E PHB warlords to be the focus, tactical being better at things like attack granting, inspiration being better at buffing  and healing.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Doesn't matter, they all get *those* spells, and a warlord needs to match them with the option to get similar effects or be the subpar option.




While that is literally true the idea is the Warlord needs to be as effective but different.  Like we talked about before, the Warlord should be built around the Paladin chassis for balance reasons, just with different mechanics.  The Fighter base chassis is pretty strong as it is, and even better when you get your class specific 3 and 4 attacks per round at 11+ with the extra feats thrown in.  With those extra feats or ABI you will have build defining feats much earlier then others, so whatever you add in needs to be moderated somewhat.

Mearls idea "we already have a class that grants attacks" is just not understanding how people play, people who play BM will tell you Commanders Strike is only worth it with a backstabbing rogue or Paladin willing to smite with the actions you have to give up.  The other maneuvers are rarely worth it.  However there are pieces all over the rules that if put into one package and modified somewhat it would work and be effective.  It also seems like Mearls is strictly fixated on a tactical warlord using intelligence, and the idea of using a zone just seems clunky and destined to slow down combat.  Also his idea that "we don't wont to interfere with bonus actions so as not to mess up two weapon fighting" is absurd, the whole idea is to make choices in combat.  Besides there are many other things that they put it to use your bonus action, it seems a weird hill to die on.  Maybe the better idea is to have a better list of maneuvers in his idea.

There are some good ideas in there, but by starting off by basing it off the eldritch knight I think was a bad idea.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> To go just slightly off topic for a moment, another interesting thing, from both podcasts, is the use of spell slots as a primary resource-balancing mechanism.  Toting up those dice as healing or damage.
> 
> It's interesting in that it ignores what made the classes shake out into Tiers in 3.x:  versatility.
> 
> A hypothetical class that just knew single-target blasting spells - one spell for each spell level, no player choice involved - but with the same slots as a wizard, would be valued the same as said wizard (or cleric or druid) under the scheme as outlined so far.




Context he is layering that amount of healing onto the fighter, its a fighter subclass. Its a generous amount of healing.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> While that is literally true the idea is the Warlord needs to be as effective but different.  Like we talked about before, the Warlord should be built around the Paladin chassis for balance reasons, just with different mechanics.  The Fighter base chassis is pretty strong as it is, and even better when you get your class specific 3 and 4 attacks per round at 11+ with the extra feats thrown in.  With those extra feats or ABI you will have build defining feats much earlier then others, so whatever you add in needs to be moderated somewhat.
> 
> Mearls idea "we already have a class that grants attacks" is just not understanding how people play, people who play BM will tell you Commanders Strike is only worth it with a backstabbing rogue or Paladin willing to smite with the actions you have to give up.  The other maneuvers are rarely worth it.  However there are pieces all over the rules that if put into one package and modified somewhat it would work and be effective.  It also seems like Mearls is strictly fixated on a tactical warlord using intelligence, and the idea of using a zone just seems clunky and destined to slow down combat.  Also his idea that "we don't wont to interfere with bonus actions so as not to mess up two weapon fighting" is absurd, the whole idea is to make choices in combat.  Besides there are many other things that they put it to use your bonus action, it seems a weird hill to die on.  Maybe the better idea is to have a better list of maneuvers in his idea.
> 
> There are some good ideas in there, but by starting off by basing it off the eldritch knight I think was a bad idea.




Commanders strike is great with Rogues but its also useful for.

1. Sword and board battlemaster fighters granting attacks to a two handed weapon iuser.
2. Raging barbarians 
3. Ranged PCs (giving up a melee attack to turn it into a ranged one)
4. All of the above with the -5/+10 feats.
5. Any class using hunters quarry/hex.
6. The hunter ranger using hunters quarry/colossus slayer.

 The BM fighter is also the best one. A Rogue is not required its just really really nice when you have the BM+Rogue combo.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 14, 2018)

The warlord is a class to be used in mass battles. My own idea is a fighter with martial maneuvers like the white raven school from 3.5. Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. And I imagine the mass battles with the packs of soldiers like only a creature but the monster subtype "squad" working like "swarn" monster key, and "morality points", like hit points, but not about health or injures but to avoid retreating if they suffer too much.

* I have thought a crazy idea about warlords like "gladiators" of a fantasy version of MOBA e-sports, where they are in a circus arena controlling armys of illusory miniatures, but where nobody really gets hurt because the little battalions are only "holograms". This could be a future videogame.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 14, 2018)

I'm only halfway through the video but I really like Mearl's ideas. It looks like it is shaping up to be an excellent subclass.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 14, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Commanders strike is great with Rogues but its also useful for.
> 
> 1. Sword and board battlemaster fighters granting attacks to a two handed weapon iuser.
> 2. Raging barbarians
> ...





1.  No.  You are giving up your bonus action chance to prone with shield master and attack with advantage yourself (and the great weapon user too if he moves over) or some other use of a bonus action (and the GW weapon user gives up his reaction) to get the same attack as you (you would have dueling which makes any d8 weapon essentially a d12)  and die from you.  Better to keep it and use it for precision attack if needed or trip attack to give a bunch of people advantage.

2.  Same as above but with a rage bonus.  Not worth it either.

3.  Maybe, if their attacks are a lot better than yours.  You are giving up the bonus action and they are giving up their reaction.  

4.  Only if they are using -5/+10 would any of the above be worth it, in fact it should almost be a precondition that they use it in the right situation (with advantage or bless or both) for the action cost.  Otherwise the answer for all 3 is almost always no, your better off with your bonus and their reaction and your attack.

5.  Maybe, once again it isn't worth it for a few more points of damage, its needs to be like 10+ more to give up your bonus and their reaction.  If you are SURE you cant do something better with your bonus action (and you should have that already) and they have no use of a reaction and you don't need to turn a hit into a miss or make the fear you or trip them then maybe.

6.  See 5 above.  Giving up your bonus action and their reaction for an extra d6 or d8 isn't worth it.  Maybe worth a d6 and d8 added together, if you roll well.

Remember you can use the maneuvers on yourself to add the same amount of damage as you would give to someone else with Commanders Strike (or turn a miss into a hit or add a rider like fear or prone) without costing anyone any actions at all. If you CANT attack, say you are not in range or restrained or something, then the cost is 0, so yeah.  Otherwise the answer is almost always no.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> 1.  No.  You are giving up your bonus action chance to prone with shield master and attack with advantage yourself (and the great weapon user too if he moves over) or some other use of a bonus action (and the GW weapon user gives up his reaction) to get the same attack as you (you would have dueling which makes any d8 weapon essentially a d12)  and die from you.  Better to keep it and use it for precision attack if needed or trip attack to give a bunch of people advantage.
> 
> 2.  Same as above but with a rage bonus.  Not worth it either.
> 
> ...




The bonus action cost for a fighter is mostly second wind or a dual wielder. I would not play a dual wielder BM fighter. I would also probably pick sentinel feat over shield master.

 Reactions are DM dependent most class can not reliably use them. Giving up a 1d8+5 or 1g8+7 attack for a 2d6+5+1d6 (hex+ great weapon), for a ranged attack (if you are not an archer) or for a hunter ranger with a bow to deal 1d8+5+1d6+1d8 is worth it or to enable a barbarian raging with advantage is also worth it. The Rogue is just an ideal at best scenario.

If you are a great weapon fighter or use polearm master the opportunity cost is a bit higher even then I have seen attack granting being used on an archer as those builds suck at range. Its also useful for a dex based fighter switching to a bow for a ranged combat who would usually miss their attacks. 

 The opportunity cost for a warlord to grant an attack (no weapon style, no class features that ramp up damage) is even lower than a battlemaster fighter assuming you have strength or dex as a prime attribute. Its a bit higher for a warlord using a great weapon. 

 Once again assuming the warlord deals damage closer to a cleric than a warrior class, and has other abilities such as healing and tactical things to do. 

 I updated my one here.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?625334-Zards-Warlord-2-0

 Basic idea is the tactical one can grant attacks like a BM fighter and can get extra dice via exploits and grant extra attacks+rider using those exploits. Its better at it than a BM fighter, lower opportunity cost than a BM fighter, can't do it at will though you can probably get it up to aorund 8 times per short rest (24 times a long rest assuming the 2/short rests day thing).

 I also buffed the healing rate probably higher than a few 4E fans have put on their WL attempts.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> 1.  No.  You are giving up your bonus action chance to prone with shield master and attack with advantage yourself (and the great weapon user too if he moves over) or some other use of a bonus action (and the GW weapon user gives up his reaction) to get the same attack as you (you would have dueling which makes any d8 weapon essentially a d12)  and die from you.  Better to keep it and use it for precision attack if needed or trip attack to give a bunch of people advantage.
> 
> 2.  Same as above but with a rage bonus.  Not worth it either.
> 
> ...




3. If you are melee and they are ranged sometime regardless of damage you just need the enemy caster to stop concentrating on something like right now.

6. There are many classes that lack a good reaction, and unless you are two weapon fighting what is your bonus action going to be used for as a fighter?


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 14, 2018)

Currently re-watching the video (it's up on YouTube now, here), and seeing that Mike answers several of the questions brought up.

A couple things:

1) He's explicitly on-board with giving the Warlord healing right from the start (3rd level, in this case).  There's no reason not to, and since it's drawing off of the dice pools he created from the Eldritch Knight's spells, as soon as that pool is available, you should be able to use it in that way.

I put together a table comparing the potential Warlord healing vs a Cleric's Cure Wounds + Heal, assuming they both used every possible bit of their resources on healing. It varies a bit, generally ranging from 30% to 60% of a cleric's potential. When you consider that the Cleric needs to use spells for lots of other things, and that the Warlord has somewhat higher efficiency because of overhealing and temp HP, I would consider the Warlord to be on par with most of the raw HP healing that a Cleric would provide.

2) A point that I missed when I did the transcription: The size of the Tactical Focus area should grow as you level.  He didn't specify the amount, but I could see it being reasonable to increase in size by 1 square per level. (Max size: 21 squares)  A more conservative growth rate would be 1 square every other level. (Max size: 12 squares)

I'd probably evaluate what you could do at 10th level. 

A growth of 1 square every other level would have a size of 7 squares by 10th level, which is longer than a single person's move speed (barring movement improvements).  You can get a bit of a stretch for an escape run, or maybe 3 squares in front of and behind a door, plus the space in the doorway.  You can surround all but one square of a medium creature.  There's stuff you can do with it, but it has to be tightly focused.

A growth of 1 square every level would have a size of 11 squares by 10th level.  That's enough to completely surround a medium creature (and just one more square would surround a large creature).  It gives very long runs to allow evading opportunity attacks, and very large position swaps.  Honestly, at this size the cantrip options start becoming quite powerful, and rearranging it on the map starts becoming troublesome.

Since the healing/damage ability is restricted to the Tactical Focus area, you want it to be large enough to connect to your various party members.  I think, if it was designed for a party of 4, 7 squares would be sufficient.  If your party size is 6 to 8 players, the effect starts becoming more difficult to coordinate.  But then again, with a party of that size, there's so much potential power at the table that you don't _need_ to be able to handle everything.

I'm going to _guess_ that it will increase at 1 square every other level, as that keeps things narrowly focused enough to require "interesting choices".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> 1) He's explicitly on-board with giving the Warlord healing right from the start (3rd level, in this case).



 Heh.  Not actually the start, since 1st level is when parties are at their most fragile.  (The "3rd is the new 1st" thing has not caught on in my area, at all. I was totally behind it, I was expecting APs to start at 3rd, MCing to suggest 1/1/1 fighter/magic-user/thieves for old time's sake...  but, no.  1st remains 1st.  Event organizers around here seem unanimous in wanting intro games to be 1st level, and the same rules that make the gave very forgiving at mid level, make it oddly, randomly deadly at 1st.)

One of several reasons fighter sub-class fails before it begins.  



> 2) A point that I missed when I did the transcription: The size of the Tactical Focus area should grow as you level.



 I mean, growing it makes sense, aesthetically (the D&D aesthetic of you-get-better-as-you-level) but, ultimately, I'm not sure what the point of it is, in the first place.


----------



## Krachek (Mar 14, 2018)

To help nearby allies to attack, I’m found of the barbarian wolf totem at level 3.
To help allies in various situations, bardic inspiration is the best.
Paladin aura of protection is one of the best continuous protection feature.

So my warlord is a barbarian 3 /  bard 5 / paladin 6. 

Just need to merge all these in a single class now!


----------



## Krachek (Mar 14, 2018)

Level 1 bardic inspiration
Level 2 spell casting. Half caster. All you can do with your slots is smite as paladin or cast healing word spell. Choose two : jack of all trades, song of rest or a fighting style.
Level 3 expertise + wolf totem of barbarian as a tactician feature.
Level 4 asi
Level 5 font of inspiration + extra attack. Font of tactic.
Level 6 aura of protection as paladin. Can be rename Global defense tactics.
Level 7 choose one of the ranger defensive tactic as a tactican feature.

Rename bardic inspiration to Tactician advice.

proficiencies : martial weapons and all armor and shield.
saving throw: strength and charisma.
skill any three.
hit dice d10.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Like we talked about before, the Warlord should be built around the Paladin chassis for balance reasons, just with different mechanics.




 Ultimately, I think this is the best compromise. 

A nonmagical support class is too narrow to remotely match the power and versatility of a cleric, druid, or bard. Trying to make the warlord fit that role in 5e without resorting to magic or handwaving is going to fail. On the same token, a fighter archetype is probably too narrow. Ideally, the Warlord should still be a martial class (matching a barbarian, ranger and paladin) but instead of spells, rage, or smites, they get warlordy powers. That way, they are able to do their warlord abilties (heal, buff, tactics), and are decent fighters themselves (when better options aren't available). His role should resemble the paladin's (healer, buffer, warrior, diplomat) but without the divine trappings and powers. 

However, there seems to be a lot of "in 4e, a warlord was a nonmagical cleric, so he must be the nonamagical cleric in 5e as well" which to me is both short sighted and ultimately self-defeating. The Ranger was a striker (like the rogue) in 4e but a warrior in 5e, so I see no reason why the warlord can't make a similar shift. His abilities would be narrower than a cleric, and to make up for it he'd be a better warrior (but not as good as fighter). 

Its the most elegant solution, but since it "isn't exactly the 4e warlord in 5e" it will continue to be ignored in favor of some mythical nonmagical bard-replacement class. Believe me, the conceptual space gets a lot easier when you stop thinking "cleric-equivalent" and start thinking "paladin equivalent".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Trying to make the warlord fit that role in 5e without resorting to magic or handwaving is going to fail.



 "Handwaving" it is then.  



> On the same token, a fighter archetype is probably too narrow. Ideally, the Warlord should still be a martial class (matching a barbarian, ranger and paladin) but instead of spells, rage, or smites, they get warlordy powers.



 There's no martial source in 5e.  Instead, such concepts are defined by what they lack:  supernatural powers such as spells, spells, spells, granted divine powers, spells, ki, spells, psionics, spells, and, I suppose, spells.  (5e has a lotta spellcasters is what I'm subtly alluding to in passing, there, in case anyone missed it.)  Probably not coincidentally, the 5 sub-classes in the PH that fall into that all contribute DPR in combat.  Two also contribute some enhanced skill use; the other three are decidedly tanky in their DPR contributions.  That's not a lot to hang character concepts on.  If you do care to use magic, you have quite a range of choices.  
That disparity needs to be addressed, and the Warlord, by virtue of having appeared as a full class in a PH1 should be at the front of the queue.  It was also the Martial/Leader in 4e, so was in a unique-to-D&D position of enabling relatively normal D&D play without the traditional Band-Aid Cleric, nor any of it's second-string magical replacements (like the Druid, Paladin, Bard, or WoCLW).  Suddenly, D&D was almost-seamlessly playable in low-/no-magic campaign modes that had always been problematic, before.  Of course, there was more to that (healing surges, marginally consistent encounter design guidelines, formalized Source, etc), but the Warlord was a key part of it.



> That way, they are able to do their warlord abilties (heal, buff, tactics), and are decent fighters themselves (when better options aren't available). His role should resemble the paladin's (healer, buffer, warrior, diplomat) but without the divine trappings and powers.



 It'd be a nearer miss than the Fighter as a model.



> However, there seems to be a lot of "in 4e, a warlord was a nonmagical cleric, so he must be the nonamagical cleric in 5e as well" which to me is both short sighted and ultimately self-defeating.



 Martial Leader.  The Leader box in 4e was very constraining.  They chopped a lot off the cleric to stuff it in there, they were able to split the Druid between the Leader and Controller boxes and still had bits left over - while the Bard dropped right in and still needed some padding.  But, formal and narrow though Leader was, it did make a convenient way to reference D&D's long dependency on the Cleric 'type' - the Band-Aid, the healer, the WoCLW with legs - and to easily address that issue.  5e abandoned the term, but not the convenience of having several viable support alternatives.  The Cleric, Druid and Bard can all keep a party going when things go south, in slightly different ways, while having a fair amount of versatility, as well.  That 'support' type of class is still needed to keep the game running smoothly, but, unlike the narrower leader role in 4e, it's still also tied to magical power.  



> The Ranger was a striker (like the rogue) in 4e but a warrior in 5e



 The ranger still outputs some serious DPR, it hasn't exactly changed roles.  Same goes for the Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock and Slayer(Fighter).  DPR.  I casually juxtaposes with the durability of a 4e defender, in some cases, but without anyting resembling marking.  So, not really a shift, more an expansion.  



> I see no reason why the warlord can't make a similar shift.



 Can, and it needs to.  A simple translation from the limited source/role framework of 4e would be underpowered.



> it "isn't exactly the 4e warlord in 5e" it will continue to be ignored in favor of some mythical nonmagical bard-replacement class. Believe me, the conceptual space gets a lot easier when you stop thinking "cleric-equivalent" and start thinking "paladin equivalent".



 The Paladin was a secondary leader in 4e, but primarily a defender, a front-liner.  In 5e, defenders aren't really a thing, 'tanks' (I'll call 'em, there's no formal terms) are, they're tough like a 4e defender, and hit like a 4e striker (adjusted for 5e numbers, of course).  The fighter, barbarian, pally, they're tanks - even the Ranger presumably could be.  Moon Druids, War Cleric, Valor Bards, they're mainly support (and also control, and utility, they're casters - 5e casters are super-versatile), but can off-tank a bit if they had to (OK, the Moon Druid's a bear of a tank at specific levels).  

Since the few non-magical sub-classes already available have tanking and skill enhancement sewn up and are all-in with DPR, there's not a lot of point to skewing the Warlord any more in that direction than it already went.  OTOH, there's something to be gained in the potential viability of such parties/campaigns in expanding it into the 'controller' space that it also had a clear inclination towards (manipulating enemies, either with clever tactics (INT) or provocation/intimidation/deceit (CHA) which the warlord did in 4e, just only to the degree that wouldn't step on controllers' sensitive toes), as well as making it a viable source of the support a party needs for the dynamics of D&D combat to work.

Of course, I'm looking at it as much from a DM as a player perspective.  The low-/no-magic campaign has always been elusive and problematic, requiring all sorts of adjustments, variants, soft-balling, and 'GM force' to get in place & keep rolling.  In 4e's brief tenure, it was almost seamless - only a martial controller could have made it better (and I agitated for one of those, too, at the time) - and didn't even have to be a campaign, an all-martial party was perfectly viable in an otherwise normal campaign.  

The Warlord - as viable, non-magical support class, any necessary hand-waving included - is not really a lot to ask, but what it could deliver is potentially huge.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> This is a case where it can't be helped. Parties need meaningful support from level one.




They really don't. It's level one. It's gone in the blink of an eye. I've been through level 1 plenty of times with no meaningful support. In fact in both games I am in right now, nobody played the support role from level 1 (though it did come later). So empirically you do not "need" it from level one and it can in fact be helped.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Handwaving" it is then.




And we've come full circle back to gamist mechanics devoid of any meaning in the game world. You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".



Tony Vargas said:


> There's no martial source in 5e. Instead, such concepts are defined by what they lack:  supernatural powers such as spells, spells, spells, granted divine powers, spells, ki, spells, psionics, spells, and, I suppose, spells.  (5e has a lotta spellcasters is what I'm subtly alluding to in passing, there, in case anyone missed it.)  Probably not coincidentally, the 5 sub-classes in the PH that fall into that all contribute DPR in combat.  Two also contribute some enhanced skill use; the other three are decidedly tanky in their DPR contributions.  That's not a lot to hang character concepts on.  If you do care to use magic, you have quite a range of choices.




"Martial", as I was defining it, was classes that are generally good at combat. Defined as "proficient in martial weapons, most if not all armors, d10 or greater HD, and two attacks at 5th level". This category covers the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin, as those classes can more or less swap for one another in the role of combat while bringing different secondary abilities to the table. 

Nonmagical, as you are describing, is somewhat limited: The fighter is decisively nonmagical, as is the rogue (barring certain subclasses).The Barbarian is fairly nonmagical, though you can argue rage can be viewed as a supernatural ability beyond mere anger issues, and the monk has ki as a source of supernatural exploits. Rangers and Paladins have spells and divine powers. 

Unfortunately, that is a rather small box. The best place to look for outside the box in 5e is Battlemaster (as they can grant extra attacks, temp hp, and a variety of tactical attack). My concept is to expand the battlemaster into a full class and use it as a guide to develop more powerful effects. But effects that, at most, would be on par with 5th level magic tops (and far more narrowly defined than anything a current caster can use). I think there is design space there that won't cause outright rejection by the D&D community at large. 




Tony Vargas said:


> That disparity needs to be addressed, and the Warlord, by virtue of having appeared as a full class in a PH1 should be at the front of the queue.  It was also the Martial/Leader in 4e, so was in a unique-to-D&D position of enabling relatively normal D&D play without the traditional Band-Aid Cleric, nor any of it's second-string magical replacements (like the Druid, Paladin, Bard, or WoCLW).  Suddenly, D&D was almost-seamlessly playable in low-/no-magic campaign modes that had always been problematic, before.  Of course, there was more to that (healing surges, marginally consistent encounter design guidelines, formalized Source, etc), but the Warlord was a key part of it.




This to me doesn't say "I want a class that is good at tactics and support" and says "I want a class that I can use to re-write D&D to be low/no magic." That to me is effectively a non-issue. The warlord should work not as a cleric replacement for no-magic games, but as a unique element on the D&D Multiverse. 

I'm sorry, but the concerns of "low/no magic D&D" rank right up there with the lack of modern technology like cell-phones and cars in the list of Things I Don't Think Should Matter When Designing for Dungeons & Dragons. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It'd be a nearer miss than the Fighter as a model.




Only because you refuse to compromise. The designers, starting from the Battlemaster up to today's Warlord HFH, view the Warlord as basically worth a fighter subclass. A good compromise is a full class that is a hybrid of a fighter and a support class who isn't required to check all the boxes of a support caster nor is he bound by the constraints of a fighter subclass. 

Put another way, would a paladin-like official warlord be better than the no-warlord you have right now? 



Tony Vargas said:


> Martial Leader.  The Leader box in 4e was very constraining.  They chopped a lot off the cleric to stuff it in there, they were able to split the Druid between the Leader and Controller boxes and still had bits left over - while the Bard dropped right in and still needed some padding.  But, formal and narrow though Leader was, it did make a convenient way to reference D&D's long dependency on the Cleric 'type' - the Band-Aid, the healer, the WoCLW with legs - and to easily address that issue.  5e abandoned the term, but not the convenience of having several viable support alternatives.  The Cleric, Druid and Bard can all keep a party going when things go south, in slightly different ways, while having a fair amount of versatility, as well.  That 'support' type of class is still needed to keep the game running smoothly, but, unlike the narrower leader role in 4e, it's still also tied to magical power.




Many of the effects that the "band-aid" support classes are there for are unfortunately magical, and have magical solutions. I'd say this is because D&D is a highly magical game, as evidence by in every edition magical/caster-classes outnumber non-caster classes by a large margin. To me, a martial "support class" changes many assumptions about the game at the fundemental level. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I feel its beyond the scope of D&D and what the designers have laid out for it. It really sounds like a warlord is a better fit for a non-magical game like The One Ring d20 than D&D. 



Tony Vargas said:


> The ranger still outputs some serious DPR, it hasn't exactly changed roles.  Same goes for the Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock and Slayer(Fighter).  DPR.  I casually juxtaposes with the durability of a 4e defender, in some cases, but without anyting resembling marking.  So, not really a shift, more an expansion.




As stated above, the ranger in 5e is a lot closer to fighter than rogue these days. 



Tony Vargas said:


> The Paladin was a secondary leader in 4e, but primarily a defender, a front-liner.  In 5e, defenders aren't really a thing, 'tanks' (I'll call 'em, there's no formal terms) are, they're tough like a 4e defender, and hit like a 4e striker (adjusted for 5e numbers, of course).  The fighter, barbarian, pally, they're tanks - even the Ranger presumably could be.  Moon Druids, War Cleric, Valor Bards, they're mainly support (and also control, and utility, they're casters - 5e casters are super-versatile), but can off-tank a bit if they had to (OK, the Moon Druid's a bear of a tank at specific levels).




In 5e, a paladin is a warrior who can support his allies with healing (lay on hands), defensive buffs (auras), and spells (bless). A warlord could easily fill the same role as a warrior who gets healing (inspiring word), defensive buffs (command zones) and spells (gambits). 



Tony Vargas said:


> Since the few non-magical sub-classes already available have tanking and skill enhancement sewn up and are all-in with DPR, there's not a lot of point to skewing the Warlord any more in that direction than it already went.  OTOH, there's something to be gained in the potential viability of such parties/campaigns in expanding it into the 'controller' space that it also had a clear inclination towards (manipulating enemies, either with clever tactics (INT) or provocation/intimidation/deceit (CHA) which the warlord did in 4e, just only to the degree that wouldn't step on controllers' sensitive toes), as well as making it a viable source of the support a party needs for the dynamics of D&D combat to work.




The issue with the "warlord as contrroller" gets into the nasty mess of disassociated mechanics and "martial mind control" that was a huge sticking point of 4e. I'd rather avoid those issues and work in the design space hollowed out by 5e to try to ease those concepts in rather than throttle the gas and bring back Come and Get it. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Of course, I'm looking at it as much from a DM as a player perspective.  The low-/no-magic campaign has always been elusive and problematic, requiring all sorts of adjustments, variants, soft-balling, and 'GM force' to get in place & keep rolling.  In 4e's brief tenure, it was almost seamless - only a martial controller could have made it better (and I agitated for one of those, too, at the time) - and didn't even have to be a campaign, an all-martial party was perfectly viable in an otherwise normal campaign.




4e made the low/no magic game possible by beating magic to death with a stick. 4e magic and 5e magic are light-years apart, and I'm afraid there isn't enough ways to make up that distance without grinding magic back down to "attack + riders" and rituals again. 



Tony Vargas said:


> The Warlord - as viable, non-magical support class, any necessary hand-waving included - is not really a lot to ask, but what it could deliver is potentially huge.




No, its a HUGE thing to ask. 

4e is still viewed as the poster-child of everything people hated about 4e; disassociated mechanics, powers, source/role grid-filling, encounter/daily martial powers, etc. WotC has to understand that any warlord that brings those elements back to 5e in a large, unchecked way is going to cause huge amounts of grief. A martial character tossing "nonmagical" equivalents to Foresight is going to grind more gears than it doesn't. Simply put, there isn't a big enough market to warrant its design and development, esp since WotC has been slow and cautious on introducing new classes (the artificer and mystic are still in development hell). Even my paladin-looking warlord, while probably less problematic than a "casterless caster" is still a large amound of design and development to satisfy a rather small minority of the fanbase. 

Moral the story: the wilder the design goals of a warlord, the less likely it will ever see creation. I tried to shoot for a compromise by making him partially a warrior, based around an existing mechanic (superiority dice), and adding in as much of the 4e class as I could given 5e's definitions of magic and mundane power. 

A nonmagical cleric has literally no chance in hell. A battlemaster+ as a full 20 level class, though just might.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> And we've come full circle back to gamist mechanics devoid of any meaning in the game world. You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Erm battlemaster over the whole 20 levels?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?625334-Zards-Warlord-2-0

 Also this is the rate I think I have settled on for the WL in regards to healing.


Inspiring  Word
 As a bonus action a creature of your choice within 30’regains hit points equal to 1d8+ your warlord level. You may use this feature twice between rests. You regain all uses of this feature once you complete a short or long rest.

Healing Surge

As an action all allies within 30’ of you regain hit points equal to 2d8+ your warlord level. You regain all uses of this feature once you complete a short or long rest.

 You get healing surge at level 2 with another use at level 6. I was going to design some exploits/gambits/powers etc to allow more healing but this is whats baked in.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> And we've come full circle back to gamist mechanics devoid of any meaning in the game world. You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".



 I get it, you disaprove of a version of the game I liked.  You, however, should have the basic respect and consideration for your fellow fans to hold your nose, look the other way, or whatever it is you need to metaphorically do to live with the idea of those of use who like having that kind of option actually having it, in some obscure supplement, several years from now (assuming it enters development tomorrow - look how long the mystic's taken and still not seen print!).




> 4e made the low/no magic game possible by beating magic to death with a stick. 4e magic and 5e magic are light-years apart, and I'm afraid there isn't enough ways to make up that distance without grinding magic back down to "attack + riders" and rituals again.



 Your fear is unfounded.  There's no reason a functional support alternative in the warlord couldn't be, as you put "hand waved" (that is, given the same narrative forbearance as D&D has always granted magic), right into some optional little supplement, with no impact whatsoever on the underlying system and the standard game. 




> still viewed as the poster-child of everything people hated about 4e; disassociated mechanics, powers, source/role grid-filling, encounter/daily martial powers, etc. WotC has to understand that any warlord that brings those elements back to 5e in a large, unchecked way is going to cause huge amounts of grief.



  All that's remotely on the table at this point is an option, it's years into the edition, the standard version of 5e D&D is set in stone, a decent Warlord that does bring back all the things people loved about 4e (which it couldn't possibly do alone, but hey, even if it did) will not hurt those who hated 4e, it'll be an option they can just ignore.  

5e was introduced, at the start of the Next playtest as aspiring to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D.  Fans of 4e loved D&D, even if only for a few years.  Fans of the Warlord loved D&D.  

It really is very little to ask.  The same live-and-let-live consideration you're asked to give your fellow human beings who might differ from you in some small way, every day.

As far as compromise, how is waiting years and years, not meeting you half way?  You have had D&D be the exercise in high-magic caster-supremacy you seem to insist upon, exclusively, for the first - probably about half, unless it goes significantly longer than 3.5 - of the current ed's life.  

Can you not just set aside the grudge you hold against 4e and everyone who ever enjoyed playing it?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I get it, you disaprove of a version of the game I liked.  You, however, should have the basic respect and consideration for your fellow fans to hold your nose, look the other way, or whatever it is you need to metaphorically do to live with the idea of those of use who like having that kind of option actually having it, in some obscure supplement, several years from now (assuming it enters development tomorrow - look how long the mystic's taken and still not seen print!).




D&D doesn't do obscure supplements; it does yearly rules updates bound with a heaping topping of fluff. If you're looking for obscure online supplements, WotC will kindly point you to the DMsGuild. Anything WotC puts out in its official capacity is going to be big and put in the major release, so it needs to appeal the widest swath of players.  

And while I did not enjoy my time with 4e, I do not begrudge those that did. However, it is fair to say the treatment of martial characters, outside of some true hardcore fans, wasn't the most well-received element of the game; if the Essentials Knight, Slayer, and Thief were any indicator. 



Tony Vargas said:


> 5e was introduced, at the start of the Next playtest as aspiring to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D.  Fans of 4e loved D&D, even if only for a few years.  Fans of the Warlord loved D&D.




Yet 5e can't be everything to everyone. There are fans of the Elf class from BECMI who love D&D. There are fans of Council of Wyrms who love D&D. There are fans of Player's Option: Skills and Powers who love D&D. Do they deserve official support too?



Tony Vargas said:


> It really is very little to ask.  The same live-and-let-live consideration you're asked to give your fellow human beings who might differ from you in some small way, every day.




So let me spell out my considerations. 

* I believe that there is design space for an archetype of martial leader commonly called the Warlord.
* I believe the concept warrants more design space than a Fighter or Rogue subclass allows.
* I believe the concept should support hp recovery, buffing, tactical considerations, and allowance of extra actions (including some form of attack)
* I believe there is sufficient room currently to create a martial leader based on the rules that already exist, once remixed and expanded upon. 

* I don't believe the game can support a nonmagical version of the cleric, equal enough to the cleric enough to substitute for it, and not fundamentally warp with its inclusion.
* I don't believe nonmagical characters should have powers equal to 6th level or greater magic.
* I don't believe the lack of a non-magical support character for low/no magic games is alone sufficient to warrant its creation.
* I don't believe that the 4e warlord is the only, let alone best, way to emulate the archetype of the martial leader. 

So perhaps it is that I believe there should be *A* warlord class, but not necessarily the *4e* warlord class, although the concepts share significant overlap. 



Tony Vargas said:


> As far as compromise, how is waiting years and years, not meeting you half way?  You have had D&D be the exercise in high-magic caster-supremacy you seem to insist upon, exclusively, for the first - probably about half, unless it goes significantly longer than 3.5 - of the current ed's life.




Its not caster supremacy, its keeping mundane and magical effects separate. If a highly intelligent warlord can devise plans equal to foresight, than what exactly makes the spell magical? 

As for waiting; get in line behind the chronomancer, Incarnum, and Birthright...



Tony Vargas said:


> Can you not just set aside the grudge you hold against 4e and everyone who ever enjoyed playing it?




I don't begrudge you. Play 4e all you want. You're still part of the D&D table. I want a warlord that could be accepted at most tables, not just the ones that enjoyed 4e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> D&D doesn't do obscure supplements;



 5e really does.  5e is the Core 3.  Everything else gets a weird name that doesn't even sound like a rules supplement.  SCAG sounded like a setting book. I can barely remember the names of the others.  Xana-somethingorother....?  If you don't like Bladesingers, do you go "XOMG! the nasty horrid bladesinererss, they are in SCAG, I must let anyone at my table play one!"  No, you shrug and move on...



> If you're looking for obscure online supplements,



 Nope.  I'm old.  If a tree didn't die for it, it's not worth my time. ;P



> I do not begrudge those that did.



 Then recuse yourself from threads on the topic.



> However, it is fair to say the treatment of martial characters, outside of some true hardcore fans, wasn't the most well-received element of the game; if the Essentials Knight, Slayer, and Thief were any indicator.



The knight, slayer & thief were returns to the classic game's (mis)treatment of the martial source idiot-specialists in DPR.  But, to be fair, there was no way Essentials was getting a fair shake - h4ters hated it for being 4e, 4vengers hated it for knuckling under to h4ters.  Most doomed half-ed ever.

The Warlord, Fighter, & Rogue, and their expansions in MP & MP2 were pretty well-loved among 4e fans.



> Yet 5e can't be everything to everyone. There are fans of the Elf class from BECMI who love D&D.



 Yes!  And the EK and bladesinger seem made for them, but here is NO way they shouldn't get an elfing elf racial class!  It'd be made of awesome! 
(heck, there should've been an "Elf" and "Halfing" in the basic pdf, with no mention of their (multi)class.  Just:  You're an Elf!  You fight & use magic!  You're a halfling!  You sneak around and steal gold cups from dragons!)

Seriously, I half-expected an Elf class of some sort in 5e.  OK, maybe 7/16th expected it.



> There are fans of Council of Wyrms who love D&D.



 Settings are a whole nuther kettle of wyrms.  There have been so many.  Still, I don't doubt they'll all get something eventually.  There are rumors of Spelljammer for 5e, and it has been gone for decades.



> There are fans of Player's Option: Skills and Powers who love D&D. Do they deserve official support too?



 They prettymuch have it, AFAICT.  But, I'm not conversant - I was separated from D&D from '95 'til 3.0.



> * I don't believe the game can support a nonmagical version of the cleric, equal enough to the cleric enough to substitute for it, and not fundamentally warp with its inclusion.



 The game cannot be fundamentally warped by an option.



> * I don't believe nonmagical characters should have powers equal to 6th level or greater magic.



 You are entitled to that belief, and free, as a DM to ban any such powers from your table.  And, while I'd happily accept such things, I've always (and I mean always, back to the 80s) felt there was a stark line between 5th & 6th level spells.  Ultimately, though, Gambits & Maneuvers aren't spells, and don't need to follow their progressions or paradigms - they just need to be balanced, and, in the case of the warlord, constitute a viable sole support option for parities.  Even if it means the genre-appropriate narratives that implies get derided as 'hand-waving' or 'dissociatied' by those who are under no obligation to use, nor even glance at, them.



> * I don't believe the lack of a non-magical support character for low/no magic games is alone sufficient to warrant its creation.



 Oh, alone, it is.  But it's not nearly alone in that.  A PH1 class from a controversial edition excluded from the PH, alone, is reason enough.  The compelling character concepts it enables, alone, are reason enough.



> I don't believe that the 4e warlord is the only, let alone best, way to emulate the archetype of the martial leader.



 'Leader' was 4e jargon.  It needn't be taken literally.  It's the best (only) model in D&D history for a non-magical support class.



> So perhaps it is that I believe there should be *A* warlord class, but not necessarily the *4e* warlord class



 A direct port of the 4e Warlord would fail as hard as a Fighter sub-class.  5e raises the bar on PC versatility & power non-trivially from 4e, including what's demanded for viable support.  



> Its not caster supremacy, its keeping mundane and magical effects separate.



 "It's not dicrimination, it's separate but equal?"
 Listen to yourself.



> As for waiting; get in line behind the chronomancer, Incarnum, and Birthright...



 Any of them in a PH1?  No.  



> I don't begrudge you. Play 4e all you want.



 Look.  If "you can keep playing that prior ed" were adequate, there'd have been no basis whatsoever for anyone complaining about 4e, not one peep.  
Fans of 3.5 had the OGL, their system of choice would be supported as long as there was the least demand for - and was, lavishly, by PF.  There have been more PF books published than were published for 3.5 & 4e /combined/. 

Fans of the classic game were warring against 4e in the midst of the Old School Renaissance, with multiple games catering precisely to what they wanted coming out in a continuous stream.

4e cannot be legally cloned.  It has been entirely unsupported for 6 years, heck, 8 if you didn't cotton to Essentials.
5e is the only supported option for ongoing D&D fans who preferred 4e over prior editions.
(And, let's be honest, fans of 4e are the D&D fans who embrace each new edition and give it every chance, or they wouldn't have become fans of 4e in spite of the toxic environment that surrounded it.)


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 5e really does.  5e is the Core 3.  Everything else gets a weird name that doesn't even sound like a rules supplement.  SCAG sounded like a setting book. I can barely remember the names of the others.  Xana-somethingorother....?  If you don't like Bladesingers, do you go "XOMG! the nasty horrid bladesinererss, they are in SCAG, I must let anyone at my table play one!"  No, you shrug and move on...
> 
> Nope.  I'm old.  If a tree didn't die for it, it's not worth my time. ;P
> 
> ...




You can clone 4E using the ogl. Just have to change the names. It's alot of work though.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I think I like the idea a warlord can use 2nd wind on other people I think I will use that.  They might need a few more as they should not be as good at healing as a cleric the do need some abilities to replace clerical spells.




The level 1 cleric heals two spell slots per *LONG *rest.

If the level 1 warlord grants Second Wind, once per *SHORT *rest, that seems effective.

Im not tracking all the bonuses that the cleric can opt into. But the frequency of warlord healing seems ok.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The level 1 cleric heals two spell slots per *LONG *rest.
> 
> If the level 1 warlord grants Second Wind, once per *SHORT *rest, that seems effective.
> 
> Im not tracking all the bonuses that the cleric can opt into. But the frequency of warlord healing seems ok.




Currently giving them 2 per short rest as my version heals less and clerics scale better at level 2and 3.

  Might have made it a bit generous which in hindsight with the healing surge thing.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Currently giving them 2 per short rest as my version heals less and clerics scale better at level 2and 3.
> 
> Might have made it a bit generous which in hindsight with the healing surge thing.




Just noting that adding a *Rally Fighting Style* to grant Second Wind to others, seems to meet the need for a level 1 healer. (Without looking too closely at the cleric healing options.)


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

Heh, regarding the thread.

The phrase is ‘hand waive’ − with an i in waive.

‘Waive’ in the sense of refusing to enforce something. And ‘hand’ in the sense of something like a casual shrug.



That said, the phrase ‘hand waive’ is pretty rare, but conveys the image of a backhanded dismissal. Probably under the influence of ‘hand wave’ in the sense of good bye.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Just noting that adding a *Rally Fighting Style* to grant Second Wind to others, seems to meet the need for a level 1 healer. (Without looking too closely at the cleric healing options.)





More or less what I am doing except it's a d8.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> More or less what I am doing except it's a d8.




I would go with either d10 (fighter) or whatever the hit dice of the one being healed is. So, wizard gets a d6 Second Wind, cleric gets d8, barbarian d12.

Plus, the option to take a nonrandom value, so 4 ≈ d6, 5 ≈ d8.

If necessary to increase the healing, maybe Ralley allows the warlord (level 1 warlord wannabe) to add the warlords Charisma on top of the Second Will.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I would go with either d10 (fighter) or whatever the hit dice of the one being healed is. So, wizard gets a d6 Second Wind, cleric gets d8, barbarian d12.
> 
> Plus, the option to take a nonrandom value, so 4 ≈ d6, 5 ≈ d8.
> 
> If necessary to increase the healing, maybe Ralley allows the warlord (level 1 warlord wannabe) to add the warlords Charisma on top of the Second Will.



My inspiring warlord does charisma to healing. D8 also makes it easier to compare to healing spells and in effect the warlord is granting his own healing surge.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 15, 2018)

1) In a low magic setting, it does not make sense for healing to be easily available from any source, and in-combat healing should be non existent. As in real life, any combat should be nasty and deadly, no-one should go into it with the expectation that no one will die, unless there is a vast difference in power. The focus should be on the Medicine skill. Without it even minor wounds should frequently lead to infection and death.

2) Consider Game of Thrones. A low magic setting, but you still need a magic using cleric to bring someone back from the dead.

3) If you are going for low-magic-but-fantastical you are in an Indiana Jones type setting. In which case healing usually comes from calling on inner reserves, rather than an external factor. I would suggest you give everyone an ability like "Second Wind" or "Dwarven Fortitude" rather than having a specialist healer.

4) There is no place for such a character in a medium/high magic setting. If you could achieve equally effective results without years of study/devotion to a god/being a mutant who would put the effort into acquiring magic? You need to think about setting-specific classes - i.e. replacing clerics and bards, not just banning them. Then overlap doesn't matter because your "Warlord" doesn't exist in medium or high magic settings.

5)
*Divine Domain: Warlord*.

If the gods exist in your world, they do not involve themselves in the affairs of mortals.The warlord may have faith in a god, or they may just have faith in themselves, but wherever their power comes from the can achieve similar results that clerics do in other worlds.

*Non-magical*
At first level your skills, training and force of will enable you to achieve the same results as casting a cleric spell _but without using any magic_.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

My theory is in a low magic setting in regards to healing, you go without. This is how we did it in 2E, you just change the way you design the encounters/campaign.

 You don't need to replace the cleric (or whatever).

 I would be more inclined to play 2E for a low magic game.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Then recuse yourself from threads on the topic.




I shall, since apparently not being in lockstep means my ideas are not valued. I'm also recusing myself from any further communication with you, since your main method of handling contrary opinions is to label them with childish nicknames, accuse them of edition warring, and telling them they cannot speak of 4e since they weren't Kool-aid drinkers. 

Good bye. We'll not meet again.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 15, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> 3. If you are melee and they are ranged sometime regardless of damage you just need the enemy caster to stop concentrating on something like right now.
> 
> 6. There are many classes that lack a good reaction, and unless you are two weapon fighting what is your bonus action going to be used for as a fighter?





If you give up your reaction the DM knows this and can move with impunity.  In addition, anyone you would give an attack to will also have the same attack as a reaction, essentially you are burning their reaction this now instead of later, its really an OPP ATT on command for the cost of your bonus action and your attack.  Their attack better be pretty good and in the right situation for you to give that up.  

The Warlord on the other hand as a class feature should be able to do this things as part and parcel of his class, he should get their attacks in with a rider in addition to or in place of yours.  That's the idea.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 15, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> And we've come full circle back to gamist mechanics devoid of any meaning in the game world. You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Yes, we are on the same page.  This could all be accomplished with a form of BM class.  

This discussion actually highlights why Paladins are considered very good.  Compare the Fighter chassis to the Paladin Chassis(without spells and subclasses) up to level 10, they are close but the fighter is little ahead.  After 11 the fighter gets his extra attack, which stacks with action surge, so it pulls further ahead. The base Paladin chassis gets those saving throws and immunities, which is pretty good of course but sometimes you wont get much mileage out of them.  The Fighter though gets its base features and they will be used all the time.  But then the Paladin gets those spells, which if used only for smiting will be 25d8 of extra radiant damage at level 10, refreshable on a long rest.  The base fighter gets nothing like that, but could get close or ahead with a BM and action surge getting thrown in depending on your short rests. With frequent short rests the fighter chassis keeps recharging its abilities get better.  If yo don't get those rests or get more long rests the Paladin is better.

However, if you add a Warlord on top of the fighter chassis its the same situation as the BM fighter, if you get to keep going in with all your superiority dice to blow its great, if not the power wanes.  I get the fighter chassis gets more attacks, but that doesn't balance out what other classes get earlier.  


Anyway, we are better off with the BM+ than nothing.  I just don't think that a high level Warlord who blows all his abilities should be able to keep up with all high level fighter who blew all his, the high level fighter should still be on his own with more attacks and such.

That's why I think Warlord should be built around granting CHR and/or INT bonuses as riders to other attacks, THP granting, bonus movements, etc.  Like the BM can with certain maneuvers but more general and more action efficient.


----------



## smbakeresq (Mar 15, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> I shall, since apparently not being in lockstep means my ideas are not valued. I'm also recusing myself from any further communication with you, since your main method of handling contrary opinions is to label them with childish nicknames, accuse them of edition warring, and telling them they cannot speak of 4e since they weren't Kool-aid drinkers.
> 
> Good bye. We'll not meet again.




Please stay.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> You're one step away from "1[W]+Str and target is pulled 3 squares".




I miss Come and Get It!  

Note: That's not me asking for Come and Get It! in 5e.  I accept they coudln't get enough of the D&D audience on board with that type of thing.  There just has to be a middle ground between Come and Get It! and "I attack it with my sword!" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> I miss Come and Get It!
> 
> Note: That's not me asking for Come and Get It! in 5e.  I accept they coudln't get enough of the D&D audience on board with that type of thing.  There just has to be a middle ground between Come and Get It! and "I attack it with my sword!" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.




You can use it at will, it's just guaranteed to fail if they can't understand you, and DM fiat if it works.   No harm in trying it though.   It's fun!


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> You can use it at will, it's just guaranteed to fail if they can't understand you, and DM fiat if it works.   No harm in trying it though.   It's fun!




I think that's a big part of the disconnect for players like me.  I don't want my ability to do interesting things to be dependent on DM fiat.  A game of "DM may I?" is super unsatisfying to me.  I want to interact with the game mechanics in a tactical way.  And I don't want to have to play a spellcaster to do it.


----------



## iserith (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> I think that's a big part of the disconnect for players like me.  I don't want my ability to do interesting things to be dependent on DM fiat.  A game of "DM may I?" is super unsatisfying to me.  I want to interact with the game mechanics in a tactical way.  And I don't want to have to play a spellcaster to do it.




It's a damn shame WotC confiscated all the D&D 4e books and forbade us from ever playing that game again.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> My theory is in a low magic setting in regards to healing, you go without. This is how we did it in 2E, you just change the way you design the encounters/campaign.



 Yeah, that broke the game to pieces, IMX, you ended up playing an entirely different game that you re-built from that wreckage from the ground up.

5e would require less work than 1e or 2e to adapt to such a setting, but still more work and more fundamental system-wide changes than simply adding back the Warlord class, which would not just enable intentionally low-/no- magic settings more easily, but would enable all-martial parties, again, as well.



outsider said:


> I miss Come and Get It!
> 
> Note: That's not me asking for Come and Get It! in 5e.  I accept they coudln't get enough of the D&D audience on board with that type of thing.



 That's why it wasn't in the PH as a BM maneuver.  That's no reason for it not to be an option /somewhere/, though.



outsider said:


> I think that's a big part of the disconnect for players like me.  I don't want my ability to do interesting things to be dependent on DM fiat.  A game of "DM may I?" is super unsatisfying to me.  I want to interact with the game mechanics in a tactical way.  And I don't want to have to play a spellcaster to do it.



 The issue isn't that you have to play "DM May I" in 5e (you kinda do, but there's lots of options with more defined, consistent game-mechanical effects you can lean on to minimize it), the problem is that your choice of character concept is dictated by your willingness to do so.  You can't, as you note, choose not to play a spellcaster, and expect to have any "agency" (to spit out a distasteful Forge term).  That limits players' exercise of creativity and imagination.  



iserith said:


> It's a damn shame WotC confiscated all the D&D 4e books and forbade us from ever playing that game again.



 Yeah, we tried saying that about 3.5 books ("WotC Ninjas," remember?), and, even though 3.5 was open sourced, could be - and was - legally cloned and could be - and was - lavishly supported using that OGL, it wasn't enough to stop 3.5 fans from brutally edition-warring against 4e.  

I wouldn't expect the same line to stop 5e fans who appreciated something in 4e from continuing to ask for a viable/worthy version of it in the game they now play.



Paul Farquhar said:


> 1) In a low magic setting, it does not make sense for healing to be easily available from any source, and in-combat healing should be non existent.



 Second Wind is in-combat healing and is not magical, at all, so certainly suitable for a low-magic setting.  HD are easily available and fix you up in an hour, and are non-magical.  
I think the real misnomer in these conversations is 'healing.'  It conjures images of convalescing in a hospital bed to recover from severe injuries - like massive blood loss, sucking chest wounds, damaged organs, shattered bones and so forth.  
That's never been what's going on with mere hp loss, all the way back to 1e, that's been made perfectly clear.  But, while hp loss can't meaningfully or consistently map to critical injuries, a spell was labeled 'Cure Critical Wounds,' and that spell only restored hps, and, well, 40 years later, here we are, coping with the same fundamental mis-understanding that Gygax thought he'd cleared up in '79.
:shrug:



> As in real life, any combat should be nasty and deadly, no-one should go into it with the expectation that no one will die, unless there is a vast difference in power.



  Players are the ones with that reasonable expectation (they expect to pay a character from 1-20), the characters, OTOH, should be going into any but the most trivial fights with the understanding that their lives are on the line.  Well, except the ones who are just maniacs.  That's essentially an RP decision.  

But, in the narrative of the world, a dagger (d4) wielded by a health, normal man (STR 10), can totally kill a normal person, because, y'know, stab wounds do that.  So if you're charging into a battle with orcs bigger and meaner than normal men, wielding weapons bigger and nastier than daggers, the idea is you're facing some gruesomely deadly danger.  You're a hero, so chances are excellent you get through it with nary a bump on the noggin and maybe some scuffed armor.  The author of your story, or director of your movie, or DM and Player of your RPG all know that - but you don't.  Or, rather, you're portrayed as if you don't, if everyone does a good job.   Since, y'know, you don't exist.



> The focus should be on the Medicine skill. Without it even minor wounds should frequently lead to infection and death.



 We'd be talking medieval medicine, remember.  



> In which case healing usually comes from calling on inner reserves, rather than an external factor. I would suggest you give everyone an ability like "Second Wind" or "Dwarven Fortitude" rather than having a specialist healer.



 That more re-writes (and would require re-balancing) the system.  HD are already there as 'inner reserves,' all that's needed is a way to enhance them so they're adequate for D&D's combat dynamics, and trigger them in combat.  It's very much what leaders, including the Warlord, did in 4e, it's just that in 5e they'll have to bring more enhancement, since HD represent less of hp pool than surges did relative to the expected hp loss in a 'day' (two days for HD).



> 4) There is no place for such a character in a medium/high magic setting.



 Of course there is, though he'd need gambits that focused on leveraging the abilities of allied casters, as well.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 15, 2018)

iserith said:


> It's a damn shame WotC confiscated all the D&D 4e books and forbade us from ever playing that game again.



Eh, 5e's been out close to 4 years now, we can start putting in some soft storygame elements to indoctrinate the impressionable streaming masses.


----------



## iserith (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, we tried saying that about 3.5 books ("WotC Ninjas," remember?), and, even though 3.5 was open sourced, could be - and was - legally cloned and could be - and was - lavishly supported using that OGL, it wasn't enough to stop 3.5 fans from brutally edition-warring against 4e.
> 
> I wouldn't expect the same line to stop 5e fans who appreciated something in 4e from continuing to ask for a viable/worthy version of it in the game they now play.




I do what's in my control: Play _both_ games.

That seems like the most viable solution to me.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> I think that's a big part of the disconnect for players like me.  I don't want my ability to do interesting things to be dependent on DM fiat.  A game of "DM may I?" is super unsatisfying to me.  I want to interact with the game mechanics in a tactical way.  And I don't want to have to play a spellcaster to do it.




Yes, it does come down to play style and it does depend on how willing DMs and players are at collaboration within sensible limits.   For me personally,  I consider how smart is the monster, what is its motivation,  what is the player doing, and what is the player trying to achieve.   An invisible stalker should not be compelled to change target due to name calling whereas an angry boar might well charge at the nearest person waving their arms.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 15, 2018)

I finally finished watching the video last night. I like what he's done so far, going to be interesting to see the final product next week.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, that broke the game to pieces, IMX, you ended up playing an entirely different game that you re-built from that wreckage from the ground up.
> 
> 5e would require less work than 1e or 2e to adapt to such a setting, but still more work and more fundamental system-wide changes than simply adding back the Warlord class, which would not just enable intentionally low-/no- magic settings more easily, but would enable all-martial parties, again, as well.
> 
> ...




Didn't break anything we played up the exploration and roleplaying pillars more.

2E had levers for liw and high magic/technology.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 2E had levers for liw and high magic/technology.



 May have been after my time.  While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time.  AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Yes, it does come down to play style and it does depend on how willing DMs and players are at collaboration within sensible limits.



 Unless you're casting a spell, then it does what it says in the spell description.  
See the difference?



iserith said:


> I do what's in my control: Play _both_ games.
> 
> That seems like the most viable solution to me.



 I happen to be doing so, but it's just finishing out Epic levels.  Without ongoing support and a vibrant community, a system has little momentum, few sources for inspiration.  
Besides, it's nice to support the current ed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> May have been after my time.  While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time.  AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.




It was the historical books although the players option books updated it.

 Main problem with the PO books is the name. DM option they work well.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

iserith said:


> It's a damn shame WotC confiscated all the D&D 4e books and forbade us from ever playing that game again.




It's a damn shame you are trotting out smartass remarks that were old 2 edition wars ago.


----------



## iserith (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> It's a damn shame you are trotting out smartass remarks that were old 2 edition wars ago.




I wasn't involved in the edition wars. I played whichever game I wanted based on what kind of experience I was going for, just like I am now. So that remark is still funny to me. Sorry you didn't find it so.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

iserith said:


> I wasn't involved in the edition wars. I played whichever game I wanted based on what kind of experience I was going for, just like I am now. So that remark is still funny to me. Sorry you didn't find it so.




I lost my arm in the edition war.  Stop giving me flashbacks!  

Seriously though.  We're in a thread talking about integrating a major feature from 4e into 5e.  Telling me to go play 4e instead(which I do once in a while) is basically just telling me to STFU and leave the thread.  It's not particularly funny, ignores the fact that I'm perfectly willing to look for a compromise, and I'm adding value to the thread.  It's not like I'm running around every 5e thread, and crapping them up with talk about how 4e is better.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

It's not like finding players for older games is that hard. At least any harder than a normal player. Rock on up to an RPG tourney with AD&D people notice.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> It's not like finding players for older games is that hard. At least any harder than a normal player. Rock on up to an RPG tourney with AD&D people notice.




Thanks for the unsolicited advice on how to find an AD&D group.  Can we get back to talking about a major 4e feature theoretically getting added to 5e now?


----------



## iserith (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> I lost my arm in the edition war.  Stop giving me flashbacks!
> 
> Seriously though.  We're in a thread talking about integrating a major feature from 4e into 5e.  Telling me to go play 4e instead(which I do once in a while) is basically just telling me to STFU and leave the thread.  It's not particularly funny, ignores the fact that I'm perfectly willing to look for a compromise, and I'm adding value to the thread.  It's not like I'm running around every 5e thread, and crapping them up with talk about how 4e is better.




That's fair enough. My suggestion, funny or not, was one that I employ myself, not just some 4e hater telling you to bug off. Because warlord is my favorite 4e class (especially lazy warlord hybrids), but I'm just not bothered by its exclusion. I'm not saying don't talk about implementation in 5e. I'm just saying if you miss Come and Get It or the like, it's not gone and also please invite me to your next 4e game.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

My apologies for being combative.  Back to Warlords!


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

Regarding 4e Come and Get.

Mearls is flirting with the concept in his warlord brainstorm, when referring to inducing the ‘charmed’ condition. He specifically means ‘confusing’ the hostile, tricking the hostile into attacking a fellow hostile, and so on. Moreorless, exploiting the fog of war.

So there seems room for negotiating the concept of Come and Get.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Regarding 4e Come and Get.
> 
> Mearls is flirting with the concept in his warlord brainstorm, when referring to inducing the ‘charmed’ condition. He specifically means ‘confusing’ the hostile, tricking the hostile into attacking a fellow hostile, and so on. Moreorless, exploiting the fog of war.
> 
> So there seems room for negotiating the concept of Come and Get.




Hopefully so.  I honestly don't think anything like Come and Get It will make it to print.  This one is enough of a dealbreaker for many D&D players that I basically cast it aside.

I don't see it as mind control.  I see it as giving the player(not the character) brief narrative control over the npcs/monsters.  Most D&D players see that as something that should only be done by magic though, and I accept that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> Hopefully so.  I honestly don't think anything like Come and Get It will make it to print.  This one is enough of a dealbreaker for many D&D players that I basically cast it aside.



A deal-breaker in the core game is bad for the game.  The deal is D&D or not D&D?   A deal-breaker in an option is just a matter of taste, the deal is opt-in or opt-out of one thing.  NBD.

C&GI as a new maneuver in some Bo9S style supplement, for instance, who cares?  If you're horrified by the very possibility of interesting martial characters, you were never going to glance at it, anyway, not beyond making a sign to ward off evil as you pass the shelf...  



outsider said:


> Telling me to go play 4e instead(which I do once in a while) is basically just telling me to STFU and leave the thread.  It's not particularly funny.  It's not like I'm running around every 5e thread, and crapping them up with talk about how 4e is better.



 Ironically, telling you to go play 4e because 5e can't deliver what you want /is/ essentially a dig at 5e:  if you only way you can play a balanced, fun character you've played in D&D before is by abandoning 5e to go back to a system that hasn't been updated in 6 years, that paints a pretty ugly picture of 5e.  Undeservedly so.  5e has all the pieces in place, it just needs to get over the legacy of the edition war enough to put 'em all together into a worthy iteration of the only PH1 full class it has excluded from it's own PH.  



> ignores the fact that I'm perfectly willing to look for a compromise, and I'm adding value to the thread.



And, really, what's to compromise at this late date?  Compromise would have been only having 2 of the 8 de-facto warlords from 4e in the PH, even though the wizard go all 8 of it's.  Actually, that's not true, compromise would have been every PH class having 2 sub-classes, Cleric, Warlord & Wizard included.  

If the compromise is "wait 4+ years before the class you want even enters development" on one side, then "get exactly the class you want, and then some" needs to be on the other side.  
And the longer the wait, the higher that bar.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> Hopefully so.  I honestly don't think anything like Come and Get It will make it to print.  This one is enough of a dealbreaker for many D&D players that I basically cast it aside.
> 
> I don't see it as mind control.  I see it as giving the player(not the character) brief narrative control over the npcs/monsters.  Most D&D players see that as something that should only be done by magic though, and I accept that.




I had to google the power come and get it. It looks like it could be a good manoeuvre that could be included in 5e. It seems like a great narrative feature, a warrior making themselves a target and taunting their enemies. I could see it being used via a skill contest, intimidate vs insight or something. You win and that creature moves towards you.


----------



## iserith (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ironically, telling you to go play 4e because 5e can't deliver what you want /is/ essentially a dig at 5e:  if you only way you can play a balanced, fun character you've played in D&D before is by abandoning 5e to go back to a system that hasn't been updated in 6 years, that paints a pretty ugly picture of 5e.  Undeservedly so.  5e has all the pieces in place, it just needs to get over the legacy of the edition war enough to put 'em all together into a worthy iteration of the only PH1 full class it has excluded from it's own PH.




I don't agree. I see each game as its own thing. D&D 5e is not in my view a game update that must include all the elements of previous editions or even a substantial amount of them. It's just a different game that delivers its own experience. I neither play nor DM the games the same way and I don't see the exclusion of certain elements from other games as a slight against things I like. I also wouldn't say that my choice to play D&D 4e when I want to play a warlord is abandoning D&D 5e. That's a bit dramatic in my opinion.

This position you appear to espouse fairly reeks of bitterness and resentment to me. It's not a good look, even if you try to cloak it in some kind of faint praise of D&D 5e.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 5e has all the pieces in place, it just needs to get over the legacy of the edition war




I agree with this, fairly highly.  While I do personally prefer 4e, I can work within 5e and have fun there.  The amount of new/lapsed players 5e brings in shows me that it's quite a good edition, despite being not exactly what I'm looking for.

What needs to go is the explicit rejection of 4e.  The edition war is over.  The h4ters all bought their books already.  There's very little 4e in the core game.  They don't have to fill the game full of 4e stuff, just bring in some of the good stuff.  And in the eyes of 4e players(and h4ters), Warlord is the poster child of 4e.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

outsider said:


> Hopefully so.  I honestly don't think anything like Come and Get It will make it to print.  This one is enough of a dealbreaker for many D&D players that I basically cast it aside.
> 
> I don't see it as mind control.  I see it as giving the player(not the character) brief narrative control over the npcs/monsters.  Most D&D players see that as something that should only be done by magic though, and I accept that.




It seems even 4e didnt accept Come and Get. It was updated with errata.

It was changed from Strength v AC defense, to Strength v Will defense. So hostiles with a strong Will could ignore the taunt.

Also, the forced move was changed from automatic, to only forcing a move after the weapon hit. So, the forced move was more a judo trick, rather than a jedi trick.

The 5e warlord will probably see more plausible tactics along these lines.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

Even if Come and Get was part of the excess of experimentation. It provoked designers and players to think about the creative uses of nonmagic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I had to google the power come and get it. It looks like it could be a good manoeuvre that could be included in 5e. It seems like a great narrative feature, a warrior making themselves a target and taunting their enemies.



 Like a lot of 'powers' in 4e, it felt like it was pulled right out of an action movie.  



Yaarel said:


> It was changed from Strength v AC defense, to Strength v Will defense. So hostiles with a strong Will could ignore the taunt.



 It was a rare critter that had a higher WILL than AC.



> Also, the forced move was changed from automatic, to only forcing a move after the weapon hit. So, the forced move was more a judo trick, rather than a jedi trick.



 The burst wasn't reduced, and it gained the charm keyword, so, no, not exactly a judo trick.  The main change was, indeed, that you hit to initiate the pull, rather than to deliver damage (which was automatic if the pull left them adjacent, an unintuitive, but solid bit of game design).  Everyone you attacked with it was still marked, though, even if the pull failed for whatever reason, so still a very good defender-role-support exploit.



> The 5e warlord will probably see more plausible tactics along these lines.



 To work in 5e, the Warlord needs to break out of the leader box a bit, and intimidation, trickery, and out-maneuvering type Gambits that go more into the old controller box would be a great way.  The other non-magical sub-classes get very little of that, while having tankiness & DPR to spare, so it'd round out the range of character concepts that don't resort to magic, as well.




outsider said:


> I agree with this, fairly highly.  While I do personally prefer 5e, I can work within 5e and have fun there.



 Y'know, 5e-for-4e is one of the typos I see the most around here.  I feel like it's a slightly hopeful sign.  

I quite enjoy running 5e, but it's yet to appeal too strongly to me as a player.  The Druid really appeals, but the very occasional (very, it's been years) chance to play my old 1e Druid still appeals a bit more, I suppose.  I don't hold out any hope for the Sorcerer or Fighter ot return to their 3.x-build-to-concept heights either.  So, long being tired of casters other than the afore-mentioned very occasional paleo-gaming, and not caring for DPR beat-sticks, really leaves 5e players options oddly sparse for me.



> The amount of new/lapsed players 5e brings in shows me that it's quite a good edition, despite being not exactly what I'm looking for.



 The ease of introduction to and the retention of returning players is amazing with 5e.  And, there's more folks trying it thanks to the way boardgames have taken off, there's just more traffic through the stores.  It still feels like a hard sell to entirely-new players, but that's almost always been the case.



> What needs to go is the explicit rejection of 4e.  The edition war is over.  There's very little 4e in the core game.  They don't have to fill the game full of 4e stuff, just bring in some of the good stuff.



 The funny thing is, there's a /lot/ of 4e in 5e, but it's at the level of mechanical detail.  It's there, but as a whole, just contributes to delivering the standard games' classic feel, not any of the emergent characteristics that made 4e so 'revolutionary' (for D&D, which, of course, has always been a very evolutionary, if not determinedly primeval, system). 







> The h4ters all bought their books already.   And in the eyes of 4e players(and h4ters), Warlord is the poster child of 4e.



 If you're going to say 'h4ter,' you might as well own '4venger,' too...

...sorry, just the bitter old cynic in me.  



iserith said:


> I don't agree. I see each game as its own thing. D&D 5e is not in my view a game update that must include all the elements of previous editions or even a substantial amount of them



 I suppose that's your view.  That's not how it was pitched when the Next playtest started. 5e's thing was to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D.  Even the ones who were bitter about what they'd had in 3.5 (and still had, along with a lot more, in PF) or what they had in the classic game (and had, re-booted, in OSR games in profusion), and, yes, even the ones that had been happy to adopt the current ed at the time.



> I neither play nor DM the games the same way and I don't see the exclusion of certain elements from other games as a slight against things I like.



 Oddly, I have been finding myself running my Epic 4e campaign more and more like I run 5e (and ran 1e back in the day).  More improvisation, more unique items (not more items, but items that are more unique & higher-impact), and less linear (though still not quite a sandbox, as my players very clearly don't want that).
Not sure, what, if anything, that indicates.



> I also wouldn't say that my choice to play D&D 4e when I want to play a warlord is abandoning D&D 5e. That's a bit dramatic in my opinion.



 Doing so /instead/ of registering your desire to play one in the current ed is abandoning it.  Not nearly as dramatic as edition warring against it, of course, but still giving up on it in a real sense.


> This position you appear to espouse fairly reeks of bitterness and resentment to me. It's not a good look, even if you try to cloak it in some kind of faint praise of D&D 5e.



 Oh, I've been bitter & cynical since I was 8, that's just my personality coming through the keyboard.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I had to google the power come and get it. It looks like it could be a good manoeuvre that could be included in 5e. It seems like a great narrative feature, a warrior making themselves a target and taunting their enemies. I could see it being used via a skill contest, intimidate vs insight or something. You win and that creature moves towards you.




Shhhh!  Thou shalt not mention that wot man was not meant to know.  

Seriously, this is just waving a red flag in front of the bull.  The mere whiff of CaGI in a thread is akin to dropping gasoline on the fires of edition warring.  This is about as bad as trying to reference Tolkien.  

Never minding, of course, that 5e already includes all sorts of this sort of stuff (what's the narrative, in game justification for rogues being able to do things as a bonus action?  how exactly does a barbarian's rage work, even to the point of resisting fire and lightning (depending on your totem)?  how does that battlemaster make my character move farther than I possibly can?) and has from the get go.  The greatest feat that 5e managed to pull off is convincing people that all those things they bitched about in 4e didn't exist in 5e.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

iserith said:


> I see each game as its own thing. D&D 5e is not in my view a game update that must include all the elements of previous editions or even a substantial amount of them.




Personally, I want 5e to incorporate the best that each previous edition has to offer. Fortunately for me, that is one of the design goals of 5e.

In my eyes, each edition does something extremely well.

1e - narrative immersion, homebrew imagination, opting into or out from rules
3e - systematization of rules, customizing an individual character
4e - gaming system balance, thematic rules: power types (arcane, primal, psionic, martial)

I appreciate the way 4e conceives types of power. Thinking about what ‘martial’ powers might be able to do, 4e expanded the possibilities for the fighter and the warlord.


----------



## outsider (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> If you're going to say 'h4ter,' you might as well own '4venger,' too...




That's completely fair.  Should have done that!

Neither side of an edition war is particularly rational.  It all boils down to "You're not pretending to be an elf correctly!  You should be doing it my way!"


----------



## Azzy (Mar 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I had to google the power come and get it. It looks like it could be a good manoeuvre that could be included in 5e. It seems like a great narrative feature, a warrior making themselves a target and taunting their enemies. I could see it being used via a skill contest, intimidate vs insight or something. You win and that creature moves towards you.




I'd have no problem with it, either.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

The ‘cantrip’ in the warlord brainstorm can force movement, when allies hit a hostile within the Tactical Focus.

The move is from tactical maneuvering (judo, not jedi).

Yet, an important aspect of 4e Come and Get is a given, and seems noncontroversial.


----------



## iserith (Mar 15, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Personally, I want 5e to incorporate the best that each previous edition has to offer. Fortunately for me, that is one of the design goals of 5e.
> 
> In my eyes, each edition does something extremely well.
> 
> ...




Yep, 4e was good at that. I judge the game on what kind of experience it brings to the table. D&D 5e is fun, even without my favorite class from D&D 4e, and that's good enough for me. I don't have any particular care that it incorporates elements from other games, or that it achieves some stated goal of the designers to that end. I can play those other games for what they each do best.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 15, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I had to google the power come and get it. It looks like it could be a good manoeuvre that could be included in 5e. It seems like a great narrative feature, a warrior making themselves a target and taunting their enemies. I could see it being used via a skill contest, intimidate vs insight or something. You win and that creature moves towards you.




I suspect the characterizing of the taunt as a kind of intimidation (a mental attack versus a mental defense) helps make it more palatable.

Perhaps, the 5e version inflicts a saving throw versus Wisdom (or Charisma). Failure means the hostile is provoked to move AND becomes vulnerable to opportunity attacks.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> 5e already includes all sorts of this sort of stuff (what's the narrative, in game justification for rogues being able to do things as a bonus action?  how exactly does a barbarian's rage work, even to the point of resisting fire and lightning (depending on your totem)?  how does that battlemaster make my character move farther than I possibly can?) and has from the get go.  The greatest feat that 5e managed to pull off is convincing people that all those things they bitched about in 4e didn't exist in 5e.



 It was never about those things.  It was, I think, ultimately about balance.  4e classes were balanced, that was accomplished by greatly reigning in the versatility & power of spellcasters, and greatly expanding it for martial types.  Mind you, the versatility of the arcane & divine classes was still greater than that of the martial, and martial was still the only pre-Essentials source to lack a controller, so it's not like it was ever perfect balance, or like the remaining imbalance wasn't still in favor of the usual suspects.  
But it was as intolerable as complaining about it would have been unsympathetic, so we had all these stalking horses.  Dumbed-down, too complicated; board game, too narrativist; dissociated mechanics; nerfed wizard; etc, etc...

But, come 5e, the magical classes are all there in partially-restored glory (and fewer limitations than ever) while non-magical sub-classes are few and DPR-focused (in a game tuned for /fast combat/), and the complaints vanish.

(iserth was right, I was sounding too bitter, now I feel I've properly expressed my cynicism, as well)



Yaarel said:


> In my eyes, each edition does something extremely well.
> 
> 1e - narrative immersion, homebrew imagination, opting into or out from rules
> 3e - systematization of rules, customizing an individual character
> ...



 There's also been a long pendulum-swing.  
1e was extremely DM-Empowering, or, it might be more accurate to say, required the DM to seize that empowerment aggressively to be effective.  
2e was more consistent, and gave players more options, but still left the DM tremendous latitude.  
3.x is extremely player-empowering (I'll see if I can get away with that, or if someone will insist it was 'player entitlement'), with tremendous customizeability and equally lavish rewards for system mastery, and making DMing quite a chore.  
4e was balanced and frequently added to & updated, pulling in system mastery rewards and making DMing surprisingly easy.  
5e is extremely DM-Empowering again, calling for DM judgement constantly, and thus conditioning players to accept that judgement and angle for rewards from the DM, rather than from the system.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

So you guys are happy with the concept of giving the warlord healing surges as a class ability even if the do not funtion life the 4E version? 

 That's on top of the healing word type ability. Tony was right in some ways about power creeping some things.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> So you guys are happy with the concept of giving the warlord healing surges as a class ability even if the do not funtion life the 4E version?
> 
> That's on top of the healing word type ability. Tony was right in some ways about power creeping some things.




Not quite sure what you mean.  Sorry.  Do you mean that because of the fighter baseline, warlords have healing surges?  

To be fair, Warlords did have more healing than just healing word.  There were a number of healing powers for warlords, although, unlike clerics, most warlord healing was based on surge healing.  AFAIC, it's not a big issue.

There has been talk about how action granting wasn't the core element of warlords because only a minority of powers featured action granting.  As far as that goes, it's true, but, it ignores a couple of points.  Sure, not every power for warlords action granted.  But, the iconic ones certainly did.  That's what a warlord does.  It grants actions.  It's not all that it does - there's buffing and healing too.  But when you think warlord, you think action granting.

It's like wizards.  If you look at the 3e spell list, only a small minority of spells at any given level actually deal direct damage.  Most of them don't.  But, it's not too much of a stretch to say that magic missile and fireball are iconic wizard spells.  If we stripped away direct damage spells from wizards, they wouldn't still be iconic D&D wizards.  So, simply looking at percentages doesn't really give you the right picture of what the class is best known for.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, Warlords did have more healing than just healing word.  There were a number of healing powers for warlords, although, unlike clerics, most warlord healing was based on surge healing.  AFAIC, it's not a big issue.



 It's a clear guideline.  Warlords were viable leaders, including restoring hps, but clerics were better at that aspect of the role.



> There has been talk about how action granting wasn't the core element of warlords because only a minority of powers featured action granting.  As far as that goes, it's true, but, it ignores a couple of points.  Sure, not every power for warlords action granted.  But, the iconic ones certainly did.  That's what a warlord does.  It grants actions.  It's not all that it does - there's buffing and healing too.  But when you think warlord, you think action granting.



 It was one of the more controversial features - controversy burned continuously over the "range" of Commander's Strike until it was finally errata'd to comply with the way powers are normally read, for instance.  
But, you could very easily build a warlord who never granted an action, and he'd still be a fine leader.  Really, most of the more CHA-leaning builds had very few good action-granting choices.  And, the best (most-action-granting of all) optimized lazy builds were Warlord|Shaman hybrids.  



> It's like wizards.  If you look at the 3e spell list, only a small minority of spells at any given level actually deal direct damage.  Most of them don't.  But, it's not too much of a stretch to say that magic missile and fireball are iconic wizard spells.  If we stripped away direct damage spells from wizards, they wouldn't still be iconic D&D wizards.  So, simply looking at percentages doesn't really give you the right picture of what the class is best known for.



 But they're not primarily that.  You couldn't strip away sleep and haste and fly and invisibility and teleport and those myriad other non-blasting spells and still have an iconic wizard, either.

There is no /the/ defining or core element of the Warlord (nor of most classes, really), there's multiple such elements that must all be present to paint the complete picture of the class.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> May have been after my time.  While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time.  AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.






Hussar said:


> Not quite sure what you mean.  Sorry.  Do you mean that because of the fighter baseline, warlords have healing surges?
> 
> To be fair, Warlords did have more healing than just healing word.  There were a number of healing powers for warlords, although, unlike clerics, most warlord healing was based on surge healing.  AFAIC, it's not a big issue.
> 
> ...




My warlords have action granting just not unlimited. I'm just tweaking the amount of healing baked in if you want more pick the exploit/Gambit or a different subclasses.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 15, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Unless you're casting a spell, then it does what it says in the spell description.
> See the difference?




Yes there is a large difference in that the basic effects of the spell are prescribed in more detail than martial options.  However that doesn't also preclude using spells in a similar way.  Using invisibility to leave only one visible target,  using an illusion to create an image of a racial enemy and so on.   The more prescribed everything is, the more it becomes like button pushing or card playing.   On the one hand you have something silly like using come and get it on an ooze.  On the other you run the risk your DM saying that's too silly.  I prefer things more fluid though.  Most DMs want players to have fun.   The key is try to apply some logic and common sense and just ask the player HOW it is they intend to achieve the result they want.  Making a lot of noise by banging a sword on a stone floor to attract something with blind sense could work in some circumstances.


----------



## jrowland (Mar 15, 2018)

Begun, the warlord wars has.

er...continued...

flared up...

I am not sure which is longer: warlord wars or the Afghanistan war.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 15, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Yes there is a large difference in that the basic effects of the spell are prescribed in more detail than martial options.  However that doesn't also preclude using spells in a similar way.



 Oh, absolutely.  Far from it, each new well-defined effect you can use opens up /more/ ways you can improvise.  Especially when what it defines is otherwise physically impossible, like invisibility, aportation, etc...



> On the one hand you have something silly like using come and get it on an ooze.



 Not so silly, as all that.  The power doesn't use language.  An ooze is virtually mindless, if you notice it advances aggressively towards a certain noise or vibration or action by one of your allies, you fake that and it goes for you...
...heck some monsters should just never get wise to a gambit - "realistically," that is, game balance dictates otherwise.



> The key is try to apply some logic and common sense and just ask the player HOW it is they intend to achieve the result they want.  Making a lot of noise by banging a sword on a stone floor to attract something with blind sense could work in some circumstances.



 Nod.  The same creative exercise that gives you an improvisational trick that the DM has to decide on the fly whether and how it might work, can be used to provide a rationale for a simple, well-defined, character ability to just work the way it's written.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 15, 2018)

jrowland said:


> Begun, the warlord wars has.
> 
> er...continued...
> 
> ...



I'm halfway expecting to see the warlord threads cordoned off into their own forum again before being silently merged back into the current forum after people have calmed down.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 16, 2018)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sure, not every power for warlords action granted. But, the iconic ones certainly did. That's what a warlord does. It grants actions. It's not all that it does - there's buffing and healing too. But when you think warlord, you think action granting.



This, I think, is the problem with a lot of the currently promoted attempts to force the 5E Warlord to be the 4E Warlord: It tries to copy the mechanics, and then pretends that that makes the class.  I think Mike's approach is far better: You first define the concept, and then see what mechanics you can use to support that concept.  If that ends up being action granting, then fine.  

However, as a software engineer and programmer, when the customer demands a specific implementation, that immediately sets off a red flag.  It usually means that he doesn't understand the problem that the implementation was made to solve, nor does he understand that it may have no relevance to solving the current problem. So ignore the immediate demand and dig into figuring out what is _actually_ desired, and start designing the solution from there.

I attempted to start a conversation about figuring out the underlying problem being solved, but the thread veered off into a ton of secondary issues, and by the time I was a couple thousand words into the reply I realized it was a foolish endeavor to try, particularly when this has long since left the original topic of Mike Mearls' design, and shifted into a general conversation of demanding a very specific implementation.  I'm much more interested in exploring the boundaries of what Mike Mearls' design could do, but that seems to get ignored or drowned out.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 16, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> This, I think, is the problem with a lot of the currently promoted attempts to force the 5E Warlord to be the 4E Warlord: It tries to copy the mechanics, and then pretends that that makes the class.  I think Mike's approach is far better: You first define the concept, and then see what mechanics you can use to support that concept.  If that ends up being action granting, then fine.
> 
> However, as a software engineer and programmer, when the customer demands a specific implementation, that immediately sets off a red flag.  It usually means that he doesn't understand the problem that the implementation was made to solve, nor does he understand that it may have no relevance to solving the current problem. So ignore the immediate demand and dig into figuring out what is _actually_ desired, and start designing the solution from there.
> 
> I attempted to start a conversation about figuring out the underlying problem being solved, but the thread veered off into a ton of secondary issues, and by the time I was a couple thousand words into the reply I realized it was a foolish endeavor to try, particularly when this has long sense left the original topic of Mike Mearls' design, and shifted into a general conversation of demanding a very specific implementation.  I'm much more interested in exploring the boundaries of what Mike Mearls' design could do, but that seems to get ignored or drowned out.




I think his subclass is shaping up to be really cool and I'm looking forward to see the finalised (pre-playtest) version next week. The idea of the tactical zone with a variety of at-wills as well as some "higher level" battle plans sounds like it could be a really cool concept. I also like the ability to overheal and grant temporary hit points with their healing ability.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> This, I think, is the problem with a lot of the currently promoted attempts to force the 5E Warlord to be the 4E Warlord: It tries to copy the mechanics, and then pretends that that makes the class.  I think Mike's approach is far better: You first define the concept, and then see what mechanics you can use to support that concept.  If that ends up being action granting, then fine.
> 
> However, as a software engineer and programmer, when the customer demands a specific implementation, that immediately sets off a red flag.  It usually means that he doesn't understand the problem that the implementation was made to solve, nor does he understand that it may have no relevance to solving the current problem. So ignore the immediate demand and dig into figuring out what is _actually_ desired, and start designing the solution from there.
> 
> I attempted to start a conversation about figuring out the underlying problem being solved, but the thread veered off into a ton of secondary issues, and by the time I was a couple thousand words into the reply I realized it was a foolish endeavor to try, particularly when this has long sense left the original topic of Mike Mearls' design, and shifted into a general conversation of demanding a very specific implementation.  I'm much more interested in exploring the boundaries of what Mike Mearls' design could do, but that seems to get ignored or drowned out.




Most of us haven't been demanding a specific implementation.  We have been saying:

1.  Warlords need to be able to heal
2.  Warlords need to be able to grant an extensive amount of attacks
3.  Warlords need to buff allies

We talk about specific implentations a lot and why we either see merits in them or don't see them working at all.  The most common gripes are:

1.  It is or isn't at will attack granting or doesn't grant enough attacks.
2.  It does or doesn't grant actions
3.  It's doing to much too early.
4.  It's doing to much damage for too little investment to be able to heal and buff well.
5.  It grants healing instead of temp hp or too much healing or too much healing too early...
6.  It feels too magical.

Heck, most of us have even commented on why the design decisions of Mike (that he has spelled out) will or will not work.  The most common gripe is that he's forcing the warlord to be a fighter subclass because we mostly all know there isn't enough design space for attack granting and healing and buffing there.  If it was sufficient then a battlemaster would have taken off as a Warlord substitute as he can grant lots of temp hp, or grant a decent amount of attacks and provide buffs like advantage to allies.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I think his subclass is shaping up to be really cool and I'm looking forward to see the finalised (pre-playtest) version next week. The idea of the tactical zone with a variety of at-wills as well as some "higher level" battle plans sounds like it could be a really cool concept. I also like the ability to overheal and grant temporary hit points with their healing ability.




Apparently this update hasn't been posted on this thread.  Where can I find it?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> May have been after my time.  While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time.  AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.






FrogReaver said:


> Apparently this update hasn't been posted on this thread.  Where can I find it?




Link on page 41 for part 2


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Apparently this update hasn't been posted on this thread.  Where can I find it?



I thought someone had transcribed it a few pages back. I was trying to avoid spoilers before watching the video so I brushed over a few posts. If not in this thread then Reddit might have it but I'd suggest watching the video on YouTube if you have time.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:
			
		

> Most of us haven't been demanding a specific implementation. We have been saying:
> 
> 1. Warlords need to be able to heal
> 2. Warlords need to be able to grant an extensive amount of attacks
> 3. Warlords need to buff allies



No, actually, #2 _is_ an implementation detail (arguably an implementation detail of #3).  #1 is sufficiently generic.  #3 is possibly too vague and abstract.

What kind of person is a member of this class? What does he do? What methods does he use to accomplish that?

Mike defines his warlord as (paraphrased): "A master tactician.  A fighter who can see advantages on the battlefield, and take advantage of them. An intelligent fighter, who wants to make sure his allies survive the battle by fighting smarter, rather than harder."  You can see how what he designed falls out from that initial premise.

What is the executive summary of what you think the warlord should be described as? Even excluding it from the Fighter subclass domain.  "Granting extra attacks" is an implementation detail, not a proper design description. "Buff allies" is so vague as to be meaningless.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Apparently this update hasn't been posted on this thread.  Where can I find it?




YouTube link is here.

I wrote a transcription in this post.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

Apparently I missed the update.  Thanks guys.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> I wrote a transcription in this post.



 Which was very much appreciated, BTW.  Thank you. 



Kinematics said:


> This, I think, is the problem with a lot of the currently promoted attempts to force the 5E Warlord to be the 4E Warlord: It tries to copy the mechanics



 I'm not sure where this comes from.  Porting any 4e class over to 5e directly would result in it being sadly under-powered and likely non-viable.  Achieving the same things in 5e as the 4e mechanics achieved in 4e would be a more useful benchmark.



> I think Mike's approach is far better: You first define the concept, and then see what mechanics you can use to support that concept.



 That sounds nice. But, it is re-inventing the wheel, it's very clearly not what was done for any other class (except, perhaps the poor Sorcerer) and he just happened to pick a definition that focused on one specific build out of 8.  



> I attempted to start a conversation about figuring out the underlying problem being solved



 That would be quite a conversation.  You have to understand that 4e went ahead and solved a lot of perennial problems with D&D.  It just turned out that, after decades of living with - or exploiting - those problems, they weren't problems any more, they were a status quo fans were deeply invested in. 

But, I guess we can live in forlorn hope that maybe, just maybe, just very, very optionally, we might be allowed, in some home games, somewhere, very quietly, to play a game without one or two of those issues.  (Ha!)

Yeah, it's hard to even know where to begin... how 'bout the very beginning.  Legend has it that D&D grew out of the medieval wargame, Chainmail.  Arneson started running chainmail at a 1 figure = 1 unit = 1 individual scale in a campaign called Blackmoor.  Gygax started something similar in Greyhawk (under Castle Greyhawk, whatever).  For legal reasons they each need to pretend it was all their doing and the other was an usurper.  Whatever.  Point is, D&D was shaped in these early campaign, particularly Gygax's.  In what I of think as a primordial catacylsm - Cain & Able level stuff, here - was that somebody wanted to play a Vampire, Gygax let him, then someone else figured they should play Vanhelsing and stick a cross in the vampire's face.  Thus are Clerics born.

So the Cleric split off from the Fighting Man or Fighter or Baronet or whatever and the advantage of heavy armor & shield was diluted, but, more importantly, at some point, the Cleric started casting healing spells to restore hps.  

D&D  hit the shelves with the Fight(er)/(ing Man), Cleric and the character everyone was meant to play once they'd gained some skill, the Magic-User/Wizard/Mage (something like that).  A year later, if that, the first supplement brings us the next Big Mistake of D&D, the Thief.  The Thief is also inexplicably broken out from the non-magic-using Fight-whatever-guy, leaving the Fighter a heavy-armored, high-hp, beatstick with absolutely nothing going for him but hitting things.  Zilch.  Nor is the damage limited to the fighter.  Everyone is now incompetent at sneaking through dungeons, looking for traps, listening at doors, etc.  Brilliant.  The Thief, meanwhile, is incompetent at  hitting anything, inflicting damage, avoiding being hit, making saving throws, and generally not dying in any & every way imaginable.

That's the problem (the Warlord might make a small dent in, there's a whole 'nuther problem with Wizards - in a nut-shell, by AD&D, the PC wizard had tools Gygax had originally meant for only for BBEGs).  In D&D early history, it was established that you can /either/ fight pretty hard and wear heavy armor, or be vaguely competent (not really, thief special abilities sucked hard at low level) at doing mundane tasks that weren't fighting.  OTOH, you could totally fight pretty good, wear heavy armor, and cast spells (and turn undead), so long as you held a mace instead of a sword and wasted most of those spells keeping the schmuck with the sword standing.  

I mean, it makes perfect sense, right?  Well, after having no other options for how classes are supposed 'balance' in D&D for decades, yeah, it totally does.

Then nothing at all happened to improve on that state of affairs for 25 years.

That is an entrenched problem.  Legacy spaghetti-code software barely captures the fubaredness of it.

So TSR dies and WotC buys the corpse and, after D&D had lain in the tomb for 4 days, Dancey rolls the stone aside and calls it forth as 3.0, and gives it to the world as d20, saying whatsoever system as useth this OGL, shall never die.  (OK, IDK where that came from.  I mean, I know, I just don't understand why I went there.)  
Anyway, the point is 3.0 is received with great rejoicing (like the death of Sir Robin's minstrel), and the OGL means it can, in some form, be published, by anyone, forever.  

3e makes some long-overdue changes.  It codifies skills in a less egregiously limited way than thief-only special abilities, it carves out a few meaningful combat maneuvers besides hitting things and makes the fighter customizeable via the first real innovation in D&D in 25 years:  feats.  It also responds to long-standing complaints that clerics are boring because all they ever do is heal.  That response is to make CoDzilla.  Hey, if the Cleric is given so many spells, and such powerful spells, that if he has just one or two available to cast in a given combat, he can turn himself into a giant engine of destruction, people'll play it, right?  (Yeah, what if he says "F this healing S, I'm going to stomp through Tokyo 24/7!"  Oops.  (and again, the Wizard is going all LFQW, too)  I've barely scratch the surface really.  But, bottom line, casters, already the point of the game out of the lower levels, are powered up to a freakish degree.  Of course, people love it, because, well, they can play CoDzilla, or god-Wizards, or, if they're into that kinda thing, something else customized to the nth degree in their shadows.  There is great rejoicing, and not a little complaining about how utterly broken the game is. 

4e comes along - and we won't even get into how utterly effed it was from the moment it was pitched to Hasbro - and does the unthinkable: it tackles those complaints.  Now, you have to understand, if anyone thought there was the least danger of the glorious mess they were gleefully exploiting being cleaned up, they'd've never even alluded to it.  It's just that the temptation to spell out how broken everything was, and thus feel smarter than the guys that broke it, was hard for nerds to resist.  It should have been impossible, but 4e successfully nearly kinda-sorta-almost balanced the classes.  The margin of caster superiority was pretty thin, and the dependence on the Cleric for healing (already little more than symbolic with multiple classes - and cheap-ass wands - able to cast CLW) was gone - and, along with it, the justification for CoDzilla.  

The Destroyah that starved CoDzilla of oxygen in this tortured mixed analogy was the only other leader in the 4e PH1:  the Warlord.  (Yeah, I finally got there. You thought I wasn't going to make it, didn't'ya?)

There really wasn't much to the Warlord.  It was a STR-based melee type with the same hps as a cleric or rogue, the same armor as the cleric, and slightly 'better' weapons (which , keep in mind, meant next to nothing, and you could always learn an even-better superior weapon for 1 feat - of the 18 or so you'd get in your career).  It got some basic healing as Inspiring Word via the I-guess-revolutionary-for-D&D mecahnic of healing surges, marking the first time healing actually mapped to the ex(cuse/planation) of hps by EGG in the '79 DMG even a teeny bit (sorta, if you squint).  But, for the first time, like every other class, the martial classes got limited-use toys of comparable number & power (but not versatility) to everyone else (mind you, that number had been drastically reduced).  Not only did this mean someone who'd rather play a warrior than a preachy cleric in a party that desperately needed healing, could, it meant that if a DM wanted to run a game with no casters, even with little-or-no magic of any kind, he could, and the game could just about handle it (but for little problems with minions and locking things down, because no Martial Controller!).  

And, that was it.  The End Times.  Fire rained from the heavens, the earth shook, cities were razed, demons rose from hell and feasted on the entrails of the faithful...

... and the rest you know.




> I'm much more interested in exploring the boundaries of what Mike Mearls' design could do, but that seems to get ignored or drowned out.



Those boundaries are clear.  On a fighter chassis, it is impossible to build anything but a quite competent DPR beatstick with a respectable degree of toughness:  a classic tank.  The warlord aspects will be a side-line.  That's what the PDK was, that's what the BM was to the Weaponmaster fighter rather than the Warlord (though tossing in a couple of warlord-inspired maneuvers was apparently meant to make it /both/, but it doesn't hold a candle to what either actually were, let alone what they'd map to in 5e were they upscaled the way other classes were).

So, BM, PDK, now this.  It's Mike's third strike trying to build a Warlord on a fighter chassis.  It's an exercise in futility, the purpose of which is not entirely clear.  Maybe the objective is to block the Warlord permanently, maybe to spin out it's introduction to keep a low fire of controversy simmering - not enough to re-ignite the edition war, just enough to keep folks engaged.  IDK.  I'm not good at that Machiavellian stuff. Looking at it practically it's just a hard fail from square 1.  An interesting process, don't mis-understand me, but something that can only fail.

Now, to put that diatribe in perspective:  I said something of the same level of negativity about balancing fighter types and casters when 3.5 was in it's final days, and very confidently opined that no version of D&D would ever be able to do it.  So I'm quite accustomed to being wrong.
At least I am in the comfortable position of being either right, or pleasantly surprised at the end of the exercise.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

So I watched the video.

I like how a lot of Mearls "Warlord" is looking.  I wouldn't call it a Warlord though.  It's simply not.  It's like looking at a rogue without sneak attack.  It's like looking at a cleric that can't heal.  There's a lot of interesting space there, but it's not the name he's calling it. 

BattleMaster would be more apt but that's already taken.


----------



## outsider (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> the character everyone was meant to play once they'd gained some skill, the Magic-User/Wizard/Mage (something like that).




Of all of the things 4e fixed, this was the most important and the thing I miss the most.  As you said though, at this point people consider it a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 16, 2018)

Doing some rewatching, and how Mike was considering whether the dice pool he was using for healing might or might not be used for the spell-like abilities, he eventually decided to separate the two concerns because they'd cause problems due to competing for the same resources (the warlord's choice of action).  And he also brought up the idea that the dice could be split — that is, if you had a 2d10 pool for a given use, you could give 1d10 to heal someone, and 1d10 to boost someone else's damage.

Anyway, for all that preface — isn't he just giving an extra attack to the person whose damage he's boosting?  If your 2H longsword does 2d10 instead of 1d10 (though only one +Str addition), it's sort of, but not quite the same as rolling two attacks.  It does less damage than two attacks could potentially do, but it also only needs one attack roll, so you don't have to deal with misses.

So essentially he has his warlord using her healing resource as an underhanded "extra attack" as an alternate option for how to apply that resource.


This gets back to my "implementation detail" issue.  The root desire is "boost damage".  The implementation used before is "grant an extra attack".  The implementation used here is "boost damage on an attack".  In this case Mike is creating it through the same pool as the healing is coming from, since that resource pool defines how much you can draw that can still be considered approximately balanced for the class as a whole.  

At the same time, by allowing the use of this resource in multiple different ways at the same time (splitting the dice up), it's not competing for the character's _action_ resources — one person telling you to heal, and another telling you to help him kill the mob, and only one action that you can use between them.  That's not an 'interesting' choice, it's a frustrating one, and one that Mike has put efforts into avoiding in his HFH designs.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> (I'm not doubling the page length to quote this.)




That's a lot of words to say something.

Allow me to simplify it to one sentence:



Tony Vargas said:


> I hate casters and wish they weren't in the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> That's a lot of words to say something.
> 
> Allow me to simplify it to one sentence:



 Lol.  Hey, I'm just saying casters have at times been wildly overpowered, and others, only modestly overpowered. Not that I'm such a saint I never took advantage of that fact.  
I played the unholy heck out of magic-users back in the day, so, yeah, I'm a tad tired of playing them, myself.  But I have dusted off a few this millennium.  In 3.x, a few Sorcerers and, very briefly, a Cleric.  In 4e an Eladrin Wizard McFighter just long enough to get to Wizard of the Spiral Tower, a Minotaur Artificer, a Human Cleric Radiant Servant through mid Paragon, and a couple more Wizards(Mages), and a Watershaper Druid(Sentinel), and a hybrid Ardent at Encounters, plus a Hybrid Shaman in Lair Assault. (Of course, you can guess the other half of those Hybrids).  And just various one-offs at conventions and the like.   A Druid in the playtest, another Wizard (actually a reprise of a 4e wizard character), and a dwarf cleric in 5e - showing how seldom I'm actually player at 5e tables instead of DMing.

But, to look at another way, when 'compromise' about allowing things into the game comes up, yeah, I'd be happy to take the position that all caster PCs need to be purged, and we could meet in the middle somewhere.  That's not real compromise, of course, it's just extremism masquerading as bargaining, but since that the attitude h4ters take with the Warlord, it'd only be fair.  

In the context of game design, compromise about what characters can be played and how powerful they can be comes in a rarefied form:  balance.  



Kinematics said:


> Anyway, for all that preface — isn't he just giving an extra attack to the person whose damage he's boosting?  If your 2H longsword does 2d10 instead of 1d10 (though only one +Str addition), it's sort of, but not quite the same as rolling two attacks.  It does less damage than two attacks could potentially do, but it also only needs one attack roll, so you don't have to deal with misses.



 In general, more attacks, even if for proportionally less damage, is better (on the PC side).  The result will be more consistent, which tends to favor PCs (in any edition, but particularly in 5e's faster/easier combats)



> So essentially he has his warlord using her healing resource as an underhanded "extra attack" as an alternate option for how to apply that resource.



 Well the whole paradigm he's using revolves around damage, so, yeah, that flows fairly naturally...




> At the same time, by allowing the use of this resource in multiple different ways at the same time (splitting the dice up), it's not competing for the character's _action_ resources — one person telling you to heal, and another telling you to help him kill the mob, and only one action that you can use between them.  That's not an 'interesting' choice, it's a frustrating one, and one that Mike has put efforts into avoiding in his HFH designs.



 It's not an issue that came up a lot, IMX.  But it doesn't seem a burning design issue, to me.  It also sounds like exactly the kind of thing 5e uses bonus actions for - doing two things at once.
But, because he's going Fighter sub-class, he's worried about messing up TWF, is that it?  Because it's more important his Fighter(Warlord) hit enemies with a dagger & sword in the same round than heal an ally and aid an attack in the same round?


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So I watched the video.
> 
> I like how a lot of Mearls "Warlord" is looking.  I wouldn't call it a Warlord though.  It's simply not.  It's like looking at a rogue without sneak attack.  It's like looking at a cleric that can't heal.  There's a lot of interesting space there, but it's not the name he's calling it.
> 
> BattleMaster would be more apt but that's already taken.



I think a large part depends on how you see the warlord. For battlefield control, something I think the warlord should excel at, I think this would excellently fill the warlord gap. I will note, however, that I may have a different view of the warlord since I played 4e briefly and before I heard of the popular builds.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> But, to look at another way, when 'compromise' about allowing things into the game comes up, yeah, I'd be happy to take the position that all caster PCs need to be purged, and we could meet in the middle somewhere.  That's not real compromise, of course, it's just extremism masquerading as bargaining, but since that the attitude h4ters take with the Warlord, it'd only be fair.




So to show the "h4ters" what for you're going to...

act exactly like them?

You'll excuse me if I think _that makes absolutely no sense at all_.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So to show the "h4ters" what for you're going to...
> 
> act exactly like them?
> 
> You'll excuse me if I think _that makes absolutely no sense at all_.



 Exactly.

It is absurd to take an extreme position in response to a reasonable one, and then demand 'compromise.'  Well, not absurd, exactly... but we'll go with that for the sake of amity.

Presented with such, mirroring the extreme position is illustrative, not serious.



FrogReaver said:


> BattleMaster would be more apt but that's already taken.



 Weaponmaster is available.  

It's really nothing like a Marshal, but I'd rather see 'Marshal' squandered than any other name that's been tossed out for the Warlord.

Of the 8 flavors of Warlords in 4e, this Fighter is most like a Bravura - inevitably, because the Bravura was the most fighter-like, off-tanking, of the Warlords.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 16, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So to show the "h4ters" what for you're going to...
> 
> act exactly like them?
> 
> You'll excuse me if I think _that makes absolutely no sense at all_.




I think you've missed the point of Tony's posts by focusing on his sarcasm and cynicism instead.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Exactly.




Ironically being stupid and actually being stupid are the exact same thing.



Azzy said:


> I think you've missed the point of Tony's posts by focusing on his sarcasm and cynicism instead.




If someone's trying to make a point they should just _say it_.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I think a large part depends on how you see the warlord. For battlefield control, something I think the warlord should excel at, I think this would excellently fill the warlord gap. I will note, however, that I may have a different view of the warlord since I played 4e briefly and before I heard of the popular builds.




Sure, if the name Warlord was a blank slate.  Just like if rogue was a blank slate maybe we wouldn't view sneak attack as a must have mechanic for him.  The point is that the Warlord isn't a blank slate and the name carries some past design decisions that at least need attempted.

As for Mearls Warlord subclass, It's look pretty good but it's looking like we were right, it's not going to be able to give healing, buffing and attack granting on a fighter chasis.  Make no mistake, it's not a Warlord to us if it doesn't do those 3 things.

(I do love his healing ability overhealing).  I also would love his tactical focus area as a primary subclass ability for a tactical warlord class...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It is absurd to take an extreme position in response to a reasonable one, and then demand 'compromise.'  Well, not absurd, exactly... but we'll go with that for the sake of amity.
> 
> ...




I'd have said he's most like the tactical Warlord.  Maybe a lovechild between a bravaura and a tactical warlord?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

Azzy said:


> I think you've missed the point of Tony's posts by focusing on his sarcasm and cynicism instead.



 To be fair, those are the bits in sharpest focus.



FlyingChihuahua said:


> If someone's trying to make a point they should just _say it_.



 I did.  

It was just too long for you to respond to, so you made something up.  Which was stupid, I mean, in an ironic way.  Which is totally different from actually stupid, so no offense.  

It was a really long post, afterall.  



FrogReaver said:


> Sure, if the name Warlord was a blank slate.  Just like if rogue was a blank slate maybe we wouldn't view sneak attack as a must have mechanic for him.



 With no D&D pre-conceptions, the Rogue would definitely need to steal other mutant's powers.  



> The point is that the Warlord isn't a blank slate and the name carries some past design decisions that at need attempted.
> As for Mearls Warlord subclass, It's look pretty good but it's looking like we were right, it's not going to be able to give healing, buffing and attack granting on a fighter chasis.  Make no mistake, it's not a Warlord to us if it doesn't do those 3 things.



 Meh, the BM can do those three things.  Look, I'll design a character can do those three things:  

Larry the Kobold Kaptain.

*** insert Ordinary Kobold stats***

Special ability:  once per day, Larry can heal an ally for 1 hp, add 1hp to an ally's attack (after seeing that it hits, so it's never wasted!), or give an ally the ability to make an extra attack as a reaction, this extra attack always inflicts a minimum - and maximum - of 1 hp of damage, if it hits.



> (I do love his healing ability overhealing).  I also would love his tactical focus area as a primary subclass ability for a tactical warlord class...



 Over-healing becoming temps is something I recall seeing thrown out in past discussions, during the playtest, I think it may have been - definitely a while back.  
Also stacking temps has been suggested.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> *** insert Ordinary Kobold stats***
> 
> Special ability:  once per day, Larry can heal an ally for 1 hp, add 1hp to an ally's attack (after seeing that it hits, so it's never wasted!), or give an ally the ability to make an extra attack as a reaction, this extra attack always inflicts a minimum - and maximum - of 1 hp of damage, if it hits.




No idea your point here?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> No, actually, #2 _is_ an implementation detail (arguably an implementation detail of #3).  #1 is sufficiently generic.  #3 is possibly too vague and abstract.
> 
> What kind of person is a member of this class? What does he do? What methods does he use to accomplish that?
> 
> ...




I think 4e summed it up pretty well:



> A warrior can learn much from history, for war stains its pages. Every conflict that has erupted between peoples, every battle that forged an empire, and every failure that led to that empire’s fall prove instructive to those who study them. The warlord is a military leader, a skilled commander gifted with tactical genius, keen insight, an inspiring personality, or some other asset that convinces others to follow him or her into danger. Warlords draw from their experiences and the maneuvers and tactics used by their predecessors to dictate a battle’s terms. Their commands compel others to action. Their plans can shatter an enemy’s offensive. Even their mere words can stir hearts and ease wounds. With a warlord in charge, there’s little an adventuring group cannot do. Each warlord earns the right to command because he or she has a special talent. Tactical genius is enough for most. Others have personalities so strong they can convince others to adopt their cause. Some warlords favor brash action, while others have a knack for finding more subtle solutions to problems. Whatever form a warlord’s leadership ability takes, it improves and emboldens those who fight at his or her side


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 16, 2018)

I never actually saw a warlord get picked in 4E. Some had martial power classes like Barbarian and iir c every other class in the phb got picked at some point. Only saw. Maybe 3 games playedmade it to level 7 and quit.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> No, actually, #2 _is_ an implementation detail (arguably an implementation detail of #3).  #1 is sufficiently generic.  #3 is possibly too vague and abstract.
> 
> What kind of person is a member of this class? What does he do? What methods does he use to accomplish that?
> 
> ...




Before you said you wanted to understand the problem. 

We want 3 things in a warlord class.  
1. Warlords need to be able to heal
2. Warlords need to be able to grant an extensive amount of attacks
3. Warlords need to buff allies

I don't care how you specifically implement any of those requirements but for better or worse those are the requirements.  Telling me you are going to leave off part of my requirements list because you think you know better than me what will work for me doesn't cut it.  

In fact, how many times do your clients have to tell you that something is an absolute requirement before you actually start listening to them?  You know what don't answer.  It boggles my mind that a group of people can summarize what they want in a warlord class or subclass with 3 key requirements and they can consistently say the same thing for years and you still come back again and again questioning whether some of the requirements are actually requirements or just some kind of preferred implementation that you can safely ignore.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 16, 2018)

As someone that purposefully skipped 4e, I want a Warlord class that fans of the 4e Warlord class feel is true to the class, has the same range of options as the 4e class, and is on par with other 5e classes. And, then, I'd like to play one.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> (Yeah, I finally got there. You thought I wasn't going to make it, didn't'ya?)



I was seriously considering it, yep.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> And, that was it. The End Times. Fire rained from the heavens, the earth shook, cities were razed, demons rose from hell and feasted on the entrails of the faithful...



So, essentially, the problem that the Warlord was built to solve was CoDzilla?  Given that CoDzilla doesn't exist in 5E, that makes it sound like a solution in search of a problem.

NB: I checked a wiki on 4E to look up the Warlord, and good god that's a hot mess.  And, ultimately, nothing but a lot of minor variations in mechanics.  Not the design space for new subclasses.



			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> I think 4e summed it up pretty well:
> 
> 
> > A warrior can learn much from history, for war stains its pages. Every conflict that has erupted between peoples, every battle that forged an empire, and every failure that led to that empire’s fall prove instructive to those who study them. The warlord is a military leader, a skilled commander gifted with tactical genius, keen insight, an inspiring personality, or some other asset that convinces others to follow him or her into danger. Warlords draw from their experiences and the maneuvers and tactics used by their predecessors to dictate a battle’s terms. Their commands compel others to action. Their plans can shatter an enemy’s offensive. Even their mere words can stir hearts and ease wounds. With a warlord in charge, there’s little an adventuring group cannot do. Each warlord earns the right to command because he or she has a special talent. Tactical genius is enough for most. Others have personalities so strong they can convince others to adopt their cause. Some warlords favor brash action, while others have a knack for finding more subtle solutions to problems. Whatever form a warlord’s leadership ability takes, it improves and emboldens those who fight at his or her side




OK, we have something to start with.

First, what does this imply about our character? Well, he's a warrior.  A fighter.  Trained in battle and military history.  The remaining half describes the specific abilities the Warlord might have.  They describe the 'how' to the first half's 'what'.

This is starting to look problematic, because these are qualities that just about any class could have.  This description on its own very much sounds like a Fighter archetype, but could just as easily be a Paladin archetype, a Ranger archetype, or even a Wizard archetype.  Everything there is something that _any_ character could put on their sheet and roleplay.  So what is it that drives it to be a _class_?


The first problem is that the Warlord _isn't_ a warrior.  He's a "leader".  He has the personality, or insight, or genius, to get others to follow him.  He delegates.

The next problem is: He's passive.  He can literally do nothing but stand there, and the other party members get bonuses. (That seems to be what the Lazylord aspires to.)

What those two problems add up to is: He's not a character class; he's a walking buff.  He is a patch for a mechanics problem, to fill the "martial leader" role, when 'roles' don't exist in 5E.


Now, using aspects of this to form an archetype is easy.  In fact, it's been done multiple times, even aside from Mike's current Happy Fun Hour version.  In general, the class/subclass dichotomy is "What does it do?" vs "How or why does it do it?", and the archetype as a whole is an overall character concept that is broad enough to cover several ideas.  It's hardly a surprise that many aspects of the above description find themselves into various archetypes, because it seems purpose built to _be_ an archetype.


Still, you want to make this into a class.  Further, you want it to incorporate three mechanics.  And you don't seem to grasp that "what" and "how" are separate issues, or the distinction between requirement and implementation.

Let's break down this requirement list:


			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> We want 3 things in a warlord class.
> 1. Warlords need to be able to heal
> 2. Warlords need to be able to grant an extensive amount of attacks
> 3. Warlords need to buff allies




1. To heal is to restore hit points.  To restore hit points is to limit the risk of a character dying.  Curing is reactive — only doable after the damage was done.  Temp hit points are proactive — providing a buffer so that no significant damage gets through.  Healing can be immediate (cure spells), or heal over time (regeneration), recovered via rests (hit dice), or gained as a bonus effect from other actions (vampiric knife).

Curing is the simplest form of solution to the problem behind the requirement, but the requirement itself is, Keep people active and capable of fighting over the course of multiple combats.

2. The extensive amount of attacks is a means of generating damage in a fight, the ultimate purpose of which is to complete the fight victoriously.  That _usually_ means killing the opponents.  Increasing damage output reduces the time to complete a fight, and thus reduces resources used (including healing).  Granting extra attacks is compensation for not doing much damage yourself.  You're delegating the damage to other people.

So the requirement here is: Provide a means of shortening the fight commensurate with what a typical class could do, but without requiring me to actually be the one doing damage.

3. Buffing allies covers a massive range of possible things, but for the Warlord, from what I read of it on the wiki, this largely relates to boosting attack, AC, damage, or movement.  Just miscellaneous ways to increase damage output or reduce damage taken, which is a superset of requirements 1 and 2.  This excludes buffs such as flight, teleportation, invisibility, etc.

4. The implied/assumed final requirement: Do so without using magic.


Aside from the exclusion of magic, these requirements are easily filled by a bard or cleric, which is why the warlord is often considered a cleric replacement.  By adding the "no magic" requirement, the particular sets of requirements FrogReaver lists are a convenient way to achieve those ends.  However they are not sufficient to support a class that needs subclass development.

To do that, you need to look at the root requirements, and think of ways that they can be creatively fulfilled.  Perhaps one significantly boosts the healing that can be gained via hit dice (á la the Durable feat). Perhaps one is capable of causing enemies to flee the battle, so as to shorten fights.  Perhaps one can always lead you to the high ground, so that you can choose where you fight your battles, and gain advantage from that.

A wizard will not look at a battle the same way a fighter will, and will use different techniques to achieve the objectives of a warlord.  That's where you can actually create divergences in implementation, and thus archetypes.  Although that wraps all the way back around to the issue that it's much easier to create this type of character as a subclass to the other classes, than it is to create this as an entire class on its own.


Mike's version hits points 1, 3, and 4, while skipping 2 because the Fighter isn't going to delegate all the hitting to someone else.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 16, 2018)

A person knows magic. It doesnt mean the person is necessarily a wizard. Might be a bard, psion, druid, sorcerer, warlock, cleric, or other class.

A person knows how to fight. It shouldnt be that fighter is the only possibility. At least there is rogue.

Martial classes need more diversity.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 16, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> A person knows magic. It doesnt mean the person is necessarily a wizard. Might be a bard, psion, druid, sorcerer, warlock, cleric, or other class.
> 
> A person knows how to fight. It shouldnt be that fighter is the only possibility. At least there is rogue.
> 
> Martial classes need more diversity.




I'm still, kinda stuck in 2E and look at warriors- Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarians.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 16, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I'm still, kinda stuck in 2E and look at warriors- Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarians.



I'm the same. I tend to organise classes in my mind as belonging to the groups warrior, wizard, priest, rogue, and sometimes psion.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 16, 2018)

I tend to lump classes into: mage or warrior, or a blend of both.

Mages include: wizard, psion, bard, druid, cleric, sorcerer, warlock.
Warriors include: fighter, rogue, barbarian, and warlord.

Gishes include: certain builds of any of the above classes, plus paladin and ranger.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 16, 2018)

Also. Gish: monk.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Mar 16, 2018)

I prefer Performers (paladin, bard, warlord, berserker barbarian): pay attention to me
Scoundrels (rogue, warlock, mystic [half the point of psychics is "I can do magic-like stuff and no one can tell I did it {except for another mystic}]):  pay attention to somebody else
Damage Dealers (fighter, ranger, sorcerer, all other barbarians)
Scholars (wizards, monks, clerics [no spontaneous clerics for me, you have to go to seminary first], druids)

I am still thinking on artificers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> So, essentially, the problem that the Warlord was built to solve was CoDzilla?



 What? No, CoDzilla was a nominally-unintended consequence of trying to address a symptom, "no one wants to play the cleric," of the problem(s).

 And 4e as a whole tried to address those problems (with varying degrees of success), the Warlord was only one part of the solution.  

4e & 5e (and even 2e & 3e) also addressed that same symptom by providing cleric alternatives.  In 2e, for instance, in a very small way:  the Druid & Cleric lists were normalized so the Druid could heal from 1st level, becoming a viable alternative.  In 3e, in addition to powering the cleric up to make it more attractive to players, the Druid and Bard (and of course, Paladin) could heal significantly - and item-based, between-combat healing was an alternative that caused new issues of it's own.  In 4e, the formalization of roles, and a 'Leader' from every Source meant you could, if 'stuck' or preferring to provide that role for your party, play the general ballpark concept (clothy caster, psi, warrior, etc) you might prefer if you weren't interested in going divine - 4e also took steps to make the Leader role, however desirable, not absolutely obligatory, specifically in the case of healing, via Healing Surges which gave even a leaderless party adequate between-combat healing, and by giving everyone a Second Wind to use a surge 1/encounter, in combat (including being 'triggered' by an ally using a heal check, or a nat 20 death save).  5e provided some of the same alternatives to divine healing, including the Bard & Druid, though HD do not represent nearly the same proportion of healing as surges, and cannot be used in combat  - and left some out - like Second Wind for non-fighters, and, of course, the Warlord, Artificer, Shaman & Ardent.  To be fair, of those, only the Warlord was also in a PH1, so omission of the rest was expected based on the stated criteria at the start of the playtest.



> NB: I checked a wiki on 4E to look up the Warlord, and good god that's a hot mess.



 4e wasn't open source so you can't just paste it up on line.  OK, shouldn't.


----------



## iserith (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> What? No, Godzilla was a nominally unintended consequence of trying to address a symptom "no one wants to play the cleric," of the problem.
> 
> Well, part of one of the problems.
> 
> 4e wasn't open source so you can't just paste it up on line.




If it will help the discussion, I might be able to throw together a Warlord PC and post it. I still have the official 4e character builder subscription. If it will help, let me know what you want made and I'll try to get it posted by tonight.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> A person knows magic. It doesnt mean the person is necessarily a wizard. Might be a bard, psion, druid, sorcerer, warlock, cleric, or other class.
> 
> A person knows how to fight. It shouldnt be that fighter is the only possibility. At least there is rogue.
> 
> Martial classes need more diversity.



 My though, as I was trying to get across in my Wall of Text post, was that's actually kinda a blind alley and why it's been so hard to make the fighter viable in D&D for so long.  I point to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk as the genesis of the whole thing.  The way I put it succinctly is that you could combine the Fighting Man & Thief, or, today, the Fighter & Rogue, into a single class - just give it all of eachother's non-redundant features (and, yes, Extra Attack & SA are obviously redundant DPR-generators) - and the result would be in no way overpowered or overshadowing, and it would better model characters from genre.  But, it seems unthinkable to give up either class, and since both are so narrow in their abilities, they both remain non-to-barely viable choices, and road-blocks to creating anything better.  Instead, things the 'fighter' should be doing get increasingly diced, broken out, and/or specialized in sub-class, feats, builds, PrCs, alternate classes, or whatever (even magic items have been used to inject perfectly reasonable martial abilities - like standing up quickly, any stunt man IRL can do it, but it took 'Acrobat Boots' in 4e, wtf?).  Heck, as much as I like what 4e did with the Martial source, 'marital' itself, is unduly narrow.  There's more to a hero in the fantasy genre than just fighting skill.

And, again, that's not the whole of it, there's other factors, other early decisions that have gotten propagated and calcified for decades into unshakeable dogma - often while, simultaneously, the underlying game-design reasons for them were undermined.  For instance, in the early game, the Fighter & Cleric's ability to wear heavy armor was a huge deal, the AC gap between a guy in a robe or leather when everyone had random-rolled 3d6 DEX and the one in platemail & shield was huge.  Ever since 3e, with high stats expected, DEX bonus to AC limited by heavy armor, and any class that didn't get such armor getting spells and features to give it competitive AC, heavy armor has been little more than cosmetic - sometimes even a distinct disadvantage.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> My though, as I was trying to get across in my Wall of Text post, was that's actually kinda a blind alley and why it's been so hard to make the fighter viable in D&D for so long.  I point to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk as the genesis of the whole thing.  The way I put it succinctly is that you could combine the Fighting Man & Thief, or, today, the Fighter & Rogue, into a single class - just give it all of eachother's non-redundant features (and, yes, Extra Attack & SA are obviously redundant DPR-generators) - and the result would be in no way overpowered or overshadowing, and it would better model characters from genre.  But, it seems unthinkable to give up either class, and since both are so narrow in their abilities, they both remain non-to-barely viable choices, and road-blocks to creating anything better.  Instead, things the 'fighter' should be doing get increasingly diced, broken out, and/or specialized in sub-class, feats, builds, PrCs, alternate classes, or whatever (even magic items have been used to inject perfectly reasonable martial abilities - like standing up quickly, any stunt man IRL can do it, but it took 'Acrobat Boots' in 4e, wtf?).  Heck, as much as I like what 4e did with the Martial source, 'marital' itself, is unduly narrow.  There's more to a hero in the fantasy genre than just fighting skill.
> 
> And, again, that's not the whole of it, there's other factors, other early decisions that have gotten propagated and calcified for decades into unshakeable dogma - often while, simultaneously, the underlying game-design reasons for them were undermined.  For instance, in the early game, the Fighter & Cleric's ability to wear heavy armor was a huge deal, the AC gap between a guy in a robe or leather when everyone had random-rolled 3d6 DEX and the one in platemail & shield was huge.  Ever since 3e, with high stats expected, DEX bonus to AC limited by heavy armor, and any class that didn't get such armor getting spells and features to give it competitive AC, heavy armor has been little more than cosmetic - sometimes even a distinct disadvantage.




Which begs the question:

If you believe that D&D is systemically broken, why are you playing it?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> My though, as I was trying to get across in my Wall of Text post, was that's actually kinda a blind alley and why it's been so hard to make the fighter viable in D&D for so long.  I point to the introduction of the Thief in Greyhawk as the genesis of the whole thing.  The way I put it succinctly is that you could combine the Fighting Man & Thief, or, today, the Fighter & Rogue, into a single class - just give it all of eachother's non-redundant features (and, yes, Extra Attack & SA are obviously redundant DPR-generators) - and the result would be in no way overpowered or overshadowing, and it would better model characters from genre.  But, it seems unthinkable to give up either class, and since both are so narrow in their abilities, they both remain non-to-barely viable choices, and road-blocks to creating anything better.  Instead, things the 'fighter' should be doing get increasingly diced, broken out, and/or specialized in sub-class, feats, builds, PrCs, alternate classes, or whatever (even magic items have been used to inject perfectly reasonable martial abilities - like standing up quickly, any stunt man IRL can do it, but it took 'Acrobat Boots' in 4e, wtf?).  Heck, as much as I like what 4e did with the Martial source, 'marital' itself, is unduly narrow.  There's more to a hero in the fantasy genre than just fighting skill.
> 
> And, again, that's not the whole of it, there's other factors, other early decisions that have gotten propagated and calcified for decades into unshakeable dogma - often while, simultaneously, the underlying game-design reasons for them were undermined.  For instance, in the early game, the Fighter & Cleric's ability to wear heavy armor was a huge deal, the AC gap between a guy in a robe or leather when everyone had random-rolled 3d6 DEX and the one in platemail & shield was huge.  Ever since 3e, with high stats expected, DEX bonus to AC limited by heavy armor, and any class that didn't get such armor getting spells and features to give it competitive AC, heavy armor has been little more than cosmetic - sometimes even a distinct disadvantage.




There is a reason for that its D&D. 

 You could go and create a clone like Gold and Glory for 2E. Call it Warlords and Wizzies or perhaps Powers and Warlords and put it on kickstarter. I'm sure all those disaffected 4E fans who love the warlord so much will support your idea. Make is a bit OSR looking to get around the GSL, warlords can level up like Thieves and you can double the xp requirements for wizards. 

 Instead of 1gp=1xp you could give xp for using healing surges. Instead of paying tribute to Gygax you ca drool all over Tweet. Go for it I am sure you will get at least 3 backers 4 on a good day.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> There is a reason for that its D&D.



 Yep.  Lots of smart or talented or just determined folks have looked at D&D, seen (some or even all) of what was wrong with it, and published their improved versions.  "Fantasy Heartbreakers" Heinsoo & Tweet called 'em.  
They've never made a ripple in the market.  Because only D&D (and, OK, now PF) is D&D.



FlyingChihuahua said:


> If you believe that D&D is systemically broken, why are you playing it?



 It was the first RPG, and my entry to the hobby.  I love the game.  Seeing some of it's faults and how deeply rooted they are in its history doesn't change that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep.  Lots of smart or talented or just determined folks have looked at D&D, seen (some or even all) of what was wrong with it, and published their improved versions.  "Fantasy Heartbreakers" Heinsoo & Tweet called 'em.
> They've never made a ripple in the market.  Because only D&D (and, OK, now PF) is D&D.
> 
> It was the first RPG, and my entry to the hobby.  I love the game.  Seeing some of it's faults and how deeply rooted they are in its history doesn't change that.




I think balance in D&D kind of was there around 1995 and if you use say Skills and Power correctly you can pull it off. The OSR Rogue needs a bit of a rewrite the 3E one is probably fine in AD&D. 

Martial healing also existed as you got 1 hp/day 2 if you had a healer in the group, 3 with healer+ bed rest.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Martial healing also existed as you got 1 hp/day 2 if you had a healer in the group, 3 with healer+ bed rest.



Not really 'martial,' literally of course (it's rest & care, nothing to do with war & warriors).  But, yeah, that rings a bell, I'd forgotten about that.  But, 1 hp/day, or 3/day, it's still pretty trivial compared to the cleric just re-memorizing a full slate of Cure..Wounds spells overnight.


----------



## outsider (Mar 16, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I think balance in D&D kind of was there around 1995 and if you use say Skills and Power correctly you can pull it off.




In Skills and Powers, Fighters had 15 points to buy their class abilities.  Clerics had _125_.  Clerics could buy weapon specialization, fighter str/con, 1d10 hitpoints, an edged weapon if they wanted, and still have around 80 points to buy cleric spheres(that would get them around 8-10 spheres).

Skills and Powers very much maintained the casters are better status quo.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It was the first RPG, and my entry to the hobby.  I love the game.  Seeing some of it's faults and how deeply rooted they are in its history doesn't change that.




For someone who says they love D&D despite all of the flaws it has, you sure do bring up those flaws a lot and say anybody who looks past them is dumb.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 16, 2018)

outsider said:


> In Skills and Powers, Fighters had 15 points to buy their class abilities.  Clerics had _125_.  Clerics could buy weapon specialization, fighter str/con, 1d10 hitpoints, an edged weapon if they wanted, and still have around 80 points to buy cleric spheres(that would get them around 8-10 spheres).
> 
> Skills and Powers very much maintained the casters are better status quo.



I will continue to maintain my stance that a party of entirely Skills & Powers clerics is one of the best D&D experiences possible.  Outside of the abomination that was split stats, I loved that system.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> For someone who says they love D&D despite all of the flaws it has, you sure do bring up those flaws a lot



 They inevitably come up a lot in discussions about why the addition of something might be good for the game.  If something is flawless, you can't improve upon it.  







> and say anybody who looks past them is dumb.



 Never said any such thing.  Loving /for/ flaws rather than in spite of them, or being in denial about their existence, is an emotional thing, nothing to do with intelligence.


----------



## outsider (Mar 16, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I will continue to maintain my stance that a party of entirely Skills & Powers clerics is one of the best D&D experiences possible.  Outside of the abomination that was split stats, I loved that system.




As long as everybody was playing clerics, Skills and Powers was great, for sure!


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> May have been after my time.  While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time.  AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.






outsider said:


> In Skills and Powers, Fighters had 15 points to buy their class abilities.  Clerics had _125_.  Clerics could buy weapon specialization, fighter str/con, 1d10 hitpoints, an edged weapon if they wanted, and still have around 80 points to buy cleric spheres(that would get them around 8-10 spheres).
> 
> Skills and Powers very much maintained the casters are better status quo.




Points meant something different though. We had fighter with d12 hit dice and multiple weapon specization for example. It was also up to the DM to allow that stuff and we did not allow to abusive cleric builds. Basically we let them swap spheres not rebuild into a better fighter with spells.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 16, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> For someone who says they love D&D despite all of the flaws it has, you sure do bring up those flaws a lot and say anybody who looks past them is dumb.



I don't think I'd come to this forum if it was nothing but "I love this system" and "This is how my party ran Tomb of Annihilation Part DCCXXXVII" threads, though.

It's not dumb to say "These flaws don't impact my game, so they're not a real priority for me".  But, to say "These flaws aren't flaws, you're just playing incorrectly" is more problematic.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> What? No, Godzilla was a nominally unintended consequence of trying to address a symptom, "no one wants to play the cleric," of the problem(s).



Sorry, I was playing a little snarky after that grand historical recounting.  It kinda got lost as I drifted into a long response to FrogReaver.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Never said any such thing.  Loving /for/ flaws rather than in spite of them, or being in denial about their existence, is an emotional thing, nothing to do with intelligence.




I guess this is just a difference in viewpoints between us then.

I try to look at reasons why I should enjoy something, not to why I should hate something.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Sorry, I was playing a little snarky after that grand historical recounting.



 I honestly tried, but I was flagging towards the end there, and kinda wrapped it up without solidifying everything.  It's a surprisingly deep topic, really, early D&D and it's legacy.



FlyingChihuahua said:


> I try to look at reasons why I should enjoy something, not to why I should hate something.



 Cool!  Share some of the reasons why you'd enjoy a warlord!    Like the one Mearls is designing, say, since that is theoretically the topic?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Cool!  Share some of the reasons why you'd enjoy a warlord!    Like the one Mearls is designing, say, since that is theoretically the topic?




Well more subclasses is pretty much always nice for one thing. I also love team support and anything that adds to that is good in my book.

More specifically to the Warlord as it's being designed: The Overhealing thing is honestly great, and helps separate it from the other healers in the game. The Zone of Control idea is also really good, and fits the class very well. I also like the "cantrip" idea so you're always helping you're party members if you can help it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 16, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> More specifically to the Warlord as it's being designed: The Overhealing thing is honestly great, and helps separate it from the other healers in the game. The Zone of Control idea is also really good, and fits the class very well. I also like the "cantrip" idea so you're always helping you're party members if you can help it.



 We agree on two out of three, that's not bad.    Overhealing is good on several levels, some of them subtle - for instance, it could mitigate against the tendency towards whack-a-mole, since healing early runs less of a risk of inefficiency.  
And, some at-will support is definitely a plus.  At-wills have been a solid addition to 5e, across the board, really, helping classes express their concepts consistently, rather than wizards falling back on crossbows or darts, for the tired instances from past editions.

The Zone I'm not so sure about.  It feels like conflating 'the grid' with tactics.  Tactics are independent of your choice of play surface, or at least should be.  That and it's the character that's meant to be the tactician, so I hope to see benefits based in 'tactics' in the character's narrative, not the player's use of game-tactics (though that's fine, and there should be room for it, the class shouldn't over-emphasize them or depend upon the player being the DM's idea of tactically savvy to work).  OTOH, it reminds me a bit of reservations I had about the Shaman's spirit companion, that turned out to be fine, in play.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 16, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> We agree on two out of three, that's not bad.    Overhealing is good on several levels, some of them subtle - for instance, it could mitigate against the tendency towards whack-a-mole, since healing early runs less of a risk of inefficiency.
> And, some at-will support is definitely a plus.  At-wills have been a solid addition to 5e, across the board, really, helping classes express their concepts consistently, rather than wizards falling back on crossbows or darts, for the tired instances from past editions.
> 
> The Zone I'm not so sure about.  It feels like conflating 'the grid' with tactics.  Tactics are independent of your choice of play surface, or at least should be.  That and it's the character that's meant to be the tactician, so I hope to see benefits based in 'tactics' in the character's narrative, not the player's use of game-tactics (though that's fine, and there should be room for it, the class shouldn't over-emphasize them or depend upon the player being the DM's idea of tactically savvy to work).  OTOH, it reminds me a bit of reservations I had about the Shaman's spirit companion, that turned out to be fine, in play.




I feel like with how early the Warlord is in development (hasn't even been playtested yet I think) I feel like there's plenty of time to clear up the language of it.


----------



## OB1 (Mar 17, 2018)

Love the direction Mike is going with this. Sounds like an interesting sub-class and one I’d love to play.  
As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play. 
By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met.  As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).  
For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want?  How would you implement?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

OB1 said:


> As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play.



 That's yet another novel set of hypothetical bars to new classes.  
Only the 'lazy' build would have an issue with the first one.   
No class'd do really well on the second one, though I suppose the most versatile could just pick specialties arbitrarily and optimize, and those with more faux-MC sub-classes could lean on that to kinda 'cheat' their way through.

What's funny is thinking about the Wizard and that first goal.  A lone wizard, especially at low level, in the classic game would be tantamount to suicide.  In 5e (oddly, in 4e, too), though, it's not particularly more so than for any other class.  It really is quite remarkable how many of the limitations and weaknesses of that class have been removed, almost entirely, over the editions.  There's a lot of pendulum-swinging in a lot of areas, but as far as making life easier on wizards, it's been steady.



> By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met.



 I can see how it'd make the fighter handle the second goal better, since it is, in essence, a faux-multi-class 'support' character, something the fighter would currently lack in the hypothetical all-fighter party.


> As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).



 It's an issue with any support class, of course.  And a joke in 4e circles, something about a party of leaders being "all multiplier and no force."


> For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want?  How would you implement?



 I think those goals are silly, but, sure, if the class were not ported directly from 4e still in the constrictive 'Leader' box, but allowed to cover more of the conceptual ground it implies - particularly into the 4e-'controller' realm, it could do very well.  Similarly, a faux-MC sub-class or two would help with the second one.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 17, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Love the direction Mike is going with this. Sounds like an interesting sub-class and one I’d love to play.
> As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play.
> By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met.  As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).
> For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want?  How would you implement?



I've noticed that concept as well when reading through the PHB, all of them should be able to handle themselves okay when alone and many agree that a party should be able to be made up of any group of classes, no healers, arcanists, rogues, or warriors necessary.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Let's break down this requirement list:
> 
> 
> 1. To heal is to restore hit points.  To restore hit points is to limit the risk of a character dying.  Curing is reactive — only doable after the damage was done.  Temp hit points are proactive — providing a buffer so that no significant damage gets through.  Healing can be immediate (cure spells), or heal over time (regeneration), recovered via rests (hit dice), or gained as a bonus effect from other actions (vampiric knife).
> ...




To add a little more thought to each of these.

1. It seems when people say a warlord should be able to "heal", they use it place of "restore hit points", which is the easiest portion of the healer's role for others to fulfill. I have nothing against a warlord healing (within a few parameters; such as inspirational healing not working in a silence spell) but to me, this should be the secondary function of the warlord, not the primary. That is at odds with his "leader" moniker in 4e, but since I don't think the warlord should be a cleric replacement, I'm fine with his healing being more on par with a paladin (more or less) than a cleric. 

2. I think its important to differentiate between "granting an additional attack" and "granting an additional attack action".  What the warlord should be doing is "loaning" his attack to a more advantageous ally rather than letting the ally attack again. The reason is simple; there are plenty of other classes who can get more bang for their buck than a simple weapon attack from a (hypothetical) warlord. Imagine for a minute a warlord gets no self-buffing to his attacks (no riders or extra damage dice). If that is true, than lots of abilities get better by having the warlord forgo his attack action to give it to a fighter (extra attack), rogue (SA), stunning fist (monk), paladin (smite), barbarian (rage) or even a cleric (divine strike). Thus, its imperative that the warlord NOT grant an extra attack/attack action, but a special new ability that doesn't allow classes mentioned above to trigger their special attack riders. It would be a bit metagamey (akin to how an unarmed strike isn't a weapon, but it is a weapon attack) but something like "You grant your ally an opening, he can roll an attack roll with your proficiency bonus plus your Intelligence modifier. If he hits, he does his weapons normal damage die plus your intelligence modifier." (rough draft). 

3. This is the area that is hardest to define. What is the warlord able to buff? Attacks and damage, AC and saves, skills and ability checks seem fairly safe, but beyond influencing die rolls, what does a warlord do for support? How does he influence the exploration and social pillars beyond boosting skill checks? A spellcaster adds so much "non-math-influencing" effects (such as divinations, water-breathing, curing poison and disease, making food, or easing travel) that a warlord has to somehow match non-magically or be the inferior choice. 

4. Which limits what the warlord can accomplish, as he would have to be balanced against some form of spellcaster (even Mearls' version was balanced against the EK) but  have to create effects that are useful and don't feel "supernatural". For a fighter subclass, that is easy (since you only need a few support powers to fill in the gaps of the fighter) but the least satisfying. For a paladin-like class, its a little harder (as a paladin eventually tops out at 5th level magical effects) and for a cleric-like one, nearly impossible. 

5. I'd like to add a 5th point: Warlords ultimately are suffering from the fact that in 4e, they could replace casters because caster magic generally ended up being attacks anyway (save for utility powers and rituals). Imagine, for a moment, that rather than replicate the "martial leader" role of 4e, we start with the marshal (a underpowered but interesting take on a commander class) and then layer on some warlord inspired ideas (such as inspirational healing, granting attacks, or setting up strategic maneuvers. The marshal also had a magical cousin in the 3.5 PHB2: the dragon shaman. He was an aura-based buffing character who didn't have spells but could heal (a souped up lay on hands) and gained dragon powers (including a breath weapon) and was far better balanced than the marshal. I think these two classes would make an interesting basis for a warlord, especially when you start layering on some warlord concepts to them. The PHB2 also had the knight class, which also is a good place to look for "inspirational warrior" ideas. 

I think that once you free yourself form the notion that the warlord must be a low/no magic cleric, you find there is plenty of design space and ideas to work with.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2018)

OB1 said:


> Love the direction Mike is going with this. Sounds like an interesting sub-class and one I’d love to play.
> As to the full class discussion, while not an explicit stated design goal of 5e (I think), it appears that every full class meets two requirements. That a single PC of that class can operate in combat effectively on its own, and that an entire party made up of the class would be viable for long term play.
> By making the Warlord run on the fighter chassis, those two goals are met.  As it’s own class, it becomes more difficult as the concept of a leader of others clashes with a single adventurer or an entire party of leaders (though if done right could be tremendous fun!).
> For those of you looking for a full warlord class, do you think those goals are possible with the class or does it alter it too much from what you want?  How would you implement?




Its a good question. Can a warlord inspire himself? Can he heal himself? If he has no allies to grant attacks to, can he still fight? It might be the biggest design hurdle for a full class.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 17, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> I think that once you free yourself form the notion that the warlord must be a low/no magic cleric, you find there is plenty of design space and ideas to work with.




The problem being is that for a lot of people, the non-magicalness of the Warlord is the main selling point.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The problem being is that for a lot of people, the non-magicalness of the Warlord is the main selling point.




Which I think is the exact wrong way to go about it. Your not designing the class with Dungeons & Dragons in mind, your requesting it to be a tool for some Generic Fantasy Toolkit d20 game. It is certainly possible to design a low/no magic buffer-healer type character, but a.) It should be designed with a low/no magical setting in mind, so it doesn't have to compete with support casters; b.) probably be paired with a low/no magical version of the fighter, rogue, monk/martial artist, barbarian, paladin/knight, and ranger classes that similarly ramp down magic and magical effects; and c.) Probably should be a third party supplement or DMs Guild product rather than a supplement for official Dungeons & Dragons.

However, that's my personal bugbear. I'd much rather see a Warlord who fits in the 5e game as is rather than one that either changes the fundamentals of the game assumptions OR can't carry his weight when compared to a caster.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> , no healers, arcanists, rogues, or warriors necessary.



 what's left, exactly?





			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Good bye. We'll not meet again.



 Promises, promises...



FlyingChihuahua said:


> The problem being is that for a lot of people, the non-magicalness of the Warlord is the main selling point.



 He was making the opposite point: not that the warlord must use magic, itself, but that it must be strictly inferior to those who do.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 17, 2018)

I'm baffled why the notion of a "magical warlord" is even being brought up (yet again for the umpteenth time).

For one, warlord fans have been pretty darn adamant that this is non-negotiable.  You might not like it, you might not understand it, but, there it is.  The warlord must be non-magical.  Full stop. 

Secondly, we already HAVE two magic using tactical classes - Bards and Clerics.  The buffing, action granting and healing of either class is pretty extensive.  Why would we want a third magic using tactical class?  If people were happy with a magic using tactical class, they're spoiled for choice.

Heck, I don't even NEED to be a buffing/action granting character to be a seriously tactical leader type.  Just make a Druid and cast summoning spells.  One man army.  I don't need to worry about the rest of the group.  Good grief, a single Conjure Animals gives me up to EIGHT actions, plus my own, per round.  Riders and whatnot included.

If magic was what we were looking for WE'D PLAY CASTERS!!!!  

Why is this such a hard concept to understand?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 17, 2018)

The point is a non-magical warlord (with powers on a par with cleric/druid) DOES NOT FIT in a medium/high magic setting. The point of magic is it allows you to do things that would otherwise be impossible. If it is possible to achieve equivalent effects without magic there is no point in magic existing.

I have nothing against setting-specific classes, but will warlord fans stop trying to break our medium/high magic settings by insisting it be a standard core class?


----------



## Azzy (Mar 17, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The point is a non-magical warlord (with powers on a par with cleric/druid) DOES NOT FIT in a medium/high magic setting. The point of magic is it allows you to do things that would otherwise be impossible. If it is possible to achieve equivalent effects without magic there is no point in magic existing.
> 
> I have nothing against setting-specific classes, but will warlord fans stop trying to break our medium/high magic settings by insisting it be a standard core class?




Just because you *believe* it doesn't fit doesn't make it so. Also, no one would compel you play a fully non-magical warlord. If it isn't for you, then just move along.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I'm baffled why the notion of a "magical warlord" is even being brought up (yet again for the umpteenth time).
> 
> For one, warlord fans have been pretty darn adamant that this is non-negotiable.  You might not like it, you might not understand it, but, there it is.  The warlord must be non-magical.  Full stop.
> 
> ...




It came up a while back and I think the idea was a magical warlord would be a subclass. The way I have been tweaking my Warlord is you could have a 1/3rd caster but it would not be as good at inspiring, being tactical of fighting (bravura) as the other warlords.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 17, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I'm baffled why the notion of a "magical warlord" is even being brought up (yet again for the umpteenth time).
> 
> For one, warlord fans have been pretty darn adamant that this is non-negotiable.  You might not like it, you might not understand it, but, there it is.  The warlord must be non-magical.  Full stop.
> 
> ...






Paul Farquhar said:


> The point is a non-magical warlord (with powers on a par with cleric/druid) DOES NOT FIT in a medium/high magic setting. The point of magic is it allows you to do things that would otherwise be impossible. If it is possible to achieve equivalent effects without magic there is no point in magic existing.
> 
> I have nothing against setting-specific classes, but will warlord fans stop trying to break our medium/high magic settings by insisting it be a standard core class?




Its not a core class its not in the PHB.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 17, 2018)

I would suggest the whole reason for the success of D&D where RPGs in other settings have faltered is the existence of magic. This enabled heroes to do impossible feats like shooting lightning from their fingers and healing someone from the brink of death, and beyond. To make these thing that anyone can do kills the suspension of disbelief that is so essential to the game.

And the excuse "your character with one hp remaining isn't really severely wounded, they are just feeling a little tired" diminishes both the magic of the game and the sense of peril.


"Magic" and "non-magic" should not be seen at separate. We do not need two classes that can do same things "magically" and "non-magically". That's redundancy. Classes are defined by what they do, not how they do it.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 17, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The point is a non-magical warlord (with powers on a par with cleric/druid) DOES NOT FIT in a medium/high magic setting. The point of magic is it allows you to do things that would otherwise be impossible. If it is possible to achieve equivalent effects without magic there is no point in magic existing.
> 
> I have nothing against setting-specific classes, but will warlord fans stop trying to break our medium/high magic settings by insisting it be a standard core class?




The logic is flawed.  DM choice on how much magic exists also includes DM choice as to whether certain classes or subclasses are allowed.   For my part,  the Warlord should be non magical even s/he is so damn inspiring they can help others overcome the effects of magic.   Saving throws are not magical.   Hit dice are not magical.  Second wind is not magical.   An adrenaline rush is not magical.   There is plenty of scope.


----------



## OB1 (Mar 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's yet another novel set of hypothetical bars to new classes.



I don't mean it as a bar, I mean it as a real consideration towards what a class is in 5e.  Ignoring it means you're fighting against the core concepts of the edition. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Only the 'lazy' build would have an issue with the first one.
> No class'd do really well on the second one, though I suppose the most versatile could just pick specialties arbitrarily and optimize, and those with more faux-MC sub-classes could lean on that to kinda 'cheat' their way through.



I disagree.  If the DM is strictly following the rules for encounter building and daily xp, I don't see a single class (or really even a single subclass) that would have difficulty making it through adventuring days.  Again, it's one of the hidden design goals of 5e, to allow a party to be created with any combination of PCs and be viable, just as a Class with any Race combo is viable.  Sure, certain character builds and party builds are more effective, but the game is purposefully balanced around non-optimization of party and pc so that players can pick whatever they want and still succeed.  I've actually played in an all Monk and all Wizard run through of different modules in Yawing Portal and it's a ton of fun.



Tony Vargas said:


> What's funny is thinking about the Wizard and that first goal.  A lone wizard, especially at low level, in the classic game would be tantamount to suicide.  In 5e (oddly, in 4e, too), though, it's not particularly more so than for any other class.  It really is quite remarkable how many of the limitations and weaknesses of that class have been removed, almost entirely, over the editions.  There's a lot of pendulum-swinging in a lot of areas, but as far as making life easier on wizards, it's been steady.




This hits on another design goal and one that was first done successfully in 4e.  That every class be fun to play at every level.  No more Fighters are great for the first 10 levels and Wizards rule the last 10.  Same should be true for a full Warlord class.



Tony Vargas said:


> I can see how it'd make the fighter handle the second goal better, since it is, in essence, a faux-multi-class 'support' character, something the fighter would currently lack in the hypothetical all-fighter party.
> It's an issue with any support class, of course.  And a joke in 4e circles, something about a party of leaders being "all multiplier and no force."



And hence why every class, besides it's unique role, must also be able to stand on it's own.



Tony Vargas said:


> I think those goals are silly, but, sure, if the class were not ported directly from 4e still in the constrictive 'Leader' box, but allowed to cover more of the conceptual ground it implies - particularly into the 4e-'controller' realm, it could do very well.  Similarly, a faux-MC sub-class or two would help with the second one.




They may be silly to you, but it is what 5e is.  Does it put limitations on what a Warlord can be in 5e?  Yes.  But it could also encourage creativity in design and lead to something even more fun to play than the 4e Warlord because it's designed to work with the system you're playing in rather than against or in spite of it.  And that is where I see brilliance in what Mearls is doing with the fighter sub-class warlord.  He's adding to the game in a way that still feels in line with it. 

 For a full class, I'd start with what he is doing there and then figure out how to flesh that out with a full class design that keeps in mind what a 5e class is.  Build the full class in the reverse way that the Arcane Trickster or Eldrich Knight was built.  Perhaps some mix of Paladin (for durability) and Warlock (for flexibility) classes would make a good base for this subclass to sit on top of and to add other subclasses?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The point is a non-magical warlord (with powers on a par with cleric/druid) DOES NOT FIT in a medium/high magic setting. The point of magic is it allows you to do things that would otherwise be impossible. If it is possible to achieve equivalent effects without magic there is no point in magic existing.
> 
> I have nothing against setting-specific classes, but will warlord fans stop trying to break our medium/high magic settings by insisting it be a standard core class?



I think a litmus test for any new class should be "does it fit well into Toril, Oerth, Krynn, or Eberron?" Aka does it work with all the dials set to normal.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

OB1 said:


> I mean it as a real consideration towards what a class is in 5e.  Ignoring it means you're fighting against the core concepts of the edition.



 Is there a Class Designer's guide somewhere that spells that out?  Is so, link it.  If not, don't pretend that there's anything so bizarre as a requirement for single-player or single-class party viability in an essentially cooperative game that runs on spotlight balance. 



> I don't mean it as a bar



 That's OK, then.  If it isn't a bar to the consideration of a class for inclusion, then it only has bearing on the later design phase.  



> If the DM is strictly following the rules for encounter building and daily xp, I don't see a single class (or really even a single subclass) that would have difficulty making it through adventuring days.



 I know 5e has a rep for being 'too easy,' but if you do follow those guidelines, you'll end up with 6-8 medium/hard encounters (by including some encounters where the party is outnumbered, resulting in hard encounters with less-than-hard exp value), and single class parties will likely choke on that, especially indifferently optimized ones at 1st level.  Some of the more versatile classes, though, you could optimize a party of them to cover everything it needs, and, if you heavily optimize a single-class party it could probably blow it's way through at least a full day of standard encounters, even if they're all hard. 

But, honestly, that's going beyond the viability of the class to the manipulation of the system.



> Again, it's one of the hidden design goals of 5e



 If it's hidden, you can't claim it as a goal, it could just be a fantasy of your own.  



> This hits on another design goal and one that was first done successfully in 4e.  That every class be fun to play at every level.  No more Fighters are great for the first 10 levels and Wizards rule the last 10.  Same should be true for a full Warlord class.



No reason it shouldn't hit that imaginary design goal, with a full class, either.  The sub-class in question doesn't even start to boot up until 3rd, of course, because it's a sub-class.  :shrug:




> They may be silly to you, but it is what 5e is.



 Again, that is a baseless assertion.  You'll need to find it in print, or get a designer to swear to it, before I even start to take you seriously.
I mean, Mearls /is/ on record with goals for 5e's inclusiveness and integration of all past editions to the point different players could enjoy the 'styles' of different editions, at the same table.  No one takes that seriously.



> Does it put limitations on what a Warlord can be in 5e?



 No, only on how design might be approached.



> For a full class, I'd start with what he is doing there and then figure out how to flesh that out with a full class design that keeps in mind what a 5e class is.  Build the full class in the reverse way that the Arcane Trickster or Eldrich Knight was built.



 Nod.  I can see that as a development path, too.  Treat this class as a faux-MC sub-class like the EK or AT is a faux-Wizard-MC for their native classes, and extrapolate the full class from that.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 17, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And the excuse "your character with one hp remaining isn't really severely wounded, they are just feeling a little tired" diminishes both the magic of the game and the sense of peril.




It also forces a specific view of hit points which may not be to everyone's tastes.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Is there a Class Designer's guide somewhere that spells that out?  Is so, link it.  If not, don't pretend that there's anything so bizarre as a requirement for single-player or single-class party viability in an essentially cooperative game that runs on spotlight balance .




Can you in turn link to a quote where they said an official design goal of D&D 5e was supposed to accommodate every desire of every previous player who has played a previous edition of D&D?  Because you sure do tend to trot out that dead horse alot in warlord discussions...


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2018)

I maintain that if people _*really*_ wanted a warlord for their games there'd be far more posts on threads designing warlords (like THIS one) with design advice and playtest feedback and fewer posts in threads where people just argue about what one could theoretically look like.

Warlord fans don't really want a warlord.
They want to argue about the warlord. They want to continue the ten-year-old debate of whether or not warlords should exist.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 17, 2018)

It seems to me, warlord fans want an *official* warlord. Hence speculating until an official one exists.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

Imaro said:


> Can you in turn link to a quote where they said an official design goal of D&D 5e was supposed to accommodate every desire of every previous player who has played a previous edition of D&D?



Not every desire ("I want a *!"), but to be 'for' fans of every past edition, yes.  I was in the habit of providing that link (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409) until WotC razed the D&D community where it was to be found.  Also the 'Crystal Clear Guidance' link (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120716), which I'd use an example of a playtest promise 5e carried through on and delivered.







* this is actually giving me trouble.  The classic little kid line is obviously "I want a pony!" but you can totally buy a pony in D&D.  Then I though "lightsaber!" but, hey, 3e had brilliant energy weapons and 4e had radiant weapons and there's mordenkainen's sword which is a dancing lightsaber.  So, I thought, full-on sci-fi, how 'bout "a phaser!" - but then I remembered, oh yeah, wizards can cast Disintegrate.  "Submarine!" Apparatus of Kwalish...

I'll get back to this rejoinder later...

Edit:  Ok, got one:  "...Convertible!"  (Now someone's going to tell me there was a Heward's Mystical Rag-top in Expedition to White Plume Marsh or something.)


----------



## Imaro (Mar 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not every desire (I want a *!), but to be 'for' fans of every past edition, yes.  I was in the habit of providing that link (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409) until WotC razed the D&D community where it was to be found.  Also the 'Crystal Clear Guidance' link (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120716), which I'd use an example of a playtest promise 5e carried through on and delivered.




And yet you use it as some kind of  support for a very specific desire.  In fact I would argue that  in order for one to be considered a fan of D&D, you would have to like D&D as a whole not just like a single, very specific component of a particular edition... that would make you a fan of that component but not necessarily a D&D fan. 

Also, so no... you can't provide the very same proof you demanded of another poster because neither of those links actually work.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

Imaro said:


> In fact I would argue that  in order for one to be considered a fan of D&D, you would have to like D&D as a whole not just like a single, very specific component of a particular edition... that would make you a fan of that component but not necessarily a D&D fan.



 An amusing argument, and one you might have trotted out to 10 years ago, when grognards were insisting that only TSR D&D was really D&D and 3.5-only  fans were rejecting the current ed, and books were being burned...

Anyway, here's the L&L, on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120724004703/www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409

Here are some of the relevant quotes:



> Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity
> Traditionally, D&D editions have focused on specific play styles. This approach has fragmented the community over time. The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options. By looking at past editions and incorporating their elements as core or optional rules, we can allow players and groups to place the focus where they want it.





> Game Design
> The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one. Complexity and individual experiences rest in the players' hands.




And, interestingly, from the same article, here's a bit that support's one of OB1's assertions, the one about single-character viability:



> Goal #3: Reunification through Accessibility
> D&D has traditionally required large amounts of time, a large play group, and a sustained commitment. The design process must focus on play time, group size, speed of play, and length of campaigns, with an eye toward reducing the minimum required from each area. Players who want a longer play time and so forth can easily scale up the game to meet their needs and opt into the various rules modules we'll provide or that they'll build themselves. However, our standard goal is to *remove minimum group sizes*, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play.




So there's that.  Apologies. OB1.  5/4 be with you.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> An amusing argument, and one you might have trotted out to 10 years ago, when grognards were insisting that only TSR D&D was really D&D and 3.5-only  fans were rejecting the current ed, and books were being burned...




*Sigh* Tony... always declaring everyone else an edition warrior and yet forever dwelling in the past.  If those past actions bothered you so much at the time...why didn't you trot the argument out?  Perhaps because the edition warrior label is more conveniently trotted out now to disparage those who disagree with you?



Tony Vargas said:


> Anyway, here's the L&L, on the Wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120724004703/www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409




Cool.  Thanks.



Tony Vargas said:


> Here are some of the relevant quotes:




Ok so...

Reunification through Diversity... are you claiming that 5e doesn't support a variety of playstyles?  That it doesn't offer a variety of player and DM options?  Or that it doesn't incorporate elements of past editions as core or optional rules?  Honestly I think it hit all 3 of these but I'm open to being convinced otherwise if you can show that none of these took place.  Of course I don't see the warlord class as a necessity to fulfill any of these stated goals and thus I fail to see how this quote supports your assertion that without a warlord class 5e has failed it's design goals.

As to the second quote... Are you saying a 4th edition *style* character can't be created in 5e (emphasis mine)?  And again not seeing how the specific warlord class is necessary to meet this goal as there were far more 4e classes than the warlord... thus again, it's nice info but it's not supporting your oft-touted "no warlord = failure of goals" mantra.


OAN: I hope they do create a warlord for those who want one, I don't have any real interest in it as I and my group saw a grand total of one played for a short time during our 4e years... but that doesn't mean everyone else who loved the class doesn't deserve one (though honestly outside of forums and message boards I wonder how many people even care).  However you Tony have repeatedly used hyperbole, exaggeration and skewed interpretation to push for the warlord class and that just isn't cool.  You want a warlord class cool, discuss and advocate for it on it's own merits but declaring that without it 5e has failed it's design goals is just utter nonsense bordering on the type of edition warring you tend to accuse anyone not sharing your viewpoint of partaking in.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 17, 2018)

An additional relevant quote from that article:



> More importantly, we must look beyond the mechanics of the game to focus on the archetypes, literary tropes, and cultural elements that built D&D. We must build a fighter that resonates as a warrior, not one simply cobbled together with mechanics pilfered from D&D's past. The key game experience of D&D lies at the game table. Our work must start by focusing on the key elements of D&D and the unique traits of a tabletop RPG. The mechanics must support those two factors, not the other way around.



Much of the demands being made for the warlord rest heavily on the mechanics, which is explicitly a non-goal. The mechanics need to support the design, rather than the design be a paint of coat to describe the mechanics.

I would assert that a warlord as a "non-magical support character" is a failed design starting point.  A warlord as "a military leader, a skilled commander gifted with tactical genius, keen insight, an inspiring personality, or some other asset that convinces others to follow him or her into danger" is a solid basis for a design.  _However_, it must toss aside any mechanical 'requirement'.

Put another way, a player isn't going to choose to play a warlord because it grants extra attacks.  A player will choose to play a warlord because he wants to be that tactical genius, or she wants to be that inspiring military leader that people follow.  The mechanics must _support_ the design, they do not _define_ the design.

From there, you ask, "How is a being a tactical genius expressed in gameplay?" Or, "What does it mean to inspire loyalty strongly enough for people to follow you?"  You then create the mechanics that follow from those questions.  And you focus on the 'show' (eg: Mike's Tactical Focus area; casting Shield of Faith), not 'tell' (eg: you give someone +2 to their AC).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

Imaro said:


> *Sigh* Tony...   If those past actions bothered you so much at the time...why didn't you trot the argument out?



Because it's completely bogus, Imaro.  ...oh, yeah:  "*Sigh*" ...



> Reunification through Diversity... are you claiming that 5e doesn't support a variety of playstyles?



 Not a /wider variety/, as the goal was stated, not yet.  It does fairly neatly cover the styles most readily expressed in basic & AD&D, and at least reaches somewhat into the 3.x realm if you turn on enough optional rules, but not arguably enough to be satisfying to a hard-core 3.5 fan who has no appreciation for other styles, or who really wants a lot more empowerment on the player side of the screen...



> That it doesn't offer a variety of player and DM options?



 Player options, not so much, again, not compared to the other WotC era editions, nor, quite, to later 2e, though it's slowly getting closer.  DM options, though, aplenty.  And, via that it can be /open/ to a DM supporting an unsupported play style or adding player options.  So points for the right direction, and not actually slamming the door. 







> Or that it doesn't incorporate elements of past editions as core or optional rules?



 It certainly incorporates many elements - more, for instance, from 4e than most give it credit/blame for - often very small elements that don't mesh the same way they used to, but certainly plenty.  It even has a unique way of including radically different elements in one single rule.  HD are the shining example.  They're HD, just like in 1e, and also a bit like surges in 4e.

5e also succeeds in including things that aren't exactly elements of a past edition, but deliver something a past edition did.  The Bladesinger, for instance, is not TSR-era multi-classing, but it is a nominally elf-only option that feels a good deal like a classic Elf or elf fighter/magic-user.  



> Of course I don't see the warlord class as a necessity to fulfill any of these stated goals



 Well, of course, you don't see it that way.  If we only examine the things we want, we're not checking for overall diversity.



> As to the second quote... Are you saying a 4th edition *style* character can't be created in 5e



 Not just that, no.  There's also 3.x style characters that cannot be created in 5e, even with Feats & MCing turned on.  The ones that stand out to me are, of course, the one's I most enjoyed:  carefully-crafted 3.x fighter builds, 3.x build-to-concept Sorcerers, and the topic of this thread, the Warlord - but, at release, 5e also lacked a psion, and still lacks one both in name and in print, and it still lacks PrCs and Epic-level play.  With it's slow pace of release, though, it's not surprising nor unfair that it's taking it's time, especially with that last, as even at 5e's fast-combat/fast-levelling pace, it takes a while to not only hit 20th, but get bored with it!



> there were far more 4e classes than the warlord...



 The Warlord was the only unique-to-4e class in a PH1, so certainly needs to be first in line.  There were not a whole lot of others.  The Warden and Avanger, technically the Invoker (though the traditional Cleric prettymuch subsumes it completely).  The Shaman, Swordmage, Artificer, Psion, Ardent, and Battlemind (under the name psychic warrior) have all been in other editions, and the Seeker & Rune Priest were prettymuch stillborn, and the Seeker was just 4e's bizzaro version of the traditionally magic-using Ranger, which (in its more classic form, obviously) 5e went with, anyway.



> I hope they do create a warlord for those who want one, I don't have any real interest in it



Which is why you don't bomb warlord threads and attack anything it's proponents have say.



Kinematics said:


> An additional relevant quote from that article:



 Yeah, that one hasn't gone as well as the others.  There was a lot of 'grandfathering' in vague concepts.  The Ranger, Sorcerer, and Fighter all suffered from lack of a clear enough archetype/trope/whatever outside of D&D's traditions and class-history - the Ranger, in particular, suffering from it in lack of direction.  

To actually have gone there, they'd've had to at least consider consolidating the Fighter, Barbarian, non-casting Ranger, and/or Rogue or even Monk for that matter, not to mention actually changing the Fighter's name to something less suggestive of single-pillar-specialization and carried through with what that implied.  We probably wouldn't have gotten all three of Warlock, Sorcerer & Wizard.  

The Druid, I have to admit, as delighted as I am with the 5e version, could as easily have been a Cleric sub-class (as it was, in name, in 1e, which was actually my favorite version of the class).  My problem with that would have been that a sub-class in 5e can't be as different from the base class as it was in 1e. Indeed, the 5e Druid's casting is still not as distinct from the Cleric's as it was as a 'sub-class' in 1e.

I think that's one area where the goals were in conflict with eachother.  Making D&D more grounded in genre and archetypes would have made it less D&D, and hurt it's ability to capture the feel & elements of each prior edition.



> Much of the demands being made for the warlord rest heavily on the mechanics



 People who don't want the warlord spend a lot of effort in articulating what those who do want, rather than listening to them.  I'm just say'n.  You could've at least thrown in a "seems" there, or something, to acknowledge that you're not speaking as someone who wants the class, nor seems to understand why anyone would want it.



> The mechanics need to support the design, rather than the design be a paint of coat to describe the mechanics.



Which is the major problem with the Warlord as Fighter sub-class.  It focuses on mechanics - Extra Attack, Second Wind, Action Surge, d10 HD, etc, rather than on archetypes.



> A warlord as "a military leader, a skilled commander gifted with tactical genius, keen insight, an inspiring personality, or some other asset that convinces others to follow him or her into danger" is a solid basis for a design.  _However_, it must toss aside any mechanical 'requirement'.



 For instance, the mechanical requirement that every warlord be a bad-ass whirlwind of destruction on the battlefield.  



> I would assert that a warlord as a "non-magical support character" is a failed design starting point.



 Because it's a mechanical requirement?  But, it references no mechanics, at all.  It's a critical part of the concept - it's not defined by using magic, unlike the Warlock, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Ranger, and, apparently Monk & Mystic - and a general category of contribution to the party's success.  



> Put another way, a player isn't going to choose to play a warlord because it grants extra attacks.



 But he's a lot more likely to choose it for that, than for /getting/ extra attacks. 







> A player will choose to play a warlord because he wants to be that tactical genius, or she wants to be that inspiring military leader that people follow.  The mechanics must _support_ the design, they do not _define_ the design.



 And, that requires there be benefits to having the warlord as that kind of ally, rather than the kind of ally people hide behind because he's tougher than they are.



> From there, you ask, "How is a being a tactical genius expressed in gameplay?" Or, "What does it mean to inspire loyalty strongly enough for people to follow you?"  You then create the mechanics that follow from those questions.



 And, from there, your check back with your other goals, and go back and look at game elements that have expressed that in past editions.  And, you find the Warlord, with 6 formal builds, two more de-facto ones, a score of Paragon Paths, and 300+ powers.  (And, the Marshal, with a few passive auras.  And 9th level fighter who builds a keep attracting bands of 0-level followers. Am I missing anything? from later 2e, perhaps?)


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> It seems to me, warlord fans want an *official* warlord. Hence speculating until an official one exists.




But that's _*never*_ going to happen. To date, WotC has formally released zero new classes in their books. You might as well speculate when WotC is going to give away Tesla cars with their books. 

In the 3 1/2 years of 4e, they've done two test classes, the artificer and the mystic (after first attempting the artificer as a wizard subclass). But the mystic was last updated a year ago, with a prior attempt in February 2016. And the artificer was last updated in January of 2017. The earliest they could see print would be November of this year, but if they were trying for that book we'd see another test of the class. So don't expect them before April 2019, if not later. That will be 2-3 years of testing for a new class. 

If, through a combination of begging, bribery, fellatio, and extortion the warlord fans here convinced Mike Mearls to greenlight a warlord class with the first playtest article in April, we'd still be looking at 2021 before the class could see print. Possibly later. Because making stuff takes time, and they don't seem to have the free hours to really devote to that content.
After all, they've known the Beastmaster Ranger was problematic pretty much since launch and they still haven't managed to "fix" that.
So if they were going to do such a class, they'd already have started work on it and Mearls wouldn't be doing the podcast to give fans the design skeleton to work with. 


There's never going to be an official warlord. It's not going to happen. If you _really_ want one, you're going to have to either make one yourself or work with the community to make one. And if you can't work up the time and energy to make one, then that's a pretty good indication your game can function without one.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But that's _*never*_ going to happen. To date, WotC has formally released zero new classes in their books. You might as well speculate when WotC is going to give away Tesla cars with their books.



Oh man, I sure hope that Tesla comes with a rocket-ride to Mars! 



Mars-ish.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Oh man, I sure hope that Tesla comes with a rocket-ride to Mars!
> 
> 
> 
> Mars-ish.



 Hope springs eternal.  

Hey, it could be called the "Warlord of Mars" special edition.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But that's _*never*_ going to happen. To date, WotC has formally released zero new classes in their books. You might as well speculate when WotC is going to give away Tesla cars with their books.
> 
> In the 3 1/2 years of 4e, they've done two test classes, the artificer and the mystic (after first attempting the artificer as a wizard subclass). But the mystic was last updated a year ago, with a prior attempt in February 2016. And the artificer was last updated in January of 2017. The earliest they could see print would be November of this year, but if they were trying for that book we'd see another test of the class. So don't expect them before April 2019, if not later. That will be 2-3 years of testing for a new class.
> 
> ...




The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes. They don't want to make a homebrew one because if they don't get _exactly_ what they want then the people who disagree with them about how the game works would win.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Hope springs eternal.
> 
> Hey, it could be called the "Warlord of Mars" special edition.




The John Carter Special!

(I just hope that isn't the in-flight movie)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 17, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes.



 No, not change, merely have additional options added that open up playstyles and player options that were available in past editions (3.x & 4e, in my case, personally) that 5e has yet to offer adequate (or any, in some cases) support for.  I do not wish to see the standard core of the game changed in any way to accomplish that (I also don't see /how/ that would happen in a practical sense, but if people are that terrified I'm trying to 'ruin' the game for them, I hope that's some re-assurance).


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 17, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes. They don't want to make a homebrew one because if they don't get _exactly_ what they want then the people who disagree with them about how the game works would win.



Thanks for helping me figure out my next pitch.

"Yaarel and Vargas" is a buddy action flick about two rugged edition warriors fighting for what's good and just in a fantasy medieval world (like "Game of Thrones" but without the dragons . . . even though everyone thinks there should be dragons; It'll be a running joke to lighten the mood).  The twist? Yaarel and Vargas are fighting to install the evil warlord on his throne!

Brilliant,  right?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> No, not change, merely have additional options added that open up playstyles and player options that were available in past editions (3.x & 4e, in my case, personally) that 5e has yet to offer adequate (or any, in some cases) support for.  I do not wish to see the standard core of the game changed in any way to accomplish that (I also don't see /how/ that would happen in a practical sense, but if people are that terrified I'm trying to 'ruin' the game for them, I hope that's some re-assurance).




Well, that doesn't help.

It seems like your taking that marketing thing and saying that, because it doesn't cater _specifically to you_ then it has failed in it's pitch.

Alert: There are 9,000,000 other people who play the game.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 17, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> To actually have gone there, they'd've had to at least consider consolidating the Fighter, Barbarian, non-casting Ranger, and/or Rogue or even Monk for that matter, not to mention actually changing the Fighter's name to something less suggestive of single-pillar-specialization and carried through with what that implied. We probably wouldn't have gotten all three of Warlock, Sorcerer & Wizard.



Er, nope. None of that is required, or even implied.



> You could've at least thrown in a "seems" there, or something, to acknowledge that you're not speaking as someone who wants the class, nor understands why anyone would want it.



And you're completely misunderstanding my objections, and throwing out strawmen to argue against.



> Which is the major problem with the Warlord as Fighter sub-class. It focuses on mechanics - Extra Attack, Second Wind, Action Surge, d10 HD, etc, rather than on archetypes.



What?  The Fighter has _already been implemented_.  What mechanics it has are largely irrelevant.  The point of using Fighter as a starting point was the whole "veteran/warrior/skilled commander" part of the Warlord description.  If the Warlord was a "student of history", who'd spent his life in the library learning how wars were won and lost, maybe it would be based on the Wizard instead (ignoring the whole magic thing for the sake of the analogy).



> For instance, the mechanical requirement that every warlord be a bad-ass whirlwind of destruction on the battlefield.



That's not a mechanical requirement, that's a thematic requirement.  And that's not even the stated thematic requirement, as a Barbarian would fit that just as well.  The quoted design element is a very strong match with the Fighter.



> > I would assert that a warlord as a "non-magical support character" is a failed design starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a mechanical requirement? But, it references no mechanics, at all.



Then you don't appear to understand terminology.  'Non-magical' is mechanical.  'Support' is mechanical.  They may be useful as identifying a conceptual space that hasn't been filled, or to _describe_ a class in more abstract terminology, but they are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to define a desirable character class.  And even if you _did_ use them as the basis, they do not necessarily lead to the Warlord class.  They could as easily lead to an Engineer or Artificer or Alchemist class (though the latter two are more commonly used in conjunction with at least some magic).


----------



## Azzy (Mar 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I maintain that if people _*really*_ wanted a warlord for their games there'd be far more posts on threads designing warlords (like THIS one) with design advice and playtest feedback and fewer posts in threads where people just argue about what one could theoretically look like.
> 
> Warlord fans don't really want a warlord.
> They want to argue about the warlord. They want to continue the ten-year-old debate of whether or not warlords should exist.




Oh, that is so much disinegenuous BS. And that's ignoring the fact that forums are not even representative of D&D players as a whole. Or the fact that Mearls & company have been asked for a Warlord multiple times, or the reason behind the subject of the current Happy Fun Hour.


----------



## Winterthorn (Mar 17, 2018)

It's clear to me, given the frequent long threads about the warlord, that this class was very much loved by player's of 4E, and it appears to me very missed by a significant minority*.  I DMed 4E for a few months, but none of my players played a warlord, so I've never seen it in action.  I cannot form a good opinion on it's details, but at this juncture it seems Mearls is finally paying attention to warlord fans.  New class or subclass, I'm not sure, but there are only five levels in the fighter where an archetype feature is inserted - is that really enough space to do the warlord justice?

I find the subclass design in 5E a tad stingey for diversifying classes in general, but then I am not a fan of multiclassing and would like to see a few more classes introduced to fill in design spaces if one is not into multiclassing their PC.

* I mean significant to the degree that Mike Mearls is talking about it's design, so I wager that's more than just the number of warlord fans here at ENWorld.  Just trying to put a positive perspective on things


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes. They don't want to make a homebrew one because if they don't get _exactly_ what they want then the people who disagree with them about how the game works would win.




Its called catering to the homebrew. As DMs develop their world, they fill in their own blanks and change things to fit their idea of how the game should work, and then get really upset when the rules contradict their well-rationed and extensively researched homebrewed setting. This get exasperated with edition changes and suddenly (for example) dwarves can be wizards (which contradicts 7000 years of history in my homebrewed world, including the cause of several major wars). As the rules develop (and move away from the defined lore of the homebrew) the reflexive action is then to wish the game rules were "less flavorful" or "flavored like they were previously" and turn the game towards a toolkit of generic fantasy rules that can be used to assemble their homebrew games rather than contradicting their ideas on races, magic, gods, and a host of other topics.

For example; the warlord is the opening step for a DM who doesn't like the prevalent magic "default" D&D has. Once you have a non-magical support character, you can start stripping out other magical elements (spell-less ranger, non-divine paladin). Then, I can restrict or ban those magical classes and create a world that better suits my tastes. You add in some revised rules on healing and rests, some new rules on magical weapon-resistant monsters, and pretty soon you have a low-or-no magic game system. Then, you scrub all those annoying references to specific things (like to the D&D Multiverse, Gods, or planes), get rid of some of those "new" races like dragonborn or tieflings that don't exist on my world (and should be in some supplement elsewhere) and now we have a system that works GREAT for my homebrewed setting! 

For me, the above isn't D&D. Its a great d20/5e based game (and something the OGL or DM's Guild is built for). D&D is D&D. A warlord can work in the context of D&D, but not as the low/no magic alternative to the cleric. D&D should worry about its own world and settings, not your homebrew. If your game derives notions different than the standard, then you need to seek alternatives from like-minded company or build your own.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 17, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Its called catering to the homebrew. As DMs develop their world, they fill in their own blanks and change things to fit their idea of how the game should work, and then get really upset when the rules contradict their well-rationed and extensively researched homebrewed setting. This get exasperated with edition changes and suddenly (for example) dwarves can be wizards (which contradicts 7000 years of history in my homebrewed world, including the cause of several major wars). As the rules develop (and move away from the defined lore of the homebrew) the reflexive action is then to wish the game rules were "less flavorful" or "flavored like they were previously" and turn the game towards a toolkit of generic fantasy rules that can be used to assemble their homebrew games rather than contradicting their ideas on races, magic, gods, and a host of other topics..




Kinda off topic from the current discussion, but I do feel like you could do something with the "dwarves suddenly gaining magic" thing. Like maybe the sorcerous dwarves could be in hiding or something like that, because they fear that if their talents were discovered that they would be captured and experimented on.

I dunno, just an idea that maybe doesn't even work in your world because magic just straight up doesn't work there, I'm just trying to say that, within changes, there is opportunity.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2018)

Azzy said:


> And that's ignoring the fact that forums are not even representative of D&D players as a whole.



Agreed. 
Right now the majority of D&D players are new. So they have zero affection for the 4e warlord. And, as evidenced by sales, most established D&D players had limited interest in 4e. And, of course, only a minority of 4e fans would have strong feelings regarding the warlord. And of the now small percentage of 4e fans who switched to 5e and liked the warlord, not all will care if they're using an official one or not. 

There's probably a disproportionately strong demand for an official warlord on this forum. 



Azzy said:


> Or the fact that Mearls & company have been asked for a Warlord multiple times, or the reason behind the subject of the current Happy Fun Hour.



That assumes he's doing that because of expressed interest. 
If so, that means the warlord apparently came after the "giant soul sorcerer", "pact of the Kraken", and "rogue acrobat" in terms of demand. 

If Mearls really thought the warlord would be a workable class:
a) He wouldn't have done it in Happy Fun Hour. He'd have done it for Unearthed Arcana.
b) He would have actually done the _class_ in Happy Fun Hour rather than a subclass. 


But, again, none of this matters. 
Because posters would rather argue about what a theoretical official class could look like rather than make the class they want a reality. 
Because they'd rather disagree with how Mearls did the subclass than copy down the rough design, and work it into something they could add to the game.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 17, 2018)

Mearls likely is doing the warlord fighter subclass because of expressed interest. I don't know how he chooses which subclass to work on, but it is entirely possible that he waited until after doing the giant soul sorcerer simply because he had no ideas for the warlord or because giant soul sorcerer was more interesting. Only Mearls could really answer that but it is a given that someone tweeted or commented on YouTube asking for the warlord as a fighter subclass.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 17, 2018)

The fact is, Mearls seems to be ‘threading the needle’, designing a warlord within the 5e system, in a way that meets the needs of 4e warlord players.

• effective healer (emphasizing preemptive healing before reaching physical wounds)
• granting extra-attacks (not yet present in warlord, but already part of 5e)
• mobilizing allies and hostiles (within tactical focus)
• buffing attacks and defensively (applied thoughtfully within tactical focus)

A nice touch.
• atwills (equating to nonmagical cantrips) allow persistent flavor of tactics 



If Mearls can make the warlord tradition work as an archetype on the fighter chassis, that is fine. It becomes the go-to choice for a ‘smart’ fighter.


----------



## mellored (Mar 17, 2018)

Merls knows warlord fans are not happy with the current warlord options (battlemaster, pdk).  He wants the warlord fans to be happy with 5e.

Merls wants to avoid adding class.  (Though he seems to have no problem pumping out sub-classes.)


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 17, 2018)

The 5e innovation of overhealing, is a nice touch. It expresses the flavor of warlord healing.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 17, 2018)

mellored said:


> Merls wants to avoid adding class.  (Though he seems to have no problem pumping out sub-classes.)




Apparently, Mearls feels a subclass can handle the warlord tradition. Later playtesting will confirm if this is so or not.

Mearls created a psionic class and seems to avoid psionic subclasses of other classes, even tho a psionic wizard tradition moreorless equals a 3e psion. A psionic bard or cleric makes a good psychic healer.

In this case, Mearls seems to want psionics to feel *mechanically* different from other mages. So he feels the psion works best as its own class with its own mechanical system. It seems.

But in the case of the warlord, he feels the mechanics for the warlord are normal, thus works fine as a fighter archetype. His brainstorm demonstrates that the mechanics that warlord fans desire, are in fact normal 5e mechanics.

I agree, Mearls genuinely wants 4e fans to feel good about 5e.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 17, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The 5e innovation of overhealing, is a nice touch. It expresses the flavor of warlord healing.



I thought that was a pretty inspired mechanic that highlights the difference between the healing of the warlord and the healing of other classes. I hope the warlord (and other subclasses in the HFH) come to UA and/or makes it into official supplements.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Mearls likely is doing the warlord fighter subclass because of expressed interest. I don't know how he chooses which subclass to work on, but it is entirely possible that he waited until after doing the giant soul sorcerer simply because he had no ideas for the warlord or because giant soul sorcerer was more interesting. Only Mearls could really answer that but it is a given that someone tweeted or commented on YouTube asking for the warlord as a fighter subclass.



Based on his tweets, it does sound like he did the warlord by request. But in the first video, he makes it clear he's taking suggestions. I imagine there were a few fighter requests
I imagine he picked the warlord warlord for much the same reason he's did the "acrobat" for the thief: it's an idea that has a history in the game and has enough "meat" to design abilities quickly (and segues into good discussion for balance) but isn't likely to make the cut for an actual book. 

Realistically, if there was a lot more interest.... then wouldn't the warlord video have significantly more views than the earlier ones? They all seem to be around 8k (except the first). 

From the intro in the first video, he's designing a subclass for each of the classes as a way of showing how to homebrew for each class and discuss its design. This isn't for a product. This is just him giving an overview of how to homebrew.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 17, 2018)

I assume, anything that goes to playtesting, if successful, becomes canon as a book.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Realistically, if there was a lot more interest.... then wouldn't the warlord video have significantly more views than the earlier ones? They all seem to be around 8k (except the first).




It seems to me, the 5e classes so far evidence strong interest for the warlord.

The original design strategy was to split the warlord tradition into a magical bard and a nonmagical battle master. But that failed to satisfy desires for warlord.

Then the Purple Dragon Knight came out. But that too failed to satisfy the interest in a warlord.

Finally, Mearls is tackling the warlord tradition head on, and seeing how this might work.

Mearls does this thru Happy Fun, precisely as a venue that can receive lots of informal feedback, before codifying a formal playtest version.

He wants this to satisfy players who are interested in a warlord.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I hope the warlord (and other subclasses in the HFH) come to UA and/or makes it into official supplements.



They might make it to UA but doubtful they'll be officially published.
Jeremy Crawford would be involved then. Crawford commented that the UA he's involved in tend to be stuff planned for books while the ones that are just Mearls are where he's just toying with ideas.


----------



## hejtmane (Mar 17, 2018)

This is going to piss off all the warlord fans but between, Paladin, Bard, Purple Knight and Battle Master you have a Warlord heck right now and you could even throw in Ancestral Barbarian. between those classes and multi-classing you can build some sweet Warlords but what ever some people will never be happy.

Yea yea here comes the hate for not understanding Warlord yes I understand what a Warlord is just not from D&D playing perspective I just think people who played certain edition are locked into it has to play like this edition version or it is not a Warlord. 

Note before you come at me about some edition war I have never played 4e or 3 and DM'd one 3.5 game but all I had was the 3.5 PHB and the RavenLoft campaign so i just ran it like my old school 1e games. You could say I have old school bias from D&D and 1e 

Heck when I started we had cleric, fighter, wizard and thief only no other options.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 17, 2018)

hejtmane said:


> This is going to piss off all the warlord fans but between, Paladin, Bard, Purple Knight and Battle Master you have a Warlord heck right now and you could even throw in Ancestral Barbarian. between those classes and multi-classing you can build some sweet Warlords but what ever some people will never be happy.
> 
> Yea yea here comes the hate for not understanding Warlord yes I understand what a Warlord is just not from D&D playing perspective I just think people who played certain edition are locked into it has to play like this edition version or it is not a Warlord.
> 
> ...




Ironically, your post confirms that what warlord fans are asking for, is already normal 5e mechanics.

There is nothing mechanically difficult about a 4e style warlord.


----------



## mellored (Mar 17, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> His brainstorm demonstrates that the mechanics that warlord fans desire, are in fact normal 5e mechanics.



all the mechanics he came up with are not in 5e yet.

But really, if we want warlord to be their own class, we will need to come up with a lot of sub-classes for it.

That said, I think "instead of gaining multi-attack, you gain an extra reaction" works well.  At least worth a UA.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> It seems to me, the 5e classes so far evidence strong interest for the warlord.
> 
> The original design strategy was to split the warlord tradition into a magical bard and a nonmagical battle master. But that failed to satisfy desires for warlord.
> 
> ...



This sounds like _extremely_ wishful thinking. 

The purpose of the video is to help show people how to homebrew subclasses. Why would they use that to gauge interest in the warlord? Is there an audience overlap there?
Plus, they're designing stuff on the fly in an hour or two. Do you really expect content created that way to be high quality?

Also... isn't half this thread people saying a subclass doesn't cut it and it needs to be a full class? Sounds like IF he is taking feedback, the response would be “don’t bother”


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The purpose of the video is to help show people how to homebrew subclasses.




They also used the 4e eladrin as an example of how to homebrew races in the 5e DMG.

But soon the 4e-style eladrin will be 5e canon in Mordenkeinens.

Controversial traditions take time to smooth out to integrate.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Do you really expect content created that way to be high quality?




Of course I expect the warlord to be high quality.

In fact the process it is going thru is the best possible process to ensure high quality.

› Public brainstorming of warlord for feedback on concept
› UA version for public playtest for feedback on mechanics
› Official version in book



So far the plan is, after this upcoming third Happy Fun, the warlord will go to the testers for a UA playtest version.


----------



## mellored (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Also... isn't half this thread people saying a subclass doesn't cut it and it needs to be a full class?



more accurately.

Half the people in this thread say the _2 or 3 existing_ sub-classes _have not_ cut it.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 18, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I thought that was a pretty inspired mechanic that highlights the difference between the healing of the warlord and the healing of other classes. I hope the warlord (and other subclasses in the HFH) come to UA and/or makes it into official supplements.




I think once he gets a subclass for all 12 classes, they will come out as a UA



Jester David said:


> This sounds like _extremely_ wishful thinking.
> 
> The purpose of the video is to help show people how to homebrew subclasses. Why would they use that to gauge interest in the warlord? Is there an audience overlap there?
> Plus, they're designing stuff on the fly in an hour or two. Do you really expect content created that way to be high quality.




The videos can do multiple things at a time. They can be both information into how to homebrew subclasses as well as gauge interest in certain ideas.

Also, remember that this stuff is pre-playtest. I imagine after it gets to a point where Mearls is satisfied with the stuff he makes, he'll pass it off to the playtesters and Crawford, who will refine it, then they'll release it as a UA and get the massive mind of the internet to refine it down more.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> They also used the 4e eladrin as an example of how to homebrew races in the 5e DMG.
> 
> But soon the 4e-style eladrin will be 5e canon in Mordenkeinens.
> 
> Controversial traditions take time to smooth out to integrate.



But... if they wanted to gauge interest, why not just have a survey? Why hide their intentions and risk people missing out on giving feedback? 

Why have the multi-year long game? What’s the advantage over just releasing it to UA like the artificer or mystic?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> So far the plan is, after this upcoming third Happy Fun, the warlord will go to the testers for a UA playtest version.



Where in the video does he say that?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> more accurately.
> 
> Half the people in this thread say the _2 or 3 existing_ sub-classes _have not_ cut it.



So the concept as described in the two hours of video _does_ cut it?


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 18, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> It seems to me, the 5e classes so far evidence strong interest for the warlord.
> 
> The original design strategy was to split the warlord tradition into a magical bard and a nonmagical battle master. But that failed to satisfy desires for warlord.
> 
> ...




I rather liked the UA fighter classes with alternate uses for superiority dice.   I thought that gifting Purple Dragon Knight some of the Warlord battlemaster manoeuvres through this method would have been a step closer to a more satisfactory Warlord.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> So the concept as described in the two hours of video _does_ cut it?




For me, the Happy Fun warlord comes close to meeting all the criteria of the warlord. Close enough that it seems to me, it might work. So I am enthusiastic.

Heh, but the truth is, to me, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] pretty much personifies the warlord fan. If he is happy, I will rest easy about the warlord tradition.

The reason why care about the warlord is, it opens up viable nonmagical options for D&D, that are essential to a DM for worldbuilding.

Plus, if the warlord turns out cool, as Happy Fun suggests it will, I would love to play it as a player.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 18, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> For me, the Happy Fun warlord comes close to meeting all the criteria of the warlord. Close enough that it seems to me, it might work



 It does run through and lightly tick a number of the required boxes, and some of the ideas seem interesting.  But it meets criteria the way wizard class with just one or two spells from, not each and every, but most of the schools, and none of them above 3rd,  would do for that class had it been omitted for years.

So it's a better substitute for a multi-class Fighter/Warlord than the BM was, and blows the PDK away.

And, if it is done very well, it could serve as a much better template for a full class than trying to extrapolate the BM.



> . So I am enthusiastic.
> Heh, but the truth is, to me, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] pretty much personifies the warlord fan. If he is happy, I will rest easy about the warlord tradition.



 I'll admit to being more hopeful than before this started.  


> The reason why care about the warlord is, it opens up viable nonmagical options for D&D, that are essential to a DM for worldbuilding.
> 
> Plus, if the warlord turns out cool, as Happy Fun suggests it will, I would love to play it as a player.



 Those are good reasons.


----------



## mellored (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> So the concept as described in the two hours of video _does_ cut it?



His outline, yes.  I think he hit all the key points.  Fight smarter, not harder.
His ideas, yes.  I like the overheal and very much like tactical zone.
His implementation, I don't know yet.   It still seems like you would spend most of your time muli-attacking.  Which is the main problem of the other sub-classes.  You could do a cool warlord thing once, and then you go back to being a fighter.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## mellored (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Why have the multi-year long game? What’s the advantage over just releasing it to UA like the artificer or mystic?



Because he tied warlord as a sub-class twice, and failed twice. 
 Live stream gives him faster feedback and more ideas.  UA is better for refinement of those ideas.

Also, they already took an interest survey, and warlord was a little behind artificer and mystic.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> Because he tied warlord as a sub-class twice, and failed twice.
> Live stream gives him faster feedback and more ideas.  UA is better for refinement of those ideas.



Having seen Twitch chat and YouTube comments, uncertain if the “faster feedback” would contain much that is useful.



mellored said:


> Also, they already took an interest survey, and warlord was a little behind artificer and mystic.



I don’t recall that one. Link?


----------



## mellored (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Having seen Twitch chat and YouTube comments, uncertain if the “faster feedback” would contain much that is useful.



Well if your there when he's live, suggest trading multi-attacks for extra reactions.

Then those reactions can fuel warlord-things.



> I don’t recall that one. Link?



It was way back when 5e was still in playtest.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> They might make it to UA but doubtful they'll be officially published.
> Jeremy Crawford would be involved then. Crawford commented that the UA he's involved in tend to be stuff planned for books while the ones that are just Mearls are where he's just toying with ideas.



We'll see. 5e still has a few years left in it, who knows what will make it into a book. No reason not to refine and use something from the HFH is it fits. As is, if we can get something finalised for UA that will be enough for me to use. One or two of them may be useable now but I haven't copied down what he'd written.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> His outline, yes.  I think he hit all the key points.  Fight smarter, not harder.
> His ideas, yes.  I like the overheal and very much like tactical zone.
> His implementation, I don't know yet.   It still seems like you would spend most of your time muli-attacking.  Which is the main problem of the other sub-classes.  You could do a cool warlord thing once, and then you go back to being a fighter.
> 
> But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.




Yep.  If Mearls makes either the tactical zone or the healing matter enough (and whatever other ability he adds) then he's probably making the strongest fighter subclass yet available.

For example, the battlemaster in all it's glory add's somewhere between about (daily totals):

Level 3:  54 damage + effects (most maneuvers) to 138 damage mitigation (parry or rally) to 192 damage (with precision and GWM)
Level 20:  117 damage + effects (most maneuvers) to 217 damage mitigation (parry or rally) to 350 damage (with precision and GWM)

So basically, if he provides any mechanics that are easy to use that can easily go over the numbers provided above in most parties then he's made too strong a subclass.  Making any kind of decent heal ability will take a good chunk of numbers from his possible balanced implementation.  Trying to add very much numbers meat onto his tactical focus ability will then prove very problematic for a balanced class to achieve.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 18, 2018)

Who are the prototype characters (fictional/historical) for the Warlord concept? Napoleon Bonaparte? Julius Caesar? Captain Kirk? The Doctor? The last of these is the only one who does anything resembling healing, and then not as often as the name suggests.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 18, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Who are the prototype characters (fictional/historical) for the Warlord concept? Napoleon Bonaparte? Julius Caesar? Captain Kirk? The Doctor? The last of these is the only one who does anything resembling healing, and then not as often as the name suggests.




An important reallife model of the warlord is the sports fight coach. Imbuing morale and tactical guidance, grants nonphysical hit points.

Moreover, the sports fighter clearly typifies the hit point behavior. Round 1. Fresh and alert, at full hit points. Round 3. Fatigue becomes notable, at diminishing nonphysical hit points. Say, Round 6. The sports fighter is fatigued, sloppy, and dropping ones guard. Bam. ‘Bloodied’. The opponent pierces the vulnerable opening. Now the sports fighter has an open cut on the eyelid. The coach patches the cut with a butterfly bandaid. Perhaps the coach can inspire a second wind. Hopeful the sports fighter doesnt go down in a knock out at zero hit points.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 18, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> An important reallife model of the warlord is the sports fight coach. Imbuing morale and tactical guidance, grants nonphysical hit points.
> 
> Moreover, the sports fighter clearly typifies the hit point behavior. Round 1. Fresh and alert, at full hit points. Round 3. Fatigue becomes notable, at diminishing nonphysical hit points. Say, Round 6. The sports fighter is fatigued, sloppy, and dropping ones guard. Bam. ‘Bloodied’. The opponent pierces the vulnerable opening. Now the sports fighter has an open cut on the eyelid. The coach patches the cut with a butterfly bandaid. Perhaps the coach can inspire a second wind. Hopeful the sports fighter doesnt go down in a knock out at zero hit points.




Captain America is the main one that springs to mind.  He certainly inspires exhausted and wounded allies to redouble their efforts and perform greater deeds so inspirational healing is a thing.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 18, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Captain America is the main one that springs to mind.  He certainly inspires exhausted and wounded allies to redouble their efforts and perform greater deeds so inspirational healing is a thing.




I always find this example of a "warlord" interesting since Captain America  is also considered one of the best HTH combatants in the Marvel Universe... thus this example always strengthens the fighter connection for me as opposed to the argument of it not being a subclass.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 18, 2018)

Imaro said:


> I always find this example of a "warlord" interesting since Captain America  is also considered one of the best HTH combatants in the Marvel Universe... thus this example always strengthens the fighter connection for me as opposed to the argument of it not being a subclass.





Yes, the Mastermind Rogue build cross over is blurry for less martial builds but part of that is the d&d focus on monster killing.   Building a pure enabler character is very niche and possibly best left to fan created versions such as the aforementioned noble class.

An alternative is to use Cleric chassis but I'm dubious that martial abilities can take up the slack left by lack of spells.   The spelless Ranger from UA was lacking but might provide some guidance I guess.   Less spells equals more Martial might tends to be the pattern.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Who are the prototype characters (fictional/historical) for the Warlord concept? Napoleon Bonaparte? Julius Caesar? Captain Kirk? The Doctor? The last of these is the only one who does anything resembling healing, and then not as often as the name suggests.



Well, much like how the D&D versions of barbarian and ranger are poor models for Conan and Aragorn, warlord examples are going to be a bit fuzzy.

My first thought was someone like Farmir, Eomer, or Jon Snow: warriors who have enough intellect to survive and charisma to get people to listen to them. I'd also consider Princess/General Leia or her mother Padme Amidala to be good candidates. Duke or Hawk from GI Joe, Optimus Prime from Transformers, and many other "team leaders" could work too. On the evil side, someone like the Shredder (not the 80s cartoon but the later ones), General Grievous or Admiral Thrawn could be candidates also.


----------



## OB1 (Mar 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Is there a Class Designer's guide somewhere that spells that out?  Is so, link it.  If not, don't pretend that there's anything so bizarre as a requirement for single-player or single-class party viability in an essentially cooperative game that runs on spotlight balance.
> ...
> I know 5e has a rep for being 'too easy,' but if you do follow those guidelines, you'll end up with 6-8 medium/hard encounters (by including some encounters where the party is outnumbered, resulting in hard encounters with less-than-hard exp value), and single class parties will likely choke on that, especially indifferently optimized ones at 1st level.  Some of the more versatile classes, though, you could optimize a party of them to cover everything it needs, and, if you heavily optimize a single-class party it could probably blow it's way through at least a full day of standard encounters, even if they're all hard.
> ...
> ...




The requirement is for *any* combination of classes to be viable, of which a single party class is a subset, and is achieved primarily through ensuring the combat effectiveness of each individual class.  Spotlight balance in 5e is not a result of mechanics but rather by the DM focusing on the ideals and bonds of the PCs.  If there is a Class Designers guide that references this, I haven't seen it published, my hypothesis comes from reasoned observation of the system. Those observations come from discussions here on EnWorld and from having played and completed published adventures with single class parties, as well as from running a campaign from 1st to 16th level for a party made up of a Monk, Fighter, Ranger and Rogue.  In that game, there has been no problem not having a healer, leader, buffer or support character.

It's not that the game is 'too easy' it's that the balance point of the base game is set to allow players to pick characters with total disregard for what others in the group are picking.  If you create a class that is only effective when mixed with certain other classes, you risk losing that balance throughout the game.

The business plan of 5e has likely pivoted from the original design goals based on feedback from players and the explosive sales of the product.  If you want a Warlord in 5e, it will be much easier to fit it to what 5e has become than to fight against the design of the system.  Which is what Mearls did.  As I said earlier, I think this sub-class could show a path towards a full class, but if it does it will be done in a way to fit into what 5e is.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> An important reallife model of the warlord is the sports fight coach. Imbuing morale and tactical guidance, grants nonphysical hit points.
> 
> Moreover, the sports fighter clearly typifies the hit point behavior. Round 1. Fresh and alert, at full hit points. Round 3. Fatigue becomes notable, at diminishing nonphysical hit points. Say, Round 6. The sports fighter is fatigued, sloppy, and dropping ones guard. Bam. ‘Bloodied’. The opponent pierces the vulnerable opening. Now the sports fighter has an open cut on the eyelid. The coach patches the cut with a butterfly bandaid. Perhaps the coach can inspire a second wind. Hopeful the sports fighter doesnt go down in a knock out at zero hit points.




I always found that metaphor stretching things and a backwards way of design.
Rather than designing the class for what conceptual warlords in literature/ history did, you defined the class and then seek analogies that justify it's abilities. 

When someone unfamiliar with the class looks at the warlord, it needs to do what they expect it to. When you hear the name of the class, the first assumptions you have of what it does should match what it actually does. If you hear one thing and it does something else entirely, it probably has the wrong name. 
(Which is why they renamed the "favoured soul" sorcerer, because what they wanted the subclass to do and what people expected a favoured soul to look like were different.) 

If one of the primary abilities of the subclass requires an analogy that has little to do with literary implementations of the archetype, that implies a disconnect.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 18, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> We'll see. 5e still has a few years left in it, who knows what will make it into a book. No reason not to refine and use something from the HFH is it fits. As is, if we can get something finalised for UA that will be enough for me to use. One or two of them may be useable now but I haven't copied down what he'd written.



Maybe. You could ask on Twitter (would have to be a y/n question).

Realistically, if he were going to do a HFT book with a couple options per class... at two weeks per subclass that's 48 weeks before he finishes. Before playtesting, which can take several months. 
But to fill an entire book they need a lot of options: twice as many as will actually make it into the book so you can test and pick the best options. Now we're looking at 96 weeks of design.

But he's just grabbing whatever suggestion from Twitter catch his interest. That's not going to lead to the most popular designs. And he's likely only going to do one per class before moving onto races and spells and other design elements. 

They do have the time though. I can't imagine them releasing a book with more class content before 2019. Or 2020. A few of these options might be tested for that book, but whether or nor they make it in would depend on if it's well received by the entire community via surveys.


----------



## mellored (Mar 18, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Who are the prototype characters (fictional/historical) for the Warlord concept? Napoleon Bonaparte? Julius Caesar? Captain Kirk? The Doctor? The last of these is the only one who does anything resembling healing, and then not as often as the name suggests.



Lelouch Lamperouge: Typical lazy lord.  Super high intelliigence, poor physical.  Commands others in his squad with tactics superiority, both in and out of battle.  No healing.

Coach/Drill Sergent: Intimindates and Inspires allies to push their limits.  THP.

First Responder: Real world rescue workers, though obviously, these would need to fantasy up, all will have first aid training.  I put a quick version here.
*Police: Chases criminals.  Trys to disarm and arrest.  Carry's a sidearm (hand-crossbow)
*Fire Brigade: Coordinates a bucket brigade.  Drags victims out of burning buildings.  Carries an axe.
*Paramedic (Battlefield medic?): non-magic pacifist healer.
*Guy with St. Bernard searching for avalance survivors.
*Lifeguard: ... maybe...


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> Lelouch Lamperouge: Typical lazy lord.  Super high intelligence, poor physical.  Commands others in his squad with tactics superiority, both in and out of battle.  No healing.




Not familiar enough with the anime, but it would seem the "poor physical" element is an outlier rather than "typical". As far as I was aware, the warlord in the PHB was Str primary, Int/Cha secondary and proficient in military weapons and most armors, which to me doesn't scream "poor physical". In fact, "Super high intelligence, poor physical" sounds like the description of the wizard, not the warlord. 

I get the lazylord/princess build was popular with some warlord fans, but prototypical? 



mellored said:


> Coach/Drill Sergent: Intimindates and Inspires allies to push their limits.  THP.
> First Responder: Real world rescue workers, though obviously, these would need to fantasy up, all will have first aid training.  I put a quick version here.
> *Police: Chases criminals.  Trys to disarm and arrest.  Carry's a sidearm (hand-crossbow)
> *Fire Brigade: Coordinates a bucket brigade.  Drags victims out of burning buildings.  Carries an axe.
> ...




These are warlords?

A coach or drill sergeant could be any class proficient in Intimidate and has the Inspiring Leader feat. That's not even worth a subclass. 
First Responder and Paramedic is someone proficient in Medicine and maybe has the healer feat. 
Police/Fire brigade is worth a background as most.
Lifeguard is someone trained in Athletics?

These don't even begin to describe any sort of military leader or tactician.  They're all heroes for sure, but nothing here even warrants subclass, much less a class. If this is what a warlord is to you, its probably a background and/or feat at best.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I always found that metaphor stretching things and a backwards way of design.
> Rather than designing the class for what conceptual warlords in literature/ history did, you defined the class and then seek analogies that justify it's abilities.
> 
> When someone unfamiliar with the class looks at the warlord, it needs to do what they expect it to. When you hear the name of the class, the first assumptions you have of what it does should match what it actually does. If you hear one thing and it does something else entirely, it probably has the wrong name.
> ...




Apparently, the archetypial warlord is Doc Louis.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> ...
> 
> These don't even begin to describe any sort of military leader or tactician.  They're all heroes for sure, but nothing here even warrants subclass, much less a class. If this is what a warlord is to you, its probably a background and/or feat at best.




BlahBlahBlah...

A fighter could have just as easily been a background with a feat too...

Why do we even need a rogue?  All the rogue archetype gives us is are various thief type characters.  Why can't a thief just be a background with a feat?

Why do we need a barbarian?  Can't it just be a fighter with a background and a feat?

Your argument fails because it equally applies to many other classes and subclasses already in 5e.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 18, 2018)

I don't get why there's so much pushback on the warlord-as-a-subclass route (aside from the lazy version, which bears so little resemblance to traditional D&D roles I don't think it's possible without going back to the drawing board). The Fighter chassis has most of the pieces required to meet the stated requirements for those wanting a 4e warlord.

* Front line combatant (heavy armor + all weapons)
* Healing = extra instances of Second Wind that can only be granted to other characters
* Extra attacks = when taking an Attack action, grant other characters your attacks (which they take a reaction to use - one attack per other character) instead of making them yourself
* Extra Action = grant your action surge to another character

We haven't touched buffing, since that's the piece that the Fighter Chassis is missing, but its easy enough to add abilities to replicate Bless, Heroism, or even giving the PC the ability to grant Inspiration for a single roll. 

The pieces are there - I think its a matter of fine tuning for balance vs level.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 18, 2018)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Who are the prototype characters (fictional/historical) for the Warlord concept? Napoleon Bonaparte? Julius Caesar? Captain Kirk? The Doctor? The last of these is the only one who does anything resembling healing, and then not as often as the name suggests.




Based on what I've learned, what I consider examples of the Warlord:

Parson Gotti of _Erfworld_ (strategic and tactical planning; no fighting, no healing)

「BLANK」 from _No Game, No Life_ (strategic and tactical planning; no fighting, no healing)

Izaya from _Durarara!!_ (strategic and tactical planning, no fighting, no healing)

Shiroe from _Log Horizon_ (strategic and tactical planning, fighting, some healing)

Tanya from _The Saga of Tanya the Evil_ (strategic and tactical planning, fighting, inspiring)

The tactician from Suikoden (varied by version) (strategic and tactical planning; some fighting, no healing)

Each of the heroes from _Suikoden 3_ (Hugo, Chris, Geddoe).
– Hugo gained followers partly by loyalty to him, partly because of loyalty to his mother.  Leader of a cause. (fighter, minimal planning, no healing)
– Chris gained followers from being a respected commander.  Leader of troops. (fighter, leader, healer)
– Geddoe gained followers that were mercenaries. Loyalty was to money, and the fact that no one questioned their past, but they also respected him. (fighter, planner, no healing)


Aside: Planning aspects are pushed aside in games, as the player is handling that, whereas they are emphasized in shows and stories that want to show off the protagonist's abilities.  Explicit healing is almost never relevant, but being inspirational is common, in keeping people going when they were about to give up.  Fighting is less relevant in shows/stories, and more relevant in games.


As far as nominal classes go: Parson is a magician of some sort, and Shiroe is explicitly a magician (Red Mage, a controller in D&D terms).  Izaya and Geddoe would be Rogues (Mastermind subclass).  Hugo and Chris would be Fighters (though Hugo could be considered a Barbarian).  Tanya might be either a Fighter or a Ranger.

Basically, I can't really wrap my head around a Warlord who is not _also_ some other class.  Either the Warlord has to have every other class as a subclass, or every other class has to have Warlord as a subclass.  This also makes sense because the Warlord has to have a vector to apply its talents.  Without that, it's just throwing around numbers, which might as well be magic, which might as well be a magic-based class. The only one that feels like it might be able to pull an exception is 「BLANK」, as they work on an almost purely strategic/tactical level, but even then I could see classifying them as Rogues (Insightful subclass).

Mostly, I see Warlord as a _quality_ that can be applied to a person, and thus not a class.  A Warlord is not a thing unto itself.  Generally a class describes a thing you do.  A Warlord is saying, "I can do this thing I do to great advantage for me and my allies."

The problem is that many subclasses haven't been entirely built out to handle this factor.  An Insightful Rogue can spot weaknesses, and thus fight better, but can't point out those weaknesses to others in the party.  A Mastermind doesn't provide the inspiration to nudge people to fight a little bit longer.  And it's those minor gaps that leave their utility as Warlord variants just a bit too lacking.

An entire separate class, however, would allow multiclassing to pick up those basic, missing elements.  And maybe that would be a better design direction.  It almost certainly won't be taken by WotC, but it's better than trying to duplicate every other regular class as a subclass of the Warlord.  Just create a class whose primary purpose it for multiclassing, providing some of the missing elements that the almost-Warlord subclasses need.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Enkhidu said:


> I don't get why there's so much pushback on the warlord-as-a-subclass route (aside from the lazy version, which bears so little resemblance to traditional D&D roles I don't think it's possible without going back to the drawing board). The Fighter chassis has most of the pieces required to meet the stated requirements for those wanting a 4e warlord.
> 
> * Front line combatant (heavy armor + all weapons)
> * Healing = extra instances of Second Wind that can only be granted to other characters
> ...




For 4e Warlord fans there's almost certainly not enough design space + crunch to back up the warlord in a subclass.  Perhaps Mearls can pull off a miracle and I hope he can but I find it doubtful.  What I think Mearls will do is create an OP subclass which will then later get toned back way to far and no one will be happy with it.  Perhaps that's what happened to the Purple Dragon Knight and such as well.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Based on what I've learned, what I consider examples of the Warlord:
> 
> Parson Gotti of _Erfworld_ (strategic and tactical planning; no fighting, no healing)
> 
> ...




If they had given fighter subclasses 10 levels worth of abilities instead of 5 levels worth of abilities I'd have loved to seen the warlord as a subclass of fighter.  I think it could have worked then.  

The other part of warlord fan pushback on a fighter subclass is that it's going to take way to many levels to really feel like you are playing a warlord instead of a fighter.  Warlord fans want to play a warlord from very early on, not have to wait half the game for the basic pieces of warlord abilities to come together in a subclass.

I do think a class is better.  I don't think we will get a class unless pathfinder 2 does very well and pushes 5e to release more material.  

I no longer think the lazylord is a design concept that can work in 5e and so I'm personally not attached to it.  For those that haven't realized it can't work in 5e I can understand why they desire it.  That just means I'm shifting warlord thoughts more toward deciding what the right mix of warlord abilities and fighting man abilities are best to realize the concept.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

So can we debunk the arguments that a Warlord doesn't fit the design of 5e yet.  I see so many of these type of comments it's a real chore to go through them all 1 by 1.  

The fact is that the design space of an RPG is more flexible than formulaic.  Saying things like a Warlord won't work because it won't work as a party of 1 is simply wrong.  There's no design rule or goal that states that.  Even if there was an exception can easily be made as RPG design is flexible.  That's one of the main points of playing an RPG.  

Or how about the argument that goes something like "5e doesn't want redundant designs and you can make a warlord out of a battlemaster with the inspiring leader feat and so making a warlord class or subclass would be against the design of 5e".  Well it's the same thing.  There's no design rule or goal that states that.  Even if there was an exception can easily be made as RPG design is flexible.  That's one of the main points of playing an RPG.  

Aren't these the stupidest kinds of arguments you ever heard?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> BlahBlahBlah...
> 
> A fighter could have just as easily been a background with a feat too...
> 
> ...



You should re-read what I wrote. Those specific "archetypes" Mellored suggested weren't worth more than a background, unless you think every firefighter, police constable, and lifeguard deserves a 20 level class. If so, keep the fire lit for "Alustriel Silverhand's Guide to Civil Service".


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> You should re-read what I wrote. Those specific "archetypes" Mellored suggested weren't worth more than a background, unless you think every firefighter, police constable, and lifeguard deserves a 20 level class. If so, keep the fire lit for "Alustriel Silverhand's Guide to Civil Service".




Maybe you should re-read what I wrote too?

Consider the rogue class, the thief subclass and the criminal background.  Why do we need a rogue class or even a thief subclass when we have the criminal background and feats like skulker.  Does the thief concept deserve a class or subclass when a background and feat will do?


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> *Lifeguard: ... maybe...



Something something chainmail bikini.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe you should re-read what I wrote too?
> 
> Consider the rogue class, the thief subclass and the criminal background.  Why do we need a rogue class or even a thief subclass when we have the criminal background and feats like skulker.  Does the thief concept deserve a class or subclass when a background and feat will do?



I eagerly await your lifeguard 20 level class.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> I eagerly await your lifeguard 20 level class.




When a discussion devolves into only attempted witty replies then it's no longer worth having.  Add some substance to your replies please or let's just call it quits?


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> When a discussion devolves into only attempted witty replies




I'm flattered you suggest there was any effort put into my witty reply.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> When a discussion devolves into only attempted witty replies then it's no longer worth having.  Add some substance to your replies please or let's just call it quits?



Why is it warlord people keep trying to police who can post in their threads? Guess what, you're on the goodbye list too.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

I'll rephrase my question to [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]athilis so anyone else can answer.

Why does the Thief concept deserve a Class (rogue), a subclass (thief), a background (criminal), and feats that support the concept when a background and perhaps some feats would be plenty?  What is it about the Thief concept that deserves a class/subclass all it's own as opposed to say a lifeguard that would best be accomplished by a background or skill or feat?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I'm flattered you suggest there was any effort put into my witty reply.




No need to act so nonchalant about it


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] - It really gets old when someone like [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]athilis feels the need to announce to the world that he is going to block you.  I would report the post but as he blocked me immediately after he posted I do not have the ability to report the post.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 18, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Maybe. You could ask on Twitter (would have to be a y/n question).
> 
> Realistically, if he were going to do a HFT book with a couple options per class... at two weeks per subclass that's 48 weeks before he finishes. Before playtesting, which can take several months.
> But to fill an entire book they need a lot of options: twice as many as will actually make it into the book so you can test and pick the best options. Now we're looking at 96 weeks of design.
> ...



Well yeah, I'm not saying that a book filled with the HFH subclasses will be released, just that if a book comes out based on martial power then a subclass like the warlord would fit in it and it would be crazy not to at least be considered for inclusion. A book about sailing the high seas or with a Greek flavour might include the warlock kraken pact. They might even do another Xanathar's which can include a lot of them since they don't need to be tied to a theme.


----------



## mellored (Mar 18, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> I eagerly await your lifeguard 20 level class.



That was a sub-class.
But since they managed to make hitting things with a stick 20 levels, so why not?

1: You gain a swim speed.  You can pull one person along with you when you swim.
5: Your swim speed is doubled. You can pull two people along with you when you swim.
11: Your swim speed is trippled.  You can swim though the air.
17: Your swim speed is quadruped.  You can swim though solid ground.

More interesting than a fighter at any rate.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> That was a sub-class.
> But since they managed to make hitting things with a stick 20 levels, so why not?
> 
> 1: You gain a swim speed.  You can pull one person along with you when you swim.
> ...



Anyone else get images of David Hasselhoff when reading this?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> That was a sub-class.
> But since they managed to make hitting things with a stick 20 levels, so why not?
> 
> 1: You gain a swim speed.  You can pull one person along with you when you swim.
> ...



So I lost the narrative: is the warlord literally anything *you* want it to be now?


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 18, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Anyone else get images of David Hasselhoff when reading this?




Honestly? It's easier to recount the times when I don't get images of The Hoff


----------



## mellored (Mar 18, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> So I lost the narrative: is the warlord literally anything *you* want it to be now?



No.
You asked for a 20 levels of lifeguard.  That's an outline.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> That was a sub-class.
> But since they managed to make hitting things with a stick 20 levels, so why not?
> 
> 1: You gain a swim speed.  You can pull one person along with you when you swim.
> ...




You forgot:

Slomo:  You can move no more than half your movement but an enemy you can see must make a wisdom saving thow or be charmed and can take no actions until the start of your next turn. 

Moral Certainty: If you spend at least a minute on a self indulgent monologue, gain Advantage on Persuasion checks against creatures than can hear you.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> @_*Morrus*_ - It really gets old when someone like @_*Rem*_athilis feels the need to announce to the world that he is going to block you.  I would report the post but as he blocked me immediately after he posted I do not have the ability to report the post.




Sounds like the problem was self-solving. Please don't ping me personally with moderation issues.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Sounds like the problem was self-solving. Please don't ping me personally with operation issues.




May I ask the proper method for reporting such issues in the future?  Normally it's the report post button but that won't work in instances like this.  Any suggestions?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> May I ask the proper method for reporting such issues in the future?  Normally it's the report post button but that won't work in instances like this.  Any suggestions?




The appropriate way to deal with somebody who has blocked you is to move on. It's over.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] - It really gets old when someone like  [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]athilis feels the need to announce to the world that he is going to block you.  I would report the post but as he blocked me immediately after he posted I do not have the ability to report the post.




Heh.  I get the feeling that [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis should really avoid warlord threads.  I've been blocked for more than a year now because of the last go around when I called him on his crap for trying to shut down the conversation.

Which, to me, is why you never have any real conversation about warlords.  This particular one has been a better one, and, at a guess, because it involves Mearls.  The last time warlords got brought up, two warlord threads spawned half a dozen shout down threads, polls for blocking warlord discussion and multiple calls to force warlord discussions into their own discussion forum to stop "polluting" the main forum.  

For every constructive post, you have to wade through a dozen garbage posts about how we should be content with what we have, how warlords don't belong in 5e, how we should just make it up ourselves ad nauseam.  

This has been about the first time that any constructive conversation was even possible.  Thanks [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION].


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Morrus said:


> The appropriate way to deal with somebody who has blocked you is to move on. It's over.




I see.  Thanks for the clarification!  Also, please remember that ruling when someone tries to report something I did that was against the rules after I blocked them


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I see.  Thanks for the clarification!  Also, please remember that ruling when someone tries to report something I did that was against the rules after I blocked them




Your attempt to rules-lawyer me in my own house is only going to irritate me. This, also, is not an advised tactic.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 18, 2018)

Morrus said:


> Your attempt to rules-lawyer me in my own house is only going to irritate me. This, also, is not an advised tactic.




Noted.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:
			
		

> So can we debunk the arguments that a Warlord doesn't fit the design of 5e yet.



It's not that the Warlord _concept_ doesn't fit within 5E.  It's that the Warlord _class_ doesn't (easily) fit within 5E.  I can think of tons of character concepts that at least overlap with the Warlord concept.  The problem is that they are not precisely defined by the Warlord concept (at least the characters that would actually be adventurers).

If I had to describe it in concrete terms, it's like you have a choice between a Block, a Paper, a Balloon, and a Red.  It's easy to have a Red Block, or a Red Balloon, or a Red Paper, but having a Red by itself just leaves you asking, "Red what?"

4E gave you a Red, and a Green, and a Blue, and a Purple, and mixed those together with Blocks and Balloons and Papers. They gave you puzzle pieces, and asked you to solve the puzzle of creating the character. 5E doesn't approach character creation that way, except somewhat in how it handles subclasses.  So when you ask for a Red, well, clearly that's a subclass.  But you don't want it to be a subclass.


Paul Farquhar asked for character examples, and the first response was a real-life team coach.  The main problem is that _the coach isn't playing the game_.  The _adventurers_ are the players on the field.  In order to bring the coach in as a playable character/class, you have to figure out how to get the coach out on the field with the team. So that entire analogy kind of falls apart.  This is the same as my example of the strategist in the castle.  He may be a warlord, but he's not an adventurer.

I gave my own example answers, and noted that every single one of them is really a subclass of another class, or a multiclass, or something similar.  Warlord as a _character concept_ just doesn't seem to stand on its own.  Warlord as a _mechanic_ easily stands on its own, because mechanics are character-agnostic.  The problem is that the design of a class presumes it carries enough weight to be strongly used as a character concept.


I'll go back and ask a variant on Paul's question:

What fictional (or even real) character would you try to design that fits the following criteria:

1) Is a Warlord
2) Is not a Fighter
3) Is an adventurer (ie: not just the strategist who stays in the castle while the army goes out to fight, or the old man in the bar handing out quest hooks)

Of those that qualify, which of them are not actually Rogue/Warlord, or Mage/Warlord, or Priest/Warlord, or Barbarian/Warlord?

Remember, I'm asking for a _character_, not a collection of mechanics.  I'm asking if you can be a new player wanting to a play a character like [XX], and find the best fit in the system to support said character is Warlord, and _only_ Warlord.

Not being able to separate two classes of idea is not in itself 'wrong' or 'bad'.  Gishes are the personification of that, mixing the magic user with the fighter.  On the other hand, there is no class called 'Gish'.



			
				mellored said:
			
		

> First Responder: Real world rescue workers, though obviously, these would need to fantasy up, all will have first aid training. I put a quick version here.
> *Police: Chases criminals. Trys to disarm and arrest. Carry's a sidearm (hand-crossbow)
> *Fire Brigade: Coordinates a bucket brigade. Drags victims out of burning buildings. Carries an axe.
> *Paramedic (Battlefield medic?): non-magic pacifist healer.
> ...




Closest analog of police is the city watch/city guard, which are your basic fighter/soldier types.  Paramedic seems to map to alchemist/chemist/medic.  A potentially non-magical supporter type, sure, but not a warlord. Rescue dog handler and lifeguard and first responders may also be non-magic supporters, but are, again, not warlords.  That little 'war' part is kind of crucial.

Lelouch does work, though.  Leia also sort of does, though she also sort of doesn't fit _any_ character class.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 19, 2018)

If I was going to choose a character type that fits the warlord, I'd say that the knights of the rose, as the leaders of the knights of Solamnia would fit the warlord perfectly.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 19, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> I'll go back and ask a variant on Paul's question:
> 
> What fictional (or even real) character would you try to design that fits the following criteria:
> 
> ...




When I was coming up with my own list; I kept wanting to list "mentors" like Obi-Wan or Master Splinter, but they are far more defined as akin to paladins or monks than warlords. The same was true of characters like Skeletor (who is a mage/warlord it's there ever was one). I guess a character like Cobra Commander would be a full Warlord...

For me, the warlord could fill the same design space as a barbarian; a warrior who could resemble a fighter when squinting, but has his own function and mechanics. Like a barbarian, he could fill the role of tank/Frontline combatant, but while doing so he is buffing, healing, and maneuvering. (Unlike a barbarian, whose abilities are all self-buffing, the warlord would be ally-buffing). This would probably mean the lazylord gets ignored, but I'd gladly trade that for a warlord that can fill in for the party warrior.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 19, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> It's not that the Warlord _concept_ doesn't fit within 5E.  It's that the Warlord _class_ doesn't (easily) fit within 5E.  I can think of tons of character concepts that at least overlap with the Warlord concept.  The problem is that they are not precisely defined by the Warlord concept (at least the characters that would actually be adventurers).




This sounds like a critique that could be copied almost word for word regarding the 5e rogue concept.



> If I had to describe it in concrete terms, it's like you have a choice between a Block, a Paper, a Balloon, and a Red.  It's easy to have a Red Block, or a Red Balloon, or a Red Paper, but having a Red by itself just leaves you asking, "Red what?"
> 
> 4E gave you a Red, and a Green, and a Blue, and a Purple, and mixed those together with Blocks and Balloons and Papers. They gave you puzzle pieces, and asked you to solve the puzzle of creating the character. 5E doesn't approach character creation that way, except somewhat in how it handles subclasses.  So when you ask for a Red, well, clearly that's a subclass.  But you don't want it to be a subclass.




I would love for it to be a subclass but it won't work being a subclass.  Mike Mearls Warlord subclass will totally fail (it always does.  kind of like superhero villain plots).  It will either fail for hitting the right strength on warlord abilities but being too strong for a fighter subclass or it will fail for being balanced for a fighter subclass and thus not give enough strength to the various warlord abilities it has.  Hopefully I'm wrong, but he has tried to give us warlordy features multiple times now in a fighter subclass and the ideas keep flopping.




> Paul Farquhar asked for character examples, and the first response was a real-life team coach.  The main problem is that _the coach isn't playing the game_.  The _adventurers_ are the players on the field.  In order to bring the coach in as a playable character/class, you have to figure out how to get the coach out on the field with the team. So that entire analogy kind of falls apart.  This is the same as my example of the strategist in the castle.  He may be a warlord, but he's not an adventurer.




Yes.  It's more of a team than a coach/player relationship.  The reason coach/player gets brought up is more to illustrate healing abilities and such than it is to illustrate a full fledged warlord class.  

I think for your best examples you will have to take a close look at war movies.  Sometimes there's an order given that means almost certain death and there's that one team member (not always the one in charge either) that urges everyone on and helps them and provides sound tactical advice so much that the team leader usually listens to him.  Sometimes he's even able to yell at comrades and have them get up and fight on.  That's the kind of warlord we are looking for.  Many times that character is the person in charge of the group as well.  In those cases it's harder to separate out what we are talking about.  But you'll find what you are looking for in war movies I think.  I can't name any explicit examples off the top of my head.

With all this said, a warlord is almost always a fighting man of sorts.  But the way he helps others fight better and longer is always he's defining trait.  He doesn't have to be the most accurate, he doesn't have to kill the most enemy soldiers, he doesn't even have to be the team leader.  He just has to help his allies fight better.  Give them a reason for fighting on etc.  This is opposed to the fighter whose defining trait is he's one the biggest bad@$$es around.



> I gave my own example answers, and noted that every single one of them is really a subclass of another class, or a multiclass, or something similar.  Warlord as a _character concept_ just doesn't seem to stand on its own.  Warlord as a _mechanic_ easily stands on its own, because mechanics are character-agnostic.  The problem is that the design of a class presumes it carries enough weight to be strongly used as a character concept.




Then rogues shouldn't exist.  They aren't strong enough to stand on their own.  Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills.  A fighter subclass would have been sufficient.  If rogues exist as their own class in the design space then so should warlords.  If barbarians exists as their own class in the design space then so should warlords.  

If D&D ever goes to a single fighting man class for everything then I'll back off and agree that warlord has no place as a class.



> I'll go back and ask a variant on Paul's question:
> 
> What fictional (or even real) character would you try to design that fits the following criteria:
> 
> ...




A soldier who excels at inspiring and giving tactical advice to his allies.  Most often in stories warlords are the actual leaders and for good reason.  But that's not always the case and since I know better than to provide an example of a warlord that's an authority figure (been there done that) then this is the best I can do at the moment



> Of those that qualify, which of them are not actually Rogue/Warlord, or Mage/Warlord, or Priest/Warlord, or Barbarian/Warlord?




None.  In 5e D&D Fighters, Barbarians and rogues are all capable fighting men.  Why is it suddenly a problem to add in another fighting man class with some different mechanics?



> Remember, I'm asking for a _character_, not a collection of mechanics.  I'm asking if you can be a new player wanting to a play a character like [XX], and find the best fit in the system to support said character is Warlord, and _only_ Warlord.




The best examples that can be given are all characters that are in a position of leadership which are automatically disqualified from this discussion because you and others will always blame their abilities on their leadership position instead of their leadership position on their abilities.



> Not being able to separate two classes of idea is not in itself 'wrong' or 'bad'.  Gishes are the personification of that, mixing the magic user with the fighter.  On the other hand, there is no class called 'Gish'.




Rogues and Barbarians are both examples of classes that were separated from fighter that are really fighter barbarians and fighter rogues.  D&D fared just fine with those splits.  You're not giving any reasons why a warlord is any different


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 19, 2018)

I still marvel that ranger is its own class. How is it not a fighter subclass? (Like it was originally in 1e.) The 5e eldritch knight is fighter plus wizard spells. The 5e ranger could easily have been fighter plus druid spells.

In fact, if the ranger was a fighter subclass, it would be easy to build a nonmagical ranger, with the same options for the base fighter, that a spellcaster ranger would choose.

That said. I am happy that the 4e archer ranger is the 5e scout, a dexterous rogue subclass. That makes sense. I suggested rogue for archer early on, and I am glad the designers went this direction.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I would love for it to be a subclass but it won't work being a subclass.  Mike Mearls Warlord subclass will totally fail (it always does.  kind of like superhero villain plots).  It will either fail for hitting the right strength on warlord abilities but being too strong for a fighter subclass or it will fail for being balanced for a fighter subclass and thus not give enough strength to the various warlord abilities it has.  Hopefully I'm wrong, but he has tried to give us warlordy features multiple times now in a fighter subclass and the ideas keep flopping.




I agree the previous attempts to construe the warlord tradition as 5e subclasses have failed. I dont begrudge your reasonable fears.

On the other hand, modeling the warlord on the eldritch knight spell slots allows neutral design space.

It is reasonable to spend ‘spell slots’ to grant extra attacks.

It might work.

Even tho the eldritch spells only go to slot level 4, the slots are being used to grant an other player a normal action. So, this grant can balance at low and high levels. Especially since, nonselfishly, other players and the team as a whole are benefiting from the granted extra actions.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 19, 2018)

Yeah, let's make paladins, rangers, barbarians, rogues, and monks all fighter subclasses. None of them are really unique enough to deserve a full class (by the anti-warlord crowd's metric).


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 19, 2018)

Azzy said:


> Yeah, let's make paladins, rangers, barbarians, rogues, and monks all fighter subclasses. None of them are really unique enough to deserve a full class (by the anti-warlord crowd's metric).




But the Warlord is, because they really really really like it. Also, it's about yelling at people instead of fighting, ignore the War part of the name.

Every character who fights is not pretty much a fighter subclass. Rogue does in fact have an identity outside of sneak attack and can carve it's own niche in a party.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 19, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> But the Warlord is, because they really really really like it. Also, it's about yelling at people instead of fighting, ignore the War part of the name.
> 
> Every character who fights is not pretty much a fighter subclass. Rogue does in fact have an identity outside of sneak attack and can carve it's own niche in a party.




My post was a parody of the ant-warlord crowd's position, not an actual argument to make those other classes subclasses. :/


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:
			
		

> This sounds like a critique that could be copied almost word for word regarding the 5e rogue concept.



There is a huge swathe of rogue concepts that are not fighters.  There _is_ overlap in some ideas (eg: Conan, the Barbarian/Rogue), but everything from Gentleman Thief to Street Rat to Cat Burglar to Master Spy are pretty isolated from other character concepts.  It is very easy to find a character concept that neatly fits within the Rogue concept space.



> Yes. It's more of a team than a coach/player relationship. The reason coach/player gets brought up is more to illustrate healing abilities and such than it is to illustrate a full fledged warlord class.
> 
> I think for your best examples you will have to take a close look at war movies. Sometimes there's an order given that means almost certain death and there's that one team member (not always the one in charge either) that urges everyone on and helps them and provides sound tactical advice so much that the team leader usually listens to him. Sometimes he's even able to yell at comrades and have them get up and fight on. That's the kind of warlord we are looking for. Many times that character is the person in charge of the group as well. In those cases it's harder to separate out what we are talking about. But you'll find what you are looking for in war movies I think. I can't name any explicit examples off the top of my head.
> 
> With all this said, a warlord is almost always a fighting man of sorts. But the way he helps others fight better and longer is always he's defining trait. He doesn't have to be the most accurate, he doesn't have to kill the most enemy soldiers, he doesn't even have to be the team leader. He just has to help his allies fight better. Give them a reason for fighting on etc. This is opposed to the fighter whose defining trait is he's one the biggest bad@$$es around.



I'd like to combine this with Remathilis's comment about the Barbarian being in a somewhat similar relationship to the Fighter as the Warlord.

The Barbarian is, by and large, a solo/small group fighter.  He's strongly built around being able to survive on his own, and will almost certainly be the best bet in a one-on-one fight.  While he does have _some_ tools that link with allies (wolf totem, ancestors, etc), they are not defining features for the class as a whole.  A Barbarian is, "I can take your hit, laugh it off, and hit you back harder."

The Fighter is, by and large, a professional soldier.  He's been trained in all manner of weapons and armor.  He can work solo, or he can work in a group.  You can easily fit a Fighter into a regiment and have him be able to smoothly work alongside all the rest, just like you can post him on guard duty and expect him to do fine.  He's comfortable at either end of the spectrum.

The Warlord, as far as I can see, is on the opposite side of the Fighter from the Barbarian.  He is _not_ the soloist.  He works best in a large group.  He _needs_ the group.  And, as noted with your suggestion about war stories, he is very strongly inclined to be a group commander (for ever larger groups).

Note: Rogue and Ranger are closer to Barbarian on the above axis, and Paladin is closer to Fighter.


So if you want to look at Warlord from a class perspective, balancing him against the Barbarian, as a sort of mirror image, seems like a good start. (You could also work against the Rogue and Ranger, though they feel like weaker balances because of other differences.)  However if you don't consider that, he slides right in with Fighter, which makes it a clash with subclassing.



> Then rogues shouldn't exist. They aren't strong enough to stand on their own.



OK, this is just a nonsensical statement. The number of rogue concepts could very well outnumber the number of fighter concepts, even after merging in Barbarian and Ranger.  Saying that Rogues shouldn't exist because of a lack of concept space is being willfully obtuse, veering into arguing in bad faith.



> Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills.



Remember what I said about people arguing mechanics rather than concepts? You're doing that. Please stop.



> The best examples that can be given are all characters that are in a position of leadership which are automatically disqualified from this discussion because you and others will always blame their abilities on their leadership position instead of their leadership position on their abilities.



This statement doesn't make any sense.

The only reason I've disqualified people in leadership is because they are almost never actually adventurers.  They are people who have gained enough experience (possibly as adventurers) to have graduated to a different level of play.  The Warlord concept there is _easy_.  The Warlord-as-adventurer, not so much.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 19, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> But the Warlord is, because they really really really like it. Also, it's about yelling at people instead of fighting, ignore the War part of the name.
> 
> Every character who fights is now pretty much a fighter subclass. Rogue does in fact have an identity outside of sneak attack and can carve it's own niche in a party.




Every class that fights could be rebranded into a fighter subclass about as well as well as the warlord can be rebranded into a fighter subclass just because it fights.

Even rogues can't escape their identity as fighting men in 5e.  They fight and are good at skills.  Paladins fight and use divine magic.  Rangers fight and use nature magic.  Barbarians fight and Rage.

Everything fights in 5e.  If it fights it can be a subclass of fighter right?

Yes, but most of the classes that fight aren't fighter subclasses.  They are their own classes for various reasons.


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

It's pretty clear Merls does not think there is enough warlord variant to make a full class and 10+ sub-classes.

Why he's ok with that, I don't know, but that's how he's going.  Few classes, many sub-classes.

So...  we should actually try and figure out 10+ sub-classes.
Or a broader class that can fully fit a warlord as a sub-class along with 10+ other ideas.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 19, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> There is a huge swathe of rogue concepts that are not fighters.  There _is_ overlap in some ideas (eg: Conan, the Barbarian/Rogue), but everything from Gentleman Thief to Street Rat to Cat Burglar to Master Spy are pretty isolated from other character concepts.  It is very easy to find a character concept that neatly fits within the Rogue concept space.




Let me say it this way.  Any Character concept that maps to a rogue in 5e can easily map to a Rogue Subclass for Fighter in 5e.  If you don't believe me then find me 1 character concept that maps to the 5e Rogue that would be impossible to map to a Rogue subclass in fighter?



> I'd like to combine this with Remathilis's comment about the Barbarian being in a somewhat similar relationship to the Fighter as the Warlord.




Considering he has me blocked this means nothing to me.



> The Barbarian is, by and large, a solo/small group fighter.  He's strongly built around being able to survive on his own, and will almost certainly be the best bet in a one-on-one fight.  While he does have _some_ tools that link with allies (wolf totem, ancestors, etc), they are not defining features for the class as a whole.  A Barbarian is, "I can take your hit, laugh it off, and hit you back harder."
> 
> The Fighter is, by and large, a professional soldier.  He's been trained in all manner of weapons and armor.  He can work solo, or he can work in a group.  You can easily fit a Fighter into a regiment and have him be able to smoothly work alongside all the rest, just like you can post him on guard duty and expect him to do fine.  He's comfortable at either end of the spectrum.
> 
> ...




Now you are starting to sound kinda like you are agreeing Warlord should be a class instead of a subclass?

By the way I don't know what the bolded means.

I'll follow up with the rest in a moment


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 19, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> OK, this is just a nonsensical statement. The number of rogue concepts could very well outnumber the number of fighter concepts, even after merging in Barbarian and Ranger.  Saying that Rogues shouldn't exist because of a lack of concept space is being willfully obtuse, veering into arguing in bad faith.




It wasn't bad faith.  Now please justify how you broke what I actually said which was this: "Then rogues shouldn't exist. They aren't strong enough to stand on their own. Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills. A fighter subclass would have been sufficient. If rogues exist as their own class in the design space then so should warlords. If barbarians exists as their own class in the design space then so should warlords."

into 2 single statements:
"Then rogues shouldn't exist. They aren't strong enough to stand on their own. "
"Every d&d rogue is just a person that can fight decently well and is good at skills. "

Care to explain how your going to accuse someone of bad faith when you willfully cut their words so short that it would appear to anyone reading your quote that one of my primary points was that a rogue shouldn't exist when it's quite the opposite.  I'm arguing that because the rogue exists then the warlord should too.

Actually don't.  Just don't imply bad faith again or this conversation is over.  As soon as bad faith starts getting mentioned again and again the conversation usually might as well be over anyways.



> Remember what I said about people arguing mechanics rather than concepts? You're doing that. Please stop.




But that is concept.  Character concepts containing being good at some skillsets and being able to fight are the only concepts that map to the rogue.  A general statement like that isn't getting into the mechanics no matter how much you try to claim it is.  Speaking of, you've done that multiple times now.  You try to act as if something is mechanics when it's not.  Please stop doing that.

Ultimately the point is that if desired we could make a rogue subclass for fighter and everyone of those concepts would map to it too.




> This statement doesn't make any sense.
> 
> The only reason I've disqualified people in leadership is because they are almost never actually adventurers.  They are people who have gained enough experience (possibly as adventurers) to have graduated to a different level of play.  The Warlord concept there is _easy_.  The Warlord-as-adventurer, not so much.




It's not just you that's disqualified them.  It's you and everyone else that's against a warlord class/subclass.  All leadership positions are disqualified as examples.  Tried it before.  Witnessed it before.  Not worth doing again.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> For 4e Warlord fans there's almost certainly not enough design space + crunch to back up the warlord in a subclass.




I'm just not seeing it how a subclass has a "lack of design space." It sounds like an artificial justification for "because I want a full class to justify it."

Which, to be clear, is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to say. Its not required to justify individual taste, and no artificial justification is required.



			
				 FrogReaver said:
			
		

> Perhaps Mearls can pull off a miracle and I hope he can but I find it doubtful.  What I think Mearls will do is create an OP subclass which will then later get toned back way to far and no one will be happy with it.  Perhaps that's what happened to the Purple Dragon Knight and such as well.




Nah - the Purple Dragon Knight fails because it concentrates on "the PC does this cool thing, and then the team gets a minor benefit." For a Warlord class to work, that needs to be reversed.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 19, 2018)

Enkhidu said:


> I'm just not seeing it how a subclass has a "lack of design space." It sounds like an artificial justification for "because I want a full class to justify it."
> 
> Which, to be clear, is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to say. Its not required to justify individual taste, and no artificial justification is required.
> 
> ...




You have 5 levels worth of abilities over all 20 levels of fighter to introduce war lord abilities.  On top of that there is definitely a certain power level that would be too much for those abilities.  On top of that most of the warlord abilities need to be gained fairly early in the fighters career or playing whatever it is will not feel much like a warlord but a fighter with 1 party focused ability.  I have reasons for why I think the subclass design space is insufficient.  Do you have reasons for why you think it is?

Purple Dragon Knight has the right kind of abilities (maybe a bit wrong on the flavor but meh, lets talk mechanics).  He gets an ability that lets him heal allies!  Awesome.  He gets an ability that grants attacks.  Heck, he even gets the ability to have an ally make a saving throw reroll.  Who has almost all the abilities everyone wants a Warlord to have.  The problem?  He doesn't feel like he heals enough, he doesn't feel like he grants attacks early enough and the amount he can grant is so miniscule.  Same thing with saving throw rerolls.  

Unless you are telling me that it's okay for the new warlord subclass to greatly exceed the purple dragon knight in power I don't see where a fighter warlord subclass can give enough and give enough early on in your career to make you feel like you are playing a warlord.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:
			
		

> Let me say it this way. Any Character concept that maps to a rogue in 5e can easily map to a Rogue Subclass for Fighter in 5e. If you don't believe me then find me 1 character concept that maps to the 5e Rogue that would be impossible to map to a Rogue subclass in fighter?



Pretty much all of them? But sure, start with a simple one: Cat burglar.

I'm assuming you're not going to just duplicate the Rogue class as a subclass.



			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> Considering he has me blocked this means nothing to me.



The details aren't important, only the relation, because that's what helps premise the idea I then expanded on.



			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> Now you are starting to sound kinda like you are agreeing Warlord should be a class instead of a subclass?



I am completely neutral on the topic.  I have never favored it as class or subclass, nor have I been for or against the warlord class as a whole.  I only ask that if you wish to have it, you be able to justify it and handle the various objections, while shaping it to be something that performs its intended purpose properly.  I don't like sloppy design.



			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> By the way I don't know what the bolded means.



If you don't create a scale that shows where Warlord differentiates from other classes (or how it differentiates in similar ways), it _won't_ differentiate, and will slide back into being a variant of Fighter.



			
				mellored said:
			
		

> It's pretty clear Merls does not think there is enough warlord variant to make a full class and 10+ sub-classes.
> 
> Why he's ok with that, I don't know, but that's how he's going. Few classes, many sub-classes.
> 
> ...



I've been waiting for someone to do this. Surprised it's taken so long.


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

What fits into a sub-class depends on how open the base class is.

For instance, it would be really easy to put the cleric, sorcerer, wizard, and druid all together, just by saying "this subclass gets this spell list, and use this casting stat".  Spell slots work for charm, fireball, flight, resurection, or whatever else.  Easy enough to add in bard.

But the 5e fighters resource is multi-attack. Which is like making evoker the base wizard class, then trying to squeeze in bard.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> You have 5 levels worth of abilities over all 20 levels of fighter to introduce war lord abilities.  On top of that there is definitely a certain power level that would be too much for those abilities.  On top of that most of the warlord abilities need to be gained fairly early in the fighters career or playing whatever it is will not feel much like a warlord but a fighter with 1 party focused ability.  I have reasons for why I think the subclass design space is insufficient.  Do you have reasons for why you think it is?




Mechanically, the concept is simple, very flexible - the subclass can give its class features to other characters - and on-point to meet the stated must-have lists I've seen (looks like it checks all the boxes). But really, I don't really have to have reasons - and for that matter neither do you. I can see it working for me, and still not working for others. I will, however, choose to believe that their objections are solely subjective because the framework meets the goals as stated..



			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> Purple Dragon Knight has the right kind of abilities (maybe a bit wrong on the flavor but meh, lets talk mechanics).  He gets an ability that lets him heal allies!  Awesome.  He gets an ability that grants attacks.  Heck, he even gets the ability to have an ally make a saving throw reroll.  Who has almost all the abilities everyone wants a Warlord to have.  The problem?  He doesn't feel like he heals enough, he doesn't feel like he grants attacks early enough and the amount he can grant is so miniscule.  Same thing with saving throw rerolls.
> 
> Unless you are telling me that it's okay for the new warlord subclass to greatly exceed the purple dragon knight in power I don't see where a fighter warlord subclass can give enough and give enough early on in your career to make you feel like you are playing a warlord.




I feel like you didn't actually read my original post, because I actually addressed some of these:

* Additional Second Winds that are granted to other characters (only - the Warlord can't use them directly)
* Grant attacks in your Attack action to other characters (and to be clear - that might mean all of them)
* Give someone else the Action Surge

The overall power level for the party isn't any greater here (give or take situational advantages/disadvantages) because the Warlord is "giving away" offense to other PCs. No net power gain/loss on paper, with the expectation that it will be a net gain as players use positioning and tactics to maximize the benefits.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 19, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> There is a huge swathe of rogue concepts that are not fighters.  There _is_ overlap in some ideas (eg: Conan, the Barbarian/Rogue), but everything from Gentleman Thief to Street Rat to Cat Burglar to Master Spy are pretty isolated from other character concepts.  It is very easy to find a character concept that neatly fits within the Rogue concept space.






Kinematics said:


> Pretty much all of them? But sure, start with a simple one: Cat burglar.
> 
> I'm assuming you're not going to just duplicate the Rogue class as a subclass.
> 
> /snip




Fighter in Leather Armor with proficiency in Stealth and Thieves Tools.  Done.  One cat burglar.  Oh, wait, I guess he needs Athletics too since he needs to climb.  That's a flat out class skill, so, that's not a problem.  Criminal Background gives me Thieves tools and Stealth.  Done.  Next.

Gentleman Thief - again, not an actual class in 5e.  That's a Fighter with a Spy or Charlatan background for Deception and Thieves Tools.  Burn a feat for 3 Skill proficiencies and we're good to go.

Street Rat - wow, softballs.  What is a Street Rat?  Certainly not a character you'd expect to be able to do more damage in a single hit than any other character out there.  But, anyway, again, just a background.

Everything you just listed is a background.  Backgrounds that 100% cover the mechanical aspects of the concept.  

Good grief, after this much time, can we PLEASE stop with the whole "why are we even talking about this" crap?  Please stop trying to shut down conversations that don't affect you.  You don't want a warlord.  Fine and dandy.  No one is going to make you use this.  

What we want is an actual class (or subclass) that we can have a shared experience with and be able to discuss without constantly having to justify why we're having the discussion in the first place.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> May have been after my time.  While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time.  AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.






Enkhidu said:


> Mechanically, the concept is simple, very flexible - the subclass can give its class features to other characters - and on-point to meet the stated must-have lists I've seen (looks like it checks all the boxes). But really, I don't really have to have reasons - and for that matter neither do you. I can see it working for me, and still not working for others. I will, however, choose to believe that their objections are solely subjective because the framework meets the goals as stated..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Except some attacks are worth more than others. 

 I think my attack granting warlord can grant attacks perhaps 50 percent of the time give or take 10% if you focused on it. 
 Assuming you guys want the warlord to be effective in the support role you can't be dealing rogue or warrior level damage at will.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 19, 2018)

If warlord (or tactician) was the base class. The paladin would work well as one of its spellcasting subclasses.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> May have been after my time.  While I'd played 1e for 10 years, 2e lost me after about 5, so I missed the 'Player's Option' stuff beyond a quick read at the time.  AD&D, though, in 15 years I was actively playing or DMing it, shattered at the least interruption of the source of Band-Aids.






Yaarel said:


> If warlord (or tactician) was the base class. The paladin would work well as one of its spellcasting subclasses.




Different direction but there is room for a 1/3rd cleric or paladin warlord. You won't be very good at attack granting though. The chassis in theory will be able to do the bravura as well.
 The Inspring one think non magical bard warrior.


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 19, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> You have 5 levels worth of abilities over all 20 levels of fighter to introduce war lord abilities.  On top of that there is definitely a certain power level that would be too much for those abilities.  On top of that most of the warlord abilities need to be gained fairly early in the fighters career or playing whatever it is will not feel much like a warlord but a fighter with 1 party focused ability.  I have reasons for why I think the subclass design space is insufficient.  Do you have reasons for why you think it is?
> 
> Purple Dragon Knight has the right kind of abilities (maybe a bit wrong on the flavor but meh, lets talk mechanics).  He gets an ability that lets him heal allies!  Awesome.  He gets an ability that grants attacks.  Heck, he even gets the ability to have an ally make a saving throw reroll.  Who has almost all the abilities everyone wants a Warlord to have.  The problem?  He doesn't feel like he heals enough, he doesn't feel like he grants attacks early enough and the amount he can grant is so miniscule.  Same thing with saving throw rerolls.
> 
> Unless you are telling me that it's okay for the new warlord subclass to greatly exceed the purple dragon knight in power I don't see where a fighter warlord subclass can give enough and give enough early on in your career to make you feel like you are playing a warlord.




This is why I think the Purple Dragon Knight needs a few superiority dice for a limited choice of Warlord manoeuvres.  Even if you make them d6 like the feat,  it adds a bit more utility per short rest.

Maybe you could add a class feature that allows them to forego one of their attacks to use a Manoeuvre without spending a SD so they can sacrifice some damage dealing for more at will tactical choices? It could make doubling up on sneak attack an at will problem I suppose but it does lead you more into lazy Lord territory.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 19, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Paul Farquhar asked for character examples, and the first response was a real-life team coach.  The main problem is that _the coach isn't playing the game_.  The _adventurers_ are the players on the field.  In order to bring the coach in as a playable character/class, you have to figure out how to get the coach out on the field with the team. So that entire analogy kind of falls apart.  This is the same as my example of the strategist in the castle.  He may be a warlord, but he's not an adventurer.



I never got the "coach" example. If someone were to use a sports analogy, I see the Warlord more as a Point Guard in basketball, at least if we are following the traditional five positions. Point Guards are often the playmakers who help run plays, control the ball and pace, set up screens and primary scorers, etc. 



Remathilis said:


> When I was coming up with my own list; I kept wanting to list "mentors" like Obi-Wan or Master Splinter, but they are far more defined as akin to paladins or monks than warlords. The same was true of characters like Skeletor (who is a mage/warlord it's there ever was one). I guess a character like Cobra Commander would be a full Warlord...



Part of the problem is that a lot of kid shows generally operated with the principle "the leader is the best," which frequently extended to being the best fighter. 

You had earlier listed Optimus Prime before. But when I think of a "Warlord" in the Transformers Universe, my mind immediately goes to Prowl (the police car), who was Optimus Prime's 2nd in Command, and the chief military strategist of the Autobots. Though he would be approximate "equal level" to among many of the best and leading Transformers, he was not the best Fighter, especially not in the sea of Grade-A Fighters that Transformers produced. In that respect, he is simply outclassed as a traditional Fighter. His strength was his tactical and strategic mind in combat. But he wasn't anything really akin to a "wizard," "cleric," or a "rogue." Within the realm of D&D classes, the (Int) Warlord is the best approximation. 

With real life examples, I primarily think of Julius Caesar in the Battle of Alesia where he is boosting morale across the battlefield. He wasn't necessarily a good "fighter," but his presence and tactical insight was a force multiplier for his outnumbered troops wherever he was. 



> For me, the warlord could fill the same design space as a barbarian; a warrior who could resemble a fighter when squinting, but has his own function and mechanics. Like a barbarian, he could fill the role of tank/Frontline combatant, but while doing so he is buffing, healing, and maneuvering. (Unlike a barbarian, whose abilities are all self-buffing, the warlord would be ally-buffing). This would probably mean the lazylord gets ignored, but I'd gladly trade that for a warlord that can fill in for the party warrior.



That's a good distinction, and I too am perfectly okay with losing the Lazylord.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  I get the feeling that [MENTION=50658]Rem[/MENTION]althalis should really avoid warlord threads.  I've been blocked for more than a year now because of the last go around when I called him on his crap for trying to shut down the conversation.
> 
> Which, to me, is why you never have any real conversation about warlords.  This particular one has been a better one, and, at a guess, because it involves Mearls.  The last time warlords got brought up, two warlord threads spawned half a dozen shout down threads, polls for blocking warlord discussion and multiple calls to force warlord discussions into their own discussion forum to stop "polluting" the main forum.
> 
> ...



Funny how even in this thread, labelled as "productive" nothing has been actually created and the warlord is no closer to being built. No warlord is emerging from this thread and this discussion isn't going to be read by Mike Mearls and thus is in no way going to contribute to the subclass' design. 
An _actually_ productive thread in terms of the warlord would be something like this, which has seen less action in a week than this thread has seen in a day.  

Ironic that warlord fans, like the warlord class, really seem to be all about shouting in a battle while not actually taking part.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 19, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Funny how even in this thread, labelled as "productive" nothing has been actually created and the warlord is no closer to being built. No warlord is emerging from this thread and this discussion isn't going to be read by Mike Mearls and thus is in no way going to contribute to the subclass' design.
> An _actually_ productive thread in terms of the warlord would be something like this, which has seen less action in a week than this thread has seen in a day.
> 
> Ironic that warlord fans, like the warlord class, really seem to be all about shouting in a battle while not actually taking part.




This thread is helping my homebrew


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 19, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Funny how even in this thread, labelled as "productive" nothing has been actually created and the warlord is no closer to being built. No warlord is emerging from this thread and this discussion isn't going to be read by Mike Mearls and thus is in no way going to contribute to the subclass' design.
> An _actually_ productive thread in terms of the warlord would be something like this, which has seen less action in a week than this thread has seen in a day.
> 
> Ironic that warlord fans, like the warlord class, really seem to be all about shouting in a battle while not actually taking part.




I’m confident that ‘Warlord fans’ won’t be happy with any Warlord produced by anyone.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 19, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> I’m confident that ‘Warlord fans’ won’t be happy with any Warlord produced by anyone.



I've already played a 3rd party Warlord in a game, and I have two other versions in my folder of suggested 3rd party material for my next turn at DMing.  

I guarantee that any official version of a Warlord won't make everyone happy, but that's pretty much an impossible bar to clear.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 19, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Funny how even in this thread, labelled as "productive" nothing has been actually created and the warlord is no closer to being built. No warlord is emerging from this thread and this discussion isn't going to be read by Mike Mearls and thus is in no way going to contribute to the subclass' design.
> An _actually_ productive thread in terms of the warlord would be something like this, which has seen less action in a week than this thread has seen in a day.
> 
> Ironic that warlord fans, like the warlord class, really seem to be all about shouting in a battle while not actually taking part.



Amazing, warlord fans like shouting orders and having others do the work for them. 

The funny thing is, I actually wouldn't mind a warlord class. I think there is a place for it. What I don't want is the 4e warlord, returned from the grave in some grim mockery of life attempting to right some perceived slight against 4e players for the early end of that edition. I want a 5e warlord, built around 5e conventions, doing the core things a warlord should do if not exactly how he did it previously. There are plenty of ways to get a Commander/leader class without being married to the 4e marital leader paradigm. 

Apparently though, not wanting a nonmagical cleric is a betrayal of the warlord. I guess if the choice is that or nothing, I'll take nothing. I will sleep just as well without a warlord class.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> I’m confident that ‘Warlord fans’ won’t be happy with any Warlord produced by anyone.




We've already been happy with one. 

We'll just not be happy with unofficial or non-viable.



Zardnaar said:


> Assuming you guys want the warlord to be effective in the support role you can't be dealing rogue or warrior level damage at will.



That's not what action granting is, in the context of 5e.  Meals went into it, himself, in the first podcast 5e just doesn't strive for the degree of balance 4e did, 4e fretted over matching at-will granting to at-will-only attacks.  If the Warlord let's a wizard cast meteor swarm, all that extra boom is on the wizard's side of the balance balance sheet, it's just a reward for 'smart play' etc...



Yaarel said:


> If warlord (or tactician) was the base class. The paladin would work well as one of its spellcasting subclasses.




A similar concept - Crusader, perhaps - but it'd have less room for casting & granted powers...
Unless it could swap in faith-based gambit, I suppose...


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 19, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Except some attacks are worth more than others.




That's a core component of the idea - that the Warlord transfers their own offense to others for situational gain. Its why I think transferring an attack is OK, but transferring an attack + some other benefit (advantage, bonus, etc) is not. 



			
				Zard said:
			
		

> I think my attack granting warlord can grant attacks perhaps 50 percent of the time give or take 10% if you focused on it.
> Assuming you guys want the warlord to be effective in the support role you can't be dealing rogue or warrior level damage at will.




I'm not expecting at will - I think a good fit would be to tie usage to something mechanically similar to a monk's Ki points (tactics points?), and when those points run out you're back to the baseline features. Letting a high level warlord transfer an attack from its Attack action to an archer with SharpShooter all battle wouldn't fit, but doing it a few times (and sending points to do so) would be fine.

Ideally, the warlord is a force multiplier, I think.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 19, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Amazing, warlord fans like shouting orders and having others do the work for them.
> 
> The funny thing is, I actually wouldn't mind a warlord class. I think there is a place for it. What I don't want is the 4e warlord, returned from the grave in some grim mockery of life attempting to right some perceived slight against 4e players for the early end of that edition. I want a 5e warlord, built around 5e conventions, doing the core things a warlord should do if not exactly how he did it previously. There are plenty of ways to get a Commander/leader class without being married to the 4e marital leader paradigm.
> 
> Apparently though, not wanting a nonmagical cleric is a betrayal of the warlord. I guess if the choice is that or nothing, I'll take nothing. I will sleep just as well without a warlord class.



That's my thoughts as well. 
I don't think the warlord is a Core/ PHB class… but I was also on "Team Mage" and the idea of combining the wizard/ sorcerer/ warlock. I like the fewest number of classes. 
But I'd happily get behind the warlord as a 3rd Party book with a warlord class. And have considered homebrewing one myself. 

But, again, my problems are less with the class and more with the idea it:
a) … has to replace the cleric. Building the sorcerer to "replace the wizard" would be terrible design. It's not any better here. 
b) … has to restore hit points. That's such a stretch for the core focus of the concept and is more iconic of its former role (which 5e classes do not assume). 
c) … has to focus on charisma. Morale and inspiration is the focus on the bard. But no one does strategy and tactics. 
d) … has to be designed like the 4e version. The 4e warlock, barbarian, and sorcerer didn't replicate their 3e counterparts. Unless a class is _perfect_, there's room to rebuild, redesign, and reinterpret.


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> I’m confident that ‘Warlord fans’ won’t be happy with any Warlord produced by anyone.



Which is why you need a flexible base class and a bunch of sub-classes.  Then each person can take the variant that fits their idea.

Same is true for the ranger.  Which has just as many ideas, if not more.


----------



## GreenTengu (Mar 19, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Funny how even in this thread, labelled as "productive" nothing has been actually created and the warlord is no closer to being built. No warlord is emerging from this thread and this discussion isn't going to be read by Mike Mearls and thus is in no way going to contribute to the subclass' design.
> An _actually_ productive thread in terms of the warlord would be something like this, which has seen less action in a week than this thread has seen in a day.
> 
> Ironic that warlord fans, like the warlord class, really seem to be all about shouting in a battle while not actually taking part.





That is a... rather skewed and incorrect perception.
Not only have at least 4 pretty decent stabs at the class been made since 5E began that you can find on DM's guild, but if you had bothered to look at the board in general, since this discussion started at least 3 people have tried making a Warlord class.

Of course there is going to be division on exactly how to go about it. Had the Druid or Ranger not been in the base handbook, there would be a dozen different ideas on how to go about it, and very few would match what was even in the PHB.

In fact, I would be surprised if very many Druid or Ranger players are at all happy with what was presented in the PHB. Certainly people are not happy with the Ranger and a dozen people have attempted to remake it in a dozen ways.

Similarly-- there is little consensus on how exactly a Psion class should be built-- and whether some of the psionic classes presented in previous editions should be subclasses of that class or should be subclasses of other classes that get abilities from the main Psion class.

Just because there are dozens of options to choose from and none wins the award for the overall consensus of the perfect version doesn't mean there is nothing productive. After all, one can notice that overwhelmingly there are certain trends one can see among all the various options there are certain trends, certain aims even if the exact ways of going about them are a bit different.


Aims, by the way, that Mearls stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. And there is no wonder. The trend is obvious that the guy is not incompetent, but rather outright malicious. He was a terrible choice as a head designer, especially in an edition being this tightly regulated and controlled. Because he has a specific vision about how D&D should be and is openly hostile towards anyone else playing or enjoying the game in any way but his way.

He thinks all heroes should be small and agile, so he only made the races that are well-balanced and have good universal access to all classes. He even went as far as to take the traditional strength class, the Fighter, and warp it so that the Strength version is massively inferior to making it a Dexterity class, similarly he absolutely removed even the possibility of playing a Monk as a Strength character and has added a total of 0 functional subclasses that take advantage of strength.

Of course, in his version Orcs absolutely cannot ever be heroes. Certainly they are not allowed any variety. So the Half-Orc is the only race in the whole PHB that is entirely non-functional unless you play it as a very narrow specific stereotype and don't stray one iota from the singular functional build. And when he felt pressured to make a full Orc race, he made it entirely useless. It is even worse for the Hobgoblin-- if you play that as anything but a Warlock or a Wizard, he intentionally made it so you are functionally an entire level behind the rest of the party. And even worse when it came to those who might want to play Gnoll, which was made a decent playable race in the last two editions, and outright refused to even entertain the idea of making a PC version of them at all.

This is why the Warlord was the singular class left out of the 5E PHB. Simply because HE didn't like it, because HE had control wrapping his head around it, because HE didn't want anyone to get to play the concept. And this is why he is absolutely opposed to doing it correctly at all-- insisting on shoving it into that tiny 1/3rd sliver a subclass of Fighter would even allow when its damn obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that you can never properly compete with the Cleric or Bard in terms of support class while making 2/3rds of the class vanilla thug. In fact, there have already been two attempts to do this-- the Battlemaster and the Purple Dragon Knight-- neither of which worked. If it could have been done, it already would have been done.

It all comes down to him being a damn autocratic control-freak who wants to make damn certain that anyone who doesn't play in his exact way using only his favorite races and classes, you are massively penalized to the point of ensuring your character won't survive long or will contribute so little to the party that you would be pressured into playing one of his chosen options that he wants people to play and thus made the mechanically superior options.


This wouldn't be such a problem if D&D wasn't being so iron-fistedly controlled by one guy with a singular vision and outright hostility towards all other visions. D&D was at its best when there were dozens of worlds and nothing was guaranteed to be universal between them.

But at least he is honest by saying that he isn't even remotely trying to balance things. It is just unfortunate that he chooses to imbalance things towards his own personal preferences rather than imbalance sneaking in by mistake or accident.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 19, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Funny how even in this thread, labelled as "productive" nothing has been actually created and the warlord is no closer to being built. No warlord is emerging from this thread and this discussion isn't going to be read by Mike Mearls and thus is in no way going to contribute to the subclass' design.
> 
> Ironic that warlord fans, like the warlord class, really seem to be all about shouting in a battle while not actually taking part.





Remathilis said:


> Amazing, warlord fans like shouting orders and having others do the work for them.



I have been mostly keeping out of this Warlord thread for fear of the usual inflammatory posting that goes on in these threads, but I'm not sure how comments like these help matters any or engenders any good will, to be honest, as they mostly serve to badmouth any self-professed "warlord fan" and throw salt into wounds.  

I would have personally liked to participate more, particularly as Mearls has mused about a possible Warlord design, even if it is within the 5e Fighter chassis. It is difficult, however, to discuss Mearls's warlord design when I have to hunt for a needle in a haystack of posts from the usual people on both sides of the fence simply retreading the old Warlord debate. 



cmad1977 said:


> I’m confident that ‘Warlord fans’ won’t be happy with any Warlord produced by anyone.



I think there have been a number of steps in the right direction, including  [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]'s, and part of the reason for that, IMHO, is that these discussions have mostly mellowed and the "want list" and appeals of a warlord have been elucidated through these repeated discussions. In general, there is greater communication about the sort of shape a warlord could take. And there is more maneuvering and compromises from various sides about what the shape of a 5e Warlord could look like. It's not gonna be perfect, and no one will be entirely satisified, but that only comes natural when designing by committee.



Jester David said:


> But, again, my problems are less with the class and more with the idea it:
> a) … has to replace the cleric. Building the sorcerer to "replace the wizard" would be terrible design. It's not any better here.
> b) … has to restore hit points. That's such a stretch for the core focus of the concept and is more iconic of its former role (which 5e classes do not assume).
> c) … has to focus on charisma. Morale and inspiration is the focus on the bard. But no one does strategy and tactics.
> d) … has to be designed like the 4e version. The 4e warlock, barbarian, and sorcerer didn't replicate their 3e counterparts. Unless a class is _perfect_, there's room to rebuild, redesign, and reinterpret.



I would like to address these points later, but I need to leave for home now. I suspect that we will be in agreement on a number of these issues though not all.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 19, 2018)

TheHobgoblin said:


> That is a... rather skewed and incorrect perception.
> Not only have at least 4 pretty decent stabs at the class been made since 5E began that you can find on DM's guild, but if you had bothered to look at the board in general, since this discussion started at least 3 people have tried making a Warlord class.
> 
> Of course there is going to be division on exactly how to go about it. Had the Druid or Ranger not been in the base handbook, there would be a dozen different ideas on how to go about it, and very few would match what was even in the PHB.
> ...




Whoaa....I think I'll replace Acererak the demi-lich in my ToA game with Mearl the Evil Designer. Sucking all souls from the mortal world is bad, but a hostile iron-fisted control-freak with a malicious agenda toward a some design decision in making a tabletop game is way more threatening. 

People sure are passionate on the subject


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

TheHobgoblin said:


> That is a... rather skewed and incorrect perception.
> Not only have at least 4 pretty decent stabs at the class been made since 5E began that you can find on DM's guild, but if you had bothered to look at the board in general, since this discussion started at least 3 people have tried making a Warlord class.



 He's done his own, too, on DMsG.  Maybe he'd prefer people pick that up, instead of wait for an official one?  ;P



mellored said:


> Which is why you need a flexible base class and a bunch of sub-classes.  Then each person can take the variant that fits their idea.
> 
> Same is true for the ranger.  Which has just as many ideas, if not more.



And the Sorcerer, and Mystic...

Really, 5e shows a lot of flexibility with regards to class designs.  They don't need to be fit to very specific qualifications or guidelines, there's no Role/Source no Groups no iconic roles, just try to do the concept justice, and include elements from past editions, so fans of it's past incarnations, even if they may have been pretty different, can all get something of what they want out of it.

They've been more successful with some classes than others, of course.  The Ranger and Sorcerer, for instance, draw a lot of criticism.  I can't speak for ranger fans, but the Sorcerer is an interesting case.  In the playtest, they went back to the concept ("DRAGON MAGIC!" part of it, anyway) and came up with something new/unique - and the reception was mixed.  For the PH, it presented the Dragon and Wild (chaos) Sorcerer, so 4e fans should have recognized that and felt some familiarity.  And, it used elements - Spontaneous Casting and Meta-magic - lifted directly from 3.5, which, if all you had to do was port elements, should have pleased them, as well.  It didn't quite pull it off, though.  Because, while the Sorcerer did have spontaneous casting in 3.x, now, so did everyone else, including the Wizard it traditionally contrasted with.  And, while the 3.x Sorcerer was nominally dragon-blooded-magic, that wasn't built into it too strongly, it could be readily re-skinned, while the 5e sub-class approach has it more locked-in, re-skinnable, perhaps, as an elementalist of some type, but not much more.  And, of course, on top of that, the spell lists don't much support elementalists beyond fire, either.

They seem to have learned from these difficulties with the design of the Mystic, and hopefully will continue to improve their process and get better at delivering on classes.   



> Of course there is going to be division on exactly how to go about it. Had the Druid or Ranger not been in the base handbook, there would be a dozen different ideas on how to go about it, and very few would match what was even in the PHB.
> 
> In fact, I would be surprised if very many Druid or Ranger players are at all happy with what was presented in the PHB. Certainly people are not happy with the Ranger and a dozen people have attempted to remake it in a dozen ways.



 The thing about the Druid is that it hasn't varied much from it's original theme and presentation over the editions, it's just been (mostly) taken away from in some.  In 2e, the Druid's unique spell progression was taken away.  In 4e, nothing was exactly taken away, but it's major schticks were hard-divided among 3 different sub-classes, so you could play a druid that did some of what your favorite druid back in the day could, but not one specific druid that could all of it.  Of course, in 3.x, it became the D in CoDzilla, which was not great for either fans nor detractors of the class - much as CharOp might've loved alternately abusing and bitching about Natural Spell...

In 5e, the Druid is back.  It ticks all it's traditional boxes and is good at all of them, but does so without breaking the spell progression formula of 5e (a direct port, with 3rd level spells at 3rd level would have been insane, since 5e normalized the meaning of spell levels - everyone casts the same spells at the same level).  It's a good example of very faithfully bringing a class into 5e, even while adapting it to 5e.



> Similarly-- there is little consensus on how exactly a Psion class should be built-- and whether some of the psionic classes presented in previous editions should be subclasses of that class or should be subclasses of other classes that get abilities from the main Psion class.



 So they Mystic is a pretty variable class... it's arguable 3 or 4 classes in one.   
But, yes, it's a much more daunting challenge than the Warlord.  Fans of the random-psionics/Psionicist/Psion/Psionics-Source necessarily have much more varied expectations and priorities.  



> Aims, by the way, that Mearls stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. And there is no wonder. The trend is obvious that the guy is not incompetent, but rather outright malicious. He was a terrible choice as a head designer, especially in an edition being this tightly regulated and controlled. Because he has a specific vision about how D&D should be and is openly hostile towards anyone else playing or enjoying the game in any way but his way.



  Mearls may have the odd blindspot, and his style of design might not be to everyone's taste, but his love of the game and willingness to let us play in our own varied ways seems genuine enough.  At least give him the benefit of the doubt.  



> This is why the Warlord was the singular class left out of the 5E PHB. Simply because HE didn't like it, because HE had control wrapping his head around it, because HE didn't want anyone to get to play the concept. And this is why he is absolutely opposed to doing it correctly at all-- insisting on shoving it into that tiny 1/3rd sliver a subclass of Fighter would even allow when its damn obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that you can never properly compete with the Cleric or Bard in terms of support class while making 2/3rds of the class vanilla thug. In fact, there have already been two attempts to do this-- the Battlemaster and the Purple Dragon Knight-- neither of which worked. If it could have been done, it already would have been done.



 Or, he's taking such a slow and measured approach to avoid offending people who actually do feel that way - and have a track record of going to extremes when they imagine they've reason to be offended.  The BM could have been nothing but a roadblock to the Warlord, as you describe.  The fact we got limited-use short-rest-recharge maneuvers from the BM, then inferior martial healing and attack granting from the PDK, and now long-rest recharge gambits and better martial healing from this nominal 'warlord' (faux-fighter/warlord Multi-class), says otherwise, that the obviously-doomed attempts as fighter-sub-class warlords could represent a measured approach to slowing working in a controversial (only because h4ters make it so by being h4teful, obviously, but Mearls can't ignore their prejudices entirely, he must try to work around them) class.  

If the sub-class he's working on here is very well-done, it could well be a reasonable step towards an adequate full class design.  At this rate, it likely won't see print until moments before a 6e goes into playtest, but even that'd be better than completely caving and ignoring that the warlord had ever existed (which is how it looked like it might have gone early in the playtest).


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
Can we get to at least 10 of them?

Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)
Tactical/Commander (back line, shouty)
Stealth/Skrimisher (allies don't provoke OA's, allies can move and hide as a reaction)
Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)
Doctor/Non-magical cleric. (healing kits)
Nature Guide/Non-magical ranger (tracking, survival, secure encampment)
Officer of the Peace (net's, non-lethal)
Non-magical beastmaster. (command animals)

That's 8.
9 if you want to include Lifeguard/David Hasselhoff (swimming)

Anyone got a few more?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
> Can we get to at least 10 of them?
> 
> Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)
> ...




I'm good with name, so I can at least try to give proper names to the concept you present, then add some to reach 10.

Bravada: Banner of the Bastion
Tactical: Banner of the Strategist
Stealth: Banner of the Guildmaster
Inspiring: Banner of the White Raven
Doctor: Banner of the Master Healer
Nature: Banner of the Sentinel
Peace: Banner of the Emissary
Beast: Banner of the Pack runner

To which I add:
Banner of the Thane: Inspire barbaric frenzy in its allies
Banner of Vanguard: Move-oriented warlord who breach the line and splinter enemies formations.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
> Can we get to at least 10 of them?



 There were 8 in 4e, and it didn't even do faux-MCing via multi-classing, so shouldn't be hard...

One thing, I think, is that each type of Warlord should have an emphasis, class features that point to it's schtick, and be able to use gambits that reflect that /better/, rather than just having a very short, fixed-progression list of features that, one each, suggest that emphasis and restrict it to only that.  Rather like how the other INT-based class works with it's traditions.  Any Warlord might use any Gambit, but some will be particularly suited to the talents and doctrines of a given one.



> Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)



 Should be the faux-Fighter/Warlord MC sub-class.


> Tactical/Commander (back line, shouty)



 Not necessarily back-line - you could be executing some of your own tactical plans, surely - but yeah.


> Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)



 Should emphasize healing, and fighting on type abilities.  The overhealing rule would work very well with it, though obviously shouldn't be limited to it.


> Stealth/Skrimisher (allies don't provoke OA's, allies can move and hide as a reaction)
> Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)



 Adding group stealth to Skirmisher is a nice idea.



> Nature Guide/Non-magical ranger (tracking, survival, secure encampment)



 I suppose if we can have both EK & Bladesinger, we can have both non-casting Ranger, and outdoorsy Woodlord.



> Doctor/Non-magical cleric. (healing kits)



 Seems narrow, and medieval medicine is ill suited to much of anything.  But, it could be /a/ feature of a Resourceful Warlord.  The one that focuses on preparedness and improvisation involving equipment and the environment.  With a very pragmatic approach to 'doctoring' using, yeah, healing kits, since they're surprisingly effective.   But also with gambits that make use of whatever sort of gear he just might have slipped into your pack when your weren't looking, or whatever advantage might be wrung from the battlefield, itself.  



> Non-magical beastmaster. (command animals)



 Not as strange as it sounds.  Animals - horses, hounds, hawks - were the status-symbols of the era, like a hot car or the latest iPhone.  It could work for a Warlord with the Noble background, for instance.  But, it's pretty specific, again.  (See 'Marshal' below)



> Officer of the Peace (net's, non-lethal)



 Not sure I see it. (but, again, see the Marshal idea)



> 9 if you want to include Lifeguard/David Hasselhoff (swimming)



 It could be broadened.  The Warlord had several powers, that'd be reactions in 5e, in which it dashed to an ally's rescue in some sense or another, either providing hps or a save or temps off turn, or jumping in and attacking (even marking) an enemy, or a combination.  One of them was literally called "Fearless Rescue" and it healed the ally you were helping for more hps the more OAs you provoked in rushing to help...  



> Anyone got a few more?



 Sure.

The Art-of-War(lord):  The Insightful build focused on WIS.  The big, obvious, use of that is in spotting & understanding your enemy.  A 'Know your enemy' style of Warlord would focus a bit more on buffs and debuffs, as he counter's the enemy's methods and ferrets out their weaknesses.  I suppose this could include the 'watchman' idea of the warlord, always alert for the enemy, with an 'Overwatch' feature like the zone of control, maybe?

The Artillerist:  Whether actual medieval siege weapons, archers, or casters provide it, the advantage of a stand-off capability cannot be overstated.  Setting up and making the most of that advantage is the specialty of this Warlord, and the focus of the gambits at which he excels.  Where there are not source resource to direct, the Artillerist takes up whatever weapons are available to provide the direct advantages of ranged support to his allies - taking a shot at just the right moment, even if it is easily dodged or blocked, can give an ally an advantage or opening, or put an enemy out of it's best tactical position as it seeks over or crouches behind its shield...

The Hector:  this was a classification of Warlord powers that wrecan came up with on the WotC boards.  It was a pretty small set of powers, because it shaded heavily into controller, which was verboten when your place is in the Leader Box.   This is the warlord who harangues, taunts, deceives, and outmaneuvers the enemy into making tactical mistakes and generally playing into his hands.  It should involve gambits that change de-buff and even 'control' the enemy (in the sense of getting them to make bad choices, though it might well involve making WILL saves on their part.).

The Marshal:  I'm just lifting the name for some of it's implied meaning, not for anything to do with the Marshal pseudo-class in the Mini's Handbook.  This is the Warlord who, by whatever means, 'marshals' lesser troops - volunteers, conscripts, villagers, bandits, whatever - into an effective fighting force.  It's a classic trope, 'training the villagers to fight for themselves' for instance, and, it side-steps one of the problems with attack-granting and barking commands:  this Warlord doesn't have to do it PCs, mussing their precious bad-boy doesn't-work-well-with-others edginess.  He has his own NPC grunts to abuse.  It also side-steps the problem with pet classes and henchmen: that they impact the action economy.  The Marshal would have his unit of recruits that he commands to move around, holding positions, or making concerted attacks ("when you see the whites of their eyes!") of high value.  All of which would be resolved by the player of the Marshal.  A volley from his unit of archers, for instance, wouldn't be a bunch of attacks rolled by the DM one on each archers turn, rather, it'd be done on the Marshals' turn, and crate a beaten zone, enemies in it would get skewered (save:1/2).  That kinda thing.   And, yes, it could include a warlord that 'marshals' animals bred & trained for combat, or a _posse comitatus_ under the mantle of the law.  (or those could be broken out and be good at similar gambits)


The Princess (Lazylord):  Though not intended by the designers, a Warlord that isn't a capable fighter in its own right, and instead uses it's actions to inspire and incite allies, can cover a range of concepts not ever otherwise viable in D&D (nor most RPGs, really).  The plucky side-kick who can't measure up his heroes but who's antics, cooperation, and frequent need of saving bring out the most heroic in them.  The psychologically important symbol (mascot, literal prince or princess, ringbearer, etc) who everyone in the party cares about on some level, and thus binds them together into a stronger whole.  The victim in need of rescue.  etc...
... and, sure, if your group like the idea, the effete commander, "sipping Sancerre & directing the battle" from a safe distance.


Then, in the spirit of adapting to 5e, the faux-MCing it seems to go for:

Crusader:  The 1/3rd Cleric or half-Paladin  Warlord, a leader of zealots and champion of a divine cause, who, in the D&D world, obviously can't get away with it without displaying actual divine powers.

Arcane Battlemaster (name lifted from a Paragon Path):  In the D&D, spells very often turn the tide of battle, if not decide it from the beginning, so it only makes sense that there are commanders who shape their tactics around the effective use of caster assets, and, probably, pick up wizardry second-hand, INT-focused as the warlord can be.

Infernal Strategist (ditto):  Some will pay any price for victory.  The Infernal Strategist employs both magical powers and diabolical gambits gleaned from the darkest and most perilous of arcane sources.

The Thaneborn (name lifted from barbarian build - and thanks for reminding me of this one, Vince):  A traditional leader of a clan or tribe or the like, by right of birth.  The Thane leads 'his people' in battle, and others call those people 'barbarians').  A faux-Barbarian-MC who's rage is not as potent, but is 'contagious' to his allies.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 19, 2018)

When I see the word ‘gambit’, I interpret it to mean a level 1 mechanic that is a prelude of more developed mechanics that are to come at higher levels.


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Any Warlord might use any Gambit, but some will be particularly suited to the talents and doctrines of a given one.



Sure.  Just like any wizard can cast any spell, and each sub-class get's a bonuses to certain spells.

i.e. 
Direct the strike (any warlord): An ally can reroll a missed attack.
Tactician: When you use direct the strike, the ally gains +Int to hit.

Having a flexible choose-your-gambit based system would allow for lots of builds and easy expansion into new concepts just by adding new gabits.



> Seems narrow, and medieval medicine is ill suited to much of anything.  But, it could be /a/ feature of a Resourceful Warlord.



I never saw the resourceful warlord as any kind of architype.  It was just a middle-of-the-road warlord between insperation and tactical.



> One of them was literally called "Fearless Rescue" and it healed the ally you were helping for more hps the more OAs you provoked in rushing to help...



"Feerless Rescure" sounds good.  But adding THP for provoking seems a bit off.
In general, you want to avoid too many off-turn die rolls.



> The Art-of-War(lord):  The Insightful build focused on WIS.  The big, obvious, use of that is in spotting & understanding your enemy.  A 'Know your enemy' style of Warlord would focus a bit more on buffs and debuffs, as he counter's the enemy's methods and ferrets out their weaknesses.



IMO, that would work better as an Int based Sage-lord.   Making knowlage checks to know you enemy, beyond mearly the "plants are vulnerable to fire".

i.e.
"This orc clan considers mongooses to be sacred.  It will confuse them if we use it as our battle cry."
"This kind of jelly's acids produces vinegar, it can be neutralized with baking soda."
"That style of armor restricts arm movement to 20 degrees.  So try and stay outside it's range."

Might be hard to come up with a good mechanic for it though.
Possibly a random bonus?
i.e.

Make a knowlege check, you gain a bonus on the chart below.
0-10: Nothing
11-12: +2 to-hit.
13-14: +2 to defense.
ect...



> The Artillerist:  Whether actual medieval siege weapons, archers, or casters provide it, the advantage of a stand-off capability cannot be overstated.  Setting up and making the most of that advantage is the specialty of this Warlord, and the focus of the gambits at which he excels.



IMO, just make most gabits will work both in melee and range by default.  Allowing for both Str or Dex.



> The Hector:  this was a classification of Warlord powers that wrecan came up with on the WotC boards.  It was a pretty small set of powers, because it shaded heavily into controller, which was verboten when your place is in the Leader Box.   This is the warlord who harangues, taunts, deceives, and outmaneuvers the enemy into making tactical mistakes and generally playing into his hands.



Forgot that one.



> The Marshal:  This is the Warlord who, by whatever means, 'marshals' lesser troops - volunteers, conscripts, villagers, bandits, whatever - into an effective fighting force.



That could be fun, but tricky to pull off well.  Paticularly if you don't have any towns nearby.
Probably best left as a gambit.  Something any warlord can pick up.



> The Princess (Lazylord):  The psychologically important symbol (mascot, literal prince or princess, ringbearer, etc) who everyone in the party cares about on some level, and thus binds them together into a stronger whole.  The victim in need of rescue.  etc...



"Mascot" might be a better name.  But i'm not sure how much different it is from inspiring.



> Crusader:
> Arcane Battlemaster (name lifted from a Paragon Path).
> Infernal Strategist (ditto):.
> The Thaneborn (name lifted from barbarian build - and thanks for reminding me of this one, Vince).



Those all work.




> I suppose this could include the 'watchman' idea of the warlord, always alert for the enemy, with an 'Overwatch' feature like the zone of control, maybe?



I like the idea of the Overwatch zone being a core feature.  Though not as a full requirement.
Something like dealing full damage if you guessed correctly, but still ahve half on a miss-placement.


Maybe something like...

Gambits: 
Focus Fire: Allies gain a +1d4 bonus to any damage roll against the target.  If the target is in your overwatch zone, increase the bonus to +1d6.
Shift: An ally can move half their speed.  If they are in your overwatch zone, they do not provoke OA's.

Sub-class:
Tactician: All enemies are considered in your overwatch zone for the Focus Fire gambits.
Skirmisher: All allies are considered in your overwatch zone for the Shift gambits.


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> When I see the word ‘gambit’, I interpret it to mean a level 1 mechanic that is a prelude of more developed mechanics that are to come at higher levels.



I'm on the fecnce about making new gambits, or letting them stack.


Which sounds better?

Gambit Levels.
1: Novice Gambit
2: Overwatch: You set up a zone at the end of your turn.  Your gambits gain a bonus when in the zone.
3: Sub-class
4: ABI
5: Adept Gambit
...
11: Expert Gambit
...
17: Master Gambit

Gambit Stacking.
1: Gambit
2: Overwatch: You set up a zone at the end of your turn.  Your gambits gain a bonus when in the zone.
3: Sub-class
4: ABI
5: Lateral Thinking: You can use two gambits at once.
...
11: Multilateral Thinking: You can use three gambits at once.
...
17: Omnilateral Thinking: You can use four gambits at once.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> I'm on the fecnce about making new gambits, or letting them stack.
> 
> 
> Which sounds better?



Stacking can be problematic, but there's no shortage of it.  Mike's original idea of having Gambits require concentration is a good one.  The fighter has no use for concentration ATM, so it's particularly good for a fighter sub-class.  A Gambit could even keep going as long as the Warlord or enough of his allies are concentrating on keeping the 'plan' on track.  Once the warlord is down, and there aren't enough of his allies sticking to the plan, it falls apart...
...while it's still salvageable, concentration could be resumed to add (or return) allies to the Gambit's benefits.   Like any idea I have, probably too complicated, but it catches the idea of participating in a plan to get the benefits.  It also keeps the warlord from stacking his buffing Gambits too easily with the most OP buffs of other support types, which generally require Concentration.



Yaarel said:


> When I see the word ‘gambit’, I interpret it to mean a level 1 mechanic that is a prelude of more developed mechanics that are to come at higher levels.



 I just see it as a second word that sounds better than 'exploit' (like 'maneuver').  To make a viable support character from first that remains viable through all levels based on 'gambits' they'd have to have rather a lot of them to choose from, and a fairly high degree of flexibility in choosing which ones to execute in a given encounter.  And, the feature, whether CS dice, maneuver, gambit or some combinations would have to be level-gated, so that as the party advances, the Warlord keeps up with their needs and continues to complement their growing abilities.  One problem with the BM is that his maneuvers failed in that regard, being essentially all 'low level' abilities.  

If this design challenge had been taken up in the playtest, we might have gotten a more consistent, unified approach.  Instead of the weird, piecemeal way non-BMs use CS dice, we could have a consistent set of maneuvers or gambits that various 'martial' (whether non-magical or mixed) classes can draw from and new classes or sub-classes could add too.  Of course, they could have kept something like MDDs, too. ::shrug::


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> Sure.  Just like any wizard can cast any spell, and each sub-class get's a bonuses to certain spells.
> 
> i.e.
> Direct the strike (any warlord): An ally can reroll a missed attack.
> Tactician: When you use direct the strike, the ally gains +Int to hit.



 Exactly.  Warlords need to be flexible with their Gambits, because inflexible tactical genius, well, isn't.



> Having a flexible choose-your-gambit based system would allow for lots of builds and easy expansion into new concepts just by adding new gabits.
> 
> I never saw the resourceful warlord as any kind of architype.  It was just a middle-of-the-road warlord between insperation and tactical.



 Yes, but we're focusing on ideas, not mechanics.  Mechanically it was just split-the-difference between INT & CHA importance, but some of the powers it was good at, and it's commanding presence at least seemed to support the implication of the name:  a Warlord who was 'ready for anything,' an opportunist & contingency-planner.  
Spinning that out just a little further gets you the logistical warlord focused on material preparation, as well, and the medic with his healing kits plops neatly into that much broader concept.



> "Feerless Rescure" sounds good.  But adding THP for provoking seems a bit off.



 The idea is the more danger you run through to help your ally, the more inspired he is.  But that was just one example of a 4e 'rescuer' exploit, there were more than a few.  Then again, the idea of the Warlord who comes to ally's rescue literally might, like the Bravura, be another faux-MC sub-class, either yet another fighter/faux-warlord, a Warlord sub-class that cribs from fighter.  Or, it could just be a Warlord archetype that shades towards defender the way Oath of the Crown or Path of Ancestors tend to do.



> IMO, that would work better as an Int based Sage-lord.   Making knowlage checks to know you enemy, beyond mearly the "plants are vulnerable to fire".



 Well, if gambits are generally available and sub-class just makes you better at some, that'd be how the tactician uses 'know your enemy' gambits, by prior knowledge, while the Insightful one susses out the strengths, weaknesses, values, etc of his enemies right in the moment, by direct first-hand observation.  
Oh, it's a sub-class that could have some sort of perk for 'surveying the field,' that is for spending actions in early rounds to get benefits for his allies, later, like the Commander in 13A.



> IMO, just make most gabits will work both in melee and range by default.  Allowing for both Str or Dex.



 That's how I'd see it, yes.  It fits with the rest of 5e design, and it allows an Artillerist/Archer warlord to use the same gambits, just specialize in and be a tad better at the ranged uses.



> That could be fun, but tricky to pull off well.  Paticularly if you don't have any towns nearby.
> Probably best left as a gambit.  Something any warlord can pick up.



 All gambits should be available to all Warlords, but the Marshal could be less prone to having his 'recruit troops' gambits blocked by mere lack of plausible availability.  Maybe he has regulars, while other warlords have to recruit from locals.  Maybe when he really needs 'em the Cavalry come over the hill in a cloud of dissociative mechanics.  
IDK, it's a thought.  And it calls back to the fighter-as-lord with followers.  Albeit, at whatever level the Warlord gets his sub-class, rather than 'name' level.



> "Mascot" might be a better name.  But i'm not sure how much different it is from inspiring.



 Inspiring is more likely to inspire by doing, the whole lead from the front thing.  
One name I considered, since 'lazy'/'mascot'/side-kick are silly, and 'princess' presumably old-fashioned-sexist, was "Icon."  Lazy's just the one everyone knows.



> I like the idea of the Overwatch zone being a core feature.  Though not as a full requirement.
> Something like dealing full damage if you guessed correctly, but still ahve half on a miss-placement.



I'm still on the fence about it.  If the implementation really adds something in return for the added complexity to track, maybe.  It should be made clear how it'd work in TotM, though.


Oh, and one more:

Combat Veteran (again, cribbed from a Paragon Path, but this time spun in a new direction):  A grit-and-gristle old soldier who hasn't faded away just yet, the Combat Veteran has seen it all - the grand strategies, the cunning plans, the unstoppable secret weapons, the divine assurance of victory, the flashy battlefield spells, the invincible overlords, the fated deliverers and the omnipotent artifacts - and y'know what, it's all crap.  In the end, the guy left standing with nothing sharp in is vital organs has won.
The combat veteran eschews fancier gambits and those that edge into counting on improbable coincidence and enemy stupidity, and instead keeps his allies going with pragmatic tricks and his enemies on the ropes with a solid does of reality, delivered right between the uprights.  He excels at granting allies saves and defensive buffs against magic, whacky monsters, gonzo combat tricks, and all the wilder stuff of fantasy - and very solidly real offensive buffs vs those who depend upon such things.


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Stacking can be problematic, but there's no shortage of it.



It depends.
Stacking damage, attacks, to-hit, and vulnerability can certainly be an issue.

But "stacking" movement boost, attack boost, AC boost, and save boost isn't a problem, since they each apply to a different situation.  So it's not really stacking.



> Mike's original idea of having Gambits require concentration is a good one.



Agreed.
Though, at least for the moment, I prefer the overwatch zone to be concentration, and the gambits being 1-turn buffs at-will.



Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, but we're focusing on ideas, not mechanics.



Mechanics and ideas should match.



> Mechanically it was just split-the-difference between INT & CHA importance



IMO, keep all Gambits stat-neutral.  (i.e. reroll an attack, +warlord level THP, +1d4 damage)
Then the sub-classes can add bonuses based on the stat. (i.e. +Int to the reroll, +Cha to the THP, +Wis to the damage).  And some can remain stat-neutral (allies don't provoke OA's).



> Inspiring is more likely to inspire by doing, the whole lead from the front thing.



I don't see why inspiring couldn't work from back or front.



> I'm still on the fence about it.  If the implementation really adds something in return for the added complexity to track, maybe.  It should be made clear how it'd work in TotM, though.



IMO, it really adds to the feeling of _being_ the warlord.  The player, as well as the character, need to think about tactics.  Not just hand out buffs.
Though, you don't want too much power put into the player skill side.

As for ToTM, "I'm watching the doorway", "I'm watching the paladin", "I'm watching the dragon" all seem straight foward enough for me.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
> Can we get to at least 10 of them?




Well, Barbarians have 6 subclasses. Bards have 5. Clerics have 11, Druid have 4, Fighters have 7. Monks have 7. Paladins have 7. Rangers have 5. Rogues 7. Sorcerers have 5. Warlocks have 6. Wizards have 10. I think you'd be better off with a few good ones than 10 thin ones. 



mellored said:


> Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)




Strong start. A warlord that focuses on risk/reward abilities (think a barbarian's reckless attack) would be an interesting archetype. Certainly be good more chaotic warlords. 



mellored said:


> Tactical/Commander (back line, shouty)




Kinda default. I don't necessarily see "from the back" as a requirement, but as the "default" subclass, I can see it. 



mellored said:


> Stealth/Skrimisher (allies don't provoke OA's, allies can move and hide as a reaction)




Kinda touchy. Shouting "hide there" doesn't seem immersive, and I'm not a giant fan of turning entire parties into rangers/rogues. I could see a few powers/abilities, but not a full subclass worth. 



mellored said:


> Inspiring/Non-magical bard. (THP, +bonus while THP lasts)




Again, this seems like the default warlord's role. I could see a noble/diplomat type sub maybe, but this seems kinda thin.



mellored said:


> Doctor/Non-magical cleric. (healing kits)




Again, how much healing are you giving the default warlord? This idea is best served when the warlord takes the healer feat. It doesn't need its own sub.



mellored said:


> Nature Guide/Non-magical ranger (tracking, survival, secure encampment)




This really doesn't feel like it fits the warlord at all. Rangers are already a small niche, a warlord who can out-ranger a ranger seems like a bad idea. Again, I could maybe see the secure encampment as a power for the base-warlord, but not a whole subclass.



mellored said:


> Officer of the Peace (net's, non-lethal)




This is a role-playing choice. I guess there could be a pacifist option, but I'd rather see this rolled into the noble/diplomat/inspiring sub.



mellored said:


> Non-magical beastmaster. (command animals)




What have you got against the ranger? This is literally the third subclass that gives the warlord the ranger's toys. I'd say no just based on the fact I want the ranger to have SOMETHING unique!



mellored said:


> That's 8.
> 9 if you want to include Lifeguard/David Hasselhoff (swimming)




I don't. Lifegard is at best a background, probably nothing more than someone trained in athletics. 



mellored said:


> Anyone got a few more?




Sure. 

I could see chieftain/savage warlord that would fit into a barbarian tribe (or with more savage races like orcs). Something that gives his troops extra resilience. You could even roll this in with the bravada if you wanted a warlord who controls the chaotic power of the horde.

A ruthless warlord that is more about sacrificing his allies to achieve bigger benefits. Evil and not PC friendly, but it'd be hella fun for an NPC who sacrifices pawns to setup elaborate strategies. 

Personally, I'd got Chieftain, Diplomat/Inspiring, Ruthless, Tactician, Bravada, and some arcane or divine-infused "magical" warlord.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 19, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> When I see the word ‘gambit’, I interpret it to mean a level 1 mechanic that is a prelude of more developed mechanics that are to come at higher levels.




Its a good name and all, but when I see "gambit", I think


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> I don't see why inspiring couldn't work from back or front.



 Nod, same with tactics.  That's why the dividing line among sub-classes should be emphasis and greater facility with certain sorts of gambits to support the concept, rather than having specific mechanics to justify the concept.

Every warlord will be able to come up with a tactical plan, inspire his allies, and do so from the front lines or the back.  Some will be particularly good at tactics or inspiration, some will be particularly good at leading from the front, regardless of whether it's to inspire or execute a cunning plan.  And, some, like the Artillerist or Icon ('Lazy') better served doing either from the back lines. 



> IMO, keep all Gambits stat-neutral. (i.e. reroll an attack, +warlord level THP, +1d4 damage)
> Then the sub-classes can add bonuses based on the stat. (i.e. +Int to the reroll, +Cha to the THP, +Wis to the damage). And some can remain stat-neutral (allies don't provoke OA's).



 Nod.  That works.  I kinda like the idea of different Gambits keying off different stats, in addition to specific sub-classes having advantages when using certain types of gambits.  

I'm also starting to think adding a mental stat to weapon attacks might not be a bad idea, but with limitations. Not replacing STR/DEX with INT/CHA but supplementing it.  I'm thinking the Warlord might evoke the concept better if it was MADder than the 4e version - maybe even MAD as hell.  



> IMO, it really adds to the feeling of _being_ the warlord.  The player, as well as the character, need to think about tactics.  Not just hand out buffs.
> Though, you don't want too much power put into the player skill side.



 Nod.  It's a balancing of 'immersive feel' and actually modeling the character.  You could just play a fighter (or a kobold, or telepathic paperweight) and kibitz at your fellow players with tactical plans - you'd have to be really good at it, your DM would have to recognize your genius rather than just making your plans fail arbitrarily, and it'd still be annoying as heck for everyone else at the table.  Or, you could just play a 3.0 Bard with no spells and give everyone a bland bonus for just standing where they can hear you.  In between those distant extremes, any number of potential Warlord implementations might be found.



> As for ToTM, "I'm watching the doorway", "I'm watching the paladin", "I'm watching the dragon" all seem straight foward enough for me.



 Yeah, it doesn't seem it'd be a tough thing to do, but it wasn't done right off the bat, even though TotM is the nominal default.  Probably an oversight (I mean, it couldn't be that Mearls is trapped in the thinking "well, 4e used squares, so the Warlord just has to use squares.")


----------



## Jester David (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
> Can we get to at least 10 of them?
> 
> Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)
> ...



Those are some fine mechanics. But those are easy. 

What's their story? What’s the paragraph or two of fluff that defines and describes them? The description that sells the subclass and provides and expectation for what it does without reading the crunch.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> So then, what warlord, or warlord-related-non-magical-non-damage sub-class do people want to see?
> Can we get to at least 10 of them?
> 
> Bravada/self-sacrifice (provoking an OA makes the enemy provoke an OA)
> ...




Quick eval:

Bravada - Workable
Commander - Workable
Skirmisher - Commander specialization
Inspiring - Part of the base class
Doctor - Rogue
Nature Guide - Ranger
Officer of the Peace - Fighter
Beastmaster - Ranger
Lifeguard - David Hasselhoff



When I consider what a class has to support, it needs one broadly general concept, and a number of unique, specialized concepts.  Mastermind is very different from Thief, and Dragon Bloodline is very different from Storm Sorcerer, even though they are still based on the same underlying class, and even though the mechanics may not be so terribly different.  Each subclass has to provide realization to an entirely different character concept.

The alternate approach is considering that Circle of the Land and Circle of the Moon Druids can both cast spells and shapechange, but their focus and expertise in each respective area is notably different.  Same for the various schools of magic for a Wizard.

So the first question is whether to go the specialization route or the uniqueness route.  Overall, mages that choose their subclass at level 1 tend to go the specialization route (get better at some aspect of what anyone of that class can do), whereas melee that choose their subclass at level 3 tend to go for the uniqueness route (add new things that other subclasses can't do).

Another way of thinking of it is deciding whether the class or the subclass is the more defining aspect of your character concept.  For example, I'm a Sorcerer (1) / Storm Sorcerer (2), vs I'm a Mastermind (1) / Rogue (2).  A Wizard doesn't typically identify himself as an Evoker.  He's a Wizard, who happens to specialize in evocation magic.  On the other hand, an assassin will think of himself as an Assassin, which happens to be a type of Rogue. A Beastmaster is a Beastmaster first, Ranger second.

So: _Is this a class that should choose its subclass at level 1, or at level 3?_

This choice determines how much of the character concept has to be incorporated into the main class, vs the subclass.  Are all Warlords essentially the same, just with different focuses?  Or is the Warlord class just a support framework for a variety of different, but related, character concepts?

For example, a Doctor vs a Commander are very different concepts, and thus lend themselves to the idea that the Warlord is a level 3 class like Fighter.  On the other hand, a Commander that uses inspiration vs a Commander that uses clever tactics vs a Commander that throws himself into the fray in a self-sacrificing manner implies that this is a specialization class.

It _is_ possible to mix them together.  That's essentially what the Battlemaster is — a specialization mechanic within a uniqueness mechanic.  Same for the Totem Barbarian.  In each case, the uniqueness tier provides the primary character concept, while the specialization just provides a path that it can follow.

If you go the specialization route, the primary class has to be able to represent all the character concepts that the class supports.  This works when the main class itself represents a broadly understandable concept — a Wizard, the student of magic; a Warlock, who made a deal for power; a Cleric, who has devoted himself to god; a Druid, a shapeshifter tied to nature; a Sorcerer, someone imbued with magic from birth.  That's not the case for Fighter, Rogue, Monk, etc.  And my impression is that it's not the case for Warlord, either.  A Warlord isn't part of the broader zeitgeist, and isn't a concept unto itself.

Thus, I'd choose to define it with a subclass at level 3.  This has further mechanical implications.

_In general_, all further choices you make within the class will be restricted to either the subclass (for classes that go the unique route) or the main class (for classes that go the specialization route).  The half casters sort of break this rule by having spell selection choices, and the Ranger breaks it further with its Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy features (though both of them are also considered to be 'bad' mechanics).

In any case, any further choices that allow specialization should be contained within each Warlord subclass.  If you have a Commander subclass, then you should have Battlemaster-like specialization choices, rather than Commander A/Commander B/Commander C subclasses.  That's because the Commander needs to encompass a complete character concept, and not be in competition with the other subclasses to do the same thing.

~~~~~

So now you need to define subclasses.  Subclasses must be defined by character concept, _not_ by mechanics. (I had written up an explanation for this for those who were still having trouble grokking the difference, but decided I didn't want to drag out the continued flaming.)

You then iterate between subclasses and the main class until you can define a broad concept for the main class that encompasses the character class concepts that the subclasses represent.  Once you have that down, you can work out what mechanics the main class needs to provide, in order to support all the subclasses' common needs.

2) What are the subclasses for the Warlord class?  Or more particularly, what character concepts belong within the scope of the Warlord?

The problem here loops back around to the issue that I keep trying to raise in-thread: What broad idea does the Warlord represent?  I'll try brainstorming a few things.

Supporting allies. Helps them when they're down. Keeps them going.
Uses skill and training.  All classes do this; what's special? What sort of training? What sort of skill? (Probably per unique.)
Tactical mindset.  Find strengths and weaknesses.  Don't just find a bigger hammer; find the _right_ hammer.
Getting to the right place. Often needs to adjust positions.
Pay attention.



> A Warlord is well trained, or at least skilled, at supporting her allies.  She pays close attention to detail as she moves through the battlefield, using a focused mindset to spot what's important.  Whether or not her friends recognize the effort she makes, she'll do what she can to keep them going through the long slog of battle.




That feels good.  The Warlord's strength comes from skill rather than magic.  It touches on the basic healing provided, and hints at the tactical mindset, and the fact that she focuses on support rather than direct combat power.  Movement is likely.  Mechanics beyond that are left to the subclasses to flesh out.

So, some basic powers the class can provide.  I will add more as I think of them.  Not doing any attempt at balancing stuff here, so it will probably look weak.

1] Inspirational healing.  With words of soft encouragement, barking demands, calm commands, or perky cheerleading, the Warlord can keep her allies fighting through the toughest of battles.  Provide healing (scales with level), that overflows into temporary hit points. Gain at 1st level.

2] Warning.  Periodic use. Can cause an attack against an ally to have disadvantage.

3] Insight.  Periodic use. Can give an ally advantage on an attack.

4] Movement.  Increase speed by 10 feet.

5] Use Int as primary weapon modifier. (1st level)


So, we have a few basic things the main class can do, and thus all subclasses can do.  Now what can we add to the subclasses to make them unique? What character concepts can be derived from the very basic building blocks?


1) Self-sacrifice.  A character that will deliberately make themselves seem weak or troublesome, in order to draw in the enemy, and allow her allies to have the advantage.  A damsel in distress, a princess that needs rescuing, the Leeroy Jenkins of the group. Sailor Moon.  Likely to inspire grudging respect, mixed with frustration and affection.

Possible mechanics: Gain resistance to damage, while giving the enemy advantage on their attacks against the Warlord, and disadvantage to attack characters other than the Warlord (eg: Bear Totem).  Rallying Cry.
Alternate: Take disadvantage on your attacks to give disadvantage to enemy attacks.


2) Commander.  A character that evaluates the battlefield and finds advantage within it.  Finds ways for allies to avoid enemies, or turn the tables.  Figures ways around enemy defenses. Likely to inspire official respect.  Ouki (Kingdom), Chidori Kaname (Full Metal Panic).

Possible mechanics: Mearls' Tactical Focus area.  Better recovery during rests.
Possible specializations: Ambushes, Naval Warfare


3) Strategist.  Always seems to be two steps ahead, and often uses that knowledge to lay down traps for the enemy to fall into.  May play it serious, as a trickster, or make it all seem like one giant coincidence.  Likely to inspire respect, at a distance, and maybe a little fear.  Ousen (Kingdom), Tokuchi (One Outs), Tylor (Irresponsible Captain Tylor), Thrawn (Star Wars).

Possible mechanics: 'precog'.  Get DM to reveal intended enemy movement and/or actions, or use reactions to interrupt enemy action. Portent-like tools. Alternate Tactical Focus tools.


4) Defender.  Expert in defending prepared areas, such as encampments, forts, castles, or cities.  Forces the enemy to play his game.  Good at maintaining morale.  Likely to inspire camradery.  Dot Pixis (Attack on Titan)

Possible mechanics: Larger, but immovable Tactical Focus.  Can heal allies within the TF area (ie: improved morale or medkits). Can improve defenses within that area.  Traps.  Limit enemy's movement choices.


Edit: Stealing a couple obvious ideas from Tony:

5) Crusader.  1/3 divine caster

6) Arcane Battlemaster.  1/3 arcane caster

No real character concepts with them, but the 1/3 caster is an obvious extension for a non-magical class.


~~

Well, there's a few fairly solid starting subclasses.  I'll admit that I'm having a really hard time coming up with character concepts that expand beyond those four, though.  Commander, Plotter, Planner, and Screw-up.  Everything else I'm seeing right now fits as abilities or specializations within those four.


----------



## mellored (Mar 19, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Kinda touchy. Shouting "hide there" doesn't seem immersive, and I'm not a giant fan of turning entire parties into rangers/rogues. I could see a few powers/abilities, but not a full subclass worth.



Dunno.
Pass without a trace is already a thing.



> Again, how much healing are you giving the default warlord?



IMO, just enough to get someone off the ground.
Otherwise you keep people alive by not leetting them get hurt in the first place.  (Bonus AC, saves, THP, ect...)



> What have you got against the ranger?



In 5e, the ranger's unique thing is mixing weapon damage and spell casting.  
Non-magical rangers don't exist.  This seems like a perfect opportunity to fix that.


Actually... I'd be fine with "Ranger" as the base class name.  Since it's already lost its identity, why not let it take up a new one?
It also fits the image of Aragorn leading people into battle, or through the woods, or...  well using skillful expertise to lead people in general.

Chieftan ranger
Brave Heart ranger (inspiring)
Ruthless ranger
Tactical ranger
Bravada ranger
Warlord ranger (heavy armor)
Beastmaster ranger
Skrimishing ranger
Herbalist ranger (Doctor)
Harrying ranger
And some sort of divine infused "magical" ranger.  Who is the only one who gets's spells.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> When I consider what a class has to support, it needs one broadly general concept, and a number of unique, specialized concepts.  Mastermind is very different from Thief, and Dragon Bloodline is very different from Storm Sorcerer, even though they are still based on the same underlying class, and even though the mechanics may not be so terribly different.  Each subclass has to provide realization to an entirely different character concept.



 Except not unique in some fairly major ways.  A Storm Sorcerer and Dragon Sorcerer might still no the exact same spells.  A Mastermind Rogue is still using SA for some nasty DPR.



> The alternate approach is considering that Circle of the Land and Circle of the Moon Druids can both cast spells and shapechange, but their focus and expertise in each respective area is notably different.  Same for the various schools of magic for a Wizard.



 Much more plausible given how 5e handles sub-classes.  They don't usually radically re-write a class.



> So the first question is whether to go the specialization route or the uniqueness route.



 Specialization, unquestionably.  Take the tactical warlord, for instance, the tactical demands of a given situation might call for almost any gambit, if he had 'opposition schools' like an old-timey 2e wizard, he'd be unable to use certain battle plans just because they required he be even a teeny bit inspiring or perceptive or whatever.   The Warlord'll need a lotta gambits, and any given warlord might conceivably use any of them - but, it's personal style & inclination, the doctrines it follows, and so forth might make it better suited to or better using some sub-set of them.  



> A Wizard doesn't typically identify himself as an Evoker.



 Meh, characters don't generally identify themselves as their class or their sub-class.  If they do - a PDK for instance - it's a darn good indicator that they should've been implemented as a PrC, instead!  ;P 



> So: _Is this a class that should choose its subclass at level 1, or at level 3?_



 I don't think it's a major decision.  The idea of choosing early is that it's something particularly defining - like a cleric wouldn't make a lot of sense not choosing his deity.   The Wizard, though, doesn't fit that idea, at all, the traditions aren't defining in that same way.  

The level 3 threshold really ruins the fighter for a lot of sub-classes, including this one, because functionality that isn't in the fighter's very focused Tank chassis is delayed.



> This choice determines how much of the character concept has to be incorporated into the main class, vs the subclass.  Are all Warlords essentially the same, just with different focuses?  Or is the Warlord class just a support framework for a variety of different, but related, character concepts?



 I think the desire to include options like the Lazy warlord mean they have to be able to kick in from the beginning.  Combined with the idea of using gambits, at all, demanding a lot of flexibility in which gambit, when to make much sense at all (unlike spells that do something very specific and must be mastered or prepared, gambits can border on the improvisational, as well as be the execution of a careful plan).



> If you go the specialization route, the primary class has to be able to represent all the character concepts that the class supports.



 That'd be the only sensible way to go, really.  The class needs to have it's capability concentrated in flexible resources, those CS (or whatever he choses to call them) dice that modulate healing/damage/etc resources, and the situational Gambits that give them shape.  
It's the approach and the facility with different sorts of gambits or different situations that draws mechanical lines among the various sub-classes, hopefully, in ways that can match the conceptual lines.

But, yes, an inspiring warlord should certainly be able to help his allies execute a tactical plan, and a tactical warlord should be able to inspire his allies to carry though with a tough fight.  



> So now you need to define subclasses.  Subclasses must be defined by character concept, _not_ by mechanics.



 There's really not a 'must,' here. There's concepts that can be easily explained in terms of mechanics and those that owe there existence to mechanics of past editions.  The Dragon Sorcerer, for instance, owes the existence of it's concept to the introduction of spontaneous casting into 3.0, the wizard traditions are nothing more but lingering echoes of the 2e specialist wizard, who, in turn, grew out of the division of spells into schools, which had minor mechanical effects in the game (detect magic could determine the type of magic, for instance).  That doesn't invalidate them.

Don't get too hung up on chicken-and-egging concepts, if there's a good concept already out there, whether it was inspired by a mechanic like the Dragon Sorcerer (really, the whole class) or had a unique/problematic mechanic because of a cool concept that D&D choked on a bit, isn't that important.  What's important is there was this cool concept you could play, and now you can't, so let's fix that.  




> The problem here loops back around to the issue that I keep trying to raise in-thread: What broad idea does the Warlord represent?



 It's not as controversial a question as the class itself.  Broadly, succinctly & metaphorically:  it's the guy on the team who helps his teammates be better together than apart.  



> Supporting allies. Helps them when they're down. Keeps them going.
> Uses skill and training.  All classes do this; what's special? What sort of training? What sort of skill? (Probably per unique.)
> Tactical mindset.  Find strengths and weaknesses.  Don't just find a bigger hammer; find the _right_ hammer.
> Getting to the right place. Often needs to adjust positions.
> Pay attention.



 More trees than forest, but yeah, that all fits, among other things.



> So, some basic powers the class can provide.



 There's something like 330 to draw on, already.  Just say'n - 'starting with the concept' doesn't always have to mean re-inventing the wheel.

(I wish I could find wrecan's old article, he did a good job breaking up warlord abilities into a few fairly cogent categories...)



> Now what can we add to the subclasses to make them unique?



Which sorts of gambits they're better at, and in what ways - probably spread over a few features as they level.  And, if they do go with the Zone of Control or Overwatch mechanism, what sort of things happen there by default.  



Kinematics said:


> Self-sacrifice.  A character that will deliberately make themselves seem weak or troublesome, in order to draw in the enemy, and allow her allies to have the advantage.



Oddly, self-sacrifice is also kinda the theme the Bravura - risky moves that put it in danger to help allies, but it's anything but weak. 




> 2) Commander.  A character that evaluates the battlefield and finds advantage within it.  Finds ways for allies to avoid enemies, or turn the tables.  Figures ways around enemy defenses.



 Sounds like Tactical, but too general, really, more like an alternate name for the class, albeit, a bad one (it has been suggested).



> 3) Strategist.  Always seems to be two steps ahead, and often uses that knowledge to lay down traps for the enemy to fall into.



 Too general, also.  



> 4) Defender.  Expert in defending prepared areas, such as encampments, forts, castles, or cities.  Forces the enemy to play his game.  Good at maintaining morale.  Likely to inspire camradery.



 Sub-set of what I wanted to do with Resourceful.



> 5) Crusader.  1/3 divine caster
> 
> 6) Arcane Battlemaster.  1/3 arcane caster
> 
> No real character concepts with them, but the 1/3 caster is an obvious extension for a non-magical class.



 Nod.  Well, I mean 'Crusader' is definitely a concept, and the other was a Paragon Path, so had as much concept/flavah text as a 5e class, but, ultimately, it's just an artifact of adapting a non-caster into 5e, and 5e's determination to make Multi-classing "Optional" while still supporting obvious MC builds.

I'd've suggested Ardent as a 1/3rd psionic if they hadn't already used it in the Mystic.  





> Well, there's a few fairly solid starting subclasses.



 I think you might be getting hung up on mechanics, yourself, with those four.  You're trying to group concepts together by how they might do things, mechanically, and, broadly, all warlords should be doing things, for the sake of design efficiency, with a common class-defined set of mechanics, perhaps by tapping certain daily resources (because, even if the Warlord in question chooses never to heal, 5e mandates healing be a daily resource, apparently), and funneling them through a given (situational) Gambit, focused around some Zone of Control (if we can't escape that).  The concepts can be more about the character, but will determine which gambits they do well, and how they mess with that general flow of mechanics, in support of that concept.

This means two warlords may use the same gambit to do the same thing, but what's going on is quite different.  A tactical warlord who gives an ally an attack might be shouting a code-phrase that's part of the carefully-rehearsed battle plan, and the ally gets an attack bonus based on INT.  A bravura warlord doing so may be creating an opening with a reckless attack, and the ally gets advantage.  An inspiring warlord simply exhorting them to fight harder, and give a CHA bonus to damage.  Those sorts of things.    Or, an ally within a Zone of Control might get a different bonus depending on the sub-class/level of the warlord defining it.  I picture, for instance, Resourceful Warlords as taking advantage of terrain a lot - they're improvisational, that way, making use of things at hand - if there's a hazard in the zone of control, they might give their allies bonuses to avoid and their enemies penalties when their allies try to force them into it.



> Everything else I'm seeing right now fits as abilities or specializations within those four.



 There's not a lot of room, in sub-classes, for sub-sub-specializations.  But, I'm curious how you'd group the score or so of concepts posted just the last day or two under those 4, without making them about mechanics rather than concept, that is....


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> Dunno.
> Pass without a trace is already a thing.




Its magic. How is he doing it nonmagically? 



mellored said:


> IMO, just enough to get someone off the ground.
> Otherwise you keep people alive by not leetting them get hurt in the first place.  (Bonus AC, saves, THP, ect...)




Wait, I thought healing was an important part of the warlord's identity. [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] said it was so important it MUST be from level 1!

Seriously, this is like nailing jello to the wall. Does anyone actually agree on what this dang class actual DOES?



mellored said:


> In 5e, the ranger's unique thing is mixing weapon damage and spell casting.
> Non-magical rangers don't exist.  This seems like a perfect opportunity to fix that.




1.) Mixing weapon damage and spellcasting is also the realm of the paladin, blade bard, valor bard, arcane trickster, eldritch knight, Hexblade, and bladesinger. You might as well say that a ranger's thing is d10 HD.

And the non-magical ranger is called the Scout; he's a rogue archetype. 



mellored said:


> Actually... I'd be fine with "Ranger" as the base class name.  Since it's already lost its identity, why not let it take up a new one?
> It also fits the image of Aragorn leading people into battle, or through the woods, or...  well using skillful expertise to lead people in general.
> 
> Chieftan ranger
> ...




Wait, so now a warlord is a ranger? What happened to the leader/healer/buffer dude we've been on about. Its as if the warlord is...

Oh. Oh I see. I see now. How foolish of me.

This was never about the "warlord" archetype at all, was it? This was only about reintroducing the Martial Power source. I mean, sure, give them a new name like gambits, and base them around magic rather than "powers" but it really didn't matter if they were for the warlord or not. The point of the class was to be generic enough to replicate the 4e fighter, rogue, ranger, warlord, and then be able replicate the effects of the bard and cleric (and other leaders) nonmagically as well. Those subclasses, those really ARE the rogue, bard, ranger, cleric, etc. The warlord is a Trojan Horse*; use the name of the only PHB class not in the 5e PHB to create legitimacy and then having some "OFFICIAL DUNGEONS & DRAGONS(TM)" versions of the 4e Martial Powered classes back. 

Silly me, I thought this was about a guy who shouted bonuses and healed hp. 

* To be fair, a Trojan Horse would probably be a good high-level ability...


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 19, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Seriously, this is like nailing jello to the wall. Does anyone actually agree on what this dang class actual DOES?



Of course not.  That's why WotC does surveys, and runs with ideas that get 80% approval.  This is literally the same reason that ranger has gone through round after round of revision.  No one agrees exactly what it should be.



Remathilis said:


> This was never about the "warlord" archetype at all, was it? This was only about reintroducing the Martial Power source. I mean, sure, give them a new name like gambits, and base them around magic rather than "powers" but it really didn't matter if they were for the warlord or not. The point of the class was to be generic enough to replicate the 4e fighter, rogue, ranger, warlord, and then be able replicate the effects of the bard and cleric (and other leaders) nonmagically as well. Those subclasses, those really ARE the rogue, bard, ranger, cleric, etc. The warlord is a Trojan Horse*; use the name of the only PHB class not in the 5e PHB to create legitimacy and then having some "OFFICIAL DUNGEONS & DRAGONS(TM)" versions of the 4e Martial Powered classes back.



Seems overly conspiracy minded.   Especially since power source has pretty much no meaning (mechanically) in 5e.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 19, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> The main thing I get from Yaarel and Vargas is that the way that the game is designed and the way the game designers make the game should change specifically to their tastes. They don't want to make a homebrew one because if they don't get _exactly_ what they want then the people who disagree with them about how the game works would win.




I don't think that's a fair characterization of Yaarel.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 20, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I don't think that's a fair characterization of Yaarel.




Well you've been here longer so you prolly know him a bit better than me.

I also love the cheek of this.


----------



## mellored (Mar 20, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> Its magic. How is he doing it nonmagically?



Distracting foes while his allies run for it.



> Wait, I thought healing was an important part of the warlord's identity. [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] said it was so important it MUST be from level 1!



Healing at level 1 doesn't mean a lot of healing at level 1.

"First Aid: As a bonus action, a creature can spend a hit dice and stand up if they are prone.  A creature can only benifit from this once per short rest" works just fine, IMO.
Then you can take the feature/subclass to boost closer to cleric levels.

Also, I'm not Yaarel.  I can't answer what he wants.



> 1.) Mixing weapon damage and spellcasting is also the realm of the paladin, blade bard, valor bard, arcane trickster, eldritch knight, Hexblade, and bladesinger. You might as well say that a ranger's thing is d10 HD.



Yea.  The 1e/2e ranger has been pretty well killed and gutted.  Nothing special about him.



> Wait, so now a warlord is a ranger? What happened to the leader/healer/buffer dude we've been on about.



Same guy, new name.
Since the "ranger" doesn't have a stchick anymore, we can pass the title down to the next generation.

Well... just a suggestion anyway.  I personally don't care what it's called.  I care how it plays.



> This was never about the "warlord" archetype at all, was it? This was only about reintroducing the Martial Power source.



To me, it's about both.

I _generally_ want non-magical characters who can do interesting things besides damage.
I _specificly_ want the tactician archetype who almost never swings his sword.  (I personally don't care for the inspiring one, but no need to shut it out).



> * To be fair, a Trojan Horse would probably be a good high-level ability...



Agreed.


----------



## mellored (Mar 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The Warlord'll need a lotta gambit, and any given warlord might conceivably use any of them



You don't need a lot of gambits if you have a flexible one.

For example.
"As a reaction, you can reroll an attack roll, skill, or saving throw."
1 gambit covers a huge amount of situations (probably a bit too flexible).  Then you can specialize from there.

"When you reroll an ally's attack roll and it hits, you can add Int to the damage."
"When you reroll an enemy's attack roll, and it still hits, you can reduce the damage by Int"
etc...


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 20, 2018)

> Except not unique in some fairly major ways. A Storm Sorcerer and Dragon Sorcerer might still no the exact same spells. A Mastermind Rogue is still using SA for some nasty DPR.



I did say, "even though the mechanics may not be so terribly different."  The uniqueness is the concept space, not the mechanics.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> There's not a lot of room, in sub-classes, for sub-sub-specializations. But, I'm curious how you'd group the score or so of concepts posted just the last day or two under those 4, without making them about mechanics rather than concept, that is....



Descriptions are vague, so categorization will sometimes be vague.

Self-sacrifice focuses more on Charisma.  Commander and Defender are balanced.  Strategist focuses more on Intelligence.


Bravada - Self-sacrifice

Tactical - Commander

Skirmisher - Commander specialization, possibly Strategist

Inspiring - Base class, Defender

Doctor - Base class, Defender

Nature Guide - undefined (it's a Ranger), touches on Defender

Officer of the Peace - Commander (iffy, as this is pretty much a basic Fighter)

Lifeguard - Possibly a new subclass, but need a more concrete concept

Non-magical Beastmaster - undefined (it's a Ranger)

Banner of the Thane (cause barbaric frenzy) - Turn everyone into Barbarians? Don't feel comfortable with this.

Banner of Vanguard (move, break formations) - Commander, possibly Self-sacrifice, possibly Strategist

Art of War/Insightful - Commander/Strategist

Artillerist - Commander

Hector - Self-sacrifice/Strategist

Marshal - Seems similar to the necromancer keeping pet zombies, in that it becomes logistically problematic for the game table.  If you can get around that, then I'd see it as a subclass specialization, or an optional general class feature.

Princess - Self-sacrifice (And I like the Icon name for this, too.)

Thaneborn/Chieftain/Savage Warlord - Any

Infernal Strategist - Either of the 1/3 casters

Combat Veteran - Defender, Commander

Ruthless - Strategist or Commander

Diplomat - Concept not specific enough to define.  More of a background.




It's fine to add the 1/3 casters as extra subclasses, as they are a common structural mechanic.  There's obvious in-universe reasons for incorporating magic, so I'm not going to put extra effort into figuring out the underlying concepts right now.

Crusader - 1/3 caster, divine

Arcane Battlemaster - 1/3 caster, arcane


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 20, 2018)

mellored said:


> Distracting foes while his allies run for it.




See, I'd rather let any character "cause a distraction" to give advantage to his allies Stealth checks. I mean, I guess you could have some "add a extra die roll" power as well...



mellored said:


> Healing at level 1 doesn't mean a lot of healing at level 1.
> 
> First Aid: As a bonus action, a creature can spend a hit dice and stand up if they are prone.  A creature can only benifit from this once per short rest" works just fine, IMO.
> Then you can take the feature/subclass to boost closer to cleric levels.




Seems strong for a bonus action. Maybe as a normal action.



mellored said:


> Also, I'm not Yaarel.  I can't answer what he wants.




Funny enough, there are as many warlord wishlists and grains of sand on the beach. Part of the problem with trying to nail this down.



mellored said:


> Yea.  The 1e/2e ranger has been pretty well killed and gutted.  Nothing special about him.




Aside from Favored enemy, what does the 1e/2e ranger get that the 5e doesn't?

Weapon/Armor Proficiency: Looks right. Rangers weren't plate-mail wearers, so light/medium seems right.
Dual-Wielding (2e): Still an option.
Double first level hp (1e): A wonky rule that doesn't need to be. He's had d10s in nearly every edition since.
Favored Enemy (1e/2e) This needs fixing. Getting level to damage against nearly 1/2 the MM is a little too strong, but I see no reason a bonus to damage can't be in the cards.
Tracking. Hmmm. Rangers get survival as a skill.
Hide/Move Silently  (2e): They also get Stealth as a skill.
Animal  Empathy (2e): Animal  Handling, also a skill
Spells: More, earlier, and mostly druidic. They lost the 1e wizard spells, I guess.
Use Crystal Balls (1e) A silly Aragorn-only rule. Next.
Animal Companion: Beastmaster says "hi". 

The biggest issue with the ranger is that since the skill system is now standardized, some abilities a ranger got (tracking, stealth, animals) are universal skills now. The 5e ranger needs tweaking, but I don't see it as a lost cause. 



mellored said:


> Same guy, new name.
> Since the "ranger" doesn't have a stchick anymore, we can pass the title down to the next generation.
> 
> Well... just a suggestion anyway.  I personally don't care what it's called.  I care how it plays.




So you don't actually care about the warlord archetype.  Got it.



mellored said:


> To me, it's about both.
> 
> I _generally_ want non-magical characters who can do interesting things besides damage.
> I _specificly_ want the tactician archetype who almost never swings his sword.  (I personally don't care for the inspiring one, but no need to shut it out).




Generally, non-magical characters in 5e excel at combat prowess or skill prowess. Expansion into "near-magical" martial effects seems like it would be better served in a "Book of 9 Swords" style book where the whole combat system and class system could be changed to match it. I just don't see that happening from WotC, but a 3PP could (and should) take up that mantle.
Specifically, I don't want a warlord who never touches a weapon. I want one that fights, leads, gives buffs, uses tactics, and heals some. I want a warrior first, you want a warrior last.

We'll agree to disagree on both these goals, as we want the exact opposite from a warlord class.


----------



## mellored (Mar 20, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> See, I'd rather let any character "cause a distraction" to give advantage to his allies Stealth checks. I mean, I guess you could have some "add a extra die roll" power as well...



I'd rather let any character read a spell book or pray to for magic.
But sure.

Anyone can cause a distraction as an action.
Warlords can do it as a bonus action.
Skirmishing warlord can do it as a bonus action and give a bonus die.



> Seems strong for a bonus action. Maybe as a normal action.



I don't see it.
Healing word is a bonus action that gives 1d4+wis, and doesn't cost a hit die so they can still heal that hit die later.   That's about 80% more healing and a 60' range.  (I was thinking melee, for first aid, if i didn't say it).



> Funny enough, there are as many warlord wishlists and grains of sand on the beach. Part of the problem with trying to nail this down.



Or, just give people a bucket and let them pick up the grains that intrest them.

For reference, there are 29 wizard cantrips, and 36 first level spells.   And no one is forcing all wizard to take magic missile.



> Aside from Favored enemy, what does the 1e/2e ranger get that the 5e doesn't?



Aside from favored enemy, which he no longer has, what's unique to a ranger?

Fighter has weapons, armor, dual wielding, d10 hit dice, and can pick up survival, stealth, and animal empathy skills, and even wizard spells with the eldritch knight and the magic initiate feat.   And anyone can buy a pet.

That leaves weapons + spells as their thing.
And many people want a spell-less version.



> So you don't actually care about the warlord archetype.  Got it.



I fully support the warlord archetype.  Whatever that means to whomever says it.

I put extra support into tactician archetype.



> Generally, non-magical characters in 5e excel at combat prowess or skill prowess.



Which is like forcing wizards to fill up half their spell slots with magic missile and fireball.  Kinda a silly thing to do.



> Expansion into "near-magical" martial effects seems like it would be better served in a "Book of 9 Swords" style book where the whole combat system and class system could be changed to match it.



I don't see why it needs to be "near magical" to say "look at me" while your allies hide.  And I really don't see any need to change any of the system.

But, I don't see any reason why you can't have near-magical "school of the sublime way" sub-class as well.



> Specifically, I don't want a warlord who never touches a weapon. I want one that fights, leads, gives buffs, uses tactics, and heals some. I want a warrior first, you want a warrior last.



Good thing I support all versions of the warlord under the same class.  Even ones that are different than my idea.

At level 1, select some of the following.
Lead the front: When you take the attack action, you can use your bonus action to buff.
Lead from behind: You can use your action to give a buff.  In addition to your bonus action buff.
Heal some: You can heal some.
Near-Magic: You can perform a near-magic maneuver.
<insert the other 20 options>

See.  Easy.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Specialization, unquestionably.



OK, this, I think, is a notable point.  You see it unquestionably as a specialization class.  I see it as very strongly a uniqueness class.  This causes _very_ different approaches to defining character concept for the class and its subclasses.

The specialization approach depends on its gambits.  As you've already described, you expect all Warlords to select from a very long list of gambits (effectively, create a spell list for the class), and you expect that selection of gambits, with possible enhancements via subclass, to be how the character is defined.  Basically, the character concept is defined by the player's choice of what his Warlord can do, which turns it into a puzzle game, or alt-spellcaster class.  You can _theoretically_ build whatever you want, but the game doesn't help you.

The uniqueness approach depends on subclasses.  It may have gambits (I haven't tried to build the mechanics for it), but the character concept is tied to the subclass, rather than the class+gambit selection.  It builds on more narrowly-defined ideas to help shape what the character is like, which I think is essential for a class that has a much weaker class concept definition.

In any case, this creates divergent approaches in even building the class, right from the start.  And it's not the only divergence, as Zard mixes the two together.  He puts the gambit selection system in the main class, and then adds subclasses that come in at level 3.  Given how weakly he defines his subclasses, it really should be built with the subclasses coming in at level 1.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Take the tactical warlord, for instance, the tactical demands of a given situation might call for almost any gambit, if he had 'opposition schools' like an old-timey 2e wizard, he'd be unable to use certain battle plans just because they required he be even a teeny bit inspiring or perceptive or whatever. The Warlord'll need a lotta gambits, and any given warlord might conceivably use any of them - but, it's personal style & inclination, the doctrines it follows, and so forth might make it better suited to or better using some sub-set of them.



This also shows a different approach in the build.  I would try to introduce unique mechanics per subclass, whereas you want everything built out of the same mechanic system.  I'll admit that I likely would see if the Tactical Focus system could be a class feature for all the subclasses to draw from, but I would try to avoid choice-based mechanics at the class level, and instead try to make each subclass feel really different.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> I think you might be getting hung up on mechanics, yourself, with those four. You're trying to group concepts together by how they might do things, mechanically



I build the concepts first, and then put together some vague ideas on mechanics that could go with them.  What does this person do? How do they think? How do they approach problems?  Then after that, What sort of mechanics might support such an approach?

I tried to think of characters that fit the general idea first.  For example, Shin, in the manga "Kingdom", is the commander of a 5000 man army.  But he's not a _Commander_ (subclass).  He throws himself into the fray, generally works on keeping his men inspired, and fights like a madman, refusing to go down.  The 'Commander' is the girl who acts as the company's strategist, handling resources, planning tactics, and so forth.  But I see Shin as a Warlord-type, falling into the Icon/Self-sacrificing hero archetype.  Rather than weakness to draw the enemy in, it's foolish bullheadedness that puts him in the middle of the mess and keeps him there.  Typical shonen hero stuff.

Mechanically, that would be supported by damage resistance, healing by inspiring the troops, the Rallying Cry feature, fierce determination, strong combat skills, etc.

Alternatively, you have Usagi of Sailor Moon, who is effectively playing the same type of character, except that she uses her clumsiness to avoid damage, and isn't such a great fighter (but still has the necessary finisher magic).  They are both Icons, heroes, inspirational for their allies and a magnet for their foes.  They are _not_ tactical geniuses.  They don't figure out elaborate plots and plans.  They wouldn't have a clue how to set things up to defend a castle, or crush an enemy in an ambush.  They are not just Warlords with a slightly different specialization and gambit selection, they are completely different character concepts than Tylor or Lelouche or Parson, even if they have the same basic core.


In order to be convincing at a general player level (and more specifically, the general player of 5E, not 4E, and not the narrow group of character optimizers), I feel like the level 3 approach works better.  It's not the only way to build it, though, and the gambit-puzzle approach can also work (it basically turns Warlord into Wizard).  It's just going to lead to a very differently structured class design, which leads to conflicts in understanding.

Give Mike Mearls' comment about not enough design space for more subclasses, I suspect he's also approaching it from the level 3 perspective.  While I do feel like it's got a reasonably solid basis to work from, I don't see a lot of growth potential for new concepts, at least offhand.  The level 1 approach has a practically unlimited number of design combinations, but those designs aren't character concepts, which makes it very difficult to define how far it can actually go.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I just see it as a second word that sounds better than 'exploit' (like 'maneuver').  To make a viable support character from first that remains viable through all levels based on 'gambits' they'd have to have rather a lot of them to choose from, and a fairly high degree of flexibility in choosing which ones to execute in a given encounter.  And, the feature, whether CS dice, maneuver, gambit or some combinations would have to be level-gated, so that as the party advances, the Warlord keeps up with their needs and continues to complement their growing abilities.  One problem with the BM is that his maneuvers failed in that regard, being essentially all 'low level' abilities.




Ah. I had no idea that the term ‘gambit’ was being used this way.

To me, a gambit always means an ‘opening move’. But one that sets up future moves.

I guess ‘gambit’ could work for a strategic maneuver. But it is always one that requires an other movement to follow up. And it is never the conclusive move in itself.


In the sense of a requiring a follow-up move. The term ‘gambit’ is actually a good technical term for granting an extra attack.


----------



## mellored (Mar 20, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> The specialization approach depends on its gambits.  As you've already described, you expect all Warlords to select from a very long list of gambits (effectively, create a spell list for the class), and you expect that selection of gambits, with possible enhancements via subclass, to be how the character is defined.  Basically, the character concept is defined by the player's choice of what his Warlord can do, which turns it into a puzzle game, or alt-spellcaster class.  You can _theoretically_ build whatever you want, but the game doesn't help you.



it's easy enough to provide guidance while keeping the options open.

Tactician: you are a tactical master...
_Suggested Gambits_: Shift, Commanders Strike, Lead the assault.

Alternatively, the domain spell style.
Tactician: you gain the following bonus gambits. (Plus some open choices.)

Would be nice if wizards also got a suggested spell list too.


> which I think is essential for a class that has a much weaker class concept definition.



IMO there is more of a class concept than wizards, sorcerers, or fighters.   Which is just "person who cast spells" and "guy with better weapons and armor".
About the same as monk and rogue.
But it less definition than bard, barbarian, paladin.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 20, 2018)

It seems to me, in the Norse culture, the ‘jarl’ is a warlord.

Actually, jarl might be a good name for the class or archetype. Many players will think of the classic D&D adventure ‘The Frost Giant Jarl’.

Etymologically, the name jarl relates to the verb jara, ‘to fight’. It literally means something like ‘the devise that makes fighters fight’.

The jarl is a democratically elected leader, a kind of president of a realm. Especially, he is the commander and chief of the military (army/navy). Each clan has their own militia. But the clans entrust their respective soldiers to the leadership of the jarl, so as to form a multi-clan army. The Norse value courage, and when in battle, the jarl will tend to lead from the front − albeit in a smart way. 

But there is also a connotation of granting extra attacks, in terms of organizing military formations in live time.

Interestingly, the term jarl (earlier erilaʀ) is also sometimes used for the writer of a runic inscription, connoting education, knowledge, the sacred animistic worldview, and military tactics. The inscriber is like a military leader commanding an army of runic letters into a powerful, meaningful, formation. In addition to warriors, there is even a connotation of marshaling mages, with certain inscriptions that record magical intentions.

The jarl lends itself to two classes. A nonmagical military orchestrator, with governmental skills.

Plus even a psionic military leader (mainly spá prescience and luck, and galdr mostly for abjuration and healing, even resurrection, relating to the Eighteen Songs), who perform psionic songs and psionic runic rituals. The voice is a kind of psionic focus to formulate thoughts. Not all jarl were thought to be psychic, but certain ones were, especially the revered ones.

The aboriginal Norse culture are a direct democracy, where all men and women in the realm gather at the parliament (þing) to vote. This means, there are family members of a jarl or former jarls, who are skilled at military tactics and coordination, who are currently not in office, and who may well be on a viking military expedition, or whatever.

Anyway, there is a nice connection between the viking era flavor of the jarl, and the D&D warlord class or archetype.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 20, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> ...
> 
> I am completely neutral on the topic.  I have never favored it as class or subclass, nor have I been for or against the warlord class as a whole.  *I only ask that if you wish to have it, you be able to justify it and handle the various objections*, while shaping it to be something that performs its intended purpose properly.  I don't like sloppy design.
> 
> ...




I just wanted to point out that forcing only one side in a discussion to justify a class and handle various objections against it isn't being neutral.  It's being pro status-quo which is decidedly non-neutral when it comes to adding new content.  True neutral would be focusing your justification seeking and objection handling on those that don't want it just as much as you do so for those that want it.

Speaking of justification for a class.  At this point, the Warlord class has more justification and more handled objections in favor of it than any class from the 5e PHB.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 20, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Speaking of justification for a class.  At this point, the Warlord class has more justification and more handled objections in favor of it than any class from the 5e PHB.




So what you're saying is Warlord should, in fact, be the only class in the game?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 20, 2018)

Enkhidu said:


> Mechanically, the concept is simple, very flexible - the subclass can give its class features to other characters - and on-point to meet the stated must-have lists I've seen (looks like it checks all the boxes). But really, I don't really have to have reasons - and for that matter neither do you. I can see it working for me, and still not working for others. I will, however, choose to believe that their objections are solely subjective because the framework meets the goals as stated..




It's weird to call something solely subjective when numerous explicit reasons were given.  Almost sounds like you are trying to minimize those explicit reasons without actually having to deal with them...

Don't get me wrong there is a subjective component when it comes to how early the abilities need to show up by and how strong they need to be.  But a couple of subjective components hardly makes something solely subjective or even mostly subjective.  The Purple Dragon Knight fails on those 2 fronts.  It'd be just like a Wizard class that only started getting spells at 7th level and then only started getting level 1 spells at that time.  Such a class would even meet all the checkboxes for being a wizard but it would be a wizard that no wizard fan would be happy with because it gets its defining abilities to slow and they aren't strong enough when you get them.  

I think the moral of the story is that same goals ought to be obvious even if unstated. 



> I feel like you didn't actually read my original post, because I actually addressed some of these:
> 
> * Additional Second Winds that are granted to other characters (only - the Warlord can't use them directly)
> * Grant attacks in your Attack action to other characters (and to be clear - that might mean all of them)
> ...




It sounds to me like your basic premises about how the PDK's abilities actually work are so screwed up here that we are just going to talk past each other until that part gets taken care of.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 20, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So what you're saying is Warlord should, in fact, be the only class in the game?




Yes of course.  Obviosuly that's what i'm saying....

If you can't detect the sarcasm in this post then something is wrong with you...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 20, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> This is why I think the Purple Dragon Knight needs a few superiority dice for a limited choice of Warlord manoeuvres.  Even if you make them d6 like the feat,  it adds a bit more utility per short rest.
> 
> Maybe you could add a class feature that allows them to forego one of their attacks to use a Manoeuvre without spending a SD so they can sacrifice some damage dealing for more at will tactical choices? It could make doubling up on sneak attack an at will problem I suppose but it does lead you more into lazy Lord territory.




Early it may help.  Max level, A PDK is pretty beast at the warlord role when compared with a fighter.  Grants 12 attacks.  Heals about 200 in the day.  Helps with saving throws too.  Just in raw numbers a battlemaster that granted 12 attacks (while giving up 12 of his) and adds 78 damage to them and could grant maybe 69 temp hp on average on top of that.  The PDK doesn't trade attacks to grant allies them.

All in all, they just made the PDK progress in warlord abilities much too slowly or it may have been received a lot better by warlord fans.  That's why in my opinion the PDK at max level is about the top end of what you can do numbers wise with a warlord subclass of fighter, which makes it feel pretty limiting IMO.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Fighter in Leather Armor with proficiency in Stealth and Thieves Tools.  Done.  One cat burglar.  Oh, wait, I guess he needs Athletics too since he needs to climb.  That's a flat out class skill, so, that's not a problem.  Criminal Background gives me Thieves tools and Stealth.  Done.  Next.
> 
> Gentleman Thief - again, not an actual class in 5e.  That's a Fighter with a Spy or Charlatan background for Deception and Thieves Tools.  Burn a feat for 3 Skill proficiencies and we're good to go.
> 
> ...




Thank you Hussar.  You pretty much said it for me so now I don't have to.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So what you're saying is Warlord should, in fact, be the only class in the game?



That it has been, at this point, the most thoroughly vetted class in the games history.

If you were to evenly apply to all classes the various proposed bars and qualifiers for inclusion that have been proposed against the Warlord, a lot of classes that are in the PH would fall out before it.  The point isn't the Warlord is the ideal class or anything, just that the various trumped up justifications for excluding it are completely bogus.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 20, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Yes of course.  Obviosuly that's what i'm saying....
> 
> If you can't detect the sarcasm in this post then something is wrong with you...




No, I got the sarcasm just fine.

It's just that if you keep pulling the sarcasm card I'm liable to just straight up stop listing to a thing you say. If you want to say something, just say it and don't hide behind weasel words.



Tony Vargas said:


> That it has been, at this point, the most thoroughly vetted class in the games history.




Ah yes, 10 people in a dumb internet argument is the most thorough _possible_ vetting.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Ah yes, 10 people in a dumb internet argument is the most thorough _possible_ vetting.



 This has been going on for 10 years.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 20, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> This has been going on for 10 years.




 There is a reason for that the Warlord concept is a weak one and outside of the 4E system it doesn't make a lot of sense as a class. Doesn't help that it has a lot of gamist mechanics in order to "buy in" to make the class work mechanically. You take away the 4E mechanics and the class doesn't really look that viable hence they broke it into Bard and Fighter archetypes (valor+ BM). 

 I have been reading the old Battlesystem rules for example for leading troops into battle and there is nothing in there to imply that you need a warlord type class to do that. Basically anyone can do it (int+wis+cha mod + level= commander skill), the fighter was a bit better at it as you got a built in army for free and the "elite" (lvl 1) troops could act as officers. Its probably why a lot of warlord type abilities (helaer, inspiring leader, the martial dice one) are feats in 5E, let anyone do it. 

 The archer warlord from 4E is totally redundant now because 4E messed up archery making it exclusive in effect to the ranger (apart from basic attacks), ion 5E that would be at best a Bravura warlord with the archery style (assuming they get it like every other warrior in the game). 

 Since 5E shares a lot of class abilities including half casters and 1/3rd casters even creating new Warlord only give you 4 perhaps strong enough to stand own their own archetypes and that is kind of pushing it, there is a reason we do not have a 1/3rd cleric/fighter type class (we have the Paladin). A warlord with 1/3rd cleric could help though in order to have outright  magical abilities and it could be the WL equivalent of the life cleric. 

 My suggestion would be to not worry about things like gamist mechanic etc and just include them on any potential warlord build perhaps filtered through 5E mechanics such as granting second winds to others, technically its martial healing but its already in the game on the fighter just like bits of the WL are on Valor Bards, BM fighters, PDK and the Mastermind Rogue. 

 A Battle Captain at least makes more sense than some ideas that still see print like Gunslingers for example if you are using firearms why not just build a fighter who uses them (champion + feats in 5E, weapons specialist in 2E, feats in 3E). I would not try and create 10 warlords to fill some silly number Mearls came up with. Its easier  with other classes I suppose due to things like kits in 2E some of which are better as back grounds anyway.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 20, 2018)

Good grief.

Look, as a niche, there is, at this moment, no actual non-caster support class in 5e D&D.  None.  Now, casters?  We've got at least three (bard, cleric and druid) caster support classes.  Two of those, druid and cleric, are effectively the same thing in the game world - one's a bit broader and the other is just a nature priest.  The only thing that distinguishes a druid from a cleric is shape-shift, a purely mechanical difference.  So, ten years into this conversation, are we STILL having to justify a niche that is not filled?

This is what makes me want to clean my ears with a fork when reading this conversations.  We spend three quarters of the time just trying to justify the existence of the class, rather than actually discussing the class itself.  Holy crap, there are weaker justifications for the existence of EXISTING PHB classes.  And the goalposts keep moving.  We have to define the class mechanically.  Ok, ohh, wait, that's not good enough, now we have to justify the class in game fiction, completely ignoring the existing descriptions of the class from 4e.  Once we actually do that, we're back to having to justify the mechanics, because critics conveniently develop amnesia and we go around the circle again.

Can we PLEASE actually discuss the class at hand?  If you don't feel that there's enough to a warlord, fair enough.  That's fine.  Go start your own thread that we can safely ignore.  For the love of little kittens, PLEASE STOP with the drive by edition war crap.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 20, 2018)

Good point [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Good grief.
> 
> Look, as a niche, there is, at this moment, no actual non-caster support class in 5e D&D.  None.  Now, casters?  We've got at least three (bard, cleric and druid) caster support classes.  Two of those, druid and cleric, are effectively the same thing in the game world - one's a bit broader and the other is just a nature priest.  The only thing that distinguishes a druid from a cleric is shape-shift, a purely mechanical difference.  So, ten years into this conversation, are we STILL having to justify a niche that is not filled?
> 
> ...




The niche martial support is weak is my main point. I am designing a warlord myself, I don't really agree with the concept (martial healer, a lot of the 4E powers etc). 

 I mean the class Toast is a niche that has not been designed but I don't think we really need a Toast class or a class that makes toast and can throw it as a weapon like the Xmen. 

 The main point is a few posters are throwing together words and claiming that is a strong niche. They're not most of the ideas are actually back grounds and with 12 classes in the PHB we do not need 12 1/3rd archetypes for each one. 

 I would focus on the 2 in the 4E PHB they are the strongest archetypes IMHO, get the base class sorted and then think about Bravura, perhaps a magical one. The archer one has been obsoleted, I don't think the lazy lord works in 5E.

 The Bravura one might be the easiet to design. It doesn't need th Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger levels of DPS but it should probably be higher than a Cleric for example. You could give it 2 attacks a round at level 5 (or a gambit a'la warlock) and a weapon style perhaps at level 1.

 You need to have a short rest second wind ability you can stick on others but it needs to scale (like the fighters) and you are going to need more than 1 (perhaps an extra one at the same rate as cantrips scaling).

 You also need another healing ability backed in perhaps at level 2 like a clerics domain perhaps a light cleric reversed to heal instead of inflict.

 At level 3 you get a major subclass feature.  This would be spells for a 1/3rd caster, and perhaps bard dice and BM dice. If you want more dice you can get them via gambits along with some gambits/exploits perhaps that allow attack granting+ rider. These are all short rest abilities and you could have 2-4 to pick from along with a gambit/exploit  that grants perhaps 2 dice (bardic or BM dice). 

 So by level 4 perhaps you could have something like 6 BM dice and 2 exploits/gambits which allows 8 uses of attack granting. Its not quite at will but if the average fight is 3-4 rounds and you get 2 short rests you can use them a lot. If you used the short rest= 5 minute rule that functionally allows you to get an extra short rest or 2 which more or less turns it into at will. If you focused hard enough on it you might get something close enough to the lazy lord (someone else can update the 4E powers to 5E). 

 If you don't want to focus so much on attack granting pick a different subclass and you can still pick some exploits/gambits to enable that sort of thing you just won't have BM dice to play with trading them in for bard dice perhaps or spells+ lay on hands which combined with your baked in WL healing. Make some non magical bless effect type option a'la the NPC Knights that you can pick that is another thing you can do.

So there is your 4 best subclasses to build around IMHO. 

 I like the name Battle Captain for a subclass (perhaps the tactical one), the Marshall perhaps can be inspiring one, Bravura is better at combat and throw in a magical one and in effect you have non magical bard, Battle captain, the bravura and the 1/3rd caster one could be cleric or paladin spell lists the cleric one might get a domain feature (precedent in the Divine Soul), the Paladin one can cast spells from the Paladin list and gets lay on hands at level 1 (which removes things like disease). 

 If you get the 1st 2 subclasses right those next two would be easy designs you are in effect swapping out some class features for something else. That is easy most of it is in 5E somewhere. The hard part is writing a few exploits/gambits that perhaps can be class exclusive, kind of like Warlock invocations and some of the 4E powers can return and be beefed up if they are outright magical. Come and get it can be similar to suggestion and/or do other things as well as its 4E effect.

 You could do an aura one as well updating the 3.5 Marshall as a subclass. Replace short rest type mechanics with auras and stuff like that so tats perhaps a 5th one. Level 1 abilities. 

Grant 2nd wind /1 day

Tactical: intelligence to initiative
Inspiring: Cha to healing
Bravura: weapon combat style (enabling a decent archer one a'la 4th), don't include TWF as part of it a'la Paladin. 
Divine WL Paladin: One lay on hands, cleric some domain feature. 
Marshall: some sort of aura doing whatever.

Lvl 2 Cure 30' 2d8+level (short rest), 1st gambit/exploit 
lvl 3 Major subclass ability
Lvl 4 ASI
Level 5 some generic ability+ subclass exclusive gambits/exploits.
 Combined with a new exploit/gambit/power every time you level up.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 20, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't really agree with the concept



Have you considered you come across as effectively trolling the subject since you're effectively appropriating the "Warlord" term for your own personal use?


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 20, 2018)

Seemingly most Warlord threads are full of folks attempting to appropriate the term 'Warlord' to support whatever ideal they believe represents the 'correct' meaning of term 'Warlord'


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 20, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Have you considered you come across as effectively trolling the subject since you're effectively appropriating the "Warlord" term for your own personal use?




Unlike most of the warlord fans I am actually designing a WL in the 5E context. Hint you can't have at will attack granting it doesn't translate well. 

 A martial support character is a bad concept IMHO Tweet and Heinsoo may have screwed the pooch there. However I can work with it. Its not the worst thing in D&D ever (healer class and Marshall in 3.5). Mechanically it worked in 4E because of the way 4E was designed (basic attacks) unlike say 5E where a basic attack generally can be anywhere from 1d6+3 or so up to 10d6+5d8+10 (or more). 

Granting bonus damage dice for example accomplishes much the same thing but the hardcore fans won't budge on that as they are dead set on having abilities from 4E in the game where every other class is not a 100% translation of what came before.

 Its interesting though fans would rather go without in order to be pure/demanding etc than actually design a functional class. 

 At the end of the day you can design a warlord however you want but it won't make it into 5E officially if you do something silly like stick at will attack granting on it. PHB doesn't have it for a reason a nd despite claims of 5E not being balanced (it is just in a different way) the developers have been very care with things like bonus actions, reactions and class abilities that grant extra damage- generally limited to rerolls, +2, or an extra dice at higher levels that is situational or daily based (hex, colossus slayer etc).

 If you keep starting threads that get stuck in its own section, insist that its a popular class (its not), and insist that it does exact same things in 4E where 5E is using a different design thing gee I wonder why Mearls won't do it. Looks like you will actually get a Warlord though eventually. It will be a fighter sub class. Why not contact Mearls on twitter or one of his video feeds and bring up the idea of a new class and get as many people as you can on board?


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 20, 2018)

Musings on Warlord Subclasses: Creating "narratives" for warlord subclasses is not particularly difficult at all. I also don't think that every warlord subclass should be martial/mundane. Instead, the mundane/martial/magicless only needs to reflect the core chassis of a hypothetical warlord class. So what sort of subclasses could work for a warlord? 

 [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] has a pretty good core three: the gung-ho bravura, the inspiring marshal, and the tactical battle captain. Essentially, "I lead by example," "I lead through inspiration," and "I lead with tactical insight." 

I would also like to see a subclass that incorporates divination magic and luck, utilizing a mix of strategic foresight and dumb luck. A warseer? Or doombringer? 

Other subclass flavorings that would be nice include a psionic subclass. Or more villanous terror, and fear-leading warlord would also be nice.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 20, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> It's weird to call something solely subjective when numerous explicit reasons were given.  Almost sounds like you are trying to minimize those explicit reasons without actually having to deal with them...
> 
> Don't get me wrong there is a subjective component when it comes to how early the abilities need to show up by and how strong they need to be.  But a couple of subjective components hardly makes something solely subjective or even mostly subjective.  The Purple Dragon Knight fails on those 2 fronts.  It'd be just like a Wizard class that only started getting spells at 7th level and then only started getting level 1 spells at that time.  Such a class would even meet all the checkboxes for being a wizard but it would be a wizard that no wizard fan would be happy with because it gets its defining abilities to slow and they aren't strong enough when you get them.




Say you want a curry for dinner. So do I. We both put together our curry dishes, adding the same kinds, but not amounts, of ingredients. We then share those dishes, and I say that yours is too hot, and you say mine is not hot enough. Objectively they are both curry - they have the same list of ingredients - but subjectively they aren't the same at all. 

That's why I said that objections would be subjective, and also said that those subjective objections were _perfectly valid_. There is no one true way to fill this niche. Now I'm all ears if you can give me an objection that is objective in nature (something where the classes of objects/powers didn't fit the support niche) rather than a matter of magnitude. Otherwise we're just fiddling with dials.



			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> I think the moral of the story is that same goals ought to be obvious even if unstated.




There's a big disconnect - an expectation of mind-reading never works out well for anyone.



			
				FrogReaver said:
			
		

> It sounds to me like your basic premises about how the PDK's abilities actually work are so screwed up here that we are just going to talk past each other until that part gets taken care of.




As far as I can read, the subclass in question:
* Gives other PCs a lesser version of healing when taking a Second Wind
* Gives another PC a re-roll on saves when re-rolling their own save for the same effect
* Gives another PC an attack when they Action Surge
* Has a few more ribbon abilities that don't effect other PCs.

So, nothing I said about the class is untrue - it centers on "I do something cool and everyone else gets a small benefit," and I think it fails on granting actions because of it. It's objectively missing the buffs that are requested on the list of "must haves" (which I pointed out in my initial run down in my first post in the thread), and that would require something more to be added (likely a method to replicate the mechanics of bless and a handful of other useful spells).


----------



## Pauln6 (Mar 20, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Early it may help.  Max level, A PDK is pretty beast at the warlord role when compared with a fighter.  Grants 12 attacks.  Heals about 200 in the day.  Helps with saving throws too.  Just in raw numbers a battlemaster that granted 12 attacks (while giving up 12 of his) and adds 78 damage to them and could grant maybe 69 temp hp on average on top of that.  The PDK doesn't trade attacks to grant allies them.
> 
> All in all, they just made the PDK progress in warlord abilities much too slowly or it may have been received a lot better by warlord fans.  That's why in my opinion the PDK at max level is about the top end of what you can do numbers wise with a warlord subclass of fighter, which makes it feel pretty limiting IMO.




That's interesting.  So a limited number of non scaling dice might add some variety earlier in the run without busting the bank in terms of dpr by level 20.  I was thinking two dice and either two or three manoeuvres from the warlord list, with extras granted at the same levels as battlemaster.  If a player wants more, there is always the feat.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Can we PLEASE actually discuss the class at hand?  If you don't feel that there's enough to a warlord, fair enough.  That's fine.  Go start your own thread that we can safely ignore.  For the love of little kittens, PLEASE STOP with the drive by edition war crap.



 Well, sub-class at hand.    Which is a hopeful step, though it can't plausibly deliver anything more than a faux-MC Fighter/Warlord.  Expecting more from a fighter sub-class is unrealistic.  



Yaarel said:


> Ah. I had no idea that the term ‘gambit’ was being used this way.



 It's just being used in the podcast to refer to warlord features.



> To me, a gambit always means an ‘opening move’. But one that sets up future moves.
> I guess ‘gambit’ could work for a strategic maneuver. But it is always one that requires an other movement to follow up. And it is never the conclusive move in itself.
> In the sense of a requiring a follow-up move. The term ‘gambit’ is actually a good technical term for granting an extra attack.



 Interesting.



TwoSix said:


> Of course not.  That's why WotC does surveys, and runs with ideas that get 80% approval.  This is literally the same reason that ranger has gone through round after round of revision.  No one agrees exactly what it should be.



 Except it's not.  The Ranger started as a (rather tenuous) Aragorn clone, with alignment & logistical restrictions, an extra HD at level 1, specific woodsy skills, a focus on killing giants, and, at high level, magic and oddball woodsy followers.  ::huh?::  In 2e, it got Drizztzed into a lighter-armored, TWFer.   In 3e, it started out with bonus feats focued on TWFing or Archery, then switched to 1/2 caster spells, got good skill points, full BAB, an animal companion - and could pick a variety of 'favored enemies' rather than just giants.  Then, in 4e, the spells are gone, the TWF/Archery dichotomy stays, and the animal companion is gone (no, wait, it's back, no, wait, it's gone again, but the spells are back, sorta, in Essentials).  

So, it never had a clear, broadly applicable concept in the first place, and what it was changed in each edition.  That's pretty muddled.

There's no such issue with the Warlord.  It has a clear, strong archetype in genre, myth, legend (and, as a non-magical concept, other genres and history).  It has had only one implementation, which was clear, balanced, and effective.  


And the martial power source, in the sense of non-magical 'powers' that recharged on a rest and did cool things, is already there in 5e, there's Action Surge & Second Wind, and BM Maneuvers.  So, meh, to the Trojan Horse theory, though it certainly does shed some light on what's driving Rem to bomb the thread.



Kinematics said:


> OK, this, I think, is a notable point.  You see it unquestionably as a specialization class.  I see it as very strongly a uniqueness class.  This causes _very_ different approaches to defining character concept for the class and its subclasses.



 Yep, and it's probably going to be hard to see eachother's PoV, too.  One of the few, more nearly plausible criticisms of the Warlord concept is that (like the fighter & rogue) it's abilities, since they're not magical or god-granted or anything, are "things anyone can do."  Anyone can hit you with a greatsword, the fighter does it a lot better than just anyone.  That kinda thing.  By the same token, any fighter can hit you with a greatsword, the one with the GW style & feat does it that much better.  

The Warlord's use of tactics, inspiration, maneuvers, plans, opportunities, preparation, allies, deception, etc to try to achieve victory in battle are not exclusive to any one flavor or warlord, not entirely.  So that doesn't really point to a class with specific abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, like, ironically, the fighter (which also really shouldn't have abilities locked into mutually-exclusive sub-classes, but very demonstrably does).  And, also ironically, like the wizard, which defies genre in making all spells theoretically available to all wizards (in genre, most characters that display magic, display a fairly specific set of magical powers), and does so very neatly with traditions that each emphasize a school of magic, rather than specializing in it to the exclusion of one or more others.

So it seems clear that the Warlord should be one of those classes with most of it's capabilities tied up in a pool of very flexible features on the chassis, with sub-classes taking different approaches to using them, with different advantages to do so with certain sorts.



> The specialization approach depends on its gambits.  As you've already described, you expect all Warlords to select from a very long list of gambits
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 20, 2018)

Twitch.tv archive link: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621

General transcript of what was written down (plus some spoken comments):


What should we compare the Warlord to?

* Area of focus abilities used in addition to attack/heal/damage buff
* Concentration
* Area of focus should be a 10 foot cube. <reminder that it has a vertical component>  Can place anywhere, including in the air
* Multiple instances of abilities by multiple Warlords should generally not stack.
* Reactions? Opportunity?

<Wants tactical abilities to be on par or better than equivalent Wizard spells>

1st Level

Compared vs Fog Cloud, Grease

Dire Wolf Tactics: When a hostile creature in your Area of Focus is hit by an attack, it is knocked prone.

Shield Wall: Allies in your area of focus gain a bonus to AC. +1? +2?

Reorder Ranks: Spend half movement to swap position with any other ally in the area of focus. Swapping does not provoke OA?

Clever Movement: Allies do not provoke OA in area of focus.

Charge Magnet: You can use your Action or Reaction to move an ally into the area of focus.

*? Attack buffs on targets in area of focus triggered on Warlord's attack.

Help Boost: When the Warlord uses the Help action, it applies to everyone in the area of focus. All Warlords get this?


2nd Level

Compared vs Cloud of Daggers, Darkness, Flaming Sphere


4th Level

Compared vs Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles

Size has to be at least comparable to 20' cube or 60' wall

Not worried about the damage of those spells, since the damage component is in the dice pool for healing/damage, and won't be incorporated here.


* Find ways to get abilities to dovetail with things like Wizard spells that are partially tactical.


Capstone?: Allies in your area of focus use an action


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 20, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Twitch.tv archive link: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621
> 
> General transcript of what was written down (plus some spoken comments):
> 
> ...




I think my capstone is something like all allies gain an action surge.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 20, 2018)

So, today's stream didn't advance much past the previous idea list, but it helped better refine the scope of how things would be built.

Mike is mostly looking at these as the cantrip-level abilities, always on, and likely being concentration effects.  At the same time, he wants to look at how much can be put into the "box" at various levels, by comparing to what effects can be gained from various Wizard spells.

1st level looked at Fog Cloud and Grease.  Grease indicates that being able to knock an opponent prone is acceptable at 1st level, and got wrapped into the Dire Wolf Tactics ability.  He also noted that it should work on any attack, including magic attacks from the Wizard or Warlock or whatever, and that (as reminded by a comment in chat) it should work on flyers (who would crash to the ground if knocked prone).

Fog Cloud was a little problematic because it inconveniences both sides, and he wanted to avoid that.  He went with granting an AC bonus to everyone in the area of focus.  He decided against disadvantage, both because of its power, and because of conflicts with existing abilities that are similar, such as the Fighter's Protection fighting style.  On the other hand, it's similar to Shield of Faith, which gives +2 AC to one person, so giving +1 AC to everyone in the area of focus was ballparked as comparable.

He brought back in the idea from last week, of swapping positions.  He started it with a cost of 10' of movement, but changed it to half movement.  Noted that they'd have to think over how it worked as the area got larger, and it became a bit like teleportation.

There was the ability from last week, of allies not provoking opportunity attacks while in the area of focus.

He added a new idea of being able to move an ally into the area of focus using either an action or a reaction.  Limits weren't specified, but would probably be something like they can move up to their normal move speed in order to reach the area of focus.  I could see this being useful if you needed to gather everyone up just as something was about to happen, but one person was too far away to get the benefit of whatever AOF ability was being used.  Or maybe force someone to move to the cleric, or get someone next to the enemy that the thief is trying to sneak attack, etc.

There was a comment in chat  that led to the side note of providing attack buffs on the Warlord's attack.  The example was something like a blind-side attack on an enemy to prevent the enemy from being able to make opportunity attacks.  This option was a bit vague in how it would interact with everything.

And the Help Boost was something that was intended to be useful out of combat, as well as in combat.  It's probably more useful when time is of the essence, but you could see it with something like everyone needing to climb a cliff face, and the Warlord being able to do a Help that gives advantage to the entire group at once, rather than trying to get people up one at a time.


He considered Cloud of Daggers and Flaming Sphere, mostly to comment on damage vs area.  However the damage component for Warlord's abilities is tied to the dice pool, and shouldn't be something that's getting added to the Warlord's tactical abilities. 

Fire Wall was also brought up, as it indicates that by that level (7th), the Warlord should be able to cover at least around a dozen squares (60 feet long), though the spells also work as 20 foot cubes, and thus maybe 16 squares, depending on how he decides on shaping.

At the low end, that would be going from 4 squares to 12 squares between levels 3 and 7, so +2 squares per level?  Or he might start with a higher size, since the Warlord subclass comes in at level 3, and the smallest spell effects would be from level 1.  If I were to speculate, I'd go with level+5 squares, starting with 8 at level 3, or level+3 squares, getting 6 at level 3, and 10 at level 7.  The exact form doesn't matter too much, just the indication that it should scale with level at a decent rate.


The capstone (written as level 20, because he couldn't remember what level the subclasses capped out at) was being able to grant everyone in the area of focus a full action.  This didn't take away the Warlord's ability to also act in that same turn.  It would be one of those once-per-day nova abilities.  Note that this was just off-the-cuff as a response to a comment in the chat.


~~~

As I said, it didn't get a lot beyond what was provided in the framework from last week, though honestly that was mostly because of the time limit of the stream.  It did reinforce that the dice pool for healing/damage would be its own thing, and wouldn't be used to fuel these extra abilities.  At the same time, these extra abilities wouldn't be granting direct damage either.

While he looked at what options opened up as level increased, he didn't note anything regarding needing to be a certain level to use any given ability.  They might be like the Battlemaster's maneuvers, where you just keep picking up more options as you level.  I think he wants to avoid making them spell slot-like, in that you get this ability at level 3, and this ability at level 5, and this at level 7, etc.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> While he looked at what options opened up as level increased, he didn't note anything regarding needing to be a certain level to use any given ability.  They might be like the Battlemaster's maneuvers, where you just keep picking up more options as you level.  I think he wants to avoid making them spell slot-like, in that you get this ability at level 3, and this ability at level 5, and this at level 7, etc.



 That was a problem with BM maneuvers, some of them started out a bit strong for level 3, and then as you leveled, you picked your 4th-string and later choices, so it ended up front-loaded.  Aside from that BM CS dice are strongly analogous to spell slots, say, of a Warlock.  As you level up, your slots get higher level or your CS dice bigger, and they do more, even when you use them to use a maneuver or cast a low-level spell you first learned at 3rd level.

Level gating, in general, in D&D is a major way of showing advancement within a class, and the way the BM lost sight of it didn't work out to well, IMHO.

I don't think gambits should get a half-level rating like spells, nor a level-you-picked-'em-at rating like 4e powers, rather it'd be pretty intuitive and reasonable to level-gate them by Tiers of play.  So 'maneuvers' like the BM's half-dozen vaguely-warlordly maneuvers, could be Apprentice-Tier gambits, then you graduate to heroic battle-plans, then grand stratagems, and finally pass down a legacy of a new military doctrine, or something like that.  ::shrug::


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 21, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That was a problem with BM maneuvers, some of them started out a bit strong for level 3, and then as you leveled, you picked your 4th-string and later choices, so it ended up front-loaded.  Aside from that BM CS dice are strongly analogous to spell slots, say, of a Warlock.  As you level up, your slots get higher level or your CS dice bigger, and they do more, even when you use them to use a maneuver or cast a low-level spell you first learned at 3rd level.
> 
> Level gating, in general, in D&D is a major way of showing advancement within a class, and the way the BM lost sight of it didn't work out to well, IMHO.
> 
> I don't think gambits should get a half-level rating like spells, nor a level-you-picked-'em-at rating like 4e powers, rather it'd be pretty intuitive and reasonable to level-gate them by Tiers of play.  So 'maneuvers' like the BM's half-dozen vaguely-warlordly maneuvers, could be Apprentice-Tier gambits, then you graduate to heroic battle-plans, then grand stratagems, and finally pass down a legacy of a new military doctrine, or something like that.  ::shrug::




I've disagreed with you quite a bit in this thread, but your comments on frontloading and level gating are spot on, and are one of the reasons the alchemist artificer feels so bad. You don't want your unique features be I pick the second and third and 4th best choices of a given set you want to really feel like you are growing as a character.

Edit: In addition Warlock provides a great example of how to level gate more powerful choices in 5e with the invocation system. All designs for selection of subset to give more choice need to have something like the level gating feature to allow for more powerful versions whether that is full class or subclass design.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 21, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I've disagreed with you quite a bit in this thread, but your comments on frontloading and level gating are spot on, and are one of the reasons the alchemist artificer feels so bad. You don't want your unique features be I pick the second and third and 4th best choices of a given set you want to really feel like you are growing as a character.
> 
> Edit: In addition Warlock provides a great example of how to level gate more powerful choices in 5e with the invocation system. All designs for selection of subset to give more choice need to have something like the level gating feature to allow for more powerful versions whether that is full class or subclass design.




That is why I used the warlock as a template and added the Rogue bonus ASI for a level 10 feature. To convert a 4E power you turn it into a "invocation" and can level gate or subclass it from there. 
 Its the best chasis to make a 4E type PC and if you make short rest mechanics some you can duplicate AEDU especially if you use the short rest= 5 minute rule. 

 From there you can make a warlock or even an alternate PHB if you want if you could be assed rewriting all of the 5e classes. Alot of 4E design concepts are in 5E they just compressed 30 levels into 20 (or even 10-15) and instead of 1W, 2W etc you just get an extra attack or a bonus dice of damage (hex, hunters quarry, lvl 8 cleric ability, colossus slayer etc). 

4E mechanics were mostly fine at least in terms of how they work, the mistake was every class being AEDU (which made no sense for some ie Fighters), and the tactical playstyle. Most of the hate directed at 4E basically boils down to the class design and the playstyle that design enabled. The design was to restrictive if nothing else and they had to do things like design a powers lists to enable some classes to use archery or TWF. You could probably keep the 4E rules and rewrite the classes chapter and use it to clone a system for example, 5E could be used to make AD&D 3E or vert stripped down B/X type game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 21, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> That is why I used the warlock as a template and added the Rogue bonus ASI for a level 10 feature. To convert a 4E power you turn it into a "invocation" and can level gate or subclass it from there.



 The warlock makes some sense as a template because it's mostly short-rest-recharge, and 5e martial classes seem to mostly get short-rest-recharge, when they get recharge at all.  A little dimensional analysis of EK & Wizard, applied to the BM & Warlock, and you could come up with a fair 'budget' for a Warlord design, been used as a starting point around here a number of times, IIRC.

Mike, though, seems to think that healing must be mapped to daily resources, so that's a stumbling block.




> The [AEDU] design was to restrictive if nothing else and they had to do things like design a powers lists to enable some classes to use archery or TWF



 It really was restrictive and difficult - from the design point of view.  Trying to build a new 4e class - any class - from scratch was brutal slog.  Building a class from the 2e guidelines, or a 3e PrC or a 5e caster class  leveraging existing spells, or even an Essentials Sub-class with no cross-compatibility with it's supposed parent class, is as nothing by comparison.  

That's one thing about adding the Warlord to 5e:  it will certainly be much easier than creating it for 4e was.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The warlock makes some sense as a template because it's mostly short-rest-recharge, and 5e martial classes seem to mostly get short-rest-recharge, when they get recharge at all.
> 
> Mike, though, seems to think that healing must be mapped to daily resources, so that's a stumbling block.
> 
> ...




We were playing Darksun in late 3E with some houserules and I tried making a 4 psion. Did not work well. I have never really designed my own class form scratch though, class variants in AD&D 2E using published rules or once again class variants in 3E sure. I used the UA Druid to avoid CoDzilla in 3.5 (at least tone it down). 

 We did do theory crafting about the 2E design your class rules and some of the Skills and Powers things which were essentially point buy classes and races.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> We were playing Darksun in late 3E with some houserules and I tried making a 4 psion. Did not work well. I have never really designed my own class form scratch though, class variants in AD&D 2E using published rules or once again class variants in 3E sure.  We did do theory crafting about the 2E design your class rules and some of the Skills and Powers things which were essentially point buy classes and races.  I used the UA Druid to avoid CoDzilla in 3.5 (at least tone it down).



 I "designed" classes in 1e - they were laughable, but the process wasn't difficult, just ballparking from existing classes.  In 2e I used the DMG guidelines to create two classes, one of which a player used to make a character that went to 18th level (in large part because it was one of those goofy-low-exp classes, everyone else was 11-14th) - oh, and years later I created a 2e Warlord in an afternoon just on a lark.   3e I created any number of PrCs.  4e?  Brick wall.  Monsters (and, thus, Companion characters and other NPCs) were easy, magic items weren't bad, but classes (and, really, any player-facing option) were a real PitA.
OTOH, Essentials came out and I banged out a couple of fighter sub-classes, again, in an afternoon.  
5e I took a stab(npi) at a non-Ki, weapon-using martial artist class, and, even adding outré mechanics (it rolled multiple dice to attack, like a storyteller dice pool, and 'spent' hits /and misses/ to do maneuvers) it wasn't too insanely difficult, because you have so much freedom and design space to muddle around in.  In that, and many other ways, 5e is just a pleasure to tinker with & run - a real DM's edition.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 22, 2018)

So I wanna ask something real quick.

If you can replicate the Ranger and Rogue easily with just a background and/or a Fighter subclass, shouldn't you be able to do that with the Warlord?


----------



## bedir than (Mar 22, 2018)

Am I missing it? Where's the review of what he put out most recently?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So I wanna ask something real quick.
> 
> If you can replicate the Ranger and Rogue easily with just a background and/or a Fighter subclass, shouldn't you be able to do that with the Warlord?




Yep.  Just depends on how much crunch you want behind it.  I think to some degree players like classes that have mechanics that help their character behave like they envision their character behaving.  Thus rogues get sneak attack and expertise.  Barbarians get Rage and reckless attack.  Ranger's get natural explores and favored enemy.  

I can roleplay the heck out of a champion fighter that shouts at allies and tries to help them or that always thinks tactically and gives the party tactical advice before going into battle.  If you are asking if there has to be crunch.  There definitely doesn't.  But when other concepts that don't need crunch get it and the Warlord is just like those concepts and doesn't... I've got to ask, what do you have against the Warlord?

Actually, don't answer that, just leave all Warlord threads and never return!  The world would be a happier place


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

bedir than said:


> Am I missing it? Where's the review of what he put out most recently?




Mearls went really slow as he got bogged down in specifics.  There was a review a few pages back but I think it was more a link to what covered by Mearls followed up with some comments on it


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So I wanna ask something real quick.
> 
> If you can replicate the Ranger and Rogue easily with just a background and/or a Fighter subclass, shouldn't you be able to do that with the Warlord?




Those classes have a bit more oomph behind them and history/niche/role. If you tried hard enough you could have 3 classes in the game but then you do not really have D&D. My ideal number is 8 or 9 classes. Basically the 5E PHB minus Barbarian, Sorcerer, and maybe Monk none of which I consider that iconic.


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

bedir than said:


> Am I missing it? Where's the review of what he put out most recently?



It was pretty much what people expected.

Hitting enemies in the zone knocks them prone.
You can help (advantage) everyone in your zone.
He also mused about obscuring enemy vision in the zone, but that didn't happen.

All good ideas, but it's still not complete enough to really give a good judgment.  The core issue remains, how do you fit all this stuff into the fighter class which is already loaded with damage?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So I wanna ask something real quick.
> 
> If you can replicate the Ranger and Rogue easily with just a background and/or a Fighter subclass, shouldn't you be able to do that with the Warlord?




You certainly could.  But, at that point, where do you stop?  Why do we need three "wizard" classes?  What's a warlock but a wizard with a particular background?  Never minding druids or, heck the umpteen cleric subclasses we have.

Without the mechanical background, there's nothing to actually do, in the game, that places a stamp at the table that I am playing X and not Y.  And, I think, for myself anyway, that's important.  I don't want to play a champion fighter that yells at people and has absolutely no impact on how the game is played.  And, as far as a warlord goes, if you think people get fussy because the warlord is telling you how your character thinks (I don't wannnnnna get HP because the warlord yelled at me), imagine how unbelievably annoying it would be to play with that guy who tells you what to do every round instead of simply granting you extra actions without any actual strings attached.

That's the point that critics forget.  Warlords don't actually tell you what to do.  They cannot actually force you to do anything.  All they do is grant opportunities.  There's no loss of agency at all.  I take an action that lets you do X.  It's entirely up to you what you do with that opportunity.  You get an extra attack, who do you attack?  I grant an extra movement, where do you go?  So on and so forth.

Otherwise, I'm just a really annoying player who's trying to micromanage your character and getting shirty when you ignore my suggestions because I'm an annoying git.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So I wanna ask something real quick.
> 
> If you can replicate the Ranger and Rogue easily with just a background and/or a Fighter subclass, shouldn't you be able to do that with the Warlord?




Ah, irony.


----------



## Bawylie (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> So I wanna ask something real quick.
> 
> If you can replicate the Ranger and Rogue easily with just a background and/or a Fighter subclass, shouldn't you be able to do that with the Warlord?




Yeah, you should. If you were going to do that in the first place, then that would’ve been perfectly viable. Instead we have 5 flavors of the same fighter with various subclasses and 6 flavors of the same spellcaster with various subclasses. 

That should definitely have been 4 very different classes with a whole grip of subclasses that might be viable on any base class. But whatever.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 22, 2018)

Finally watched the last HFH. The ideas for the warlord abilities are great, each episode makes the subclass look better and better.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 22, 2018)

Bawylie said:


> Yeah, you should. If you were going to do that in the first place, then that would’ve been perfectly viable. Instead we have 5 flavors of the same fighter with various subclasses and 6 flavors of the same spellcaster with various subclasses.
> 
> That should definitely have been 4 very different classes with a whole grip of subclasses that might be viable on any base class. But whatever.




The classic D&D classes are heavily based on things from myth, literature and history or some combination of all of the above. Ranger= Aragon, fighter= Knight/gritty soldier, Paladin=Knight ideal, Cleric= templar etc. Hell a few classic cleric spells are from the bible. 

 The warlord is weak in literature at least in the way 4E had it. Sure there have been things like Fighter generals (Caesar, Alexander, Richard the Lionheart etc), but that maps more to things like the AD&D fighter with followers as a core of an army than the 4E warlord. 

 Its easier to find other things as well, Merlin=wizard, Morgan Le Feyy sorcerer or warlock, Arthur Paladin or Fighter.

 The Warlord is not drawn from similar sources it was purely a gamist creation for the 4E rules system as another leader type for clerics. It was not an organic creation as such perhaps derived from the 3.5 Marshall which was basically designed for the D&D miniatures game (designed by Heinsoo and Tweet). Quite a few D&Disms also date back to the classical/biblical world (polymorph, magic weapons to hit, clerics and cleric spells etc). The names also a problem although its not unique there (Ardent, Warden, Duskblade,etc). You get a basic idea for a D&D class from the name at least the PHB ones if you are remotely familiar with pop culture, myths, literature etc. 

You could boil the game down to 3 or 4 classes (probably 4 minimum if you merged cleric/mage you may no longer be playing D&D). For a generic d20 game Warrior, Expert, Magic would be your 3 classes I suppose.


----------



## Eubani (Mar 22, 2018)

Can someone please provide the link for the 3rd episode.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 22, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> The classic D&D classes are heavily based on things from myth, literature and history or some combination of all of the above. Ranger= Aragon, fighter= Knight/gritty soldier, Paladin=Knight ideal, Cleric= templar etc. Hell a few classic cleric spells are from the bible.



Warlord = warlord / commander / tactician. Not too difficult really. 



> The warlord is weak in literature at least in the way 4E had it. Sure there have been things like Fighter generals (Caesar, Alexander, Richard the Lionheart etc), but that maps more to things like the AD&D fighter with followers as a core of an army than the 4E warlord.



I think there is a difference between what a warlord does and simply having an entourage of followers. Caesar, for example, strikes me less as a "figther" and more as a "warlord." I don't think he necessarily would have been a "high level fighter," but, rather, a moderately levelled warlord. But I also think that a lot of mytho-historical figures that I think of as warlord also come out of literature such as Romance of the Three Kingdoms (e.g., Sun Quan, Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang, etc.). 



> The Warlord is not drawn from similar sources *it was purely a gamist creation* for the 4E rules system as another leader type for clerics.



The 3e Sorcerer says hello. The 3e Warlock also says hello.


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

Eubani said:


> Can someone please provide the link for the 3rd episode.



https://www.twitch.tv/videos/240927621


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That was a problem with BM maneuvers, some of them started out a bit strong for level 3, and then as you leveled, you picked your 4th-string and later choices, so it ended up front-loaded.  Aside from that BM CS dice are strongly analogous to spell slots, say, of a Warlock.  As you level up, your slots get higher level or your CS dice bigger, and they do more, even when you use them to use a maneuver or cast a low-level spell you first learned at 3rd level.
> 
> Level gating, in general, in D&D is a major way of showing advancement within a class, and the way the BM lost sight of it didn't work out to well, IMHO.
> 
> I don't think gambits should get a half-level rating like spells, nor a level-you-picked-'em-at rating like 4e powers, rather it'd be pretty intuitive and reasonable to level-gate them by Tiers of play.  So 'maneuvers' like the BM's half-dozen vaguely-warlordly maneuvers, could be Apprentice-Tier gambits, then you graduate to heroic battle-plans, then grand stratagems, and finally pass down a legacy of a new military doctrine, or something like that.  ::shrug::



That was pretty much the route that I took, with my warlord maneuvers gated by class level and prerequisite maneuvers, similar to warlock invocations.

Most consisted of sets of three tiers, where the first tier was similar to the BM maneuvers, and the later two grew off that at higher levels.

For example
 Fortify! tier 1 is an action that grants an ally a superiority dice to the next save that they make, and has no prerequisites
Fortify! 2 grants the same effect, but can be used as a reaction, pre-empting a spell hitting your ally in the first place. It requires Warlord level 5 and knowing Fortify! 1 to select.
Fortify! 3 affects a current effect on your ally that either: allows periodic saves to resist, is a mind-affecting effect, or is an illusion that the warlord has successfully saved against. The ally gets to make an immediate new saving throw against the effect. This maneuver has prerequisites of Warlord level 11 and Fortify! 2.

Likewise the maneuver that gave your ally an attack as a reaction as per BM was available at level 3. Highest tier required level 13 and the previous stage, but granted an additional action.
etc.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 22, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> That was pretty much the route that I took, with my warlord maneuvers gated by class level and prerequisite maneuvers, similar to warlock invocations.
> 
> Most consisted of sets of three tiers, where the first tier was similar to the BM maneuvers, and the later two grew off that at higher levels.
> 
> ...



This was my idea as well, three tiers of maneuvers (some lifted from BM, some new and some warlord exclusive) fueled by lots of superiority dice. More powerful maneuvers were level locked.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 22, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> This was my idea as well, three tiers of maneuvers (some lifted from BM, some new and some warlord exclusive) fueled by lots of superiority dice. More powerful maneuvers were level locked.



This unsurprisingly reminds me of Mearls's work back in Malhavoc Press's Arcana Evolved with the "Ritual Warrior" class he designed. The class had tiers of martial rites/maneuvers that operated in a similar fashion as spells. At high enough level, some of those rites became at-will. It even used Concentration checks to maintain some of its abilities.


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> The classic D&D classes are heavily based on things from myth, literature and history or some combination of all of the above. Ranger= Aragon, fighter= Knight/gritty soldier, Paladin=Knight ideal, Cleric= templar etc. Hell a few classic cleric spells are from the bible.
> 
> The warlord is weak in literature at least in the way 4E had it. Sure there have been things like Fighter generals (Caesar, Alexander, Richard the Lionheart etc), but that maps more to things like the AD&D fighter with followers as a core of an army than the 4E warlord.
> 
> ...



_Conceptually_ putting the warlord under the fighter is fine.  
The issues is _mechanicly_ fitting the warlord into a _5e fighter_.

Too much of the fighter is damage, which doesn't leaves room for effects.

It's like if the wizard could only cast evokation spells.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 22, 2018)

mellored said:


> _Conceptually_ putting the warlord under the fighter is fine.
> The issues is _mechanicly_ fitting the warlord into a _5e fighter_.
> 
> Too much of the fighter is damage, which doesn't leaves room for effects.
> ...




Another question then.

Why shouldn't the _War_lord be able to fight well?


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Another question then.
> 
> Why shouldn't the _War_lord be able to fight well?



The same reason he shouldn't be able to cast spells.  He spent her time learning strategy and tactics, instead of practicing his sword swing.

Ideally (IMO), a fighter would be able to choose between fireball, mass healing word, and haste multi-attacking, inspiring, and buffing.  With some options to specialize in one or the other.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 22, 2018)

Eubani said:


> Can someone please provide the link for the 3rd episode.



YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywqZv5sejsY


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 22, 2018)

mellored said:


> He spent her time learning strategy and tactics, instead of practicing his sword swing.




Is the warlord one of those new genderfluid elves?


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Another question then.
> 
> Why shouldn't the _War_lord be able to fight well?



The Warlord should be able to fight well. The issue amounts to (1) how well, and (2) with what sort of focus/emphasis. If we presume, as you do, that being able to fight well equates to the Fighter class, then we may also be within our perogative to ask "Why shouldn't the paladin, ranger, or barbarian fight well?" Most advocates for a warlord, IME, would probably rank the Warlord alongside the paladin, ranger, and barbarian in 5E in that they fight "good enough" that they receive a second attack (~5th level), but no additional attacks.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Why shouldn't the _War_lord be able to fight well?



 Not an issue, really.  In 5e, everyone can fight pretty well.  You get HD to weather fights and weapons or cantrips (or both) for offense, and _everyone gets the same proficiency bonus_.  In a basic competence sense, wizards fight as well as fighters.  An S&B fighter and an abjurer wizard with the same DEX, playing darts at the pub, will be about evenly matched in terms of accuracy.  In the practical sense of who wins duels when magic's not involved, the fighter, however, is "Best at Fighting."  

There are only a couple of D&D concepts that really call for outright non-combatant status:  the Pacifist Cleric and the Lazy Warlord, for instance.

The other warlord concepts don't call for it to be the best at fighting, either, nor even second-best like a Barbarian or tied-for-best-if-I-can-use-magic like a Paladin, nor placing like the Warlock or Rogue by virtue of DPR, nor showing like the Ranger.  Well, the Bravura maybe should 'show' in personal combat - maybe get a choice of two or three melee combat styles and an Extra Attack at 5th (really, it's the only Warlord flavor that would be plausible as a Fighter sub-class).  And, the Defender/Protector/(lifeguard ;P )/etc that popped up in this thread maybe should have, well, Protection or Defensive styles.  



Aldarc said:


> I think there is a difference between what a warlord does and simply having an entourage of followers.



 The difference is features that support the concept.  The old-school fighter as 'Lord' is like a magician class that has all sorts of mystical trappings and flavor and automatically gains a respected 'court magician' position at 9th level - but doesn't actually know how to cast spells.  



> Caesar, for example, strikes me less as a "figther" and more as a "warlord." I don't think he necessarily would have been a "high level fighter," but, rather, a moderately levelled warlord. But I also think that a lot of mytho-historical figures that I think of as warlord also come out of literature such as Romance of the Three Kingdoms.



 One of the problems with modeling characters from myth/legend, literature, and especially history, in D&D, is that D&D so tightly links competence to level, so if you were really world-class at something, you had to be high level, and thus had to be a beast in combat.  If you were world-class at anything remotely martial & didn't use magic, you fell into fighter, for lack of anything else, and had no choice but to be a tank.  Particularly good at strategy & tactics, or a natural leader & great public speaker, but without magic, shouldn't map to "Best in personal combat, before magic - or strategy or tactics - come into it..."



> The 3e Sorcerer says hello. The 3e Warlock also says hello.



 Yes, there have been a lot of classes born /just/ of mechanical necessity/experimentation, like the 3.0 Sorcerer, 3.5 Warlock, Warblade, War Mage, (really anything starting with War it seems like), Ardent and PrCs like the Mystic Theurge among others, and like the 4e Avenger, Invoker, and Warden.  
There have also been those born of just a concept that, while do-able mechanically, were excluded from the best ways to do it by over-narrow fluff.  The Witch might be an example, a wizard could be a witch, but all the Vancian stuff didn't fit. Or a non-LG holy warrior.  
Then there are those at the happy intersection of mechanical & conceptual 'need' (more like 'nice to have' it's a game, it's not like we /need/ clerics or wizards, either), like the 4e Warlord & Shaman, the post-Essentials Skald and Elemental Sorcerer, the 2e CHP priest, the 3e Artificer, etc...

But, regardless of the genesis of a concept, it becomes a valid concept, for D&D, just by having been there. Especially in the context of 5e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> he didn't note anything regarding needing to be a certain level to use any given ability.  They might be like the Battlemaster's maneuvers, where you just keep picking up more options as you level.  I think he wants to avoid making them spell slot-like, in that you get this ability at level 3, and this ability at level 5, and this at level 7, etc.





Tony Vargas said:


> That was a problem with BM maneuvers, some of them started out a bit strong for level 3, and then as you leveled, you picked your 4th-string and later choices, so it ended up front-loaded.  Aside from that BM CS dice are strongly analogous to spell slots, say, of a Warlock.  As you level up, your slots get higher level or your CS dice bigger, and they do more, even when you use them to use a maneuver or cast a low-level spell you first learned at 3rd level.
> 
> Level gating, in general, in D&D is a major way of showing advancement within a class, and the way the BM lost sight of it didn't work out to well, IMHO.
> 
> I don't think gambits should get a half-level rating like spells, nor a level-you-picked-'em-at rating like 4e powers, rather it'd be pretty intuitive and reasonable to level-gate them by Tiers of play.  So 'maneuvers' like the BM's half-dozen vaguely-warlordly maneuvers, could be Apprentice-Tier gambits, then you graduate to heroic battle-plans, then grand stratagems, and finally pass down a legacy of a new military doctrine, or something like that.  ::shrug::





chunkosauruswrex said:


> I've disagreed with you quite a bit in this thread, but your comments on frontloading and level gating are spot on, and are one of the reasons the alchemist artificer feels so bad. You don't want your unique features be I pick the second and third and 4th best choices of a given set you want to really feel like you are growing as a character.





Zardnaar said:


> That is why I used the warlock as a template





Cap'n Kobold said:


> That was pretty much the route that I took, with my warlord maneuvers gated by class level and prerequisite maneuvers, similar to warlock invocations.





Aldarc said:


> Remathilis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's sounding suspiciously consensus-like.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's sounding suspiciously consensus-like.




Quick! Someone toss in a disagreenade!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Quick! Someone toss in a disagreenade!



 Lay down a suppressive fire with the blamethrowers and fall back by squads...


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's sounding suspiciously consensus-like.




*Inserts distracting slightly snarky comment designed to sidetrack and derail discussion


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 22, 2018)

mellored said:


> The same reason he shouldn't be able to cast spells.  He spent her time learning strategy and tactics, instead of practicing his sword swing.
> 
> Ideally (IMO), a fighter would be able to choose between fireball, mass healing word, and haste multi-attacking, inspiring, and buffing.  With some options to specialize in one or the other.



That might be how you see the warlord. I've always seen them as just a different type of fighter, it was how I built them in 4e. In my case, fitting them in as a 5e fighter subclass fits perfectly. It's probably one of the main reasons people argue so much about it, no one can agree how it should look.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 22, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> That might be how you see the warlord. I've always seen them as just a different type of fighter, it was how I built them in 4e. In my case, fitting them in as a 5e fighter subclass fits perfectly. It's probably one of the main reasons people argue so much about it, no one can agree how it should look.




The really silly thing about arguing about this - how it ought to look - is that it simply doesn't need to look one true way. It can exist as a fighter subclass right alongside a class all its own, just like the wizard does.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 22, 2018)

A non-fighty/not very fighty Warlord sounds... 

...really really annoying.

Akin to a back-seat driver.

Sure, in the real world we have coaches and instructors but... well maybe its just our table and we assume to roles of adventurers that typically graduated from boot camp. Having someone else telling you you're doing it wrong, the counterpart of 'do it like this its better!', is.. at best annoying. At worst, rather rude!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Gardens & Goblins said:


> A non-fighty/not very fighty Warlord sounds...
> ...really really annoying.
> Akin to a back-seat driver.



 Yep, you could totally go there, in a more humorous game.   The "armchair adventure," who dispenses obscurer, annoyingly useful advice while you're fighting for your life.  I came up with a build like that in 3.x, a Bard:  instead of music, back-seat-adventurer kibitzing, but it still gave you the bonus.  ;P  The only problems were not a big enough bonus to make people put up with it, and more (and CHA-based) spells than picking up a few from academic research would comfortably account for.  In 4e, you could go lazylord, add McWizard if your knowledge included spells, or Hybrid Artificer for a 'Q' type, it even dovetailed with the typical LazyLord's INT-based build, since you could have high knowledge checks to back it up.

But the way I'd envision the Icon sub-class it could encompass that or the effete general in the rear, or the more CHA-based victim-in-distress, non-combatant who embodies the cause (like a mascot, really, but less silly), or the more active plucky side-kick.

So you could also go very pragmatic and 'CaW' with it, or more high-drama (or melodrama).  All depends on what the table's style is like.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2018)

I have to admit, I never considered warlords as a kind of fighter.  They didn't have heavy armor, for one, and their primary schtick was not DPS, which fighters have pretty much always been (despite the shift to defender in 4e, they were still the most striker of any defender.)

It really never occurred to me, before all this "warlords should be subclasses of fighters" that anyone thought of warlords as fighters.  Warlords are no more fighters than paladins or rangers are fighters.  Sure, there's some shared bits - whacking things with a sword generally and not blowing stuff up with a spell - but, beyond that, there's very little connecting a warlord to a fighter.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, I never considered warlords as a kind of fighter.



 For a long time, the only 'Martial' character was the fighter.  So it's easy to see 4e as having taken the fighter and 'split it up' into the Martial Source classes - with the exception of the Rogue, of course:   

The fighter kept the traditional toughness and meat-shield duties, but with teeth, actual class features that gave it 'aggro' the way everyone was clamoring for throughout the epidemic of 'fighter SUX' threads on Gleemax, plus greatly expanded versatility (at the price of customizeability relative to 3.x) and more resource-management & agency in general.  

The Ranger took the traditional 1e/2e Cuisinart-of-Doom TWFing build and the often-marginal archer and made them viable (but not too broken) DPR machines.   

The Warlord walked off with just the classic fighter's name-level ribbon, and expanded it into a class that finally supported so many of the archetypes the fighter had always fallen so far short of (and a few more the designers never even expected).  

About the only thing lost to 4e's kerf allowance was the 3.x 'battlefield control'/'tactical reach' builds, which would've likely violated the sanctity of the wizard's controller role too much.


It engendered the opposite sort of confusion, too.  People were like "Fighters 'can't' use bows?  WTF?" when the Ranger was that edition's non-magical archer, for instance, because the ranger's Martial status was easy to miss if you were expecting it to be casting spells as in all prior editions.


So, yeah, there's a strong bond between the martial source and the fighter, and it's created tangled expectations about what names should be used where and how the design space should be laid out.  

But, 5e very clearly laid out the fighter's design space.  It de-facto tanks (for want of any 'aggro' mechanics, but traditionally many DMs just have more bad-ass enemies attack the fighter for honor/glory/pick'n-on-someone-your-own-size/whatever) and solidly delivers DPR, and has precious little room for anything more.  And, one of the three things they put into that precious little space was Casting Wizard Spells.   
So, the fighter class can't be used as an analogue for 4e's Martial Source, instead, characters that would have simply been Martial in 4e must be defined by their lack of supernatural abilities.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> For a long time, the only 'Martial' character was the fighter.  So it's easy to see 4e as having taken the fighter and 'split it up' into the Martial Source classes - with the exception of the Rogue, of course:
> 
> The fighter kept the traditional toughness and meat-shield duties, but with teeth, actual class features that gave it 'aggro' the way everyone was clamoring for throughout the epidemic of 'fighter SUX' threads on Gleemax, plus greatly expanded versatility (at the price of customizeability relative to 3.x) and more resource-management & agency in general.
> 
> ...




I think 4Es big screw up was tying things to powers that are basic ie twf and archery. Each time you wanted a  basic concept such as fighter you needed a whole build to enable it. 
 D&D spells more or less offer a unified powers list for class variants and new classes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> D&D spells more or less offer a unified powers list for class variants and new classes...



_...that use magic..._


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> The really silly thing about arguing about this - how it ought to look - is that it simply doesn't need to look one true way. It can exist as a fighter subclass right alongside a class all its own, just like the wizard does.




Except we can't call them both Warlord...

That's kind of the issue.  Mearls is making a tactical warlord and trying to say he's made us a warlord, which invariably leaves a Warlord class out of any further designs.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Except we can't call them both Warlord...
> That's kind of the issue.  Mearls is making a tactical warlord and trying to say he's made us a warlord.



 Tactical Warlords weren't as butch as a 5e fighter, either.  He's extracted some of the Bravura's DNA, and some of the Tactical's, and is making a Fighter/Warlord faux-MC that'll presumably fall short of really evoking either that well.  And isn't even trying for the broader class - yet, he doesn't completely slam the door on the possibility in the future...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Tactical Warlords weren't as butch as a 5e fighter, either.  He's extracted some of the Bravura's DNA, and some of the Tactical's, and is making a Fighter/Warlord faux-MC that'll presumably fall short of really evoking either that well.  And isn't even trying for the broader class - yet, he doesn't completely slam the door on the possibility in the future...




Might be a bit difficult to make a Warlord class if you already use the Warlord name in a fighter subclass...


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 22, 2018)

Warlord is a horrible name, anyway.  Let him make the Fighter subclass the Warlord (because being all fighter-y fits the name), and come up with a different name for the tactician class.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Warlord is a horrible name, anyway.



 It's good enough for John Carter... 
...OK, Marvel fans, and Travis Morgan.  







> Let him make the Fighter subclass the Warlord (because being all fighter-y fits the name), and come up with a different name for the tactician class.



Even with as few as you're trying to keep your hypothetical sub-class list too, Tactician is only one of them.

We've had brainstorming sessions and polls, here, about alternatives to the name.  It's one of those cases of "worst possible option, except for all the others."

FREX:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471694-Warlord-Name-Poll

Besides, the only options with any sense of continuity at all are Warlord (which is, at least, somewhat fantasy-sounding), and Marshal (which is an American law-enforcement officer - maybe it sounds better to European ears, but to me, it just evokes westerns).



FrogReaver said:


> Might be a bit difficult to make a Warlord class if you already use the Warlord name in a fighter subclass...



 Meh, Mike has a track-record of re-using names.  Consider the Hunter-Ranger and the Ranger(Hunter), for instance.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Gardens & Goblins said:


> A non-fighty/not very fighty Warlord sounds...
> 
> ...really really annoying.
> 
> ...




In actual play they abilities that buff allies even if they are using the flavor of command/order/help etc...  those abilities in actual play rarely feel like someone being a backseat driver.  On an intellectual level it may sound like it would play that way but it doesn't in actual play.  Just like a bard doesn't make your character love music.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 22, 2018)

I can dig that - having never played one, thanks for the heads up.



FrogReaver said:


> Just like a bard doesn't make your character love music.



_
..I'm with Lord Edmund Blackadder with regards to Bards & music on this one.._


----------



## Azzy (Mar 22, 2018)

Gardens & Goblins said:


> A non-fighty/not very fighty Warlord sounds...
> 
> ...really really annoying.




Or like a perfect DMPC.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 22, 2018)

Azzy said:


> Or like a perfect DMPC.




Possibly! When I play a DMPC I usually go for the bard, cleric, mastermind rogue or controller-focused wizard. 

Tho, currently writing up a Redemption Paladin.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's sounding suspiciously consensus-like.




Sounds more like to me "Everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is tired of your crap and has stopped responding because they realize nothing aside from agreeing with whatever you say will get through to you"


----------



## Azzy (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Might be a bit difficult to make a Warlord class if you already use the Warlord name in a fighter subclass...




Sure, if "Warlord" for the subclass actually stuck and didn't go the way of the Favored Soul/Divine Soul.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 22, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Sounds more like to me "Everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is tired of your crap and has stopped responding because they realize nothing aside from agreeing with whatever you say will get through to you"




Ah, the hostility.


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Warlord is a horrible name, anyway.  Let him make the Fighter subclass the Warlord (because being all fighter-y fits the name), and come up with a different name for the tactician class.



I don't think anyone would be upset if it was renamed, and there's probably been at least 10 other good names that have been suggested.  And probably another 10 more that where useable.

But until there's something offical to replace it, it's going to be stuck at the last offical name D&D called it, which is "warlord".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> *Inserts distracting slightly snarky comment designed to sidetrack and derail discussion



 ... OK, that's a cue...

....



FlyingChihuahua said:


> Sounds more like to me "Everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is tired of your crap and has stopped responding because they realize nothing aside from agreeing with whatever you say will get through to you"



 weak effort, but better late than never


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

mellored said:


> I don't think anyone would be upset if it was renamed, and there's probably been at least 10 other good names that have been suggested.  And probably another 10 more that where useable.
> 
> But until there's something offical to replace it, it's going to be stuck at the last offical name D&D called it, which is "warlord".



The functionality and concept of the class are a lot more important than the name.  I mean, the Sorcerer isn't a Sorcerer, literally, but it was an innovative design in 3.0, anyway.  The Fighter and Magic-User started off with hopelessly bland and generic names, and the Fighter still has his and the Wizard doesn't.  :shrug:

A rose by any other name would still have thorns.

But good alternatives are in short supply - most of the alternatives too strongly imply legitimate authority and/or military rank, or conjure too-modern images - heck, the question came up while it was still in playtest, and nothing better bubbled to the top.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Mar 23, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> ... OK, that's a cue...
> 
> ....
> 
> weak effort, but better late than never




Nice job dodging the point.

Why is it that everyone who disagreed with you and continues to disagree with you that isn't me has stopped posting in this thread.

FYI, the reason I'm still here is to stop ya'll from patting each other on the back and talking about how right you all are and how wrong everyone who disagrees with you is.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Why is it that everyone who disagreed with you and continues to disagree with you that isn't me has stopped posting in this thread.



 You must've missed it, two of the usual suspects, Zard & Rem, were quoted in that 'consensus' observation.  

And, I'm not so sure you've tossed that Disagreenade, or maybe just forgot to pull the pin.... 
Disagreeing would go:  "Why, no, level-gating abilities is entirely undesirable, you should be able to choose meteor swarm at first level..." 

... or something, it's up to you exactly what.

Rather you're appealing to some hypothetical legion of folks who could make those arguments for you.  

But, sure, thanks for keep'n us honest an' all...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Nice job dodging the point.
> 
> Why is it that everyone who disagreed with you and continues to disagree with you that isn't me has stopped posting in this thread.
> 
> FYI, the reason I'm still here is to stop ya'll from patting each other on the back and talking about how right you all are and how wrong everyone who disagrees with you is.




May the thread creator block you 10,000 times for admitting you are essentially trolling us.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Azzy said:


> Sure, if "Warlord" for the subclass actually stuck and didn't go the way of the Favored Soul/Divine Soul.




True, they are kinda wishy-washy


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 23, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Sounds more like to me "Everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is tired of your crap and has stopped responding because they realize nothing aside from agreeing with whatever you say will get through to you"




Who of the posters making constructive input into the level-gating of the powers of a homebrew warlord class did he miss?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 23, 2018)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Sounds more like to me "Everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is tired of your crap and has stopped responding because they realize nothing aside from agreeing with whatever you say will get through to you"




Tony is kind of right and we have disagreed a lot over the years. 

These forums though are really the wrong place for it though. Get onto Mearls somehow or get a warlord designed ASAP and see if you can get that to him. Once the warlord as fighter lands the odds of seeing a warlord as class essentially evaporates.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Might be a bit difficult to make a Warlord class if you already use the Warlord name in a fighter subclass...




I know that when I say "I want a warlord" I'm really saying "I want character who's schtick is martial support." And considering that there's been multiple other Warlord fans who have said they're fine with calling a the warlord something else, I really don't think it's an issue that they'd have to name the martial support class something else if a martial support subclass snags the name first


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 23, 2018)

darjr said:


> Is there a 5e third party warlord that folks are generally happy about?




I am quoting you for no good reason. Every time I reply to someone with a quote, this quote comes up. I delete it every time. I am just going to leave it this time and see if that makes it go away. 



Gardens & Goblins said:


> A non-fighty/not very fighty Warlord sounds...
> 
> ...really really annoying.
> 
> ...




So you're saying Warlord = Life Coach? Yeah, annoying


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 23, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> And, I'm not so sure you've tossed that *Disagreenade*, or maybe just forgot to pull the pin....
> Disagreeing would go:  "Why, no, level-gating abilities is entirely undesirable, you should be able to choose meteor swarm at first level..."




Sweet!

It'd be really cool if that catches on and I can brag about coining a new word!


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I know that when I say "I want a warlord" I'm really saying "I want character who's schtick is martial support." And considering that there's been multiple other Warlord fans who have said they're fine with calling a the warlord something else, I really don't think it's an issue that they'd have to name the martial support class something else if a martial support subclass snags the name first




Yes. But names evoke concept as well. I've not seen a sufficiently broad name to encompass martial support options like the name warlord does.  So if the change the name then the concepts evoked and created for that new name  will inevitably shift as well. It's not that I'm against another name if there is a good alternative provided but I've yet to see a good alternative.


----------



## Bawylie (Mar 23, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> The classic D&D classes are heavily based on things from myth, literature and history or some combination of all of the above. Ranger= Aragon, fighter= Knight/gritty soldier, Paladin=Knight ideal, Cleric= templar etc. Hell a few classic cleric spells are from the bible.
> 
> The warlord is weak in literature at least in the way 4E had it. Sure there have been things like Fighter generals (Caesar, Alexander, Richard the Lionheart etc), but that maps more to things like the AD&D fighter with followers as a core of an army than the 4E warlord.
> 
> ...




The warlord is not weak in literature or history. But leaving that aside, literary or historical examples don’t map cleanly to any one class’ suite of abilities anyway. For instance is Maleficent a Druid, Sorceror, Warlock, witch, or wizard?

Secondly, the origins of the warlord aren’t relevant. D&D can draw on a prior edition of itself for inspiration - there’s not barrier that excludes “gamist creations for the 4E rules system.” That’s a ridiculous proposition entirely, if it meant anything at all - which it definitely does not. 

And then we get down to your last point, which essentially lines up with my point. So what are we doing here? You agree with me “except warlord” for whatever rationale you might come up with? 

Good gravy.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Mar 23, 2018)

The cleric wasn't based on the Knights Templar even though the 2e PHB used them as an example. The cleric was something cobbled together at the request of a player in order to take down another player's vampire character in one of Dave Arneson's early campaigns. The cleric doesn't map to popular characters or archetypes any better than the warlord does. Frankly, the warlord (commander in 13th Age) makes more sense than the cleric (and I have nothing against the cleric).


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 23, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> The cleric wasn't based on the Knights Templar even though the 2e PHB used them as an example. The cleric was something cobbled together at the request of a player in order to take down another player's vampire character in one of Dave Arneson's early campaigns. The cleric doesn't map to popular characters or archetypes any better than the warlord does. Frankly, the warlord (commander in 13th Age) makes more sense than the cleric (and I have nothing against the cleric).




I know the origin of the cleric but you have things like Thulsa Doom or even Jesus as several D&D come fro m the bible.

 2E did associate irate clerics with the knights templar that's not a bad example. 

 Aloof D&D isms also go back to the classical world as well. It's not exact of course with Druids being an example but for most classes you can find examples and read the phb.

 The warlord was outright gambit though and any association with Caesar, Napoleon etc is tenuous at best where the fighter matches up reasonably well especially with TSR. 

 What we beleive here is mostly irrelevant. It's the new players who will associate classes with fantasy and historic figures and a Warlord is a hard set there especially with that name. 

 The other D&Disms have filtered into online games and pop culture. If you did not play 4E most people won't even know what a warlord is conceptually. That's the main point.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Mar 24, 2018)

Zardnaar, at what point in D&D's history did it become unacceptable to add new content?



Zardnaar said:


> What we beleive here is mostly irrelevant. It's the new players who will associate classes with fantasy and historic figures and a Warlord is a hard set there especially with that name.
> 
> The other D&Disms have filtered into online games and pop culture. If you did not play 4E most people won't even know what a warlord is conceptually. That's the main point.



Oh, please. People today are perfectly capable of reading a description of a warlord or whatever it's called and understanding what its concept is, just as people in the 90's were able to read the 2e PHB and figure out what the cleric did.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 24, 2018)

Gardens & Goblins said:


> A non-fighty/not very fighty Warlord sounds...
> 
> ...really really annoying.
> 
> ...




I guess. I mean, people usually didn't take umbrage to a bard giving people inspiration via song and story, so I think the warlord could be framed in a similar light. I mean, I he COULD be played as pompous ass telling people what to do all the time, but that's not necessarily part of the archetype. 

The one area I think I might object though is called the "don't touch my character" rule. It spawned, unfortunately, from the problem of 4e powers to move characters (both PC and monsters) without outside force (such as grappling or shoving) to reflect some narrative trope (examples could include King's Castle moving a rogue and warlord PC without the rogue's consent, or the infamous CaGI overriding monster Int or tactics to run up and take a whack). We have always ruled such effects either need to provide some manner of resisting/ignoring or instead incentevise the action rather than dictate it (so the rogue could theoretically ignore a warlord's buff if he wants and a monster would be allowed to attack the fighter in whatever manner makes sense). 

5e, even when dealing with powers like Commander Strike or Marking, has run to that design paradigm, and I think that's for the best.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 24, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> Zardnaar, at what point in D&D's history did it become unacceptable to add new content?
> 
> 
> Oh, please. People today are perfectly capable of reading a description of a warlord or whatever it's called and understanding what its concept is, just as people in the 90's were able to read the 2e PHB and figure out what the cleric did.




1985 gets mentioned a lot.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Mar 24, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 1985 gets mentioned a lot.




So are you opposed to the sorcerer and warlock being included in D&D?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 24, 2018)

HomegrownHydra said:


> So are you opposed to the sorcerer and warlock being included in D&D?





 If they were gone I would not be that upset throw in the Monk as well.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 24, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> I guess. I mean, people usually didn't take umbrage to a bard giving people inspiration via song and story, so I think the warlord could be framed in a similar light. I mean, I he COULD be played as pompous ass telling people what to do all the time, but that's not necessarily part of the archetype.
> 
> The one area I think I might object though is called the "don't touch my character" rule. It spawned, unfortunately, from the problem of 4e powers to move characters (both PC and monsters) without outside force (such as grappling or shoving) to reflect some narrative trope (examples could include King's Castle moving a rogue and warlord PC without the rogue's consent, or the infamous CaGI overriding monster Int or tactics to run up and take a whack). We have always ruled such effects either need to provide some manner of resisting/ignoring or instead incentevise the action rather than dictate it (so the rogue could theoretically ignore a warlord's buff if he wants and a monster would be allowed to attack the fighter in whatever manner makes sense).
> 
> 5e, even when dealing with powers like Commander Strike or Marking, has run to that design paradigm, and I think that's for the best.




I think a bard singing an inspirational tune or setting a suitable beat is more palatable. Akin to ye Olde car stereo blaring out tunes as you floor it.

However, if the bard was shouting out commands like an up-beat exercise video? _Yeah... they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of a Bag of Devouring._

*AND LIFT AND STRETCH AND SWING THAT MACE AND STAB AND STAB! GOOD YOU'RE DOING GREAT! NOW THE ELVES!*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2018)

Gardens & Goblins said:


> Remathilis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

Remathilis said:


> It spawned, unfortunately, from the problem of 4e powers to move characters (both PC and monsters) without outside force (such as grappling or shoving) to reflect some narrative trope (examples could include King's Castle moving a rogue and warlord PC without the rogue's consent, or the infamous CaGI overriding monster Int or tactics to run up and take a whack).



4e warlord powers required consent.  That was implicit any time they used the word "ally", which in 5e terms would be "a willing creature, excluding yourself".

And if a warlord looses the trust of his allies, well... that just makes for some good RPing.


Actually, a nice thing about 4e was the other classes requires consent as well.  Unlike 5e, a cleric couldn't forcefully bless someone.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Yes. But names evoke concept as well. I've not seen a sufficiently broad name to encompass martial support options like the name warlord does.  So if the change the name then the concepts evoked and created for that new name  will inevitably shift as well. It's not that I'm against another name if there is a good alternative provided but I've yet to see a good alternative.




I think you've convinced me that the next time I say something like "I'm pretty sure most Warlord fans won't mind if the class has a different name" I'm gonna add "although I know one guy who does, sort of, in a theoretical way think it will be an issue, even though he himself wouldn't object to a reasonable name change."


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I think you've convinced me that the next time I say something like "I'm pretty sure most Warlord fans won't mind if the class has a different name" I'm gonna add "although I know one guy who does, sort of, in a theoretical way think it will be an issue, even though he himself wouldn't object to a reasonable name change."




I honestly think it will be an issue because there's not a lot of generic non-magical names that's going to be very close in concept to a warlord.  I'm willing to be proven wrong.  Any ideas on what another name might be?  We could easily solve this right now if one can be provided.  Or maybe I'm right and there likely isn't another suitable name for a concept similar to the warlord.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I honestly think it will be an issue because there's not a lot of generic non-magical names . . .



Danggit. I should've been clearer from the start so that we didn't waste all these words talking past each other. That's not the sort of issue I was talking about, it's not the issue I thought you were talking about.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Danggit. I should've been clearer from the start so that we didn't waste all these words talking past each other. That's not the sort of issue I was talking about, it's not the issue I thought you were talking about.




Oh.  I'm very confused. lol


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Oh.  I'm very confused. lol




You're talking about the designers coming up with a good name. I only just realized this with your previous post. I agree, that can be tough.

I was saying I would not reject the theoretical class as "not a warlord" based on its name, and I doubt there's more than a handful fans who would.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> You're talking about the designers coming up with a good name. I only just realized this with your previous post. I agree, that can be tough.
> 
> I was saying I would not reject the theoretical class as "not a warlord" based on its name, and I doubt there's more than a handful fans who would.




Agreed.  It's so easy to talk past each other sometimes!  Thanks for not giving up.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> 4e warlord powers required consent.  That was implicit any time they used the word "ally", which in 5e terms would be "a willing creature, excluding yourself".
> 
> And if a warlord looses the trust of his allies, well... that just makes for some good RPing.
> 
> ...




Players get annoyed f another player is telling them what do do even if its optional/beneficial. I have noticed this with new players getting annoyed with a bless spell for example and another player reminds them to roll a 1d4.This tends to be OK if you're playing with friends, new players and something like AL yeah it may be an issue.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Players get annoyed f another player is telling them what do do even if its optional/beneficial. I have noticed this with new players getting annoyed with a bless spell for example and another player reminds them to roll a 1d4.This tends to be OK if you're playing with friends, new players and something like AL yeah it may be an issue.




a lot of times its how something is said instead of what is being said...


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> a lot of times its how something is said instead of what is being said...




 True its just a thing I have noticed over the years though.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 25, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> You're talking about the designers coming up with a good name. I only just realized this with your previous post. I agree, that can be tough.
> 
> I was saying I would not reject the theoretical class as "not a warlord" based on its name, and I doubt there's more than a handful fans who would.




On the tangential topic that you weren’t arguing, what about “Captain”?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> On the tangential topic that you weren’t arguing, what about “Captain”?




One of the biggest hurdles a vocal faction has against the Warlord is that he is being bossy and telling them what to do.  As such I think any name that evokes a strong connection to authority probably needs dismissed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> One of the biggest hurdles a vocal faction has against the Warlord is that he is being bossy and telling them what to do.  As such I think any name that evokes a strong connection to authority probably needs dismissed.




I personally don't mind its just something I have seen over the years. 
 For names I prefer Battle Captain but if converting just use Warlord. I thought of Starlord for spell jammer.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 25, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> On the tangential topic that you weren’t arguing, what about “Captain”?




Perhaps the best thing about this name would be that Zapp and Kobold wind up retroactively dubbed as warlords.


----------



## Gardens & Goblins (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> a lot of times its how something is said instead of what is being said...




*PICK UP THE D4. GO ON. GIVE ME AN EXCUSE.*


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 25, 2018)

Gardens & Goblins said:


> *PICK UP THE D4. GO ON. GIVE ME AN EXCUSE.*




*picks up a bagful of d4s*

*scatters them at your feet*

Just try comin' at me now, bro!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> One of the biggest hurdles a vocal faction has against the Warlord is that he is being bossy and telling them what to do.  As such I think any name that evokes a strong connection to authority probably needs dismissed.




I get the sentiment, but I’m not willing to dismiss good names because a small percentage of older players have a problem with names that evoke leadership or authority. Having a good, evocative, easily remembered, name, IMO, is more important than having a name that doesn’t annoy anyone. 

IMO, there are about 3 options that are genuinely good names, just as names (ie, ignoring real world associations and hyper-nerd feather ruffling)

Noble (which evokes wealth and privilege, and is the least broad option)

Captain (may ruffle some feathers)

Banneret (which is taken)


All three have downsides, but Captain has the least important downside IMO. 



Satyrn said:


> Perhaps the best thing about this name would be that Zapp and Kobold wind up retroactively dubbed as warlords.



LOL I’m sold.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 25, 2018)

Why not keep warlord then? It's a good name for the class.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Why not keep warlord then? It's a good name for the class.




The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.

In that event we are thinking of what a replacement name would be for a 4e-esqe warlord class.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Anyone else find it interesting that:
War = Battle
Lord = Master


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.
> 
> In that event we are thinking of what a replacement name would be for a 4e-esqe warlord class.



Ah right, I think I got lost somewhere along the way. I thought we were talking about replacing the name of the subclass.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> Ah right, I think I got lost somewhere along the way. I thought we were talking about replacing the name of the subclass.




That would be preffered by us but a much less likely option IMO


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.



 Inappropriate as that would be, it's not like Mike hasn't done equally inappropriate things already.  
But, it's also not like he's above re-using names, either.  At the end 4e (including Essentials & post-Essentials) had the War Priest and the Warpriest as well as the Hunter Ranger and the Ranger(Hunter), not to mention there's more than a couple powers in the compendium with the name of a class following them, because the power name was inadvertently (or in the case of the Sentinel Druid's Healing Word, quite advertently) re-used.  

I'd be much more concerned with the quality of any forthcoming sub-class or class than the name.  



cbwjm said:


> I thought we were talking about replacing the name of the subclass.



 That would be a lot more reasonable, and, the sub-class so far, a lead-from-the-front tactical type might lift the Paragon Path name 'Battle Captain' from the PH1.  (I'm not sure if that'd be neat symmetry with the BM, or feel redundant with both a BM and a BC.)
It's also closest to the Bravura, because it's necessarily such a tank.

Either of those would be better than wasting the Warlord name on a sub-class.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 27, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Perhaps the best thing about this name would be that Zapp and Kobold wind up retroactively dubbed as warlords.



 Eh. I can live with that.



FrogReaver said:


> The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.
> 
> In that event we are thinking of what a replacement name would be for a 4e-esqe warlord class.



 Do we know whether Mearls' HFH class design demonstration is actually likely to become an official product?

Until it does, the existence of that highly unofficial warlord does not invalidate your homebrew class being called the Warlord any more than the existence of _my _homebrew Warlord invalidates _your _homebrew Warlord.

If you want a tactical/inspiring leader-type concept, you could take a leaf from earlier editions and call it a Marshal, or a White Raven, or just go with names like Leader, Officer, Commander, Director, Conductor, Maestro, Helm.
In the same way that Barbarians don't have to be outlanders from uncivilised lands or have beards, a Commander class is not required to actually be in a position of authority or to be able to command their companions to obey them.

If you're going for a direct conversion of the 4e Warlord only however, just stick with Warlord as a class name. If the intent is to evoke that specific example, the name will be important to do so.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Do we know whether Mearls' HFH class design demonstration is actually likely to become an official product?



 We do not.  
OT1H, it's a sub-class, and rolling out sub-classes is not something he seems hesitant to do.  OTOH, it's got the actual name 'Warlord,' and books could start burning again.  :shrug: 



> Until it does, the existence of that highly unofficial warlord does not invalidate your homebrew class being called the Warlord any more than the existence of _my _homebrew Warlord invalidates _your _homebrew Warlord.



 Or, even after it does, really.



> If you want a tactical/inspiring leader-type concept, you could take a leaf from earlier editions and call it a Marshal, or a White Raven, or just go with names like Leader, Officer, Commander, Director, Conductor, Maestro, Helm.



 Marshal is tainted by how bad the Marshal was, and, like most of the rest implies military rank and/or authority of some sort.  White Raven, like PDK, or any other color-coded superhero name, is a tad specific.  More the kind of thing you attach to a PrC (which, I may have mentioned in the past, 5e could really use).  ("Helm?")



> If you're going for a direct conversion of the 4e Warlord only however, just stick with Warlord as a class name. If the intent is to evoke that specific example, the name will be important to do so.



 A direct conversion would be non-viable.  5e is significantly powered up from 4e in a lot of ways (also knocked down in others, but I don't think even the most direct conversion would fail to convert from +1/2 level to proficiency....)


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 27, 2018)

Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour (2018 3-27)

Note, the linked video has a lengthy ‘title page’. The episode itself starts at about 4 minutes and 10 seconds into the video.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 27, 2018)

Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.

He emphasizes *Intelligence* for group tactics (Trojan Horse, etcetera), and *Strength* for competence at fighting.

So far, he seems to downplay or even overlook *Charisma* as it relates to leadership, morale, fame, and destiny.

Alexander the Great and William Wallace get mentioned approvingly in passing. Stress the personal combat prowess. In other words, leading from the front into battle, rather than a strategist from the distance.


----------



## Geeknamese (Mar 27, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.
> 
> He emphasizes *Intelligence* for group tactics (Trojan Horse, etcetera), and *Strength* for competence at fighting.
> 
> ...




Perfectly ok with focus on Intelligence and it adding another Charisma-based subclass to the game. The Warlord is a tactician and mostly designed to influence party members so Charisma focus is not really needed.

People can still play the Charismatic Fighter, Paladin or whatnot to emulate charismatic leaders but for a tactician, it should be Intelligence.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.
> 
> He emphasizes *Intelligence* for group tactics (Trojan Horse, etcetera), and *Strength* for competence at fighting.
> 
> ...



 Nod.  It is a fighter sub-class he's designing, not a Warlord class, so it's necessarily very limited in the range of concepts it can cover relative to the original Warlord (which, in turn, was limited by it's native system to Leader concepts).  

The sub-class is closer to a Bravura Warlord, but even tankier, and might be better called a Tactician or - oh, there was a 3e PrC:  Tactical Soldier, that'd be a fair name for it.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 27, 2018)

Transcribed his first draft results, which you can see here.  Orange-brown text is related commentary that wasn't written, while red text is stuff that he added during the stream as notes about what to possibly adjust going forward.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 28, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.
> 
> He emphasizes *Intelligence* for group tactics (Trojan Horse, etcetera), and *Strength* for competence at fighting.
> 
> ...



That's my thought on it. There is a niche for a charismatic warrior: paladin.


----------



## bedir than (Mar 28, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The name warlord has a good chance of being taken by Mearls Tactical Fighter Subclass.
> 
> In that event we are thinking of what a replacement name would be for a 4e-esqe warlord class.




Though the Artificer was used as Wizard: Artificer in an Unearthed Arcana it eventually got tested as a full class.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 28, 2018)

So, review time.

~~~

The extra damage from Int was dropped entirely.  The bonus to heal/damage can be applied to the warlord himself, so I guess it seemed redundant and just extra mess that didn't need to be there.

The Tactical Focus got blobbed into a 10'x10' square, which Mike seemed to think was OK when he first wrote it up, but when thinking about it during the stream, he realized that that only works in tiny little dungeon areas, and not out in the field, or in a forest, etc.  Pretty sure it will have growth capability, but it may have issues with making something that isn't too weak for the outdoors while not being too strong for indoors.


You get three tactics (cantrip-level region effects) that you can apply to the tactical focus when you get it at 3rd level, out of the six possible (at least, of the set he wrote up). _However_, contrary to the issue with how Battlemaster maneuvers and Sorcerer metamagic work, the tactics can be swapped out on a long rest.  That means you're not locked in to picking the three best ones, and essentially ignoring all the rest. You can swap around the three you have selected during the course of a battle, and swap the tactics you have "in mind" each day.  

You gain another at 7th and 15th levels.  7th is early enough to be something that will benefit you in most campaigns, while 15th gives you more flexibility at endgame. (Battlemaster gets another choice at 10th level, which Warlord might conceivably match if they went crazy with a lot more tactics available.)

Honestly, I'd wish for both the Battlemaster and the Sorcerer to use this mechanic instead.  You're still restricted in how much you can do in any given battle, but your character isn't hamstrung for the rest of its career because of those choices, or considered overly front-loaded.


Tactician's Insight is the bit where you can grant healing or bonus damage.  The healing has to be used immediately, whereas the bonus damage can be held until you actually land a hit (don't want the benefit to be wasted).  The number of uses increases dramatically at 7th level, and again at 13th level.  Also at 7th level, the number of "insights" that can be granted as a single action increases to 2 (and then 3 at 13th level, and 4 at 19th level), so you can affect multiple people per turn.  There will probably be a limit of only being affected by one insight at a time, to prevent people from stacking multiple insights and trying to add +6d10 damage on a single hit.


You start getting gambits (spell-like abilities) at 7th level.  That gates it off from multiclassing a fair bit.  You gain 2 at 7th, and another at 10th and 18th.  It uses the same mechanic as tactics, of being allowed to swap your active gambits after a long rest.

Gambits can be used as actions, but all of them allow you to make an attack at the same time as their use, so they don't interfere with your damage output.  This is where one of Mike's issues with bonus actions come into play.  Per the bonus action design, these feel like things that would fall under that, but since dual-wielding uses your bonus action, and Mike doesn't want to cripple that fighting style, he had to do an end run around the global game mechanic.

The table shows the progression on how many gambits you can use each long rest: You start with 3 at 7th level, and gain another use every few levels, to a maximum of 7.


At 10th level you get a minor bonus, where if you hit a target, they're at disadvantage on saves vs gambit effects.  Handy.


15th level gives you some movement shenanigans.  You can give up your own move to give three allies half their movement without them needing to use a reaction.  A movement complement to the typical demands of granting actions by giving up actions.  Much easier to add this than worry about the balance problems of granted actions.


And the final ability is the "give everyone an extra action" ability.  Kind of expected, and a nice capstone.


~~~

Tactics — These are effects you put in place when you define your tactical focus, and remain there until you change them (or get knocked out).

*Advance* and *Cover that Flank* are likely to get merged into a single tactic.  The idea is to speed up control over the area that the tactical focus covers, and a specific application of closing in on an enemy that enters the focus area.  On the *Cover that Flank* side, it costs a reaction to move, but if you can get next to the creature that triggered the movement, you get your reaction back.

*Clear the Area* is the one to knock targets back if hit.  Mike considered the issue of this affecting huge+ creatures, but decided that it's really OK.  It's situational enough, and with enough situational counters, that it doesn't give an unbalanced advantage against over-sized creatures.

*Get Down* was the one to move out of the area of an AOE spell/effect.  However considerations at the end, and comments from the watchers, had Mike consider some tweaks, including basically giving the offer to drop prone in order to gain advantage on the saving roll against the effect, rather than move out of the area entirely (since moving out to avoid the effect, then back in to keep fighting, then out of the area to avoid the next effect, etc, just seemed a bit silly).

*Shield Wall* is simple, but handy.  If you're next to an ally with a shield, you get the shield bonus to AC as well (if you didn't already have a shield).

*Reorder Ranks* was a consolidation of the 'swap positions' movement idea, and the 'avoid opportunity attacks' idea. Rather than just a free channel to avoid opportunity attacks, you instead can't be attacked with an AO if you're next to an ally, with the assumption that they'd be able to provide cover for your movement/retreat.  Makes the effect feel more realistic, while also putting in hints on limits that may help mitigate issues of increasing tactical focus area sizes.


Gambits — These are one-time, spell-like effects.  You can choose a new set each day, and use your selected gambits a certain number of times.  DC uses your Intelligence.  All gambits let you attack at the same time as using the gambit itself.

*Aggressive Advance* — Cause fear in the enemy, preventing them from approaching your tactical focus.  While there was some consideration for being afraid of allies within the tactical focus, Mike also posited the scenario where you're firing bows down at a spot that the enemy wants to avoid, so whether or not the ally presence in the area is required is debatable.

*Cut Them Down!* — This is the one to knock the enemies prone when hit by an attack in the focus area.  Proper sequencing can set things up for some nice advantage and sneak attacks.

*Luring Gambit* — This is a nice one.  Get an enemy so focused on you that they lose sight of everyone else around them, making your allies essentially invisible (with all the benefits thereof).  This is like a better implementation of those abilities that give a creature disadvantage if it doesn't attack you (eg: level 14 bear Barbarian effect).  Inspired by "tunnel vision" from FPS games.

*Pile On* — This gives you a chance to stun a creature, with the chance going on the more people hit the creature.  For stuff with a lot of hit points (such that it doesn't seem a waste to have everyone pounding on it), this can be a handle control mechanism.

*Pincers Movement* — Another control gambit, you can position yourself and a couple allies in order to restrain enemies within your focus area.  Able to affect up to 5 targets at a time (if I have my geometry right).

*Vexing Maneuvers* — Yet another control gambit, this one is to prevent targets from leaving your tactical focus area.

~~~

Overall, the tactics and gambits felt more solid than the general brainstorming from previous weeks.  The mechanics for swapping them out each long rest is very nice, and I want to steal the mechanic for Sorcerer and Battlemaster.  

It can probably use a few more tactics and gambits to choose from, but I don't see any real problems with the subclass as a whole.  It's at a level that it's worth preliminary playtesting.


----------



## CakeOfCheese (Mar 28, 2018)

Its interesting to see his train of thought evolve as he trudges through a class. Makes you wonder if this is really from nothing, or if he has an end goal in mind at the beginning.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Mearls identifies Odysseus as an archetype for the warlord. Not bad.



Odysseus is an excellent choice as an archetype for the Warlord, and I recall that he had been mentioned before in Warlord discussions. Naming Odysseus for inspiration is also smart because it indirectly addresses one of the criticisms lobbed at the Warlord: what would an adventuring Warlord look like? Well, here is Odysseus and you may recall one of the most famous literary adventures ever. Odysseus also creates a nice contrast between him and other warriors from the Trojan War. Odysseus is the Warlord while Achilles, Ajax, and Hector were the Fighters.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 28, 2018)

CakeOfCheese said:


> Its interesting to see his train of thought evolve as he trudges through a class. Makes you wonder if this is really from nothing, or if he has an end goal in mind at the beginning.




It seems like both. On the one hand, he has a vision from the beginning, of what a warlord should feel like. Then comes the process of negotiating and navigating the mechanics to see what works and what doesnt.

Like any artwork, the process lends an unpredictable quality to the original intention, which imbues the project with a life of its own, sotospeak.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 28, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> The Tactical Focus got blobbed into a 10'x10' square, which Mike seemed to think was OK when he first wrote it up, but when thinking about it during the stream, he realized that that only works in tiny little dungeon areas, and not out in the field, or in a forest, etc.  Pretty sure it will have growth capability, but it may have issues with making something that isn't too weak for the outdoors while not being too strong for indoors.




If I remember correctly, the Tactical Focus is a 10-foot square on each side of a targeted creature. Thus it is 10-foot by 20-foot rectangle (or a 10-foot by 25-foot rectangle depending on the size of the creature?).

Mearls mentioned the size of the Focus might be too small, and it is still in flux.

I suspect he wants a focus definition that is both easy to visualize for mind-style, and also easy to convert into squares for grid-style. 10 feet on opposite sides of a creature, does this.



Mearls also mentions being torn between defining the Focus according to an actual space (emphasizing control of territory) versus according to being nearby an ally (emphasizing teamwork, group tactics, and leadership).

Personally, I strongly prefer the concept of defining focus by proximity to teammates.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2018)

Gee, with that write up, I'm getting more and more sold on the idea.  Seems to be hitting the right notes.  I'd love to see the finished product.

On a side note, on the naming conversation, what about Sirdar?  Yes, I realize it's a real world word, but, it's esoteric enough to not really have any particularly connotations for anyone, kind of like a paladin in that sense.  Let's be honest, if it wasn't for D&D, would anyone know what a paladin was, other than someone on an old TV Western?  

Dunno.  Just thought the name sounded cool to my ears.  I'm a Sirdar.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 28, 2018)

I haven't actually watched the vid(s), but has Mearls said anything to the effect of "...the name 'Warlord' is wretched, and if this subclass ever saw the light of day it would get changed, but we'll use it as a placeholder for now..."

I hope so.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 28, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Let's be honest, if it wasn't for D&D, would anyone know what a paladin was, other than someone on an old TV Western?




Yes.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 28, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> Yes.
> 
> View attachment 95749
> 
> View attachment 95750




Everybody I was friends with in middle school read those, so I can extrapolate and infer that everybody has read those, and thus would know what a Paladin is.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 28, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Odysseus is an excellent choice as an archetype for the Warlord, and I recall that he had been mentioned before in Warlord discussions. Naming Odysseus for inspiration is also smart because it indirectly addresses one of the criticisms lobbed at the Warlord: what would an adventuring Warlord look like? Well, here is Odysseus and you may recall one of the most famous literary adventures ever. Odysseus also creates a nice contrast between him and other warriors from the Trojan War. Odysseus is the Warlord while Achilles, Ajax, and Hector were the Fighters.




That's a very good point. A PC Warlord leads and/or is a member of a band of _heroes_, _and is a capable hero themselves_. They're not the commander of an army of grunts operating on the battlefield but away from the front line, or plotting troop deployments for an empire. They're closer to a member of a special forces team in modern terms.


----------



## mellored (Mar 28, 2018)

I'd just like to point out that Merls did float the idea of making the warlord offical.
At some point.
After extensive playtesting.
Possibly in dark sun.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 28, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> That's a very good point. A PC Warlord leads and/or is a member of a band of _heroes_, _and is a capable hero themselves_. They're not the commander of an army of grunts operating on the battlefield but away from the front line, or plotting troop deployments for an empire. They're closer to a member of a special forces team in modern terms.



I'm pretty sure that's the nail on the coffin for princess builds


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 28, 2018)

YouTube link for the latest episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmbrXdBt1U


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Gee, with that write up, I'm getting more and more sold on the idea.  Seems to be hitting the right notes.  I'd love to see the finished product.
> 
> On a side note, on the naming conversation, what about Sirdar?  Yes, I realize it's a real world word, but, it's esoteric enough to not really have any particularly connotations for anyone, kind of like a paladin in that sense.  Let's be honest, if it wasn't for D&D, would anyone know what a paladin was, other than someone on an old TV Western?
> 
> Dunno.  Just thought the name sounded cool to my ears.  I'm a Sirdar.




Bad name for the class, basically tells you nothign about what the class is. Its a worse name than the warlord.Warlord is a bad name but may as well use it for fans of the class, not that he will please everyone with another fighter subclass.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

mellored said:


> I'd just like to point out that Merls did float the idea of making the warlord offical.
> At some point.
> After extensive playtesting.
> Possibly in dark sun.




Early Darksun (original box, Dragon Kings) did have reference to the old Battlesystem rules for mass combat. It was even a class feature of Fighters and Gladiators. 

 I had a look at the abbreviated version in the Rules Cyclopedia and it looks compatible with 5E if a bit complicated (bring a calculator).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Bad name for the class, basically tells you nothign about what the class is. Its a worse name than the warlord.Warlord is a bad name but may as well use it for fans of the class, not that he will please everyone with another fighter subclass.




Because a name based on a 40 year old novel that pretty much no one has read because it was out of print BEFORE AD&D came out, yeah, that's solid.  People know what a paladin is because of D&D, not the other way around.  Or, heck, monk?  That wouldn't cause any confusion would it?  Or cleric?  

We accept these terms now because of the history of the game.  At least Sirdar has the bonus of not setting off every edition warring weenie every time it gets mentioned.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> .  At least Sirdar has the bonus of not setting off every edition warring weenie every time it gets mentioned.



 What is it, anyway?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> What is it, anyway?




Definition of sirdar

1 a : a person of high rank (such as a hereditary noble) especially in India
b : the commander of the Anglo-Egyptian army
2 : one (such as a foreman) holding a responsible position especially in India

Like I said, it's such an esoteric name that it would be pretty hard to find any real issue with it, but, it's still pretty much encapsulates the idea.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 29, 2018)

I think that name sirdar might be a little too esoteric.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I think that name sirdar might be a little too esoteric.




Heh.  You're probably right.  I was just hitting up Thesaurus.com for synonyms of Warlord and saw that one.  It's nicely historical, carries no baggage and kinda fantasy sounding.  Thought it might work.  

Although, as a big Moorcock fan, I do like Krieghund (warhound) as an option, but, again, too esoteric.  Although, Warhound might work, I suppose.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 29, 2018)

Also spelled Sardar (primary wikipedia reference), Sardaar, and Serdar.  Fariq/Ferik (Lt. General to Sardar's General), and Mushir (Field Marshal) are also nice.  Sardar/Sirdar is a bit clumsy, phonetically.  I like Fariq best, even if it's a lower rank.  Mushir isn't too bad, and it's not too far off from Marshal, which I thought was another good options.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  You're probably right.  I was just hitting up Thesaurus.com for synonyms of Warlord and saw that one.  It's nicely historical, carries no baggage and kinda fantasy sounding.  Thought it might work.  .




Could work for Darksun...


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  You're probably right.  I was just hitting up Thesaurus.com for synonyms of Warlord and saw that one.  It's nicely historical, carries no baggage and kinda fantasy sounding.  Thought it might work.




I wonder if its the root word for the Sardaukar from Dune?


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Could work for Darksun...



And if merls releases the warlord with darksun...


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 29, 2018)

Actually, warlord for Dark Sun could happen?

Mystic is on pause. By the time the designers have the psion mystic ready for Dark Sun, the warlord could be ready too.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> And if merls releases the warlord with darksun...




... you could have John Carter in D&D.  



Hussar said:


> Because a name based on a 40 year old novel that pretty much no one has read because it was out of print BEFORE AD&D came out, yeah, that's solid.
> .



 Well, you seem to have been familiar with the name from a 60 year old TV show (had to look it up: premiered '57).


----------



## bedir than (Mar 29, 2018)

People don't know of the 12 peers of Charlemagne, the Paladins?


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Like I said, it's such an esoteric name that it would be pretty hard to find any real issue with it, but, it's still pretty much encapsulates the idea.



You could go more esoteric within the bounds of vague familiarity, such as the title _Preator_.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2018)

And now I am curious to read the novel The Sirdar's Oath, by Bertram Mitford


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> ... you could have John Carter in D&D.
> 
> Well, you seem to have been familiar with the name from a 60 year old TV show (had to look it up: premiered '57).




That was kinda my point.  People are familiar with paladins because of D&D.  It's pretty likely that almost no one has heard of Have Gun Will Travel (my father is a HUGE western fan, so, that's why I knew it).  Same goes with Three Hearts and Three Lions.  If it hadn't appeared in the appendix in the AD&D DMG, it would likely be about as well remembered as 99% of the era's fantasy, as in, not at all.

The idea that we need a class name that's well known to everyone before we can use it seems a bit strange considering the class names we already have in the game.  Sure, a D&D player thinks of cleric as heavy armor dude in plate mail.  But, anyone else?  Well, then again, since clerics have made the move from D&D to MMORPG's and other computer games, we've managed to cement "cleric" in the cultural zeitgeist.  

But, my point is, these terms are popular _because_ of D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

bedir than said:


> People don't know of the 12 peers of Charlemagne, the Paladins?




I'm pretty sure that most people aren't.  Heck, I'm pretty sure most people could barely tell you who Charlemagne was.  It's a pretty minor history note.  We know because we're D&D geeks.  But, outside of us?  Maybe historical wargamers?  

Knights of the Round table would be an easy hit.  But paladin?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 29, 2018)

How about "warduke"? That has some good D&D legacy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> That was kinda my point.  People are familiar with paladins because of D&D. ..
> The idea that we need a class name that's well known to everyone before we can use it seems a bit strange



 It could have made the game that little bit more intuitive and accessible...



> Sure, a D&D player thinks of cleric as heavy armor dude in plate mail.  But, anyone else?



 A clerical worker or a fatwa-issuing terrorist leader.



> Well, then again, since clerics have made the move from D&D to MMORPG's and other computer games, we've managed to cement "cleric" in the cultural zeitgeist.



 I think the community in places like this tends to forget that TTRPGs aren't the only RPGs....


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 29, 2018)

The main currency for the name ‘paladin’ is its actual meaning in English.

1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.
2. A strong supporter or defender of a cause.
3. Any of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court.

My family used the word ‘paladin’ in the context of any idealistic ‘paragon’ ‘champion’ ‘of a cause’, long before I was aware of its historical origin relating to Charles.



Interestingly, the etymology of Latin palatinus derives from palatium ‘palace’. Thus in some sense, the name ‘paladin’ means ‘palatial’.



Heh, I suspect this class name results from a hunt thru the thesaurus − with Gygax doing violence to historical accuracy.



Note. My favorite dictionary is thefreedictionary.com. If I remember correctly, it derives from the American Heritage Dictionary (US English) and the Colins Dictionary (UK English), but is now its own source, and often adds other entries.


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Interestingly, the etymology of Latin palatinus derives from palatium ‘palace’. Thus in some sense, the name ‘paladin’ means ‘palatial’.



Yea.

Paladin was originally just "Palace Guard" who would ride out and enforce the king's orders.
Same with Samurai.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Mearls also mentions being torn between defining the Focus according to an actual space (emphasizing control of territory) versus according to being nearby an ally (emphasizing teamwork, group tactics, and leadership).
> 
> Personally, I strongly prefer the concept of defining focus by proximity to teammates.



 It should be flexible: a creature, item, or terrain feature, for instance.  
A battle plan may focus on one ally, or on a choke-point, or on an item or NPC the party needs to protect, all sorts of possibilities.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 30, 2018)

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

I have a sense of what you are looking for in a warlord class from various discussions. But have you designed your own class, with all of the features that you want to see? I would love to have a look at if you did.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 30, 2018)

mellored said:


> Yea.
> 
> Paladin was originally just "Palace Guard" who would ride out and enforce the king's orders.
> Same with Samurai.




Yeah, that reminds me again.

A nonmagical paladin base class. With warlord, samurai, cavalier, the spellcasting paladins (namely the ancients green knight, devotion white knight, vengeance red knight, conquest black knight, and redemption blue knight), heavy armor warrior (heavy infantry, tank), Greek hoplítẽs, and so on as archetypes. This to me seems the ideal organization of concepts.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 31, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> Transcribed his first draft results, which you can see here.  .



 One of the things I find myself wondering is why separate resource pools for tactical insight & gambits?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

It may be nice to get a new Mearls Warlord thread with his final design so we can all talk about that and we won't have to dig through 900 posts to find the details about his design?  Any volunteers to create it?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 31, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> It may be nice to get a new Mearls Warlord thread with his final design so we can all talk about that and we won't have to dig through 900 posts to find the details about his design?  Any volunteers to create it?




Will do....


...done.


----------

