# Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition



## Paul Smart (Mar 20, 2018)

Just as the title says.  Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition.  What should be the features of the base class?  What sub classes should it have?  Throw your ideas into the ring and lets see what we can come up with as a community.

Here is a template to get everyone started.

1st level abilities

3rd level abilities

5th level abilities

7th level abilities

11th level abilities

15th level abilities

18th level abilities

Capstone abilities.

Subclasses


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 20, 2018)

Just what we need another Warlord thread. 

https://xkcd.com/927/

Relevant XKCD is relevant


----------



## mellored (Mar 20, 2018)

1: Gambit: You learn X gambits, gaining new ones according to the level chart.  You can perform the gambit as an action.

*First Aid: As a bonus action, an ally within reach can spend a hit die and stand up.  If they are in your tactical oversite, they gain additional temporary hit points equal to your warlord level.  Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again on the same target until they take a short rest.
*Rally: All your allies gain temporary hit points equal to half your warlord level (minimum 1).  Allies in your tactical gain an additional bonus equal to your Charisma modifier.
*Direct the Strike: Select a target.  The next time an ally misses the target with an attack, they can reroll that attack.  If the enemy is in your tactical oversite, your ally also get's +Int to-hit.
*Lead the Assault: Make an single weapon attack.  If you hit, the next attack agains the target has advantage.  If the enemy is in your tactical oversite, you deal extra damage equal to your Int modifier.
*Reorient the Axis: You and allies gain advantage against oppertunity attacks until the end of your next turn.  If your allies are in your tactical overste, they don't provoke oppertunity attacks at all.

<insert other gambits>

2: Tactical Oversight: As a bonus action, you can designate a zone, creature, or item to watch over.  Your gambit, and some sub-class features, gains a bonus within the zone.  (i.e. increase the bonus from 1d4 to 1d6).

3: Sub-class
Banner of the Bastion
Banner of the Strategist
Banner of the Guildmaster
Banner of the White Raven
Banner of the Master Healer
Banner of the Sentinel
Banner of the Emissary
Banner of the Pack runner
Banner of the Thane
Banner of Vanguard
Banner of the Shadow Guard

4: ABI

5: Tacical Response: You learn X number of responses, gaining more according to the level chart.  You can perform a response as a reaction.

Oppertune Strike: When an enemy ends their turn, you can make a single attack against them.  If they are in your tactical oversite, you have advantage on the attack.
Oppertune Shift: When an enemy moves next to an ally, they can move up to half their speed.  If they are in your tactical oversite, they do not provoke an opportunity attack.
<insert other responses>
...

11: Multi-Gambit: When you perform a gambit, you can perform a second gambit.  You can between uses.
...

17: You gain an extra reaction each turn.  You can only use 1 per turn.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 20, 2018)

Here ya go. 

Yer welcome.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 20, 2018)

5E Math (roughly)

Sustained damage is about half of front loaded damage (eg fireball vs zone spell)
Single target short rest abilities (eg bard and BM fighter dice) are roughly comparable to 1st level spell slots. You get them at level 3 though and can't upcast them or change them though.
At will damage (single target) is about half a boom spell eg 8d6 fireball vs 1d8+3d6+3 or 4 sneak attack or fighter with 2 attacks. Assuming a a decent option is chosen for at will attack.
Strikers can get an extra dice or 2 of damage. Such dice are usually situational or require a daily resource.
An extra 1d6 damage at low levels is worth a spell slot (eg hex/hunters quarry)
At low levels extra damage buffs are generally rerolls or +2 (ie a combat style). At mid levels this can be an extra dice perhaps a d8. At best is ability score to damage usually on a "striker"

 Suggested warlord healing lvl 1 1d8+1 level bonus action. His needs to scale hence the +1 per level.

Level 1. Healing word, sub class ability (minor)
Level 2. 1st exploit/gambit/power
Level 3 subclass ability
Level 4 ASI
Level 5. Healing word 2/short rest

 I wold also chuck in a group heal perhaps level 2. 2d8+1 per level refreshes on short rest standard action (comparable to light cleric radiance of dawn ability but heals instead of damage dealing. 

Attack granting goes to specific subclasses and some gambits/exploits/powers that all of them can chose. Gambits can be similar to warlock invocations and can do 5E things or update 4E powers etc or grant additional healing. Perhaps another minor thing at level 1 but you do not want to front load them to much (compare with clerics, 2 spells, and an ability).The bonus action heal thing is your spell equivalent at level 1 (better than holy word and refreshes on a short rest). 

 you need some additional healing on top of the healing word ability (whatever you end up calling it). This is to make up for te fact 5E PCs do not have healing surges which was kind of key ability in 4E. The extra healing could be additional second winds or bonus HD as 5E does not have enough HD to build a class feature around although spending HD would benefit from something like an inspiring WL lvl 1 ability to gain more HP.


----------



## Eltab (Mar 20, 2018)

At L1, a class feature that looks a lot like the Inspiring Leader feat.  Proficiency with the Medicine Kit / Healer's Kit.

I played a CHR-adin in _Hoard of the Dragon Queen_, and the rest of the group would actively remind me "Hey, remember to cheer us up before we kick down the door and get into a fight!"  I was handing out enough THP that each PC could absorb one blow from typical enemies.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> Just what we need another Warlord thread.



 Warlord threads will continue until morale improves!

Or a Warlord class is published.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 21, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> Just what we need another Warlord thread.
> 
> https://xkcd.com/927/
> 
> Relevant XKCD is relevant




Just what we need another warlord thread basher


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 21, 2018)

Paul Smart said:


> Just as the title says.  Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition.  What should be the features of the base class?  What sub classes should it have?  Throw your ideas into the ring and lets see what we can come up with as a community.
> 
> Here is a template to get everyone started.
> 
> ...



 Sub-class ideas came up in another thread, so I happen to have a bunch ...


Bravura:  Always at the forefront, the Bravura inspires (and incites) by reckless example, seemingly fool-hardy bravery, and daring-do.  A Bravura may have a fierce rivalry with one or more of his allies, getting them to try to out-do eachother, and/or may try to protect others of his friends he views as needful of such.  Bravuras hail from cultures that value strength, toughness, fierceness, bravery, honor, courage, and daring above common sense, planning, precision, or prudence, and may will have preconceived notions which shape which allies go into which category, at least initially. 
The Bravura is like a MC Warlord/Fighter who takes risks in combat and encourages his allies to do the same.  Gets Extra Attack at 5th, and his gambits that give allies temps or healing also affect himself.  Links benefits to giving enemies OAs or granting advantage.  

Tactical/Commander:  Very likely from a formal military background, or at least formal studies of military history, the tactician is a theorist, a planner, and a chess master playing with lives as the pieces.  It is a very serious profession, and one that few have the stomach for once they've watched other die for a failed - or even successful - plan.  Tacticians are sometimes idealistic, following an intellectual ideal, perhaps the greatest good for the greatest number, with some sacrifices being necessary, perhaps an ideal of perfect planning and execution or preparedness - whatever, those ideals rarely stand the test of time, and most tacticians eventually turn pragmatic, some even bitter and cynical.  Those few who achieve flawless, even bloodless, victories are enshrined in the obscure histories of their specialty, but rarely remembered as heroes by history, which places little value on such seemingly 'easy victories.'  
Focusing on 'battle plan' style gambits that must be planned ahead of time and executed by participating allies.  Participation in a battle plan carries a cost (Concentration) and grants benefits.  Plans collapse if too many allies drop out of them, or the Tactician does.  INT is crucial.

Inspiring:   The inspiring warlord leverages natural charisma and skill at oratory, and sometimes, deceit - to propel allies to victory.  In the end, no matter what tacticians may say, victory is in already burning in the heart, it is the most determined, the most committed that win, and the inspiring warlord strives to bring that quality out in his allies. 
Inspiring Warlords are better at handing out temps & healing, adding CHAmod to gambits that do so.  

Skrimisher:  Why fight a battle you can't win?  And why win a battle you don't need to fight?  The Skirmisher knows that victory goes not to the strongest, nor the smartest, nor even the most determined, but to the one who fights only when he can win.  Discretion is the better part of valor, and he who fights another day, may yet live on until that day when can win.  The Skirmisher delights in tactics that harry and drain the enemy, that draw them out of position, tempt them to over-extend themselves to finish the seeming-cowards who strike and melt away, only to find themselves surrounded, outnumbered, and doomed.  Ah, yes, the valiant last stand, death with honor - a fitting end, to the Skirmisher's enemies.
Specializes in gambits that aid ally movement and stealth, especially moving allies out of danger and into position to attack.  Wolf Pack Tactics and the like.  Leans towards DEX over STR.  



			
				ThatOtherWarlordThread said:
			
		

> Nature Guide,  if you want to include Lifeguard/David Hasselhoff (swimming), Officer of the Peace



 I'll consolidate these into the 
*Protector*:  Protectors are capable individuals who take responsibility for the welfare of others.   Anywhere there's even a trace of civilization, people need to be guided and protected, often from eachother.  Protectors may work from a position of legitimate authority, like a peace officer or sheriff, they may be chosen by acclaim, looked to naturally in times of trouble, or even be self-appointed would-be heroes.  They make a point of guiding, keeping save, and, when necessary, saving others.  They will also tend to be adept at defusing potentially violent situations or resolving them with limited injury and loss of life.  They emphasize prudence, common sense, community spirit and organization.  Even when working with very capable even reckless allies like adventurers, the Protector counsels caution and careful, deliberate action - but, very often, Protectors do not heed their own advice, and may dash in to play the hero in moments of crisis.  
Specialize in Reaction gambits to help allies in danger or enable allies to aid eachother.  Also does tactical plans like the tactician that focus on minimizing risk to their allies, but tend to be pragmatic rather than brilliant on the tactical level, depending more on common sense.  Need CHA to aid negations/surrenders, and WIS to remain alert.

Resourceful: Focusing on preparedness and improvisation, the Resourceful warlord seeks to engineer any advantage he can for his allies - and also to take advantage of anything presented to them.  No plan survives first contact with the enemy and you can't eat love of country.  There are things, often very minor, very simple things, that can assure victory under the right circumstances.  For want of a nail, afterall, the Kingdom was lost.  
Resourceful Warlords focus on gambits that leverage the environment, including fortifications, traps, and the like that can be prepared beforehand, and also on being well-prepared in terms of gear.  Gain a 'Schrodenger's Equipment' feature that allows them to have just the right tool for the job at a critical moment.  

Insightful/Watcher:  If you know what your enemy wants, you can predict his actions.  If you know how he thinks, you can counter his tactics.  And, if you know where he is, he cannot surprise you.  The insightful warlord, or Watcher, is cautious and values planning, but, above all is alert for any clue of the enemy's movements and plans.  
The WIS-based Warlord, emphasizing gambits that turn on understanding the enemy, preventing surprise, and countering the enemy's plans, tactics, and capabilities.

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.  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...
Like the Skirmisher, tends towards DEX over STR (though could use thrown weapons), heavy artillery like siege engines use INT, as well.  Employs attack+benefit-to-ally gambits typically used in melee at range, instead.

The Hector:  This is the warlord who harangues, taunts, deceives, and outmaneuvers the enemy into making tactical mistakes and generally playing into his hands.  The Hector focuses on his enemies more than his allies - allies, you should be able to count on.  The Hector's acid words are carefully chosen and wickedly delivered to goad enemies into the worst course of action before them.  You might think that such tactics are worthless against enemies who speak a different language or that lack the capacity for thought at all.  But, humanoids have many forms of expression in common besides words, and it takes only a passing knowledge of a culture to know what could set someone off.  
CHA-based warlord who exerts 'control' on enemies, through intimidation, deceit, and inciting mistakes on the part of the enemy.  

 The Marshal: 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)
Specializes in gambits that resolve mass attacks by units under his command.  Gains improved access to troops as a later feature.

Icon (Lazylord/'Princess build'): 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.
Specializes in action-granting (including reactions) and gambits that restore hps and grant bonuses when acting in defense of the warlord.  Can be a capable advice-giving character (INT) or merely one that inspires protectiveness (CHA).

Combat Veteran (name lifted from a Paragon Path):  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. 



 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) or Jarl (hat-tip to [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION]): A traditional leader of a clan or tribe or the like, by right of birth (or elected if a Jarl). 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.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 21, 2018)

*Warlord's Aid *- Aid takes many forms.  Sometimes it comes from an inspiring shout and an ally is urged to fight on after being hit.  Sometimes it's sharing tactical brilliance that helps an ally knock an enemy prone.  Sometimes it's your own bravery and fighting that inspires allies instead of your words.  Other times it comes from an insightful understanding of your foes that enables you to alert your allies out of dangers way just in time.  Whatever the sources for your ability to aid other's it's frequency and power is renowned amongst your friends.

Abilities granted by Warlord's Aid can be used once per round in combat.  Aid abilities generally require a trigger and grant an effect.  These abilities do not require any kind of action on your part.  Warlord's Aid abilities improve at 5th and 11th level granting improved effectiveness to your already chosen maneuvers as well as opening up a few new ones.


----------



## Yaarel (Mar 21, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Skrimisher:  Why fight a battle you can't win?  And why win a battle you don't need to fight?  The Skirmisher knows that victory goes not to the strongest, nor the smartest, nor even the most determined, but to the one who fights only when he can win.  Discretion is the better part of valor, and he who fights another day, may yet live on until that day when can win.  The Skirmisher delights in tactics that harry and drain the enemy, that draw them out of position, tempt them to over-extend themselves to finish the seeming-cowards who strike and melt away, only to find themselves surrounded, outnumbered, and doomed.  Ah, yes, the valiant last stand, death with honor - a fitting end, to the Skirmisher's enemies.
> 
> Specializes in gambits that aid ally movement and stealth, especially moving allies out of danger and into position to attack.  Wolf Pack Tactics and the like.  Leans towards DEX over STR.




When I hear the term skirmisher, I think ‘light infantry’, and especially think of athletic warriors running, jumping, with less armor and more mobility.

Historically, the skirmisher division split off the subset of special operations. A handful of people on a covert operation. These are the tip of the spear, sotospeak, and fighting smart and sneaky. There are roguish abilities in play. But like US marines, seals, and rangers, they are strong warriors.

When you characterize the term ‘skirmisher’, I am reading ‘guerilla’. Reasonable enough.

If the term ‘skirmisher’ is being used, I want to play up the mobility aspect, with high Strength and athletic skill checks, fast speed, gymnastic grace. But it seems appropriate to also play up the high Intelligence tactics that can slip thru highly volatile scenarios.

A covert mission is minimalist. Each member represents an essential contribution. The team leader is especially important to coordinate and optimize these contributions.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 21, 2018)

steeldragons said:


> Here ya go.
> 
> Yer welcome.




I skimmed this over and it looks like a pretty good attempt!  It feels a little more lazy lord than pure warlord though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 21, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> When I hear the term skirmisher, I think ‘light infantry’, and especially think of athletic warriors running, jumping, with less armor and more mobility.....
> 
> When you characterize the term ‘skirmisher’, I am reading ‘guerilla’. Reasonable enough.
> 
> If the term ‘skirmisher’ is being used, I want to play up the mobility aspect, with high Strength and athletic skill checks, fast speed, gymnastic grace. .



 D&D draws an oddly stark line between STR & DEX, it's true, mechanically, it's hard to derive much advantage from good scores in each vs maxxing one and dumping the other - a minor, but persistent foible.

Your characterization of the skirmisher is positively inspiring (npi). I've played a Skirmishing Warlord, and I feel more could've been done with it...


----------



## AkaKageWarrior (Mar 21, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Just what we need another warlord thread basher




Like the suggestion:
play a valor bard, don't use an instrument, pick the right spells and let them look non-magical.
And role-play.
Done.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Mar 21, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Just what we need another warlord thread basher




I'm not even trying to be a basher I just hate having the first page of any forum I visit flooded by the same stuff.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 21, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I'm not even trying to be a basher I just hate having the first page of any forum I visit flooded by the same stuff.




I just hate...

edited per was against rules.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 21, 2018)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I'm not even trying to be a basher I just hate having the first page of any forum I visit flooded by the same stuff.




Give the thread creators some credit.  They felt their thread was a big enough spin off from the others to create a new one for it. Who are you to say it isn't?  

As long as they all contain different content why does it matter how many threads are spawned in relation to a topic?

it isn't even like you have to read them...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 21, 2018)

Mike Mearls has been sharing his design process using a pre-pre-preliminary fighter sub-class idea that's nominally a Warlord, so of course the topic's "trending" on here.  Just like PF2 has taken over the 'older edition' boards.  
But it was only a 3-part podcast, and the last part was - casted? podded? whatever - yesterday, so expect it to burn itself out reasonably soon.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 21, 2018)

OK. Here we go: I dug out the basic notes for one of my Warlord hacks.
Note that I only went up to 15th level: the game was not expected to get that far. I don't think that this was the final version, but it covers the basics.

I didn't note any particularly broken areas or egregious abuses when in use, but it was used in a friendly group under the auspices of both Rule 0 and Rule 7. I'm aware that its a bit patchy, so suggestions welcome.

If this is received well, I'll see if I can dig out the Maneuver list.

*Warlord*

D8 Hit Dice
Martial and Simple weapons
Skills: Choose 2 from Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Medicine, Perception, Persuasion 


Level
1	Warlord mindset. Maneuvers
2	Tactical Aid
3	Warlord Archetype
4	Additional Maneuver, ASI
5	Mindset feature
6	Archetype feature
7	Lasting Impression. Additional Maneuver
8	ASI
9	Additional Maneuver. 
10	Archetype feature
11	Mindset feature. Additional Maneuver.
12	ASI
13	Inspire Heroism. 
14	Additional Maneuver. Archetype feature
15	Mindset feature


Maneuvers: You start off knowing 5 Warlord maneuvers that you meet the prerequisites of.

Warlord Mindset: You choose either the Opportunist mindset or the Architect mindset. This will determine how your Superiority dice behave and renew.


Tactical Aid
The warlord may use the Help action in combat at a range of 30 ft. The Warlord may also substitute the Help action in place of an attack when taking the Attack action.


Warlord Archetype
Choose either the cunning Tactician, the inspiring Leader, or the brutal Vanguard subclass. This will determine which abilities and maneuvers that you excel in. (Although you may still freely select and use any.)

Additional Maneuver: The Warlord may select a new maneuver that they meet the prerequisites for. They may also swap a maneuver that they currently know for a different maneuver that they meet the prerequisites for.

Lasting impression:
 When granting temporary HP to an ally with a Warlord maneuver, you may apply them as healing rather than temporary HP, up to the amount required to bring the ally to half of their HP maximum.

Inspire Heroism. You may focus your concentration and exhortations upon a single comrade to inspire them to incredible feats. 
As an action, nominate an ally. You may spend any number of your superiority dice to grant multiple maneuvers to them that they are eligible for. The effect persists as per concentration until you have no superiority dice, or when you choose to cease. While under Inspire Heroism, you may not take reactions, but may use maneuvers targeting the nominated ally that would normally require a reaction freely, and as your action may continue to grant multiple maneuvers as a single action.


*Mindsets:[/B]

Opportunist Mindset
You excel in taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. You might not start a battle with a set of memorised contingencies, but you can always improvise on the spot to find a way to make a difference.

Your superiority dice (SD) begins as a d4. You start with a maximum of 1 SD.
Your superiority dice refresh when you roll initiative at the beginning of a combat, and at the end of your turn. You may also spend an action at any time to refresh your SD dice. 
You are not considered to have a superiority dice pool.

Level
1	d4	Split-second aid.
5	d6	Max SD increases to 2	
11	d6	Max SD increases to 3	Spur of the moment.
15	d8	Max SD increases to 4	

Split-second aid: As a reaction, you may grant an ally within 30ft advantage on one attack, ability check, or saving throw. Alternatively, you may grant disadvantage to one attack roll targeting them. You regain the use of this ability after a Short or Long rest.

Spur of the moment: You may make use of a maneuver that you do not know, but do meet the prerequisites for selecting. You regain the use of this ability after a short or long rest.



Architect mindset: 
You are methodical, taking note of your allies' capabilities and planning for many contingencies. 
Your superiority dice is a d8. You have a pool of superiority dice equal to your proficiency bonus.
Your Superiority dice refresh on a short rest.

Level
1	d8	
5	d10	Reliable plan 1
11	d12	Lend aid
15	2d8	Reliable plan 2

Reliable plan
When you roll any of your Superiority dice, you may treat any roll of a 1 as if you had rolled a 2. At level 15, you may treat rolls of 1 or 2 as if you had rolled a 3. 

Lend Aid
You may grant an ally a maneuver that you know, and any number of your superiority dice. They may then spend those SD to use that maneuver as if they were a warlord of the same class level as yourself. These granted SD and the maneuver are lost when your ally completes a short rest, and you cannot recover the granted SD until your ally loses them.

Archetypes:

Tactician
Your mind is always active, evaluating both friends and foes. Your speciality is spotting openings that your allies can exploit and shouting warnings.

Your superiority dice pool is increased by your Intelligence modifier.

Level
3	Considered evaluation
6	Cunning maneuvers
9	Contingencies in place
13	Well-oiled machine

Considered evaluation: you gain proficiency in Insight and Perception. You may spend a superiority dice when making checks based upon these skills and add the roll to your total check. If you already have proficiency in Insight and/or Perception, choose alternatives from the class skills list.

Cunning maneuvers: When you roll superiority dice that grant a bonus to AC, attack, or an ability check, you may add your Intelligence modifier to the total.

Contingencies in place: When you grant a maneuver in the first round of combat to an ally or allies that have not taken their turn yet, they may roll a die equal to your superiority dice and add that to their initiative. This cannot bring their initiative above yours.

Well-oiled machine: Any ally currently benefitting from one of your maneuvers may take the help or aid another action as a bonus action. When doing so, they are considered to have your Tactical Aid class feature.


Leader
You inspire others to efforts greater than even they thought possible. You excel at keeping your comrades in the fight, weathering the blows and spells of your foes to emerge triumphant in the end.

Your superiority dice pool is increased by your Charisma modifier.

Level
3	Hearts and Souls
6	Inspiring Maneuvers
9	
13	Improved Lasting impression 

Hearts and Souls: you gain proficiency in Persuasion and Intimidation. You may spend a superiority dice when making checks based upon these skills and add the roll to your total check. If you already have proficiency in Persuasion and/or intimidation, choose alternatives from the class skills list.

Inspiring Maneuvers: When you roll superiority dice that grants temporary HP or a bonus to a saving throw or ability check, you may add your Charisma modifier to the total.

Improved Lasting impression: The limit of your ally's maximum hit points to which you can apply temporary HP as actual healing is increased to 2/3rds.



Vanguard
Not for you is standing on the sidelines, calling for others to do your dirty work. Your place is in the thick of combat, causing havoc with your opponents' battle line and creating opportunities for those fighting beside you. 
Your superiority dice pool is increased by an amount equal to your Constitution modifier.

Level
3	Heavy Armour proficiency. Dangerous combatant. 
6	Combined assault
9	Extra attack. 
13	Demonstration 


You gain Proficiency in Heavy Armour.
Dangerous combatant: When you roll superiority dice to deal damage to an opponent, you may add your proficiency bonus to the total of all the dice rolled.

Combined assault: When taking the Attack action and successfully hitting a foe, you may use a maneuver that would normally require an action to use as a bonus action. The maneuver used must either target the foe you struck, or an ally within it's reach.

Extra Attack: When taking the attack action, you may make two attacks.

Demonstration: When you use a maneuver that targets an enemy, an ally adjacent to either you, or the foe targetted by the maneuver may use the same maneuver on their turn. They use their own ability score and proficiency bonus for the maneuver and resolve it as if using one of your superiority dice.*


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Mar 21, 2018)

Subclasses:

Inspirational madman (barbarian and warlock warlord subclass)

tough but loveable drill sergeant (fighter warlord subclass)

shaman (ranger and druid warlord subclass)

magical tutor (wizard and bard warlord subclass)

Deacon (cleric and paladin warlord subclass)

More money than brains (the lazylord subclass)

My rationale is that the warlord needs a reason for the other PC's to be inspired by them, so instead of expecting it to happen via multiclass or assuming "it just happens", better to build it into the subclasses, so all the "warlord" warlord stuff is in the base class and all the reasons someone should listen to them shout are in the subclasses.  

The capstone is Fame:  once a day, 6 CR worth of humanoid NPC's will show up inspired by your reputation to assist you (in some campaigns it is better not to think about where they came from).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 21, 2018)

Some good stuff here.  I think I'll have to take a stab when I have a few more minutes.  Bookmarked for later reference.

Just to be clear here though, we're looking at a full class or subclass?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> *Warlord's Aid *- Aid takes many forms.  Sometimes it comes from an inspiring shout and an ally is urged to fight on after being hit.  Sometimes it's sharing tactical brilliance that helps an ally knock an enemy prone.  Sometimes it's your own bravery and fighting that inspires allies instead of your words.  Other times it comes from an insightful understanding of your foes that enables you to alert your allies out of dangers way just in time.  Whatever the sources for your ability to aid other's it's frequency and power is renowned amongst your friends.
> 
> Abilities granted by Warlord's Aid can be used once per round in combat.  Aid abilities generally require a trigger and grant an effect.  These abilities do not require any kind of action on your part.  Warlord's Aid abilities improve at 5th and 11th level granting improved effectiveness to your already chosen maneuvers as well as opening up a few new ones.




I wanted to expand on this *Warlord's Aid *style of ability a little and the theory around how and why it will work.

Almost all the Warlord classes power will come by it's aids.  Aid's will start with minor effects.  At level 5 they will upgrade and start providing extra damage, extra attacks, and stronger buffs and debuffs.  At level 11 they will upgrade again and provide even stronger effects.

This means the Warlord base class will not see extra attack.  However, some level 5+ Aid's will feature him being able to make a second attack when he uses that particular Aid.  Some may even feature an ally getting an extra attack.  By removing extra attack and most other ways of scaling Warlord Damage we allow *Warlord's Aid* to empower some pretty strong effects while still being able to remain at will.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 22, 2018)

I've had plenty of time to muse on the warlord over the years. And I did an attempt as a fighter subclass a while back (renamed the Commander).

*Design Thoughts*
The big design goals for a warlord class would be:
** Use Intelligence. *Charisma is the bard's thing. There's no martial class that uses Int. That's a nice gap. Doubling down on being the "smart fighter" better defines the class. 
** Reward smart play.* The warlord is the strategic mastermind. Players interested in that concept likely want more tactical play, and the class can support that. 
** Encourage teamwork.* The class should make the other characters better and imply coordination.

I'd likely focus on reactions with the class, making the warlord the character all about off-turn actions. 

*Role*
If a warlord class is going to be added, it should focus on what the concept _should_ do. What you would expect a "warlord" to do. Especially new players unfamiliar with past implementations: you shouldn't have to fight against expectations. 

I'm less concerned about forcing the class to be the "martial healer" as healers are a _character_ role in 5e and not a _class_ role. A player should be able to make their warlord into the healer if they want, but the person wanting to play the warlord in a different role shouldn't be saddled with a bunch of healing they don't want to use. 

"Cleric replacement" is a lame niche for a class. Having the sorcerer be the "wizard replacement" would do a disservice to that class. 
The idea of making a class just to be a "non-magical buffer" is weak, being needless grid filling. We also shouldn't make a class just be to the "nonmagical pet class" or the "spell-less AoE damage class". 

*Healing*
Only one class in the game has assumed healing: the paladin. Every other class has to opt into being a healer. 
It's not an essential part of the druid or the bard or even the cleric. So it doesn't *need* to be an essential assumed part of the warlord. It gets in the way of the concept. Move healing to a subclass. 

Does there need to be more healing in a low-magic campaign? Maybe. But hp recovery is fast already with overnight healing, and there's Hit Dice to speed that up. 
Even assuming HD aren't enough, if you're changing the base assumptions of the game (i.e. low magic, no spellcasting classes) the best way to tweak gameplay is variant rules, and not a class. Changing how hp is regained, added a Healing Surge optional rule, and the like.
Making that one class essential is bad design. No one should *have* to play the cleric in the base game, and so no one should *have* to be the warlord in a low magic game. 

*Subclasses*
The 4e subclasses for the warlord are lame. They have unremarkable story hooks and zero fluff. We don't need a repeat of the Champion and Battle Master.
These need to be tossed out. 

** Chirurgeon.* The boring one. The healer. It restores hp. Whee. 
I do like the "overhealing" Meals suggested. That'd fit nicely in there.
Maybe it could hand out bonus HD to people, allowing more healing at rests. It should also do things like allow extra saving throws with a bonus against poisons and diseases. Perhaps in place of the bonus Hit Dice, where the die is rolled and becomes a bonus on the save. (Healing Surge dice?)

** Guerrilla. *The sneaky warlord that works with ambush tactics and dirty tricks. They help the party hide, and grant their allies a bonus against surprised creatures. They might also spot ambushes. 

** Herald.* The hornblower or bugler, who signals their allies. A blast of their warhorn inspires their allies as they rush into battle (aka they give out temporary hit points). The herald can also warn their allies, allowing them to act despite being surprised, or ready themselves for battle more quickly. 

** Lancer.* A common build of 4e warlords was the spearman/pikeman: giving them a polearm let them fight behind the Defender, where their melee skills would be useful but they wouldn't be base-2-base with enemies. This can draw inspiration from knights as well as dragoons from _Final Fantasy_, with abilities that give bonuses with polearms and spears, likely via a Fighting Style variant. (Bonus points if it allows for a finesse spear wielder like Oberyn Martell.)

** Standard Bearer.* The dude with the flag mobilising the troops. This would be the warlord who directs the action, allowing allies to shift their position. More focused on ally mobility and "castling".
There might also be some more limited morale boosting, by planting the flag and rallying the troops, or preventing people from being moved away from the standard (aka hold the line). 

** Vanguard. *The lead from the front character. Better armour, and a little more tanky. When they charge, they can bring allies along with them. Maybe some damage mitigation, for themselves and their allies. 

*Filled  Features*

A lot of the basic skeleton would be filled:
3 - Subclass
4 - ASI
5 - Extra Attack
6 - Subclass
8 - ASI
10 - Subclass
12 - ASI
14 - Subclass
16 - ASI
19 - ASI

So, really, only ten levels of powers are really needed. 

(Plus, 2nd level should probably also have Fighting Style. Like the Paladin and the Ranger. But that's only half a level's features. )

*Class Features*
Levels 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are still empty. 

Looking at the 4e warlord, one of the consistent abilities of the warlord was making other people's Action Surge even more awesome. Not sure how to translate that. And it's not something the warlord is actively part off, so it'd be weak first level power. 
But maybe it could be tweaked. When an ally hits with an attack, you can trigger a bonus, like moving 10 feet or some bonus damage. Likely once a round. “Tactical Acumen” is a cool name. Subclasses can also add additional options to this, like the rogue’s Cunning Action. (Or the warlord could just use it when they hit.)

The 4e version often had a bonus to initiative, which is cool. Messing with initiative in generally would be fun. Having the ability to allow characters to "delay" and change their initiative order would be neat, or swap turns with the warlord.
That might be a good, small 2nd level feature. You can modify your Initiative by your  Intelligence, adding or subtracting it. Meanwhile, swapping with another character (or swapping other characters in general) might be a fun 13th level feature. 

For 7th level, something more complicated could be cool. A “Stratagem” mechanic where at the end of a rest you give a character a bonus they can trigger. It gives you the flavour of having anticipated a situation and been ready. They might get additional uses and better strategems at 11, 15, and 18. With "Master Stratagem" as the capstone. 

This leaves level 17 as one where I got nothing. I'll come back for that...


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 22, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> When I hear the term skirmisher, I think ‘light infantry’, and especially think of athletic warriors running, jumping, with less armor and more mobility.
> 
> Historically, the skirmisher division split off the subset of special operations. A handful of people on a covert operation. These are the tip of the spear, sotospeak, and fighting smart and sneaky. There are roguish abilities in play. But like US marines, seals, and rangers, they are strong warriors.
> 
> ...




Nope they used them as far back as Ancient Greece. One of the 1st losses inflicted on the Spartans was by light infantry in rough terrain at Pylos IIRC. Light infantry is not always skirmishers but all skirmishers are basically light infantry if that makes any sense.

Skirmishers are basically Rogues, monks and certain fighter or ranger builds I suppose. Dex based in a D&D context, historically it jut means they were not expected to fight in formation and wore little to no armor.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I've had plenty of time to muse on the warlord over the years. And I did an attempt as a fighter subclass a while back (renamed the Commander).
> 
> *Design Thoughts*
> The big design goals for a warlord class would be:
> ...




I'm with you that we don't need to focus on making a warlord that goes out of it's way to heal as much as a cleric.  I do think warlords should be able to grant temp hp and heal.  Maybe the best implementation of a healing warlord is a subclass.  Maybe not.  I think there are mechanics we can add in to a warlord that are very flexible that can allow healing at the expense of damage or buffing etc.  So I'm with you that it doesn't need to be a focus as it's just one expression of warlord leadership and inspiration but I'm not sure it has to be relegated to a subclass either.

I really like your subclasses, thought I'd prefer a different name than Guerilla for the final one.  They are very good concepts and I'm going to start thinking in that direction for my own subclasses.  They are much more 5e sounding and feeling than the more generic warlord ones I'm accustomed to seeing.  Most subclasses help define who your character is in the world even though they primarily grant combat related abilities and these get right to the heart of that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> we don't need to focus on making a warlord that goes out of it's way to heal as much as a cleric.



 It didn't in 4e, and it's not like healing is the funnest part of playing the cleric - it can even be regarded as a 'burden' - so there's literally no impetus to make a Warlord compete with the life cleric for that particular crown.   It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting. 







> I do think warlords should be able to grant temp hp and heal.



 The overhealing mechanism from the Happy Funtime podcast would be an ideal way to do both in an efficient, flavorful manner - that might also serve to reduce the whack-a-mole phenomenon just a bit. 







> Maybe the best implementation of a healing warlord is a subclass.  Maybe not.  I think there are mechanics we can add in to a warlord that are very flexible that can allow healing at the expense of damage or buffing etc.



 A support class that focuses on just one aspect of support - like the miniatures handbook 'Healer' and Marshal - isn't a viable support class in full D&D.  Likewise, one that isn't flexible isn't going to be up to the challenge.  And, finally, flexibility lets players play the character they want.  If the party already has a cleric, a player should be able to run his warlord without once using an 'Inspiring Word' type power - OTOH, if the cleric leaves the group, he just might start doing so.  No vital support contribution should be locked away in a sub-class - really, nothing should be strictly locked away in a sub-class, sub-classes should make the Warlord better (or not so good) at things the base class does, rather than adding totally new capabilities or deleting anything (not that 5e sub-classes much do that latter).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It didn't in 4e, and it's not like healing is the funnest part of playing the cleric - it can even be regarded as a 'burden' - so there's literally no impetus to make a Warlord compete with the life cleric for that particular crown.   It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting.  The overhealing mechanism from the Happy Funtime podcast would be an ideal way to do both in an efficient, flavorful manner - that might also serve to reduce the whack-a-mole phenomenon just a bit.  A support class that focuses on just one aspect of support - like the miniatures handbook 'Healer' and Marshal - isn't a viable support class in full D&D.  Likewise, one that isn't flexible isn't going to be up to the challenge.  And, finally, flexibility lets players play the character they want.  If the party already has a cleric, a player should be able to run his warlord without once using an 'Inspiring Word' type power - OTOH, if the cleric leaves the group, he just might start doing so.  No vital support contribution should be locked away in a sub-class - really, nothing should be strictly locked away in a sub-class, sub-classes should make the Warlord better (or not so good) at things the base class does, rather than adding totally new capabilities or deleting anything (not that 5e sub-classes much do that latter).




WHOA!  You said :"It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting."  

This isn't true.  Look I think there is a lot of space in the warlord design for healing or temp hp granting abilities and I want to see the Warlord get them.  But it's just I can picture a Warlord without any of those abilities and he would be no less of a warlord.  Even in 5e's economy he would function fine and still be a fine support character.  There are also many mechanics that can mitigate damage and or keep allies on their feet without actually healing a single point of damage.  It just takes some imagination.  

I believe a Warlord's healing is best realized as an OPT IN ability instead of something that's inherent to every single warlord ever.  A subclass does this.  So does a broad mechanics that allow him to either heal or deal damage or buff allies etc.  But as a core component of the main class that every warlord gets, it really doesn't need to be a focus.  It's not an essential part of realizing the concept of a warlord but it's nonetheless a great way to do so if the player OPTs in to doing so.  

By the way I love the overhealing mechanic.  Depending on how healing is handled will depend on where that kind of feature should go.  

I agree a support class needs a lot of options.  I agree healing should be an option for warlords.  I disagree on locking things away in subclasses.  I think all subclasses have abilities locked away in them.  Subclasses are a form of specialization and specialists can do things the non-specialists aren't capable of.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm with you that we don't need to focus on making a warlord that goes out of it's way to heal as much as a cleric.  I do think warlords should be able to grant temp hp and heal.  Maybe the best implementation of a healing warlord is a subclass.  Maybe not.  I think there are mechanics we can add in to a warlord that are very flexible that can allow healing at the expense of damage or buffing etc.  So I'm with you that it doesn't need to be a focus as it's just one expression of warlord leadership and inspiration but I'm not sure it has to be relegated to a subclass either.



The catch is that 3rd level is "the subclass level" while 4th is the ASI. And 5th should really be Extra Attack. The warlord isn't all about attacking, but it should keep pace with the ranger, paladin, barbarian, and Valour bard. 
Similarly, like the paladin and ranger, it really needs Fighting Style so you can be good at archery, TWF, or the like. It's a nice customisation point. 

That means you heal an insignificant amount at 2nd level (with Fighting Style) or healing is all you get at first level. But you really want a warlord to do, well, warlordy things at 1st level. (And 2nd level for that matter.) Things _only _the warlord can do.
Healing _could_ be delayed until 6th/7th level (depending on when the second subclass feature kicks in). But it's still coming at the cost of some tactical powers. Stuff that could be unique to the class. 

But I'd rather keep the warlord focused on tactical features and leave the healing in the subclass, where you can double down on those features.  Otherwise you get the Vanguard warlord or Standard Bearer warlord with rando healing powers despite not being the "healer" character. If feels like a wasted level to the player (and an opportunity to just multiclass into fighter or cleric). 



FrogReaver said:


> I really like your subclasses, thought I'd prefer a different name than Guerilla for the final one.



Not my finest name given the real world connotations, but it really conveys the concept. (And real world "warlords" aren't so nice either.) Guerrillas are military forces known for the ambush tactics of the same name, so with a single word it tells you exactly what the subclass _should _do. 
But this is a super rough draft, so I'm open to suggestions. 



FrogReaver said:


> They are very good concepts and I'm going to start thinking in that direction for my own subclasses.  They are much more 5e sounding and feeling than the more generic warlord ones I'm accustomed to seeing.  Most subclasses help define who your character is in the world even though they primarily grant combat related abilities and these get right to the heart of that.



I'm brainstorming more, but it's not as easy as some classes... 
Reading about positions in medieval armies can give ideas. If I think of more I'll edit them in.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> WHOA!  You said :"It's just that hp-restoration is necessary both for any support character, and to model the class concept, in a game like D&D with gobs of hps as the main measure of PC ability to keep fighting."



 Yep, and you quoted it twice.   

What I perhaps didn't make clear enough was that no individual warlord need necessarily /ever/ restore a single hp...



> I believe a Warlord's healing is best realized as an OPT IN ability



 We're in agreement.  Think about it, the Cleric is the iconic healer of D&D, but in 5e, if even he must OPT IN to it by preparing Cure Wounds or Healing Word or the like.  Of course, a Life Cleric that didn't cast some healing now and then would be a tad weird, but he could willfully do just that, using all his slots for other spells.  

The option, though is vital to provide adequate support.


> A subclass does this.  So does a broad mechanics that allow him to either heal or deal damage or buff allies etc.



  The sub-class does it too hard and too inflexibly, though.  Oh, you're an Inspiring Warlord, you heal 2/Short Rest, enjoy?  Tactical?  Sorry, no heals, you party can drop dead?  Not great.  Inspiring Warlord - add your CHA mod when you use a gambit that restores hps?  Much more reasonable.



> But as a core component of the main class that every warlord gets, it really doesn't need to be a focus.  It's not an essential part of realizing the concept of a warlord but it's nonetheless a great way to do so if the player OPTs in to doing so.



 It's an essential part of realizing the concept behind the whole class, but no, not of realizing an individual warlord who specifically just doesn't go there.  It's essential because of the game, itself. D&D doesn't have morale checks (has never had 'em for PCs, as far as I know), nor any other mechanic to model ongoing will to fight:  except hps.   Whether the individual warlord is literally a leader, just making battle plans, or veritable mascot, he needs to potential to influence that.



> By the way I love the overhealing mechanic.  Depending on how healing is handled will depend on where that kind of feature should go.
> I agree a support class needs a lot of options.  I agree healing should be an option for warlords.



  Overhealing is a great mechanic, and should good at getting the support character who gets it to heal more proactively, as it eliminates some inefficiency.  It seems like it would be a particularly good way of modeling the warlord's brands of inspiration.  

Support classes need flexibility - options that can be exercised round by round, or day by day.  

Needing to lock in certain of those options at chargen or level up is as good (bad) as not having them. 



> I disagree on locking things away in subclasses.  I think all subclasses have abilities locked away in them.  Subclasses are a form of specialization and specialists can do things the non-specialists aren't capable of.



 It'd be like giving wizards back opposition schools - or giving clerics opposition domains that take spells away from their lists - or re-introducing weapon specialization so the fighter sucks unless he has his glaive-glaive-glaive-Guisarme-glaive.  
Specialists are /better/ at things than non-specialist are at the same things.  Especially true when the 'things' in question aren't in-born or God-given magical powers.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> (snip)
> 
> I'd likely focus on reactions with the class, making the warlord the character all about off-turn actions.
> 
> (snip)




Great idea!


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION],

Healing is an ability that Mearls believes should be gated behind some kind resource taking ability that you can run out of.  I think most of us agree with mearls on that.  This issue is that adding in a healing ability like that ends up constraining design a lot.

Is it independent of our other warlord abilities or does it use a shared mechanic with them?

If it's independent then we have to track the healings power and reduce the other warlordy stuff appropriately

If they share a mechanic then suddenly you are requiring that mechanic to be gated behind some kind of spell slot or superiority dice or ki style mechanic.  None of those abilities equal to the heal can then be at will, whereas there's many abilities a warlord could do at will that are just as strong as healing but because of how healing works, at will healing is bad.

Basically, be aware of how your demands for core class healing will constrain other warlord mechanics.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The catch is that 3rd level is "the subclass level" while 4th is the ASI. And 5th should really be Extra Attack. The warlord isn't all about attacking, but it should keep pace with the ranger, paladin, barbarian, and Valour bard.
> Similarly, like the paladin and ranger, it really needs Fighting Style so you can be good at archery, TWF, or the like. It's a nice customisation point.
> 
> That means you heal an insignificant amount at 2nd level (with Fighting Style) or healing is all you get at first level. But you really want a warlord to do, well, warlordy things at 1st level. (And 2nd level for that matter.) Things _only _the warlord can do.
> ...




Personally, I'd follow the wizard subclass progression a little closer

I like Warlord Primary ability coming in at 1st (It will scale).  I actually like making 2nd level the subclass level for Warlords because helps define them earlier on and leaves level 3 open for potentially buffing their primary ability which I feel is the most important part for getting the warlord feel.

As for healing I would lean toward it being tied to the warlords primary ability or to a subclass or maybe both.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Mar 22, 2018)

Warlord: exactly like whatever version of fighter class you're playing. But bossy. And with more Charisma. Enjoy!


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Jacob Lewis said:


> Warlord: exactly like whatever version of fighter class you're playing. But bossy. And with more Charisma. Enjoy!




Not really.  While a Warlord can fight, his solo fighting ability is not typically what makes him what he is.  Unless you are going for the version of warlord that inspires allies because he's such a bad@$$.  There's something to be said for that concept, but it's not really a concept that works in an RPG where everyone is equal level (it might work for an NPC who is much higher level than the party...)


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2018)

People just can resist the drive by threadcrapping can they?  Good grief.  

I wonder if we might not take this in a different direction perhaps.  Figher subclass is a very steep hill to climb because the fighter base class just has so much going on.  As was mentioned, when do you add this or that bit when the base class is already adding stuff pretty much every level from first to sixth?  The only really "free" level is 3rd, when the subclass kicks in.

But, what about rogues?  I think the Mastermind as a proof of concept works rather well.  Here's a class that actually not too bad for emulating a warlord.  It's not there yet, but, it's certainly along the path.  And, nicely enough, rogues come with a very handy dice pool built right in that can be used to power various warlord effects.

Imagine something like this:

Tactical mastery:  When you deal sneak attack damage, you may trade some of that damage for the following effects:

Trade 1 sneak attack die and grant an ally one of the following as a reaction - a Dash action, a bonus saving throw vs any ongoing effect, 1d6 HP (could be temp HP if you like, I'm not fussy)
Trade 2 sneak attack dice and grant one ally one of the following as a reaction - a single attack, or a skill check.

Now, right there, that solves, in my mind a lot of the issues with warlords.  You're trading 2d6 guaranteed damage to grant a single attack from an ally, so, it's not overpowered.  Because it keys off the warlord making attacks and hitting, you can up gun the effects slightly since they don't always work - you need to sneak attack, and hit.

Add in some more ribbon powers along the way, and that would make a decent warlord.  Maybe at 5th level (or 6th) he gets a second weapon attack.  Fair enough.  I'd have to actually crunch it all out, but, it seems to me that this would be a better start.  Variations of the subclass could focus on what actions are granted, perhaps bonuses to those actions, that sort of thing.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> People just can resist the drive by threadcrapping can they?  Good grief.
> 
> I wonder if we might not take this in a different direction perhaps.  Figher subclass is a very steep hill to climb because the fighter base class just has so much going on.  As was mentioned, when do you add this or that bit when the base class is already adding stuff pretty much every level from first to sixth?  The only really "free" level is 3rd, when the subclass kicks in.
> 
> ...




Rogue would make a good subclass to create a guerilla tactics style leader.  I can't see the rogue doing justice for the whole warlord concept, but the rogue has a lot more mechanically to work with than the fighter.  It's just the rogue lacks the wrong sort of flavor to really pull this together for all but the most specialized warlordy subclass.


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, what about rogues? I think the Mastermind as a proof of concept works rather well. Here's a class that actually not too bad for emulating a warlord. It's not there yet, but, it's certainly along the path. And, nicely enough, rogues come with a very handy dice pool built right in that can be used to power various warlord effects.



I though of something similar.
But, I'm liking both merls zone and elfcrusher's extra reactions ideas. And extra reactions stack too well with sneak attack.  Since it's "per turn".


Still, a "underhanded fighter" rogue who trades sneak attack dice to trip, sand in the eyes, push, ect... on a hit, would be pretty fun on it's own.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

I wanted to give an example of a *Warlord's Aid* level 1 ability that's close to balanced.

_You wait for the right moment, trying to time everything perfectly.  Finally you attack with ferocity knowing that seeing and hearing you prevail in combat will inspire your allies._
*Empowering Strike*
Trigger: When you attack (before you see the attack roll)
Level 1 Effect: If you hit with your attack you may choose one ally who can see or hear you, that ally gains a 1d4 bonus to damage on his next attack.  

Keep in mind the ability will increase in power again at level 5 and again at level 11.  

The ability is balanced because it adds approximately .9 DPR (assuming 60% chance to hit).  A d4 to damage feels more impactful than that but it get's gated behind 2 attack rolls, yours and an allies.  We don't want it too impactful at level 1 as you will also have flexibility to use other maneuvers.



FrogReaver said:


> *Warlord's Aid *- Aid takes many forms.  Sometimes it comes from an inspiring shout and an ally is urged to fight on after being hit.  Sometimes it's sharing tactical brilliance that helps an ally knock an enemy prone.  Sometimes it's your own bravery and fighting that inspires allies instead of your words.  Other times it comes from an insightful understanding of your foes that enables you to alert your allies out of dangers way just in time.  Whatever the sources for your ability to aid other's it's frequency and power is renowned amongst your friends.
> 
> Abilities granted by Warlord's Aid can be used once per round in combat.  Aid abilities generally require a trigger and grant an effect.  These abilities do not require any kind of action on your part.  Warlord's Aid abilities improve at 5th and 11th level granting improved effectiveness to your already chosen maneuvers as well as opening up a few new ones.






FrogReaver said:


> I wanted to expand on this *Warlord's Aid *style of ability a little and the theory around how and why it will work.
> 
> Almost all the Warlord classes power will come by it's aids.  Aid's will start with minor effects.  At level 5 they will upgrade and start providing extra damage, extra attacks, and stronger buffs and debuffs.  At level 11 they will upgrade again and provide even stronger effects.
> 
> This means the Warlord base class will not see extra attack.  However, some level 5+ Aid's will feature him being able to make a second attack when he uses that particular Aid.  Some may even feature an ally getting an extra attack.  By removing extra attack and most other ways of scaling Warlord Damage we allow *Warlord's Aid* to empower some pretty strong effects while still being able to remain at will.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Mar 22, 2018)

This is what I came up with. It's a Fighter sub-class and I tried to keep the complexity rock bottom, while adding as much flexibility as possible.

Ally Surge
Beginning on 3rd level, you can push your allies beyond their normal limits for a moment. An ally that can see and hear you on their turn can take one additional action when you spend your reaction.
Once you use this feature you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.


Ally Second Wind
Beginning at 3rd level, your allies have a limited well of stamina you can draw out to protect the from harm. As a free reaction a friendly creature that can see and hear you regains hit points equal to 1d10+your fighter level.
Once you use this feature you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.


Tactical Start
At 7th level, when initiative is rolled choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) that can see and hear you, their movement is doubled for the first round of combat.


At 7th level, you can treat Action Surge as if it were Ally Surge.


At 7th level, you can treat Second Wind as if it were Ally Second Wind.


Ally Indomitable
Beginning at 10th level, as a free reaction, if your ally can see and hear you they can reroll a Saving Throw that they failed, you must use the new roll and you must finish a long rest to regain this feature.


At 10th level you can treat Indomitable as if it were Ally Inodmitable


Relentless Leader
Starting at 15th level, when you roll for intiative and have no; Ally Surge remaining, you regain 1. Ally Second wind remaining, you regain 1. Ally Indomitable remaining, you regain 1.


Full Surge
Starting at 18th level, you bring out the full untapped potential from everyone around you. When you use Ally Surge it expands to include taking one additional reaction, and also if possible one additional Bonus Action on top of your regular ones.


I wanted to leverage actions surges huge flexibility to simulate buffs without it looking like the buffs you get from other characters. 


Action, Cast a Spell = DPS
Dodge, Disengage, Hide = Defense buff
Dash = Extra movement
Grapple, Push, Trip, Grapple Escape, Object Interaction, Help = Utility/Tactics


So I'm shifting the tactic so that your no longer nickle and diming a hit here and a few steps there on your turn to shift the tide of battle in your favour. Now the tactic is to predict what your team mate needs when they are taking their turn and you empower them to achieve their goals. Stuff like;


Did the Rogue get grappled and now he has to decide between freeing himself or sneak attack? No! Ally Surge.


Did the Wizard drop a fireball on the baddies and you know all the archers will probably focus fire on him next round? Ally Surge to Dodge, Dash for cover, or Hide


Did the Barbarian wait two round to get his hands on the flying creature and now he has an opening but probably only for one round before he flying ut of reach again? Ally Surge and enjoy those extra swings Barb, you deserve them.


The only issue I have with it is that it doesn't synergies with Sneak Attack. But I think it's worth the sacrifice for the flexibility it can potentially offer, and the new way it encourages you to play tactics. Plus Action Surge is always a show stopper so it would be fun to hand them out like you were Oprah.


Ally Second Wind is interesting because your sorta sacrificing "Healing Power" for "Healing Flexibility." It's worded in a way that you can use it during your turn, your allies turn, or during enemies turn. Technically you could heal your wizard after the Owl bear gets into melee with him but before he attacks, or even in between attacks. I thought it would be an interesting trade-off and more tactical feeling then just healing on your turn a little bit. I was considering calling it "Brace Yourself" which is definitely something a leader would say right before they get wrecked.


Tactical Start was to give the warlord that tactical positioning vibe. but it trades the little strategic nudges in between turns for essentially 5 super dashes right at the start so that every one can be in their ideal positions. So your Paladin doesn't have to walk into the middle of the field and chuck a javelin and just wait there untill the enemies turn to reach him. And your Rogue is pretty much guaranteed to always reach that hiding spot without using his Dash. I don't know if it's better to have ideal positioning at the start of a fight versus in the middle of the fight, but this guarantees the first at least.


Turning your Surge and Wind into the Ally versions gives it that sacrificial leader vibe, and it doubles them. Plus it makes it so that when they increase it automatically increases the Ally versions. I thought it was a simple way to do it.


Ally Indomitable is straight forward but ill mention here that I deliberately didn't put a "within 30ft/60ft" restrictions on any of the features on purpose. I figured that the seeing and hearing would be enough, and I wanted the Warlord to be able to help the front line and back line without much issue.


Relentless Leader seemed like a nice safety net for high level play.


Full Surge is just me going over the top a little but I don't think its crazy. Battle Master has six d12 Superiority Dice and you have three Surges, and most characters have 2 attacks, so it evens out I think. Battle Master can get 6 Sneak attacks + 6d12. Warlord gets 6 attacks, or 3 spells, or 3 everything else. You lose in raw DPS but your flexibility is unequal. seems fair enough.


By level 10 you have


2 Ally Surges
2 Ally Second Wind
2 Indomitable


and 3 ASI to round out your Warlord however you see fit with Feats like Inspiring Leader, Skills, Healer, Martial Adept.


And if you want to sacrifice DPS for Warlord-y Stuff then don't do it with Extra Attack, do it with your ability scores. keep your STR at 14 and up ur CHA. Sacrificing +1 to Hit, and +1 to Damage, for +1 in Persuasion, Intimidate, Deception, and Performance. Seems like a Warlord thing to do. And instead of getting a tempting Combat Feat like GWM or SS remember your not a mere Fighter, your a Warlord.


I think between these Features and all the ASI/Feats and flexibility/Generic-ness of the Fighter you could get a decent Warlord.


It's just too bad that Sneak Attack doesn't work with him


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Rogue would make a good subclass to create a guerilla tactics style leader.  I can't see the rogue doing justice for the whole warlord concept, but the rogue has a lot more mechanically to work with than the fighter.  It's just the rogue lacks the wrong sort of flavor to really pull this together for all but the most specialized warlordy subclass.




Well, I'm not sure about that to be honest.  The baseline rogue doesn't actually come with a whole lot of flavor IME.  There's nothing about a rogue that screams "I'm a criminal".  And, 3e certainly had all sorts of rogue variants that had nothing to do with being a "thief".  Even in 2e, you had the Adventurer kit, the Investigator kit and Troubleshooter.  So, it's not out of line, too much, to take the rogue class in a new direction.

And the rogue class just leaves so much room to expand into.  Your Bravura subclass gains extra attack and armor proficiencies.  Your Tactical subclass adds Int to checks and perhaps bonuses to initiative.  The Inspiring subclass adds Cha to healing, perhaps actually doing full healing instead of granting temp HP, which all subclasses can do.

Now you've got your three baseline warlords that are all about skills and helping others do their thing.  Very solid support class that would be welcome in any party.  Unlike a fighter subclass that is 75% DPR with a side helping of support.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Not really.  While a Warlord can fight, his solo fighting ability is not typically what makes him what he is.  Unless you are going for the version of warlord that inspires allies because he's such a bad@$$.  There's something to be said for that concept, but it's not really a concept that works in an RPG where everyone is equal level (it might work for an NPC who is much higher level than the party...)



That /one/ specific Warlord sub-class concept - one way of looking at the Bravura (the other is as a reckless attacker who takes risk to create openings) - out of, what, 16 or so, above, would do with having a plausible claim on "Best at Fighting" (even at the same level) and thus might work as a fighter sub-class.   

... hmm... I'm starting to like the idea of splitting the Bravura into a Fighter (Bravura) Fighter/Warlord faux-MC sub-class and a Warlord (Bravado) Warlord/Fighter faux-MC sub-class...



FrogReaver said:


> [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION],
> 
> Healing is an ability that Mearls believes should be gated behind some kind resource taking ability that you can run out of.  I think most of us agree with mearls on that.  This issue is that adding in a healing ability like that ends up constraining design a lot.



 Not really.  D&D traditionally gives daily resource high impact and great versatility, on return for nominally less frequent use.  And that's exactly where gambits need to be:  you don't pull a stunning tactical gambit every 6 seconds, they should be the kind of thing that happens in only some, more challenging or critical encounters, and make a real difference to them.

Not that there aren't little things you can do every round, just that, like cantrips  or ordinary attacks, there'll be less to them.



> Is it independent of our other warlord abilities or does it use a shared mechanic with them?



 Shared, obviously, support demands flexibility.


> If it's independent then we have to track the healings power and reduce the other warlordy stuff appropriately
> 
> If they share a mechanic then



 Then you don't have to reduce the other warlordy stuff, you leave the distribution of the resource to the player, and the character performs better or worse as a result of that mamagement... like most classes.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 22, 2018)

A support character is generally going to be short range, in terms of combat positioning.  Some will push forward into the front lines, and some will move back, but generally you'll sit just behind the front lines, in order to facilitate healing, buffing, debuffing the enemy, etc.  Typical stat combo is a mental stat plus Constitution.  If you make the Tactical Focus idea fundamental, the Warlord becomes a long-range supporter, and has freedom to work from pretty much anywhere in the battlefield.  

Given the _concept_ of the Warlord, Int is pretty much a required stat.  Its complementary stat must be Dex, Con, or Wis (the 'big three' defense stats).  Every single class has proficiency in one of the 'big three', and one of the other three; never two of the same type.  If Int is a given, then the complementary stat must pretty much be Con.  This benefits concentration checks, assuming concentration becomes a component, as well as the frontliner Icon/Vanguard types.  Even if you discount the Tactical Focus and concentration, I have a hard time seeing the Warlord fitting a Dex or Wis proficiency.

So an Int/Con support class.  Of course, there are various concepts that go with it that draw on all of the other four stats.  Str on the vanguard, Chr for inspiration, Dex for the ranged version, or Wis for the diplomatic or guerilla version.  It's a very MAD class.

 [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] came up with a lot of subclass concepts.  My own approach is much more concise.


Icon - Inspirational focal point. Shonen hero (or protected princess). Minimum tactics, maximum guts (or luck).
Commander - Focuses on tactics that can be executed by allies.  Mix of working to gain advantage, and reactions.
Strategist - Plots and schemes and creates elaborate strategems. Anticipates the enemy and preemptively counters.
Defender - Tactician shaping the battlefield.  Affects movement, hindering the enemy, and traps.

Tony's Bravura, Inspiring, Hector, and Icon all wrap together into the same general concept (be a focus, inspire to heal, temp hp), which I call Icon.  Protector might also fall in here.

His Tactical/Commander, Combat Veteran, and Artillerist all fall under what I have as Commander, though I like the extra flavor he added about the cynical world view.

His Resourceful and Skirmisher both roughly map to my Defender.

His Insightful/Watcher is my Strategist.

Marshal stands as separate from the other concepts, but also difficult to make stand on its own without breaking things.  I do like the concept, but it's definitely something that needs its own specific focus time.


* Caveat: I approach this as a class that splits at level 3 to each take unique approaches, but with some common fundamentals.  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] approaches it as a class that specializes immediately at level 1, and all subclasses draw from the same base mechanics.  Thus we will have very different views on what constitutes a subclass.


While I agree with pretty much all of what [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] said about role and healing, the Warlord doesn't have to be a "healer", per se.  Since the HP pool is an abstract concept, it can as easily be considered a mental thing as a physical thing.  If the Cleric is healing cuts and bruises, the Warlord can be boosting determination and willpower.  The Cleric's side is, "How long can your body keep functioning?"  The Warlord's side is, "How long can you keep fighting without giving up?"

So I think it's fine to make it a class that helps restore HP as a baseline, even if I agree it shouldn't be a "healer" class.  The description of its abilities should be more along the lines of Second Wind than Inspirational Healing.


Anyway, here's what I would put together.  Usual caveat that balance and level-appropriateness is nowhere near guaranteed, and I likely went a bit overboard.  Too much combat stuff, and not enough general subclass stuff.


Proficiency in Light Armor, Medium Armor, Shields, Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons.


1st Level:
– Tactical Focus: Each turn you may choose a set of contiguous combat spaces within 100' of you. This is your Tactical Focus. It remains as you set it as long as you focus on it (as if concentrating on a spell), change it, or until you become incapacitated. The total number of combat spaces you can focus on is 3 + your current Warlord level.
– Willpower Boost: You provide inspiration or motivation to your allies which restores their ability to fight.  If allies within your Tactical Focus regain hit points due to a spell or ability in excess of their maximum hit points, the excess becomes temporary hit points.
– Teamwork: When you use the Help action to assist on an ability check, you may affect anyone in your Tactical Focus.
– Encouragement: You may grant an ally in your Tactical Focus twice your level in hit points.
– Gambits: You have a few tricks up your sleeve that may help turn the tables on enemies.  A gambit lasts for as long as your Tactical Focus is maintained, or until you use another gambit.
– – Baiting: You may cause an enemy to head towards any selected ally (including yourself) within your Tactical Focus, if the enemy is not currently engaged.
– – Distraction: If you hit an enemy within your Tactical Focus, the next attack made against it is made with advantage.

>> Mechanism and use of gambits and moving the Tactical Focus uncertain. Sometimes they stumble over each other.

2nd Level:
– Fighting Style: Archery, Dueling, Defense, Two-weapon Fighting, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection


3rd Level:
– Warlord Archetype:
– – Icon
– – Commander
– – Strategist
– – Defender


4th Level:
– ASI (and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th)


5th Level:
– You may use an additional reaction each turn.  Only one reaction may be used for an opportunity attack.


Miscellaneous minor gambits:
10th Level:
13th Level:
18th Level:

20th Level: Capstone




*Icon Archetype*

3rd Level:
– Attention Grabber: Everyone notices you, for good or ill.  Your Tactical Focus is, by default, an aura around you that reaches 10 feet from you.  This size increases by 5 feet every 5 levels.
– Inspiring: Any abilities you use that grant hit points add your Charisma modifier to the total (minimum 1).
– Rally: Shout a rallying cry, give an inspirational speech, or mock your enemy.  All non-hostiles in your Tactical Focus are granted a number of hit points equal to twice your level, and have advantage on their next saving throw before the end of your next turn.
– Cry for Aid: As a reaction to being attacked, you may ask for the aid of a nearby companion.  An ally in your aura may move to position themselves in your location, pushing you back 5 feet, and take the attack for you.  If the ally has a higher AC, the attack may miss.

5th Level:
– Extra attack: When you make an attack with the Attack action, you may make an additional attack.
– Not on My Watch: When an ally has been reduced to 0 hit points, you can automatically stabilize them if you are within 5 feet of them.

7th Level:
– Unstoppable: You gain resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing attacks.
– Eyes on Me!: As all enemies in your aura focus on you, your allies have advantage on all attacks against those enemies until the start of your next turn.

9th Level:
– My Hero: When an ally answers your Cry for Aid, they gain a bonus of +5 to their AC until the end of the turn.
– Save the Day: As a reaction when an ally in your aura is attacked, you may act as a shield, imposing yourself between the enemy and your ally in order to take the attack on yourself.
– Hold!: As a reaction when an enemy moves through your aura towards an ally, you may move to block its movement. The enemy loses half of its movement speed.

11th Level:
– Turning Point: When using Rally, allies in your aura gain advantage on their next attack.

15th Level:
– Big Damn Hero: When you Save the Day, you gain advantage on all attacks until the end of your next turn.
– Gain profiency in Wisdom saves.


*Commander Archetype*

Gain Proficiency in Heavy Armor.

3rd Level:
- Coordinated Assault: You may have two gambits active at the same time.
– Formation: Gambit: All allies in your Tactical Focus gain +1 AC.
– Careful Movement: Gambit: Enemies may not make opportunity attacks against allies in your tactical focus.
– Strike!: You may use one of your attacks to direct an ally to make an attack as a reaction.

5th Level:
– Wolf Attack: Gambit: When an ally attacks a hostile creature in your Tactical Focus, that creature is knocked prone.
– Giant's Push: Gambit: When an ally attacks a hostile creature in your Tactical Focus that is no more than one size larger than the ally, the creature is knocked back 5 feet.
– Dive for Cover: As a reaction to an area effect ability or spell, you shout a warning, and all allies within your Tactical Focus may move up to half their movement before the spell takes effect.
– Charge!: Using an attack, you can direct an ally to make a charge attack.  As a reaction, they may move up to half their speed towards a target and make an attack.

7th Level:
– Ambush: Gambit: When an enemy enters your Tactical Focus, you may use your reaction to allow your allies to move up to half their speed towards the enemy.
– Reposition: An ally may use half their movement in order to swap positions with any other ally in your Tactical Focus.

9th Level:
– Group Strategy: You may have up to three gambits active at the same time.

11th Level:
– Burst of Speed: Gambit: An ally who starts their turn in your Tactical Focus increases their speed by 10 feet until the end of their turn.

15th Level:
– Proper Training: Gambit: Once per turn, an ally in your Tactical Focus who misses an attack may reroll that attack.


*Strategist Archetype*

3rd Level:
– Crafty: You may use gambits from any archetype.
– I Know What You Were Planning: Roll two d20's at the end of each long rest and record the values. You may use a reaction to use one of those rolls to replace any attack rolls, saving rolls, or ability check rolls that have not yet had their effect resolved, as long as the relevant creature is within your Tactical Focus.

5th Level:
– Ready: All allies who can see you may add your Intelligence modifier to their Initiative rolls, and have advantage on Perception checks to avoid being surprised.
– Instigate: You can instigate a rage within enemies that are in your Tactical Focus.  The enemy acts as if they were under the effects of Reckless Attack until the end of your next turn.
– Pile On: Gambit: If more than one ally is within 5 feet of an enemy in your Tactical Focus, they each get a bonus to their damage rolls equal to your Intelligence modifier.

7th Level:
– Fear Me: If you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, you may do so in such a way as to frighten any enemies that can see you, as in the Fear spell.  The DC is 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Intelligence modifier.
– Interrupt: You may use a reaction to use an attack against a spellcaster casting a spell within 60 feet of you.  If the attack hits, it acts as the spell Counterspell.

9th Level:
– Mastermind: You add your proficiency bonus to all Intelligence or Wisdom ability checks.
– Expectation: An ally of your choice may start an encounter in a hidden position.

11th Level:
– Brazen Approach: You may approach the leader of a hostile group without provoking opportunity attacks, or being otherwise hindered.
– Brazen Presence: You have advantage on Charisma ability checks against the leader of a hostile group.

15th Level:
– Fake: When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you are instead reduced to 1 hit point. You appear somewhere else within your Tactical Focus, while a facade crumbles before your attacker.


*Defender Archetype*

3rd Level:
– Planning Area: You already expected this would happen.  You may define an area for your Tactical Focus that is triple the default number of combat spaces, but cannot be moved, and must include your current position.  You have resources and traps set up within this area.
– I've Got One of Those: You've got a variety of mundane items stashed away for a rainy day.  Up to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1) mundane items may be found stashed in places in your planning area for you or your allies to pick up.  Your DM determines where any given item is located.  At the end of the battle, the items are returned to your "rainy day" box.
– Trap Card: You have up to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) traps planted within your planning area.  You may activate one as an action on your turn to incapacitate it until the end of your next turn. (limits? other effects?)

5th Level:
– Secret Passages: Any ally in your planning area who is out of the line of sight of any enemies may use half their movement to move to any other unoccupied location in the planning area.
– Explosions: After setting off a trap, the area within 10 feet of the trap space becomes difficult terrain, and is heavily obscured until the start of your next turn.

7th Level:
– Cover!: Your planning area is filled with odds and ends that can be used to befuddle an enemy. An ally in your planning area is always considered to have at least half cover.

9th Level:
– Trapdoors: Gambit: Allies in your planning area may use the Hide action regardless of whether enemies can see them.
– That Hurt: Your traps now stun the enemy until the end of your next turn.

11th Level:
– I See You: Enemy units in your planning area may not gain any benefit from half cover.

15th Level:
– Eternal Maze: Any enemy that attempts to leave your planning area must succeed on an Intelligence (Investigation) check. If it fails, it instead re-enters the area at a random location along the outer edge.  The DC of the check is 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Intelligence modifier.



-------------

The subclasses need a lot of refining.  I threw in a bunch of ideas that felt appropriate for the general concept of each archetype, even if expressed in different ways (eg: the hero vs the damsel for the Icon archetype), but may have gone overboard.  Also, the whole Tactical Focus/Gambit mechanism is subject to "not working quite right".

Icon: hero, damsel, vanguard
Commander: tactician, veteran
Strategist: manipulator, trickster, social handler
Defender: trapper, ambusher, movement specialist

Didn't expect the Strategist to go that way, but it is what it is.  Blame Kanki.  On the other hand, the mechanics of Icon really match well with each of those character concepts (though the ability names may need tweaking).

I didn't work much on determining how much healing is viable, as the entire power balance is at an unknown level right now.  I figure that's something that can be tweaked until it feels right.

It's late.  I'm sure there are plenty of problems.  Will deal with them later.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Not really.  While a Warlord can fight, his solo fighting ability is not typically what makes him what he is.  Unless you are going for the version of warlord that inspires allies because he's such a bad@$$.  There's something to be said for that concept, but it's not really a concept that works in an RPG where everyone is equal level (it might work for an NPC who is much higher level than the party...)



Oh! You thought I was being serious? Or maybe just dumping on the topic? I only just, I assure you. There is a lot of good thought and hard work on display here, and I never make fun of that (even if it is Warlord thread #1485). Keep up the good work! Remember, "bossy".


----------



## 77IM (Mar 22, 2018)

I know it's heresy to say "warlord should be a fighter subclass" but that's how I feel because of the story behind it. I also think the noble class, from EN5ider's _Touch of Class_, makes a really good warlord. Basically I view the fighter/warlord relationship similar to that of rogue/thief. Thief could be its own class with its own subclasses, but rogue's a broad chassis that can support some pretty divergent character concepts. Likewise, while the game could support a warlord class, fighter should be able to cover it. Given the choice, I usually opt for fewer classes.

To make this comment productive, here's my version of the Warlord martial archetype, maybe there is something in here that you folks can use. I particularly like my Commander's Strike wording, since it alleviates a problem many people seem to have with the warlord, by giving the recipient more options.



*Martial Archetype: Warlord*

Inspiring Word
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, your presence inspires allies to fight on despite grievous wounds. As a bonus action, you can shout words of encouragement to an ally within 30 feet who can hear you and who has at least 1 hit point. The ally regains hit points equal to your fighter level + your Charisma modifier (minimum 1 point). Once an ally benefits from this ability, they can’t benefit from it again until they finish a short or long rest.

At 10th level, you can target multiple creatures with a single use of this ability, although each target can still only benefit once before finishing a rest.

Combat Leader
Beginning when you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain a bonus to initiative equal to your Intelligence bonus (minimum +1). Allies within 30 feet of you that can see or hear you also gain the bonus.

Commander’s Strike
Starting at 7th level, your sense of the flow of battle is unmatched, and you can aid allies remotely through tactical advice, subtle distractions, or well-timed interference. Once per turn when you take the Attack action on your turn, you may give up one of your attacks to assist a willing ally within 30 feet who can hear you. The ally may use their reaction to make a single attack. If they choose not to do so or have no reaction available, then their next attack gains a bonus to attack equal to your Intelligence bonus (minimum +1), provided it is made before the end of their next turn.

Commanding Presence
At 10th level, your reputation precedes you, your voice naturally rises above the din of battle, and you know how to instantly gain the respect and attention of even the most jaded of warriors. Add double your proficiency bonus when you make a Charisma check to interact with soldiers under your command, troops who are allied with you, or enemy forces engaged in parley.

Lead the Attack
At 15th level, when you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can call out to your allies to aid you. Allies within 60 feet who can hear you gain a bonus to attack and damage against the creature you hit until the end of your next turn. The bonus equals your Intelligence bonus (minimum +1). Once you use this ability, you can’t use it again until you finish a long rest.

Lord of War
When you reach 18th level, you may use an action to let loose a fearsome war cry, rallying your allies. Allies within 60 feet of you that can hear you gain a bonus to AC and saving throws for as long as they can see or hear you, up to 1 minute. The bonus equals your Charisma bonus or your Intelligence bonus, whichever is better (minimum +1). Once you use this ability, you can’t use it again until you finish a long rest.

NOTES

This thing could be grossly overpowered. It’s really hard for me to judge since most of the abilities affect only allies, not the warlord. This class certainly seems more powerful than the Purple Dragon Knight, but that class seems weak to me, compared to the kind of raw damage that battlemasters and champions can dish out.
Inspiring Word specifically doesn’t work on people with 0 hit points because a) it doesn’t make sense to me and b) to differentiate the Inspiring Word from healing word. The warlord isn’t magic so when somebody drops, he has to run over and pour a potion into them. That’s what you get for not having to burn spell slots.
I didn’t want to use temporary hit points because that has a very different usage dynamic: temp hp can exceed normal hp, so there’s incentive to apply temp hp very early on. Regular healing is only relevant later, after damage has been dealt. Temp hp also doesn’t stack with the Inspiring Leader feat’s temp hp, and I feel warlords should work well with Inspiring Leader.
Commander’s Strike allows the targeted ally to decide whether to use up their reaction or accept a bonus for later, which should reduce the feeling that the warlord player gets to boss around the other players. Both options are powerful, but they should be, since the warlord is giving up an attack and fighters tend to have good attacks.
This class has some MAD (Multiple-Ability Disorder) since its abilities key off of both Charisma and Intelligence. I think that’s OK since both seem like viable paths, and it pressures warlords to have lower physical stats than other fighters, which is somewhat appropriate. It’s also a hedge against the possibility that the archetype is overpowered.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> A support character is generally going to be short range, in terms of combat positioning.  Some will push forward into the front lines, and some will move back, but generally you'll sit just behind the front lines, in order to facilitate healing, buffing, debuffing the enemy, etc.



 Really, D&D's individuals-not-units tactical scale usually means not a great distinction between just off the front lines and 'long range.'   Two warlord sub-concepts - the effete-general take on the Lazy Lord and the Artillerist could be long-range in a more literal sense, though...



> Given the _concept_ of the Warlord, Int is pretty much a required stat.



 INT or CHA or WIS could work depending on emphasis and sub-class.  

Another idea I'm starting to like is that the Warlord probably needs to be MAD, at least, some of the sub-classes should lend themselves to that, or maybe the chassis should lend itself to MAD, and some of the sub-classes more to a specific stat.  For instance, an Inspiring Warlord was straight-up CHA, Tactical INT, and Resourceful split the difference.



> [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] came up with a lot of subclass concepts.



 To be fair, I just collected them from the other theread.  Cribbed 8 of them from 4e, a few more from 4e Paragon Paths, several from  [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] and the Protector from your Defender, consolidated with some of his more oddball ideas.  But the troop-marshaling 'Marshal' (credit for the name goes to the d20-era Miniatures Handbook) is about the only original sub-class I offered, myself, IIRC.
(Anyone I stole from without attribution, please feel free to correct me.)

But, even consolidating a number of them, it came out to 16 at my last count.




77IM said:


> . Basically I view the fighter/warlord relationship similar to that of rogue/thief.



The Thief was the original name of the class.  It was changed to Rogue, and, over time, the concept broadened and became better-supported, much better at it's original speciality, able to pursue other specialties, and, via SA, combat. Finally, in 5e, it came full circle, and the theif name was used as a rogue sub-class, along with it's original sub-class, the Assassin.

The fighter & warlord don't have that history, the fighter's name was never changed, it has wobbled aground laterally, more than gained better support, suffering more from being too generic than too specific.  In 5e, its old sub-classes are full classes, in spite of having concepts as narrow as the theif's, though, it could be argued that the Champion calls back it's older incarnations.

The Warlord, rather, like the Rogue, Ranger, & Paladin, was broken out from the too-generic fighter which lacked support for such concepts.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 22, 2018)

It does beg the question (in conjunction with "let's make Ranger as a Fighter subclass" thread and kind of intersecting with the "ideal class organization" thread) can the game be complete and satisfying with the game offering:

Fighter (full/base class)
--Paladin subclass
--Ranger subclass
--Warlord subclass
(presumably people would want to keep --Eldritch Knight subclass for the psuedo-ftr/mu multiclass)

I think the answer is clearly, yes. It could be a complete and satisfying game, allowing for whatever character broadness within each and/or layered by other elements (backgrounds, etc...).

But it would undoubtedly get certain persons/playstyles who have grown up with "full classes for every character concept," and/or "every corner case permutation I can come up with must needs be supported" up in arms.

Edit: I forgot the Barbarian! So...

Fighter (full/base class)
--Barbarian (Con.ftr, + Rage, extra attacks, more damage, no magic, survival/endurance skills)
--Warlord (Cha.ftr, + Inspire, extra attacks, more hits via others, saves for others, no magic, interactive skills)
--Eldritch Knight [don't love the name] (Int. ftr, +limited Arcane spells & powers, more offense and defense through magic)
--Paladin (Wis. ftr, +limited Divine spells & powers, more offense & defense through magic)
--Ranger (Dex. ftr, +limited Nature spells & powers, more offense & utility through magic, nature & stealth skills)

/Edit


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The Thief was the original name of the class.  It was changed to Rogue, and, over time, the concept broadened and became better-supported, much better at it's original speciality, able to pursue other specialties, and, via SA, combat. Finally, in 5e, it came full circle, and the theif name was used as a rogue sub-class, along with it's original sub-class, the Assassin.
> 
> The fighter & warlord don't have that history, the fighter's name was never changed, it has wobbled aground laterally, more than gained better support, suffering more from being too generic than too specific.  In 5e, its old sub-classes are full classes, in spite of having concepts as narrow as the theif's, though, it could be argued that the Champion calls back it's older incarnations.
> 
> The Warlord, rather, like the Rogue, Ranger, & Paladin, was broken out from the too-generic fighter which lacked support for such concepts.




Maybe the a eccentric idea would be to simply remove the Fighter class, since most of its old ''archetype'' that had flavor are now full classes. You got a full class for the holy knight, the crafty woodsman, the roguish adventurer. Just create a full class for the inspiring swordsman (called whatever), a ''Knave'' archetype for the rogue to use martial weapons and heavier armors to play the shocktrooper or brooding mercenary (maybe also change ''sneak attack'' to something more generic like Piercing Attack or Pinpoint Accuracy or Cunning Strike etc) and a Mystic-Knight class or Wizard subclass. No more generic fight-y guy.


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

steeldragons said:


> > But it would undoubtedly get certain persons/playstyles who have grown up with "full classes for every character concept," and/or "every corner case permutation I can come up with must needs be supported" up in arms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

steeldragons said:


> It does beg the question (in conjunction with "let's make Ranger as a Fighter subclass" thread and kind of intersecting with the "ideal class organization" thread) can the game be complete and satisfying with the game offering:
> 
> Fighter (full/base class)
> --Barbarian (Con.ftr, + Rage, extra attacks, more damage, no magic, survival/endurance skills)
> ...



 Pretty nearly an unpdated Warrior Class Group, or, toss Rogue in under there, too, and you've got an Essentials-era Martial Source.



> I think the answer is clearly, yes. It could be a complete and satisfying game, allowing for whatever character broadness within each and/or layered by other elements (backgrounds, etc...).



 I don't think I can disagree, though it's pretty hypothetical, putting 4 full classes under one like that.  



> But it would undoubtedly get certain persons/playstyles who have grown up with "full classes for every character concept," and/or "every corner case permutation I can come up with must needs be supported" up in arms.



 For me, at least, I like consistency in designs.  So if you had Fighter, Mage, and Cleric, big-C 'Classes' and Fighter had the above 'sub-classes' (which were capable of doing justice to any build from prior eds or concept from genre that'd have to fit under them);  and the Mage had Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Artificer, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Witch, Sha'ir, Binder, Beguiler, Magus, &c (ditto); and the Cleric had Druid, Pacifist, Cloistered, Avenger, Invoker, Templar, &c (ditto), cool, why not.  Or, if all those guys and more got classes, OK, at least we can still play all of them.  But if you had Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Artificer, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Witch, Sha'ir, Wu-jen, Binder & Beguiler as classes, and then the Cleric, above, with sub-classes, and a Fighter, Barbarian, Thief and Paladin, we'll it wouldn't quite add up.  Some concepts would be stretching to fill a class, others would be squeezed and some would be lost.




vincegetorix said:


> Maybe the a eccentric idea would be to simply remove the Fighter class, since most of its old ''archetype'' that had flavor are now full classes.



Neither an eccentric or a new idea, just a radical one.  The 'big 4' - fighter, cleric, magic-user & thief are enshrined due to D&D tradition, even though two of them have blandly generic names and one of them painfully narrow.  Even though two of them are mildly redundant & consequently over-specialized.  Even though none actually work that well, individually to model characters from genre.  We're still stuck/blessed with their legacy.  




mellored said:


> I don't think there's as many of those people as you expect.
> 
> But if you want to put all those sub-classes into the fighter, you need to redo the fighter to make more room...
> Which i will go do...



 Oh, there's folks who get real picky about their D&D being really D&D... and if they aren't that many, they are that loud.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 22, 2018)

Orrr, maybe "better," because I reeally like the idea of making the Warlord the "smart fighter" and using Int. for them...

Then the EK becomes the Cha. fighter and becomes more Ftr/Sorcerer or Fighter/Mystic, dare I say [and tm] "Jedish"? Could also cover some samurai or other mystic-warrior archetypes/traditions. 

It's a concept I think lots of people like and would like to have access to, and would give the Fighter a bit more nichey thing of their own, but D&D specifically hasn't really ever gotten quite right. Also, then, enshrines a "psychic warrior" into the core of the game...with the added benefit of freeing up the "wizard with a sword and some combat ability/strength to go with their int." -true mu/ftr- archetype to fall under the arcane caster set up (Mage/Wizard/whatever the overarching type is).


----------



## mellored (Mar 22, 2018)

steeldragons said:


> Orrr, maybe "better," because I reeally like the idea of making the Warlord the "smart fighter" and using Int. for them...



Ok, here's my attempt at a more flexible fighter.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...r-the-warlord-ranger-barbarian-rogue-and-more


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 22, 2018)

I imagine the D&D warlord like a martial adept from "Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords" with maneuvers from the white raven school.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I imagine the D&D warlord like a martial adept from "Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords" with maneuvers from the white raven school.



 The Warlord even had a number of "White Raven" exploits.


(_Edit: Ok, it's only 4, but 4 is 'a number,' so I wasn't technically lying.  Plus there were three more such powers from an actual 'White Raven' Paragon Path (4e's weakly-expressed version of a PrC) that had warlord as a prerequisite._)


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 22, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> To be fair, I just collected them from the other theread. Cribbed 8 of them from 4e, a few more from 4e Paragon Paths, several from @mellored and the Protector from your Defender, consolidated with some of his more oddball ideas. But the troop-marshaling 'Marshal' (credit for the name goes to the d20-era Miniatures Handbook) is about the only original sub-class I offered, myself, IIRC.



OK, sorry, "wrote up" instead of "came up with".   Mostly, gave good fluff to the more coherent ideas.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Really, D&D's individuals-not-units tactical scale usually means not a great distinction between just off the front lines and 'long range.' Two warlord sub-concepts - the effete-general take on the Lazy Lord and the Artillerist could be long-range in a more literal sense, though...



I started going one direction with building the class, and ended up going an entirely different direction, but have remnants of the early thought process left in the post.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> INT or CHA or WIS could work depending on emphasis and sub-class.
> 
> Another idea I'm starting to like is that the Warlord probably needs to be MAD, at least, some of the sub-classes should lend themselves to that, or maybe the chassis should lend itself to MAD, and some of the sub-classes more to a specific stat. For instance, an Inspiring Warlord was straight-up CHA, Tactical INT, and Resourceful split the difference.



Yeah, the Warlord class is one that could likely actually work well with the max +mod human point-buy (13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10 ⇒ 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11), or maybe (15, 13, 13, 13, 10, 9 ⇒ 16, 14, 14, 14, 11, 10).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 22, 2018)

Balancing something around being mad get's rather broken rather fast when rolling for stats is still such a large part of many games.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 22, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Balancing something around being mad get's rather broken rather fast when rolling for stats is still such a large part of many games.



 I guess it depends on how you do it.  If different stats stack without limit?  Yeah, potential problem.  If it's just different features key off different stats?  Nope, just the usual MAD problem of being underpowered relative to everything keying off a primary. 

Honestly, D&D has /never/ found a balance were the all-round-pretty-decent set of stats is, well, all-round-pretty-decent, it usually ends up starkly sub-optimal.  I suppose I shouldn't let myself be tempted to try 'fixing' that little oversight with the Warlord, as well...


----------



## Azzy (Mar 22, 2018)

steeldragons said:


> It does beg the question (in conjunction with "let's make Ranger as a Fighter subclass" thread and kind of intersecting with the "ideal class organization" thread) can the game be complete and satisfying with the game offering:
> 
> Fighter (full/base class)
> --Paladin subclass
> ...




You'd also need a Champion (or whatever), so you can have a more straight fighter that isn't one of those other subclasses. You could potentially throw the Rogue in there, too, but then we'd need more subclasses for the different Rogue subtypes.


----------



## Paul Smart (Mar 22, 2018)

OP here.  I just want to say I love all the great ideas that have come up in this thread.  Great work everyone.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Warlord ability concepts.

Battle Plans
Mearl's Tactical Focus
Rallies
Aid
Gambits
BattleCrys
techniques
manuevers

All of these things are fine concepts for Warlord abilities to be designed around.

I think we all have some major differences of opinion on whether the heart and soul of the warlord should be
-at will abilities
-short rest abilities
-long rest abilities
-per encounter abilities
-hybrid

A lot of flavor is derived here.  Are warlord abilities something that just happen occasionly during a fight.  Are they smaller things you keep doing the whole fight?  Do you have some of each even if it greatly constrains your design space on either.

Ideally a Warlord class would support these things and maybe a few others I haven't thought of
1.  Granting attacks to allies
2.  Granting allies buffs
3.  Healing
4.  Can either not attack yourself at all or attack a lot yourself (flexibility in how much you are attacking)

Personally I like at will Warlord abilities.  If you remove most damage enhancing features from the base class, these at will style abilities start to become very flexible.  Some can have extra attacks built in.  Some can leave off extra attacks for a bigger status effect etc.  Healing is a bit tricky with a primarily at will solution but there are options to make it work.

I think the key to making any warlord work is to tie extra attacks and almost all base class combat enhancing features into whatever warlord ability mechanic is being used.  This technique probably can work pretty well with short rest and long rest style abilities as well.  Healing is still probably the trickiest ability to get right here as well.  Caster classes generally get closer to 3-5 spells worth of feature at level 1 not all of which can be used for healing.  Bards get bardic inspiration.  Clerics get features that add a bit of extra damage that are also on a daily resource limit.  Most are pretty similar to level 1 spell effects (like the tempest ability to deal damage when hit is almost the same as hellish rebuke).  

So yea, in order to come close to a level 1 cleric a warlord cannot rely solely on flexible short/long rest powers that can be used for healing, if he does he will either heal too much or not do enough else.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 23, 2018)

Azzy said:


> You'd also need a Champion (or whatever), so you can have a more straight fighter that isn't one of those other subclasses. You could potentially throw the Rogue in there, too, but then we'd need more subclasses for the different Rogue subtypes.




Oh, no. That "Joe normal Fighter" guy is still the Fighter. I didn't mean that you HAD to take a subclass. If you want to be a Fighter, be a Fighter...and THEN there are thee other flavors of Fighter you could choose for whatever reason you'd want.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Speaking on 5e subclass design, I think subclasses shouldn't have had pre slotted abilities but instead a basic fighter got a full level 20 slate of abilities and subclasses picked and replaced some of those.  Subclasses would be available at various levels not just a set predefined level.  If only....


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

So my ideal progression in the early levels:
1. * Warlords Ability* _(once per round ability with a wide variety of effects.  I prefer using triggers like attacking, hitting or an ally being hit etc to help allow the warlord to grant allies abilities on their turn, these would cost no kind of action or reaction)_
2. * Subclass Ability*
3. * Enhanced Warlord's Ability* _(a few powered up extra uses of the ability per short rest, healing will be a power up on some of the abilities)_
4. * ASI*
5. * Improved Warlord's Ability* _(every Warlord's ability now is enhanced to a level 5 version, granting substantially greater effects, potentially including extra attacks etc)_

Honestly once the first 5 levels are mapped out the rest of the class gets much easier to design.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I think we all have some major differences of opinion on whether the heart and soul of the warlord should be
> -at will abilities
> -short rest abilities
> -long rest abilities
> ...



  It seems like daily/long rest is unavoidable, as in the podcast Meals set out an underlying design convention that anything that might be used to restore hps must be on that time scale.  I can only assume that's in support of day length.

Likewise, every class has at-will abilities.

That leaves short rest, which is how the warlord-adjacent BM & PDK recover.

Encounter or per-enemy limitations seem logical, to me, but is there any 5e precedent?




> Do you have some of each even if it greatly constrains your design space on either.



 What constraint? Numerous classes have both very significant daily and modest at will capability.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It seems like daily/long rest is unavoidable, as in the podcast Meals set out an underlying design convention that anything that might be used to restore hps must be on that time scale.  I can only assume that's in support of day length.




Totally agree.  There needs to be some kind of short or long rest mechanism for healing.  Healing can't be at will.  There's various ways to realize this and still keep the base power at will:
-give a short rest or long rest pool that can be used to enhance the at will abilities
-give a separate healing ability that is independent of the base at will power (possibly akin to lay on hands in strength)
-tie healing to a DC check that increases on a per ally basis each time you heal them.

other ideas?



> Likewise, every class has at-will abilities.




Kinda maybe sort-of, kinda not.  Depends more on how your defining an at-will ability at that point.



> That leaves short rest, which is how the warlord-adjacent BM & PDK recover.




Short rest is kind of the defacto assumption for martial style recharging powers.  Of course Samaurai threw a monkey wrench in that and so there's a lot more options in designing this than trying to pigeon hole it into a short rest mechanic when it might fare better as something else.



> Encounter or per-enemy limitations seem logical, to me, but is there any 5e precedent?




I don't think it matters as long as it feels right for the ability in question.  Like a Battle Plan ability could easily be encounter based.  It's something that can easily be envisioned as happening every encounter




> What constraint? Numerous classes have both very significant daily and modest at will capability.




Making one set of abilities stronger means the other set of abilities needs to get weaker.  That's a design constraint and a tradeoff.  Enlarging the box of Daily abilities shrinks the box for at-will abilities and vice versa


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

Since your direction is so strongly pushing to have the Warlord's Core ability be daily perhaps you can give us a preview of how to capture that ability and any others needed at level 1 while still keeping the potential healing power level in line with a cleric or bard and having as much potential combat power as those classes?

How would you accomplish that?  Further, how would you plan on scaling the Warlord Core ability in the level 1-5 range to ensure the warlord has enough uses and power in his core ability to keep up in power with classes like the cleric and bard?


----------



## Azzy (Mar 23, 2018)

steeldragons said:


> Oh, no. That "Joe normal Fighter" guy is still the Fighter. I didn't mean that you HAD to take a subclass. If you want to be a Fighter, be a Fighter...and THEN there are thee other flavors of Fighter you could choose for whatever reason you'd want.



Ah, I see. Thank's for the clarification.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Totally agree.  There needs to be some kind of short or long rest mechanism for healing.



 I did not get the impression that short rest healing was on the table.



> other ideas?



 Maybe it's a tad conventional, but:  a resource that's allocated dynamically to healing or other functions, giving the character the flexibility to support the party in a way that fits the current situation, and the player, incidentally,  some 'agency.'


> Kinda maybe sort-of, kinda not.  Depends more on how your defining an at-will ability at that point.



 OK, I'll take a stab:  Something you can do every round it's applicable, regardless of how many times you've done it before,  that is above and beyond the warm-body base line of actions anyone can take with no check or that can be resolved with just non-proficient checks & attacks.



> Short rest is kind of the defacto assumption for martial style recharging powers.  Of course Samaurai threw a monkey wrench in that and so there's a lot more options in designing this than trying to pigeon hole it into a short rest mechanic when it might fare better as something else.



 Good enough for a fighter sub-class, perhaps, not so much a full class?




> I don't think it matters as long as it feels right for the ability in question.  Like a Battle Plan ability could easily be encounter based.  It's something that can easily be envisioned as happening every encounter



 That would make sense from the conceptual level.  Then again, a given battle-plan might not work for every enemy & situation, and abstracting that would not be unreasonable.

Also, sticking to the plan could require focus - Mearls mentioned concentration, but didn't go there with the sub-class, but for a full class, could work.  Heck, everyone wanting the benefits might have to concentrate on the plan.  Plus, concentration is mechanically/conceptually analogous to Bo9S/4e stances.

...



> Making one set of abilities stronger means the other set of abilities needs to get weaker.



 Not that I've observed.  Or, rather, with a flexible resource, it's naturally taken care of by managing the resource.  If you use all your CS dice for rally, your temp-granting ability was stronger, if you use some for precision strike your ability to hit was stronger and your granting temps weaker.



> Enlarging the box of Daily abilities shrinks the box for at-will abilities and vice versa



OK, IDK if box size is the best metaphor.

5e isn't tightly or carefully balanced against extremes, as was pretty evident from the peek into the process that we got. But, it clearly does have a rough balance point at a certain day length.  A certain number of rounds that your best (daily) or second-string(short rest) stuff applies, and the remainder phoned in with your at-wills.  So, if you have kinda crap at-wills and no short rest abilities, a few dailies can be spectacular.

It seems fairly numerous and potent dailies are a given, driven by the option of adequate healing, which requires more modest at-wills.

So putting most of the class's more powerful functions in the same account as the healing seems the only plausible option.  

And, since the class is not meant to quite match the cleric as iconic healer, that means the non-healing alternatives should be pretty nice... because that will result in less healing used, for one thing.


----------



## mellored (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I think we all have some major differences of opinion on whether the heart and soul of the warlord should be
> -at will abilities
> -short rest abilities
> -long rest abilities
> ...



All of the above, depending on the power.
Just like warlock invocations have some passive, some active, some eldrich blast (weapon attack) boosters , and some 1/short rest, and some 1/long rest.

i.e.
Trip: You can trip as a bonus action.
No Gambit Wasted: When an enemy makes a saving throw against a spell or similar effect, with no other effect (such as hold person), you can use your reaction to let the ally keep his spell slot.  An ally can only benifit from this once per rest.
Spring the Trap: Your enemy just walked into your carefully crafted trap.  As a reaction, when an enemy moves, you an all your allies can immediately take an action.  Once you use this feature you cannot use it again until you take a long rest.


Though leaning mostly towards at-will.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> [MENTION=996]
> Since your direction is so strongly pushing to have the Warlord's Core ability be daily



 I'm not pushing, just adapting to the underlying 5e design convention. 

I'd rather see the daily healing limit maintained by HD, but that'd presumably be too 4e, and not add enough daily healing, consistently enough to support the required day length.  

Too bad, I think combining HD-fueled healing with inspiration & CS dice fueled maneuvers, and per-encounter/enemy limited gambits could've delivered  closer to concept, and been more dynamic situational, and interesting.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

mellored said:


> All of the above, depending on the power.
> Just like warlock invocations have some passive, some active, some eldrich blast (weapon attack) boosters , and some 1/short rest, and some 1/long rest.
> 
> i.e.
> ...




Might could work.  I like the flexibility.  I'm worried about how you would scale the "invocations"?  

I'm also worried about the lack of a shared pool of resources for them.  So an invocation that says you can heal an ally once per short rest literally means that at most you get 3x heals per short rest.  

Possibly fleshing out the idea would be for each short rest power granting invocation to give an extra short rest resource and the new ability.  Same for the long rest one?  This still doesn't solve scaling though.  Or maybe it does?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not pushing, just adapting to the underlying 5e design convention.
> 
> I'd rather see the daily healing limit maintained by HD, but that'd presumably be too 4e, and not add enough daily healing, consistently enough to support the required day length.
> 
> Too bad, I think combining HD-fueled healing with inspiration & CS dice fueled maneuvers, and per-encounter/enemy limited gambits could've delivered  closer to concept, and been more dynamic situational, and interesting.




Healing that is only limited by Hit Dice is likely too strong since no other healing power competes for those resources.  

But getting back to my question, you didn't actually offer any ideas on implementing a warlord that starts getting daily powers from level 1.  How would you go about balancing that with classes like the cleric to ensure your not granting to much healing while also being able to get somewhere near cleric level damage output when not healing.  How would you actually scale whatever you would call the Daily Mechanic for this warlord in the level 1-5 range?

Everytime I try it turns into a convoluted mess where the primary mechanic just doesn't ever end up quite where it needs to.  So i'm always having to add extra abilities in that cover the power gaps or risk letting the warlord overshadow the cleric at healing etc.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Healing that is only limited by Hit Dice is likely too strong since no other healing power competes for those resources.



 HD are already a healing resource, so only any add over it would actually be meaningful.  The further downsides would be needing to hoard HD for in-combat use, and being unable to help an ally that is out of HD.



> Everytime I try it turns into a convoluted mess where the primary mechanic just doesn't ever end up quite where it needs to.



Mike just referenced the spell damage table and took it from there. 

But it doesn't seem like even the Life clerics healing follows that table...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> HD are already a healing resource, so only any add over it would actually be meaningful.  The further downsides would be needing to hoard HD for in-combat use, and being unable to help an ally that is out of HD.
> 
> 
> Mike just referenced the spell damage table and took it from there.
> ...




So you just plan on ignoring the actual question?  Should I take that as you are thinking on it and will get back or that you are dodging it all together?


----------



## mellored (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Might could work.  I like the flexibility.  I'm worried about how you would scale the "invocations"?



Not all effects need to scale. Any boost to a d20 roll (advantage) or status effect (prone) is just as good at level 1 as it is at level 20.

Others will probably scale by themselves.  Giving allies THP equal to twice your warlord level, once per short rest.   Possibly something with your proficiency bonus, or based on your Int or Cha.

But mostly I imagine simply getting more of them, like the warlock.  So you can stack push and slow on your eldrich blast advantage and avoid OA's against the target if your attack.
Maybe even let you take the same one multiple times, so you can give THP twice per short rest.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So you just plan on ignoring the actual question?  Should I take that as you are thinking on it and will get back or that you are dodging it all together?



 It feels premature to jump into a design.  We started out with 'what resource schedule?'  I'm still at that stage of thinking about it...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

mellored said:


> Not all effects need to scale. Any boost to a d20 roll (advantage) or status effect (prone) is just as good at level 1 as it is at level 20.
> 
> Others will probably scale by themselves.  Giving allies THP equal to twice your warlord level, once per short rest.   Possibly something with your proficiency bonus, or based on your Int or Cha.
> 
> ...




Scaling on it still seems like a mess

I'll ask basically the same thing of you that I did of Tony.  Let's take a level 5 warlord.

Give me an example of a balanced short rest, an example of a balanced long rest and an example of a balanced at will ability for level 1.  I'm assuming you will grant a character 2-3 invocations at level 1?

Level 3 is generally a considerable power bump for PC's.  Will you grant more of the level 1 invocations?  Will the level 1 invocations scale well enough to still be strong enough at level 3?  Will there be special level 3 requirement invocations that are stronger than level 1 invocations that you now can choose from?  Do you not scale invocations at level 3 at all?  Maybe some other mechanic grants the warlord his boost at level 3?

Most importantly, say I pick 2-3 at will invocations at level 1.  They won't be able to add very much at level 1 or they will be too strong.  It's going to be difficult to scale them at level 3 since there's probably not even a dice worth of anything we can look to double.  It would take quite a few at will "balanced level 1 invocations" to be added in at level 3 to make level 3 be balanced with anything.  

I'm worried you are trying to use a mechanic as the primary warlord mechanic that isn't going to be scalable like we need it.  Warlocks get invocations and get spells that upgrade just like a caster.  Could you imagine trying to make their invocation system work if they didn't get regular spell slots at all and everything was just an invocation?  We would be asking the same questions.  How many invocations do I get.  When do we get upgraded invocations either through auto upgrading by level or through access to stronger ones by level.  

Possibly tiered invocations at level 1,3,5,7,9 etc.  At level 1 you choose 2-3 invocations.  At level 3 you may choose 2 level 3 or lower invocation.  At lever 5 choose 2 level 5 or lower invocations.  Etc.

That's going to be a lot of invocations by max level but it might could work?  I still don't like it as a lot of 1 use abilities that you can't trade for a different 1 use ability feels pretty bad and is likely the reason they went away from vanician casting.  I don't think we need a vanician warlord... lol

Any other implementation ideas?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It feels premature to jump into a design.  We started out with 'what resource schedule?'  I'm still at that stage of thinking about it...




That's the point I'm getting at.  Some resource schedules may inherently cause the design process to fail.  If you look ahead a couple of moves you can see the potential issues and pitfalls and try to choose the best resource schedule to avoid those issues.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That's the point I'm getting at.  Some resource schedules may inherently cause the design process to fail.  If you look ahead a couple of moves you can see the potential issues and pitfalls and try to choose the best resource schedule to avoid those issues.




So, you're saying a daily/at-will split with powerful/flexible dailies and modest at-wills might inherently fail?
Because it seems to have been used repeatedly, in the PH.  

Frankly, strong at-will & minor short-term-recharge boosts seem like they have a much more limited and less encouraging track record. 

As for 'all the above, as mellored is working on, he has the Warlock as a template, but it's power seems concentrated in the short rest side, which is apparently less acceptable for healing.

One issue is that the 4e design offers no help - resource mix wasn't defining in 4e, everyone was on the same schedule.  In 5e, there's several schedules, but 3/4 support classes are on basically the same daily/at-will one.  And the 4th isn't as clearly support-focused.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 23, 2018)

@_*Tony Vargas*_

I have a solution for scaling at will warlord powers while still providing short rest or daily healing.

I don't have a solution for scaling long rest ones at all.  Level 1 looks a little convoluted as I'll have to add the long rest powers in but also add something else just about as strong as them but not capable of producing healing.  

Level 3 looks even worse as I would potentially need to go from 2 uses to 6 uses (or maybe more).  

Level 5 even with extra attack you likely need to greatly upgrade your uses or their effects at this level.  (probably effects would be best which would be doable)

I guess I may have just answered the question for you.  It looks adequate and not too bad when compared to the cleric or anything else.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Scaling on it still seems like a mess
> 
> I'll ask basically the same thing of you that I did of Tony.  Let's take a level 5 warlord.
> 
> ...




 I have overhauled my warloed healing a  lot its changed about 6 times. I am getting close to a point where I am happy with it.

 My level 5 warlord atm would get osmehting like this.

2/short rest bonus action heals for 1d8+5 
1/short rest 2d8+5 30'standard action 

 Inspiring Warlord gets to add cha to both of the.

 Its basically 6 cure spells and 3 prayers of healing assuming you get 2 short rests. They get another 1d8+level/short rest when cantrips scale to 3 and dice (level 9/10?) and a second mass heal at level 6.

 the 1d8 and 2d8 part get to add level to it though kind of like fighter 2nd wind and the healer feat. 

 Competitive with the cleric although I think the cleric is better overall at healing once it gets the higher level spells (mass cure etc). WL still probably loses to a life cleric but they beat every other cleric anyway except for MC life clerics.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 23, 2018)

The insistence upon actual _healing_, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.

If the concern is just that in order to "replace the cleric" (which currently is not even remotely mandatory) with "non-magical healing" then any ability which alleviates damage to allies, including preventing it in the first place, or absorbing it, should qualify.

Sure, you can't _always_ prevent damage; sometimes you need to heal.  That's why lots of other classes (Bard, Druid, Paladin, even Hunter) have secondary healing abilities.  And healing potions.  Oh, wait...you want a 100% _magic-less game_? And that game _must_ be D&D 5e?  That in itself strikes me as a kind of zealotry, but that aside, good thing the Short Rest/HD mechanic is so (ridiculously?) generous.  Plus Healing Kits.  Plus Healer feat.

5e just simply does not require that one member of the party be a full healer.

So it's hard to not interpret the absolute intransigence on this issue as...something.  That something might range from simply "I want a 5e Warlord to be exactly like my favorite class from earlier editions" to "I have a bigger axe to grind and since we can't fight over the thermostat I choose this as my surrogate for voicing discontent."


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The insistence upon actual _healing_, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.
> 
> If the concern is just that in order to "replace the cleric" (which currently is not even remotely mandatory) with "non-magical healing" then any ability which alleviates damage to allies, including preventing it in the first place, or absorbing it, should qualify.
> 
> ...



Seems to me that argument is also pretty simple to make in reverse.  Why is there such a _resistance_ to warlords having healing, when the majority of PHB classes already have baseline or subclass options with healing?  And the non-magical options for healing are already ridiculously broad, and pretty anti-"reality", if such a thing matters to your play priorities?  Why would adding yet another class with healing matter?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 23, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Seems to me that argument is also pretty simple to make in reverse.  Why is there such a _resistance_ to warlords having healing, when the majority of PHB classes already have baseline or subclass options with healing?  And the non-magical options for healing are already ridiculously broad, and pretty anti-"reality", if such a thing matters to your play priorities?  Why would adding yet another class with healing matter?




Only because of the insistence that it is not just healing but specifically _non-magical_ healing, which opens up multiple cans of worms, including that (for some people) the fact that it's non-magical also has to mean that it's at-will & unlimited.  And then that always turns into a cat fight.  

Why not leave out the most controversial, most opposed aspect?

I personally have no problem with a fighter sub-class that can heal.  Just don't base it off a narrative device that requires my character to be non-magically inspired by your character.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Only because of the insistence that it is not just healing but specifically _non-magical_ healing, which opens up multiple cans of worms, including that (for some people) the fact that it's non-magical also has to mean that it's at-will & unlimited.  And then that always turns into a cat fight.
> 
> Why not leave out the most controversial, most opposed aspect?
> 
> I personally have no problem with a fighter sub-class that can heal.  Just don't base it off a narrative device that requires my character to be non-magically inspired by your character.



That's fine, but we all should be up front that we're choosing to honor the objections of one vocal contingent over the objections of another.  I mean, obviously one camp has to lose the argument, assuming the design ever does move forward.  There isn't really a compromise position.


----------



## mellored (Mar 23, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I'll ask basically the same thing of you that I did of Tony. Let's take a level 5 warlord.
> 
> Give me an example of a balanced short rest, an example of a balanced long rest and an example of a balanced at will ability for level 1. I'm assuming you will grant a character 2-3 invocations at level 1?



Something like that. Or maybe 1 per level.  Some examples...

*First Aid: As a bonus action, you can heal someone 1d4+Int HP and let them stand up. A creature can only benefit from this once per short rest.
*Direct the Strike: When a creature you can see makes an attack, you can use your reaction to give them advantage.
*Rally: When you roll initiative, each ally who can see and hear you gains THP equal to half your level (minimum 1).
*Helper: When you take the help action, you can help all your allies within 30'.
*Battle Ready: You and your allies gain +2 bonus to initiative.

Level 5/11/17: I see 2 general options.
1: Multi-gambit. You gain an extra reaction/bonus action/or otherwise let gambits stack...

2: Higher level gambits. More powerful gambits.
*Recuccitate: When a creature has died from in the last minute, and not from massive damage, you can spend 3 rounds performing an advanced medical technique, physically pushing air into their lungs and forcing their heart to beat, in order to bring them back to life. They are stabilized 0 hit point. Once you use this feature, you cannot do it again until you take a long rest.
*Alpha Strike: When you roll initiative, allies gain advantage on their first attack that battle.
*Inspiring Presence: At the start of each of their turn, your allies who can see you gain THP equal to your Charisma modifier.

Or some mix of the 2. Like stronger gambits at level 5, extra reaction at level 11.



> Most importantly, say I pick 2-3 at will invocations at level 1. They won't be able to add very much at level 1 or they will be too strong. It's going to be difficult to scale them at level 3 since there's probably not even a dice worth of anything we can look to double. It would take quite a few at will "balanced level 1 invocations" to be added in at level 3 to make level 3 be balanced with anything.



As an example... with both stacking and scaling gambits.

Level 1 novice-tier gambit: Your party gains +2 to initiative.
Level 3 sub-class feature: Your party has advantage on initiative.
Level 5 adept-tier gambit: You party can move half their speed when they roll initiative.
Level 11 paragon-tier gambit: Your party gains advantage to attacks on their first turn.
Level 17 epic-tier gambit: The enemy gains disadvantage on saves until their first turn.
level 18: another novice-tier invocation: At the start of each of their turns, your allies gain THP equal to half your warlord level (9 THP).

All useful.



> Could you imagine trying to make their invocation system work if they didn't get regular spell slots at all and everything was just an invocation?



Yes. Just turn spell into invocations, like some spells already are and give more invocations.
i.e.
Devils Flame: (prerequisite level 5) You can cast fireball once per short rest. Increase the damage by 1d6 at levels 7, 9, and 10.
Amor of Agathys: You can cast armor of agathys once per short rest. This improves at levels 3,5,7,9 and 10.
Disco Ball (prerequisite level 5): You can cast hypnotic pattern once per short rest.
Devils Charm: (prerequisite level 11): You can cast mass charm once per long rest.


Not that I would recommend it for the warlock, since it would be bit awkward to keep track of all those different expended resources.
But you don't need to keep track of whether you used at-will stuff or not.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The insistence upon actual _healing_, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.



 Its in large part pragmatic, in that it's an indespensible support contribution when things go badly wrong.  

The Warlord, like the Bard & Druid would be a viable alternative to a cleric as some support for a party.  Without some capacity to restore hps and stand up fallen allies, the 'viable part is lost, and at some point the party may be, as well.

It also fits the concept, because hps are the only 'fight on' mechanic in the game.
Rolling them over to temps on overheating as in the podcast first even better.

Besides, the PDK heals, Mearls's podcast example is designed from healing, up...

...it's continued objection that's starting to sound less rational.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Only because of the insistence that it is not just healing but specifically _non-magical_ healing, which opens up multiple cans of worms, including that *(for some people) the fact that it's non-magical also has to mean that it's at-will & unlimited*.  And then that always turns into a cat fight.




Your earlier use of the word "zealot" would describe those people I bolded above very well.  Why should we back down because they want to be zealots about non-magical healing being capable of being short rest or long rest instead of only at-will and unlimited?  Why is it us that must back down instead of them?



> Why not leave out the most controversial, most opposed aspect?




That "controversial" aspect already exists in the game.  2nd Wind.  Short rest healing dice use.  There is already non-magical healing that doesn't operate at will but instead operates on short rests.  I don't hear any complaints like that about those mechanics do you?



> I personally have no problem with a fighter sub-class that can heal.  Just don't base it off a narrative device that requires my character to be non-magically inspired by your character.




Now you are getting more to your point.  I understand that position and where it comes from.  You want to be able to decide what inspires your character.  At face value that makes perfect sense.  But let me ask,  Do you demand to a decide when your character is non-magically frightened? Do you demand to decide when your character is non-magically knocked prone?  Do you demand to decide how much HP the enemies attack removed from your PC?  If you've never brought any of these things up, then why do you ignore them and focus only on demanding that you decide if your character is inspired?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Your earlier use of the word "zealot" would describe those people I bolded above very well.  Why should we back down because they want to be zealots about non-magical healing being capable of being short rest or long rest instead of only at-will and unlimited?  Why is it us that must back down instead of them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 YOu guys need to back down om some things as you lacl popular support.

Give em martial healing in exchange for at will attack granting.Martial healing is a bit silly but as long as its rate is not to over the top who cares. You can always dress it up as granting second winds or granting bonus hit dice etc. 

 The at will attack granting thing on a support character is a problem though. Support characters in 5E give up a lot of damage at least in terms of at will. The War Cleric and Valor bard are at the cutting edge of at will damage for support characters, lore bards basically stink at it unless you ficus hard on it with magical secrets and feats.


----------



## Tallifer (Mar 24, 2018)

I loved playing a Warlord in the Fourth Edition of D&D, and his ability to heal as well as help his comrades in other ways was part of his appeal.

However, I can easily live with a healing spell list or magical abilities in addition to mundane and "realistic" abilities. I liked the image of shouting my allies back to health, but even in 4E, I often (but not always) imagined that the Warlord exercised some supernatural ability to bestow movie-like shrug-it-off moments to his buddies.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Mar 24, 2018)

Here is a no magic warlord for 5e: http://dndhackersguild.weebly.com/blog/warlord-for-dnd-5e-and-primeval-thule


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> YOu guys need to back down om some things as you lacl popular support.



 The irony of D&Ders appealing to popularity, when our little hobby is one of the least popular recreational activities in human history (some forms of actual torture not excepted) is amusing, but still invalid...


> Give em martial healing in exchange for at will attack granting.



 When you step in and demand concessions on an issue you have no interest in, that you can always choose simply never to opt into, that is not compromise.
Building a consensus among people who may actually use the class may be.

Opt-in instead of standard is the ultimate compromise.  In the PH, the BMs 'Rally' that doesn't rally at all, for instance is a compromise on a standard sub-class (as is it being a sub-class, in the first place, rather than the fighter chassis getting maneuvers and only a Champion or Slayer sub-class stripping them out in favor of a simpler alternative).

For those who don't care for the narratives behind martial hp-restoration, the option is always there to simply not use an officially optional sub-class like the PDK, or even a less-compromised standard class ability like the PH fighter's Second Wind.

Though, the latter does highlight the value of designs that leave options open to the player, as Second Wind has no alternate use nor any alternate feature that a player might swap it for.



> The at will attack granting thing on a support character is a problem though. Support characters in 5E give up a lot of damage...



When it comes to grinding out damage consistently, sure, but action grants are quite situational, even if they don't have arbitrary useage/rest limitations.  And, it's questionable to what degree the damage done on a granted action even goes on the grantor's side of the ledger, or for that matter where the spotlight of the games loose balance even shines...

...arguably, it's shared, but, IMX, it very often goes primarily or wholly to the character actually taking the action & displaying it's prowess.  (Which, if you enjoy contributing support in the first place is just fine..)

It's endemic to support, really.  Pop a Healing Word to stand up a fallen ally and his next action's damage has also been granted by you, give a Rogue advantage vs an enemy, and his SA has been granted by you, etc...


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That "controversial" aspect already exists in the game.  2nd Wind.  Short rest healing dice use.  There is already non-magical healing that doesn't operate at will but instead operates on short rests.  I don't hear any complaints like that about those mechanics do you?




I can only speak for my own point of view, which is that 2nd Wind is a fighter inspiring himself.  I'm fine with that.  It's when your abilities start defining how my character thinks and feels that I have a problem.

Really the simple solution is to leave the healing described such that it could easily be magical or non-magical, so that each table/dm/player can interpret it however they see fit.  Except that when I read these proposed Warlord mechanics the language tends to make it every explicit that it is non-magical, and the result of inspiration/leadership/orders/etc.

Tony will jump in and say, "It has to be defined because of things like anti-magic fields and counterspell."  And my response is to let the DM adjudicate those edge cases.



> Now you are getting more to your point.  I understand that position and where it comes from.  You want to be able to decide what inspires your character.  At face value that makes perfect sense.  But let me ask,  Do you demand to a decide when your character is non-magically frightened? Do you demand to decide when your character is non-magically knocked prone?  Do you demand to decide how much HP the enemies attack removed from your PC?  If you've never brought any of these things up, then why do you ignore them and focus only on demanding that you decide if your character is inspired?




Because (for the gazillionth time) those other examples* are instances of physics & physiology, not thoughts.  The very clear boundary for me is that I, and only I, decide what my character thinks and feels and even knows (or thinks he knows).  If I don't get to decide that, it's not really my character.

*Except 'non-magical' fear, but I'm not sure where there's a case of that.  Can you give me an example of explicitly non-magical fear?  I would very much object if a DM had a monster make a contested Intimidation check and, if I failed, require me to have the Fear condition.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 24, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> That's fine, but we all should be up front that we're choosing to honor the objections of one vocal contingent over the objections of another.  I mean, obviously one camp has to lose the argument, assuming the design ever does move forward.  There isn't really a compromise position.




There could be a compromise, if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions.  (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about "playstyle.")

I'd just as soon dismiss this whole Warlord idea, but I've tried really hard to both understand the appeal and to find mechanics/fluff that address the goals.  There are some participants, though, who won't budge on _any_ of their demands: a class/subclass that delivers a similar playstyle isn't enough; it has to be the same Warlord, with all the same abilities, that they recall from previous editions.  

I think I've seen solutions to almost every single desire/expectation that I'd be ok with, except for this non-magical healing thing. And I've seen the same from other posters as well.  It really is the sticking point. Ok, I suppose that plus at-will action granting.  I would have thought that Warlord proponents would be willing to temper those two demands, so that "action granting" has some limitations, and "healing" is a composite of damage prevention, temp HP, and maybe short rest bonuses, if by agreeing to that they could have an "Int-based support/tactical martial fighter."

But, no, that's not good enough.  It has to have _everything_.

As long as some people think of listening and compromise as "backing down", this discussion will...well, just look at well that's turned out in Washington D.C.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I can only speak for my own point of view, which is that 2nd Wind is a fighter inspiring himself.  I'm fine with that.  It's when your abilities start defining how my character thinks and feels that I have a problem.
> 
> Really the simple solution is...



 ...to leave the effect optional at the player level.  For instance a phrasing like '...the ally may spend a HD, and receive additional hps equal to your CHA mod...' leaves it entirely up to you how your character feels about it. 

That actually was how Warlord exploits tended to be phrased, healing or otherwise.



> to leave the healing described such that it could easily be magical or non-magical, so that each table/dm/player can interpret it however they see fit.



 That's not just telling another player how his character feels, it's telling him who he is.  And, I don't see how you could make it voluntary so easily ...



> *Except 'non-magical' fear, but I'm not sure where there's a case of that.  Can you give me an example of explicitly non-magical fear? .



 Intimidation, obviously, but using social skills on other PCs is often frowned upon, you're supposed to be allies, and intra-party conflict can be bad for the table dynamic.



Elfcrusher said:


> There could be a compromise,



 There already has been a huge compromise: the Warlord was pointedly excluded from the PH.  Any Warlord class is going to be opt-in optional, so anyone disliking the idea has been met more than half-way.



> if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions.  (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about "playstyle.")



 From the announcement of Next, the idea has been to support more play styles.  That was in response to 'playstyle' becoming a rallying cry against 4e in the edition war.  As you suspect, it's never really been entirely about wanting a playstyle to be supported in the sense that the game allows those who wish it to play in that style, rather it was about the affirmation of a traditional style as correct(really D&D), or the over-rewarding of another 'style' (system mastery).

That was also some of the same underlying stuff as DM vs Player 'Empowerment' - the classic game heavily empowered DMs, the prior WotC eds, players.  

5e Empowers DMs, and the playstyle supported by 5e D&D at a given table will be, for all practical purposes, chosen by the DM.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> There already has been a huge compromise: the Warlord was pointedly excluded from the PH.  Any Warlord class is going to be opt-in optional, so anyone disliking the idea has been met more than half-way.




Hatfield: "As soon as I kill one more McCoy, then we'll be even and we can talk about compromise..."

Neither of us...in fact nobody on these forums...was part of that decision.  So you didn't "meet me" more than halfway, and I didn't ask you to.

On the other hand, I totally get that there's anger and resentment from that decision.  That's human.  But making that reaction the starting point for discussion is...non-productive?



> From the announcement of Next, the idea has been to support more play styles.  That was in response to 'playstyle' becoming a rallying cry against 4e in the edition war.  As you suspect, it's never really been entirely about wanting a playstyle to be supported in the sense that the game allows those who wish it to play in that style, rather it was about the affirmation of a traditional style as correct, or the over-rewarding of another 'style' (system mastery).




Yeah.  They stated a goal, everybody interpreted that to mean what they thought it would mean, and not everybody got everything they wanted.  Some of that might have been due to insincerity or their part, or a change of plans along the way, or simply unreasonable expectations from both sides.  That happens.

So...what are you going to do about it?  Stew and seethe and make demands that will _never_ be met?  Or start with a clean slate and try to design something that garners so much support, and so little opposition, that it becomes a meme* in the community and has a chance of becoming official?



*In the Dawkins rather than the Reddit sense of the word.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Neither of us...in fact nobody on these forums...was part of that decision.  So you didn't "meet me" more than halfway, and I didn't ask you to



 Nor will we be part of any other decisions, so asking for a compromise in that sense is absurd, anyway.  There's no need or point in random strangers on the internet 'compromising' between one wanting a product and another not wanting it.  And, "hey, you can want it, if you settle for an inferior version" wouldn't be a compromise, anyway.

In the sense of what the game presents, an element presented as opt-in optional, like feats, is already a compromise between having & not having a rule in the game.

3.x fans who wanted feats and old-schoolers who didn't were met half-way, there.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> So...what are you going to do about it?  Stew and seethe and make demands that will _never_ be met?  Or start with a clean slate and try to design something that garners so much support, and so little opposition, that it becomes a meme* in the community and has a chance of becoming official?



Why not?  Nothing we would "design" here is going to impact anything official.  If an official warlord ever comes to fruition, they'll put it up as a UA, take a survey, redesign it again, and then maybe it will be in the next book of player material in 2021 or so.  Our opinion doesn't really matter.

If we want to rehash edition war arguments for fun while we pretend that we can build some kind of consensus about a class designed for the most polarizing edition of D&D, that's as good a way to pass the time as any.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 24, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Why not?  Nothing we would "design" here is going to impact anything official.  If an official warlord ever comes to fruition, they'll put it up as a UA, take a survey, redesign it again, and then maybe it will be in the next book of player material in 2021 or so.  Our opinion doesn't really matter.
> 
> If we want to rehash edition war arguments for fun while we pretend that we can build some kind of consensus about a class designed for the most polarizing edition of D&D, that's as good a way to pass the time as any.




Oh, my bad.  I always assume these discussions are meant in the context of "What would work as official content in 5e?"  Only because that's always my approach.

If the point is really just to ignore WotC and design a homebrew then I will respectfully leave y'all to it.  Sorry for butting in.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I always assume these discussions are meant in the context of "What would work as official content in 5e?"  Only because that's always my approach.



 It seems like most discussions are speculation and/or commentary like that.




> If the point is really just to ignore WotC and design a homebrew then I will respectfully leave y'all to it.  Sorry for butting in.



 Theres likely elements of both, but a homebrew seems the main thrust of this particular thread.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Oh, my bad.  I always assume these discussions are meant in the context of "What would work as official content in 5e?"  Only because that's always my approach.
> 
> If the point is really just to ignore WotC and design a homebrew then I will respectfully leave y'all to it.  Sorry for butting in.



You can certainly use that as a criterion for your discussion, I just don't see much use in trying to puzzle out what WotC might actually use for "official".  There's no way I saw a concept like Hexblade being official back in 2014, for example.

If your argument is that there's no way that a class with non-magical inspirational healing will make the 80% acceptance criteria that WotC says they like to use as a ballpark metric, that's something that could discussed in further detail.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 24, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Seems to me that argument is also pretty simple to make in reverse.  Why is there such a _resistance_ to warlords having healing, when the majority of PHB classes already have baseline or subclass options with healing?  And the non-magical options for healing are already ridiculously broad, and pretty anti-"reality", if such a thing matters to your play priorities?  Why would adding yet another class with healing matter?



It's been discussed in the thread several times prior. 

My concerns are this:
1) Only _one_ class has baseline healing. The paladin. And that's only passable healing. Even the cleric doesn't have baseline healing, having to _choose_ to prepare that spell. And another former leader class, the bard, can choose not to even know _cure wounds_.

2) Only _one_ cleric subclass gives you healing as a default option. All the others focus on other things, strongly implying the cleric isn't always assumed to be the healer. A War domain cleric or Tempest cleric or Trickster cleric might never heal. 

3) More D&D players haven't played 4e than have played 5e. A warlord class should do things that a lay person would expect a smart tactical warrior to do. Healing isn't at the top of that list. This creates a disconnect between the description of the class and the execution that can be a trap for new players. 

4) Not everyone likes hp not being wounds. Or likes hp restoration being entirely done via morale. While restoring a little hp can be ignored (Healer feat, Second Wind), moral healing that's the equivalent of a full healer irks some people. The designers know this, which is why there's so many healing variants in the DMG. So DMs can choose to speed-up/ slow-down healing overnight.  

5) There's a finite number of class features a warlord can have at low levels. Healing (a generic power) means fewer warlord powers (non-generic powers unique to the class). A healing warlord is a less warlordy warlord. 


The thing is, in 5e, your party role is not determined by your class. Class = role is 4e design. And early 4e design at that, as they moved slightly away from that with Essentials. A 5e warlord that is designed like the other 5e classes shouldn't always be the "healer". Being the "healer" should be _optional_ and something the player chooses to opt into because it fits their character. 

A table with a warlord _and_ a cleric, shouldn't have a redundant character. Both should be able to do different things. You should be able to have a healing warlord paired with a War cleric _and_ a non-healing warlord paired with a Life cleric with both combinations playing very differently and no redundant powers. 
The non-healer warlord shouldn't feel like they have wasted class features that aren't being used because there's a Life cleric. And the non-healer warlord also shouldn't feel pressured to spend their action healing in place of the abilities the actions they want to take.



TwoSix said:


> That's fine, but we all should be up front that we're choosing to honor the objections of one vocal contingent over the objections of another.  I mean, obviously one camp has to lose the argument, assuming the design ever does move forward.  There isn't really a compromise position.



There's _*always*_ a compromise. 

Many have been suggested over the years. They just require moving the discussion forward. If no one ever stops to discuss and think of the alternatives, instead focusing on a fallacious either/or argument, then it just seems like there's no compromise. 

Damage mitigation (preventing damage) is effectively the same as healing. As is granting temporary hit points  The warlord could also semi-heal through granting bonus Hit Dice that can be spent with regular Hit Dice. 
All those have the same effect of prolonging the adventuring day.
(I like the idea of restoring fallen allies back up to 1 hp with additional temporary hit points, as it has the fun visual of the guy who still looks hurt and beaten to hell, but is refusing to go down. Rather than the wounds actually being healed.)

Another compromise is just making the healing warlord a subclass.  Which matches the rest of 5e design, as the healing sorcerer, warlock, druid, and even cleric are all subclasses. 
And this means people who like the warlord as a concept but don't like healing can just dump that subclass.


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> The insistence upon actual _healing_, as opposed to damage prevention or bonus HP, strikes me as a sign of zealotry.



It let you play a simple tacticain.

Throwing up damage prevention and bonus HP requires player skill, player planning, and player foresight.  Giving THP to one character and then having the other get attacked, or using your reaction to prevent a weak hit on someone while the next attack deal max damage.

Throwing out after-the-fact healing, let's you play a tactical guinius without having to actually bring a calculator to determine the best time to use your reaction.

So just let the player choose whichever style works best for them.  Simple healing, preemptive THP, or reactive prevention.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> It let you play a simple tacticain.
> Throwing up damage prevention and bonus HP requires player skill, player planning, and player foresight.  Giving THP to one character and then having the other get attacked, or using your reaction to prevent a weak hit on someone while the next attack deal max damage.



 Good point, it's like the difference in playing an old-school-Vancian caster, and a 5e neo-Vancian.


> Throwing out after-the-fact healing, let's you play a tactical guinius without having to actually bring a calculator to determine the best time to use your reaction.



 To be fair, the inspiring builds were best at healing, there was no 'Tactical Word,' a Taclord resorted to inspiration when his plans fell through, I guess...



> So just let the player choose whichever style works best for them.  Simple healing, preemptive THP, or reactive prevention.



Agreed, there was a lot of ground covered by the concept, already, and could be a lot more in 5e, and the very nature of the concept requires flexibility - "No battle-plan survives first contact ..." and all that...


----------



## Jester David (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> So just let the player choose whichever style works best for them.  Simple healing, preemptive THP, or reactive prevention.




Which would be good mechanical frameworks for subclasses, if they could be tied to story based subclasses.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Inspirational healing is easy to portray and for players that have never played 4e to envision.  There's ton of movie examples for this.  1 character is getting beat to crap and about to go down. Another yells at them and their will to fight increases and they no longer are about to go down. 

The only argument I've ever seen as potentially valid against inspirational healing is that it requires "forcing" another character to be inspired by you and leaving them out of the choice.  

1.  Non-magical fear effects do the same thing (battlemaster menacing attack, dragons fearful presence, etc). I've never heard any complaints about these abilities.

2.  All that needs done is to allow the other character to opt in to the inspiring healing is to word it as "target one willing ally... that ally gains X hp"

Are you really trinking through inspirational healing or just tuning it out at first mention?


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Which would be good mechanical frameworks for subclasses, if they could be tied to story based subclasses.



Just give warlords the same "spell" choices the casters have. Though, since many are likely to be at-will or short-rest, we could reduce the options by say... half or so.

i.e.
Spells _Gambits_ known at 1st level or higher:
You know four 1st-level Spells _two gambits_ of your choice from the bard spell _arlord gambit_ list.
You learn an additional bard spell _warlord gambit_ of your choice at each _odd_ level except 12th, 16th, 19th, and 20th.
Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the bard Spells _warlord gambits_ you know and replace it with another spell _gambit_ from the bard spell _warlord gabmit_ list"

Warlods can then choose between the healing word, armor of faith, bless, guiding bolt, or heroism equivalents.  And, like you said, clerics/bards/druids/warlord won't _need_ to take healing, but any cleric/bard/druid/warlord _could_ take a healing if they want.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> I can only speak for my own point of view, which is that 2nd Wind is a fighter inspiring himself.  I'm fine with that.  It's when your abilities start defining how my character thinks and feels that I have a problem.




So you are fine with non-magical healing.  It's inspirational healing "forced" upon other characters that's the problem.  Good to know so we don't waste time arguing for non-magical healing when that isn't your issue.



> Really the simple solution is to leave the healing described such that it could easily be magical or non-magical, so that each table/dm/player can interpret it however they see fit.  Except that when I read these proposed Warlord mechanics the language tends to make it every explicit that it is non-magical, and the result of inspiration/leadership/orders/etc.




In terms of flavor, if you want an option to describe what the Warlord is doing as somehow magical without his knowledge then I'm not opposed.  This reminds me a lot of bardic inspiration.  Is it magical or is it non-magical?  But I do require the option of claiming all the Warlord's abilities are non-magical.



> Tony will jump in and say, "It has to be defined because of things like anti-magic fields and counterspell."  And my response is to let the DM adjudicate those edge cases.




DM adjudication is fine here I think.  I've yet to see a DM rule bardic inspiration could be dispelled or would stop working in an anti magic field.  So while such rulings are possible, it's not like I really feel I'm conceding anything because I'll never see such a ruling IMO.



> Because (for the gazillionth time) those other examples* are instances of physics & physiology, not thoughts.  The very clear boundary for me is that I, and only I, decide what my character thinks and feels and even knows (or thinks he knows).  If I don't get to decide that, it's not really my character.
> 
> *Except 'non-magical' fear, but I'm not sure where there's a case of that.  Can you give me an example of explicitly non-magical fear?  I would very much object if a DM had a monster make a contested Intimidation check and, if I failed, require me to have the Fear condition.




Dragon's fearful presence, Battlemaster's menacing maneuver.  I would be perfectly fine with a DM ruling that a monster trying to intimidate me could give me the fear condition.  If non-magical abilities can give me fear then surely a monster intimidating me could also give me fear.  

Speaking of intimidation, how would you expect an enemy trying to intimidate a PC work?  If you get to decide your characters thoughts and feelings to the exclusion of all other game mechanics, how does intimidation ever work on a PC?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> Just give warlords the same "spell" choices the casters have. Though, since many are likely to be at-will or short-rest, we could reduce the options by say... half or so.



So... we should give the warlord spells?!
 
If all we're doing is renaming spells then then we can _*literally just use paladin or cleric or bard *_and just rename the class and its features. Done and done.

Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Which would be good mechanical frameworks for subclasses, if they could be tied to story based subclasses.




Not really.  Caster's don't typically get their spells silo'ed off in subclasses.  Though there are a few subclasses that get spells the primary class can't get and those spells are usually tied to flavor more than anything else.  

Here's the thing.  A tactical themed warlord should have the option of sometimes shouting at his allies and getting them to fight longer or of not doing that at all.  An inspirational themed warlord should sometimes have the option of providing some tactical insight or none at all.

Siloing off these abilities into subclasses or making one the sole purpose of the main class really is an attempt at declaring that one type of warlord is okay, but that others are not and that's not really okay.  It sounds like good design at first but it falls flat on it's face.  It'd be a lot like only giving evocation wizards evocation spells.  

Instead what we need is a primary warlord class that offers lots of options.  Some inspiration themed, some tactical themed, some risk themed, etc.  Subclasses should then be more like wizard subclasses that enhance particular flavors of a warlord.

In other word's.  An inspirational themed warlord subclass shouldn't be the only warlord subclass that has the option of inspirational healing.  A tactical themed warlord subclass shouldn't be the only warlord subclass that can enhance the party through tactical abilities.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> So... we should give the warlord spells?!
> 
> If all we're doing is renaming spells then then we can _*literally just use paladin or cleric or bard *_and just rename the class and its features. Done and done.
> 
> Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.




Yes, that's a lazy way to do it.  We could take a bard, give it medium armor and martial weapons at level 1 and rename all it's abilities and fluff it's spells all as something else.  We would likely have to remove a ton of spells that don't fit but overall what you are suggesting would likely be doable.  

But you are also right it's not the best way.  I don't think mellored was serious in his suggestion but instead using it to point toward some kind of hypocrisy on your part.  In fact I see that hypocrisy now.  You aren't objecting to the non-magical spell slot themed warlord on any other level now than that his abilities shouldn't follow the same kinds of mechanics as spells.  That's a far cry from the stances your other comments are taking.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> Something like that. Or maybe 1 per level.  Some examples...
> 
> *First Aid: As a bonus action, you can heal someone 1d4+Int HP and let them stand up. A creature can only benefit from this once per short rest.
> *Direct the Strike: When a creature you can see makes an attack, you can use your reaction to give them advantage.
> ...




I do promise to try and get back to this.  It's a much better discussion than constantly defending the warlord against the same stale complaints over and over again.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> There could be a compromise, if more people who step back and ask what playstyle they want in the game, and discuss how to support that, rather than have pre-determined, immutable conclusions.  (It's one reason I find it hard it fully believe that it's really about "playstyle.")
> 
> I'd just as soon dismiss this whole Warlord idea, but I've tried really hard to both understand the appeal and to find mechanics/fluff that address the goals.  There are some participants, though, who won't budge on _any_ of their demands: a class/subclass that delivers a similar playstyle isn't enough; it has to be the same Warlord, with all the same abilities, that they recall from previous editions.
> 
> ...




You can't demand someone compromise without asking why they should.  What do warlord fans gain from compromising with you on any one of these issues?  Is our compromise going to bring an official warlord class any closer?  If it's about homebrew, why should we worry about compromising there unless its literally impossible to create a balanced warlord with all the kinds of features we are talking about.  But instead of talking about possible features being overpowered or ways to make them acceptable you are talking about compromising on the basic concepts of non-magical healing, inspirational abilities etc.  

So really what are you doing here other than crapping on a concept you don't even like and making demands about it that aren't going to impact you one way or another?


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> So... we should give the warlord spells?!



No.  We should give them the same choices that casters get.

i.e.
A big list of special powers to choose from.  One of which is healing, one gives THP, one gives bonus AC, one gives bonus movement, one gives bonus to-hit, one slows enemies, and so on...



> Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.



I agree.  And I wasn't suggesting warlords get spell slots.
Insetad, turn spells into martial equivalents.

i.e.
Guiding Bolt -> Lead the Assault: When you attack an enemy, you can use a bonus action to push them into a vulnerable position.  The next attack roll made against this target before the end of your next turn has advantage.

Bless -> Coordinate Assault: As an action, you can select a creature, any attack against that creature before the end of your next turn gains +1d4 to-hit.

Heroism -> Inspire Bravery: As an action, one creature gains temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier and is immune to fear until the start of your next turn.

Shield of Faith -> Shield Wall: As a bonus action, each friendly creature adjacent to you gains +2 AC until the end of your next turn. 

Grease -> Trip: As a bonus action, you can attempt to knock a creature prone.

Haste -> Tactical Oversight (prerequisite, level 5): As an action, select a creature.  It gains an additional action on it's next turn.  That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action.

Forsight -> Calculate Future: (prerequisit, level 17): As a bonus actoin, select a creature.  Until the start of your next turn, the target can't be surprised and has advantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. Additionally, other creatures have disadvantage on attack rolls against the target for the duration.

etc...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

The best way IMO to get a Warlord class is to show WOTC a version of one that actually works and appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans in general.  There's hard liners on both sides that are extreme vocal minorities that will always say what's presented doesn't work for them.  

The great thing is that even if WOTC doesn't use such a design it makes a great homebrew class that can be shared and used at many tables.  So either way, designing a working functioning warlord class with fairly broad appeal, this isn't over powered, that meets our checklist without being something to intrusive/annoying/commanding into other PC's that are playing at a warlord PC's table is the best option for Warlord fans.  It will have the best chance of being incorporated into something official and it will have the best chance of seeing use at the most tables if it's designed with this in mind.

So really why, are we getting bogged down in having the age old "inspirational healing" debate.  Why are we even talking about siloing certain warlord concepts into subclasses that should all be options for a general warlord class.  Why are we talking about giving up attack granting when there's various ways to make that ability work.  Why are we talking about compromise when a warlord with nearly every feature we ever wanted is closer than ever.  

The rest is just going to come down to design decisions and implementation decisions which are going to inform each other a bit.  We need to really go deep into each design and see the pros and cons and what it can allow and what it can't and what solutions we have for balancing these things in that particular framework.

Once we have done this and seen the tricks used to make the other design implementations work then we can make a final pass and hopefully one design at this point will stand out as the clear best and we can actually start creating abilities and subclasses for it.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Not really.  Caster's don't typically get their spells silo'ed off in subclasses.  Though there are a few subclasses that get spells the primary class can't get and those spells are usually tied to flavor more than anything else.



Which still assumes the best way to design a warlord is as a spellcaster with "spell" crossed out. 

I disagree. As a martial class, the design should resemble the fighter or the rogue more than the wizard. 
It doesn't need to get "spells" or have to pick from a list of At-Will and Encounter powers. That's 4th Edition design.



FrogReaver said:


> Here's the thing.  A tactical themed warlord should have the option of sometimes shouting at his allies and getting them to fight longer or of not doing that at all.  An inspirational themed warlord should sometimes have the option of providing some tactical insight or none at all.



First... why? Why should the player be expected to do something they chose not to focus on? Why should they have abilities taken away from their desired role 
This is like mandating fighters not get an ASI at 4th level and instead get the Healer feat. 
What's the benefit?

Second, this assumes the warlord subclasses are going to be "tactical" and "inspiring", which they probably should not be. I'm hard pressed to think more more bland and less descriptive names.



FrogReaver said:


> Siloing off these abilities into subclasses or making one the sole purpose of the main class really is an attempt at declaring that one type of warlord is okay, but that others are not and that's not really okay.  It sounds like good design at first but it falls flat on it's face.  It'd be a lot like only giving evocation wizards evocation spells.



But, again, it's not a spellcaster. The Champion fighter doesn't get Maneuvers or spells. The Thief doesn't get the abilities of a Mastermind or the Assassin or the Scout. 



FrogReaver said:


> Instead what we need is a primary warlord class that offers lots of options.  Some inspiration themed, some tactical themed, some risk themed, etc.  Subclasses should then be more like wizard subclasses that enhance particular flavors of a warlord.



Which just means the subclasses will be bland and samey, just making the class better at things it's already good at rather than adding anything unique. Not to mention likely devoid of any flavour or story. 

Hard pass on that warlord.


----------



## Draegn (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> So... we should give the warlord spells?!
> 
> If all we're doing is renaming spells then then we can _*literally just use paladin or cleric or bard *_and just rename the class and its features. Done and done.
> 
> Martial characters shouldn't play like magical characters. Their mechanics shouldn't work like spells where you cast them once per day and memorise them each morning.




Agreed. They should also not play like "jedi". IMO a warlord should have charisma skills and gain retainers, henchmen and men at arms so that they have forces to conduct a war with.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> No.  We should give them the same choices that casters get.
> 
> i.e.
> A big list of special powers to choose from.  One of which is healing, one gives THP, one gives bonus AC, one gives bonus movement, one gives bonus to-hit, one slows enemies, and so on...
> ...



Why? 
Are we designing a class for 5e or for 4e? Because the warlord kinda already exists for 4e. 

If we're designing it for 5e, shouldn't it _look_ like a 5e class?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The best way IMO to get a Warlord class is to show WOTC a version of one that actually works and appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans in general.  There's hard liners on both sides that are extreme vocal minorities that will always say what's presented doesn't work for them.
> 
> The great thing is that even if WOTC doesn't use such a design it makes a great homebrew class that can be shared and used at many tables. So either way, designing a working functioning warlord class with fairly broad appeal, this isn't over powered, that meets our checklist without being something to intrusive/annoying/commanding into other PC's that are playing at a warlord PC's table is the best option for Warlord fans. It will have the best chance of being incorporated into something official and it will have the best chance of seeing use at the most tables if it's designed with this in mind.



Let's not kid ourselves here. No warlord that emerges from this site is _ever _going to get used by more than a half-dozen tables. And even the warlords on the DMsGuild are going to be lucky to see use in more than a table or two. 
Let alone "appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans". 

The best selling warlord class on the Guild has sold maybe 100 copies. All less than 250. And there's a couple fighter archetypes that have probably moved comparable numbers. 

There's a lot of high selling classes on the Guild. All the Platinum books have sold 1000+ copies: which is roughly ten times that as most warlords. A Magus. A spellbinder. A pugilist. The dragon knight. A shaman. 
And none of them have made it into an official product or been recognised in any way by WotC. 

Heck, the best selling 3rd Party class, hands down, is the Blood Hunter. Which is popular enough to have made it into D&D Beyond. If you want an official warlord, you have to match that class' success. That's the bar.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It's been discussed in the thread several times prior.
> 
> My concerns are this:
> 1) Only _one_ class has baseline healing. The paladin. And that's only passable healing. Even the cleric doesn't have baseline healing, having to _choose_ to prepare that spell. And another former leader class, the bard, can choose not to even know _cure wounds_.




I think warlord fans agree.  There seems to be a decent consensus here that we want to see healing be an option for any warlord to pick rather than for it to be mandantory.



> 2) Only _one_ cleric subclass gives you healing as a default option. All the others focus on other things, strongly implying the cleric isn't always assumed to be the healer. A War domain cleric or Tempest cleric or Trickster cleric might never heal.




We are fine with healing being an option.  Just don't try to gate it behind a specific subclass.



> 3) More D&D players haven't played 4e than have played 5e. A warlord class should do things that a lay person would expect a smart tactical warrior to do. Healing isn't at the top of that list. This creates a disconnect between the description of the class and the execution that can be a trap for new players.




1.  Granting an ally the will to keep on fighting is a common movie trope.  That is something they are going to expect some warlords to be able to do.
2.  Not all warlords are smart tactical warriors.  some are inspiring warriors that suck at tactics, possibly a kind hearted and gullible but always there for you type of warrior.



> 4) Not everyone likes hp not being wounds. Or likes hp restoration being entirely done via morale. While restoring a little hp can be ignored (Healer feat, Second Wind), moral healing that's the equivalent of a full healer irks some people. The designers know this, which is why there's so many healing variants in the DMG. So DMs can choose to speed-up/ slow-down healing overnight.




I get that but,

#1.  Warlord class isn't in the main book and unless we are talking Adventures league then all supplemental content is considered optional.
#2  If warlord abilities are just options and they don't like the healing ability then they can choose to ban just the healing ability instead of the whole class at their table.

We are bending over backwards at this point trying to make warlord healing something easy to remove if desired and to still have the class function.  But it's too iconic of an ability (we've all seen it in the movies) to just up and not have it on a class that's supposed to at least have the option of inspiring allies.



> 5) There's a finite number of class features a warlord can have at low levels. Healing (a generic power) means fewer warlord powers (non-generic powers unique to the class). A healing warlord is a less warlordy warlord.




Only if you view healing as not something warlordy to begin with.  Healing is very warlordy (we see the will to continue fighting trope in many movies).  But beyond that, having healing be an option instead of a mandantory feature further resolves this complaint.  If healing is just an option it doesn't have to be picked or even if picked ever used.  You can have healing be a part of the class without it being mandantory so that every warlord gets it.



> The thing is, in 5e, your party role is not determined by your class. Class = role is 4e design. And early 4e design at that, as they moved slightly away from that with Essentials. A 5e warlord that is designed like the other 5e classes shouldn't always be the "healer". Being the "healer" should be _optional_ and something the player chooses to opt into because it fits their character.




Thanks for finally catching up with the rest of us.



> A table with a warlord _and_ a cleric, shouldn't have a redundant character. Both should be able to do different things. You should be able to have a healing warlord paired with a War cleric _and_ a non-healing warlord paired with a Life cleric with both combinations playing very differently and no redundant powers.
> The non-healer warlord shouldn't feel like they have wasted class features that aren't being used because there's a Life cleric. And the non-healer warlord also shouldn't feel pressured to spend their action healing in place of the abilities the actions they want to take.






> Thanks again for finally getting to the same place the rest of us are at.
> 
> 
> There's _*always*_ a compromise.
> ...




Sadly restoring an allies will to fight is more iconic for a warlord than being able to reduce damage.  I do think we can do something with damage reduction but it's less fitting than healing.



> As is granting temporary hit points




Prememtive temp hp going into battle is quite warlordy.  BUT it's not a replacement for an ability where the warlord is watching his ally get beat up and yells something at him and the ally gains the will to fight again.



> The warlord could also semi-heal through granting bonus Hit Dice that can be spent with regular Hit Dice.



I'm not opposed to hit dice manipulation with him.  Perhaps that's how his healing inspiration ability works.  Ally an ally to spend a hit dice to restore hp maybe with a bonus from the warlord.  It still needs gated behind some long rest or short rest warlord ability, but I can see that as a possible implementation.



> All those have the same effect of prolonging the adventuring day.



Sure, but many are far different abilities in fiction than the one where a character is giving an ally extra will to fight



> (I like the idea of restoring fallen allies back up to 1 hp with additional temporary hit points, as it has the fun visual of the guy who still looks hurt and beaten to hell, but is refusing to go down. Rather than the wounds actually being healed.)




I like that too and there are a lot of variations for such an ability, some even involving healing or temp hp after the PC is at 1 Hp.  It definietely ticks off the will to fight ability i'm talking about.  

Preferably I guess I'd like to see both healing and something like this as an option.



> Another compromise is just making the healing warlord a subclass.  Which matches the rest of 5e design, as the healing sorcerer, warlock, druid, and even cleric are all subclasses.




Most of 5e design is about making healing abilities optional and not gating such abilities through subclasses.  Xanathers did give some classes healing abilities through their subclasses but it's because healing abilities didn't fit on the general class for sorcerer or warlock at all.  So subclasses enabled them.  The conceptual piece pushed the design in that direction.  With warlords its different.  There's no conceptual reasons warlords, even the most tactically cunning warlords can't also do a few inspiring things.



> And this means people who like the warlord as a concept but don't like healing can just dump that subclass.




I agree there.  And I had considered that.  But if warlord healing is just an option kind of like the cure wounds spell is an option, then you are able to remove the cure wounds spell or the warlord healing ability option without really impacting the class as a whole.  Why doesn't that work for compromise?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Let's not kid ourselves here. No warlord that emerges from this site is _ever _going to get used by more than a half-dozen tables. And even the warlords on the DMsGuild are going to be lucky to see use in more than a table or two.
> Let alone "appeals to most 4e warlord fans and has good appeal to 5e fans".
> 
> The best selling warlord class on the Guild has sold maybe 100 copies. All less than 250. And there's a couple fighter archetypes that have probably moved comparable numbers.
> ...




Maybe Dm's guild warlords sale bad because they are bad designed classes?  Maybe just maybe the community here is capable of coming up with something much better than the DM's guild authors have.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Why?
> Are we designing a class for 5e or for 4e? Because the warlord kinda already exists for 4e.
> 
> If we're designing it for 5e, shouldn't it _look_ like a 5e class?




Who are you to say what a 5e class should look like?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Which still assumes the best way to design a warlord is as a spellcaster with "spell" crossed out.
> 
> I disagree. As a martial class, the design should resemble the fighter or the rogue more than the wizard.
> It doesn't need to get "spells" or have to pick from a list of At-Will and Encounter powers. That's 4th Edition design.
> ...




It's like you are saying "How dare anything martial ever get anything that shares one bit of similarity with a spell caster".  If that's your argument then take a hike.


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> If we're designing it for 5e, shouldn't it _look_ like a 5e class?



By say... copying from the other 5e classes and then making a few tweaks to rebalance it for at-will use?

That's exactly what I did.  All those things ideas copied straight from the 5e player's handbook.  I mostly just added, "until the end of your next turn", and a gave it a new martial-sounding name.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 24, 2018)

Once again, a warlord thread has descended from actually trying to build a warlord into three or four warlord fans trying to beat their ideas into the heads of anyone who dare disagree and refusing to budge from their concept. 

I'm out. I put a lot of work giving an outline of a class and thinking of _actual_ subclasses. But all everyone wants to do is shout at each other.  this.



FrogReaver said:


> Maybe Dm's guild warlords sale bad because they are bad designed classes?  Maybe just maybe the community here is capable of coming up with something much better than the DM's guild authors have.



Put up or shut up.

Get a warlord class on the Guild and show me I’m wrong. Show me there’s a big audience of fans anxiously waiting for a 4e warlord class.
You get to prove me wrong _and_ make money in the process.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Once again, a warlord thread has descended from actually trying to build a warlord into three or four warlord fans trying to beat their ideas into the heads of anyone who dare disagree and refusing to budge from their concept.
> 
> *Put up or shut up.*
> 
> ...




We are trying.  Maybe if you would stop derailing the thread we could actually get back to you know, designing a warlord?


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> I mostly just added, "until the end of your next turn", and a gave it a new martial-sounding name.



Actually...
A quick and dirty bard-to-warlord conversion.

*You don't get spell slots or cantrips.  You still learn spells as if you had spell slots.  (i.e. you need to be level 5 to learn level 3 spells).
*You learn half the normal number of spells (rounded up).
*You cannot learn any spells with a duration shorter than 1 minute or a casting time longer than an action.  You also can't learn polymorph (possibly a few others).
*You can cast any known bard spell (with at least a 1-minute duration) at-will.  The spell lasts until the end of your next turn and has a range of melee touch.  If the spell affects an area, it affects each creature within 5' of you.
*If a creature makes a save against your spell, you cannot use the same spell against that creature until you take a short rest.
*You have proficiency in medium armor, shields, and martial weapons.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

mellored said:


> Actually...
> A quick and dirty bard-to-warlord conversion.
> 
> *You don't get spell slots or cantrips.  You still learn spells as if you had spell slots.  (i.e. you need to be level 5 to learn level 3 spells).
> ...




Have you given up on the invocation idea?


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Have you given up on the invocation idea?



No. In fact, that quick conversion ends up as something pretty similar.
You start with 2 choice which grows to 11. (half the bards).
Stronger abilites have level prerequisites. i.e. hypnotic pattern (prerequisite, level 5).
You can use them at-will with an action.
Plus some generic bonus dice to pass around as a bonus action.

But my main point was that you can take a lot of the existing long duration buff and control spells (heroism, tasha's hideous laughter, haste, foresight) and turn them into reasonably balanced at-will abilities just by reducing their duration to 1 round.

That and I had the image of a warlord running up to someone and shouting "hold person" while giving them a big paralyzing hug. Pulling out a feather while saying "material component" and then ticking someone's armpit while shouting "Tasha's Hidious Laughter".  Then next turn letting out a 5' radius "stinking cloud"...


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 24, 2018)

The only actual design point that's really been close to settled is that of subclass level divergence.  Tony Vargas has been asserting 1st level, while I asserted 3rd level.

The 1st vs 3rd choice influences the nature of the class vs subclass relationship, in terms of power derived from each aspect, the sorts of abilities that are presented and available, and the approach to the conceptual design of the character.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the implications of the types of splits, both thematically and functionally, as well as reviewing whether I was even describing things properly.  I've looked at how the design would play out in each version, trying to see which one would let things work more smoothly in those defining aspects where it matters (since there are a lot of aspects that don't really change with the choice), and I find that I didn't really set things out properly for the decision that I made.

First, I feel I used inappropriate terms for describing the types when I last discussed it.  I described the 1st level split as "specialization", while the 3rd level split was described as "uniqueness".  The terms used were sort of off the cuff, and thus didn't truly map to what was being described.  Both 1st and 3rd are types of specializations.  Plus, I blended together ideas from classes that get subclasses at 1st and 2nd level, forgetting that they are separate approaches.

We have classes that choose their subclasses at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level.

1st: Sorcerer, Warlock, Cleric — The character identity cannot exist independent of the subclass.  The Warlock's patron, or the Sorcerer's origin, or the Cleric's domain _must_ be defined in order for the character to work at all; there's no "specializing" involved.  The class is just a container to hold the subclass; it just provides the underlying mechanics for the subclass to use. These subclasses are "types" of the class.

2nd: Wizard, Druid — The character's identity exists without the subclass (as a broad concept), primarily defined by the unrestricted spell selection options, but the class provides no mechanical support for further identity resolution. The subclass provides specialization directly related to the features that the class has available at 1st level.  This is not about character concept or mechanics grouping.  Each subclass is just choosing to be better at some aspect of the base class.

3rd: Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, etc — The character can exist entirely within the class, and not need the subclass.  Instead, the subclass provides a way to choose a direction for the character to go once you have a better idea of the general character implementation, but is not dependent on specializing on anything the class provides.  Rather, it introduces entirely new abilities to match the direction the character is going.  Is the Rogue more flashy or manipulative or interested in stealing stuff? Does the Fighter approach combat from a more tactical mindset, or does he want to incorporate magic into his fighting? What oath does the Paladin swear, once he's proved himself?  The subclass is a layer _on top_ of the character's core elements.


So we have subclasses that are fundamental "types" of the base class (gained at 1st level); those that are "specializations" of the base class and what it can do (gained at 2nd level); and those that are "evolutions" of the base class, that branch of into entirely new directions (gained at 3rd level).

Given Tony Vargas's comments, and allowing that he got drawn into my improper terminology, I believe he is pushing the 2nd level split, where the base Warlord class is defined by the variety of gambits available, and the subclasses focus on being better at certain types of them.


I developed 4 broad concepts that I felt would be related to the Warlord concept, developed such that each subclass could handle a few different actual character types.  To a certain extent it feels like a 1st level split — an Icon is not a Commander is not a Strategist is not a Defender.  Each have very different problem-solving methods, and, for example, it's difficult to fit the princess concept in as something that could grow out of the Warlord class as a whole. Basically, the princess version of the Icon subclass is very hard to conceive of as not being a 1st level "type" subclass, whereas the shonen hero is easy to see as an "evolution" subclass.  But then if you go to the Commander subclass, it's very easy to view it as a specialization type 2nd level subclass.

This is why I think Tony and others are focusing on the Commander-style subclass, with all the subclasses being specializations.  It's much easier to take one thing that allows for some specialization, and consider that as something that will provide enough subclasses to be viable, than to look at different evolutions that approach the problems a Warlord deals with in radically different ways.

However the specialization approach is also extremely limited, and bland, if the core class does not evoke a wide variety of concepts on its own (as the Wizard clearly does, and the Druid does to a lesser extent).  Providing evolutions allows for very different character types, which makes it much more useful for long-term design.  Using the "types" subclass method, on the other hand, allows you to provide for a variety of narrowly-scoped ideas using the same mechanical underpinnings.  Their similarity and differences are due to circumstances (accident of birth, choice of god, who they managed to find to give them power, etc), rather than fundamental to the class itself.


So where does the Warlord fall? Or rather, where _should_ it fall?  I don't know.  I can give justifications for any of the three types.  The Warlord can be a bucket of mechanics for a variety of different ideas people have and want to implement (ie: tactical vs princess vs lazylord) that differ based on circumstances rather than intrinsics.  The Warlord can go all-in on the gambits, and just provide paths to be better at certain types over others.  Or it can provide a strong underlying class that can evolve in radically different ways.

My personal opinion is that the specialization route is the worst option.  I reviewed a ton of the 4E exploits that the Warlord had, when putting together my own design, and at least 80% of them are worthless when translating to 5E.  5E just fundamentally doesn't work the same as 4E, and you can't pile on tons of micro-abilities and pretend that provides a useful choice mechanic on par with the spell system.  And without sufficient choices to draw from, the specialization mechanic just doesn't have enough to work with to be viable, long-term.

On the other hand, I don't know whether "type" or "evolution" is better for handling the general concepts that are being applied to the Warlord.  Perhaps some of the concepts just fundamentally don't belong in Warlord, as they only existed in 4E due to the mechanics matching up.  A princess isn't a Warlord, and shoehorning it into the class just shows a poor understanding of the design process.  It's not a conceptual match, it's a mechanical match, in designing a character that can still be functional despite the concept, rather than because of it.

Of my general concepts, I'm seeing:

Icon/Shonen hero: evolution (leading people)
Icon/Princess: type
Icon/Vanguard: evolution (leading the charge)
Commander: evolution (commanding people), specialization
Strategist: evolution (manipulating people)
Defender: evolution (using terrain to advantage)
Defender/Ambusher: evolution (using terrain to advantage)

On the other hand, I _could_ see the Princess evolving into the Shonen hero.  In that case, the Princess is just something that needs to work from the baseline of the class, and have an evolution path available to her.


So, after a more careful look at things, I think evolution works best for my view of the Warlord.  It is still using the 3rd level subclass split, but now I can see where I was making mistakes before, and have a better path to work with.


----------



## Dhomochevsky (Mar 24, 2018)

played a bravura warlord in 4e, big fan.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

So I think right now may mark a good place in the conversation to summarize the basic ideas that have been given.

So far the Warlord healing ideas have been:
1.  Grant it through a subclass
2.  Grant it through a short or long rest ability on the primary class that every warlord gets
3.  Grant it through a short or long rest choice the player opts into on the primary class
4.  Don't grant it at all

I think options 1 and 3 are the most popular for warlord supporters.  It should be noted that there is at least a vocal minority or possible even larger group that greatly dislikes inspirational healing.  It also should be noted that a fighter subclass the Purple Dragon Knight already adds inspirational healing into the game.  So while there is pushback on the concept, 5e has already embraced it.  

That said, I think our best design effort will be to find a way to keep warlord inspirational healing as optional, either by subclass or by making it one of many options that players have the choice of choosing in the primary class.  It offers those that hate it an olive branch and a way to allow the class itself while easily eliminating inspirational healing abilities from there game by banning the few options that grant it support.

Attack granting is similar but finds it's biggest challenge to be in game balance.
1.  Grant it through limited use abilities.  A potentially very strong option but at least can be reigned in to a power range that's within reason.
2.  Grant it at will.  Requires some way to eliminate abilities like sneak attack from applying to it.
3.  Don't grant it at all.  If it can't be balanced it shouldn't be granted at all.

I think this thread has revealed great techniques for helping to balance attack granting.  Either at will attack granting or limited use ability attack granting.

Warlord power design - flexibility is key
I think we have decided that we need a flexible design that can house lots of different kinds of effects under 1 mechanical roof.  Some options for that.
1.  At Will - remove features like extra attack and most other power enhancing features from the base class and tie them into a pool of warlord abilities you can use.  This helps increase the power of effects you can give to the at will abilities while still allowing very martial feeling warlords or very "lazy" feeling warlords.  Healing is probably the biggest issue with this one, but a solution has been found, you give a pool of enhancement points you can use to make your at-will abilities stronger.  Healing would be one of the things allowed by spending these enhancement points.
2.  Short/Long rest - give them a pool of abilities to choose from, scale those abilities in usage and power as you level.  Biggest con here is that design probably requires extra attack or cantrip like attack scaling to work properly.  This eliminates some power from other warlord type effects and it makes it a bit harder to make a lazy lord.
3.  Invocation Concept - give warlords a list of at-will, short rest and long rest abilities and have them choose.  Biggest con here is that you lose out on the pool of resources that you can use for many different abilities and that scaling can be a bit hard as the only easy to add scaling feature is for more invocations.  There may be some unexplored techniques for helping mitigate the cons

All Warlord Powers listed above feel like solid possibilities at this time.

A few additional points.  Overhealing and tactical zones are very interesting mechanics.  Most all these designs can add those concepts into some of the flexible chosen abilities.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 24, 2018)

FrogReaver said:
			
		

> So far the Warlord healing ideas have been:
> 1. Grant it through a subclass
> 2. Grant it through a short or long rest ability on the primary class that every warlord gets
> 3. Grant it through a short or long rest choice the player opts into on the primary class
> ...



I'm inclined to think, based on considering the various evolution paths (assuming an evolution subclass mechanism), that a base class option similar to Lay On Hands or Second Wind is fine, but that significant (inspirational) healing should be locked to a subclass.  

For my four subclasses, only the Icon fits the concept of allowing inspirational healing.  The Commander, Strategist, and Defender all strike me as very non-healer types, aside from possibly a Second Wind analog.  Adding healing to them can be done in lots of ways, such as the Healer feat, or a multitude of multiclassing options, but is not something intrinsic to the subclass.

Of course, that also matches with the evolution approach on subclassing.  The Warlord may be a support class, but the subclass defines _how_ you go about providing that support.  Maybe that's healing (inspiring/leading), or maybe it's giving you escape routes while trapping the enemy, or maybe it's by demoralizing the enemy such they can't fight you effectively.  Regardless, it divorces healing from support by considering that support can mean a wide variety of things.

This has similar implications on attack-granting.

If you go the specialization route for subclassing, though, the answers come out rather differently.


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

My favorite ideas so far are warlock invocations, elfcrushers' reactions, and merls zone, and a having tied in non-combat stuff.
So something like...

i.e.
Level 1, 6, 9, 13, 15: Choose 1 "invocation" that includes both a combat and non-combat feature.  Most use your reaction.  Some have level prerequisites.  You can trade 1 out when you level up.

Level 2: Merl's Zone: As an action, you pick an area on the ground, or around a creature (including yourself).  The size increases with Int.  Invocations in the zone are roughly twice as effective than those outside the zone.

Level 3, 7, 10, 14, 18: Sub-class.

Level 4, 8, 12, 16, 19: ASI

Level 5,11,17: Combat Reflexes: You have an additional reaction each round.

Level 20: capstone... 


Example Invocation: 
*Skirmish: As a reaction, when a creature moves, they gain a 5' speed bonus and any OA has disadvantage against them.  If they are in the zone, they do not provoke OA's.  In addition, your overland speed is increased.
*Arcane Support (prerequisite, level 13): As a reaction, one enemy takes -1d4 penalty to their saving throw against magic.  If either the caster or the enemy is in Zone, the penalty is increased to 1d6.  If you, the enemy, and the caster are all in the zone, increase the penalty to 1d8.  In addition, you have advantage on any arcana checks.


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> The only actual design point that's really been close to settled is that of subclass level divergence.  Tony Vargas has been asserting 1st level, while I asserted 3rd level.



If you get a "invocation" choice at level 1, then you can still pick your idenity of tactical +Int to damage, inspiring +Cha to THP, or whatever else right off the bat.

Then you can evolve and expand later.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> The irony of D&Ders appealing to popularity, when our little hobby is one of the least popular recreational activities in human history (some forms of actual torture not excepted) is amusing, but still invalid...
> When you step in and demand concessions on an issue you have no interest in, that you can always choose simply never to opt into, that is not compromise.
> Building a consensus among people who may actually use the class may be.
> 
> ...




 Its not that situational though its 99% of the time in every combat round.

 Its obvious though Mearls is not going to give you at will attack granting as he is not drunk and stoned. Hell he is  not giving you the WL as an independent class, if the WL lands as a fighter subclass its basically allover for the WL as an independent class.


----------



## mellored (Mar 24, 2018)

And let me throw out a novel idea...

No sub-class.  (just invocations).
Multi-sub-classes.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 24, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> The only actual design point that's really been close to settled is that of subclass level divergence.  Tony Vargas has been asserting 1st level, while I asserted 3rd level.
> 
> The 1st vs 3rd choice influences the nature of the class vs subclass relationship, in terms of power derived from each aspect, the sorts of abilities that are presented and available, and the approach to the conceptual design of the character.
> 
> ...




Great Split.  I'll try to adopt your terms for the rest of the conversation as you did a pretty good job at highlighting some important differences.  It's something I tried to touch on earlier but that you have explained and examined much better.  

I do want to add one additional piece of insight.  The reason their are no casters that get subclasses at level 3 is more mechanical in nature.  It's because their basic class spellcasting ability powers up so much at level 3 that there just wouldn't be much room left at that level to put anything else.  So there is also a mechanical reason to place a subclass at a certain level and that mechanical power difference may be why you see level 3 subclasses as evolving the class (they grant much stronger abilities at level 3 than subclasses at level 2 generally grant).

Level 1 is perhaps a bit different as your whole class is defined from level 1 on and so their is no way for the base class to evolve.  It's as you described, essentially a class.  

Anyways, what I've been going through all this to ask is:
Why can't the Warlord adopt more of an evolution stance and still have a primary ability that is strongly defining the class itself but still has the subclass evolving him into a different direction?  If so wouldn't the most reasonable place to put the subclass be at level 2 as opposed to level 3?  



> I developed 4 broad concepts that I felt would be related to the Warlord concept, developed such that each subclass could handle a few different actual character types.  To a certain extent it feels like a 1st level split — an Icon is not a Commander is not a Strategist is not a Defender.  Each have very different problem-solving methods, and, for example, it's difficult to fit the princess concept in as something that could grow out of the Warlord class as a whole. Basically, the princess version of the Icon subclass is very hard to conceive of as not being a 1st level "type" subclass, whereas the shonen hero is easy to see as an "evolution" subclass.  But then if you go to the Commander subclass, it's very easy to view it as a specialization type 2nd level subclass.
> 
> This is why I think Tony and others are focusing on the Commander-style subclass, with all the subclasses being specializations.  It's much easier to take one thing that allows for some specialization, and consider that as something that will provide enough subclasses to be viable, than to look at different evolutions that approach the problems a Warlord deals with in radically different ways.




There is a reason martial classes generally evolve instead of specialize.  It's because they have much less flexible class mechanics so they are incapable of generating new concepts without evolving.  Specialization can only happen because there is a flexible mechanic attached to the primary class that allows for multiple concepts to already be somewhat mechanically covered.  

You mentioned the paladin earlier as a class that evolves instead of specializes.  I would actually view him more as a specialist.  He's still a paladin and can fulfill a variety of paladin flavor with his spells.  Even without a subclass he could play in such a way and pick spells and abilities that would mechanically fulfill the demands of just about any of the subclasses listed.  Instead he just gets explicitly better at doing the things the subclass is supposed to do.

Why do we think a strong and flexible primary class mechanic is needed?  Because there are soo many different variations and expectations around what a warlord should be capable of doing and not capable of doing.  Because the different styles of Warlord's often blend together moreso than are totally distinct.  A tactical warlord may sometimes inspire his allys.  A inspiring warlord may sometimes bring together some good tactical plans.  There's just not a clear line IMO between where one warlord ends and another begins and it's almost impossible to have total evolution and have tactical plans present in the core warlord.  If it's total evolution then the tactical warlord is the only one that gets tactical stuff.  



> However the specialization approach is also extremely limited, and bland, if the core class does not evoke a wide variety of concepts on its own (as the Wizard clearly does, and the Druid does to a lesser extent).  Providing evolutions allows for very different character types, which makes it much more useful for long-term design.  Using the "types" subclass method, on the other hand, allows you to provide for a variety of narrowly-scoped ideas using the same mechanical underpinnings.  Their similarity and differences are due to circumstances (accident of birth, choice of god, who they managed to find to give them power, etc), rather than fundamental to the class itself.




It's odd that while you find specialization based subclasses bland and uninteresting I find them empowering and perfectly suitable.  I often find the evolving ones redundant and while the are more mechanically interesting they are more conceptually limiting.  For example, I can't play a fighter that uses same magic and some tactical maneuvers.  Those two things can never come together now under the same fighter character because we have them siloed off in subclasses.  

I understand why they needed to do it that way.  But I can't say I find that to be good design, at least not when they aren't making "hybrid" subclasses to bring life to the conceptual spaces between the current subclasses.  

At least with the broad class and specialization route, all those options are automatically open to me and I just choose to be a little better at some area that my class already covers.  

One interesting tidbit.  The assassain subclass of rogue is a good example of a specialization subclass.  The arcane trickster is a good example of an evolving one.  Both types of subclasses are present in the rogue class.  I think this doesn't have to be an either/or approach.  Some subclasses can add evolution while some add specialization.  



> So where does the Warlord fall? Or rather, where _should_ it fall?  I don't know.  I can give justifications for any of the three types.  The Warlord can be a bucket of mechanics for a variety of different ideas people have and want to implement (ie: tactical vs princess vs lazylord) that differ based on circumstances rather than intrinsics.  The Warlord can go all-in on the gambits, and just provide paths to be better at certain types over others.  Or it can provide a strong underlying class that can evolve in radically different ways.




I think the biggest factor is whether the primarily evolution method is going to be able to generate good warlords that are more hybrid focused than primarily pushing a single path.  Ultimately the desire is for a warlord that doesn't get to do anything tactical just because he didn't pick the tactical subclass and for a warlord that doesn't get to do anything inspiring just because he didn't pick the inspiring subclass.  There is going to be a major design challenge in the evolution route to make sure that doesn't happen.  Most of us want a warlord that can do some inspiring, some tactics etc.  



> My personal opinion is that the specialization route is the worst option.  I reviewed a ton of the 4E exploits that the Warlord had, when putting together my own design, and at least 80% of them are worthless when translating to 5E.  5E just fundamentally doesn't work the same as 4E, and you can't pile on tons of micro-abilities and pretend that provides a useful choice mechanic on par with the spell system.  And without sufficient choices to draw from, the specialization mechanic just doesn't have enough to work with to be viable, long-term.




1.  Most 5e warlord abilities should scale instead of staying micro abilities.  
2.  I don't think it's been demonstrated that there will be a lack of sufficient choices for specialization to work long term.
3.  My personal opinion is that it's the best option.  I believe there is a reason no sufficient warlord has been created yet and that reason is because everyone has tried to do it so far under the evolution route.  It always ends up leaving warlord concepts that warlord fans want to explore on the outside looking in.  You almost certainly lose the lazylord/princess.  You almost certainly lose hybrid tactical / inspring warlords.  Heck there's even the question of how much baked in combat prowess you place in the primary class vs the subclasses and that's another hybrid tradeoff that makes warlord fans cringe.



> On the other hand, I don't know whether "type" or "evolution" is better for handling the general concepts that are being applied to the Warlord.  Perhaps some of the concepts just fundamentally don't belong in Warlord, as they only existed in 4E due to the mechanics matching up.  A princess isn't a Warlord, and shoehorning it into the class just shows a poor understanding of the design process.  It's not a conceptual match, it's a mechanical match, in designing a character that can still be functional despite the concept, rather than because of it.




Can a warlord be bad at fighting himself.  In general I think it's possible.  I used to think the princess concept would be impossible to translate to 5e.  I now see multiple paths as long as you have the single broad flexible warlord mechanic and something non-attacking they can substitute their attack for.  I don't think its the traditional warlord concept 4e was going for, but I also don't think its just a mechanical phenomenon.  A lazylord/princess in conception would probably be more like a scholar that has studied war and battle and tactics.  He might be sick or frail or just untrained or unexperienced with weaponry and thus might lack some of their insights.  He's probably more tactical focused than inspiring.  But that shouldn't rule out him being able to inspire the party with a story about some historical battle or person and then reminding them of it on combat etc.  But that would be my conception of a princess/lazylord.  Is that a concept that really doesn't belong in a warlord class?  If it doesn't belong there then where does it belong?



> Of my general concepts, I'm seeing:
> 
> Icon/Shonen hero: evolution (leading people)
> Icon/Princess: type
> ...




I'm not sure what a shonen is.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Kinematics said:


> I'm inclined to think, based on considering the various evolution paths (assuming an evolution subclass mechanism), that a base class option similar to Lay On Hands or Second Wind is fine, but that significant (inspirational) healing should be locked to a subclass.
> 
> For my four subclasses, only the Icon fits the concept of allowing inspirational healing.  The Commander, Strategist, and Defender all strike me as very non-healer types, aside from possibly a Second Wind analog.  Adding healing to them can be done in lots of ways, such as the Healer feat, or a multitude of multiclassing options, but is not something intrinsic to the subclass.
> 
> ...




If you are going the evolutoin subclass route and are going to place tactics on one subclass and inspiration on another etc.  Doesn't that work best as maybe 4 fighter subclasses?  I think that's the conclusion Mearls arrived at.  Except he ruled out the inspiring style warlords and that left him with 1-2 warlord styles.  The tactical and he could also probably make a bravaura.  

But keep in mind, while this is doable and perfectly acceptable, I don't think it's anything like what warlord fans are wanting.  They don't want all those different abilities to be siloed into separate spaces, but instead to have the option of having most all of them available on the same Character


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

We can have more than 1 style of sub-class.  You could have both a specialist (improve your rally ability), and a generalist(select 2 more invocations), and a evolution (you gain rage).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> And let me throw out a novel idea...
> 
> No sub-class.  (just invocations).
> Multi-sub-classes.




Warlocks essentially get 2 subclasses, though they aren't called such.

I do think a level 1 warlord ability that gave a choice for your weapon and armor proficiencies maybe with some other minor benefit or benefits conferred would be kind of cool.  

Maybe heavy armor shields and martial weapons vs medium armor and shields and martial weapons and + 2 party bonus to initiative vs light armor no shields and simple weapons with +2 initiative and extra first turn movement.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its not that situational though its 99% of the time in every combat round.
> 
> Its obvious though Mearls is not going to give you at will attack granting as he is not drunk and stoned. Hell he is  not giving you the WL as an independent class, if the WL lands as a fighter subclass its basically allover for the WL as an independent class.




Speaking of drunk or stoned...  Mearls wants to give something better than at will attack granting.  Essentially all the time prone with fighter level damage and extra feats.  This tactical warlord may actually edge out the battlemaster in terms of GWM DPR and that's saying a lot.

But more importantly,
At will attack granting works fine as long as you are granting the attack on the allies turn you are granting the attack to.  It's when you can grant your ally an attack on your turn or on another allies turn that it's a problem.


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I do think a level 1 warlord ability that gave a choice for your weapon and armor proficiencies maybe with some other minor benefit or benefits conferred would be kind of cool.



True.  It is nice to nice go start out with the correct tools rather than having to go back to town mid-adventure, or carry around gear you can't use for 2 levels.

Then again "heavy armor proficiency" could be an invocation.  (Mage armor already is).
As could +2 initiative.
and first turn movement if you're in light armor.

Then they would still be available from the start.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> True.  It is nice to nice go start out with the correct tools rather than having to go back to town mid-adventure, or carry around gear you can't use for 2 levels.
> 
> Then again "heavy armor proficiency" could be an invocation.  (Mage armor already is).
> As could +2 initiative.
> ...




yes if we went the invocation route.  I'm not convinced it will work the best but I'm still needing to go back and reread your post on it.  I think you are going to have vanician caster flexibility in a world of neo vanician casting.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Speaking of drunk or stoned...  Mearls wants to give something better than at will attack granting.  Essentially all the time prone with fighter level damage and extra feats.  This tactical warlord may actually edge out the battlemaster in terms of GWM DPR and that's saying a lot.
> 
> But more importantly,
> At will attack granting works fine as long as you are granting the attack on the allies turn you are granting the attack to.  It's when you can grant your ally an attack on your turn or on another allies turn that it's a problem.




That is creating other complexity though and it still means things like Hunter Rangers for example are really good with a WL although it solves the Rogue thing. 

 Gonna wait until Mearls does a final version of the WL Fighter.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> And let me throw out a novel idea...
> 
> No sub-class.  (just invocations).
> Multi-sub-classes.




 I did both, "invocations" and sub classes.

 I chose level 3 as a point of divergence as you don't want to front load the class. YOu pick your subclass at level 1. You get.

Bravura. Combat style, heavy armor
Tactical int to initiative
Inspiring Cha to healing

Generic WL stuff
1d8/+level short rest healing

Level 2 you get your 1st "invocation" plus WL version of channel divinity, level 3 you get major sublass features. 

 I made it level 3 due to front loading and we can do a 1/3rd caster warlord if desired. Level 3 is also where things like BM dice kick in.

 You can't really have attack granting, healing, an invocation etc at level 1 its to front loaded in 5E terms, you only get 1-2 abilities at level 1 often minor. Level 3 is roughly the 4E level 1. My level 3 WL gets.

1d8/+3 healing bonus action/short rest
2d8+3 30' healing standard action short rest
2 "invocations"
Major subclass ability (which usually duplicates 4E powers, BM dice or bard dice, not sure for the Bravura)
Minor level 1 abilities (varies by subclass). 

lvl 4 ASI + "invocation"
Level 5 healing word scales, ability, + "invocation". Invocations here also scale a'la Warlock 5th level archetype abilities.
Level  healing 30' 2d8+6 2/short rest, + "invocation"

 If you pick all the attack granting invocations as a tactical WL combined with the ones that grant extra BM dice you won't quite have at will attack granting but 50-75% probably. Smooths out the Rogue damage anyway and you get more healing/other stuff or the option to take other invocations that do not allow attack granting. For example at level 4 you could have 6 BM dice, +2 invocaitons 1 could be attack granting + advantage and the other one could be healing or movement related or a passive one like +2 skills etc.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> That is creating other complexity though and it still means things like Hunter Rangers for example are really good with a WL although it solves the Rogue thing.
> 
> Gonna wait until Mearls does a final version of the WL Fighter.




So you think an extra d6 and a small extra chance to land colossus slayer is a big enough of a difference to bring up?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So you think an extra d6 and a small extra chance to land colossus slayer is a big enough of a difference to bring up?




With 3 attacks you have a very good chance of colossus slayer and that is on top of things like the -5/+10 feats. Its potentially 1d6+1d8+10. Even without the Rogue its why I think attack granting at will is to good in 5E at least on a support class it might be OK on a Rogue perhaps. 

 Keep in mind a Cleric by comparison gets an extra 1d8 at level 8, 2d8 at 14. Yes I am aware they cast spells but that just means the other warlord abilities need to be competitive with spells as that is what you are giving up. 

 Also see previous post about how I have done it. THe tactical warlord can be better at attack granting than the Battlemaster and I have made a couple of attack granting "invocations" with riders so you can do it a lot and its worth doing but you are not overshadowing the cleric hopefully as you can make a beat down cleric in 5E its just not that obvious and unlimited (when you run out of spells). The beatdown cleric is not that viable until level 5 or even 8 either.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> With 3 attacks you have a very good chance of colossus slayer and that is on top of things like the -5/+10 feats. Its potentially 1d6+1d8+10. Even without the Rogue its why I think attack granting at will is to good in 5E at least on a support class it might be OK on a Rogue perhaps.
> 
> Keep in mind a Cleric by comparison gets an extra 1d8 at level 8, 2d8 at 14. Yes I am aware they cast spells but that just means the other warlord abilities need to be competitive with spells as that is what you are giving up.
> 
> Also see previous post about how I have done it. THe tactical warlord can be better at attack granting than the Battlemaster and I have made a couple of attack granting "invocations" with riders so you can do it a lot and its worth doing but you are not overshadowing the cleric hopefully as you can make a beat down cleric in 5E its just not that obvious and unlimited (when you run out of spells). The beatdown cleric is not that viable until level 5 or even 8 either.




At will attack granting that comes online at level 5 means a warlord does 1 relatively terrible attack and may can grant an ally 1 really good attack.  You will average out somewhere in the average range.

Best case might look like
2d6+4 and 3d6+4 = 11 vs 15.5 = 26.5 average damage over 1 turn at will.  A basic fighter with Great Weapon Fighter Master does 12.33 damage an attack at level 5.  That's 24.67 damage over 1 turn at will.

I don't see enough of a difference to matter.

How about this.  You give me your best case character chance to hit and damage per attack and we will see how much DPR granting 1 attack at level 5 and having the warlord make 1 attack at level 5 really matters?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> At will attack granting that comes online at level 5 means a warlord does 1 relatively terrible attack and may can grant an ally 1 really good attack.  You will average out somewhere in the average range.
> 
> Best case might look like
> 2d6+4 and 3d6+4 = 11 vs 15.5 = 26.5 average damage over 1 turn at will.  A basic fighter with Great Weapon Fighter Master does 12.33 damage an attack at level 5.  That's 24.67 damage over 1 turn at will.
> ...




Warlords not a fighter though its role is leader/support. Compare its damage to clerics and bards all of which are rather lacklustre. You're not getting at will attack granting this is not my opinion but the developers, even the BM fighter doesn't have it and that is on a high DPR class. There is a reason for that its OP in 5E

 Its why I am so opposed to it having at will attack granting. 

 If you want to crunch math the average monster AC in the book is 14.5 apparently. That doesn't factor in things like advantage, bard dice, bless etc if you want to abuse the -5/+10 feats. 

 The only way to balance at will attack granting is to either define a basic attack, or make the rules so complicated you may as well limit it via BM dice or something similar or make the attack roughly equal to what the warlord is giving up at best 2d6+5. 

 You can't even level gate it. A level 14 Cleric for example gets at best 2d6+5+2d8 at will on one attack only. Even if you made is a level 14 ability you still have level 14 Rogues, 1d8 +7d6+5.

 At will can't be balanced in 5E you may be able to grant bonus damage dice that can scale like a cantrip 1d8 level 1-4, 2d8 level 5 etc.

 I'll put it in 4E terms. At will attack granting in 5E is the equivalent of giving a 4E PHB leader class at will striker levels of damage (ignoring essentials). That is the fundamental problem right there. Its like giving a fighter level 9 spells.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Warlords not a fighter though its role is leader/support. Compare its damage to clerics and bards all of which are rather lacklustre. You're not getting at will attack granting this is not my opinion but the developers, even the BM fighter doesn't have it and that is on a high DPR class. There is a reason for that its OP in 5E
> 
> Its why I am so opposed to it having at will attack granting.
> 
> ...




Your not proving it.  You just keep repeating yourself.  If you force warlord attack granting to give allies a single extra attack on the allies turn then it's not a problem.  Almost all extra damage effects get eliminated because you don't get to double dip any once per turn damage effects.  The remaining damage effects make like 1d6 or so of a difference on a single attack, definitely not enough to worry about.  Oh and it gives a slightly higher chance to proc something like colossus slayer.  Not much higher as 2 attacks vs 3 attacks at 50% chance to hit only accounts for a 75% to 87.5% increase in chance to proc it.  That's .125 * 4.5 damage = .5625 DPR from a 1d8 colossus slayer.  Again it's not enough to worry about.  

Even things like the -5/+10 feats at most double your damage.  In the case I'm suggesting you would get 1 attack at below normal damage and 1 attack double normal damage.  You are still doing no where near the damage of a second GWM or SS character and no matter what you do your not going to get anywhere near their damage output.  

Yes, there will be a bit of variation but it's within the normal range of variation.  

Here's the thing.  Any support ability already depends on the damage of the characters you are supporting.  It all scales by that. Haste, scales by your allies damage.  Bless scales by your allies damage.  It's almost like the very concept of a support character doing better with allies around that do more damage is something that doesn't bother you till it comes to warlords.  

Oh and don't go saying bless and haste aren't at will.  They might as well be when you can cast them every combat of every day.


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> You can't really have attack granting, healing, an invocation etc at level 1 its to front loaded in 5E terms.



I agree you shouldn't get all 3 at level 1, but you could get to chose 1 of those 3 at level 1.
And then pick up the second at level 2.
And the third at level 3.
And so on...


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> yes if we went the invocation route.  I'm not convinced it will work the best but I'm still needing to go back and reread your post on it.  I think you are going to have vanician caster flexibility in a world of neo vanician casting.



It depends on how flexible each invocation is, how many you get, and how they stack.

For instance...
"You can use a reaction to reroll any (enemy, ally, or self) attack, saving throw, or skill check.'" is flexible enough to cover pretty much any situation.

But if you broke it up into "you can reroll an enemy attack", "you can reroll an ally save", "you can reroll an enemy skill check", and so on.  Then you would need 9 different invocations to cover the same situations.


And the size and number of them also depend on what else the class gets.  Like how many sub-class levels?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So you are fine with non-magical healing.  It's inspirational healing "forced" upon other characters that's the problem.  Good to know so we don't waste time arguing for non-magical healing when that isn't your issue.




Sure.  Spending HD on short rests, for example, is non-magical healing.

If somebody gives me back 20 HP as a bonus action, though, I do kind of want to know how...approximately...that works.  If the ability is just written as "As a bonus action you can grant an ally five times your level in HP" with absolutely no fluff, then some of us can assume it's like Lay on Hands, and others can assume it's your magnificent, valorous 4th level Warlord shouting some spine back into my pathetic sniveling 18th level Barbarian.



> In terms of flavor, if you want an option to describe what the Warlord is doing as somehow magical without his knowledge then I'm not opposed.  This reminds me a lot of bardic inspiration.  Is it magical or is it non-magical?  But I do require the option of claiming all the Warlord's abilities are non-magical.




So does the flavor-less text version above work for you?




> Dragon's fearful presence, Battlemaster's menacing maneuver.  I would be perfectly fine with a DM ruling that a monster trying to intimidate me could give me the fear condition.  If non-magical abilities can give me fear then surely a monster intimidating me could also give me fear.




I interpret a Dragon's fearful presence to be magical, albeit in the "supernatural" sense, not the spellcasting sense:


> Each creature of the dragon's choice that is within 120 feet of the dragon and aware of it must succeed on a DC 16 Wisdom saving throw or become Frightened for 1 minute. A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. If a creature's saving throw is successful or the effect ends for it, the creature is immune to the dragon's Frightful Presence for the next 24 hours.



It's not that the dragon is really scary to look at or roars terrifyingly (if it were, everybody in range would have to roll).  The dragon just picks as many targets as it likes, skipping over others, and "poof" they are terrified.  That just doesn't sound like mundane scariness to me.  And if it were meant to be mundane, and Intimidate were meant to be used the way you suggest, why not just give the Dragon a huge skill bonus? 

And the Battlemaster's menacing is for use on NPCs, not other player characters.



> Speaking of intimidation, how would you expect an enemy trying to intimidate a PC work?  If you get to decide your characters thoughts and feelings to the exclusion of all other game mechanics, how does intimidation ever work on a PC?




It doesn't, really.  Intimidation/Deception/Persuasion are primarily for adjudicating the responses of NPCs, so that the DM has an objective way of resolving those interactions.

I might roll one of those abilities for an NPC and base my narration on the result, but I'm not going to tell a player, "Yeah...the Duke got a natural 20 on his persuade so you have to rescue his daughter from the mind flayers for free."


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> It depends on how flexible each invocation is, how many you get, and how they stack.
> 
> For instance...
> "You can use a reaction to reroll any (enemy, ally, or self) attack, saving throw, or skill check.'" is flexible enough to cover pretty much any situation.
> ...




That's not really what I'm concerned with.  The solutions required to make invocations work are opposed to each other.  It almost seems like it's either flexibility in short rest abilities or scalability for them.

The obvious fix for flexibility in short rest abilities is to give a warlord point that can be spent on any short rest warlord invocation any time you take a warlord short rest invocation.

The obvious fix for scalability is to grant access to new stronger invocations at appropriate levels.  Maybe level 3, level 5 and level 11.

However, if you adopt this fix for flexibility and this fix for scalability you end up with a system that's inflexible as all the warlord points will go into your higher level short rest abilities and so you might as well not even have the lower level ones

Possible solution: invocation upgrades where each invocations had maybe a level 1 effect, level 3 effect, level 5 effect and level 11 effect and as soon as you hit level 3 you would automatically upgrade to the level 3 effect.  Then just add in a few more invocations as you level and that might take care of scaling.  For flexibility follow the previous solution for granting a warlord point for each choice of short rest invocation and allow that point to be used on any warlord short rest invocation ability.

But I think that's quite a bit different than the implementation you were thinking of.  There's not another implementation I can really see working right.  Any thoughts?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Sure.  Spending HD on short rests, for example, is non-magical healing.
> 
> If somebody gives me back 20 HP as a bonus action, though, I do kind of want to know how...approximately...that works.  If the ability is just written as "As a bonus action you can grant an ally five times your level in HP" with absolutely no fluff, then some of us can assume it's like Lay on Hands, and others can assume it's your magnificent, valorous 4th level Warlord shouting some spine back into my pathetic sniveling 18th level Barbarian.
> 
> ...




If that's what it took to get an accepted warlord I'm good with a no flavor text version of the ability.  Do you think others in your camp will go for that kind of compromise?



> I interpret a Dragon's fearful presence to be magical, albeit in the "supernatural" sense, not the spellcasting sense:
> 
> It's not that the dragon is really scary to look at or roars terrifyingly (if it were, everybody in range would have to roll).  The dragon just picks as many targets as it likes, skipping over others, and "poof" they are terrified.  That just doesn't sound like mundane scariness to me.  And if it were meant to be mundane, and Intimidate were meant to be used the way you suggest, why not just give the Dragon a huge skill bonus?




I think it's non-magical mundane scare factor.  Animals can make known their dislike of some people and their indifference to others.  As such it's only going to be those the dragon want to frighten that will rise to the level of the 5e fear mechanic.



> And the Battlemaster's menacing is for use on NPCs, not other player characters.




It's a common DM technique to make some NPC's have PC abilities.  If such a NPC used that on your PC?



> It doesn't, really.  Intimidation/Deception/Persuasion are primarily for adjudicating the responses of NPCs, so that the DM has an objective way of resolving those interactions.
> 
> I might roll one of those abilities for an NPC and base my narration on the result, but I'm not going to tell a player, "Yeah...the Duke got a natural 20 on his persuade so you have to rescue his daughter from the mind flayers for free."




That's fair.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Your not proving it.  You just keep repeating yourself.  If you force warlord attack granting to give allies a single extra attack on the allies turn then it's not a problem.  Almost all extra damage effects get eliminated because you don't get to double dip any once per turn damage effects.  The remaining damage effects make like 1d6 or so of a difference on a single attack, definitely not enough to worry about.  Oh and it gives a slightly higher chance to proc something like colossus slayer.  Not much higher as 2 attacks vs 3 attacks at 50% chance to hit only accounts for a 75% to 87.5% increase in chance to proc it.  That's .125 * 4.5 damage = .5625 DPR from a 1d8 colossus slayer.  Again it's not enough to worry about.
> 
> Even things like the -5/+10 feats at most double your damage.  In the case I'm suggesting you would get 1 attack at below normal damage and 1 attack double normal damage.  You are still doing no where near the damage of a second GWM or SS character and no matter what you do your not going to get anywhere near their damage output.
> 
> ...




You can't cast them every combat and they can be interrupted as well via the concentration mechanic. You also can't cast bless and holy word in the same round for example. 

 Even if you can cast say 8 hastes a day with a best case scenario (level 10 Sorcerer, can twin it and prof in con saves) you still can't move it onto another player (a warlord can say move it between an archer/great weapon user) and that is more or less all you can do with the Sorcerer (spam cantrips and a few level 1 and 2 spells left- at level 10). Oh and if haste gets interrupted there is a big draw back as well.

 Still don't see the problem? You just compared at will attack granting to a focused level 10 spellcaster build and the warlord fans presumable want other abilities and healing to go on top of that?

 Ironically if you do it my way that I have been suggesting the warlord will be coming close to at will attack granting by level 10 if they focused on it. Maybe 75%+ of the time but you don't get it for free just like spellcasters don't get haste at will either. And if you are really that keen on at will if you changed the short rest ability to 5 mins a'la 4E encounter powers you would be getting very close to at will.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> It depends on how flexible each invocation is, how many you get, and how they stack.
> 
> For instance...
> "You can use a reaction to reroll any (enemy, ally, or self) attack, saving throw, or skill check.'" is flexible enough to cover pretty much any situation.
> ...




My suggested WL is 1 invocation per level same rate as warlock (+ healing+ other stuff). I have not written than many though.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> I agree you shouldn't get all 3 at level 1, but you could get to chose 1 of those 3 at level 1.
> And then pick up the second at level 2.
> And the third at level 3.
> And so on...




I give them an invocation each level starting at 2 a'la warlock, grant second wind level 1+ subclass ability. Attack granting comes level 3 with subclass, level 2 with "invocation". I think they get something else level 1 as well but I do not have my notes on me. 

 Slightly out of date I am on 2.2 but I did write some to give you an idea.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?625334-Zards-Warlord-2-0

 I think I am getting close to the right healing rate though, you also get an explot per level from level 2, and I have tweaked a few of them and the inspirational word since that post. Some of the exploits have been obsoleted. 

Here is a sample level 9 one you can pick. I think its based off a 4E one. Its also a daily might just tweak it into a short rest ability. 

Knock them Down

Prerequisite: Level 9.
As part of an attack action you strike your opponent a mighty blow. If you hit you deal an extra 3d8 damage and may make a shove attack as a bonus action. If you knock them prone every ally within 50’ of you may use their reaction to move up to 15’ and have an attack of opportunity. You regain the use of this ability when you complete a long rest.

 For scaling just level gate some of the abilities like the warlock which needs to be level XYZ to pick them.

 An obvious way to upgrade them is turn single target ones into multi target. For example grant attack with advantage becomes 2 targets perhaps at 5 (and you keep the lower level one). Grant an attack with rider can upgrade to grant and action. Other high level ones can duplicate them but as a bonus action instead of standard action, level 5 would be a good place for that due to it being a 2nd attack sort of. 

 If they are are short rest and some are bonus action (granting advantage and healing perhaps),


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> You can't cast them every combat and they can be interrupted as well via the concentration mechanic. You also can't cast bless and holy word in the same round for example.
> 
> Even if you can cast say 8 hastes a day with a best case scenario (level 10 Sorcerer, can twin it and prof in con saves) you still can't move it onto another player (a warlord can say move it between an archer/great weapon user) and that is more or less all you can do with the Sorcerer (spam cantrips and a few level 1 and 2 spells left- at level 10). Oh and if haste gets interrupted there is a big draw back as well.
> 
> ...




Actually, the sorcerer gets to attack with a 2d10 firebolt cantrip while granting attacks basically all day.  OR he can fireball instead of granting some attacks OR he can cast a level 5 hold person... or....

You are right that when a sorcerer attack grants he doesn't get to do much else.  But he is still doing as much as our theoretical warlord and he's potentially granting attacks to 2 people instead of 1.  And he can do all this while having other options ready to go at a moments notice.  

So yes, granting one attack per turn at level 5 at will while also making 1 attack and having a few other options you can do instead of attack grant sounds pretty comparable.

How many attacks can a sorcerer grant at level 5?  Isn't it something like 24 attacks per day, along with AC and extra movement?  While still being able to attack with a 2d10 damage cantrip on all but 3 turns of the day?

A level 5 sorcerer that trades all his level 1 and 2 spells for spell points ends up with 15 sorcerer points.  It takes 5 to create a level 3 spell.  So he can cast haste 3 times.  It takes 3 to twin cast haste.  Combats last about 4 rounds.  Each cast of haste will generate about 8 attacks.  

Yep.  Sorcerors at level 5 can attack with a 2d10 cantrip all but 3 turns a day and generate 24 attacks per day along with granting those allies extra movement and AC all at level 5.  

All I'm asking for is to have a warlord character that can do 1d8+mod damage per turn with his attack (very comparable to a 2d10 firebolt cantrip) while granting 24 attacks per day and having the option to do some things other than attack grant if desired.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Actually, the sorcerer gets to attack with a 2d10 firebolt cantrip while granting attacks basically all day.  OR he can fireball instead of granting some attacks OR he can cast a level 5 hold person... or....
> 
> You are right that when a sorcerer attack grants he doesn't get to do much else.  But he is still doing as much as our theoretical warlord and he's potentially granting attacks to 2 people instead of 1.  And he can do all this while having other options ready to go at a moments notice.
> 
> ...




You can do that with my warlord who doesn't get at will attack granting.

 Level 5 sorcerer can do haste twice a day. In theory 20 rounds in practice 6 to 8 often less. Which is less than a level 5 battlemaster.


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The obvious fix for flexibility in short rest abilities is to give a warlord point that can be spent on any short rest warlord invocation any time you take a warlord short rest invocation.
> 
> The obvious fix for scalability is to grant access to new stronger invocations at appropriate levels.  Maybe level 3, level 5 and level 11.



I have a mix of those.

You get 1 warlord point at level 1, 2 at level 5, 3 at level 11, and 4 at level 17.
Invocations automatically upgrade.
And there are short rest limits on some abilities.

I just call my warlord points "reactions".
The auto scaling "half your warlord level", "your proficiency bonus", or "your Int modifier".
And short rest abilities are either "when you roll initiative" or "a creature can only benifit/fall for this trick once".

Also, things like advantage work just as well at level 1 as they do at level 20.  So no scaling needed on those.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That's not really what I'm concerned with.  The solutions required to make invocations work are opposed to each other.  It almost seems like it's either flexibility in short rest abilities or scalability for them.
> 
> The obvious fix for flexibility in short rest abilities is to give a warlord point that can be spent on any short rest warlord invocation any time you take a warlord short rest invocation.
> 
> ...



 I used maneuvers with a 3 tier system but as separate picks, with the previous ones plus class levels as prerequisites. Each tier generally did something different or used different actions, so having tier 3 didn't always invalidate using tier 2 for example. 



Zardnaar said:


> My suggested WL is 1 invocation per level same rate as warlock (+ healing+ other stuff). I have not written than many though.



 I'm pretty sure that Warlocks don't get an invocation at each level. Its closer to 1 every 2-3 levels.
They get to swap an invocation with a different one every level. That might be the source of the confusion.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> You can do that with my warlord who doesn't get at will attack granting.
> 
> Level 5 sorcerer can do haste twice a day. In theory 20 rounds in practice 6 to 8 often less. Which is less than a level 5 battlemaster.




He can do it 3 times a day.  You can trade 5 sorcery points for a level 3 spell.  Then you can trade your remaining spells below level 3 for sorcery points to twin all the hastes.

3 twinned hastes in 3 different 4 round combats is 24 attacks granted.

How does your warlord grant 24 attacks per day?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> I have a mix of those.
> 
> You get 1 warlord point at level 1, 2 at level 5, 3 at level 11, and 4 at level 17.
> Invocations automatically upgrade.
> ...




So I have to pick things to use warlord points on and then I'm still limited by warlord points?

It would seem the optimal strategy would be to pick 1 warlord point ability and then pick the rest to be non-warlord point abilities?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> He can do it 3 times a day.  You can trade 5 sorcery points for a level 3 spell.  Then you can trade your remaining spells below level 3 for sorcery points to twin all the hastes.
> 
> 3 twinned hastes in 3 different 4 round combats is 24 attacks granted.
> 
> How does your warlord grant 24 attacks per day?




Tactical one takes invocation to get two more and picks two invocations that allow it. Gives you 8 which is roughly 2 to 3 fights. Two short rests brings it up to 24.

 Sure you have to devote 3 things to do it but it's not unlike the sorcerer example you gave plus you get the built in generous amount of scaling healing and the other benefits.

That Sorcerer is also tanked for the rest of the day. 6 to 8 encounters you nova off 3 rounds. 

 Also 4 rounds is generous if haste is involved it's probably more like 3. 

 It's kind of the assumption I went with thinking about attack granting and my warlord is still rough. My warlord level 5 is looking good vs the Sorcerer who tanked himself

My logic was BM fighter and why can't we have an option at being better than that. Lead me to more dice and invocations.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> I have a mix of those.
> 
> You get 1 warlord point at level 1, 2 at level 5, 3 at level 11, and 4 at level 17.
> Invocations automatically upgrade.
> ...




I see.  I'm having more trouble than I thought fitting battle plans or strategies or anything like that into my at will warlord so I may adopt an invocation style approach as well.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Since we all seem to be going toward the invocation route, can we think of a better name for them than invocations?

Tactics and Strategies?

errr something?


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what a shonen is.



Shonen is a term for anime aimed at young boys, often with a protagonist with an enthusiastic attitude, but not necessarily bright.  Often long-running series, where they demonstrate the power of friendship, and never giving up (aka: the boys' version of magical girl series). The epitome of bullheadedness and a never-give-up attitude inspiring their friends forward against the big bad.  Naruto, My Hero Academia, Bleach; that sort of thing.


Replying to other stuff will take longer, so I'll get to it later.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Since we all seem to be going toward the invocation route, can we think of a better name for them than invocations?
> 
> Tactics and Strategies?
> 
> errr something?




Gambit and exploits have come up.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> If that's what it took to get an accepted warlord I'm good with a no flavor text version of the ability.  Do you think others in your camp will go for that kind of compromise?




Some, but not all.  Some people have edition wars baggage.





> I think it's non-magical mundane scare factor.  Animals can make known their dislike of some people and their indifference to others.  As such it's only going to be those the dragon want to frighten that will rise to the level of the 5e fear mechanic.




Wait...what?  Give me an example of an animal selectively intimidating a group of enemies.



> It's a common DM technique to make some NPC's have PC abilities.  If such a NPC used that on your PC?




DMs do lots of things that aren't in the book that I don't agree with.


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So I have to pick things to use warlord points on and then I'm still limited by warlord points?
> 
> It would seem the optimal strategy would be to pick 1 warlord point ability and then pick the rest to be non-warlord point abilities?



The majority of things take reactions.  The things that don't are more situational and weaker.  But yea, that would probably be optimal.

Though, I've also been toying with separate pools.  One for passive/at-will stuff, one that uses reactions, and maybe one for no-combat stuff.
That would also help spread out choices over a few levels.  So a person wouldn't sit down and have to choose from 30 different options.


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I see.  I'm having more trouble than I thought fitting battle plans or strategies or anything like that into my at will warlord so I may adopt an invocation style approach as well.




Battle Plan: When you roll initiative, you can shout out one of the following battle plans.   For the rest of the combat, you and your allies gain a +1d4 bonus to one of the following.
*First Strike: Initiative.
*Skirmish: AC against opportunity attacks.
*Hold the Line: To-hit with oppertunity attacks.
*Focus Fire: Select a single creature.  Gain the bonus to damage rolls against that creature.
*Evasive: Dexterity and charisma saving throws.
*Harden Mind: Wisdom and intelligence saving throws.
*Tough it Out: Strength and constitution saving throws.


Maybe.  I've generally been avoiding long duration buffs, but that doesn't seem bad.


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I did both, "invocations" and sub classes.



Yea, the "no-subclass" idea didn't work out well.  Having a sub-class gives you a name short cut.  "I'm a tactical warlord".
Nor did the "2 sub-class" idea, as it felt like you where getting more than anyone else.  "I'm a skirmishing tactical warlord, but your only a divination wizard".



> Generic WL stuff
> 1d8/+level short rest healing



I'd still rather see healing as an option rather than a core ability.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

I'm seeing atleast 4-5 categories of abilities emerging 

Battle plans
 tactical focus 
Shouts
Inspiring attacks
base warlord combat prowess

Any others?
Some subclasses could be used to specialize in a category of ability?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Gambit and exploits have come up.




They don't seem to cover the full range of Warlord abilities.

Gambits and exploits best cover inspiring attacks but they don't map as well to battleplans or shouts etc.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> The majority of things take reactions.  The things that don't are more situational and weaker.  But yea, that would probably be optimal.
> 
> Though, I've also been toying with separate pools.  One for passive/at-will stuff, one that uses reactions, and maybe one for no-combat stuff.
> That would also help spread out choices over a few levels.  So a person wouldn't sit down and have to choose from 30 different options.




A PHB wizard get's 30 spells to choose from at level 1.  BattleMasters get about 20 maneuvers to choose from.  I think 20-30 abilities is in the right ballpark for a fleixibile mechanic.  Especially one where you are going to give nearly 10 choices in eventually.  (Besides they are only picking like 2-3 abilities at level 1)


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

What if Warlord Invocations typically gave you a new action you can do that incorporates 
-an attack and a small buff
-a big buff
etc

This limits those abilities to once per turn.

Then you could also have some additional non-action requiring abilities that also get limited to once a turn either by rule or by requiring a reaction.

I think most abilities should keep the bonus action free in case the warlord wants to TWF.  I don't want TWF to be a choice we take from him?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

[MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] 

I'm starting to be a bit concerned with the invocation idea again.  It seems to me that you are basically making a warlord with at will abilities that gets a few options for non-at will abilities.

I'm going back toward my at will Warlord.  I think I decided I could put my battle plans abilities into a subclass while leaving tactical focus abilities in the primary class.  Should add enough tactical feel in the base class while letting you expand on it with a subclass.  

I'm leaning toward subclasses:
Strategist - battle plans (general encounter long buffs or possibly initiative bonuses etc)
Standard Bearer - Inspirational and some quasi-aura type abilities for allies near you
Warrior?
Brauvara?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION]
> 
> I'm starting to be a bit concerned with the invocation idea again.  It seems to me that you are basically making a warlord with at will abilities that gets a few options for non-at will abilities.
> 
> ...




At will narrows down your options a lot if you want it remotely balanced. Some sort of aura  type class like the 3.5 Marshall might be the best bet.


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm starting to be a bit concerned with the invocation idea again.  It seems to me that you are basically making a warlord with at will abilities that gets a few options for non-at will abilities.



Yes.
What part of that concerns you?



> I'm going back toward my at will Warlord.  I think I decided I could put my battle plans abilities into a subclass while leaving tactical focus abilities in the primary class.  Should add enough tactical feel in the base class while letting you expand on it with a subclass.



So... your basiclly making a warlord with at will abilities that gets a few options for non-at will abilites?

Not sure I see much difference.
Except, using reactions reduces the number of things you need to track.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

mellored said:


> Yes.
> What part of that concerns you?




The part where it's going to be very easy to make a very unperpowered warlord (by comparison to what a strong warlord would look in your system) by taking too many non-at will options that don't increase power like having more and more at will options but only increase versatility.



> So... your basiclly making a warlord with at will abilities that gets a few options for non-at will abilites?




Yes and by doing so I'm avoiding giving the player "trap" choices like taking too many short rest (versatility only) options when they should be taking at-will power increasing options.



> Not sure I see much difference.
> Except, using reactions reduces the number of things you need to track.




The problem with reactions is that they eliminate your opportunity to OA.  If you just give more reactions and still have abilities that are only limited by costing a reaction you still eliminate your opportunity to OA.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 25, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> At will narrows down your options a lot if you want it remotely balanced. Some sort of aura  type class like the 3.5 Marshall might be the best bet.




Considering mellored's invocations are going to be mostly at will options then I'd say the invocation idea is going to run into the same issues.

If at-will invocations can work then at will powers with a few short rest abilities can work too


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Considering mellored's invocations are going to be mostly at will options then I'd say the invocation idea is going to run into the same issues.
> 
> If at-will invocations can work then at will powers with a few short rest abilities can work too




My at will invocations are fairly minor or passive bonuses. One of them gives two skills insight and history for example. 

 There are at will abilities in the PHB but they are fairly minor the Champion comes to mind. Converting some of the 4E ones might work or look at things like the mastermind rogues ability. That is kind of a key feature though if you made 5 abilities like that its kinda OP but you could make some as invocations. The advantage granting thing could be a generic invocation although I would perhaps but it as an inspiring option, probably gate it to level 5. 

 Other at wills could be based off cantrips and have a rider. I would probably have them as a bonus action for the rider and have the effect keyed off the basic attack. You could tie bits of it off feats such as Sentinel.

"Keep in in place"
As a bonus action on your next attack if you hit you the opponent must attack you or soak an attack of opportunity"

 The riders on cantrips could be another option. Bonus action though since you get to apply ability mod to damage unlike cantrips for most spellcasters (invokers, light clerics, warlocks being exceptions obviously).


----------



## mellored (Mar 25, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The part where it's going to be very easy to make a very unperpowered warlord (by comparison to what a strong warlord would look in your system) by taking too many non-at will options that don't increase power like having more and more at will options but only increase versatility.



The ones that need to increase in power increase in power.  And the short-rest abilities stack.  So you can use all of them.

If anything, it's the guy who takes all the reaction options that will be behind.  Since your limited on the number of reactions you have.  But, that's no worse of a "trap" than a wizard who takes only concentration spells.



> The problem with reactions is that they eliminate your opportunity to OA.  If you just give more reactions and still have abilities that are only limited by costing a reaction you still eliminate your opportunity to OA.



Ehh... maybe.  Though, another problem with reactions is they restart at the beginning of your turn.  You could go though an entire round never getting a trigger.

So maybe a reaction-like pool that recharge at the end of your turn?  Thus if you have any left over, you can use them to boost damage.  Hmm... actually, that might be better.  Since points can be more divisible than reactions.

But still, most of the features should be reaction-like bonuses.


Level 1: 
Points: You gain a pool of points equal to your Int modifier + half your warlord level.  This pool recharges at the end of your turn.  Unless a feature says otherwise, spending points does not require an action.  You spend points before you see the roll.

Default Useage of Points: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can spend points to deal 1 extra damage per point spent.

Invocations.

Skill Boost: When a creature within 5' makes a skill check, you can spend points to give them a bonus to their roll equal to the points spent.
Defense Boost: When a creature within 30' is hit by an attack, you can spend points to reduce the damage taken by the number of points spent.  If this reduces the damage to 0, the attack is a miss.
First Aid: As a bonus action, you can let someone spend a number of hit dice equal to the number of points you spend.  Their dice roll is maximized.
Inititive Boost: When a creature other than yourself rolls initiative, you can spend points to increase their roll by 1 for each point spent.  (_Note that you will not have these points on your first turn, since your pool reacharges at the end of your turn_).
Save Penalty (prerequisite level 4): When a creature makes a saving throw, you can give it a penalty equal to that save equal to half the number of point spent.

Level 11: Precision Command: You can decide to use points after you see the die roll, letting you spend only as much as you need.


*All of that needs better names.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> My at will invocations are fairly minor or passive bonuses. One of them gives two skills insight and history for example.
> 
> There are at will abilities in the PHB but they are fairly minor the Champion comes to mind. Converting some of the 4E ones might work or look at things like the mastermind rogues ability. That is kind of a key feature though if you made 5 abilities like that its kinda OP but you could make some as invocations. The advantage granting thing could be a generic invocation although I would perhaps but it as an inspiring option, probably gate it to level 5.
> 
> ...




I see.  Basically in yours the choice would come down to whether you want the few good at-will invocations you offer or not.  That didn't work at too well with the warlock.  Nearly everyone either takes the extra attack invocation or the eldritch blast damage invocation.  It really didn't end up being much of a real choice IMO.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

mellored said:


> The ones that need to increase in power increase in power.  And the short-rest abilities stack.  So you can use all of them.




This is not about scaling.  I get they can increase in power.  I get they 

When you say the short rest abilities stack I'm not seeing it.  Maybe you can elaborate but to me it just sounds like you get a bunch of short rest options with an independent fixed amount of times you can use that pool of abilities.  Is there something else going on here?  If that's all it is then adding short rest abilities as opposed to picking one of the stacking and scaling at-will options is almost always going to be a trap.  



> If anything, it's the guy who takes all the reaction options that will be behind.  Since your limited on the number of reactions you have.  But, that's no worse of a "trap" than a wizard who takes only concentration spells.




Maybe I've misunderstood your at will abilities as well.  You are saying they don't actually stack with each other but instead that you can only use one a turn?



> Ehh... maybe.  Though, another problem with reactions is they restart at the beginning of your turn.  You could go though an entire round never getting a trigger.




One way around the not getting something to trigger is is to give a lot of abilities with various triggers so that one is almost always bound to occur and it's just part of life when it doesn't (similar to rogues sneak attack sometimes not being able to occur)



> So maybe a reaction-like pool that recharge at the end of your turn?  Thus if you have any left over, you can use them to boost damage.  Hmm... actually, that might be better.  Since points can be more divisible than reactions.
> 
> But still, most of the features should be reaction-like bonuses.




That's another potential way to do it.  End of turn to end of turn timeframe with a once a turn limit.  That could work.




> Level 1:
> Points: You gain a pool of points equal to your Int modifier + half your warlord level.  This pool recharges at the end of your turn.  Unless a feature says otherwise, spending points does not require an action.  You spend points before you see the roll.
> 
> Default Useage of Points: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can spend points to deal 1 extra damage per point spent.




I still don't get the fascination with trying this to int mod.  We are making a warlord not a solely tactical warlord.  My basic abilities (especially the more inspirational ones) shouldn't require INT to function best and this int mod on uses basically forces that.



> Invocations.
> 
> Skill Boost: When a creature within 5' makes a skill check, you can spend points to give them a bonus to their roll equal to the points spent.
> Defense Boost: When a creature within 30' is hit by an attack, you can spend points to reduce the damage taken by the number of points spent.  If this reduces the damage to 0, the attack is a miss.
> ...



Okay, so these are at will style abilities.  This solves a lot of my concerns as these abilities scale but don't stack.  Every point you spend ends up being an either/or option.

However, there are still a few things.  My first major concern is that you are level gating some of these abilities when it's a single resource pool you get to spend on them which makes it feel like the higher level gated abilities should be stronger when they should actually be equal (or else why worry about the lower tier abilities).

Healing, even gated by hit dice should not be at will.  At level 6 you would be able to instandly fully heal 2 party members from 0 hp in the same turn.  It's not just a problem with your particular implementation of at-will healing.  Healing simply must have a per rest limitation on it.

The skill boost one concerns me if it's not left to a combat only use (not many skills get used in combat so I don't see any particular issue with it at this time)

Defense Boost actually works fine and scaled about how we would expect a damage reduction ability to scale.

Initiative boost works if you give the warlord a set of points when initiative is rolled that can be used before his first turn.  I'm not sure we want to do that but it's an option

Save Penalty - no just no.  





> Level 11: Precision Command: You can decide to use points after you see the die roll, letting you spend only as much as you need.
> 
> 
> *All of that needs better names.




Precision Command is interesting

What are some of the encounter or long rest style save abilities?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

[MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] 

I do see one potential solution.  If all the at will abilities share a pool of resources but don't stack and just scale in power (through your points for example) and if the short rest abilities behave similarly then my biggest concern is solved again.  

If this is done then both at-will and short rest abiltiies are just increasing versatility which is a form of power but not the raw-power I was concerned with.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> My at will invocations are fairly minor or passive bonuses. One of them gives two skills insight and history for example.
> 
> There are at will abilities in the PHB but they are fairly minor the Champion comes to mind. Converting some of the 4E ones might work or look at things like the mastermind rogues ability. That is kind of a key feature though if you made 5 abilities like that its kinda OP but you could make some as invocations. The advantage granting thing could be a generic invocation although I would perhaps but it as an inspiring option, probably gate it to level 5.




Now you are talking about potentially making stronger invocations level gated (like the warlock).  That's probably fine for at will abilities but it doesn't work well for per rest abilities because it eliminates the ability to have a flexible pool of equally powered options which is a very important consideration as it's one of the warlock's invocation lists most glaring weaknesses.  It makes almost the only things worth picking from the list be at will abilities.



> Other at wills could be based off cantrips and have a rider. I would probably have them as a bonus action for the rider and have the effect keyed off the basic attack. You could tie bits of it off feats such as Sentinel.
> 
> "Keep in in place"
> As a bonus action on your next attack if you hit you the opponent must attack you or soak an attack of opportunity"




I like this ability.  Good job!



> The riders on cantrips could be another option. Bonus action though since you get to apply ability mod to damage unlike cantrips for most spellcasters (invokers, light clerics, warlocks being exceptions obviously).




Unless you are worried about feat bonus actions or multiclassing bonus actions wouldn't it be better to limit such abilities some other way than through a bonus action, that way the warlord could 2 weapon fight if he wanted?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 26, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Now you are talking about potentially making stronger invocations level gated (like the warlock).  That's probably fine for at will abilities but it doesn't work well for per rest abilities because it eliminates the ability to have a flexible pool of equally powered options which is a very important consideration as it's one of the warlock's invocation lists most glaring weaknesses.  It makes almost the only things worth picking from the list be at will abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure a warlord could TWF but they lack the fighitng style although the Bravura one could get it but like the Paladin probably should not get TWF as an option.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Sure a warlord could TWF but they lack the fighitng style although the Bravura one could get it but like the Paladin probably should not get TWF as an option.




I can't be Maximus


----------



## mellored (Mar 26, 2018)

> I still don't get the fascination with trying this to int mod.  We are making a warlord not a solely tactical warlord.  My basic abilities (especially the more inspirational ones) shouldn't require INT to function best and this int mod on uses basically forces that.



I'm partial to the tactical warlord.

But mostly, I wanted a few points at level 1, but not be able to give out +20 to a skill check at level 20.  So just off the top of my head, I went Stat+half-level for a 3-15 points range.

I didn't put much though into balance.  Just threw out some ideas.



> However, there are still a few things.  My first major concern is that you are level gating some of these abilities when it's a single resource pool you get to spend on them which makes it feel like the higher level gated abilities should be stronger when they should actually be equal (or else why worry about the lower tier abilities).



The only level gate was the saving throw penalty.  And only to keep it out of the hands of casters. 

But really, I can't think of many that need level gates if they go the scaling right.



> Healing, even gated by hit dice should not be at will.  At level 6 you would be able to instandly fully heal 2 party members from 0 hp in the same turn.  It's not just a problem with your particular implementation of at-will healing.  Healing simply must have a per rest limitation on it.



Again, i didn't balance.  But let me see...

Your typical (5+2) * 6 = 47 HP
Maximizing a d8 = +3.5 HP 
* half your hit dice per day * a party of 5.
= 10.6 * 5 people per day.

Mass cure wounds gives 17.5 HP * 5 people.

So it seems about right for a base ability.  With sub-class boosting.



> The skill boost one concerns me if it's not left to a combat only use (not many skills get used in combat so I don't see any particular issue with it at this time)



Yea.  Probably change skills to 2 points for +1.
Change saves to 5 points for -1.
And change scaling to just warlord level.

That works better.



> What are some of the encounter or long rest style save abilities?



I'm not sure I have any.
"when you roll inititive"
"When an ally fails with a spell, they gain a slot 2 levels lower than they cast."
And healing, with hit dice.

All of which are gated other ways besides resting.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Sure a warlord could TWF but they lack the fighitng style although the Bravura one could get it but like the Paladin probably should not get TWF as an option.



 Bravuras are not like Paladins, and should logically get melee-offense-oriented styles, GW & TWF are certainly appropriate.  Something like the hypothetical Protector, pages back, might also get a choice of styles, but like Protection or Defense, as the name implies.  

Most Warlords, though, should be much more about their allies than their weapons.



FrogReaver said:


> Gambits and exploits best cover inspiring attacks but they don't map as well to battleplans or shouts etc.



 'Exploit' was the 4e term for all martial powers, and I still vaguely feel like it was chosen in part to take the word away from discussions of 'exploitable mechanics.'  The BM's "Maneuver" sounded like a much better term for that sort of thing.  Mike's "Gambits" also sound nicer than 'exploits,' and sound, to me, more like tactical plans and tricks, FWIW.

Also, I kinda like the idea of using several terms.  Apprentice-tier abilities labeled 'Maneuvers,' heroic 'Gambits,' etc.



FrogReaver said:


> If that's what it took to get an accepted warlord I'm good with a no flavor text version of the ability.  Do you think others in your camp will go for that kind of compromise?



 5e doesn't go in for 'no flavor text:'  everything is meant to be designed from concept up, not mechanics first, then flavor to your liking.

That said, phrasing that leaves room for players to play their characters as they envision them is better than locking down RP options.  For instance, the PH is clear that a Monk's ki is magical, but that doesn't stop an Open-Hand monk from looking significantly less magical than an Elemental one, and various characters could have various opinions about the Open-Hand monk.  Bottom line, though, in an anti-magic effect, his ki is inaccessible.   

The Warlord didn't use magic, his abilities were not supernatural, but it would be perfectly reasonable to phrase fluff such that there's plenty of room for people to believe supernatural agencies are at work.  Heck, IRL, lots of people have believed in supernatural agencies - God or fate or luck or what-have-you assuring the victories of a famous general or the like.  Mechanically, the bottom line should still be 'not magic,' but the bottom line of their being no magic IRL has never stopped RL believers.


----------



## mellored (Mar 26, 2018)

Putting some ideas together...

Level 1: First Aid: As a bonus action, you can let a creature within 5' spend a hit dice, maximizing their die roll.  You can do this a number of times equal to your class level between long rests.

Sub-Class:
*Tactician: As an action, you can put down a zone.  Hostile creatures in the zone take extra damage equal to your Int modifier.  The zone lasts as long as you maintain concentration.
*Bravada: You gain heavy armor and martial weapons.  As a reaction, you can make an attack with 5', or ranged attack that passes within 5' of you, target you instead of the origional target.
*Inspirational: As an action, you can give a creature THP equal your Cha modifier.
*Skirmishing: You gain proficiency in martial ranged weapons.  As an action, you can let another creature use their reaction to hide.


Level 2: Points: You gain pool of points equal to half your class level.  The pool recharges at the end of your turn.  

Default Point Use: When a creature within 30' (including yourself) takes damage, you can spend points to reduce or increase the damage by the number of points spent.  If this reduces the damage to 0, the attack is a miss.


Level 3: Select an out of combat feature.  You gain an additional choice at levels...
*Helpful: When you use the help action to help with a skill you have proficency in, the roll gains a bonus equal to half your proficency bonus.
*Expertise: Gain expertise in a skill.
*(more stuff).


Level 5: Sub-class
*Tactical: When you spend points on creatures in your zone, they count as double.
*Bravada: When you spend points on yourself, they count as double.
*Inspirational: When you spend points on a creature, they gain Temporary hit points equal to the points spent.
*Skirmishing: When you spend points on an OA, they count as double.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 26, 2018)

mellored said:


> I'm partial to the tactical warlord.




Sure.  It's easy to push the main class to really be about what we want when it either should come from the subclass or options on the main class.  



> But mostly, I wanted a few points at level 1, but not be able to give out +20 to a skill check at level 20.  So just off the top of my head, I went Stat+half-level for a 3-15 points range.




Right.  5e would typically phrase such an ability as you get 3 uses at level 1 and then you gain a point every other level or something similar to that.  Or better yet it would just be detailed on the class chart.



> I didn't put much though into balance.  Just threw out some ideas.
> 
> The only level gate was the saving throw penalty.  And only to keep it out of the hands of casters.




If that's the only reason for level gating something then I'm not opposed.  Level gating certain abilities that would be too good for multiclassing is definitely a consideration I'm in favor of.  



> But really, I can't think of many that need level gates if they go the scaling right.




agreed



> Again, i didn't balance.  But let me see...
> 
> Your typical (5+2) * 6 = 47 HP
> Maximizing a d8 = +3.5 HP
> ...




First of all I mentioned a level 6 warlord.  You would be comparing mass healing word at that level not mass cure wounds.

Secondly, the most a cleric can heal to a single character in a single turn to a single character is
Level 1: 1d8 + 3 + life cleric boost = 10.5
Level 3: 2d8 + 3 + life cleric boost = 16
Level 5: 3d8 + 4 + life cleric boost = 22.5

The warlord you cited would be granting two characters in one turn both 3d8 + 6 maximized = 30 hp

It's not just about the total extra amount you are allowing to be recovered but how fast you are allowing it to be recovered as well.  It's that using hit dice as the only daily usage limit on warlord healing and an at will healing ability just means the players will tend to use the healing outside combat and us their other abilities inside combat.  It works that way because using that healing out of combat doesn't reduce your combat effectiveness at all.  When a Cleric casts a heal spell outside combat it means he cant cast a spirit guardians or a spiritual weapon etc.  



> Yea.  Probably change skills to 2 points for +1.
> Change saves to 5 points for -1.
> And change scaling to just warlord level.
> 
> That works better.




You need to remove the save thing.  
1.  It's not something that makes sense for the class
2.  It's not really some iconic ability warlords got in previous editions
3.  5e generally stays away from effects that lower saving throws and does so for a good reason.

If you disagree with those premises that's fine but don't try to fix and mold 5e with the warlord class.  Instead make a warlord that easily fits into what 5e already is


> I'm not sure I have any.
> "when you roll inititive"
> "When an ally fails with a spell, they gain a slot 2 levels lower than they cast."
> And healing, with hit dice.
> ...



​
But warlords were never really about making casters better.  Why all the caster focused stuff?  Why try to force warlords to heal at will with hit dice when it's like trying to stick a round peg in a square hole in 5e terms?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

I already dumped the idea of HD based healing for the wl. There's not enough of them.

 Martial healing in 5E scales with level and seems short rest based. Examples we have are the healer feat and second wind. 

 Grant 2nd wind seems to be a good level 1 ability 1d8 plus level works. Compares well to a clerics clw and holy word and you will get two or 3 of them. 

 I added more healing level 2 and based it off the light clerics ability so it's a mass inspire type ability. Makes warlord better healer at level two than noise clerics. 

 Since warlords don't get spell slots is another reason to have it scale, tentative name healing surge for the level two ability. 

 They get an aditional use of each ability level 5 and 6 and another use of the level 1 ability when's trips scale. I think the goal word be comparable healing roughly to a non life cleric that has used perhaps 50% of their spell slots on healing. 

 At level 6 you would have two uses of 1d8+6 and 2d8+6 per short rest. That's 6 uses each seems a generous amount even.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> But warlords were never really about making casters better.  Why all the caster focused stuff?



 Warlords were always about making their allies better, regardless of Source. 

In 5e, though, it could make a lot of sense to have a sub-class that focused on enhancing arcanists, or on zealotry, or whatever, both as a plausible faux-MC and from concept-first design.  In a world where magic is endemic, militaries and the like are going to try to make best use of it.  



> Why try to force warlords to heal at will with hit dice when it's like trying to stick a round peg in a square hole in 5e terms?



 HD already heal in 5e, and are already a daily (bi-daily? semi-daily?) resource, so I'm not sure the hole is all that square.


----------



## mellored (Mar 27, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> First of all I mentioned a level 6 warlord.  You would be comparing mass healing word at that level not mass cure wounds.



That was mass healing word. 
My mistake.



> The warlord you cited would be granting two characters in one turn both 3d8 + 6 maximized = 30 hp



It took a bonus action, so only 1 target per turn.

But again, those are just ideas.



> You need to remove the save thing.
> 1.  It's not something that makes sense for the class
> 2.  It's not really some iconic ability warlords got in previous editions
> 3.  5e generally stays away from effects that lower saving throws and does so for a good reason.



1: It makes plenty of sense for a support class to work for all classes.  Over half the classes cast magic so there should be some support for that.

2: Yes, it was.
In 3.5 the marshal had "Determined Caster: Bonus on rolls to overcome spell resistance."
In 4e, spells used to-hit rolls the same as weapon attacks.  So when "lead the attack" gave everyone +Int bonus to-hit the target, that including the wizard casting.  There was also "No Gambit Wasted" that let people keep their power if they missed.

3: Bane is a 1st level cleric spell.  Giving a -1d4 save penalty.



> Why all the caster focused stuff?



It's not a focus.  It's 2 abilties (save penalty + No Gambit Wasted) out of probably out of 10 or more options.  So only 20%, maybe less.

Though I could see an "arcane commander" sub-class that had more focus on it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 27, 2018)

mellored said:


> That was mass healing word.
> My mistake.
> 
> It took a bonus action, so only 1 target per turn.
> ...




Here's the biggest issue.  We are trying to create a warlord that has fairly broad appeal, that keeps the flavor and the iconic abilities while remaining balanced in 5e.  The more mechanics that people may inherently dislike the more issues you will have with your version of the warlord seeing play.  

Modifying enemy saving throws especially on an at-will basis is going to be a major point of contention. 

I'm open to abilities that increase spell damage, to abilities that increase cantrip attack rolls or damage.  I find abilities that can lower spell DC to be problematic.  I could explain why bane (the level 1 spell that lowers save DC is generally considered worthless) but I'd rather point to the fact that the only other ability that messes with enemy saves I can think of is the portent ability for a divination wizard and that ability alone is enough to make him debatably the best wizard subclass.  All in all the 5e designers steered very clear of abilities that messed with saving throws and I tend to think it was for a good reason.  

I would be open to a subclass that modifies spell DC's on a limited basis.

Using hit dice for healing is going to be another major point of contention.  Placing a daily limit on how many you can allow is a good starting point though.  But 2 things.
1.  It seems to me like if we have a daily limit and a per turn limit then why does it even need to be fueled by hit dice?  What's the purpose of tying the healing to the hit dice at that point?  Is it flavor?  Do you think hit dice healing will be more easily accepted by the community?  

2.  If choosing the healing option is going to be an ability choice and it grants this amazing extra daily resource that you don't get to use on anything else then you've turned the healing option into a must take.  It goes back to the question earlier about how you balance at-will and per rest powers in your system.  In this case choosing the healing option actually increases power because it can be used out of combat and all your other at-will abilities can be used in combat for a net increase to your daily contributions to the party as opposed to the warlord that didn't take your now daily healing ability.

***We have to be really careful not to backtrack and solve new issues with solutions that we ruled out at previous stages due to the pain points they bring to our design.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Here's the biggest issue.  We are trying to create a warlord that has fairly broad appeal, that keeps the flavor and the iconic abilities



 ...but isn't limited to just that.


> while remaining balanced in 5e.



 I'd say the challenge is viable in 5e, balance is, as Mike touched on in the podcast, not a tight, to the corners kind of thing - he dismissed out of hand the idea of 'balancing an action grant on the assumption it'd get passed to a Rogue with Adv every round. 



> The more mechanics that people may inherently dislike the more issues you will have with your version of the warlord seeing play.



 There's a thread about how dumb guidance is - Its not even entirely wrong - do you think DMs are banning the Cleric and players who really want to play clerics (I suspect some must exist) are going bard, instead, because Guidance?  No, the players just aren't choosing it or the DMs fixing it.  That's the beauty of 5e, it's not all intricately interdependent, precariously balanced, or set in stone.

_Edit: dropped in on that thread, and the proposed solution is to make the cantrip add to all checks in a radius..._



> Modifying enemy saving throws especially on an at-will basis is going to be a major point of contention.



 Every time a caster boost their primary stat or hits a new proficiency break point, all their saves get harder, at will, no Action, nothing.  



> .  All in all the 5e designers steered very clear of abilities that messed with saving throws and I tend to think it was for a good reason.



 BA, sure, and, saves are already problematic, since the DCs go up with level steadily, while only a couple of save bonuses do...

... but, again, balance, meh.  I'm sure when they balanced saves they ignored the corner case of the caster always forcing the targets worst save.



> Using hit dice for healing is going to be another major point of contention.  Placing a daily limit on how many you can allow is a good starting point though.



 HD are a daily limit.  That's the elegance of it.



> What's the purpose of tying the healing to the hit dice at that point?  Is it flavor?



 Flavah, immersions, association. HD are non-magical healing, already, easily mapping to 'reserves.' 



> If choosing the healing option is going to be an ability choice and it grants this amazing extra daily resource that you don't get to use on anything else then you've turned the healing option into a must take.



 Is Cure Wounds a must-take... ?  Some healing is because, when you need it, you really need it.  But do you necessarily devote all your resources to it?  No.  Can you safely ignore it if one or two other PCs can make with the heals? No.

The solution to that worry is flexibility.  



> It goes back to the question earlier about how you balance at-will and per rest powers in your system.



 I'd still have to go with the approximate formula of other support classes:  many, flexible & powerful daily-resource options, including healing among them, fewer and more modest at-wills.  That's based Mearls insistence healing be a daily resource.  Otherwise I'd say that concept-first design would suggest a system of gambits limited per allies' rests and per encounter or enemy faced.

Either that or short rest CS dice like the BM, but with maneuvers just the first Tier of abilities to use them....


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> ...but isn't limited to just that.
> I'd say the challenge is viable in 5e, balance is, as Mike touched on in the podcast, not a tight, to the corners kind of thing - he dismissed out of hand the idea of 'balancing an action grant on the assumption it'd get passed to a Rogue with Adv every round.
> 
> There's a thread about how dumb guidance is - Its not even entirely wrong - do you think DMs are banning the Cleric and players who really want to play clerics (I suspect some must exist) are going bard, instead, because Guidance?  No, the players just aren't choosing it or the DMs fixing it.  That's the beauty of 5e, it's not all intricately interdependent, precariously balanced, or set in stone.
> ...




5E has patterns and you can see where they were going with balance. We also have a better idea of how things work now and how mnuch dmaage classes can roughly expect to do in a best case and average scenario. Same thing with healing. 

 The problem with some of the warlord fans is IDK if they actually play 5E. FOr example the at will attack granting thing I covered earlier and its roughly equivalent to a level 10 Sorcerer devoting all their resources to spamming haste all of the time (and thats all they do). So assuming a Warlord can fdo it before level 5 one assume you also want the warlord to have other abilities so even something like a divine soul sorcerer refluffed as a warlord using spells like bless and hasted can;t actually do all the things warlord fans want. 

 And if you do want the ability to manipulate saves which is a magical ability and very limited (2/day) and have at will action granting and have some healing and have gambits I think that more or less the problem. How many abilities do you want stacked on the class.

 Unlike most people here I have tested at will action granting in 5E with the noble. IN the right party its broken in the wrong party its fairly weak which makes the class itself weak as that is all that sublclass has been built to do by Moonsong. 

At will healing is a problem
at will attack granting is a problem (comparable to a level 10 sorcerer just doing that and cantrip spam), the warlord can still fight, presumably heal and have gambits, haste etc has drawbacks as well.
Manipulating saves, very powerful ability does exist in game but once again depends on what other features you want a WL to have. 

Things in 5E we can draw comparisons to.
Short rest martial healing.
Battlemaster supremacy dice
Bard inspiration dice
Warlock invocations
daily healing guesstimates
Granting advantage at will
action surge/granting action surge (hypothetically)
second wind/granting second wind
extra damage features
Leadership abilites on monsters (ie Knights, Hobgoblin leaders etc).

 The potential arcane subclass I have been thinking about is a Shadowlord. That one it might make sense to have saving throw manipulation. I just kind of liked the Shadowlord name as a potential subclass and starting thinking illusion and enchantment type magic.

 Daily effects on Warlords do not make to much sense unless they are perhaps the spellcasting subclasses or perhaps something like rage. Saving throw manipulation would be a major feature of a subclass and should come at the expense of something else (my attack granting one is tactical WL for example).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> 5E has patterns and you can see where they were going with balance.



 Sure, away from it.  ;P



> The problem with some of the warlord fans is IDK if they actually play 5E.



 Too busy running it.



> FOr example the at will attack granting thing I covered earlier and its roughly equivalent to a level 10 Sorcerer devoting all their resources to spamming haste all of the time (and thats all they do)



 The sorcerer is arguably the least versatile full caster, and, that's not all haste does, and even so, even for it that'd be a waste.



> And if you do want the ability to manipulate saves which is a magical ability and very limited (2/day)



 I think you mean a save penalty, like Help or Hinder?  Saves don't mean the same thing, of course.



> and have at will action granting and have some healing and have gambits I think that more or less the problem. How many abilities do you want stacked on the class.



 The obvious problem you're having here is that you can't stop thinking that only casters are permitted flexibility, that w/o magic, a class can only be allowed a couple of hard-wired tricks.  That kind of limited thinking will never produce a viable class.



> I have tested at will action granting in 5E with the noble. IN the right party its broken in the wrong party its fairly weak which makes the class itself weak as that is all that sublclass has been built to do by Moonsong.



 Ah, the Heart Noble.  Oh, but it's a 10th level Sorcerer casting haste all day for free! 
Seriously, your own experience neatly disproves your diatribe.  

And, we've had an insight into how 5e balances things like this, exactly this, in fact, and it's by ignoring the extremes you're obsessing over.



> At will healing is a problem



 AFAICT it's off the table in 5e.  Healing's a daily resource - presumably because of day-length issues.



> at will attack granting is a problem (comparable to a level 10 sorcerer just doing that and cantrip spam)



 But the class that did that, you playtested and found weak.  It's really not much of an issue.  And, y'know, haste is just one action, then concentration, you're free to do whatever. Action-granting, that action is gone, each round.  



> the warlord can still fight, presumably heal and have gambits,



 Yes, how is that different from any other support class?  I mean other than the likelihood that gambits won't have nearly the breadth or power of spells.



> Manipulating saves, very powerful ability does exist in game



 Bane is a 1st level spell that penalizes saves.



> Daily effects on Warlords do not make to much sense .



 Meh, dailies have never made oodles of sense, they're more a D&Dism than a genre bit or realism/immersion mechanic.  5e makes heavy use of them, and, it seems healing has to work on that kind of reasource, so that's kinda locked in.  If it must have a daily resource pool for healing, might as well make it flexible, opening up a viable range of support and other options...


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure, away from it.  ;P
> 
> Too busy running it.
> 
> ...




Banes a daily resource and has a save. Also magical and requires concentration. So limited resource situational and can be interrupted.

Some things basically need supernatural something to explain it.  "Jedi mind trick" this is the Warlord you're looking for.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Banes a daily resource and has a save.  and requires concentration. So limited resource situational and can be interrupted.



 So?  Just from Mearls's podcast we have: healing must be daily, concentration might be appropriate, and limits like the tactical zone.  Gambits, by their conceptual nature are likely to be more situational on top of that.



> Also magical
> Some things basically need supernatural something to explain it.



 Some things, sure: tossing fireballs, assuming the form of a fiendish dire eggplant, turning gold into lead, conjuring inappropriately-touching black tentacles (or anything else, really) _ex nillo_, heck, tons of things.  
Bonuses & penalties based on inspiration or tactics or hectoring are not reasonably among them.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2018)

[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] - I think if you're going to insist that at-will action granting is impossible, that's basically a non-starter for any warlord build.  There are several ways to grant actions.  Good grief, a 3rd level battlemaster can grant an attack 12 times per day, with bonuses to damage, and that's not even specialized.  An adventuring day is what, 20 rounds long?  So, even right now, out of the PHB, a 3rd level fighter can grant bonus attacks 50% of the time.  By 7th level, he can do it 21 times per day, or, essentially, every round.

Arguing that changing that to 100% is going to break the game is a strange hill to die on considering we already HAVE a class that can effectively grant at-will attacks.  

BTW, why does it take a 10th level sorc?  A 7th level sorc has 7 sorcery points and 3 3rd and 1 4th level spell.  He can drop haste 5 times per day, which grants a heck of a lot more goodies than a single attack, and still have all his 1st and 2nd level slots left over.  By 8th he's got enough for 6 times, which is a full adventuring day.  Good grief, by 10th, I've got 8 slots to spend on 3rd level spells, plus 2 more for sorc points.  Well, I suppose that's true to guarantee being able to do it all day long.  

Never minding that the cleric has enough bless spells to power the group for a day by about, what, 5th level?  6th?  3 characters (or more) each getting +2.5 on every attack.  Yeah, that's not worth more than a single attack every round.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

Hussar said:


> @_*Zardnaar*_ - I think if you're going to insist that at-will action granting is impossible, that's basically a non-starter for any warlord build.  There are several ways to grant actions.  Good grief, a 3rd level battlemaster can grant an attack 12 times per day, with bonuses to damage, and that's not even specialized.  An adventuring day is what, 20 rounds long?  So, even right now, out of the PHB, a 3rd level fighter can grant bonus attacks 50% of the time.  By 7th level, he can do it 21 times per day, or, essentially, every round.
> 
> Arguing that changing that to 100% is going to break the game is a strange hill to die on considering we already HAVE a class that can effectively grant at-will attacks.
> 
> ...




I know but Mearls and co did not put at will action granting in for a reason.

 I am not opposed to the Battlemaster fighter abilities I have seen a few of them in action including the BM+ Rogue combo, I have also seen the Noble in action. 

I'm going with the 6-8 encounters per day expectation of 5E and even if each encounter is 3 rounds that is 18024 rounds of combat (4 rounds makes it 24-32 rounds of combat). A Battlemaster can only grant 33-50% of that assuming they get 2 short rests. Changing it to 100% at will that has no drawbacks like haste, can't be interupted and can be moved around each round is a kind of comparable IMHO (yes I know they do not get the +2 AC or movement part). And when do people want to get at will action granting on a potential warlord which is comparable to a mid to high level Sorcerer devoting everything to it and they expect to be able to do other stuff as well?

A 10th level Sorcerer can cast haste every round and have enough sorcery points to twin it 3 times. 

 I am fine with a Warlord with a bless ability and a non magical version of it already appears on the NPC Knight and would make a good short rest "invocation" IMHO for a warlord. Or a subclass ability (Bravura or Inspirational perhaps).

 It gets back to what else you want on the chassis I suppose. You want to bless and heal and grant attacks (dealing way more damage than the other support characters). 

 My concept tactical warlord i linked to does get Battlemaster dice and if they focused on at will attack granting (3 invocations) they could grant around 8 attacks a short rest which would be creeping up to a lot of attacks but they would have to focus on it just like the Sorcerer focusing on haste. I'm also not opposed to a Tactical Warlord picking up an extra dice or 2 over the BM fighter. 6 or 7 BM dice and 2 "invocations" gives you a lot of attacks but would require some resources spent on it. If you want to deal fighter level damage with your warlord play the Battlemaster and take the healer+ inspirational leader feats. Not every warlord will want to do attack granting anyway it was not baked in in 4E merely an option and in 4E they defined a basic attack which was worse than your normal attacks so the opportunity cost was not so great (until you had essentials and various magic items that buff basic attacks). 

 Its to good for a low level at will ability compared with any other at will ability (cha to damage eldritch blast, duelist or TWF combat style). Clerics for example have to wait until level 8 to pick up a single dice of damage (1d8+1d6+ability mod vs 1d8+4d6+4 or 5 via Rogue). Sure clerics can do more damage via spells and buffing but so can a warlord with invocations or battlemaster dice+ some attack granting invocations+ riders. Even without Rogues you still have things like hunter rangers, hex/hunters quarry, rage, smites, and the -5/+10 feats to worry about as well. Its probably a level 11 minimum ability (comparing to the opportunity cost of a fighter and their 3 attacks and I assume the WL can do other stuff instead of fighter stuff).

 What you're really demanding is striker level damage on a leader chassis and that would not fly in 4E either. 

 I'm only objecting to at will attack granting for free assuming of course we write some invocations and/or settle on a healing rate (which I will post some thoughts soon).


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

Warlord Conceptually

 Well I think we all agree on the basic warlord, 1d8 HD, martial weapons, medium armor, probably fighter saving throws (con_+str).

 I think we all agree that they get a healing word ability at level 1. This is because its a support character and all WL in 4E had a healing ability. healing surges are not in 5E. In the other thread someone had the idea of bestow 2nd wind, I really like that idea.

The Warlord at level 1 also needs around 2 other minor abilities to be comparable to a cleric. A Bravura one for example could get heavy armor+ a combat style and the inspiring and tactical ones you could update the 4E abilites (int to initiative, cha to hp regained) + give them a little something extra.

"Healing Word"
Bonus action 1d8+ warlord level. 

Compared with a cleric who can cast two level 1 spells we can make some comparisons. Assuming you get 2 short rests you are a bit better at healing than a cleric using cure wounds and you can do it s a bonus action. However you may not get two short rests and a cleric can use those spell slots on something else so six of one half dozen of the other. At level 2 however the cleric pulls out a head and level 3 with prayer of healing and more spell slots the cleric is a lot better at healing.

 So far the hypothetical warlord at level 1 gets to play in the same ball park. Sometimes the cleric is better, sometimes the warlord is better I think that is a good place to be. 

 Level 2 Clerics get a nice upgrade to channel divinity. Hypothetical warlord doesn't get that. Hit dice based healing I have tried in my concept builds and the only way I could kind of make it work was have the warlord grant bonus hit dice independent of the actual hit dice. This was a bit more complicated and is harder to evaluate as people sometimes have multiclass HP and vs a clerics healing its hard to know as the rough amount healed can vary by class. Making the warlord grant second wind ability a d8 brings it into line with its hit dice and the d8's cleric healing spells have used since around 1E. Nice and simple and the HD scale with level like the other martial healing in the game. 

 Now the problem martial healing has is it does not scale that well, second wind rapidly goes from useful to cute its better than nothing I suppose. I propose the the Warlrods ability scales with level and more uses the same as cantrips. This is to make up for the Warlord not getting spell slots like the cleric. This means they get an additional use per short rest at 5,11,17 and each used is 1d8+5,+11, or+17 as well. Note this is still lower than a cleric using a few spells to heal even when the warlord can use that ability 12 times at level 17. However it also makes getting from level 1 to 5 difficult and it is a long time for a single use/short rest ability to cover. Especially when the cleric is picking up more spell slots. We don't want to obsolete the cleric but as I said same ball park is the goal.

 Right now we do not have anything for a level 2 ability but something nice and short rest related is probably good. Clerics for example get domain abilities, fighters get action surge, and Moon Druids are Moon Druids (read OP). An obvious one is grant action surge which I like but might be a bit to good at this level and steals some thunder from the fighter as you are kind of getting a better ability as well as you can grant that action surge to a spellcaster for example. Not a bad idea but a bit early IMHO.

 Looking at the light and life clerics they have some interesting and powerful abilities. And our Warlord needs a bit more healing to go around. Turning the Light Clerics radiance of the dawn ability into healing instead of damage we can also lower the d10's to d8's. Situational its better than a life clerics heal ability we now have 2d8+level 30' to allies that refreshes on a short rest. Right now Mr Warlord is healing better than a cleric (except life)but its the apex of the Warlords healing ability. This is also only brainstorming but perhaps if the Moon Druid peaks with wildshape at level 2 the warlord can be the same at healing. I'll call this ability healing surge as a nod to 4E. The warlord still lacks spell slots and if we go with invocations the warlord picks up something interesting there. So far good at healing, 2 subclass abilities and perhaps good at healing, not everyone on this thread may want healing at level 2 but without spell slots the warlord needs something and level 3,4,5 I think are already taken. Following the warlock pattern you also get 2 invocations (we need to write some low level ones) and the warlords healing and level 1 abilities have replaced the warlocks and clerics spells onto level 3.

 Level 3 is where I think our Warlord can start coming together. 5E is also full of examples we can use from level 3 fighters, through to bard dice, 1/3rd casting,  battlemaster dice, and the Mastermind Rogues advantage granting thing all come online. We don't have to follow those examples exactly but its roughly where a 3rd level warlord can perhaps resemble a 4E one more. My rough idea here is a tactical one gets battlemaster dice, an inspiring one gets bard dice, and a Bravura one perhaps gets the mastermind advantage granting thing (perhaps situational such as connecting with an attack). With 2 invocations, subclass abilities and something like dice poolsyou are not to far off a 4E low level warlord and 3rd level is where you leave the apprentice levels behind. For the most part I was recycling other class abilities as 5E has numerous examples of this already from spells, class features through to things like lore bard. Is my inspiring warlord that drastically different from a valor bard? Well you can heal better, fight better, and do 2 cool things with your "invocations" and you get the bardic dice (or battlemaster dice for the tactical one). The conceptual magical 1/3rd caster warlord also fits in here so I think level 3 is a good place to look at that. Martial healing also scales. This leads us to level 4.

Level 4 is very basic and boring in 5E. Its an ASI. On to level 5. Martial healing scales however.

Level 5 in general is a big power up in 5E. Level 3 spells arrive along with 2nd attacks for martial. Now I think we can give the warlord a kick ass ability. You pick up a 3rd invocation guess we will have to create them the Bravura one is easy (2nd attack). A warlock however picks up a real ability however as they get level 3 spells and an invocation. This leads me to something decent and short rest based, perhaps the grant an action idea from earlier. Martial healing scales twice and you pick up a 2nd use of inspiring word here. 
Your short rest healing is now.

1d8+5 X 2 (+ charisma bonus for inspiring WL) bonus action "healing/inspirational word".
2d8+5 30' standard action healing surge

 Checking my notes its 2 targets for inspirational word, this was before I tweaked the healing earlier and added "healing surge" and the warlord actually has a decent amount of healing ATM (to good perhaps IDK). Maybe shift this ability to an invocation if a WL wants to focus on healing but we have room for a kick ass ability here comparable to a level 2.5 spell slot (or two of them) IMHO (a nerfed haste IDK).

 Level 6 The cleric gets an upgrade and being a martial character you can perhaps pick up an ASI either here or at level 10 a'la Fighter or Rogue. Open to suggestions here but we can have another powerful option here such as an ASI, feat or something comparable to level 3 spells, Paladins Aura or stealing spells from another class. Most classes get something nice here Moon Druids for example get wildshape scaling (CR2). Clerics get an additional use of their domain power and a domain feature. To me this means subclass ability (whatever that is), and an extra use of "healing surge". Your healing rate is now.

1d8+6 X 2 (+ charisma bonus for inspiring WL) bonus action "healing/inspirational word".
2d8+6 30' X2 standard action healing surge.

 Well that is what I have so far for theory crafting a warlord. The 1st 4 levels I think are easy and if people want to do the invocation/exploit/gambit/powers thing obviously we would need to write some along with a generic level 5 ability+ a subclass ability for level 6. Generally I think the class should focus on at will and short rest abilities (whatever they end up being) along with using the bonus action.

 To tie it back to numerous posts about at will action granting a lot of the suggested abilities outside the action granting (healing for example) have been below par for what I consider a support character should do. Low level buffs can be single target grant attack+rider type effects with upgraded versions either being more powerful, bonus actions or effects multiple people.  For example you could grant an attack with advantage perhaps as bonus action short rest ability, a few levels later you can effect two people, 4 levels later the whole party and 4 levels after that you grant an action surge to everyone in the party. You may not be able to cast foresight you can grant an action surge to everyone that refreshes on a short rest, not a bad trade off for a 9th level spell slot you can't cast. 

 Instead of hasting someone at level 5 why not grant an attack (or cast a cantrip)to everyone in the party (once) and since spell casters get 2 spell slots lvl 5 you get to refresh it on a short rest (3 uses vs 2). That is your warlord fireball or nova IMHO. This means the rogue can sneak attack multiple times, the fighter gets an extra attack. Your level 18 warlord is letting the spellcasters drop 2 spells (one a cantrip), the fighter gets 3 extra attacks, the Ranger/Barbarian/Paladin 2 and if its a bonus action the warlord can still have his attack (an arcane one can cast green flame blade).

5E mechanics one can borrow.

Granting Advantage
Granting action surge
Granting second wind
1/3rd casting
Combat style
ability mod to damage (int)
charisma to something (saves, checks)
non magical 1d4 guidance
Non magical bless effect a'la NPC Knights
Non magical smites (hit em where it hurts)
1/3rd casters can have outright magical invocations and subclass features (Jedi mind tricks, come and get it, etc) plus spells or additional magical healing (restoration, regeneration, raise dead etc)


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 27, 2018)

mellored said:


> But mostly, I wanted a few points at level 1, but not be able to give out +20 to a skill check at level 20.  So just off the top of my head, I went Stat+half-level for a 3-15 points range.
> 
> I didn't put much though into balance.  Just threw out some ideas.



 Maybe 2xProficiency bonus, or Prof bonus + 1/2 level?
The approach I took for a vaguely similar issue was to go with Prof bonus, and then apply ability bonus with the subclass. So Inspiring warlord got +Cha, Tactical got +Int, and fighty got +Con to the pool as an initial ability when chosen (at level 3).



> Again, i didn't balance.  But let me see...
> 
> Your typical (5+2) * 6 = 47 HP
> Maximizing a d8 = +3.5 HP
> ...



The basis that I took with my warlord's healing, based upon almost at-will potential superiority dice generation:
Start with temporary HP. Higher level maneuver allows multiple dice (to create a larger temp HP buffer. Highest level maneuver allows temp HP to be applied as a reaction, pre-emptively before an attack lands to reduce its damage.
Also: At a specific class level (7th I think), Temp HP could be applied as actual healing, but only to a limit of half of the target's max HP.

This allowed potential infinite healing for the party with a specific build, but only to bring them up to half HP, plus a small Temp HP buffer. It risks being overpowered if fighting many minor encounters, but against a more varied range it shouldn't be too bad. Only the most confident party wants to go in to a deadly-level fight on half health.

As with the rest of my design, feel free to cannibalise if there is anything that you think could be useful to apply to your version.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Warlord Conceptually
> 
> Well I think we all agree on the basic warlord, 1d8 HD, martial weapons, medium armor,



 That far, anyway.  ;P



> probably fighter saving throws (con_+str).



 Saving throws are abysmal in 5e, so I don't suppose it matters much.  Fighters shouldn't be limited to just good CON & STR saves, for instance.  :sigh:  But, there's no reason to expect one class to fix that.



> I think we all agree that they get a healing word ability at level 1. This is because its a support character and all WL in 4E had a healing ability.



 Meh, every warlord should be able to access healing word from level 1, if they choose to use whatever their core daily resource pool turns out to be on it.  None should be forced to.  (Expected, certainly, especially if they're the party's sole support, but it doesn't need to be hard-coded like Laying on Hands.)


> healing surges are not in 5E.



 HD are, and they are functionally similar - use 'em to restore hps on a short rest, gain them back on a long rest.  They're just... less so.



> The Warlord at level 1 also needs around 2 other minor abilities to be comparable to a cleric.



 So, you're saying that inspiring word and 2 other minor tricks is equivalent to 15 1st-level spells (WIS mod + level + 2 (domain) spells prepped, 2 slots to cast 'em spontaneously), 6 cantrips (3 of them known), and 1st level domain abilities?



> A Bravura one for example could get heavy armor+ a combat style and the inspiring and tactical



... and resourceful, and skirmishing, and insightful... 







> ones you could update the 4E abilites (int to initiative, cha to hp regained) + give them a little something extra.



  Or they could work from the concepts to find things that might work better now that 5e has looser design guidelines.



> Compared with a cleric who can cast two level 1 spells we can make some comparisons. Assuming you get 2 short rests



 We haven't heard much on the topic, but it seems like short-rest healing is off the table.



> Hit dice based healing I have tried in my concept builds and the only way I could kind of make it work was have the warlord grant bonus hit dice independent of the actual hit dice.



 Is there some issue with just a bonus to the die roll?  CHA, for instance, good for inspiring warlords, not so great for tactical?



> Now the problem martial healing has is it does not scale that well, second wind rapidly goes from useful to cute its better than nothing I suppose.



 That's a flaw of that specific ability, yes.  It's not endemic to the concept.  Obviously, as characters get more more levels, more hps, and more HD, they're ability to recover naturally improves in proportion to their ability to avoid serious injury.



> My rough idea here is a tactical one gets battlemaster dice, an inspiring one gets bard dice, and a Bravura one perhaps gets the mastermind advantage granting thing (perhaps situational such as connecting with an attack).



 That's weirdly inconsistent and complicated, and it accomplishes nothing - at least, nothing good.  



> With 2 invocations, subclass abilities and something like dice poolsyou are not to far off a 4E low level warlord



 You are, however, far behind the curve of a 5e support class.  Remember, this is supposed to be a Warlord for 5e, not 4e.



> Well that is what I have so far for theory crafting a warlord.



 Only moderately appalling.



> . Generally I think the class should focus on at will and short rest abilities



 Still a non-starter, with healing being calibrated as a daily resource. 







> (whatever they end up being) along with using the bonus action.



 Bonus actions are not the greatest most functional thing in 5e, it's not surprising that Mike's personal variant give up on them.  Same, to a somewhat lesser degree with Reactions. 

One of the things about action granting, for instance, is that if it consumes your action, and an ally's reaction, it cuts off a lot of options for both of you, the price is extremely high, even if there's no resource consumption.



> To tie it back to numerous posts about at will action granting a lot of the suggested abilities outside the action granting (healing for example) have been below par for what I consider a support character should do.



 I'm not shocked. 



> 5E mechanics one can borrow.
> 
> Granting Advantage
> Granting action surge
> ...



 C&GI, still not magical.  Nice try though.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That far, anyway.  ;P
> 
> Saving throws are abysmal in 5e, so I don't suppose it matters much.  Fighters shouldn't be limited to just good CON & STR saves, for instance.  :sigh:  But, there's no reason to expect one class to fix that.
> 
> ...




Healer feat and second wind are short rest based healing in 5E.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Healer feat and second wind are short rest based healing in 5E.



Tell Mike that.

Maybe feats don't count?

Maybe gear doesn't count?

A lot of things don't seem to count in 5e's design principles - afterall, it's all just a starting point, and we're'll going to change it anyway.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Tell Mike that.
> 
> Maybe feats don't count?
> 
> ...




 Seems I understand 5E design principles better than a few people lol. I know roughly how they scale things, I can see patterns in the spell design and short rest vs daily powers and sustained damage vs nova damage.

 You also over rate spells in 5E, cantrips are comparable to martial attacks (which warlord gets) and if they have a healing word ability at level 1 that is better than  than the healing word spell (1d8 vs 1d4 and it scales).

 You can also find non magical abilities i the MM that would make good options for the WL. A 1/3rd caster WL would get cantrips at level 3. Low level spellcasters are not that great in 5E, 2 or 3 daily spells to cover 6-8 encounters do not go far. 

 Most classes get a few abilities level l. Healing word X3 and 2 minor abilities is not that bad for level 1. Tactical Warlord int to initiative and damage or damage granting.

 It would be funny here if one of the 4E fans makes a warlord so front loaded you can have a better warlord by dipping 1-2 levels onto the battle master than taking more levels in Warlord.At will attack granting level 1 lol, say hi to Bob he is a Warlrod 1/Battlemaster 3+.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Seems I understand 5E design principles better than a few people lol.



 Sometimes I think he's intentionally going for that.



> You also over rate spells in 5E, cantrips are comparable to martial attacks (which warlord gets)



 Everyone gets to hit things with weapons.  Cantrips let you hit things with your primary caster stat, ignoring all others, in essence, and they scale rather smoothly, even when MCing, as well as doing a wider range of damage types and secondary effects than weapons.  Weapon attack scale with extra attack, which the Warlord shouldn't get (in the chassis, anyway), and which, incidentally, for some reason, MCing borks.  I mean, I'm sure they're /meant/ to be comparable, but they are different in a number of ways...



> and if they have a healing word ability at level 1 that is better than  than the healing word spell



 Then you kinda hafta wonder why they'd be designed like that.



> Low level spellcasters are not that great in 5E, 2 or 3 daily spells to cover 6-8 encounters do not go far.



 Not /that/ many encounters per/day should be going so pear-shaped that support needs to bring out their best resources.  So not a huge problem, on that end.  (On the other side of the caster spectrum, not every encounter needs to be pwn'd by a fireball, some you can just use cantrips and make popcorn.)



> It would be funny here if one of the 4E fans makes a warlord so front loaded you can have a better warlord by dipping 1-2 levels onto the battle master than taking more levels in Warlord.At will attack granting level 1 lol, say hi to Bob he is a Warlrod 1/Battlemaster 3+.



 Try thinking outside the 4e box on the topic of action grants sometime.  And, for that matter, outside the 3.x MC-optimization box.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> And, for that matter, outside the 3.x MC-optimization box.



Considering Paladin 2 and Warlock 2 are already in the game, I would agree that MC optimization is also not something the devs are keeping in the box.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Considering Paladin 2 and Warlock 2 are already in the game, I would agree that MC optimization is also not something the devs are keeping in the box.



 One of the odd impulses I have is to make the Warlord pretty MAD by having different gambits key off different stats in different ways.  It'd have the side-effect of making poaching gambits with a level-dip a PitA.  

Also on the topic of gambits or maneuvers, they need to be level gated, to avoid the BM front-loading/back-boring problem, but it'd be kinda lame to level-gate them exactly like spell levels using a cleric or warlock or something as a template.  My thought was by Tier, so maneuvers would be Apprentice Tier, 'gambits' heroic, etc up to 'Doctrines' at legacy -  that does mean that things that functions could be spread over two or three spell levels for a Bard/Cleric/Druid would all fall into one list.  :shrug:


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sometimes I think he's intentionally going for that.
> 
> Everyone gets to hit things with weapons.  Cantrips let you hit things with your primary caster stat, ignoring all others, in essence, and they scale rather smoothly, even when MCing, as well as doing a wider range of damage types and secondary effects than weapons.  Weapon attack scale with extra attack, which the Warlord shouldn't get (in the chassis, anyway), and which, incidentally, for some reason, MCing borks.  I mean, I'm sure they're /meant/ to be comparable, but they are different in a number of ways...
> 
> ...




And you're barking up the wrong tree if you think cantrips are actually that good. 2d10damage at level 5 is pathetic damage. Its maybe better than using a bow or crossbow that is about it. Fighters buy comparison are dealing between 1d8+6 X2 through to 2d6+4 X2 minimum 

 I'm also not opposed to a warlord using cantrips via a subclass like the hypothetical 1/3rd caster.

The exception of course is the warlock.

 I don't need to think outside the box. 5E doesn't have at weill action granting because its obvious how blatantly stupidly overpowered it would be and the Battlemaster for example is also the best fighter. Rogues exist in 5E, and even without them there are things like hunter rangers.

 Having a support class that can double opr triple the damage other support classes can deal is not remotely balanced and as much as you like to falsely claim the designers of 5E do not care about balance they at least tried (they may bhave missed a few things here and there). You can easily look at how damage scales on cantrips, the cleric class (an extra 1d8 at level 8) and the striker classes to realise how out of whack at will attack granting is. There is a reason the Battlemaster can't do it at will. Letting a arlrod borrow a Rogue at will at level 5 (1d8+3d6+4) is a lot betetr than the clerics 1s6+2 or 3 and getting an extra d8 at level 8.

 Hell its better than striker classes with daily spell slots using hex and hunters quarry. 

 If you can't see the problem with that (its basic math) you really need to go an play 4E there nothign more one can really tell you. Its the equivilent of letting CoDzilla from 3.5 into a 4E game. I want to play 4E with you guys some time I want to create my own class, I had this level 6 Druid in 3.5 with natural spell and you should really let me port it into 4E, you just need to think outside the box. 

 Its not me you have to convince there anyway its Mearls, hell you have to convince him to create the warlord as a new class.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2018)

How is your fighter at 5th level doing d8+6 damage?  Even with a 20 stat, it's +5, and that's only possible if you played a variant human and dumped both ASI's into Str.  

A sword and board fighter with protection style is dealing, probably d8+3 x2 at 5th level.  Which is no better than the 2d10 for a cantrip.  

You really, REALLY need to stop laser beam focusing on optimized characters when trying to make a warlord [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION].  That's NOT where the balance point is.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

Hussar said:


> How is your fighter at 5th level doing d8+6 damage?  Even with a 20 stat, it's +5, and that's only possible if you played a variant human and dumped both ASI's into Str.
> 
> A sword and board fighter with protection style is dealing, probably d8+3 x2 at 5th level.  Which is no better than the 2d10 for a cantrip.
> 
> You really, REALLY need to stop laser beam focusing on optimized characters when trying to make a warlord @_*Zardnaar*_.  That's NOT where the balance point is.




Its a basic sword and board fighter with 18 strength and the duelist fighting style no feats used and just using the Basic D&D rules and the ASI at level 4.

 I do not use min/maxed Rogues either 1d8+4+3d6 is reasonably easy to do at level 5. My min/maxed rouges would have fighter levels and use feats like sentinel.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> And you're barking up the wrong tree if you think cantrips are actually that good.



 Oh, there not as good DPR (excepting the Warlock, as you say) as extra attack, but without that feature they still scale.  No reason for mist warlord sub-classes to have extra attack so their weapon attacks aren't going to be scaling like that...



> I don't need to think outside the box. 5E doesn't have at weill action granting because



 it doesn't have a lazylord yet.  And, seriously, there's plenty of freedom to write up any such thing in a way that is w/in 5es loose tolerances.



> Having a support class that can double opr triple the damage other support classes can deal is not remotely -



 ...I'm sorry to interrupt but there are some 'spirit guardians' calling you...




> the designers of 5E do not care about balance they at least tried .



 Its not that they don't care, it's that the standard isn't balancing optimized corner cases.
And that balance isn't the primary goal.  Realizing concepts and evoking the classic game are higher priority.  The Warlord should get by on the former, and balance of the numeric sort you're theorycrafting is antithetical to the latter.

Rather, when 5e gets around to considering balance, it's spotlight balance  - and action grants put the recipient in the spotlight as much or more than the grantor.



> I want to play 4E with you guys some time I want to create my own class, I had this level 6 Druid in 3.5 with natural spell and you should really let me port it into 4E, you just need to think outside the box.



 No worries.  You can have a homebrew feat to use implement keyword invokations while 4e wildshaped. 
But you'll have to pay your own way to Santa Clara.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 28, 2018)

Hussar said:


> How is your fighter at 5th level doing d8+6 damage?  Even with a 20 stat, it's +5, and that's only possible if you played a variant human and dumped both ASI's into Str.



 Dueling style, obviously.  When comparing DPR, the S&B fighter has dueling style & and ASI to STR, when asserting fighters can still 'defend' it has protection style and Sentinel feat, when asserting fighters are OK out of combat he has charlatan background good CHA instead of max STR and the Actor feat, fighters don't have good enough saves? That same ASI went to WIS.

I hope we cleared up any misconceptions, there.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, there not as good DPR (excepting the Warlock, as you say) as extra attack, but without that feature they still scale.  No reason for mist warlord sub-classes to have extra attack so their weapon attacks aren't going to be scaling like that...
> 
> it doesn't have a lazylord yet.  And, seriously, there's plenty of freedom to write up any such thing in a way that is w/in 5es loose tolerances.
> 
> ...




Spirit guardians is daily effect not at will. Its also a level 5 ability. 

 One can have warlord attacks scale or look at multiple attacks.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Warlord Conceptually
> 
> Well I think we all agree on the basic warlord, 1d8 HD, martial weapons, medium armor, probably fighter saving throws (con_+str).



Quick Note: I would probably go with Con and Int saves for the Warlord in order to distinguish it from the Fighter.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Quick Note: I would probably go with Con and Int saves for the Warlord in order to distinguish it from the Fighter.




 Makes sense I only have two problems with it.
1. Intelligence saves basically suck its almost like not being proficient in any saves.
2. Makes the intelligence based one a bit more "ideal" than the inspiring one.

Fighters and Sorcerers have the best saves in 5E, Rogues perhaps the worst. 

 It it even worth worrying about an inspiring one anymore? Just go Tactical and Bravura?


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Makes sense I only have two problems with it.
> 1. Intelligence saves basically suck its almost like not being proficient in any saves.
> 2. Makes the intelligence based one a bit more "ideal" than the inspiring one.



Point taken. 



> *Fighters and Sorcerers have the best saves in 5E,* Rogues perhaps the worst.



Seems like the commonality there is Con saves rather than anything granted by the secondary saves. 



> It it even worth worrying about an inspiring one anymore? Just go Tactical and Bravura?



Perhaps depending upon how the inspiring was done. Some people think that the inspiring warlord is redundant with the valor bard, banneret, and paladin. Maybe it's worth considering whether there should be more Intelligence-based ways to play a Warlord than simply "tacitcal." I had proposed a divination/luck-based subclass for the Warlord. But I suppose that an Int-based field medic warlord that used alchemy and other means could also work.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't need to think outside the box. 5E doesn't have at weill action granting because its obvious how blatantly stupidly overpowered it would be and the Battlemaster for example is also the best fighter. Rogues exist in 5E, and even without them there are things like hunter rangers.
> .



People keep arguing this point because it ISN'T obvious.  Assume the following baseline:
Warlord Class
1d6 HD
Simple weapons, light armor.
2 skills, 2 saves
ASIs at 4,8,12,16,19.
Class feature:  Action grant.  You can spend your action to allow an ally with a level (or CR) of your level or lower to take any one action as a reaction.

Now, assuming that's it, no other class features, is it broken?  It's obviously not the way a real class would be finalized, but with that framework and *nothing else*, it is OP?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> People keep arguing this point because it ISN'T obvious.  Assume the following baseline:
> Warlord Class
> 1d6 HD
> Simple weapons, light armor.
> ...




 Noble 2.0 and it allows spellcasting so yeah its a very bad idea. Go down that path you end up with the same thing the noble has. In the right party it out right broken in the wrong party your class sucks.

That is not good class design even the worst classes in 5E are still ok at worst assuming the player doesn't pumpkin it up. Stick that in a party with say a warlock, ranger (archer, Rogue) and a Paladin in it and you are basically giving up your pathetic attack and can switch between letting the warlock cast eldritch blast, the Rogue and the Ranger potentially with the -5/+10 feat two of them with hex/hunters quarry. 

 As discussed earlier a level 10 Sorcerer built entirely around spamming haste can't do that and haste is limited, has a downside and can be interrupted. 

 Change the party makeup and you have a pumpkin PC that can't really do much. 

 That is basically the problem with the EN5ider Noble among other things. 5E rewards min/maxing the party more than the individual already. For example multiple spellcaster to get around concentration, buffers to offset the -5/+10 feats, haste+ big hitter etc.

 At this point people are just insisting on a 4E mechanic because it was in 4E and not good game design and even in 4E is was an option only, not a core part of the warlord class. And some players more or less figured out the lazy lord which from the sounds of it was not an intended build in 4E.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Noble 2.0 and it allows spellcasting so yeah its a very bad idea. Go down that path you end up with the same thing the noble has. In the right party it out right broken in the wrong party your class sucks.




In what party is it broken?  I simply don't see it, over any other replacement character that actually brings resources.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 28, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> In what party is it broken?  I simply don't see it, over any other replacement character that actually brings resources.





Are we talking action granting or attack granting?  Being able to always use the best ability is very powerful.  

It's like always having the abilities of 2 wizards when you need them. Always having the abilities of 2 clerics when you need them and always being able to do the highest DPR when you need to.  

This particular ability allows 1 character to fulfill the role of any other character in the party


----------



## mellored (Mar 28, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Are we talking action granting or attack granting?  Being able to always use the best ability is very powerful.
> 
> It's like always having the abilities of 2 wizards when you need them. Always having the abilities of 2 clerics when you need them and always being able to do the highest DPR when you need to.
> 
> This particular ability allows 1 character to fulfill the role of any other character in the party



It's like having 2 wizards _that share the same pool of spell slots_.
So, no, you can't simply fulfill any role, because the those roles are limited.

Only rogues don't have a resource pool of some kind.  Though sub-classes do.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Are we talking action granting or attack granting?  Being able to always use the best ability is very powerful.
> 
> It's like always having the abilities of 2 wizards when you need them. Always having the abilities of 2 clerics when you need them and always being able to do the highest DPR when you need to.
> 
> This particular ability allows 1 character to fulfill the role of any other character in the party



I'd still rather bring a light cleric or something.  This hypothetical warlord isn't providing any spell slots, or even another concentration slot.  I don't see any spell combination that's going to win a fight that the party members you're enabling couldn't simply do themselves on their own turns.  This hypothetical warlord just lets you get out a particular combination faster, if needed.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> In what party is it broken?  I simply don't see it, over any other replacement character that actually brings resources.




I gave you a list of broken stuff. Rogue and Warlock come to mind. It's also action granting at level 1 at will. Aalso raises issue of level dipping. A lore bard can take a single level of this and gets a massive upgrade. 

 It's also worse than 2 rogues or two wizards etc. It's 2 of whatever you need at the time. Even if you limited it to casting cantrip you still have warlock.

 That's the basic fundamental problem of at will action/attack granting in 5E. 5E doesn't have basic attacks and some "strikers" deal a lot more damage than 4E equivalents.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I gave you a list of broken stuff. Rogue and Warlock come to mind. It's also action granting at level 1 at will. Aalso raises issue of level dipping. A lore bard can take a single level of this and gets a massive upgrade.



I did address the level dipping in my hypothetical proposal.

High at-will damage can't be broken if it's exactly the same as another class.  You simply have to balance it like you would balance a rogue or warlock.  You treat it like a damage class, not a support class.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I did address the level dipping in my hypothetical proposal.
> 
> High at-will damage can't be broken if it's exactly the same as another class.  You simply have to balance it like you would balance a rogue or warlock.  You treat it like a damage class, not a support class.




Its not the same as another class though its the same as whatever class you need at the time and even a sorcerer for example built around spamming haste can't do what you want at level 10 using daily spell slots.

 You post about the action granting did not address level dipping at all, and your action granting is actually the old 3.0 haste spell at will and that spell was broken as hell and was nerfed in 3.5. Its still broken in 5E.

 The way 4E enabled at will attack granting was by defining a basic attack and every class had at will effects that were better than a basic attack. 5E doesn't use that paradigm and thats the essence of the problem.

 Generally it seems you guys want an improved version of the battlemaster ability that is about 3 times better 2 levels earlier. The Battlemaster ability is actually quite good I have seen it used a a lot although they have other options apart from attack granting. 

 Attack granting might work on a Rogue, action granting doesn't work at all (at least at will). Ironically both mysself and Mearls came up with a high level warlord granting an action to the whole party so the concept is fine not at will though. You're basically granting action surges. 

 Much like how a Sorcerer devoted to attack granting with haste (and can do other stuff that is around level 10) my suggestion is have attack granting as an option and the warlord can get better at it as they level up. It just solves so many problems like front loading a class and if you focus on it enough by level 10 or so it may not be at will 100% of the time but its going to be close. 

 And if you want a warlord that does something else you can do that as well. You can compare it with other at will damage buffs in 5E but they have been remarkably conservative in the class designs for it. Its +2 damage at low levels, a daily spell slot at level 2, and extra dice at level 8 for clerics, level 12 option for a warlock (charisma to weapon attack damage), a 2nd attack at level 5 for the martial classes, 6 for the gish classes. 

 The warlord is basically a support class and in 5E that means not much damage at least at will. Spell casters can nova the damage higher of course and no one is saying the warlord can't have abilities that let them do that either. The difference is its not at will, since the warlord won't be using spell slots that more or less means short rest enabled and short rest stuff is roughly 1/3rd of a daily spell slot.

 So yeah the warlord should absolutely be better at attack granting than a Battlemaster fighting but at will is a step to far, 5E is not designed for it 4E was. Its like some people claiming warlord healing should be based around hit dice mostly because that is the closest thing to healing surges in 5E. Why not just grant the warlord a healing surge ability instead of trying to force 4E mechanics into 5E as hit dice based healing is terrible by comparison to a cleric or (bard or druid) for example. 

 Your action granting suggest did not mention anything about MCing either and the problem is something like a lore bard (which is crap at damage) can splash a level and more or less say "sign me up baby) as a lor bards at will attacks is a meh cantrip and 1d6 +2 or +3 and they get a massive 2 daily spell slots at level 1.

 So at will attack granting in general in 5E is a bad idea, its out right terrible at level 1 and even worse if its at will action granting (see 3.0 haste spell).


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> You post about the action granting did not address level dipping at all, and your action granting is actually the old 3.0 haste spell at will and that spell was broken as hell and was nerfed in 3.5. Its still broken in 5E.



Not really worth reading a wall of text if you're not going to read my relatively short post.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Not really worth reading a wall of text if you're not going to read my relatively short post.




 I was referring to this post.


" People keep arguing this point because it ISN'T obvious. Assume the following baseline:
Warlord Class
1d6 HD
Simple weapons, light armor.
2 skills, 2 saves
ASIs at 4,8,12,16,19.
Class feature: Action grant. You can spend your action to allow an ally with a level (or CR) of your level or lower to take any one action as a reaction.

Now, assuming that's it, no other class features, is it broken? It's obviously not the way a real class would be finalized, but with that framework and nothing else, it is OP?"


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I was referring to this post.
> 
> 
> " People keep arguing this point because it ISN'T obvious. Assume the following baseline:
> ...



Yes, that would be the one where there's verbiage to handle a dip situation.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 28, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Yes, that would be the one where there's verbiage to handle a dip situation.




Whats the part about level dipping again though? Its a great level dip for lore bards for example being an obvious one or even the battlemaster fighter.


----------



## mellored (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I was referring to this post.
> 
> 
> " People keep arguing this point because it ISN'T obvious. Assume the following baseline:
> ...



No.  It would be underpowered by itself.  You would match the highest at-will damage, but all classes (but the rogue) have expendable features.

So, that feature, plus say... action surge and 1/3 caster.   Then your on par with an eldrich knight.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Whats the part about level dipping again though? Its a great level dip for lore bards for example being an obvious one or even the battlemaster fighter.



I restricted the action grant to only allies of your (warlord) level or below.  

Probably not the most elegant way to do it,  thinking about it further, I would probably scale the action grants based on warlord level.

Level 1 - Dodge, Dash, Use an Item, Disengage, one attack (not the attack action)
3 - Cantrip, 1st level spell (Int mod /LR)
5 - Attack action, 2nd level spell or lower (Int mod /LR)
7 - 3rd level spell or lower (Int mod/LR), 1st level spells at will
9 - 4th level spell or lower (Int mod/LR), 1st level spells at will
11 - 5th level spell or lower (Int mod/LR), 2nd level spells at will
13 - 3rd level spells at will
15 - 4th level spells at will
17 - 5th level spells at will


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I'd still rather bring a light cleric or something.  This hypothetical warlord isn't providing any spell slots, or even another concentration slot.  I don't see any spell combination that's going to win a fight that the party members you're enabling couldn't simply do themselves on their own turns.  This hypothetical warlord just lets you get out a particular combination faster, if needed.




Yes, faster is precisely what this hypothetical warlord does.  For example, DPR is a rate.  It's Damage PER Round.  It's the rate (fastness) that's important in that stat.  So please don't discount it just because all it does is "faster"

You don't always need to cast hold person back to back but this warlord enables it when desired (for example when the first one misses).  You don't always have to cast a big heal spell back to back but this warlord enables that when needed (like when an 2 allys drop to 0 due to a big aoe spell).  

And then in the turns your not granting important cleric or wizard or druid spells you are granting the highest DPR of the party which is what you typically do but aren't required to do.

Essentially you get to do the damage of SS CE fighter except that you can also use your action to allow a spellcaster to cast an important spell when desired.  Yea, that's strong even without granting any additional spell slots as your primary strength is doing high at will damage and the spells when needed is the icing on the cake.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

@_*Zardnaar*_ , Please try to give reasoned thoughtful responses to these questions

How many attack grants (not action grants) should a 5th level character be able to grant in a day (assuming that they are only allowing the character granted the attack to make an additional attack on their turn, unlike haste which does allow a method for the granted attack to be on an off turn)?

We know a level 5 Sorcerer can cast a twinned haste 3 times per day (I estimate that at 24 attacks granted per day).  We know a battlemaster fighter at level 5 can generally grant 8-12 attacks per day depending on short rests.  All of these can be off turn attacks as well.

Should a Warlord be able to reach those limits especially with an "on turn" restricted extra attack?  Or should he maybe get to exceed those limits?  And if so by what amount?  And if that amount is already quickly approaching the number needed in the day to make it be "essentially at-will" then what's the problem with just letting him have at-will attack granting instead of a daily resource that would allow essentially the same thing?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

I have to ask here.  [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] is the only one here who thinks that at will action granting is too powerful.  No one else seems to have a problem with it.

Why are we bothering with his criticisms?  It's been repeatedly pointed out that at-will attack granting is not overpowered, and I don't think anyone here (other than Zardnaar) has an issue with it.  So, howzabout we simply ignore Zardnaar's issue and constant derailment of the thread, and get back to designing a warlord that we'd actually want to play, rather than designing a warlord that satisfies the lone squeaky wheel in the wilderness.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I restricted the action grant to only allies of your (warlord) level or below.
> 
> Probably not the most elegant way to do it,  thinking about it further, I would probably scale the action grants based on warlord level.
> 
> ...




Hey, now you are getting closer to a balanced ACTION granting feature.  The only problem is that such a feature is still really about all you should be giving a class without overpowering the class.  Since you've taken up so much design space with a single feature that doesn't actually evoke any real character concept then it's really not an ability we can use to design any 5e class around.

The other important thing is, a limited daily version of such an ability may end up being just as strong as the at will version depending on what the warlord can normally do on the turns he is not using that daily ability.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I have to ask here.  @_*Zardnaar*_ is the only one here who thinks that at will action granting is too powerful.  No one else seems to have a problem with it.
> 
> Why are we bothering with his criticisms?  It's been repeatedly pointed out that at-will attack granting is not overpowered, and I don't think anyone here (other than Zardnaar) has an issue with it.  So, howzabout we simply ignore Zardnaar's issue and constant derailment of the thread, and get back to designing a warlord that we'd actually want to play, rather than designing a warlord that satisfies the lone squeaky wheel in the wilderness.




Read my posts then.  At will ACTION granting is too powerful.  At will attack granting can be balanced.

We are bothering with his criticisms because such are the criticisms any warlord class will likely face.  If we can't convince someone that wants a warlord class about at-will attack granting isn't too strong then we have no chance to convince those that could care less about a warlord class.

*Remember or goals here should be to design not just a warlord class we like but also one that is flexible enough for most all warlord fans while not using features that will cause the community to drop support of said class.*

at will ACTION granting,
at will lowering saves,
possibly even at will attack granting

are all abilities that will face some pushback.  I think we can make a good case about at will attack granting.  Damage and DPR comparisons will easily prove such an ability isn't too strong.

At-will action granting and lowering saves is a different ball-game (and even anything that approaches at-will for such abilities).  Such abilities will make the already controversial warlord class face an even steeper up-hill battle.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> /snip
> 
> We are bothering with his criticisms because such are the criticisms any warlord class will likely face.  If we can't convince someone that wants a warlord class about at-will attack granting isn't too strong then we have no chance to convince those that could care less about a warlord class.
> /snip




Meh, he's already proven that he will not be convinced that at will attack granting is possible to balance, never minding at will action granting.  He hasn't even bothered to show why he believes this, only that he absolutely believes it and cannot be convinced otherwise.

There will always be people like that.  They aren't the ones you have to convince because, no matter what you do, unless you 100% accept their ideas, they will never, ever actually engage in anything constructive.  

Folks who could care less don't need to be convinced of anything.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Meh, he's already proven that he will not be convinced that at will attack granting is possible to balance, never minding at will action granting.  He hasn't even bothered to show why he believes this, only that he absolutely believes it and cannot be convinced otherwise.
> 
> There will always be people like that.  They aren't the ones you have to convince because, no matter what you do, unless you 100% accept their ideas, they will never, ever actually engage in anything constructive.
> 
> Folks who could care less don't need to be convinced of anything.




He will come around.  It's just been that there are so many bad implementations of at will attack granting I think.  I don't think he's taken time to really consider the new approach or has really sit down and really thought about what other classes can already do in the attack granting department.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> .  At will attack granting can be balanced.



 Sure, to the loose standards of 5e, quite easily.  It's really a non-issue.  



> .  If we can't convince someone that wants a warlord class about at-will attack granting isn't too strong



 Zard doesn't want a Warlord.



> Remember or goals here should be to design not just a warlord class we like but also one that is flexible enough for most all warlord fans



 Flexibility is also key to adequate support contribution.


> while not using features that will cause the community to drop support of said class.



 This is only a homebrew, people who like the idea of a Warlord may use it if it's good.  People who hate the warlord because of its 4e pedigree, or whatever, will hate it regardless.  



Zardnaar said:


> Spirit guardians is daily effect not at will. Its also a level 5 ability.



 That can deal ridiculous damage in aggregate in the kind of corner cases you're fretting over balancing, and which 5e doesn't much concern itself with.



> One can have warlord attacks scale or look at multiple attacks.



 Or not, and leave more design space open.

More practically, though, only the lazy char-OP build really needed at-will action-granting.  A carefully-worded ability like that could be segregated in the 'Icon' sub-class for that purpose, and other builds could use a maneuver like Commander's Strike or long-rest resources to give out less restricted and/or enhanced attacks.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> He will come around.  It's just been that there are so many bad implementations of at will attack granting I think.  I don't think he's taken time to really consider the new approach or has really sit down and really thought about what other classes can already do in the attack granting department.




Really?  What bad implementations have there been?  The only implementation of at-will action granting was the 4e warlord, which, by and large, was balanced pretty well.  There were certainly very few problems with it.

While 5e doesn't have at will action granting, it does have lots and lots of ways of granting attacks.  Haste, Battlemasters, heck, even the Command spell can be used to trigger opportunity attacks with very little problem.

As you said yourself, a 5th level sorcerer is granting, potentially, some 20+ bonus attacks (or movement, or other actions, plus AC bonuses) and the same level Battlemaster is granting 8-12 bonus attacks over the course of the adventuring day with and extra 8-12 d8 damage added on and all it costs is a single attack, not even a full action.

The idea that we have an action of some sort that grants a single attack per round from another PC is so massively overpowered is ludicrous.  It's not even in the near ballpark of over powered.  If it was, then all those other ways of DOING THE SAME THING would also be overpowered.  But, they aren't.

If granting a single attack 1/round 50% of the time is fine, then doing it 100% of the time probably isn't making a whole lot of difference.  The argument is specious and frankly pretty disingenuous because it's not based on any actual play experience, but, rather, a bunch of white tower hypotheticals where the group is 100% charop specialized.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 29, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> More practically, though, only the lazy char-OP build really needed at-will action-granting.  A carefully-worded ability like that could be segregated in the 'Icon' sub-class for that purpose, and other builds could use a maneuver like Commander's Strike or long-rest resources to give out less restricted and/or enhanced attacks.




As a strong advocate of lazylord/princess builds, I'm perfectly fine with restricting at-will action or attack grants into a subclass silo.

Other possibilities that occurred to me were granting a restricted set of attacks per encounter (only melee attacks, or only cantrips), or only being grant actions to a limited set of allies (declare one ally as your "partner" at the start of initiative, and you can only grant actions to that partner).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Really?  What bad implementations have there been?  The only implementation of at-will action granting was the 4e warlord, which, by and large, was balanced pretty well.  There were certainly very few problems with it.
> 
> While 5e doesn't have at will action granting, it does have lots and lots of ways of granting attacks.  Haste, Battlemasters, heck, even the Command spell can be used to trigger opportunity attacks with very little problem.
> 
> ...




It's important to at least be aware what it will do to highly optimized parties and sometimes not even optimized parties but just parties that happen to have a particular character class.

That said you've not got to convince me.  I'm in your boat.  At-will attack granting can be balanced and it can even be balanced with other interesting class features.  It's not such a strong feature that it precludes anything else.

As for implementations, there have been many different implantation attempts over various warlord threads.  The earliest warlord threads all centered around at-will attack granting.  They usually pushed for no attacks and trading all your attacks for off turn ally attacks.  They were pretty OP implementations.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> @_*Zardnaar*_ , Please try to give reasoned thoughtful responses to these questions
> 
> How many attack grants (not action grants) should a 5th level character be able to grant in a day (assuming that they are only allowing the character granted the attack to make an additional attack on their turn, unlike haste which does allow a method for the granted attack to be on an off turn)?
> 
> ...




Sorcerer is wasting a lot of spells to cast 3 hastes at level 5, its not a very good play.Haste will likely end a combat in 2-3 rounds as well.

 So assuming the player is not a pumpkin (using sorcerer point sub optimally).A Sorcerer at level 5 can cast haste twice and perhaps twin cast it, either way lets call it 3 time. Assuming each round is about 3 times say 9 rounds, but the sorcerers an be interrupted haste has a draw back etc.  Assuming the 6-8 rounds a day and 2 short and each encounter lasting about 3 combats that is 9 rounds out of 18-24 expected rounds and the Sorcerer doesn;t do much else.

 A battlemaster fighter can do it level 5 4/short rest or around 12 times assuming 2 short rests, can't be interrupted, doesn't get the other benefits of haste. BM fighter can switch betweeen targets as well, haste can't do that. Sorcerer loses a round casting haste the BM gives up an attack. 

The main objection is the Sorcerer is expending a lot of resources to do that a warlord hypothetically is just giving up and attack which may be sod all damage anyway (2d6+5 to gain 1d8+3d6+5 level 5 rogue). That is almost all the sorcerer is doing depends if they butrn spell slots to get more sorcerer points or ore level 3 spell slots. The sorcerer is going to tank itself fast anyway running out of almost everything in around 3 rounds and then can spam 2d8 or 2d10 cantirps (yay).

 Some people here want roughly  triple strength level 3 ability (BM dice) that are a limited resource at will, some 2 levels earlier.

 I also assume a warlord would have some other class abilities like heal, an extra ASI (level 6, 10 or 14 pick 1 or 2?), and some other abilities as well (damge scaling and/or multiple attacks).

 Basically I think most people advocating for at will attack granting are wasting their breath the game designers are not going to put at will attack granting into the game. They have already done it via BM dice, they are not going to do a double or triple strength version of that ability. 

 Functionally at will would be something like 6-9 BM dice perhaps replacing a BM dice with some sort of class ability/"invocation" that grants attacks+rider or an action. Tweaking short rests to 5 mins would allow an additional short rest which would probably make it very close to at will. 

 I think 75% YMMV is a reasonable/upper limit for attack granting it smooths out the Rogue and the warlord can grow into it instead of front loading it in the 1st 3 levels. It should also cost the warlord resources the BM is already front loaded, so assuming the WL gets dice at level 3 (or spells or whatever) they can spend feats, "invocations" or opportunity cost (like hunter rangers pick this or that ability not both). 

 Action granting should not be at will obviously perhaps that could come online at level 5 as as short rest ability IDK.

You can homebrew anything you like, don't expect the game designers to put at will attack granting into it. Personally I would like attack granting as an option and the WL to be better at it than say a BM.

Generally I think you want to smooth out the power spikes that at will action granting from 4E would present in 5E and some of the other 4E things that would be weak in 5E can be powered up.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Meh, he's already proven that he will not be convinced that at will attack granting is possible to balance, never minding at will action granting.  He hasn't even bothered to show why he believes this, only that he absolutely believes it and cannot be convinced otherwise.
> 
> There will always be people like that.  They aren't the ones you have to convince because, no matter what you do, unless you 100% accept their ideas, they will never, ever actually engage in anything constructive.
> 
> Folks who could care less don't need to be convinced of anything.




I have seen at will action granting in action twice. Both times the player rolled a new character once because the party composition did not support it the second time because it supported it to well and the class used (Noble) was to weak at healing and gave up to much to enable it leading it to have to much variance. Note I do not think the noble is good design. 

 The basic argument against at will action granting in 5E is that it is twice or 3 times as strong as a major front loaded class feature that is short rest based and it is also a great class feature as well. 

Its also basic math for a support class and you can compare how much damage it does v a cleric, Druid or Bards attacks. 

 I have said it about 50 times people don't want to admit it but its a busted ability in 5E de to the existence of the Rogue if nothing else and its a problem with a few other classes as well. 

 When people are comparing to daily powers on 5th-10 level PCs that may give you an idea of how silly an idea it is. I eman when you ay "But a sorcer can do it" they can but its magical, daily, limited, interuptable and with a big draw back if it is interrupted. 

 I mean all you want is a 150% strength level 3 ability made at will that compares to higher level spellcasters using daily resources that is perfectly reasonable (sarcasm BTW). 

 Go and ask Mearls on twitter point blank about WL as an independent class with at will action granting see what he says.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Sorcerer is wasting a lot of spells to cast 3 hastes at level 5, its not a very good play.Haste will likely end a combat in 2-3 rounds as well.
> 
> So assuming the player is not a pumpkin (using sorcerer point sub optimally).A Sorcerer at level 5 can cast haste twice and perhaps twin cast it, either way lets call it 3 time. Assuming each round is about 3 times say 9 rounds, but the sorcerers an be interrupted haste has a draw back etc.  Assuming the 6-8 rounds a day and 2 short and each encounter lasting about 3 combats that is 9 rounds out of 18-24 expected rounds and the Sorcerer doesn;t do much else.
> 
> ...




Is your argument boiling down to, "there won't be enough space left on the class for nearly any other abilities if we give any form of at will attack granting"  Is that why the cut-off point is around 75% of at will with you?  

Because the rest of us are looking at 75% of the way to at-will attack granting and 100% of the way as not that large of a conceptual hurdle to climb.  So is it more coming from that you believe you have looked at balance and the other abilities a warlord should get and then concluded at-will would be too strong with those other abilities?

If so then you wouldn't be totally against an at-will version that either dropped those abilities or limited their power someway or delayed them maybe till after level 5?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> It's important to at least be aware what it will do to highly optimized parties and sometimes not even optimized parties but just parties that happen to have a particular character class.
> 
> That said you've not got to convince me.  I'm in your boat.  At-will attack granting can be balanced and it can even be balanced with other interesting class features.  It's not such a strong feature that it precludes anything else.
> 
> As for implementations, there have been many different implantation attempts over various warlord threads.  The earliest warlord threads all centered around at-will attack granting.  They usually pushed for no attacks and trading all your attacks for off turn ally attacks.  They were pretty OP implementations.




Its probably a level 10 or 11 ability,and all that does is delay the problems you are going to have. That is when the Sorcerer can cast haste every round and not tank themselves 100% to do it. I assume you want some other warlord class features?

All the example people have used of 5E granting attacks none of them are at will. If anything that should reinforce that its a bad idea. The spells that do it are limited, situation, interruptible, and potentially with draw backs. 

 Other spells like dissonant whispers have a save and are still a daily resource. As I said go and ask Mearls on Twitter, most of the WL haters don't even bother posting or others are satisfied with Mearls Fighter archetype. I'm not a Warlord fan at all but I like the idea of designing a balanced class that is interesting its a good intellectual challenge and probably easier than my Gish idea I want to design (subclass Duskblade, Swordmage, working name Mageknight).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I have seen at will action granting in action twice. Both times the player rolled a new character once because the party composition did not support it the second time because it supported it to well and the class used (Noble) was to weak at healing and gave up to much to enable it leading it to have to much variance. Note I do not think the noble is good design.
> 
> The basic argument against at will action granting in 5E is that it is twice or 3 times as strong as a major front loaded class feature that is short rest based and it is also a great class feature as well.
> 
> ...




I'm not super familiar with the Noble.  Can you point me to resources on it or what book it is in or something?


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Sorcerer is wasting a lot of spells to cast 3 hastes at level 5, its not a very good play.Haste will likely end a combat in 2-3 rounds as well.



That doesn't matter. If haste lasted 2-3 rounds, then the warlord also only be able to grant 2-3 attacks.



> The main objection is the Sorcerer is expending a lot of resources to do that a warlord hypothetically is just giving up and attack which may be sod all damage anyway (2d6+5 to gain 1d8+3d6+5 level 5 rogue). That is almost all the sorcerer is doing depends if they butrn spell slots to get more sorcerer points or ore level 3 spell slots. The sorcerer is going to tank itself fast anyway running out of almost everything in around 3 rounds and then can spam 2d8 or 2d10 cantirps (yay).



The warlord would _also_ be giving up all his resources. 
"Just" giving up your action means 0 damage.

Haste all day + 2d10 firebolt damage > grant attacks all day + 0 gave-up-your-action damage.


That said, at-will attack granting at level 1 is probably too strong.   But by level 5 it should be fine.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its probably a level 10 or 11 ability,and all that does is delay the problems you are going to have. That is when the Sorcerer can cast haste every round and not tank themselves 100% to do it. I assume you want some other warlord class features?
> 
> All the example people have used of 5E granting attacks none of them are at will. If anything that should reinforce that its a bad idea. The spells that do it are limited, situation, interruptible, and potentially with draw backs.
> 
> Other spells like dissonant whispers have a save and are still a daily resource. As I said go and ask Mearls on Twitter, most of the WL haters don't even bother posting or others are satisfied with Mearls Fighter archetype. I'm not a Warlord fan at all but I like the idea of designing a balanced class that is interesting its a good intellectual challenge and probably easier than my Gish idea I want to design (subclass Duskblade, Swordmage, working name Mageknight).




So you admitted a level 5 warlord could grant attacks 75% of the time and be okay.  You admit a sorcerer can essentially do it twinned every day at level 11 (48ish attacks granted that way while still being able to cast a 3d10 cantrip attack most combat rounds).  

You then presume that granting such an ability means you cannot grant other abilities.  Other abilities are fine as long as the compete with whatever resources the attack granting is using.  Just like the sorcerer can know a number of other spells and it's still fine even with granting a full compliment of twinned hastes in every encounter in the day.  Why is that okay, because if he uses one of those other options then he isn't using the twinned haste.  If a warlord had some other action he could use that wasn't an attack grant then there would presumably be times when he would use that ability instead of the attack grant.

I mean seriously, think about it for a moment.  You act like the only features a sorcerer gets that wanted to twin cast haste as often as possible is the ability to twin cast haste as often as possible.  Instead of a twinned haste he can fireball.  Instead of a fireball he could cast cure wounds (divine soul).  There's ton of options for a sorcerer to use instead of haste even if that's his #1 preferred course of action.  The same can be true of the warlord even without daily resources because it's all about the tradeoffs you are doing x instead of y.  Whether that tradeoff is gated by a spellslot resource or a per turn action resource it really doesn't matter.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> That doesn't matter. If haste lasted 2-3 rounds, then the warlord also only be able to grant 2-3 attacks.
> 
> The warlord would _also_ be giving up all his resources.
> "Just" giving up your action means 0 damage.
> ...




That's the place a look for it at.  Around level 5.  Warlord will do around cantrip level damage with his 1 attack and can grant an attack.  (sneak attack won't work as the best implementation is to have him grant attacks on the allies turn instead of off their turn).

All that said, it may be better to implement it early as a per rest power and just scale it to the point that it's essentially at-will.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> probably easier than my Gish idea I want to design (subclass Duskblade, Swordmage, working name Mageknight).



 Go do that.  Seriously, it'll be much, much easier to design a class that can draw on the extensive existing designs of spells and spellcasting mechanics that constitute the lions share of developed design space in 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm not super familiar with the Noble.  Can you point me to resources on it or what book it is in or something?




 Its in EN5ider you can get it for $2 a month or something like that IIRC.

 Moonsong in designing that class went down the same rabbit hole a few people here are doing. They are writing bad rules to take care of things like MCing and allowing Rogue at will sneak attacking. 

 The fact that you have to write these rules and be careful how you word it is basically the guts of it. Some people are keen putting in the warlords "holy word" as very low amounts of healing so the warlord won't be able to replace the cleric. So even if you design it that way well its already been done and the results are not pretty. If Tony is that keen on it he can pay Morrus $2 and have ENsider for a month and get the noble that allows at will attack granting and cantrip casting (one of the subclasses anyway).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its in EN5ider you can get it for $2 a month or something like that IIRC.
> 
> Moonsong in designing that class went down the same rabbit hole a few people here are doing. They are writing bad rules to take care of things like MCing and allowing Rogue at will sneak attacking.
> 
> The fact that you have to write these rules and be careful how you word it is basically the guts of it. Some people are keen putting in the warlords "holy word" as very low amounts of healing so the warlord won't be able to replace the cleric. So even if you design it that way well its already been done and the results are not pretty. If Tony is that keen on it he can pay Morrus $2 and have ENsider for a month and get the noble that allows at will attack granting and cantrip casting (one of the subclasses anyway).




LOL.  There's a joke somewhere in there about paying $2 for stuff....


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

I think we all agree that rogue sneak attack is best left out of attack granting abilities?  Can we at least mark that down as a point of agreement?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That's the place a look for it at.  Around level 5.  Warlord will do around cantrip level damage with his 1 attack and can grant an attack.  (sneak attack won't work as the best implementation is to have him grant attacks on the allies turn instead of off their turn).
> 
> All that said, it may be better to implement it early as a per rest power and just scale it to the point that it's essentially at-will.





 Thatis more or less what my tactician does anyway. I am not happy with some things for it and I need to tweak some of the invocations anyway I think two of them allow attack granting and one of them is action granting. 

 5E has a lot of hidden interaction in it as well, the combos are not readily apparent. I have seen several BM in action built in various ways and often if someone picks a BM fightrer or a Rogue another player may decide to play the other one to enable that combo (I have seen it twice).

 Granting attacks to Rogues is a lot of fun and it is tactical/strategic as the BM fighter has to weigh up if its worth using one of their dice to do it. If its unlimited that actually removes part of the tactic its always the best move/play. 

 The two BM were sword and board types on was dex based with sentinel and the other was shield master. You can layer the combos together as well which is tactical. For example IIRC the shield master one could bonus action shield bash an opponent flat, action surge at level 5+ take 3 attacks with advantage and grant the 4th attack to the Rogue to sneak attack again with advantage.

 The dex based one had a short sword of speed and in a ranged encounter they can put enable a Rogue/Ranger to have an attack, put there weapon away and pull out a bow the following round and action surge and grant another attack to the Ranger archer. A normal melee fighter misses a turn to switch weapons. They can also alternate the attack granting between PCs, ranged attack archer, it qualifies for a sneak attack give it to the Rogue, need a melee attack give it to the greatsword Paladin etc. Haste can't do that. 


 Hell there is a lot you can do with shield bashing in 5E, its fun to knock over a huge giant enable a melee sneak attack,


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> LOL.  There's a joke somewhere in there about paying $2 for stuff....




Me wubs you long time?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I think we all agree that rogue sneak attack is best left out of attack granting abilities?  Can we at least mark that down as a point of agreement?




Its so much fun enabling it though.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its so much fun enabling it though.




That's cause you like broke stuff


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That's cause you like broke stuff




Its not broke when its limited. 

 We mostly stress test this years ago. These days we're stepping away from the power builds and testing out 3pp stuff and some of the weaker archetypes we skipped the 1st time around. Its been a while since we have seen a -5/+10 build for example. They're effective enough but so boring.
"So you';re a level 6 variant human fighter with 20 dex and sharpshooter tell me more"

 Or as I have seen

You're a level 1 barbarians (goliath) with 20 strength and 19 con+ dex and roiled it naturally where the DM did not see it".

 Most of the nutty stuff we played/tested late 2014. Current group is a paladin using a spear and a halfling with a dagger.


----------



## Kinematics (Mar 29, 2018)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have to ask here. @Zardnaar is the only one here who thinks that at will action granting is too powerful. No one else seems to have a problem with it.



I just haven't bothered getting into the argument about it (because everything about Warlord is an argument, and I'm already sick of it).  I think it's potentially problematic, but since I'm inclined to go a different route anyway, I haven't bothered trying to analyze the details.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its not broke when its limited.
> 
> We mostly stress test this years ago. These days we're stepping away from the power builds and testing out 3pp stuff and some of the weaker archetypes we skipped the 1st time around. Its been a while since we have seen a -5/+10 build for example. They're effective enough but so boring.
> "So you';re a level 6 variant human fighter with 20 dex and sharpshooter tell me more"
> ...




I will say this, in lower levels the off-turn attack granting stuff isn't terribly OP, especially commander's strike as you are giving up your attack and a guaranteed 1d8 damage on an attack that hit buy using commander's strike to try and get the rouge to maybe land sneak attack.  Haste is a bit more problematic in that it just enables the rogue extra sneak attacks, however, it's tradeoff is that you aren't debuffing enemies or using fireball etc.  So even it might not be that bad especially at lower and maybe mid levels.  Higher levels it probably starts being a little too much as sneak attack starts really outpacing regular attacks by level 11+


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That's the place a look for it at.  Around level 5.  Warlord will do around cantrip level damage with his 1 attack and can grant an attack.  (sneak attack won't work as the best implementation is to have him grant attacks on the allies turn instead of off their turn).
> 
> All that said, it may be better to implement it early as a per rest power and just scale it to the point that it's essentially at-will.



Perhaps a few times per short rest at 1.
Then at-will at level 5.



Zardnaar said:


> Its so much fun enabling it though.



Limited off-turn would be fine to add.  Perhaps by forcing an enemy to provoke an OA, like command (flee) or cause fear does.

Merls also had a good point that spamming the same ability get's... spammy.


So maybe...
Level 1: Novice Gamits: You can do a novice gambit once per battle.
Level 5: Adept Gambit: You can do adept gambits once per battles.  In addition, you can do novice gambits at-will
Level 11: Advance Gambitst: You can do advanced gambits once per battles.  In addition, you can do adept gambits at-will
Level 17: Master Gambit: You can do master gambits once per battles.  In addition, you can do master gambits at-will


Or better yet.
Level 1: You gain 1 point at the start your turn, up to a maximum of Int + half your warlord level.  You start each battle with 50% max points.
Level 5: You gain 2 points per turn.
Level 11: You gain 3 points per turn.
Level 17: You gain 4 points per turn.

On-turn attack granting (2 points).  _At-will at level 5._
Force an enemy to provoke an OA (5 points).  _Close to at-will at level 17._
+other stuff like movement, saves, THP, ect...


This way, you have to watch how the battle unfolds before you can spring your big tricks.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 29, 2018)

People! Please!
If you're going to have an argument, kindly make sure that you're actually talking about the same thing. Saying "Attack granting is fine!" doesn't do anything to address the points of someone pointing out "At-will action granting is OP!" and vice versa.

Now could someone please give a quick run-down, for the benefit of someone who can't recall much about how the 4e warlord played, just what sort of attack the warlord could grant a character compared to the sort of attack power that the character could use on their actual turn.

Now, regarding the issue of Rogue being excessively advantageous in attack granting, I addressed that with a rider to the lower-tier maneuver: The granted attack is carried out as if on the character's last turn. With all modifiers and considerations thereof.
Thus it can't be used to give the Rogue multiple sneak attacks per round, but it can be used in a more tactical manner to allow a rogue that wasn't in position on their turn or just missed with their attacks to get their sneak attack off.

Actual action granting did not have this restriction, but at that point you're letting fighters make full attacks and casters throw extra spells around, so Rogues getting an extra sneak attack off isn't the broken outlier. At the level at which action granting became possible (15+ IIRC), things get pretty nuts for most classes.


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Now could someone please give a quick run-down, for the benefit of someone who can't recall much about how the 4e warlord played, just what sort of attack the warlord could grant a character compared to the sort of attack power that the character could use on their actual turn.



Everone in 4e had a basic attack.  Which was a bit weaker than your at-will attack, like a TWF off-hand attacks.  Or a cantrip. So a quick 5e comparison would be...

Set-up: All classes have firebolt.

Warlord At-will: As an action one creature can cast firebolt.
Warlord Heal: Twice per encounter you can use your bonus action to let someone spend some hit dice, maximizing their roll.
Warlord Encounter: Once per battle, when you hit with an attack, another creature can cast firebolt at the target.
Warlord Daily: Once per day you can use your action to let the entire party cast firebolt.


Of course, everyone in 5e doesn't have a firebolt equivalent.  Some have eldrich blast.  Some have sneak attack.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> Everone in 4e had a basic attack.  Which was a bit weaker than your at-will attack, like a TWF off-hand attacks.  Or a cantrip. So a quick 5e comparison would be...
> 
> Set-up: All classes have firebolt.
> 
> ...




So the basic attack the warlord granted didn't get to add ability bonus, feat or style benefits, or other riders like sneak attack? It was just equivalent of basic weapon die?

That would make the 5e battlemaster maneuver considerably more powerful than the 4th ed warlord equivalent. Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power? 

I may readjust my warlord maneuvers on this basis. Thank you for the information!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2018)

Thing to remember though, is that the warlord rarely had to forego an attack in order to trigger another attack.  More often, the warlord made an attack, and then someone else got to do something - attack, move, whatever.  So, it wasn't like you were replacing actions, you were adding.  

To be fair, the at-will power was a replacement - you gave up your attack to have someone else make a basic attack with damage bonuses, but, there were several encounter (meaning typically used 1/encounter) and daily powers which granted actions as well.


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> So the basic attack the warlord granted didn't get to add ability bonus, feat or style benefits, or other riders like sneak attack? It was just equivalent of basic weapon die?



Effectivly, yes.

But 4e scaled a lot differently, and it was much more standardized in what each character could do.
Most of the powers, for all classes, where damage + effect.  Basic attack was just damage.

For example
A fighter's basic attack did weapon+str.
A fighter's at-will grappling strike weapon+str+grab.
A wizards basic attack did 1d8+Int.
A wizard's at-will cloud of daggers did 1d6+int automatically.
A cleric's basic attack did weapon+str.
A cleric's at-will recovery strike did weapon+str+heal the next person to hit the target.
ect...


A big complaint about 4e was the number of things to track, since everyone had a special effect or 3 going on, and it often changed every round.
The other was how much they inflated all the numbers.



> Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power?



Yes.  In fact, I believe there was a warlord encounter power that let someone use an at-will.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 29, 2018)

Popping back in for important reminders: 

One thing to remember is that just because you can grant the rogue a free attack at-will _does not_mean the rogue can Sneak Attack at-will. They still need to fulfil the requirements of Sneak Attack. 
In white room theorycrafting, of course the rogue is always going to be by an ally and the warlord is always going to be by the rogue, but in actual play the battlefield will be chaotic and people will move or be moved or blocked by terrain or run out of movement. 
This is where playtesting would come in. How often in actual play does granting the rogue an extra attack on the warlord's turn result in a second Sneak Attack. And what is the actual increase to the party's damage like?

There's also lots of ways you could balance a free At-Will attack. It could use the other character's reaction (my preference). It could be made with disadvantage. It could deal minimum damage. 


Plus, in the podcast, Mearls discusses at length how they purposely do NOT design with the best case combination in mind. Using this as an example. They design for the build two or three steps below, and balance with that in mind. That way, people don't NEED to optimise to have assumed baseline effectiveness _and_ people who do want to optimise can find that cool combo.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I think we all agree that rogue sneak attack is best left out of attack granting abilities?  Can we at least mark that down as a point of agreement?



Theoretically, you could make the warlord spend their action to give the other player an action on their own turn, like the haste action.  Then you don't have as much of an issue with rogue off-turn second sneak attack.  

I mean they can ready with their main action, sure, but it's not like methods of getting reaction attacks for a second sneak attack don't already exist.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 29, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Plus, in the podcast, Mearls discusses at length how they purposely do NOT design with the best case combination in mind. Using this as an example. They design for the build two or three steps below, and balance with that in mind. That way, people don't NEED to optimise to have assumed baseline effectiveness _and_ people who do want to optimise can find that cool combo.



Solid point...obviously a warlord looks pretty awesome with a rogue, sorlock, and a cleric and wizard with no overlap in spell preparation in the party.  If the party is a monk, moon druid, and ranger, all of a sudden the warlord isn't as big of a deal.


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

I'll just point out that there are already ways to get enemies to provoke OA's, both Cleric's Command (flee) and Bard's Dissonant Whispers are both level 1 spells.

Thus you can already grant off-turn sneak-attack.
Or even spells if your ally has warcaster.
Or if you want to get nasty, a rogue with warcaster and booming blade.

Caveat's include that it takes a resource, they require a save, and they do more than grant an attack (command is also a stun).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> I'll just point out that there are already ways to get enemies to provoke OA's, both Cleric's Command (flee) and Bard's Dissonant Whispers are both level 1 spells.
> 
> Thus you can already grant off-turn sneak-attack.
> Or even spells if your ally has warcaster.
> ...




I didn't think forced movement granted attacks?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 29, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> So the basic attack the warlord granted ...was just equivalent of basic weapon die?



 Not litterally, no, it just lacked riders or additional bonuses.  Balance was much tighter in 4e.  So the Warlord using Commander's Strike granted a basic attack (not as good as an at-will) but with a bonus that brought it back up to the level of an at-will.



> That would make the 5e battlemaster maneuver considerably more powerful than the 4th ed warlord equivalent.



 5e is generally powered up from 4e, just not evenly.  But that's not really an instance of it because..


> Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power?



 Yes, the Warlord could choose some encounter exploits that granted an ally an attack or even an action that was not as restricted, and might be combined with an attack from the Warlord, himself, and/or buffed in some way, as well.


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I didn't think forced movement granted attacks?



the creature is still moving on their own, with mind control.

Things like thunderwave or shoving do not work.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> the creature is still moving on their own, with mind control.
> 
> Things like thunderwave or shoving do not work.




Not the way I've read it but I'm open to being wrong lol


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> So the basic attack the warlord granted didn't get to add ability bonus, feat or style benefits, or other riders like sneak attack? It was just equivalent of basic weapon die?
> 
> That would make the 5e battlemaster maneuver considerably more powerful than the 4th ed warlord equivalent. Although the BM is burning short-rest resources so more like the warlord using an encounter power?
> 
> I may readjust my warlord maneuvers on this basis. Thank you for the information!




Basic attack was 1W+ ability mod.

 4E had a tighter focus as well, a Rogue only dealt an extra 2 dice sneak attack of damage (2d6 or 2d8/feat). Most things dealt less damage as well (fireball 5d6 vs 8d6) the extra dice for an at will attack came in at level 21 (8 for a cleric in 5E, level 5 for marital with extra attack).

 There was nothing like a Rogue or Warlock at will damge in 4E, Ranger might come close at low levels as their at will was twin strike which more or less let you make two basic attacks. I think a fighter one I recall a Dwarf using was with axes and it let you get+2 to hit and add con modifier to damage IIRC. 

 Even i you phrased it in such a way to exclude the Rogue (have an extra attack on your turn) that fixes the Rogue but them something like a Hunter Ranger becomesthe next best option (or raging barbaian or Paladin using hunters quarry or something using hex+ class feature or the -5/+1- feats etc).

1. It complicated.
2. You would probably be better off having attack granting limited and being able to enable the Rogue. 

 Enabling a Rogue is fun and its not always the best option to pick for an extra attack as I have seen it be granted to the GWM Paladin who can hit for 3d6+5+15+ smite or the hunter ranger with sharpshooter (12d8+1d6+15+).This also excludes magic weapons and I have seen warrior types dealing 5d6+15 type damage and things like Barbarians raging striking with advantage with the -5/+10 feats at low levels. Throw in an action surge and at level 11 they can break 100 damage a round.

 There is just to many things at will does not play nice with in 5E. 

 The Rogues just the poster child for it being a bad idea along with the Warlock of you allow action granting or cantrip casting (or a lore bard who has stolen those spells).


----------



## mellored (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Not the way I've read it but I'm open to being wrong lol



https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/2...ssonant-whispers-provoke-opportunity-attacks/

Bobby the Barbarian
 [MENTION=6874300]BobbyB[/MENTION]arbarian
 [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford Does the movement from Dissonant Whispers provoke opportunity attacks? The creature uses its reaction to move.


Jeremy Crawford
 [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
 You provoke an opportunity attack if you leave a foe's reach using your movement, action, or reaction. #DnD


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 29, 2018)

Dissonant Whisper is one of the few things that does provoke an AoO unlike things like Thunderwave. Great spell when it works.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 29, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> We are trying.  Maybe if you would stop derailing the thread we could actually get back to you know, designing a warlord?



After this post I decided to back away (aka stop derailing) and also muse a little on the "warlord" myself, and how I might design such as class. Mostly theory crafting and such. 

This is what I cobbled together in the past five days: 








Haven't done much with the subclasses and not 100% happy with all the features, but it's a framework of a tactical class. 
It's got choices each round and plays with reactions and initiative a little. And it gives you the opportunity to work out a "plan" with an ally that leaves less to chance. 

How's your warlord going?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

@_*Jester David*_

Thanks for the actual attempt at a Warlord class design.  It's very much appreciated.

First of all let's remember some basic design criteria we are going to have to use for a successful warlord.  
1.  It must be accepted by most 4e fans.  This will likely involve having it at least give the options for inspiring style abilities etc.
2.  It must be something that 5e fans won't reject outright.  We have to be careful with granting mechanics and hard-coded flavor that may be easy to reject.

Is your warlord going to be accepted by 4e fans or are you cutting to much out a warlord for it to meet a 4e fans expectations?  I know the answer for me on that question would be that it doesn't meet my expectations for what all a Warlord should be able to do.

Other design issues with the class are:
1.  It doesn't allow for any lazylord/princess builds (this may not be a realistic possibility)
2.  It doesn't grant any attacks (we should definietely give the warlord it's most iconic ability in some form).

I'd give the class a D.  It's a solid class that is based on a small slice of what a Warlord used to be.  That's enough to make it not an F.  However, it's going to struggle to gain acceptance with 4e fans because it's leaving out a lot of their favorite flavors and abilities from the old class.  As such it's going to struggle to be accepted by 4e Warlord fans.  

I do like the subclasses a lot more than the basic, tactics / inspiration etc.  The basic concept of your subclasses would really help explain who this "team leader" type character is.

I didn't deep dive into balance but your level 11 ability looks like it could be fairly strong.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 29, 2018)

mellored said:


> https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/2...ssonant-whispers-provoke-opportunity-attacks/
> 
> Bobby the Barbarian
> @_*BobbyB*_arbarian
> ...




Thanks for the insight.  So there's a few more abilities that will force off-turn attacks.  That is definitely worth noting and considering.  

I believe that Homebrew generally has a stricter need for balance than the things already in the game.  The easier it is for a DM or others to convince a DM that a Homebrew Class is overpowered the easier it is for that Homebrewed Class to not see the light of day in any games.  As such we should attempt to tighten up swingy abilities to a place that is within reason whenever possible or to drop such abilities from our class design altogether.

The easiest way to do that is to drop off-turn attack grants in favor for on-ally-turn attack grants so that sneak attack is eliminated as an option.  If off-turn attack grants must be included then only allow for them a few times per day.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> @_*Jester David*_
> 
> Thanks for the actual attempt at a Warlord class design.  It's very much appreciated.
> 
> ...



No True Warlord fan, eh? 



FrogReaver said:


> Other design issues with the class are:
> 1.  It doesn't allow for any lazylord/princess builds (this may not be a realistic possibility)
> 2.  It doesn't grant any attacks (we should definietely give the warlord it's most iconic ability in some form).



The majority of 4e warlords didn't grant actions either. Less than 50% of powers in the PHB1 granted attacks, and even fewer in MP and MP2.
(I ran a 4e game for a year with the warlord as the primary healer and she never used an attack granting power once.)

The lazylord was just one build of the warlord, and an unofficial build as it is.
As such, those abilities fit better as a subclass. I was going to fold those powers into the standard bearer when I got around to working on subclasses.



FrogReaver said:


> I'd give the class a D.  It's a solid class that is based on a small slice of what a Warlord used to be.  That's enough to make it not an F.  However, it's going to struggle to gain acceptance with 4e fans because it's leaving out a lot of their favorite flavors and abilities from the old class.  As such it's going to struggle to be accepted by 4e Warlord fans.



But how does it hold up to what 5e fans won't reject?
And how does it do with the concept of the class instead of the previous execution of the concept? 

What's your warlord look like so far? Can we compare?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

I thik people are focusing on the lazy lord to much.

1. Its in a splat book.
2. It was not even an archetype, rules exploit perhaps.

 Its the equivalent of the Radiant Servent of Pelor 3.5 build focused on spamming metamagic. 

 You can't really get the lazy lord into the game and make it work and the En5ider noble already exists (hint its very flawed ion multiple levels).

 Jester if I sent you a word doc can you format it for me and pot, I liked your layout.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Jester if I sent you a word doc can you format it for me and pot, I liked your layout.



Sure. 

You can email it to david.jw.gibson (at) 5mwd.com


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

*Stray character removed, no it wasn't a secret message*



Zardnaar said:


> I thik people are focusing on the lazy lord to much..



 You're the one obsessing over at-will attack granting, and it was the only build that Actually leaned on that mechanic heavily.  A Taclord might have the ability, but not use it that much, for instance, because much of the time an encounter or daily, or his other at will would be more useful.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> No True Warlord fan, eh?




No idea how you seen this applying to anything in the part of my post you quoted...



> The majority of 4e warlords didn't grant actions either. Less than 50% of powers in the PHB1 granted attacks, and even fewer in MP and MP2.
> (I ran a 4e game for a year with the warlord as the primary healer and she never used an attack granting power once.)




1.  Sure, just like hold person is only a single wizard spell out of a list of probably 100.  Yet it still finds it's way on the spell lists of many wizards...
The bottom line is that you have no evidence about what most warlords had or didn't have.



> The lazylord was just one build of the warlord, and an unofficial build as it is.  As such, those abilities fit better as a subclass. I was going to fold those powers into the standard bearer when I got around to working on subclasses.




Okay, so at least you aren't throwing out abilities like attack granting but instead placing them inside a subclass.  I can't say I agree with that assessment but I'm okay with waiting to see the subclasses before making a final judgment.




> But how does it hold up to what 5e fans won't reject?




It meets the bar conceptually.  Mechanically I haven't looked at yet and that's where you will get the most grief for a 5e class is in mechanical balance IME.



> And how does it do with the concept of the class instead of the previous execution of the concept?




Poorly.  It leaves off at least half or maybe more of the core concept around the class.  Inspiration may be more of a defining trait than sounds tactics... it's at least debatable.  So leaving off anything inspiring or relegating it solely to a subclass harms the concept of the class.



> What's your warlord look like so far? Can we compare?




Sure, I only map out the first 5ish levels because if those can be gotten right then the rest of everything will relatively easily fall into place.

The basic concept is that the Warlord will have a number of once per round at will abilities that will scale as he levels.  I've called the ability Warlord's Aid in the past but I'm not super excited about the name.

Level 1 - Warlord's Aid.  Pick 3 of the following abilities.  You may use Warlord's Aid once per round even on an ally or enemies turn.  Unless noted otherwise the ability requires no action.  The abilities automatically increase in effect at level 5 and level 11.  The abilities often require a trigger to take place before the ability can be used.  You learn additional Aid abilities as you level.  At level 5 you gain an additional 1.  At level 11 you gain an additional 1.  You may also retrain Aid powers anytime you gain a new level in the Warlord Class. 

Example ability -
Empowering Strike: 
Trigger: When you attack an enemy
Level 1 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 1d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Level 5 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 2d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Level 11 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 3d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
Warlord Point: You grant the ally advantage on his first attack.

Inspiring Shout
Trigger: When an ally is hit
...

Level 2: subclass ability

Level 3: Gain 5 Warlord Points per long rest.  Each warlord point may be used to grant a Warlord's Aid ability an extra effect that's listed in the power

Level 4: ASI

Level 5: Warlord's Aid improvement

Level 6: subclass ability

Level 7: Warlord point improvement

...

Balance needs worked on a little


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I thik people are focusing on the lazy lord to much.
> 
> 1. Its in a splat book.
> 2. It was not even an archetype, rules exploit perhaps.
> ...




Good thing we aren't enabling lazy lording anything like the noble does.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> No True Warlord fan, eh?
> 
> 
> The majority of 4e warlords didn't grant actions either. Less than 50% of powers in the PHB1 granted attacks, and even fewer in MP and MP2.
> ...




That's like saying less than 50% of wizard spells deal direct damage, so, it's okay for a wizard to not have fireball, lightning bolt and magic missile.  I think your personal experiences might be coloring your perception here.  We had several warlords in our 4e games and every single one of them was primarily about action granting.  

About a third of the powers in the PHB grant actions.  Maybe a quarter.  That's HUGE.  That is not some minor point that's easily ignored.  You have to work to make a warlord in 4e that grants no attacks at all.  

I mean, good grief, Commander's Strike is so iconic that it actually made the port into 5e under the Battlemaster. 

Imma tellin' ya right now, a warlord that grants no attacks is a non-starter.  Full stop.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> That's like saying less than 50% of wizard spells deal direct damage, so, it's okay for a wizard to not have fireball, lightning bolt and magic missile.  I think your personal experiences might be coloring your perception here.  We had several warlords in our 4e games and every single one of them was primarily about action granting.
> 
> About a third of the powers in the PHB grant actions.  Maybe a quarter.  That's HUGE.  That is not some minor point that's easily ignored.  You have to work to make a warlord in 4e that grants no attacks at all.



If, as you say, only 2/3rds or even 1/4 of the PHB powers grant attacks, then that's pretty easily acomplished. Especially once you add in the two _Martial Power_ books. 



Hussar said:


> I mean, good grief, Commander's Strike is so iconic that it actually made the port into 5e under the Battlemaster.
> 
> Imma tellin' ya right now, a warlord that grants no attacks is a non-starter.  Full stop.



Should it be possible for a warlord to grant attacks? 
Yes. It can easily be in a subclass. Which was my intent from the start. 

Does it need to be mandatory and something _all_ warlords do at level 1? 
No, probably not. 

(This is all moot actually, because, if you think about it, the Stratagem class feature in my warlord _totally_ grants an attack. Or an ability check. It's just less reactive and more proactive.)


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> That's like saying less than 50% of wizard spells deal direct damage, so, it's okay for a wizard to not have fireball, lightning bolt and magic missile.  I think your personal experiences might be coloring your perception here.  We had several warlords in our 4e games and every single one of them was primarily about action granting.
> 
> About a third of the powers in the PHB grant actions.  Maybe a quarter.  That's HUGE.  That is not some minor point that's easily ignored.  You have to work to make a warlord in 4e that grants no attacks at all.
> 
> ...




Thanks for illustrating the most important 2 design principles.  If we want to design a useful Warlord class we have to at least hit on the main points for what 4e Warlord fans are looking for in the class.  We also have to make sure it doesn't contain abilities that are going to be problematic for general 5e fans to accept.  

Relegating attack granting and presumably inspiring healing into different subclasses feels a little off as you will have trouble recreating anything similar to even a 4e level 1 warlord.  I'm still willing to see the final product but I think it's too much division of abilities and not enough unification of them.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> 1.  Sure, just like hold person is only a single wizard spell out of a list of probably 100.  Yet it still finds it's way on the spell lists of many wizards...



But not mandatory. And you wouldn't say that it was "iconic" of the wizard. 

And you can't really make good analogies between spellcasting classes like the wizard and non-spellcasters. Especially wizards because they can learn so many superflous spells. 
A better example might be the fighter and Weapon Specialisation or Power Attack. Those were super iconic elements of the fighter in 3e (the former in 2e and the later in 4e as well). Very useful and few fighters didn't take one or the other. But they still didn't become core assumptions of the game and didn't make it into the 5e fighter. 



FrogReaver said:


> The bottom line is that you have no evidence about what most warlords had or didn't have.



True. But neither of us have. That information is absent.
But I _can_ note that people played the warlord for a couple years before the "princess build" emerged. And that the majority of powers did not support that concept. 



FrogReaver said:


> Poorly.  It leaves off at least half or maybe more of the core concept around the class.  Inspiration may be more of a defining trait than sounds tactics... it's at least debatable.  So leaving off anything inspiring or relegating it solely to a subclass harms the concept of the class.



*shrug* Disagree. The tactical aspects of the class are just as important and far more distinct, being unique and not just a retread of another class' shtick. 



FrogReaver said:


> Sure, I only map out the first 5ish levels because if those can be gotten right then the rest of everything will relatively easily fall into place.



The opposite can be true. If the class doesn't offer anything new after level 6 or 7 it's easy to just multiclass out. 
And the class becomes boring because it's all just more of the same with bigger numbers. Once you've spent 10 levels hitting and granting an ally 1-2d6 extra damage, granting them 3-4d6 extra damage doesn't feel compelling.



FrogReaver said:


> Level 1 - Warlord's Aid.  Pick 3 of the following abilities.  You may use Warlord's Aid once per round even on an ally or enemies turn.  Unless noted otherwise the ability requires no action.  The abilities automatically increase in effect at level 5 and level 11.  The abilities often require a trigger to take place before the ability can be used.  You learn additional Aid abilities as you level.  At level 5 you gain an additional 1.  At level 11 you gain an additional 1.  You may also retrain Aid powers anytime you gain a new level in the Warlord Class.



So... spells. Albeit non-magical ones. 

Should the class that's designed explicitly not to cast spells be designed in a way where it doesn't resemble spellcasters? If someone wanted to play a character like that, they'd play a spellcaster. From a game design perspective, it's important that the non-magical class offer something else in terms of play. 



FrogReaver said:


> Example ability -
> Empowering Strike:
> Trigger: When you attack an enemy
> Level 1 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 1d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
> ...



This seems formatting almost exactly like a 4e power. You're _literally_ giving the class At-Will powers.
I'm very much reminded of 4e psionic abilities with their power points. 

If you need to spend Warlord Points to gain the effects, what can you do with that power at level 1 and 2 before you get the points?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But not mandatory. And you wouldn't say that it was "iconic" of the wizard.
> 
> And you can't really make good analogies between spellcasting classes like the wizard and non-spellcasters. Especially wizards because they can learn so many superflous spells.




Because Thus Saith Jester David?



> A better example might be the fighter and Weapon Specialisation or Power Attack. Those were super iconic elements of the fighter in 3e (the former in 2e and the later in 4e as well). Very useful and few fighters didn't take one or the other. But they still didn't become core assumptions of the game and didn't make it into the 5e fighter.




Not really.  The iconic ability of a fighter has been extra attack for as far back as I can remember.  Fighter's still have that in 5e and are still iconic with it as they do it better than any other class.




> True. But neither of us have. That information is absent.
> But I _can_ note that people played the warlord for a couple years before the "princess build" emerged. And that the majority of powers did not support that concept.




Even without the full princess build that eventually emerged commander's strike was a power that was very often used.  



> *shrug* Disagree. The tactical aspects of the class are just as important and far more distinct, being unique and not just a retread of another class' shtick.




I'm fine with saying just as important.  Creating a class is not about trying to be distinct for the purpose of being distinct.  It's about using mechanics that invoke the class concept all by themselves.  Leaving out either inspirational or tactical aspects as at least options of the primary class is going to be a problem for many.  Leaving out attack granting or at least the option of it from the base class is also going to be a problem.  



> The opposite can be true. If the class doesn't offer anything new after level 6 or 7 it's easy to just multiclass out.




It's not about new, it's about increasing in power.  People stick in fighter till level 11 for the 3rd extra attack and not really any other ability he gives.  As long as abilities continue to increase in power like mine do then this isn't even a concern.



> And the class becomes boring because it's all just more of the same with bigger numbers. Once you've spent 10 levels hitting and granting an ally 1-2d6 extra damage, granting them 3-4d6 extra damage doesn't feel compelling.




Wait you do realize those were only 2 examples of easily 20+ possible abilities right?




> So... spells. Albeit non-magical ones.




This honestly is the most boring criticism in the book.  At-will effects are not spells.  Sorry.



> Should the class that's designed explicitly not to cast spells be designed in a way where it doesn't resemble spellcasters? If someone wanted to play a character like that, they'd play a spellcaster. From a game design perspective, it's important that the non-magical class offer something else in terms of play.




Sorry my mechanic isn't any more like spells than any use X ability Y times per day effects.  In fact mine is less like spells as it adds new effects on it's own and is at will.  No resource even required to use these abilities.



> This seems formatting almost exactly like a 4e power. You're _literally_ giving the class At-Will powers.
> I'm very much reminded of 4e psionic abilities with their power points.




Well yes they are at will and they do allow some interesting effects.  They aren't 4e powers though as all of these require a trigger and 4e powers rarely did.



> If you need to spend Warlord Points to gain the effects, what can you do with that power at level 1 and 2 before you get the points?



You don't need to spend warlord points to gain effects.  You need to spend a warlord point to enhance your at will ability.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> .  We also have to make sure it doesn't contain abilities that are going to be problematic for general 5e fans to accept.



 Meh.  5e fans, like D&D fans in general, mostly just like D&D, not only one specific edition, not harbor particular malice for one particular edition.  Each of the supposedly problematic elements of the Warlord is already present in 5e.

Anyone who finds the bundle of them as a  whole, the Warlord name, or it's 4e pedigree, ditasteful can decline to opt into it.  It's similar to feats:  fans of 3e & 4e tend to like 'em, old-schoolers not s'much, so they're optional, even if in the PH.

No one's burning SCAG for having the PDK in it.




> Relegating attack granting and presumably inspiring healing into different subclasses feels a little off as you will have trouble recreating anything similar to even a 4e level 1 warlord.



 It'd also render individual warlords too inflexible to be viable as sole support for a party, undermining a key benefit of adding the class:  expanding the range of play styles under 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Meh.  5e fans, like D&D fans in general just like D&D, not only one specific edition, nor harbor particular malice for one particular edition.  Each if the supposedly problematic elements of the Warlord is already present in 5e.
> 
> Anyone who finds the bundle of them as a  whole, the Warlord name, or it's 4e pedigree, ditastefully can decline to opt into it.  It's similar to feats:  fans of 3e & 4e tend to like 'em, old-schoolers not s'much, so they're optional, even if in the PH.
> 
> ...




Strawman argument alot of us have agreed in principle you can have a warlord as an independent class wit the name warlord and it can do most of what it can do in 4E (heal, support, grant attacks etc). You can even have scaling martial healing that is short rest based. 

 The only real sticking point at will attack granting its like getting hung on on exact mechanics an 2E of 3E.

 Assume for a moment you don't have a warlord that can grant attacks at will. Assume that they get something else but attack granting is still an option and that includes granting attacks to Rogues (just not at will). 

 The 4E warlord was built to take advantage of 4E rules, why not have a 5E one that does the same thing in 5E. Another point is even if you grant an attack to the Rogue the amount of damage that rogue is roughly equivalent to 2 or 3 rounds of Rogue damage in 4E. So even if you can only grant 1 attack every second or third round relatively speaking you're doing the same amount as 4E (or even more 5E critters have less hp). Instead of spreading the damage out you are front loading it. 

 You're so focused on duplicating the 4E ability exactly I don;t think most of you have put much thought into how it works in 5E except maybe "its a bit good for a rogue". 

 Its obvious that you won't get agreement on that ability its just to good in 5E mechanics doesn't port well. You warlord will still be doing the same or very similar things it did in 4E so whats the problem?

It also opens up design space to do other things, a 4E rifder that grants +2 to hit can get upgraded to advantage which is better for example. 

 Healing is also more iconic to the Warlord than attack granting, itt was built intot he basic class. To function in 5E you are going to need more than the ability to grant second winds 1/short rest there is room there for power creep.

 And even if you did convince these board member to sign off on this and you went to Mearls (as a group) and said you want at wil attack granting what do you think his response would be (its 3 times as strong as a 5E mechanic). 

Its obvious you're not going to get it in anything official. There is no vast popular support for the WL class, a dozen people at best demanding an exact replica of an ability in 4E is not enough momentum and most 5E players seem happy with valor bard, BM fighters and a warlord as fighter. 

 If you want at will attack granting there is already 3pp support for it. You don't need to design anything new if you really want to stand or die on it. It seems people will just shift the goal posts again. 

 Its more fun trolling the forums I suppose as the last 4venger hold outs. Fighters had weapon specialization for over 20 years that is gone, I can still play a fighter. 

 You basically have 3 options for at will attack granting.

1. Make a one trick pony class (aka the Heart Noble) that is broken/useless or player quit the class both times as she was broken/useless. 

2. Break the game (you won't get an official Warlord doing this)

3. Make up a heap of complicated rules that won't catch everything and are just confusing and end up with a crap class anyway. 

 You can't balance at wil attack granting due to the Rogue and keep the game simple which violates the 5E design paradigm. Easier way to do it I suppose would be to have a side bar like in 3.5 for that "minor/bonus" action thing (name eludes me atm) and define a basic attack in that (1W+ability mod) and make it clear you can't put extra damage on it. Sure that is would work but its kinda boring I personally would rather have a limited use grant attack to rogue like the BM. 

 Basically you would need to define a basic attack, however you want to word that. And then you could add an extra dice of damage at say level 8 and 14 a'la the cleric. You could probably even give yourself 2 attacks (level 5 or 6) and 1 of the attacks could be an attack grant and the other a normal one.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Because Thus Saith Jester David?



No. Because a class where a single character can learn every single power available to the class with enough time and money doesn't map very well to any other class in the game, making it a poor analogy for class design.



FrogReaver said:


> Even without the full princess build that eventually emerged commander's strike was a power that was very often used.



Yeah. By half of walords at the start and then a shrinking number. 
If a third or quarter of warlords regularly use the power, then that maps very nicely to a subclass, where a third to a quarter of people might take that subclass and get its abilities. 



FrogReaver said:


> I'm fine with saying just as important.  Creating a class is not about trying to be distinct for the purpose of being distinct.  It's about using mechanics that invoke the class concept all by themselves.  Leaving out either inspirational or tactical aspects as at least options of the primary class is going to be a problem for many.  Leaving out attack granting or at least the option of it from the base class is also going to be a problem.



In a vacuum, creating a class is about expressing the concept of the class as mechanics, yes. But you don't design classes in a vacuum. It needs to work as part of a group and not overshadow other classes. 

If making a new class, lets say the ninja, then you need to make a class that does what people would expect a ninja to do. If someone who hasn't played a ninja in 3e or 2e won't be surprised by the mechanics of the class or implementation of its powers. There shouldn't be a disconnect between what you expect the class to do based on its story and what it actually does. 
But it also shouldn't diminish the other classes. The rogue is the "sneaky class", making the ninja problematic. Either it's sneakier than the rogue, thereby making the rogue less special and desirably, or it's less sneaky and the class might not fulfil the expectations of players. That's a dilemma. 
Furthermore, it leads to a situation where a player goes "I want to play a sneaky character. Which class is the best?" and there's no obvious answer. 

As such, it'd be better to shift the ninja in other directions beyond focusing on sneakiness, but that still map to the overall concept. Magical ki powers work. Invisibility and vanishing in a puff of smoke to teleport somewhere. Focus on the myths of ninjas as if the superstitions were real. Being able to teleport and being trained and a high stealth can still allow it to be functionally sneaky if they player wants, but isn't as reliably sneaky as the rogue. So the rogue remains the "sneaker" while the ninja can focus its design work elsewhere and be a different class. 

This is the same with the warlord, which shouldn't overlap with the bard. Because the bard gets so few unique elements. Giving the warlord the ability to inspire would feel like, well, giving the bard the ability to grant allies attacks at-will. 



FrogReaver said:


> It's not about new, it's about increasing in power.  People stick in fighter till level 11 for the 3rd extra attack and not really any other ability he gives.  As long as abilities continue to increase in power like mine do then this isn't even a concern.



1) The fighter is designed as "the simple" class. By design it's not supposed to get much at higher levels. But that's an exception compared to other classes. 

2) How large is your sample size to say what "people stick in the fighter" for? How many people have you talked to and played with that have played fighters? 



FrogReaver said:


> Wait you do realize those were only 2 examples of easily 20+ possible abilities right?



1) You get three at level 1, another at level 5, and a final one at level 11. So from level 12 onward you don't get anything new. You're just doing the same thing again and again and again. 

2) This design also means that at level 5 and 11 you're not picking a "new" ability, you're picking from abilities you passed over the first time. Abilities you decided weren't interesting enough to make the cut.

3) What are the other 18 then? Making that many abilities without getting into magical effects is not easy. 



FrogReaver said:


> This honestly is the most boring criticism in the book.  At-will effects are not spells.  Sorry.



You're missing the point. 

It's just like how people didn't like 4e because everyone got "spells". Not everyone wants to have the character with the dozen power cards they can pick between. Some people want the character that doesn't have "spells". 

You're designing a class that works like a spellcaster. Specifically, one that works a little like the warlock with a focus on At-Will spells. But you're using that as the basis of a non-spellcasting class. People will go into the class not expecting powers—because it's not a spellcaster—and then find it has powers that are more complicated that spells, with multiple powers to pick from each round _and_ daily resource management. 



FrogReaver said:


> You don't need to spend warlord points to gain effects.  You need to spend a warlord point to enhance your at will ability.



What do the warlord points trigger? All I'm setting is the "level 1 effect" and the "level 5 effect"? 

If you have the Empowering Strike ability, what does it do before you have Warlord Points to spend? 
If you get the level 1 effect automatically, then what can you spend the Warlord Points on prior to level 5?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> You can even have scaling martial healing that is short rest based.



 Mike seems to think healing needs to be daily resource driven, since he came right out and said that in the podcast, so, sounds like we probably cant't.



> The only real sticking point at will attack granting



 You're the only one who seems to feel that way.



> You can't balance at wil attack granting due to the Rogue



 In the same podcast, Mearls dismissed even considering the case of an attack grant 'always going to the rogue,'  thats simply noy how 5e does balance.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

[MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]

Why do you never talk about the specific implantation of at-will attack granting that we talk about here?  Why do you repeatedly bring rogues up when the implementation for it here doesn't allow an extra sneak attack?  Why do you base your decision for it being OP on a rogue being present in the party when it won't matter with our implementation at all?

You continually ignore just how many attacks a sorcerer is capable of granting in a day and try to justify that such is okay because it's on a daily resource.  

It's like you aren't even trying to objectively look at such an ability anymore.  You are irrational in regards to it.  Heck, you've stopped giving sensible rebuttals and offering sensible discussion in relation to it long ago.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2018)

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] - I really believe your definition of iconic is not the same as mine.  To me, iconic means that this is what you think of when you envisage some concept.  So, fireball and magic missile are iconic to wizards in D&D, despite the fact that you certainly don't need to have them on your casting list.  The notion that you could remove those spells from the game is pretty much a non-starter.  While wizards may be doing all sorts of other things, the thing that people associate most strongly with wizards is magic missile and fire ball.  

Same with healing and clerics.  After all, you cannot actually play a cleric that absolutely cannot heal.  Cure light is on every cleric's spell list, even if this or that individual cleric hasn't prepared it that day.  You claimed that only paladins have healing baked in.  That's actually not true.  Both clerics and druids have healing baked right into the class.  They can opt out of healing by not prepping that spell, but, it's ALWAYS available.

Iconic to fighters is heavy armor, weapons and multiple attacks.  I'd argue that being the best weapon user should be iconic, but, apparently, 5e isn't interested in giving us strong fighters.  Meh, it's a livable trade off.

When you think of a warlord, healing is not iconic.  Yup, they could heal, but, that wasn't why people played them.  They played them for the tactical aspects.  Healing was just a nice bit of bonus.  They healed because they were a leader class, not because the concept absolutely demanded healing.  But a warlord that could not grant any actions whatsoever?  That would be a bizarre looking warlord.  You'd have to be pretty careful about what dailies and encounter powers you took.  Like you say, about a third of the powers were action granting of some sort.  Never minding that several of the dailies granted actions to the entire party at the same time.  

Look at it this way.  NONE of the PHB at wills grant healing to a warlord.  Yup, you had Inspiring word, but, that was 2/encounter.  In fact, not a single 1st level PHB power granted healing.  There is a single 2nd level encounter and your next chance of a healing power is a 6th level encounter power.  By 10th level you could have, at most 3 encounter and 1 daily healing power.  Out of THIRTY SEVEN POWERS to choose from.  10% of warlord powers in the first tier had anything to do with healing.

Can you please stop with this?  You are wrong.  Healing was not iconic to warlords.  It simply wasn't.  

I mean, good grief, of the 4 at wills in the PHB, 2 grant attacks, 1 grants a buff and 1 grants movement.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Mike seems to think healing needs to be daily resource driven, since he came right out and said that in the podcast, so, sounds like we probably cant't.




I don't know whether it's worse that Mearls said it or that you bought it as D&D Gospel hook line and sinker.  If it was such an important issue they wouldn't have made numerous exceptions to it by now.  There wouldn't be a Healer Feat.  There wouldn't be Fighter's 2nd wind.  They wouldn't have made a class that can do short rest healing in Xanathar's.  They wouldn't have allowed multiclassing with warlocks and clerics or bards or druids.

In short, Mearls was obviously giving you a guideline more than a must adhere to rule for all time.  



> In the same podcast, Mearls dismissed even considering the case of an attack grant 'always going to the rogue,'  thats simply noy how 5e does balance.




Mearls says a lot of things that aren't quite true.  More guidelines than rules really.  In general 5e isn't designed by theorycrafting for the most powerful combinations and then balancing from there.  However, most powerful combinations require a little more than "have any rouge in the party".  When the conditions met for achieving a powerful combination are so low, then it really must be considered and I'm sure it is.  

But perhaps most importantly, we aren't creating stuff for official D&D 5e and the actual developers get more leeway than community originated classes.  So we have a bit stricter design principles we need to follow for a community project than the 5e team itself.  We don't get to just make a class official and watch it be adopted at most tables with little scrutiny.  Instead our class will face great scrutiny as it's a totally opt in class in the first place.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] - I really believe your definition of iconic is not the same as mine.  To me, iconic means that this is what you think of when you envisage some concept.  So, fireball and magic missile are iconic to wizards in D&D, despite the fact that you certainly don't need to have them on your casting list.  The notion that you could remove those spells from the game is pretty much a non-starter.  While wizards may be doing all sorts of other things, the thing that people associate most strongly with wizards is magic missile and fire ball.
> 
> Same with healing and clerics.  After all, you cannot actually play a cleric that absolutely cannot heal.  Cure light is on every cleric's spell list, even if this or that individual cleric hasn't prepared it that day.  You claimed that only paladins have healing baked in.  That's actually not true.  Both clerics and druids have healing baked right into the class.  They can opt out of healing by not prepping that spell, but, it's ALWAYS available.
> 
> ...



... we weren't talking about healing. We were talking about At-will attack granting and action granting. Healing hasn't come up in a few pages. 

The thing is... I _do _think granting movement & attacks/actions is iconic. Granting move actions unites the 3e marshal and the warlord, while granting attacks is unique to the warlord. Some warlords should _absolutely_ be able to grant attacks and movement. I just believe that should be the focus of a subclass, where you can go all-in on granting attacks. 
That should be the "default" subclass even, like the Life cleric, Thief rogue, and Evocation wizard. Because while it's iconic, it's not what everyone thinks of as the warlord. 

I just don't think it's an essential mechanical that _needs _to be baked into the class features, so every warlord has to get it OR you have to work in a second set of decision points into the class. (As a martial class, the warlord should only have the single decision point: the subclass.)

Trying to design the class so every warlord, regardless of subclass, can grant attacks while also not making it mandatory just leads to needless complexity in the design. It's forced and inelegant.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't know whether it's worse that Mearls said it or that you bought it as D&D Gospel



 He didn't go to dailies with the BM or PDK, so even entertaining the idea, let alone spelling it out like that seemed significant.



> Mearls says a lot of things that aren't quite true



Heh.  And they rarely come down on my side of an issue, so I'm enjoying it while I can.  

He could be back to turnip carts & shouting hands back on at any time.



> .  In general 5e isn't designed by theorycrafting for the most powerful combinations and then balancing from there.



 which is the way Zard is approaching it.  
There will be a rogue in the party it will have .CA on your turn, every round and will be positioned to attack the current focus fire victim, who will also be be where you can designate him, and will never need his reaction for anything else. And thus state of affairs will go on for every one of the hallowed 6-8 encounters that day, with none of them pwnd by some clever spell use or being something in any way resistant to being stabbed by 'surprise every 3 seconds.

And, his hypothetical warlord will never have a legitimate action of its own to take.



> When the conditions met for achieving a powerful combination are so low, then it really must be considered and I'm sure it is.



 IDK.  The rogue is only one class, Advantage isn't automatic. Reactions have other uses. Actions have other uses.



> But perhaps most importantly, we aren't creating stuff for official D&D 5e and the actual developers get more leeway than community originated classes.



Sounds backwards, to me.  Professionals should work to a higher standard than amateurs.  



> Instead our class will face great scrutiny as it's a totally opt in class in the first place.



 Any class not in the PH is totally opt-in.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] - I really believe your definition of iconic is not the same as mine.  To me, iconic means that this is what you think of when you envisage some concept.  So, fireball and magic missile are iconic to wizards in D&D, despite the fact that you certainly don't need to have them on your casting list.  The notion that you could remove those spells from the game is pretty much a non-starter.  While wizards may be doing all sorts of other things, the thing that people associate most strongly with wizards is magic missile and fire ball.




agreed



> Same with healing and clerics.  After all, you cannot actually play a cleric that absolutely cannot heal.  Cure light is on every cleric's spell list, even if this or that individual cleric hasn't prepared it that day.  You claimed that only paladins have healing baked in.  That's actually not true.  Both clerics and druids have healing baked right into the class.  They can opt out of healing by not prepping that spell, but, it's ALWAYS available.




agreed



> Iconic to fighters is heavy armor, weapons and multiple attacks.  I'd argue that being the best weapon user should be iconic, but, apparently, 5e isn't interested in giving us strong fighters.  Meh, it's a livable trade off.




agreed



> When you think of a warlord, healing is not iconic.  Yup, they could heal, but, that wasn't why people played them.




Being able to be a martial character that could heal and support is why the people I knew played them.



> They played them for the tactical aspects.




Not really.  The fascination with tactical and lazy lords evolved later on in the edition.  It wasn't there from the start.



> Healing was just a nice bit of bonus.




Early on it was probably the #1 reason to play a warlord.  So that you could be a martial character with all that flavor and still function as a support character because of the healing.  That changed some later on after a lot of theorycrafting and some very good guides but please don't discount the initial draw the warlord had.



> They healed because they were a leader class, not because the concept absolutely demanded healing.




Does any concept demand healing?  Even clerics don't demand it.  Instead it's a fitting concept for a cleric.  Healing is also a fitting concept for a Warlord - A warrior focused on helping his allies prevail in battle.  It's a very iconic concept as well - "I yell at you and instill in you a will to keep fighting" - That's warlord healing and it's absolutely a concept that demands mechanical support.



> But a warlord that could not grant any actions whatsoever?




They could be made, though perhaps weren't as common as the ones that could attack grant IME.



> That would be a bizarre looking warlord.  You'd have to be pretty careful about what dailies and encounter powers you took.  Like you say, about a third of the powers were action granting of some sort.  Never minding that several of the dailies granted actions to the entire party at the same time.




I think you mean attacks not actions.  I don't recall if there even was an ability that could grant encounter or daily powers to allies.



> Look at it this way.  NONE of the PHB at wills grant healing to a warlord.




None of the PHB at wills for any class granted healing



> Yup, you had Inspiring word, but, that was 2/encounter.




In 4e that was impressive as it was the same as a cleric.



> In fact, not a single 1st level PHB power granted healing.




There was at least 1 Daily Power that granted healing for a Warlord at level 1.  "Fearless Rescue" I think was the name of it.



> There is a single 2nd level encounter and your next chance of a healing power is a 6th level encounter power.




In 4e, the 2nd and 6th level powers were your utility powers and generally where extra healing would be found for any class that got it.  



> By 10th level you could have, at most 3 encounter and 1 daily healing power.  Out of THIRTY SEVEN POWERS to choose from.  10% of warlord powers in the first tier had anything to do with healing.




I don't seem to recall bards or clerics fairing much better.



> Can you please stop with this?  You are wrong.  Healing was not iconic to warlords.  It simply wasn't.




Martial powered Healing and attack granting were the 2 most iconic abilities a warlord got.  I know we all fell in love with the KillSwitch build and that such nostalgia about that makes it feel like tactical warlords were the only warlords and the most iconic warlords and possibly by the end of 4e that was the case, but it wasn't what the warlord class really was, it was just the most effective 4e builds/abilities revolved around those fronts.



> I mean, good grief, of the 4 at wills in the PHB, 2 grant attacks, 1 grants a buff and 1 grants movement.




Yep.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> ... we weren't talking about healing. We were talking about At-will attack granting and action granting. Healing hasn't come up in a few pages.
> 
> The thing is... I _do _think granting movement & attacks/actions is iconic. Granting move actions unites the 3e marshal and the warlord, while granting attacks is unique to the warlord. Some warlords should _absolutely_ be able to grant attacks and movement. I just believe that should be the focus of a subclass, where you can go all-in on granting attacks.
> That should be the "default" subclass even, like the Life cleric, Thief rogue, and Evocation wizard. Because while it's iconic, it's not what everyone thinks of as the warlord.
> ...




What's your thoughts about battlemaster superiority dice?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> No. Because a class where a single character can learn every single power available to the class with enough time and money doesn't map very well to any other class in the game, making it a poor analogy for class design.
> 
> 
> Yeah. By half of walords at the start and then a shrinking number.
> ...




When you can spend a whole post giving criticisms and complaints about my warlord attempt and then finally getting around to asking how it actually works in the last post...  I don't think such really deserves a response


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]
> 
> Why do you never talk about the specific implantation of at-will attack granting that we talk about here?  Why do you repeatedly bring rogues up when the implementation for it here doesn't allow an extra sneak attack?  Why do you base your decision for it being OP on a rogue being present in the party when it won't matter with our implementation at all?
> 
> ...




May have got buried or a lot of ideas came up. It's not just Rogue being a problem.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> May have got buried or a lot of ideas came up. It's not just Rogue being a problem.




So let's look at a basic 2d6+5 fighter attack with a greatsword as our baseline.  Is there any other single class setup you  are particularly concerned about?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] - I really believe your definition of iconic is not the same as mine.  To me, iconic means that this is what you think of when you envisage some concept.  So, fireball and magic missile are iconic to wizards in D&D, despite the fact that you certainly don't need to have them on your casting list.  The notion that you could remove those spells from the game is pretty much a non-starter.  While wizards may be doing all sorts of other things, the thing that people associate most strongly with wizards is magic missile and fire ball.
> 
> Same with healing and clerics.  After all, you cannot actually play a cleric that absolutely cannot heal.  Cure light is on every cleric's spell list, even if this or that individual cleric hasn't prepared it that day.  You claimed that only paladins have healing baked in.  That's actually not true.  Both clerics and druids have healing baked right into the class.  They can opt out of healing by not prepping that spell, but, it's ALWAYS available.
> 
> ...




We're not removing attack granting. We are limiting it. Magic missile got limited from 1E to 2E (twice) , indirect nerf in 3E changed completely in 4E.

4E changed things to fit the 4E paradigm as well.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> So let's look at a basic 2d6+5 fighter attack with a greatsword as our baseline.  Is there any other single class setup you  are particularly concerned about?




Baseline should probably be 1d8+5. Note most clerics are 1d6+2 or 3.

Previous page I did not ignore haste but its daily effect and it takes a long time to come online. 

A level 5 battlemaster can probably grant more attacks than a lvl 5  Sorcerer.  Haste is limited supply daily effect  drawback and can be countered and interrupted.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2018)

> You're missing the point.
> 
> It's just like how people didn't like 4e because everyone got "spells".



 It is exactly like that:  ridiculous.

The fighter chassis has limited-use powers, the BM has rest-recharge CS Dice.  The EK literally casts spells.  Heck every single class in the 5e PH uses spells somehow.  And nobody pretends people don't like it for that.

"XOMG! Fighters cast spells!" is a dead stalking horse.



> a class where a single character can learn every single power available to the class with enough time and money doesn't map very well to any other class in the game, making it a poor analogy for class design.



 Actually, the only flaw in that analogy is the money.  
'Exploits' were not (& 'Gambits' should not be )like the magical powers of sorcerers or the lifetime-of-training BM manuevers, they're the kinds of unexpected battle plans and extemporaneous St Crispin Day speeches that turn the tide in an historic battle.  Modeling that absolutely demands flexibility - significantly more than 4e's structure provided.  



Zardnaar said:


> May have got buried or a lot of ideas came up. It's not just Rogue being a problem.



 Bottom line: if the game can't handle an action grant because some PCs might be that OP or none might be even viable, then the game is already broken.

Let's not work off that assumption. Cut 5e some slack.




Hussar said:


> Healing was not iconic to warlords.  It simply wasn't.



 Conceptually, it was inspiration, not healing - 'healing' keyword, surge, and hp-restoration mechanics notwithstanding.
And, yes, with Inpriring Presence at the core of one of the two PH builds restoring hps, and every warlord having Inspiring Word, Inspiration modeled by hp restoration is iconic to the class.



> I mean, good grief, of the 4 at wills in the PHB, 2 grant attacks, 1 grants a buff and 1 grants movement.



 One granted an attack, the other caused the targets shift to provoke, generally preventing it from shifting.
None of the Clerics PH at wills healed, either, two granted attack bonuses, something more iconic of the tactical warlord (Tactical Presence doing just that)


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 30, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Baseline should probably be 1d8+5. Note most clerics are 1d6+2 or 3.




Wow.  You think the baseline damage a warlord is going to grant in a typical party is going to be 1d8+5?  It's not like he isn't picking the best damage dealer in whatever party he is in?


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Wow.  You think the baseline damage a warlord is going to grant in a typical party is going to be 1d8+5?  It's not like he isn't picking the best damage dealer in whatever party he is in?




It's because you don't always ha a great weapon fighter in the party. 

You usually have a sword and board or someone using a d8 weapon.


----------



## mellored (Mar 30, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Haven't done much with the subclasses and not 100% happy with all the features, but it's a framework of a tactical class.
> It's got choices each round and plays with reactions and initiative a little. And it gives you the opportunity to work out a "plan" with an ally that leaves less to chance.
> 
> How's your warlord going?



I like that stratagem idea.  It's open and flexible.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> What's your thoughts about battlemaster superiority dice?



They’re okay. 
But the fighter subclasses are an example of terrible design, lacking any story or character hooks.

I would have preferred fighter subclasses with story but an optional rules that could be slotted into all fighters to give them complexity. Such as a wapping out Action Surge for Maneuvers so all fighters could remain simple or complex depending on the player’s preference.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> When you can spend a whole post giving criticisms and complaints about my warlord attempt and then finally getting around to asking how it actually works in the last post...  I don't think such really deserves a response





FrogReaver said:


> When you can spend a whole post giving criticisms and complaints about my warlord attempt and then finally getting around to asking how it actually works in the last post...  I don't think such really deserves a response



I questioned in my first post, but your answer didn’t, well, answer my question.
(Which, incidentally, is more than you did when you “reviewed” my warlord. No comments on powers, no suggestions on what could be imbalanced or rephrased. Nothing to help me rework or improve the design.)

Look, if it’s not clear how a set of mechanics works, then it might need to be rephrased or tweaked. I’m *trying* to give honest feedback on the design. If you can’t be bothered to properly response to the feedback, let alone even considering changing the design based on feedback, them I am wasting my time looking at your designs and asking for your feedback on my work.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 30, 2018)

mellored said:


> I like that stratagem idea.  It's open and flexible.



The wording is awkward in places (it’s a complex power with a lot of clarifications needed) but I’m pretty happy with that. I’m considering moving it to level 6 to make it available earlier, especially as it became a centerpiece ability with the later features. It’s meant to encourage tactical thinking and rewards strategy, which is the hook of the warlord. And while it can grant that extra attack, but isn't as limited as “make and extra attack”.

Poking away at the extra action subclass at the moment. At-will attack granting still might be too much. But once every short rest is too rarely. 
I’m really leaning on “when you roll initiative” as a recharge mechanic for warlord. Possibly too much...


----------



## mellored (Mar 30, 2018)

And here's my warlord revision #364


Tactician:
Intelligence is your primary stat, as it allows you to analyze battles and formulate plans. Charisma is also important as it allows you to better trick enemies and encourage allies. Some tacticians also like to use weapons, so some strength or dexterity would be useful.

Hit Dice: 1d8
Weapons: All simple and martial weapons.
Armor: Light and medium armor. Shields.
Saves: Int, Wis, Cha

*Level 1*: Tactical Awareness: You survey the battlefield looking for an opening, keeping several plans in mind. You can have a maximum number of tactical points equal to Intelligence modifier + your tactician level (minimum 1). When you roll initiative, your pool is set to half this amount (rounded down). You can spend these points on tactical features. Unless otherwise stated, tactical features require you to clearly see the target, the target must clearly hear you, and no action is required.

Assess the Situation: As an action during battle, you gain a number of tactician points equal to your Intelligence modifier.

Tactics: Choose 2 tactics choices below, and gain additional ones according to the level chart. You can change out which tactics you have prepared after a short rest. The save DC for any Tactician ability is 8 + your charisma modifier.
In addition, you and your allies can come up with your own plan.  Your DM determines the point cost.

*Level 2*: Bolt of Insight: As a bonus action you gain a number of tactician points equal to your proficiency modifier, up to your maximum. Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again until you take a short rest.

Quick Assessment: You can use your reaction to instantly know a creature's exact AC, saving throw modifier for a particular ability score, or to-hit roll or save DC for a particular attack or spell.


*Level 3*: Command Style: Select a command style. Your choice gives you additional features at levels ???

Bravado: Your lead from the front style brings you close to the action, allowing you to analyze foes up close and personal. Whenever you take the attack action or are attacked, you gain 1 tactical point.
Guerilla: Hit and run is the name of your game. Whenever you use Assess the Situation, you can hide as a bonus action. In addition, you gain 1 additional tactical points at the start of each battle.
Crier: You like stand back to get a larger overview of the battlefield, shouting your commands in a booming voice. Rarely drawing your weapon you focus on adapting to the situation. When you use Assess the Situation and do not move on your turn, you gain additional tactical points equal to half your warlord level. In addition, you can project your voice twice as far as normal.
Rascal: Your style revolves around tricking the enemy. You gain the minor illusion cantrip. When you cast an illusion spell, you gain 1 tactical point. Intelligence is your casting modifier.
Bastion: A favored of dwarves, your style is to draw a hard line in the sand, and defend it from all invaders. When you use Assess the Situation, select a 10x10 cube on the ground as your point. When you use a Tactic on a creature in that zone, you regain 1 tactical point immediately afterward.


*Level 5*: Improved Tactical Awareness: At the start of each of your turns during battle, you gain 1 tactical point. This increases to 2 points at level 11, and 3 points at level 17.



*Tactics:*

Fight On!: (1 point) When an ally takes damage, you can spend a tactical point to let them spend a hit die and add your Charisma modifier, reducing the damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.
Cunning Strike: (1+ point) When you take the attack action, instead of rolling an attack roll, the target makes an Intelligence saving throw. If they fail, you hit and deal an extra 1d8 damage for each point spent.
Direct the Strike: (3 points): When an ally takes an attack action, they can make 1 additional attack against the same target.
Skirmish: (1-5 points) When a creature is hit by an opportunity attack, they gain a bonus to AC against the attack equal to your twice the number of points you spent, potentially changing the results.
First Strike: (1+ points) When a creature rolls initiative, you can Opportunity bonus equal to the number of points spent.
Sacrificial Opportunity: (1+ points) When a creature would make a melee attack against you, you can be automatically be hit in order to have it provoke an opportunity attack from one creature adjacent to it, excluding yourself. Reduce the damage you take by a 1d6 for each point spent.
Drive the Point: (1+ points) When a creature makes with an attack, you can spend a tactical point to increase the roll of the d20 by 1 for each point spent, up to a maximum of 20. Potentially turn a miss into a hit or a hit into a crit.


Multi-classing: 13 Int, 13 Cha. You gain proficiency in either Intelligence of Charisma saving throws.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I questioned in my first post, but your answer didn’t, well, answer my question.
> (Which, incidentally, is more than you did when you “reviewed” my warlord. No comments on powers, no suggestions on what could be imbalanced or rephrased. Nothing to help me rework or improve the design.)
> 
> Look, if it’s not clear how a set of mechanics works, then it might need to be rephrased or tweaked. I’m *trying* to give honest feedback on the design. If you can’t be bothered to properly response to the feedback, let alone even considering changing the design based on feedback, them I am wasting my time looking at your designs and asking for your feedback on my work.




Sure and yet, Criticizing a whole design and the choices made for it before you even take the time to understand the abilities in question isn't a constructive exercise.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]

I finally dug up my earlier posts regarding my Warlord Design.  Hopefully this explains it better than my hastily put together attempt.



FrogReaver said:


> *Warlord's Aid *- Aid takes many forms.  Sometimes it comes from an inspiring shout and an ally is urged to fight on after being hit.  Sometimes it's sharing tactical brilliance that helps an ally knock an enemy prone.  Sometimes it's your own bravery and fighting that inspires allies instead of your words.  Other times it comes from an insightful understanding of your foes that enables you to alert your allies out of dangers way just in time.  Whatever the sources for your ability to aid other's it's frequency and power is renowned amongst your friends.
> 
> Abilities granted by Warlord's Aid can be used once per round in combat.  Aid abilities generally require a trigger and grant an effect.  These abilities do not require any kind of action on your part.  Warlord's Aid abilities improve at 5th and 11th level granting improved effectiveness to your already chosen maneuvers as well as opening up a few new ones.






FrogReaver said:


> I wanted to expand on this *Warlord's Aid *style of ability a little and the theory around how and why it will work.
> 
> Almost all the Warlord classes power will come by it's aids.  Aid's will start with minor effects.  At level 5 they will upgrade and start providing extra damage, extra attacks, and stronger buffs and debuffs.  At level 11 they will upgrade again and provide even stronger effects.
> 
> This means the Warlord base class will not see extra attack.  However, some level 5+ Aid's will feature him being able to make a second attack when he uses that particular Aid.  Some may even feature an ally getting an extra attack.  By removing extra attack and most other ways of scaling Warlord Damage we allow *Warlord's Aid* to empower some pretty strong effects while still being able to remain at will.






FrogReaver said:


> So my ideal progression in the early levels:
> 1. * Warlords Ability* _(once per round ability with a wide variety of effects.  I prefer using triggers like attacking, hitting or an ally being hit etc to help allow the warlord to grant allies abilities on their turn, these would cost no kind of action or reaction)_
> 2. * Subclass Ability*
> 3. * Enhanced Warlord's Ability* _(a few powered up extra uses of the ability per short rest, healing will be a power up on some of the abilities)_
> ...


----------



## Jester David (Mar 31, 2018)

mellored said:


> *Level 1*: Tactical Awareness: You survey the battlefield looking for an opening, keeping several plans in mind. You can have a maximum number of tactical points equal to Intelligence modifier + your tactician level (minimum 1). When you roll initiative, your pool is set to half this amount (rounded down). You can spend these points on tactical features. Unless otherwise stated, tactical features require you to clearly see the target, the target must clearly hear you, and no action is required.



It might be easier to phrase this differently, rather than defining the maximum and then halving that. Perhaps having a base amount of Tactical Points and then saying the maximum is twice that number. 

Still, that seems low. With a 14 Int, at level 1 you'd have 1 point at the start of combat. Not much to do stuff with. At level 2-3 you'd have 2, level 4-5 you'd have 3, 6-7 you'd have 4. At level 8 you might boost Int to 16... and still end up with 5. Might as well just go 1/2 level +1.
Or even 1/2 proficiency at low levels, a feature that makes it proficiency at mid-levels, and finally twice proficiency at higher levels...



mellored said:


> Assess the Situation: As an action during battle, you gain a number of tactician points equal to your Intelligence modifier.



This has a high action cost. Most combats only last 2-3 rounds. Burning your entire turn to do this means you might get a bunch of cool stuff the next round... that you might not be able to use. 
(This would be a playtesting question to see how that worked in play.)
Especially after level 5 when you might be gaining 2 TP every turn between the L5 feature and your subclass.



mellored said:


> Tactics: Choose 2 tactics choices below, and gain additional ones according to the level chart. You can change out which tactics you have prepared after a short rest. The save DC for any Tactician ability is 8 + your charisma modifier.
> In addition, you and your allies can come up with your own plan.  Your DM determines the point cost.



The "choose two" seems awkward given you automatically know all the tactics. Maybe "you can prepare two tactics at the end of each short or long rest". Or even preparing a number equal to your proficiency bonus. 
Unsure about Charisma to saves. It makes the class a little MAD.



mellored said:


> *Level 2*: Bolt of Insight: As a bonus action you gain a number of tactician points equal to your proficiency modifier, up to your maximum. Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again until you take a short rest.



This feels a little redundant with Assess the Situation. Does there need to be two powers that do roughly the same thing? And if you can do this pretty much every other fight, why would you Assess the Situation? 
It's potentially confusing to have two different abilities restoring the same pool but granting different amounts. Instead, it could be "You can used Assess the Situation as a bonus action. Once you do so, you must complete a short rest to use this feature again."  



mellored said:


> Quick Assessment: You can use your reaction to instantly know a creature's exact AC, saving throw modifier for a particular ability score, or to-hit roll or save DC for a particular attack or spell.



Reactions tend to have a trigger worked into the power. "When attacked you use your reaction to..." or "when the clock strikes three, as a reaction you..." 

This is also very dissociated. Combat starts, everyone rolls initiative. The warlord immediately looks at the unknown creature and guesses its AC or Dexterity save before anyone has acted. What are they assessing? 



mellored said:


> [*]Fight On!: (1 point) When an ally takes damage, you can spend a tactical point to let them spend a hit die and add your Charisma modifier, reducing the damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.



Is there an associated reaction? Or can you just do this at-will? (A question for most of these powers.)



mellored said:


> [*]Cunning Strike: (1+ point) When you take the attack action, instead of rolling an attack roll, the target makes an Intelligence saving throw. If they fail, you hit and deal an extra 1d8 damage for each point spent.



This is weird but I kinda dig it. Tricking someone into taking a weapon attack. An extra d8 might be a bit high though. A Bravado warlord could do this every round dealing 2d8 each round. Pretty high for what amounts to a level 3 cantrip. Would Str and Dex still be applied to the damage? 



mellored said:


> [*]Skirmish: (1-5 points) When a creature is hit by an opportunity attack, they gain a bonus to AC against the attack equal to your twice the number of points you spent, potentially changing the results.



A +10 bonus to AC is pretty high. 



mellored said:


> [*]Direct the Strike: (3 points): When an ally takes an attack action, they can make 1 additional attack against the same target.





mellored said:


> [*]Drive the Point: (1+ points) When a creature makes with an attack, you can spend a tactical point to increase the roll of the d20 by 1 for each point spent, up to a maximum of 20. Potentially turn a miss into a hit or a hit into a crit.



These do mirror the lazylord nicely, with the character just standing back and using Assess on their turn to keep themselves maxed with TP, and then dolling these bonuses out as needed. Especially paired with the Crier. 
"Okay, I'm level 4 and have an Int of 18. I assess and gain 6 TP. Bobby misses with his greatclub attack. Take 2 TP and hit. And attack again while at it. And Diana does a flurry. I can give her 1 to her roll as well."

I can imagine it getting a little fiddly. "I give him 2 points. Does a 16 hit? How about a 17? An 18 then? Just tell me the AC then and I'll subtract the right amount of TP..." It's a little too clean. Adding a "one per turn" limit keeps that less busy, and it might be more dramatic to make it 1d4/2TP spent.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> The wording is awkward in places (it’s a complex power with a lot of clarifications needed) but I’m pretty happy with that. I’m considering moving it to level 6 to make it available earlier, especially as it became a centerpiece ability with the later features. It’s meant to encourage tactical thinking and rewards strategy, which is the hook of the warlord. And while it can grant that extra attack, but isn't as limited as “make and extra attack”.
> 
> Poking away at the extra action subclass at the moment. At-will attack granting still might be too much. But once every short rest is too rarely.
> I’m really leaning on “when you roll initiative” as a recharge mechanic for warlord. Possibly too much...




And the solution is to use battlemaster dice.

Tactical Warlord
Lvl 1. Inspiring word (1g8+WL level, subclass abilites)
Lvl 2. "Healing Surge" or chanel divinity equivilent, 2 gambits
Lvl 3. Subclass ability, battleaster dice
Level 4. ASI
Level 5. +1 gambit, grant action/short rest

Assuming 2 short rests thats 15 granting something per long resy, you can get the martial adept feat that is another dice 6/short rest
 At this point you're probably overpowering vs Sorcer but you can't lob a fireball as an option. If you have a gambit that is grant an attack+riderthats around 18 attack grant/long rest

(4 dice,+1 dice via feat,+1 gambit, +1 action grant). Thats 7/short rest, 21 over a long rest including 3 action grant.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 31, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> And the solution is to use battlemaster dice.




I did that earlier: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/174898/5MWD-Presents-Maneuvers--Commander

But feedback given to WotC shows that people prefer to leave superiority dice as the battle master’s “thing”. So I’ll respect that...


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I did that earlier: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/174898/5MWD-Presents-Maneuvers--Commander
> 
> But feedback given to WotC shows that people prefer to leave superiority dice as the battle master’s “thing”. So I’ll respect that...




So make a functional class, screw what others say.

 Make attack granting a short rest ability number of time= to you proficiency bonus. You get that ability at level 3. 

 At higher levels you can do it 6/times and can take gambits as well.
You could also grant the it at level 2 I suppose since its weaker than BM dice. Maybe even level 1 is its 2/short rest but it makes it a great level dip.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> So make a functional class, screw what others say.
> 
> Make attack granting a short rest ability number of time= to you proficiency bonus. You get that ability at level 3.
> 
> ...




I’m still curious about how David Jester feels battlemaster dice aren’t too much like spells for a warlord to use.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 31, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I’m still curious about how David Jester feels battlemaster dice aren’t too much like spells for a warlord to use.




I suppose they're just sufficiently inferior ...
...and short-rest-recharge. 

Mike's Tactical Insights and Gambits, OTOH, they're dailies and Gambits are learned, swapped out on a long rest and used spontaneously.  

He was using the EK as a template, of course...


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 31, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I suppose they're just sufficiently inferior ...
> ...and short-rest-recharge.
> 
> Mike's Tactical Insights and Gambits, OTOH, they're dailies and Gambits are learned, swapped out on a long rest and used spontaneously.
> ...




Irrelevant completely different chasis we're building a support class not a warrior with a side helping of  support.

If you have BM dice or tie attack granting to proficiency saves and throw in some gambits they can learn and they can get another none via feat they grow into it like the Sorcerer who devotes things to haste I suppose.

 Natural spell was level 6 in a previous edition, now its 18. Either idea above solves the attack granting thing and lets you use it on Rogues which is 2-3 rounds of damage anyway so even if its not every round comparatively you're doing roughly the same thing. 

And its fun to grant attacks to the Rogue.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 31, 2018)

In case anyone is wondering or feeling discouraged, the Warlord conversation of the past few weeks have been far more cordial than in the past. Good work, everyone!


----------



## Jester David (Mar 31, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I’m still curious about how David Jester feels battlemaster dice aren’t too much like spells for a warlord to use.



Why?
How does that help make a warlord? That's just an argument. Fighting for the sake of fighting. Edition warring by proxy. 

Crap like that is why I'm so dismissive of warlord threads, because the posters would rather fight about  like "what is or is not a spell" or the nature of hit points that actually do the work of designing a warlord class.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 31, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> And the solution is to use battlemaster dice.



 Or subsume CS dice into a more consistent mechanic...



Zardnaar said:


> Irrelevant completely different chasis we're building a support class not a warrior with a side helping of  support.



 Not irrelevant, entirely.  The fighter sub-class he tossed together is essentially "1/3rd Warlord" focused on the Tactical & Bravura builds in a similar sense to the EK being a 1/3rd wizard focused on evocation & abjuration (especially had the EK come only with a handful of spells just from those schools).

So you could extrapolate the first 7 levels of a similar-design-philosophy Warlord from it, the same way you could reverse-engineer wizard from EK.


----------



## mellored (Mar 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It might be easier to phrase this differently, rather than defining the maximum and then halving that. Perhaps having a base amount of Tactical Points and then saying the maximum is twice that number.



Yea, the wording could possibly be cleaned up in several places.



> Still, that seems low. With a 14 Int, at level 1 you'd have 1 point at the start of combat. Not much to do stuff with. At level 2-3 you'd have 2, level 4-5 you'd have 3, 6-7 you'd have 4. At level 8 you might boost Int to 16... and still end up with 5. Might as well just go 1/2 level +1.
> Or even 1/2 proficiency at low levels, a feature that makes it proficiency at mid-levels, and finally twice proficiency at higher levels...



1 point unless you spend your action, yes.  This is just level 1, you get more ways to charge later.

Starting each battle with 1/2 proficency sounds good.  Though I have other ideas for scaling.  Mainly, each sub-class will have a condition to gain more points, plus some general boosts in the core class.  That gives each sub-class a unique play-style, while retaining flexibility.



> This has a high action cost. Most combats only last 2-3 rounds. Burning your entire turn to do this means you might get a bunch of cool stuff the next round... that you might not be able to use.



This let's you trade 1 action to grant 1 attack.  And it allows the class to be a hybrid of at-will and limited resources.

Though, maybe remove the Int part and make it a flat +3.  Then even low Int tacticans can grant attacks, at least at level 6.



> Unsure about Charisma to saves. It makes the class a little MAD.



Saves don't force you to level up in a stat.  I mean, wizards get Wis saves, but rarely boost Wis beyond 12.
You can pick and choose.  There's aren't many Int or Cha features.  Which (hopefully) will be easy enough to skip and good enough to focus on.
So (ideally) you can go Str/Int, Str/Cha, Int/Cha, Dex/Int, ect...

Though, another reason to remove Int from Assess the situation.



> It's potentially confusing to have two different abilities restoring the same pool but granting different amounts. Instead, it could be "You can used Assess the Situation as a bonus action. Once you do so, you must complete a short rest to use this feature again."



Good idea.
And another reason to make Assess the Situaition a flat bonus.



> The warlord immediately looks at the unknown creature and guesses its AC or Dexterity save before anyone has acted. What are they assessing?



The way it moves, it's armor, it's weapons, the size of it's legs and arms, how it carries itself, ect...  "The orc is wearing heavy armor and a shield" gives you a rough idea.  A tactician can be a bit more precises.



> Is there an associated reaction? Or can you just do this at-will? (A question for most of these powers.)



At-will.  No action.
It's why I keep the points low.  And use an action to recharge them.



> This is weird but I kinda dig it. Tricking someone into taking a weapon attack. An extra d8 might be a bit high though. A Bravado warlord could do this every round dealing 2d8 each round. Pretty high for what amounts to a level 3 cantrip. Would Str and Dex still be applied to the damage?



Yes, a bravada could do 2d8+str each round, using Cha as the "to-hit" save.  A rogue can do 3d6+dex.  
Maybe a little strong.

It would probably be better to break it up into 2 tactics.
1 point to trick people.
1 point to add 1d8 damage.



> A +10 bonus to AC is pretty high.



5 points is a lot to spend.
That's more than an action's to negate an oppertunity attack.

Though for some reason "You don't need to roll" seems to generate less anger than "+10".  Just look at how many people complain about rogues expertise, but no one takes spider climb.
So i'll switch it to flat avoid an OA.  Less out-of-turn rolling that way too.



> These do mirror the lazylord nicely, with the character just standing back and using Assess on their turn to keep themselves maxed with TP, and then dolling these bonuses out as needed. Especially paired with the Crier.



Yup.  That's the lazy-lord sub-class.
Though, I'll switch it to +Int points, since I'm removing Int from the base Assess the Situation.



> I can imagine it getting a little fiddly. "I give him 2 points. Does a 16 hit? How about a 17? An 18 then? Just tell me the AC then and I'll subtract the right amount of TP..." It's a little too clean. Adding a "one per turn" limit keeps that less busy, and it might be more dramatic to make it 1d4/2TP spent.



Hence why you can use a reaction to tell someone's AC.

But yea, it should be 1/event.  (I still want to be able to let someone avoid an OA, and help on an attack in the same turn).

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Why?
> How does that help make a warlord? That's just an argument. Fighting for the sake of fighting. Edition warring by proxy.
> 
> Crap like that is why I'm so dismissive of warlord threads, because the posters would rather fight about  like "what is or is not a spell" or the nature of hit points that actually do the work of designing a warlord class.




When you criticisize other's work as being to spell-like it's going to be expected you be able to explain why you don't feel other similar mechanics already in the game don't fall under that same category or else it looks more like you saying something was too spell-like was just you being dismissive for no good reason.

*Remember it was you that brought up the too spell-like criticism not me.  *Maybe I should as you a similar question to what you asked me when you said "How does that help make a warlord?"  So Jester, How does calling a mechanic too spell-like help make a warlord if your not willing to discuss what the cut-off point for too spell-like is?

Oh and just to make it clear, *the answer to your question* "How does that help make a warlord?"  It allows us to determine whether your original criticism may have merit.  If it doesn't have merit we can just ignore it.  If it does have merit then it helps define what the line between too spell-like and not too spell-like is.  (Merit being whether your criticism is a criticism to 5e as a whole which can be disregarded or if it's only applicable to the specific warlord mechanic in question which is something that should be considered)

I do have one ultimate curiosity.  How is it that you can bring up the issue of something being to spell like and that's not edition warring by proxy, or fighting about what's a spell and what's not a spell.  But for some reason it's only the person that challenges you about such things that's edition warring by proxy and fighting about what's a spell and not a spell.  Isn't that a bit hypocritical?  Aren't you just as guilty of the same offenses you hate in others?  Aren't you maybe more guilty for doing the same things you hate them doing and then trying to call them out on those things just for disagreeing with your post?

Oh and one final point, determining whether something is or isn't too spell-like is part of the design process.  This is a community effort.  Just because you think something is too spell-like doesn't mean it gets thrown out as a design automatically.  You've got to convince other's that's the case or at least have enough people here agreeing with you to make it apparent it's a real problem.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Baseline should probably be 1d8+5. Note most clerics are 1d6+2 or 3.
> 
> Previous page I did not ignore haste but its daily effect and it takes a long time to come online.
> 
> A level 5 battlemaster can probably grant more attacks than a lvl 5  Sorcerer.  Haste is limited supply daily effect  drawback and can be countered and interrupted.




I've never once been in a party where the highest damage character did 1d8+mod damage per attack.  Have you?

I do have a point here if you start being reasonable about what the least-highest single attack character you normally see in a party is.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 31, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> When you criticisize other's work as being to spell-like it's going to be expected you be able to explain why you don't feel other similar mechanics already in the game don't fall under that same category or else it looks more like you saying something was too spell-like was just arguing for the sake of arguing.
> 
> *Remember it was you that brought up the too spell-like criticism not me.*



*sigh*

The whole POINT of a design thread is to post your mechanics and get feedback on your design. 
Please refer to my last few interactions with mellored, where I critiqued his design and tried to point out the relevant problems so he could fix them. He agreed with me in a few places and disagreed in others, and the dialogue will make his final design stronger. 
If you _cannot_ take the criticism, then you should not participate in such a thread. 


As far as the Battle Master fighter goes there's a few factors at work. 
First, not all fighters get maneuvers. It's a _choice_. So you can have people who take the martial class and not receive powers. 
Because not everyone wants to play a "spellcaster". And the primary reason is because they don't want to have to manage a lot of fiddly powers, not because they're called "spells" or explicitly magical. The simple characters tend to be "martial" to make it easier to direct people to them.
Having a martial character gain a bunch of fiddly spells chosen from a long list is designing a non-spellcaster class like a spellcaster. It says the class is a martial one when it really isn't. It's a bait and switch. 

The battle master is the compromise design. Because someone people like the concept of playing a warrior but do want some choices of power and complexity. 
But, as far as powers go, they're simple. You choose from a list of just sixteen powers and most are just a paragraph long, being shorter than most spells. And there's very little management required, with most being resolved in a single turn. You also have a small "hand size", starting with three maneuvers for three levels of play, and never learning more than nine at level 15. (A warlock hits nine known spells at level 5, while a sorcerer goes from eight to ten at level 4.)


A _good_ warlord design should appeal to people who don't want to play a spellcaster and not asking them to manage the resources of a full or half spellcaster. (At least by default. That kind of option could be opted into.) 
_Especially_ the healer warlord. The appeal of that build is a healer that _isn't _a spellcaster. So it should not play like one, or the player would just play a cleric/ druid/ bard/ sorcerer/ warlock/ paladin.
If playing a warlord feels like you're playing a cleric with "spells" crossed out and "gambits" or "maneuvers" written in then *the design has failed. *


Meanwhile, your powers are very much designed like this:


FrogReaver said:


> Empowering Strike:
> Trigger: When you attack an enemy
> Level 1 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 1d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
> Level 5 Effect: If you hit you may grant an ally an extra 2d6 damage on his first attack against the enemy
> ...




Which is pretty much this:



That's not remotely how 5e is designed or written.
I suggest actually _*looking*_ at the Battle Master and _reading _how they phrased abilities like Distracting Strike. I'd also point you to the monk to see how the format abilities that rely on modifying features based on points.


Getting into the nitty gritty, the terms "enemy" and "ally" do not appear in the rules of 5e. They're very rarely used in rules text. "Hostile creature" or "target" would be used in the place of the former while "friendly creature" in the latter. 
There's no limitations on the ally line. They can be at any range increment and not have seen the attack. Not that this is always necessary, but requiring sight makes the effect less magical. 
Also, is it any ally? An ally of your choice? The next ally to attack? 
The rules are also gender neutral and do not use terms like "him" or "his". So your "on his first attack" doesn't match the writing style of the rules.  
Plus there's no associated action. "When you attack an enemy" could be after taking the Attack action, making an opportunity attack, or after using the Ready action. Is that the intent?

A better wording would be:_*Empowering Strike.*_ When you take the Attack action on your turn and hit with a melee or ranged attack, the next attack against the target by an attacker other than you deals an additional 1d6 damage. Additionally, you can spend 1 warlord point to give advantage to the next attack roll against the target by a creature other than you.
    The damage of this feature increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).​


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]

Thank you for turning the conversation back in the direction it needed to be.  I'll respond to your post in more detail soon.

I do want to say that I think sometimes what you intend as criticism may come across more as being outright dismissive and it's hard to have a conversation instead of a shouting match when that's what's perceived.  I'm not trying to blame you, just giving you some advice to watch out for posts and comments that can overly come across that way.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

Jester David said:


> *sigh*
> 
> The whole POINT of a design thread is to post your mechanics and get feedback on your design.
> Please refer to my last few interactions with mellored, where I critiqued his design and tried to point out the relevant problems so he could fix them. He agreed with me in a few places and disagreed in others, and the dialogue will make his final design stronger.
> If you _cannot_ take the criticism, then you should not participate in such a thread.




Of course, it definitely would be nice if our interactions go more down that path.



> As far as the Battle Master fighter goes there's a few factors at work.
> First, not all fighters get maneuvers. It's a _choice_. So you can have people who take the martial class and not receive powers.
> Because not everyone wants to play a "spellcaster". And the primary reason is because they don't want to have to manage a lot of fiddly powers, not because they're called "spells" or explicitly magical. The simple characters tend to be "martial" to make it easier to direct people to them.
> Having a martial character gain a bunch of fiddly spells chosen from a long list is designing a non-spellcaster class like a spellcaster. It says the class is a martial one when it really isn't. It's a bait and switch.




#1  I don't think it's necessary to limit the design options of all "martial" classes for the sole purpose of defining martial as being less complex.  There can always be an exception, "most martial classes are not very complex but the warlord is".  Having an exception is not a bait and switch.

#2  If it's really not them being spells or spell-like in nature but instead the complexity of it then please stop referring to the issue as one where they are spell-like.  It's confusing and only serves a dismissive purpose in the conversation.



> The battle master is the compromise design. Because someone people like the concept of playing a warrior but do want some choices of power and complexity.
> But, as far as powers go, they're simple. You choose from a list of just sixteen powers and most are just a paragraph long, being shorter than most spells. And there's very little management required, with most being resolved in a single turn. You also have a small "hand size", starting with three maneuvers for three levels of play, and never learning more than nine at level 15. (A warlock hits nine known spells at level 5, while a sorcerer goes from eight to ten at level 4.)




The abilities I referenced were
1.  Simple
2.  You will choose from a list of maybe 20 or so
3.  Very little management required as most are resovled in a single round
4.  You will have a small hand size in my system as well, 3-5 "maneuvers" and likely ending at somewhere between 10-15 (exact details haven't been worked out)

Like almost everything you are saying about battlemaster maneuvers apply to the abilities I listed for my warlord.



> A _good_ warlord design should appeal to people who don't want to play a spellcaster and not asking them to manage the resources of a full or half spellcaster. (At least by default. That kind of option could be opted into.)




I disagree and I don't see how this has anything to do with good design or should even be considered as a requirement of the design.



> _Especially_ the healer warlord. The appeal of that build is a healer that _isn't _a spellcaster. So it should not play like one, or the player would just play a cleric/ druid/ bard/ sorcerer/ warlock/ paladin.
> If playing a warlord feels like you're playing a cleric with "spells" crossed out and "gambits" or "maneuvers" written in then *the design has failed. *




There we go with the spell-like criticism again...  In fact I think you mentioned it in nearly every paragraph I just quoted.  The bottom line is that none of the warlord powers I'm suggesting are going to make you feel like you are playing a spellcaster any more than battlemaster maneuvers make you feel like you are playing a spell caster.  It's almost like you are a broke record about that... 

I'll reply to the rest later.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 31, 2018)

Continuing my design.
I'll probably avoid uploading another batch until it's closer to done. Likely using up my "space" with uploads.



As you can see above, I changed the name. I'm wont to do that. 
Tactical Acumen is still the big ability here being warlord "cantrips". 4 options each round to choose from, but set so you don't pick. 


*slightly* rephrased Stratagem (trying to keep that clear) and tweaked Overwhelming Assault.


Added Chirurgeon and Guerrilla subclass abilities
Looking at it now, Triage needs a line that clarifies that the ally can use the Healing Surge immediately. :/


Still thinking about the Herald. As you can see, it's the first here that modifies Tactical Acumen, basically giving more "cantrips". 
Also here is the Marshal, which is my attempt to be a bit more lazylord. Uncertain if I want Reposition to be at-will or recharge with initiative or after short rest. 
Direct Assault is totally an at-will attack granter. But, it does require that reaction. And as it's an action, it's replacing two attacks from the PC. 


Not much here. Just a skeleton of future content.


----------



## mellored (Mar 31, 2018)

And here's my warlord revision #365
Changes in green.


Tactician:
Intelligence is your primary stat, as it allows you to analyze battles and formulate plans. Charisma is also important as it allows you to better trick enemies and encourage allies. Some tacticians also like to use weapons, so some strength or dexterity would be useful.

Hit Dice: 1d8
Weapons: All simple and martial weapons.
Armor: Light and medium armor. Shields.
Saves: Int, Wis, Cha

*Level 1*: Tactical Awareness:  Your survey the battlefield and enemies looking for tactical opportunities and openings to exploit. You gain a pool of tactical points equal to your Intelligence modifier + your tactician level (minimum 1).  This pool is emptied every time you move into a new area, though most areas are big enough to encompas a single battle.

Assess the Situation: As an action, you gain 3 tactical points.

Instant Planning: When you roll initiative and have no Tactical points you gain 1 point.

Tactics: At the end of a short rest, you can prepare 2 tactics.  You can prepare additional ones according to the level chart.  You must be able to clearly and communicate with the target for them to benifit.  In a battle, creatures can usually hear you at 60'.  Using a tactic does not require an action, but you can only use 1 per triggering event.  The save DC for any Tactician ability is 8 + your charisma modifier.
In addition, you and your allies can come up with your own plan.  Your DM determines the point cost, and should use the current ones as guidelines.

*Level 2*: Bolt of Insight: You can instantly use Assess the Situation, no action required.  Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again until you take a short or long rest.
You gain an additional use at levels ????

Precision Tactics: You can precisely analyze the way a creature moves, it's armor, it's weapons, the size of it's legs and arms, how it carries itself, ect...  in order to just exactly how much is needed to overcome it.   When you use a Tactic, you can use your reaction to know a creature's relevent scores, such as their exact AC, remaining hit points, saving throw modifier, or to-hit roll for the triggering attack.


*Level 3*: Command Style: Select a command style. Your choice gives you additional features at levels ???

Bravado: Your lead from the front style brings you close to the action, allowing you to analyze foes up close and personal. Whenever you take the attack action or are attacked, you gain 1 tactical point.
Guerilla: Hit and run is the name of your game. Whenever you use Assess the Situation, you can hide as a bonus action. In addition, you gain 1 additional tactical points at the start of each battle.
Crier: You like stand back to get a larger overview of the battlefield, shouting your commands in a booming voice. Rarely drawing your weapon you focus on adapting to the situation. When you use Assess the Situation and do not move on your turn, you gain additional tactical points equal to half your warlord level. In addition, you can project your voice twice as far as normal.
Rascal: Your style revolves around tricking the enemy. You gain the minor illusion cantrip. When you cast an illusion spell, you gain 1 tactical point. Intelligence is your casting modifier.
Bastion: A favored of dwarves, your style is to draw a hard line in the sand, and defend it from all invaders. When you use Assess the Situation, select a 10x10 cube on the ground as your point. When you use a Tactic on a creature in that zone, you regain 1 tactical point immediately afterward.


Level 4, 8, 12, 16, 19: ABI

*Level 5*: Improved Awareness: Analyzing a situation is now second nature.  At the start of each of your turns, you gain 1 tactical point.  In addition, increase the number of points you gain from Assess the Sitaution to 4.

*Tactics*

Fight On!: (1 point) When an ally takes damage, you can spend a tactical point to let them spend a hit die and add your Charisma modifier, reducing the damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.
Cunning Strike: (1 point) When you take the attack action, instead of rolling an attack roll, the target makes an Intelligence saving throw. If they fail, you hit.
[*]Explot Weakness: (1+ points) When a creature hits another creature with an attack, it deals 1d6 extra damage per point spent.  If you delt the damage, increase it to 1d8 damage for each point spent.

Direct the Strike: (3 points): When an ally takes an attack action, they can make 1 additional attack against the same target.
Skirmish: (1-5 points) When a creature is hit by an opportunity attack, they gain a bonus to AC against the attack equal to your twice the number of points you spent, potentially changing the results.
First Strike: (1+ points) When a creature rolls initiative, you can Opportunity bonus equal to the number of points spent.
Sacrificial Opportunity: (1+ points) When a creature would make a melee attack against you, you can be automatically be hit in order to have it provoke an opportunity attack from one creature adjacent to it, excluding yourself. Reduce the damage you take by a 1d6 for each point spent.
Drive the Point: (1+ points) When a creature makes with an attack, you can spend a tactical point to increase the roll of the d20 by 1 for each point spent, up to a maximum of 20. Potentially turn a miss into a hit or a hit into a crit.
[*]Reinforce Mind: (2+ points) When a creature makes a Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma saving throw, they gain a bonus to the save equal to half the number of points spent.
[*]No Gambit Wasted: (1+ points) You can see when an effect will fail, and stop your ally from wasting their effort.  When a creature cast a spell or uses another resource, and fails against all the targets, you can spend a number of points equal to the spell level or feature level (fighters get action surge at level 2, so it cost 2 points) to stop them before they spend it.  The target effectivly wastes their action to do nothing instead.



Multi-classing: 13 Int, 13 Cha. You gain proficiency in either Intelligence of Charisma saving throws.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 31, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't think it's necessary to limit the design options of all "martial" classes for the sole purpose of defining martial as being less complex.  There can always be an exception, "most martial classes are not very complex but the warlord is".  Having an exception is not a bait and switch.



 You're right, of course.  It is nothing more than simple prejudice to believe that everyone wanting to play a non-supernatural character is necessarily looking for simplistic mechanics and not interested in exercising system mastery or player agency.

The popularity of the fighter has held steady through all editions, from the bone-simple fighting man, to the high-damage TWFing weapon-specialist, to the complex builds of 3.x, to the 4e 'defender' with more powers than any other class, to the backlash of Essentials ushering in the simplified 'striker' Slayer sub-class, through to 5e offering an even simpler more DPR-specialized Champion and the nominally more complex BM. 

It's the relatable, genre-appropriate concept of the hero, fighting bravely without any supernatural powers of his own to aid him, that is popular, not the varied and often inadequate mechanics that D&D has used to model it.

The BM does not go nearly far enough in allowing anyone wanting to play a non-magical concept to still play a choice-rich, mechanically engaging character.  The Warlord is free of the  expectations surrounding the fighter of past editions, so can afford to be at least as 'complex' as it was in 4e - preferably as flexible and potentially high-contributing as the extant 5e support classes.


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 31, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I've never once been in a party where the highest damage character did 1d8+mod damage per attack.  Have you?
> 
> I do have a point here if you start being reasonable about what the least-highest single attack character you normally see in a party is.




 Yes I have our party has one right now. 

Paladin (sword and board, devotion)
Rogue (thief)
Arcana Cleric
Warlock (hexblade, sword and board)

Paladin uses a +2 spear so his base damage is a 1d6+8 I think (duelist, 18 strength +2 spear). The thief uses a +1 dagger. Said spear also gives resistance to lightning. Before they found the weapons they were doing 1d8+ mod damage (+ duelist).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Yes I have our party has one right now.
> 
> Paladin (sword and board, devotion)
> Rogue (thief)
> ...




1.  Even then it's not 1d8 + mod.  If you are willing to add duelist in then I am willing to drop to 1d8.  Can we agree there?
2.  The warlock hexblade likely uses hex to do an extra 1d6 or some other buff spell to add advantage to his attacks?

So right there in your group you have 2 characters each doing very very close to 2d6 + mod.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 31, 2018)

Would it be helpful for warlord class adoption if his primary ability was structured in such a way that your allies opted in to be helped by you?

Something like:  Choose 1 each of the following offensive, defensive and tactical abilities.  Once per turn you may choose to help your allies that can see or hear you either offensively, defensively or tactically.  On your turn choose offensive, defensive or tactical aid.  Any ally that can see or hear you may choose to gain whatever benefit your ability provides on their turn.  Once this is done then no other ally can benefit from this ability until your next turn.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 31, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Would it be helpful for warlord class adoption if his primary ability was structured in such a way that your allies opted in to be helped by you?



 It'd be a good idea for any buff to an ally to be clearly opt-in, especially action-grants.  There might be exceptions, like granting a save, that should be useable to snap a charmed ally out if it, for instance.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 1, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It'd be a good idea for any buff to an ally to be clearly opt-in, especially action-grants.  There might be exceptions, like granting a save, that should be useable to snap a charmed ally out if it, for instance.



That's a good catch. My aiding maneuvers require a willing ally, so are already opt-in, but I had not considered a charm or mind-control situation.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Also here is the Marshal, which is my attempt to be a bit more lazylord. Uncertain if I want Reposition to be at-will or recharge with initiative or after short rest.
> Direct Assault is totally an at-will attack granter. But, it does require that reaction. And as it's an action, it's replacing two attacks from the PC.



To enable the lazy lord better I suggest replacing multi-attack with...

Tactical Multi-Attack: When you or a friendly creature takes the attack action, they can make one additional attack as part of that same action.  You can use this feature once per round.

Also, I feel overwhelming assault should be "when a friendly creature deals damage to the target..." so you can include sacred flame and fireball.

Also Also, I still like the select-a-power better than hard-coded powers.  It allows for future more tactical flexibility and customization.
Though, I'll steal a few of your powers.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Would it be helpful for warlord class adoption if his primary ability was structured in such a way that your allies opted in to be helped by you?



Yes.  If you can mange it without getting to complex.



> Something like:  Choose 1 each of the following offensive, defensive and tactical abilities.  Once per turn you may choose to help your allies that can see or hear you either offensively, defensively or tactically.  On your turn choose offensive, defensive or tactical aid.  Any ally that can see or hear you may choose to gain whatever benefit your ability provides on their turn.  Once this is done then no other ally can benefit from this ability until your next turn.



So whoever's next in inititive can just grab it?  Seems a bit odd.  And giving too much agency away.

Also, bards already have "Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw (damage, and AC for valor) it makes."

Maybe as an option.


In my quick playtests, instant bonuses (reactions when I tried it) work really well.  Your allies all choose their action as normal, and you decide who to help.  Occasionally they'd ask "can you help me avoid this OA so I can smash the wizard in the back" or something like that, so that works nicely.  Plus there's nothing to keep track of beyond your own resources.


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> To enable the lazy lord better I suggest replacing multi-attack with...
> 
> Tactical Multi-Attack: When you or a friendly creature takes the attack action, they can make one additional attack as part of that same action.  You can use this feature once per round.
> 
> ...




I'm doing both hard coded and sub class ones. 

 Have we figured out the healing rate if nothing else and how many of them you get?

SOme sort of healing word ability + some extra Ithink since 5E doesn't use healing surges and you want to be in the same ballpark as a cleric (50-75% ish maybe more low levels?).


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Have we figured out the healing rate if nothing else and how many of them you get?
> 
> SOme sort of healing word ability + some extra Ithink since 5E doesn't use healing surges and you want to be in the same ballpark as a cleric (50-75% ish maybe more low levels?).



A cleric can do anywhere between 0 and several hundred UP worth of healing.  Depending on how they use their resources.

So... no.  There cannot be a hard coded amount that is 50-75% of the clerics.  Not unless we also hard code the cleric's healing.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]
Is this is good enough to count as "healing" to you?

Fight On!: (1 point) When an ally takes damage, you can spend a tactical point to let them spend a hit die and add your Charisma modifier, reducing the damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> Yes.  If you can mange it without getting to complex.
> 
> So whoever's next in inititive can just grab it?  Seems a bit odd.  And giving too much agency away.




Probably so.  It was mostly just a brainstorming thought.  



> Also, bards already have "Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw (damage, and AC for valor) it makes."
> 
> Maybe as an option.




I'm probably not as worried about stepping on the bards toes as I should be.  




> In my quick playtests, instant bonuses (reactions when I tried it) work really well.  Your allies all choose their action as normal, and you decide who to help.  Occasionally they'd ask "can you help me avoid this OA so I can smash the wizard in the back" or something like that, so that works nicely.  Plus there's nothing to keep track of beyond your own resources.




This is probably some of the best feedback in the entire thread.  Thanks for it.  

I think you are right.  Such abilities should probably be the focus of our community build.  They are unique and flavorful and give the feel of a non-magical character helping in the moment instead of using some kind of prolonged effect to help the allies.

I guess that puts us back at debating about whether such an ability should primarily be at-will or per rest?

My concern with per rest powers:
We want some warlords to be able to extra attack and some we don't want to be able to.  If your abilities are all per rest then the question about extra attack either gets hard coded into the class or relegated to subclass selections, neither of which feel like very appealing choices IMO.  If your abilities are at-will you can choose one that essentially grants extra attack which places that decision into the players hand instead of the designers.  

The concern with at will powers:
If most of your "power" is coming from at-will powers then there is limited room to make the character into a good healer.  There is also less room to add other really strong per rest abilities (battle plans etc may be out of scope with a mostly at-will warlord)

I can't think of a way to give a player an actual choice regarding whether he wants his warlord to be more at will or per rest so it's looking to me like this is one of the first major design decisions we will have to choose for the warlord that primarily uses reaction-like abilities.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> @_*FrogReaver*_
> Is this is good enough to count as "healing" to you?
> 
> Fight On!: (1 point) When an ally takes damage, you can spend a tactical point to let them spend a hit die and add your Charisma modifier, reducing the damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.




I'm not sure what the 1 point cost means really but in general something that keys only when they are hit in battle and allows you to heal them should help alleviate my biggest concern with using hit die healing which was efficient out of combat healing with no actual cost on warlord in combat resources.  That said if a player decides to punch another player and succeeds he will take 1 damage and the warlord could presumably use this ability.  

I don't think out of combat usage is totally solved with this version but it's a step in the right direction IMO.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> A cleric can do anywhere between 0 and several hundred UP worth of healing.  Depending on how they use their resources.
> 
> So... no.  There cannot be a hard coded amount that is 50-75% of the clerics.  Not unless we also hard code the cleric's healing.




Yes, but in terms of mechanics we could just look at if the cleric blew all his slots on either cure wounds or healing word (whichever is most like our warlord healing ability in terms of taking your action).  It'd be a good start I would think.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm not sure what the 1 point cost means



It's my attempt to hybridise short rest and at-will.  It's in my post above.

But the TLDR is...
You start a battle with a few points, once per short rest you gain points, and gain more by doing in-battle things based on your subclass (bravada gets more when they are attacked, lazy lord gets more by standing still, guerilla can scout the enemy and plot his ambush).
Then you can save up for a big "short rest" effect or uses them as they come for small "at-will" effects.



> don't think out of combat usage is totally solved with this version but it's a step in the right direction IMO.



what is your concern?

Because it's non-stacking THP, limited to 1 die at a time.  A max of 1d12+11 on a level 20 barbarian, but more likely, 1d8+6 at any any moment.  And daily healing amount of for 1.5 HP per ally per level (with 16 Cha).  A little bit stronger than a paladin's lay on hands.

If you want to go around slapping people to exite them before battle, well, I don't see an issue with it.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> To enable the lazy lord better I suggest replacing multi-attack with...
> 
> Tactical Multi-Attack: When you or a friendly creature takes the attack action, they can make one additional attack as part of that same action.  You can use this feature once per round.



That's a little more awkward because you're granting the ally an attack on their turn. So you're not really using this feature. They are. And you're not the active part. They are. It feels less like giving an extra attack and having them take one. 
It's a small tonal shift, but weird. 

Plus, the extra off turn attack is nice. And it does give you a chance to use those once/turn abilities like Colossus Slayer. And, unlike Zard, I'm less concerned about that extra rogue attack as it requires that little bit of extra coordination to pull off (an ally needs to be adjacent, which isn't likely the lazylord) and getting fun (and slightly broken) combos like that is part of the fun of the game.



mellored said:


> Also, I feel overwhelming assault should be "when a friendly creature deals damage to the target..." so you can include sacred flame and fireball.



That gets into tricky language, because in the case of a fireball, the creature isn't dealing damage, the spell is. 
But it could be phrased to include "targets the creature with a damaging spell" or "includes that creature as the target of a spell that deals damage" something. 



mellored said:


> Also Also, I still like the select-a-power better than hard-coded powers.  It allows for future more tactical flexibility and customization.



I'm just wary to have a martial class with too many level 1 maneuvers/ powers. I prefer having the subclass be the main decision point. Customisation is managed by subclasses, feats, and the like.
Although, a subclass could have more selectable powers and psuedo-maneuvers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> But the TLDR is...
> You start a battle with a few points and gain more by doing in-battle things based on your subclass (bravada gets more when they are attacked, lazy lord gets more by standing still, guerilla can scout the enemy and plot his ambush).
> Then you can save up for a big "short rest" effect or uses them as they come for small "at-will" effects.



 Sounds a bit like the 13A Commander design.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm probably not as worried about stepping on the bards toes as I should be.



 As long as your Warlord doesn't start singing and casting spells, you should be fine.


> I guess that puts us back at debating about whether such an ability should primarily be at-will or per rest?



 Most classes have a combination of both.


> My concern with per rest powers:
> We want some warlords to be able to extra attack and some we don't want to be able to.  If your abilities are all per rest then the question about extra attack either gets hard coded into the class or relegated to subclass selections, neither of which feel like very appealing choices IMO.



 There aren't many Warlord sub-class concepts that really cry out for it:  bravura, mainly, so dropping it in a sub-class would be fine, regardless of resource mix, otherwise.
There are several examples of such, already, so it's well-established. 

But if you did want a recharge extra attack ability, you could make it work like a Bo9S stance or focus.


> The concern with at will powers:
> If most of your "power" is coming from at-will powers then there is limited room to make the character into a good healer.  There is also less room to add other really strong per rest abilities



 A valid concern, at-wills seem highly valued in the alchemy of D&D design, and would be problematic as healing, unless they consumed another resource, as well, like HD.



> I can't think of a way to give a player an actual choice regarding whether he wants his warlord to be more at will or per rest so it's looking to me like this is one of the first major design decisions we will have to choose for the warlord that primarily uses reaction-like abilities.



 I can't  think of a class that worked that way.  The closest would be 4e utilities, but they represented a relatively small portion of a character's power.

One possibility is to give the warlord at-will maneuvers and a rest-recharge mechanic like the BM's CS dice or the MMHFT fighter-sub-class's Tactical Insight uses, and allow the latter to boost the former in dramatic ways.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> what is your concern?
> 
> Because it's non-stacking THP, limited to 1 die at a time.  A max of 1d12+11 on a level 20 barbarian, but more likely, 1d8+6 at any any moment.  And daily healing amount of for 1.5 HP per ally per level (with 16 Cha).  A little bit stronger than a paladin's lay on hands.
> 
> If you want to go around slapping people to exite them before battle, well, I don't see an issue with it.




I had read your ability as giving both the hp from the hit dice and temp hp.  Looks like that was wrong?


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I had read your ability as giving both the hp from the hit dice and temp hp.  Looks like that was wrong?



my intention was just instant DR/THP.  
So it adds the same amount net HP per day,  but no actual HP recovery.  (It also helps casters keep concentration).

Hence why I was asking if that qualified as "base warlord healing".
A sub-class could have more actual healing.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sounds a bit like the 13A Commander design.



had to look that up, but yea.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> That's a little more awkward because you're granting the ally an attack on their turn. So you're not really using this feature. They are. And you're not the active part. They are. It feels less like giving an extra attack and having them take one.
> It's a small tonal shift, but weird.



well, you get the idea.  You can reword it to be more active.



> Plus, the extra off turn attack is nice. And it does give you a chance to use those once/turn abilities like Colossus Slayer. And, unlike Zard, I'm less concerned about that extra rogue attack as it requires that little bit of extra coordination to pull off (an ally needs to be adjacent, which isn't likely the lazylord) and getting fun (and slightly broken) combos like that is part of the fun of the game.



sure, but flexible multi-attack also works.

Options are good.



> I'm just wary to have a martial class with too many level 1 maneuvers/ powers



I agree that too many choices at once is a poor design.
But I see no reason what martial has to do with the number of choices.

And for reference, wizards have 29 cantrips to choose from, and 44 1st level spells.
And there are 60 feats.

So really, putting the martial features inside the class instead of as feats will help reduce the number of level 4 choices for everyone else.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> my intention was just instant DR/THP.
> So it adds the same amount net HP per day,  but no actual HP recovery.  (It also helps casters keep concentration).
> 
> Hence why I was asking if that qualified as "base warlord healing".
> A sub-class could have more actual healing.




IMHO, support necessarily includes some ability to stand  up a fallen ally.  Support is most critical when things have already gone wrong.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> I agree that too many choices at once is a poor design.



 Its not so much too many choices as too many choices at first level relative to new choices opening up as you level.  The BM is the poster child for the issue.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> well, you get the idea.  You can reword it to be more active.



It’s a pet peeve of mine in design. I really like when what the story of the mechanic matches the effect. You inspire/ direct someone to take and action, and they do so. You’re the active, and intiating figure in the narrative, and so the mechanic should begin with you.

It could work as a mechanic where in place of an attack you can Ready, and then use your reaction to grant an attack.



mellored said:


> I agree that too many choices at once is a poor design.
> But I see no reason what martial has to do with the number of choices.



Not everyone wants to play a spellcaster. Not everyone wants to be managing multiple powers and choosing between a half-dozen options each round, all competing for the one action. 
Martial characters in 5e are the more simple characters. By design for those people who want that sort of thing. 

Part of the potential appeal of a good warlord class is that it should be lower complexity than a spellcaster like a bard or cleric. Because high complexity healers already exist in the game. The benefit of a non-spellcaster cleric isn’t a healer that works in anti-magic zones or low magic campaigns, but as a healer character for parties who need one that is less complex than a cleric.



mellored said:


> And for reference, wizards have 29 cantrips to choose from, and 44 1st level spells.
> And there are 60 feats.
> 
> So really, putting the martial features inside the class instead of as feats will help reduce the number of level 4 choices for everyone else.



The wizard has 29+44 but the rogue and barbarian have 1: what weapon to choose. And both are subtly limited. And the fighter has six related to weapons. 
Because not everyone wants to pick between a dozen options. Some people just want to be the barbarian or the champion fighter or the rogue. And they should have a healer option as well...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> .
> But I see no reason what martial has to do with the number of choices.



 Simple stereotyping:  if you don't want to play a caster you must want to play a  simplistic character.  You can't possibly have the faculties to handle anything too complicated, or you'd realize you should always play the caster, because they're supposed to be better.
That and the matching stereotype that martial characters are necessarily big dumb meat shields. (Yes, the rogues too, because stereotyping only needs a little confirmation, so, obviously, a brilliant tactician or resourceful opportunist must also be a lunk.)


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It could work as a mechanic where in place of an attack you can Ready, and then use your reaction to grant an attack.



Give it a try, see if it works.



> Not everyone wants to play a spellcaster. Not everyone wants to be managing multiple powers and choosing between a half-dozen options each round, all competing for the one action.



That's fine.  You can play a fighter, or rogue, or barbarian.



> Martial characters in 5e are the more simple characters. By design for those people who want that sort of thing.



And where are the classes for people who do not want to be a spell caster, but DO want to manage half-dozen opens each round?



> Part of the potential appeal of a good warlord class is that it should be lower complexity than a spellcaster like a bard or cleric. Because high complexity healers already exist in the game. The benefit of a non-spellcaster cleric isn’t a healer that works in anti-magic zones or low magic campaigns, but as a healer character for parties who need one that is less complex than a cleric.



And simple martial classes already exsist in the game.



> Because not everyone wants to pick between a dozen options. Some people just want to be the barbarian or the champion fighter or the rogue. And they should have a healer option as well...



Then the solution is to make a simple caster.

Priest:
Level 1: Healer: You gain a pool of healing equal to 2d8 per level, you can use as a bonus action.  You gain sacred flame and light cantrips.
Level 5: Continual Blessing: As an action, select 3 people.  They gain the benifits of the bless spell until you take a long rest, or until you use this feature again.
Level 6: Divine Sustenance: Once per day, you can cast create food and water.
Level 9: Sub-class choice.
*When you roll initiative, you can cast Haste on one creature.
*When you roll initiative, you can cast Spritual Guardian.  
Level 11: Improved Healer: Increase your healing pool to 2d12 per level.
Level 20: You can cast true resurrection without any material components.  Once you do so, you cannot do it again for a week.
etc...


----------



## Jester David (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> That's fine.  You can play a fighter, or rogue, or barbarian.
> And people who want a complex warlord character can play a bard.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Generally people want either complexity or non-complexity and magic is irrelevant. I don't imagine there's many people who want to play a class that's a lot like a spellcaster but just dislike magic.



I disagree.
4e warlord has the same complexity as a 4e wizard (all classes did).  And it was plenty popular.



> There's a gap for the warlord concept, a gap for a martial healer, and a gap for a simpler healer class. Why not marry the three?



There's also a gap for complex martial.  So why not marry all 4?

By say... having a default choice, but still allow alternatives?

Choose 2 tactics, gain 2 later.

Chirurgeon:
Suggested Tactics: HP boost, defense boost, movement boost, grant attack.

Guerrilla:
Suggested Tactics: Sneak boost, initiative boost, movement boost, damage boost.

Lazy: ....
Suggested Tactics: Grant attack, defense boost, initiative boost, damage boost.

Trickster:
Suggested Tactics: Cunning Strike, confuse enemy, damage boost, movement boost.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It’s a pet peeve of mine in design. I really like when what the story of the mechanic matches the effect. You inspire/ direct someone to take and action, and they do so. You’re the active, and intiating figure in the narrative, and so the mechanic should begin with you.
> It could work as a mechanic where in place of an attack you can Ready, and then use your reaction to grant an attack.
> 
> Not everyone wants to play a spellcaster. Not everyone wants to be managing multiple powers and choosing between a half-dozen options each round, all competing for the one action.
> ...





Haven't there been multiple attempts at a "simple" warlord class on DM's guild and other such places that are not very good sellers / not very popular?

Hasn't your preferred method of designing a warlord already been proven to be a failure?  We have the battlemaster, PDK, various DM's guild style offerings.  Why should we give your preferred method of design another chance?


----------



## Jester David (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Haven't there been multiple attempts at a "simple" warlord class on DM's guild and other such places that are not very good sellers / not very popular?



Yes. This is true. Most are of so-so quality. 



FrogReaver said:


> Hasn't your preferred method of designing a warlord already been proven to be a failure?



That is not a reasonable conclusion given the number of other variables at play: the quality of the products, the visibility of the products, the size of the audience, awareness of the author, etc. 



FrogReaver said:


> We have the battlemaster, PDK, various DM's guild style offerings.  Why should we give your preferred method of design another chance?



Because there have also been more complicated versions that have ALSO sold poorly on the DMsGuild. And your method is very much associated with the designs of 4th Edition, which was also famously poorly recieved.
Why then, should we give your preferred method of design another chance?

Thankfully, we are not so limited and can continue to do our own thing with zero impact on the other, and my debating with mellored is unlikely to impact his design or my design.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Thankfully, we are not so limited and can continue to do our own thing with zero impact on the other, and my debating with mellored is unlikely to impact his design or my design.




Then why do it?


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> IMHO, support necessarily includes some ability to stand  up a fallen ally.  Support is most critical when things have already gone wrong.



What about something like...

Last Stand: when an ally is reduce to 0 HP, they are instead reduced to 1 HP.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> What about something like...
> 
> Last Stand: when an ally is reduce to 0 HP, they are instead reduced to 1 HP.




I really like that ability.  Maybe we can figure out a way to make something like that work.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I really like that ability.  Maybe we can figure out a way to make something like that work.



"A creature can only benifit from this once per long rest." Seems like an easy way to limit it.  With maybe "and gains THP equal to your Charisma score" or some such.

But would that be good enough to replace "real" healing?


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Thankfully, we are not so limited and can continue to do our own thing with zero impact on the other, and my debating with mellored is unlikely to impact his design or my design.



Quite the contrary, I've already incorporated most of your suggestions, I'm going to steal some of your maneuvers, and put in in the "quick class" suggestions. 
Maybe even word it so the simple is default, same as they do with items.

_You start with the following items tactics, plus anything provided by your background sub-class.

<insert list>

Alternatively, you may choose any 2 tactic you want from the list.
_
I'm just not going to abandon customization and force simple just because it's a "martial" class.

And I hope my suggestions and ideas are useful to you too.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Haven't there been multiple attempts at a "simple" warlord class on DM's guild and other such places ...?



 More to the point the PDK is already a simple martial support sub-class.  It fails at support because contributing support is not simple, and it fails as a Warlord, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But it's simple, and it fits w/in a sub-set of the concept, so for those players that want to play an inspiring martial leader, and want it in a simple, choiceless,  package, there is already an option.

It's also worth noting that there are no simple classes in 5e, only simple sub-classes, like the Champion, and simple means DPR because that's the only contribution to party success that's innately simple.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> Quite the contrary, I've already incorporated most of your suggestions, I'm going to steal some of your maneuvers, and put in in the "quick class" suggestions.



Right, but my disagreeing isn’t going to make you change your planned complexity.



mellored said:


> I'm just not going to abandon customization and force simple just because it's a "martial" class.



Right. And I’m not going to abandon simplicity and force complexity just because that’s how it was designed in the previous edition.


----------



## mellored (Apr 1, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Right, but my disagreeing isn’t going to make you change your planned complexity.
> 
> 
> Right. And I’m not going to abandon simplicity and force complexity just because that’s how it was designed in the previous edition.



So why don't we work on a way to accomplish both?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> What about something like...
> 
> Last Stand: when an ally is reduce to 0 HP, they are instead reduced to 1 HP.



  I assume that's a reaction?


mellored said:


> "A creature can only benifit from this once per long rest." Seems like an easy way to limit it.  With maybe "and gains THP equal to your Charisma score" or some such.
> 
> But would that be good enough to replace "real" healing?



  No.

It's cool trick, I suppose, but not a main form of 'healing.'  That's got to be able to do the most basic, critical thing support is called on to do:  bring a dropped ally back into the fight, after the fact, not just if you happen to have your reaction available the instant it happened.

It would certainly be cool to have several alternatives, just as Clerics have Cure Wounds, Aid, and Healing Word, among others. 
 You could have Inspiring Word that restores hps in a conventional way, tactical insight that the ally can decide to use for hps rolling over to temps or damage, Aid the Injured as a reaction, and Stand the Fallen as a mass heal.



mellored said:


> So why don't we work on a way to accomplish both?



 As a thought experiment, consider how you might design a sub-class of the wizard that's as simple as the Champion.

To have a sub-class that simple requires a simple chassis, and doesn't leave room for more than a modestly complex alternative to the simple sub-class.  That's why the BM fails as a 'complex' (interesting/high player agency/flexible) fighter like the weaponmaster or even as a customizable one, like the 3.x fighter, even as it and the EK push the fighter, overall, into relative complexity.

But, there's also no need to do both in the Warlord class, the fighter chassis is available to build simpler options, and, indeed, already gave us the simple PDK.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 2, 2018)

So I've switched over to a long rest design for the warlord's primary ability.  I think it's going to be easier accepted.  It plays nicer with healing.  Attack granting on a limited resource basis is also easier to accept.  If we decide it's better to change my abilities to short rest ones then it's easy enough to convert long rest abilities with enough uses to short rest style abilities.

I'm leaning toward 3 subclasses at the moment:
Guerilla
Bravaura
Hero / Savior

I'm leaning toward a level break down kind of like (abilities will be elaborated on below):
Level 1:  Warlord's Aid, Warlord Style 
Level 2:  Helping Insight
Level 3:  Subclass Feature
Level 4: ASI
Level 5: add 1d8 damage per turn, Warlord's Aid uses and power increased.
Level 6: 
Level 7: 
Level 8: ASI 
Level 9:  
Level 10: Subclass
Level 11 2d8 extra damage per turn, Warlord's Aid power increased
...

*Warlord's Aid *- This is your primary ability.  You will have so many Aid Points you can spend per day.  Each ability will cost 1 point and will require no Action unless otherwise stated.  You can use Warlord's Aid once per round.  There will be a list of abilities to choose from.  You will start out knowing maybe 3-5 abilities and possibly have that scale some with level. Each ability will have auto scaling built in.  There will be various flavors of abilities.  Some will require something in combat to happen that you essentially react to and help your ally through either by inspiration or tactics, this may be extra damage for an ally or an extra attack for them or healing etc.  Some be like battle plans and give some kind of benefit at the start of a battle.  Some may be tactical maneuvers you can help your team achieve.  Some may involve a tactical focus similar in style to how Mearls described.

At level 1 these abilities will mostly add 1d4 to various things (for the ones that require a dice).  Others may have a way of auto scaling without a dice effect.  They should be about as strong as 1/4 a spell.  You should probably get 6-8 uses of them per day.

*Warlord's Style* - this gives you a small benefit similar in strength to a fighter's fighting style (or possibly a few uses of a level 1 spell like ability).  You will get one of these abilities to help define your warlord.

*Helping Insight* - provides a resource for you to use Warlord's Aid twice a turn instead of once a turn.  This gives you some NOVA potential or allows you to use a 2nd Warlord's Aid if an unanticipated circumstance arises and you need to react to it after already expending your normal single use of such abilities a round.  

*adding 1d8 damage per turn* - added this in at level 5 to simulate caster cantrip scaling

*Warlord's Aid uses and power increased (level 5)* - Warlord's Aid should auto scale to be about as good as a level 1 spell now.  You should also increases uses to somewhere maybe between 12-16 times per day.

Thoughts opinions so far?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> Conceptually, it was inspiration, not healing - 'healing' keyword, surge, and hp-restoration mechanics notwithstanding.
> ...




What?  Are we really going to be that pedantic.  Sacred Flame, a cleric at-will, granted temp HP with every single attack.  Ok, sure, that's not specifically healing, but, it's pretty darn close.  Never minding that 3rd and 5th are the only 2 levels in Heroic Tier that clerics can't take a healing power.  Ten of the 37 powers available to a cleric healed in heroic tier.  Plus one of the at-will grants temp HP.

THAT'S iconic.  When almost a quarter of the available options are healing, that's a pretty clear signal what that class is about.  

While I get that warlords should heal, and I agree with that, what I'm having a problem with is this idea that healing is the primary thing warlords should be doing.  Warlords were middling healers at best.  You were giving up a LOT to do more than just the basic healing.  

To me, a walord's healing should be in the paladin's range.  That's respectable.  Bit better than say, a ranger and on par with a bard (although not a healing focused bard).  Not a problem.  Five classes have healing available in 5e.  It's not like you need a specialist healing in the group.  

But, when a quarter of the powers that a warlord has to choose from grant some form of action - a movement, an attack, something like that- and frequently grant actions to the entire party at the same time, THAT'S iconic to the warlord.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Continuing my design.
> I'll probably avoid uploading another batch until it's closer to done. Likely using up my "space" with uploads.
> /snip
> Not much here. Just a skeleton of future content.




Sorry, snipped the images, just to save space.  And, since I fell behind in the thread, I might be retreading stuff.  Again sorry.

But, [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] - this is not a warlord.  The only action granting is by one subclass and at 10th level when he gives up an entire action to grant one attack?  Are you kidding me?  

Good grief, this is worse than a Battlemaster.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2018)

And, one more thing.  Can we please stop with the very disingenuous argument that clerics heal 0/day?  Yes, that is possible.  But, it's also extremely unlikely.  Have you ever seen more than one cleric in any campaign in any edition that never had so much as a cure light wounds spell?  So often that it's actually a thing?  

A 10th level cleric has 15 spell slots per day.  It's probably not unreasonable to think that about 30% (or 5 spells per day) are spent on healing.  That's 41 levels of spells, so, again, let's use that 30% benchmark and say about 12d8+15 or so in healing per day.  That's the benchmark we should be aiming for if we're presuming our warlord is a decent healer.  Which means that a cleric can still heal far more than the warlord if he wants to, so, niche protection, but, gives the walord enough heaing that on average, he's doing ok.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, snipped the images, just to save space.  And, since I fell behind in the thread, I might be retreading stuff.  Again sorry.
> 
> But, @_*Jester David*_ - this is not a warlord.  The only action granting is by one subclass and at 10th level when he gives up an entire action to grant one attack?  Are you kidding me?
> 
> Good grief, this is worse than a Battlemaster.



As myself and others have said ad naseum, not every warlord is a lazylord. And none of the published builds fit that description, so it's not even an "official" build. While it should be part of the class, it's not a mandatory part: being a princess warlord is a build. A choice. A character decision. And in 5e, the main decision of your character is their subclass. You opt into that. Which means the action/ movement granting aspects should be in a subclass. 

Looking at the 4e warlord and the 3e marshal, granting movement is common to both. So that's what I prioritised for the marshal subclass. The level 3 power. The level 7 power comes after the level 5 and 6, which were both big abilities (the later being the the default class' Strategem feature, which can _also_ grant someone an off-turn attack if planned in that direction) so that level ended up being a weaker power by design, focusing more on situational or ribbon abilities. That left 10th level for the action granting. 

Granting a full action is just too good. Because it's trading your two attacks for one an amazing rogue attack or three fighter attacks or a high level wizard spell. The cost you pay (what you could do on your action) is so much lower than the benefit (one of your allies' actions). Especially when you consider the action of the support character is likely not going to deal as much damage, since they're not going to have taken those feats or prioritised those ability scores. 
Even trading an attack for an attack runs into the same problems, as their attacks can be so much better than yours. The "cost" seems slightly less since you still need to be in a position to make an attack, but then that means the "princess" warlord still has to make attacks to grant an attack, which removes the potential of just having the character direct actions from the back. 

That said... the ability _could_ grant an action like _haste_. Where you can move or hide or dodge but only make a single attack. But then that's getting into the realm of effectively being able to cast a 3rd level spell at-will and without the spell's downside (the lost turn). 



Hussar said:


> And, one more thing.  Can we please stop with the very disingenuous argument that clerics heal 0/day?  Yes, that is possible.  But, it's also extremely unlikely.  Have you ever seen more than one cleric in any campaign in any edition that never had so much as a cure light wounds spell?  So often that it's actually a thing?
> 
> A 10th level cleric has 15 spell slots per day.  It's probably not unreasonable to think that about 30% (or 5 spells per day) are spent on healing.  That's 41 levels of spells, so, again, let's use that 30% benchmark and say about 12d8+15 or so in healing per day.  That's the benchmark we should be aiming for if we're presuming our warlord is a decent healer.  Which means that a cleric can still heal far more than the warlord if he wants to, so, niche protection, but, gives the walord enough heaing that on average, he's doing ok.



No.
Because your argument is also fairly disingenuous. Are all wizards strikers then because they can choose to memorise a spell that deals damage? Would you make the exact same claim about the druid as you do about the cleric, given druids have access to just as much healing as clerics?

The POINT of that argument is that the cleric =/= healer. They _can _heal, and when they have enough spells to prep they might feel comfortable wasting one on healing, but you can also build a cleric that is a tank (War cleric) or a face (Trickster cleric) or the party sneak (also Trickster cleric) or blaster (Light cleric, Tempest cleric). You can now have a buffing cleric that _isn't_ a healer (Forge cleric). Because 5e classes are not bound to a single role. 
You don't expect the cleric of Loki or Ares or or Tiamat or Shar to heal. To focus their attentions on curing wounds over doing something else with their action. 

As such, the warlord should also not be bound into the single role of the healer, and should have to opt into that build. And as I said above, the decision point for characters is typically the subclass. So a healing subclass would be just fine. Just like the default sorcerer or warlock who also need to subclass into those spells/ abilities.

If you include a healing ability in the warlord, that means all builds of the warlord have some mandated healing. But if the warlord isn't playing the healer, than someone else in the party is likely filling that role. So the warlord doesn't _need_ to heal as there's a Divine Soul sorcerer or bard or Life cleric in the party. Meanwhile, the warlord is expected to be tanking or dealing damage. If one of their major abilities is focused on healing rather than a generic role-neutral ability, then that means they have an ability that does not fit their build and serves little purpose. They're less good at the role they chose to fill—what the player wants to do—and better and something they explicitly chose not to do. 

Could the class have an ability that lets them choose healing? Like a Totem barbarian picks from 3-5 totems or a Hunter ranger picks from a few powers. Sure. I suppose that'd work as well. That could be slotted into level 5*** with "extra attack" being one of the options. But why? At that point it's still coming after the subclass (or the Healer feat). 
What's the benefit?  


*** Why level 5 and not level 1 or 2? 
Fighting Style at level 2 is a little funky, but it's an important choice. Like the paladin and ranger, the class does some fighting, and needs to be able to opt into two-weapon fighting or being better at ranged attacks or wearing armour. That's a key element, as warlords shouldn't be locked into sword-and-board. And giving a choice between "fighting style" and healing would be awkward creating a nesting doll of choices where one choice has its own choices... 

So why then not at first level? Because the first level ability should be a super iconic ability. Something universal. Something that helps define the class. Like sneak attack, rage, bardic inspiration, lay on hands, channel divinity, or unarmed strike. There shouldn't be a choice of abilities here. You shouldn't be able to trade out of your signature power.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2018)

Hussar said:


> While I get that warlords should heal, and I agree with that,



 The game itself is dependent upon hp restoration, and support characters need to provide that, so it's vital.  

And inspiration is iconic.



> , when a quarter of the powers that a warlord has to choose from grant some form of action - a movement, an attack, something like that- .



 Attack-granting was certainly iconic of the Lazy build. 
But I think there's a distinction between thing like Commander's Strike or Knight's Move, that give away an action (no net action economy gain) and those that grant actions beyond what the Warlord gives up like Hammer & Anvil... and, for that matter, ones like Vipers Strike or Brash Assault that only set up one, conditionally, depending on enemy decissions.

But, it's still just iconic in the sense sleep or fireball is iconic to the wizard: any version of the class should have it, but any given member of the class might echew it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 2, 2018)

Jester David said:


> So why then not at first level? Because the first level ability should be a super iconic ability. Something universal. Something that helps define the class. Like sneak attack, rage, bardic inspiration, lay on hands, channel divinity, or unarmed strike. There shouldn't be a choice of abilities here. You shouldn't be able to trade out of your signature power.




1.  I think you are confusing what the unique feature of full casters are...  Hint (it's spells)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 2, 2018)

Jester David said:


> As myself and others have said ad naseum, not every warlord is a lazylord. And none of the published builds fit that description, so it's not even an "official" build. While it should be part of the class, it's not a mandatory part: being a princess warlord is a build. A choice. A character decision. And in 5e, the main decision of your character is their subclass. You opt into that. Which means the action/ movement granting aspects should be in a subclass.




Not caring about "lazy lord".  EVERY SINGLE WARLORD granted actions.  It's iconic to the class.  It's not some minor element that's shunted to a 10th level ability.  You couldn't make a warlord that never granted any actions, be they movement or attacks.  At least, you can't with the PHB.  

And, note that the "warlord" elements that made it into the 5e PHB, are GRANTING ACTIONS!  It's so iconic that that's the ONLY THING from warlords that made the port into 5e.  



> /snip
> Granting a full action is just too good. Because it's trading your two attacks for one an amazing rogue attack or three fighter attacks or a high level wizard spell. The cost you pay (what you could do on your action) is so much lower than the benefit (one of your allies' actions). Especially when you consider the action of the support character is likely not going to deal as much damage, since they're not going to have taken those feats or prioritised those ability scores.
> Even trading an attack for an attack runs into the same problems, as their attacks can be so much better than yours. The "cost" seems slightly less since you still need to be in a position to make an attack, but then that means the "princess" warlord still has to make attacks to grant an attack, which removes the potential of just having the character direct actions from the back.




So, you make an action that costs two attacks.  By 10th level a rogue is doing what, weapon+5d6 damage on a sneak?  Guess what?  That's about 5 points more than what the warlord could do by himself.  A Battlemaster is so far ahead of your class that it's not even funny.



> No.
> Because your argument is also fairly disingenuous. Are all wizards strikers then because they can choose to memorise a spell that deals damage? Would you make the exact same claim about the druid as you do about the cleric, given druids have access to just as much healing as clerics?
> 
> The POINT of that argument is that the cleric =/= healer. They _can _heal, and when they have enough spells to prep they might feel comfortable wasting one on healing, but you can also build a cleric that is a tank (War cleric) or a face (Trickster cleric) or the party sneak (also Trickster cleric) or blaster (Light cleric, Tempest cleric). You can now have a buffing cleric that _isn't_ a healer (Forge cleric). Because 5e classes are not bound to a single role.
> You don't expect the cleric of Loki or Ares or or Tiamat or Shar to heal. To focus their attentions on curing wounds over doing something else with their action.




Ballocks.  EVERY CLERIC played in D&D will have healing spells.  EVERY CLERIC can have healing spells after a long rest.  Same with druids.  

Heck, I play a Forge Cleric.  Guess what?  He casts healing spells.  Shock, surprise.  I just can't believe it.  How you figure that a Forge cleric is a buffing cleric I don't know.  But, anyway, yeah, you could play a cleric that never casts a healing spell, but, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that virtually no one ever does.



> /snip
> 
> Meanwhile, the warlord is expected to be tanking or dealing damage. If one of their major abilities is focused on healing rather than a generic role-neutral ability, then that means they have an ability that does not fit their build and serves little purpose. They're less good at the role they chose to fill—what the player wants to do—and
> better and something they explicitly chose not to do.




Why would you expect a class to do something that it has never done before?  Warlords don't tank.  Do you want to change the mechanics so that rogues and wizards can tank?  After all, there's no reason that someone couldn't have the Criminal background and take most of the Rogue's schtick.  So, rogues should have tank subclasses.

Meh.  Like I said earlier.  Don't let people who hate a concept design that concept.  You very obviously have chased down a very strange rabbit hole where you've decided that the game needs a class that can do anything, so, we need to make such a weak sauce class that doesn't actually accomplish anything.  Good grief, why on earth would anyone play this and not a Battlemaster?


----------



## Jester David (Apr 2, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> 1.  I think you are confusing what the unique feature of full casters are...  Hint (it's spells)




How is that relevant? Warlords aren’t spellcasters.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2018)

If an 'iconic ability' has to be one that all members if the class posses, non-optionally, with no alternatives, then the Warlord's iconic abilities were Inspiring Word and Combat Leader.
But, that's getting hung up on mechanics.  In 5e, inspiring word could be just another gambit.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> As such, the warlord should also not be bound into the single role of the healer, and should have to opt into that build. And as I said above, the decision point for characters is typically the subclass. So a healing subclass would be just fine. Just like the default sorcerer or warlock who also need to subclass into those spells/ abilities.




Which is why most of the people in this thread have already started making a Warlord that has a flexible mechanic that can include healing if the Warlord player chooses to take the healing ability within that mechanic.  This leaves the Warlord unbound from the role of healer.  So it's really not required to be in the subclass.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> How is that relevant? Warlords aren’t spellcasters.




That doesn't mean they can't have a single unique feature that lumps all their iconic abilities into it and let's them proportion them out however they want.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Not caring about "lazy lord".  EVERY SINGLE WARLORD granted actions.  It's iconic to the class.  It's not some minor element that's shunted to a 10th level ability.  You couldn't make a warlord that never granted any actions, be they movement or attacks.  At least, you can't with the PHB.



Every warlord in 4e, maybe. Why should the 5e warlord be as limited in the design of powers? 

5e classes updating an old class should look at the concept first, focusing on and its flavor and design from there instead of just updating powers. The design of the 4e warlord is just a first step. A source of inspiration. Not a template to replicate.

Each edition reinterprets and reimagines classes. After all, it’s not like all 5e fighters can mark. Or have weapon focus like in 3e. Or weapon specialization like in 2e granting extra attacks only with that weapon.

Why should the warlord be treated differently? Why can’t it be reimagined and improved? 
Was the 4e warlord perfect? Are you saying it’s impossible to improve the 4e warlord?

Again, in my test class, _every_ Marshal warlord can grant attacks. And they can grant movement at 3rd level. That’s the 4e style warlord. (And every warlord can use Stratagem at level 6 to get an off turn attack with an ally.) But I move beyond the 4e concept for the other subclasses. 



Hussar said:


> So, you make an action that costs two attacks.  By 10th level a rogue is doing what, weapon+5d6 damage on a sneak?  Guess what?  That's about 5 points more than what the warlord could do by himself.  A Battlemaster is so far ahead of your class that it's not even funny.



And? 
Doesn’t that just prove that the warlord trading their action for another character's is broken?



Hussar said:


> Ballocks.  EVERY CLERIC played in D&D will have healing spells.  EVERY CLERIC can have healing spells after a long rest.  Same with druids.
> 
> Heck, I play a Forge Cleric.  Guess what?  He casts healing spells.  Shock, surprise.  I just can't believe it.  How you figure that a Forge cleric is a buffing cleric I don't know.  But, anyway, yeah, you could play a cleric that never casts a healing spell, but, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that virtually no one ever does.



I’ve seen non-healing cleric and druids. The Moon druid in my current game has never prepared let alone used _cure wounds_, because we have a Life cleric. And in another game, the druid never healed as we had a Lore bard serving as the leader.
But, clerics and druids do have unlimited spells known. In contrast, not every bard will know healing despite every bard having healing in 4e. Most bards in 5e probably don’t learn _cure wounds_. As a martial class the warlord should probably have fewer powers known each level than a spellcaster like a bard. So why on earth would every warlord have healing?

Also, if someone wants to play a Life cleric, shouldn’t it be possible for someone to also play a warlord in that group without overlapping roles? In the same way that there is a tanking Moon druid and healing Life cleric like my current game?



Hussar said:


> Why would you expect a class to do something that it has never done before?  Warlords don't tank.



Warlord’s _didn’t_ tank. In 4e. But neither could a cleric or a barbarian. Now both can. Why should the warlord be limited and pigeonholed by the role limitations of a past edition? 
Why should the warlord be stuck ONLY being a healer when no other class in 5e has a mandated character role?

They shouldn’t. Classes in 5e don’t have roles. Characters do. The warlord player should absolutely be able to make a character that is a healer. But they should also be able to make a character that isn’t a healer. And they shouldn't be penalised for playing against type and daring to make a warlord that isn't a healbot.



Hussar said:


> Do you want to change the mechanics so that rogues and wizards can tank?



Wizards _can_ tank. See the bladesinger. The abjurer can also semi-tank. 

And the warlord would be a d8 Hit Dice class wearing heavy armor. Why can’t they take a tanking role? If the War cleric can do it, why not the warlord?



Hussar said:


> Meh.  Like I said earlier.  Don't let people who hate a concept design that concept.



And you probably also shouldn’t let people fixated on single past interpretation of a concept design future interpretations of the concept.

And I don’t hate the warlord. I hate the attitude of warlord fans. The creative shackling of the design. The mandating of designing the class exactly like it was in a previous edition.
The 5e warlord shouldn't be required to be exactly like the 4e warlord anymore than it has to be exactly like 3e marshal. 



Hussar said:


> You very obviously have chased down a very strange rabbit hole where you've decided that the game needs a class that can do anything, so, we need to make such a weak sauce class that doesn't actually accomplish anything.



I fail to see how wanting it to do more than just heal and grant attacks is going down a rabbit hole. 
It doesn't need to do _everything_ but it should_ at least_ have as much flexibility as the cleric. There should be just as much variety. 
Otherwise Mearls is right and it should just be a subclass. 

So which is it? Is the warlord a one trick pony that only fits a single should then just be a fighter subclass? 
Or is it a flexible class with as much potential as the other classes and able to fill more roles than just restoring hit points?



Hussar said:


> Good grief, why on earth would anyone play this and not a Battlemaster?



Okay then, let's see yours. 
What's your example of the warlord class that's as good as the 4e version and better than the Battle Master.

I've put the work in to make a class, even though I'm only so-so a fan of the warlord. Just to give warlord fans more ideas and something else to riff off. 
If you're _really _a warlord fan, then where's your version?


----------



## Jester David (Apr 3, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That doesn't mean they can't have a single unique feature that lumps all their iconic abilities into it and let's them proportion them out however they want.



We've been over that before. And I disagreed with that design. 

In part because if it's that broad, then it's not very iconic, making it a poor fit for the low levels of the class. There's a reason the rogue doesn't choose "sneak attack" from a list or four or five powers. It's just "spellcasting" with a different name. 
And it's a higher level ability, then it's a choice you're making after level 3 or 4. So why not make it a subclass then?


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> We've been over that before. And I disagreed with that design.
> 
> In part because if it's that broad, then it's not very iconic, making it a poor fit for the low levels of the class. There's a reason the rogue doesn't choose "sneak attack" from a list or four or five powers. It's just "spellcasting" with a different name.
> And it's a higher level ability, then it's a choice you're making after level 3 or 4. So why not make it a subclass then?




You mean the ability to cast cleric spells isn’t iconic?


----------



## Jester David (Apr 3, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> You mean the ability to cast cleric spells isn’t iconic?



Not really. Casting spells is generic. Four classes have that. It’s as iconic as Extra Attack. Or wearing heavy armour.

Turning undead is iconic. As is channeling divinity to a lesser degree.


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Not caring about "lazy lord".  EVERY SINGLE WARLORD granted actions.  It's iconic to the class.  It's not some minor element that's shunted to a 10th level ability.  You couldn't make a warlord that never granted any actions, be they movement or attacks.  At least, you can't with the PHB.
> 
> And, note that the "warlord" elements that made it into the 5e PHB, are GRANTING ACTIONS!  It's so iconic that that's the ONLY THING from warlords that made the port into 5e.
> 
> ...




An option for it is fine at will maybe not. Natural spell got shunted to level 18 from 6 after all.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Not really. Casting spells is generic. Four classes have that. It’s as iconic as Extra Attack. Or wearing heavy armour.
> 
> Turning undead is iconic. As is channeling divinity to a lesser degree.




You have a weird definition of iconic


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2018)

Look at it this way.

A 10th level Battlemaster can grant 15 off turn attacks.  Presume 66% hit rates, meaning that the Battlemaster granted 10 sneak attacks.  But, wait, there's more.  The BM also granted 10d8 damage on those 10 attacks, because he gets bonus damage for his commander's strike.  AND the battle master attacked 15 more times (for 10 hits) over the course of granting this 15 attacks.  Going with your presumptions of a fighter dealing d8+5 damage.

So, in addition to the 10 sneak attacks, our BM has dealt 20d8+50 points of damage over the course of 15 rounds (Commander's Strike is only usable 1/round) or about 150 points of damage.

 [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]'s warlord has only dealt 10 sneak attacks in 15 rounds since he had to give up all attacks.  Now, it's going to take about 10 more rounds (6 sneak attacks) to catch up to the battle master.  Not do better mind you, just catch up.

It takes TWENTY FIVE ROUNDS for JD's warlord to do what a Battlemaster can do right now in 15 rounds.  Never minding that our Battlemaster has been able to grant attacks, or grant movement or grant bonus Temp HP, SINCE THIRD LEVEL.  

Why on earth would I play this class?  It's not even as good at being a warlord as a Battlemaster is, and BM's aren't very good warlords.  

Why are we "reenvisioning" the class?  Granting actions and inspirational healing are THE iconic warlord elements.  I'm not saying the class has to be as good of a healer as a cleric, fair enough.  But, it should heal and it should do so without spells.  And, it should be better at granting actions than a Battlemaster.

And, lastly, why is a warlord in heavy armor?  They weren't before.  They were never meant as tank characters.  One subclass, added later, made warlords more tanky - but the iconic, core of the class never was.

"Why shouldn't we reimagine the class"?  Because WE WANT A WARLORD.  Not a class that is a piss poor version that isn't even as good as what's in the PHB.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> A 10th level Battlemaster can grant 15 off turn attacks.  Presume 66% hit rates, meaning that the Battlemaster granted 10 sneak attacks.  But, wait, there's more.  The BM also granted 10d8 damage on those 10 attacks, because he gets bonus damage for his commander's strike.  AND the battle master attacked 15 more times (for 10 hits) over the course of granting this 15 attacks.  Going with your presumptions of a fighter dealing d8+5 damage.
> 
> So, in addition to the 10 sneak attacks, our BM has dealt 20d8+50 points of damage over the course of 15 rounds (Commander's Strike is only usable 1/round) or about 150 points of damage.
> 
> [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]'s warlord has only dealt 10 sneak attacks in 15 rounds since he had to give up all attacks.  Now, it's going to take about 10 more rounds (6 sneak attacks) to catch up to the battle master.  Not do better mind you, just catch up.



Cool. Nice math. Thanks.
I do wonder about the damage when not paired with a rogue, which seems like a poor baseline. 

Anyhoo… meanwhile, my warlord is also proccing Tactical Acumen every round, using that reaction when the ally hits to deal an additional Int + level on every attack. Which, at level 10, is 15 damage.
Which more than makes up for the difference in frequency. 

(Actually, I might need to tone down the damage in Tactical Acumen. After the 15 rounds they're up 75 points. Plus, TA is pretty reliable given it can be used to boost damage even when the granted attack misses, switching to a different ally.)



Hussar said:


> It takes TWENTY FIVE ROUNDS for JD's warlord to do what a Battlemaster can do right now in 15 rounds.  Never minding that our Battlemaster has been able to grant attacks, or grant movement or grant bonus Temp HP, SINCE THIRD LEVEL.



Why play a Tactician rather than a Battle Master? Well, because your BM example requires that fighter to also be attacking fifteen times themselves. So they're not really the Lazylord commanding from the back. They're up there in the front attacking as well. 

Again, my warlord lazylord subclass can also grant movement at 3rd level. 
Plus all the other abilities. Tactical Acumen. Stratagem. 



Hussar said:


> Why on earth would I play this class?  It's not even as good at being a warlord as a Battlemaster is, and BM's aren't very good warlords.



So then don't. 

Or give _useful_ feedback I can use to actually make it better beyond telling me it sucks without actually bothering to read the entire class. 
Or trying to make me design the warlord _exactly_ how it was in 4e. I'm not going to do that. Just like I'm also not going to exactly replicate the marshal from 3e. The 5e warlord/tactician should kill the 4e warlord and take his stuff. It should keep what works and dump the rest, making something new and exciting that captures the feel of the concept. 



Hussar said:


> And, lastly, why is a warlord in heavy armor? They weren't before. They were never meant as tank characters. One subclass, added later, made warlords more tanky - but the iconic, core of the class never was.



My warlord doesn’t have heavy armour. It only has Medium.

BUT I'm just working on the Vanguard subclass that gives it heavy armour—like the War domain gives the cleric heavy armour—and making that into a tank subclass. 

Why is it in heavy armour when it wasn’t before?
BECAUSE IT’S NOT “BEFORE”. 
Brace yourself for a shock. 5th Edition is not the same as 4th Edition. It does things differently. 
A 5e warlord won't add half its level to all checks. Or add its Constitution Score to its starting hit points. Or have a Fortitude Defence. Or have healing surges. It probably have AEDU powers. 
And, sadly, it won't have powers that trigger when an ally spends an Action Surge. Which was probably the TRUE iconic power of the warlord. Because when you spent your Action Surge by the warlord, you felt like a god. 



Hussar said:


> "Why shouldn't we reimagine the class"? Because WE WANT A WARLORD. Not a class that is a piss poor version that isn't even as good as what's in the PHB.



No. No you don't.
If you REALLY wanted one you would have made your own damn warlord class. That's literally what this thread is for. Instead you gave my warlord a quick skim and decided to crap on it because it doesn't match your vision. 

That's fine. It's how I envision the concept. You don't have to like it. But if you think it's so terrible then show me something better. 
FrogReaver called me out for not contributing and I threw together the Tactician class that you see in a week. If you have such a powerful vision for the warlord I'm sure you could do the same in half that time. 
Show me how it's done. Give me a warlord that's true to 4e but balanced with 5e and matches the design conventions of this edition.


----------



## Zardnaar (Apr 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Not really. Casting spells is generic. Four classes have that. It’s as iconic as Extra Attack. Or wearing heavy armour.
> 
> Turning undead is iconic. As is channeling divinity to a lesser degree.




Clerics cast spells and turn undead. How they do that varies by edition.  That's iconic cleric.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2018)

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION], I already did make a warlord.  Although, to me, I'd rather bolt it on a rogue chasis as a subclass of rogue.  Trade sneak attack damage dice for effects.  Done.  

You are making it WAY too complicated.

A warlord, as a class, should grant actions, grant some sort of damage mitigation (either by healing or temp HP or some combination of both) and, well, that's pretty much it.  It's not rocket science.  It doesn't require all this other stuff.

Now, to be fair, I'm not a believer in the "lazy lord" That's just a build, not an actual concept.  And, frankly, it's just a warlord that focuses on action granting.   Not caring in the slightest if it makes an appearance or not.  And, frankly, it's easier to do as a playstyle than as an actual class AFAIC, same as your clerics who never heal.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I already did make a warlord.



Link?



Hussar said:


> A warlord, as a class, should grant actions, grant some sort of damage mitigation (either by healing or temp HP or some combination of both) and, well, that's pretty much it.  It's not rocket science.  It doesn't require all this other stuff.



So... it's a rogue subclass then?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Now, to be fair, I'm not a believer in the "lazy lord" That's just a build, not an actual concept.  And, frankly, it's just a warlord that focuses on action granting.   Not caring in the slightest if it makes an appearance or not.



 It opens up a whole range of concepts that had never been viable before.  It's dreadfully common in genre - when there's a party, at all - for there to be a big disparity in apparent capability among some of the members.  Since a lazy build contributes through it's allies, its contribution in the narrative can be a lot more subtle, and it can thus model these 'weaker' characters, without dragging down the party.  Moonsong's heart noble is an example of such a concept, whatever anyone may have to say about the design.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It opens up a whole range of concepts that had never been viable before.  It's dreadfully common in genre - when there's a party, at all - for there to be a big disparity in apparent capability among some of the members.  Since a lazy build contributes through it's allies, its contribution in the narrative can be a lot more subtle, and it can thus model these 'weaker' characters, without dragging down the party.  Moonsong's heart noble is an example of such a concept, whatever anyone may have to say about the design.




But, even then Tony, it's all in how the player plays, not in the mechanics.  A lazy lord is still a warlord.  The character still has all the same proficiencies, skills and hit points and attack bonus as any other warlord (talking about 4e here, in 5e, it's even worse because EVERY character has the same attack bonuses, modified by stat of course).

There was no actual "lazy lord" class.  All a lazy lord is, is a warlord that dump stats typical combat stats like Str and Con and then focuses on buffing and action granting.

Why can't that be done with any standard warlord?  Heck, if you did that with a Battlemaster in 5e, you're about half way there.  Granted, BM's have the issue of running out of gas too soon.  But, at the end of the day, Lazy Lord isn't a class.  It's just how some people chose to play a class.  It's no more a class than Blaster is a class.  Or Face.  Or a cleric that refuses to take any healing spells.  Or any number of other concepts that aren't really mechanical in nature, but, simply a result of the player choosing to play to a particular idea.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But, even then Tony, it's all in how the player plays, not in the mechanics.  A lazy lord is still a warlord.  The character still has all the same proficiencies, skills and hit points and attack bonus as any other warlord (talking about 4e here, in 5e, it's even worse because EVERY character has the same attack bonuses, modified by stat of course).



 'Bout the same really, be it proficiency or 1/2 level.



> There was no actual "lazy lord" class.



 Has someone suggested it be a separate class?  



> All a lazy lord is, is a warlord that dump stats typical combat stats like Str and Con and then focuses on buffing and action granting.



 But it did get a bit of support in more such exploits, so it was enabled, mechanically, as well.



> Why can't that be done with any standard warlord?



 It should be, if the design is decently flexible, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a sub-class, just that said sub-class should be better played that way, rather than the only one that can be played that way, at all...

It's just like, say Illusionists, they've been a thing for a long time, but in 5e they're just wizards of a tradition who are particularly good with illusions - any wizard can prep a slate of all illusion spells, but that doesn't mean there's no point in having the tradition as a sub-class.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 5, 2018)

On a normal Fighter, Extra attack gives around 6 or maybe more extra DPR.  Typically a battlemaster maneuver will do a little less than that with an effect.  

What if there was a way to exchange the level 5 extra attack for a free superiority dice effect?

It doesn't solve every problem with the battlemaster as warlord, but I think it get's closer than many of the ideas I'm seeing here and it's something we can start using right away?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> On a normal Fighter, Extra attack gives around 6 or maybe more extra DPR.  Typically a battlemaster maneuver will do a little less than that with an effect.
> 
> What if there was a way to exchange the level 5 extra attack for a free superiority dice effect?
> 
> It doesn't solve every problem with the battlemaster as warlord, but I think it get's closer than many of the ideas I'm seeing here and it's something we can start using right away?




THat's... not a bad idea at all.  Pretty easy to implement, I think.  Something like:

When you give up an attack, you gain 1 Superiority die up to the maximum for your level.

That would let battle masters do a LOT of the things that a warlord should be able to do and do it every round, rather than about half the time now.

So the first half (ish) of a short rest period, the battle master just burns Sup Dice.  The second half, he's burning an attack to gain a Sup Die that can then be used to power other stuff.  Has the added bonus of, if spent on giving the rogue free attacks every time, he's burning two attacks to do it.

Should we not limit this to 1/round?  Or, would it matter?  If the 11th level BM burns 2 attacks to get back 2 dice, that balances out anyway.

I think I'd like to take this idea for a spin.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 5, 2018)

Hussar said:


> THat's... not a bad idea at all.  Pretty easy to implement, I think.  Something like:
> 
> When you give up an attack, you gain 1 Superiority die up to the maximum for your level.
> 
> ...




Not sure.  I hadn't worked out details beyond the initial idea.  I'll think on them some more


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 5, 2018)

So I would do it as an immediate effect instead of an additional superiority dice.  Something like:

You may give up an attack any time during your attack action to gain a superiority dice that must be immediately used.

A few reasons:
1.  If you let the fighter gain a superiority dice permanently as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] proposed then you risk players fighting a rat or punching another player just to get their max allotment of superiority dice.  I don't want to encourage that playstyle.

2.  I don't think letting 2 superiority dice apply to the same attack will be problematic, however, it would require a lot of additional rules/rulings to work.  So I would try it without that initially.

3.  I think we should keep the ability to save superiority dice for hard fights instead of incentivizing players to burn through them immediately.  I think this proposal allows that.

4.  If our general premise is right that extra attack is nearly equivalent to superiority dice then I don't see an issue with trading any number of attacks we want for dice.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 5, 2018)

Hussar said:


> .  Something like:
> 
> When you give up an attack, you gain 1 Superiority die up to the maximum for your level.



 That would be getting closer to the way MDDs were headed in the early Next playtest packets.  

Extra attack has a lot of potential DPR upside, though, so it might be hard to make maneuvers worth it, while, at the same time, spamming maneuvers could be problematic, as well. And 5e design puts a heavy limit on what at-wills can do...


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That would be getting closer to the way MDDs were headed in the early Next playtest packets.
> 
> Extra attack has a lot of potential DPR upside, though, so it might be hard to make maneuvers worth it, while, at the same time, spamming maneuvers could be problematic, as well. And 5e design puts a heavy limit on what at-wills can do...




Which maneuver you worried about being spammed?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 5, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Which maneuver you worried about being spammed?




I'd be more worried that maneuvers wouldn't be used at all or would prove inferior to just flailing away, but if you did crank them up enough to be worthwhile, they might become abuseable...

...as it stands, the fighter gets problematic extra attack feature giving it high DPR, in exchange for having 0 flexibility and little beyond warm-body contributions to make out of combat.  It's not a great deal, but it's a tense way to balance a class...


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'd be more worried that maneuvers wouldn't be used at all or would prove inferior to just flailing away, but if you did crank them up enough to be worthwhile, they might become abuseable...
> 
> ...as it stands, the fighter gets problematic extra attack feature giving it high DPR, in exchange for having 0 flexibility and little beyond warm-body contributions to make out of combat.  It's not a great deal, but it's a tense way to balance a class...




The plan is to keep the maneuvers as is.  So there's not one you are worried about being abusable this way from there?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2018)

Yeah, I like that idea.  make it immediately burned.  You drop one attack, which grants you an SD, but, it has to be used that round.  Nice limitation.  

Means that while you are going to get SD's every single round, since you only get one (well, I suppose if you had 4 attacks, you could get 2, but, meh, by that point, that's not going to break anything) and you have to burn it, you're pretty much good to go.

I think that's a major upgrade to what's, in my mind, a very lackluster fighter class.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 5, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> On a normal Fighter, Extra attack gives around 6 or maybe more extra DPR.  Typically a battlemaster maneuver will do a little less than that with an effect.
> 
> What if there was a way to exchange the level 5 extra attack for a free superiority dice effect?
> 
> It doesn't solve every problem with the battlemaster as warlord, but I think it get's closer than many of the ideas I'm seeing here and it's something we can start using right away?




This is something that I did with an initial Battlemaster/Warlord hack. Exchange attacks for temporary Superiority dice that had to be spent that round. I didn't limit to only extra attacks though: this started at 1st level, where you could burn your only attack to grant a maneuver instead.

This concept developed into the Opportunist Mindset Warlord from the class that I posted earlier, which has smaller SD but refreshes at the _end _of their every turn.
As far as I found, the only major balance issue that this potentially infinite SD use causes is if you have maneuvers that grant actual healing (as opposed to temp HP). Since that seemed to be a requirement for a 'real Warlord', I allowed actual healing from maneuvers only up to half the character's max HP.



FrogReaver said:


> So I would do it as an immediate effect instead of an additional superiority dice.  Something like:
> 
> You may give up an attack any time during your attack action to gain a superiority dice that must be immediately used.
> 
> ...



1. Yes. Definitely. At max, let it last until the beginning of their next turn. That will allow them to gain a SD to use for a reaction, at the risk of losing it if they don't use it. Or allow them to use them for their reaction before their turn, but they then lose those attacks that would have been required to grant those SD.

2. I allow multiple SD to be used for damage or healing/temp HP rolls, but not usually d20 rolls. Attacks, saves, ability checks could get a bit nuts is you allow more than one SD to be spent on them.
You may wish to consider about restricting temp HP generation in some fashion if you do choose to allow multiple SD to be rolled for that alongside having fast-refreshing SD. I chose to allow it because a party starting a fight fired up and inspired due to having a Warlord in their ranks seemed to be an acceptable benefit of the class.

3. Yes. I decided to allow the player to choose whether they had a small set of continuously-refreshing SD or a larger pool that only refreshed on a short rest. However burning attacks for temp SD as well as having a separate reservoir of short-rest based SD for emergencies/nova works well as an adjustment to an existing subclass.

4. I don't see an issue, assuming other rules are being adhered to: (only one reaction/round, limited SD spent on some maneuvers etc.).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 5, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The plan is to keep the maneuvers as is.  So there's not one you are worried about being abusable this way from there?



Optimizers usually call out Precision Attack as the most potent maneuver and it'd hardly seem a problem if it cost you your extra attack...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 7, 2018)

Hussar said:


> , when a quarter of the powers that a warlord has to choose from grant some form of action - a movement, an attack, something like that- and frequently grant actions to the entire party at the same time, THAT'S iconic to the warlord.





mellored said:


> Lazy: ....
> Suggested Tactics: Grant attack, defense boost, initiative boost, damage boost.




Another thing I think is important to consider on the topic of LazyLords/Princess-builds is the distinction between attack-granting or action-granting that's on top of a warlord's action or a consequence of an action of their own and that which simply passes the warlord's action to the ally, more or less entirely (perhaps with a buff).  Both kinds existed in the original warlord.  You had things like Hammer & Anvil in which the Warlord took an action and, if he succeeded, the ally was granted a free-action attack out of turn.  If they went well, they were a net gain in the action economy, and they put the spotlight on both the warlord and the ally he was teaming up with.  But you also had things like Command the Strike or Knight's Move where the warlord gave up his action to grant a limited form of that action to the ally, a slight net loss in action-economy, and tending to pass the spotlight as well as the action to the ally rather than put the warlord in the spotlight.  Guileful Switch even passed the Warlord's whole turn to an ally.    

Those are very different things and the concerns over 'balance' (remembering that 5e is mainly spot-light balanced, and that not as a top priority) should be more with the first sort, where the warlord takes an action, takes the stage, and also brings an ally into it, than with the latter sort, in which the warlord passes and action & the spotlight to an ally, prettymuch entirely.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 8, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Another thing I think is important to consider on the topic of LazyLords/Princess-builds is the distinction between attack-granting or action-granting that's on top of a warlord's action or a consequence of an action of their own and that which simply passes the warlord's action to the ally, more or less entirely (perhaps with a buff).  Both kinds existed in the original warlord.  You had things like Hammer & Anvil in which the Warlord took an action and, if he succeeded, the ally was granted a free-action attack out of turn.  If they went well, they were a net gain in the action economy, and they put the spotlight on both the warlord and the ally he was teaming up with.  But you also had things like Command the Strike or Knight's Move where the warlord gave up his action to grant a limited form of that action to the ally, a slight net loss in action-economy, and tending to pass the spotlight as well as the action to the ally rather than put the warlord in the spotlight.  Guileful Switch even passed the Warlord's whole turn to an ally.
> 
> Those are very different things and the concerns over 'balance' (remembering that 5e is mainly spot-light balanced, and that not as a top priority) should be more with the first sort, where the warlord takes an action, takes the stage, and also brings an ally into it, than with the latter sort, in which the warlord passes and action & the spotlight to an ally, prettymuch entirely.




Which doesn't really matter when you realize that community created content has to be balanced around raw mechanical ability or it will be outright rejected by to many to make the exercise worth doing.


----------



## mellored (Apr 8, 2018)

After some quick playtesting. The at-will points idea, in general, is working really well. I rarely end up being spamming the same ability, they are all "at-will" in theory, but not practice.
But i had too many different ways to gain and use points, so it's a bit finicky to track them all.
And taking time to build-up points while everyone nova's feels a bit bad. This was most apparent after the third time the fighter action-surged nova'd, and I didn't have points to help.

So this mostly simplifies points scaling, simplifying command style, and a few number tweaks.

Warlord revision #366
Changes in green.


Tactician:
Intelligence is your primary stat, as it allows you to hold more plans in your head at once. Charisma is also important as it allows you to better trick enemies and encourages allies. Some tacticians also like to use weapons, so some strength or dexterity would be useful.

Hit Dice: 1d8
Weapons: All simple and martial weapons.
Armor: Light and medium armor. Shields.
Saves: Int, Wis, Cha

Level 1: Tactical Awareness: You survey the battlefield and enemies looking for tactical opportunities and openings to exploit. You can hold a number of tactical points according to the level chart (2-10). This pool is reset to 2 every time you move into a new area, with most areas are big enough to encompass a single battle.

Assess the Situation: As an action, you gain 2 tactical points.

Tactics: At the end of a short rest, you can prepare a number of tactics equal to twice our Int modifier (minimum 1). You must be able to clearly see and communicate with the target to have an effect. In a battle, creatures can usually hear you at 60'. Using a tactic does not require an action, but you can only use 1 per triggering event. The save DC for any Tactician ability is 8 + your Charisma modifier.
In addition, you and your allies can come up with your own plan. Your DM determines the point cost and should use the current ones as guidelines.

Level 2: Bolt of Insight: You can instantly use Assess the Situation, no action required. Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again until you take a short or long rest.
You gain an additional use at levels ????

Precision Tactics: You can precisely analyze the way a creature moves, it's armor, it's weapons, the size of its legs and arms, how it carries itself, ect... in order to just exactly how much is needed to overcome it. When you use a Tactic, you can use your reaction to know a creature's relevant scores, such as their exact AC, remaining hit points, saving throw modifier, or to-hit roll for the triggering attack.


Level 3: Command Style: Select a command style. Your choice gives you additional features at levels ???

Bravado: Your lead from the front style brings you close to the action, allowing you to analyze foes up close and personal while cutting them up. Whenever you use Assess the Situation, you can use a bonus action to make a weapon attack
Guerilla: Hit and run is the name of your game. Whenever you use Assess the Situation, you can hide as a bonus action.
Crier: You like to stand back to get a larger overview of the battlefield, shouting your commands in a booming voice. Rarely drawing your weapon you focus on adapting to the situation. When you use Assess the Situation, you can use it again as a bonus action.. In addition, you can project your voice twice as far as normal.
Rascal: Your style revolves around tricking the enemy. You gain the minor illusion cantrip. You can cast Silent Image, once you do you cannot cast it again until you take a short rest. Intelligence is your casting modifier.When you use Assess the siutation, cast an illusion spell, as a bonus action. 
Bastion: A favored of dwarves, your style is to draw a hard line in the sand, and defend it from all invaders. When you use Assess the Situation, you can use your use bonus action to select a 10x10 cube on the ground. Allies in that zone gain +1d4 to AC and saves. Enemies in that zone take -1d4 to all attacks and DC's.
Vanguard: <defender flavor> When you use Assess the Situation, you can use your bonus action to take the dodge action. In addition, you have advantage on any opportunity attacks you make.



Level 4, 8, 12, 16, 19: ABI

Level 5: Improved Assessment: Increase the number of points gained from Assess the Situation and Tactical Awareness to 3.

Tactics

Fight On!: (1 point) When an ally takes damage, you can spend a tactical point to let them spend a hit die and add your Charisma modifier. The creature does not regain hit points but instead reduces the incoming damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, the attack is a miss and they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.
Cunning Strike: (1 point) When you make a weapon attack, instead of rolling an attack roll, the target makes an Intelligence saving throw. If they fail, you hit.
First Aid: (1+ point) You can use your action to allow a creature to spend a hit die for each tactical point spent. They maximize the hit die roll and gain hit points as normal. Once a creature benefits from this, they cannot benefit again until they take a short rest.
First Strike: (1+ points) When a creature rolls initiative, you can give a bonus equal to their roll equal to the number of points spent.
Sacrificial Opportunity: (1+ points) When a creature would make a melee attack against you, you can be automatically be hit in order to have it provoke an opportunity attack from one creature adjacent to it, excluding yourself. Reduce the damage you take by a 1d8 for each point spent.
Exploit Weakness: (1+ points) When a creature hits another creature with an attack, it deals 1d6 extra damage per point spent. If you delt the damage, increase it to 1d8 damage for each point spent.
Drive the Point: (1+ points) When a creature makes with an attack, you can spend a tactical point to increase the roll of the d20 by 1 for each point spent, up to a maximum of 20. Potentially turn a miss into a hit or a hit into a crit.
Hold your Ground: (1+ points): When a creature would be pushed or pulled, reduce the distance by 5'.
Direct the Strike: (2 points): When an ally takes an attack action, they can make 1 additional attack against the same target. You can use this once per attack roll.
Skirmish: (2 points) When a creature would provoke an opportunity attack, they do not provoke an opportunity attack.
Provoke Opportunity (2 points) As an action, you can trick a creature within melee range into revealing his weakness to your allies. The target makes a Intelligence saving throw, and if they fail, they provoke an opportunity attack from each ally adjacent to it.
Reinforce Mind: (2+ points) When a creature makes an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma saving throw, they gain a bonus to the save equal to half the number of points spent.
No Spell Wasted: (2+ points) You can see a when a spell will fail, and stop your ally from wasting their effort. When a creature cast a spell, and fails to have any effect against any target, you can spend a number of points equal to twice the spell level to let them keep their spell slot.
No Gambit Wasted: (2+ points) <still working on it>
Trigger the Trap: (5 points): One creature can use their reaction to take an action.




Multi-classing: 13 Int, 13 Cha. You gain proficiency in either Intelligence of Charisma saving throws.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 10, 2018)

Given warlords can inspire allies with words, restoring hit points by boosting morale, could they do the opposite to enemies? Shout a few demoralizing words causing enemies to take damage?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 10, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Which doesn't really matter when you realize that community created content has to be balanced around raw mechanical ability or it will be outright rejected by to many to make the exercise worth doing.



 Community content is unlikely to get broad acceptance, if the folks working on it like it & use it, that'd be success enough, I think.


----------



## mellored (Apr 10, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Given warlords can inspire allies with words, restoring hit points by boosting morale, could they do the opposite to enemies? Shout a few demoralizing words causing enemies to take damage?



You mean like Vicious Mockery?  Wis save for xd4 psychic damage and disadvantage on their attack.

I don't see why not.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 11, 2018)

mellored said:


> You mean like Vicious Mockery?  Wis save for xd4 psychic damage and disadvantage on their attack.
> 
> I don't see why not.



Breaking enemy morale, whether through just Hectoring away with words, or by seizing a tactical advantage and making their position seem hopeless, would have been stomping hard on the Controller role in 4e, especially if it targeted many enemies as might reasonably be the case.  But, in 5e, there's no sacrosanct formal Roles or niche protection, so no need to refrain from going there.  A gambit (like the daily-recharge gambits of the MMHFH fighter sub-class, but higher level, presumably) that forces will saves from the enemy, inflicting some psychic damage or the frightened condition or whatever would be very appropriate, and reasonable enough as long as it was balanced.


----------



## mellored (Apr 11, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Breaking enemy morale, whether through just Hectoring away with words, or by seizing a tactical advantage and making their position seem hopeless, would have been stomping hard on the Controller role in 4e, especially if it targeted many enemies as might reasonably be the case.  But, in 5e, there's no sacrosanct formal Roles or niche protection, so no need to refrain from going there.  A gambit (like the daily-recharge gambits of the MMHFH fighter sub-class, but higher level, presumably) that forces will saves from the enemy, inflicting some psychic damage or the frightened condition or whatever would be very appropriate, and reasonable enough as long as it was balanced.



I've had a few variations of "when you score a critical hit, the enemy is afraid of you for a turn".

I should probably add that to my point version.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Given warlords can inspire allies with words, restoring hit points by boosting morale, could they do the opposite to enemies? Shout a few demoralizing words causing enemies to take damage?




Yes that concept has potential ... it is one of the factors of Controller/Hector Warlords they operate on intimidating and inducing fear in enemies with the aid of allies. As well as the classic creating openings and inducing friendly fire and other enemy harming effects. Suckering enemies to move into compromised locations and the like are in there as well.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Given warlords can inspire allies with words, restoring hit points by boosting morale, could they do the opposite to enemies? Shout a few demoralizing words causing enemies to take damage?




Maybe, though if such abilities were so prominent you would expect nearly anyone to be able to do it some and you would expect other enemies to be able to shout their allies hp back in such a situation.  So ultimately I think demoralizing enemies has better mechanical expressions than simple hp loss.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 12, 2018)

mellored said:


> I should probably add that to my point version.




I had considered a system based around multi-round actions a 2 round action analogous to an encounter power... a 3 round action being analogous to a daily when I see things like the following, it makes me wonder. 

"Assess the Situation: As an action, you gain 2 tactical points."


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sub-class ideas came up in another thread, so I happen to have a bunch ...
> 
> 
> Bravura:  Always at the forefront, the Bravura inspires (and incites) by reckless example, seemingly fool-hardy bravery, and daring-do.  A Bravura may have a fierce rivalry with one or more of his allies, getting them to try to out-do eachother, and/or may try to protect others of his friends he views as needful of such.  Bravuras hail from cultures that value strength, toughness, fierceness, bravery, honor, courage, and daring above common sense, planning, precision, or prudence, and may will have preconceived notions which shape which allies go into which category, at least initially.
> ...




Love this as a starting point by the way...


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Given warlords can inspire allies with words, restoring hit points by boosting morale, could they do the opposite to enemies? Shout a few demoralizing words causing enemies to take damage?



 Yes, but you might run into conceptual difficulties if you can kill an enemy with this effect.

I'd suggest that you either rule that this effect is always considered a non-lethal final blow if reducing an opponent to 0 HP.

Alternatively, perhaps have it work like the sleep spell.  Superiority dice result x charisma modifier. Compare the total against the HP of opponents like the sleep spell, and those affected have their morale broken and will either flee or surrender.

There might be a few restrictions on the effect, and some types of enemies might be flat-out immune.


----------



## mellored (Apr 12, 2018)

Garthanos said:


> I had considered a system based around multi-round actions a 2 round action analogous to an encounter power... a 3 round action being analogous to a daily when I see things like the following, it makes me wonder.
> 
> "Assess the Situation: As an action, you gain 2 tactical points."



Basily, yea.
You start a battle with 2, use your action on your first turn to get 2, and use the short rest feature to get 2 more.  Giving you 6 for your nova turn.
That and you try to find ways to sneak up and spend a few actions surveying the battlefield.  You actually get a big benefit for recon (maybe a bit too much, as I'm really tempted to dip rogue for sneak expertise, so I may reduce the max points a bit).

It's very flavorful, flexible, and fun.  I'm definitely keeping the core idea.



That said, my current sub-class designs aren't working out to well.  If you only have 1 bonus action, you spam that bonus action.  Not bad thing if you're looking for a simple (champion) warlord, but I don't see a reason why you need more than 2 simple sub-classes (one offense, one defense).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 12, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Yes, but you might run into conceptual difficulties if you can kill an enemy with this effect.



 Depends on how much latitude you have in decided and describing the effects of that final blow.  For instance, in melee, you can choose to make a final blow fatal or just KO your victim.  A demoralization power would likely be ranged, but that option could be extended to it.

If a character were feared or demoralized or insulted to death, I suppose it could run off into a conveniently unseen deadly danger, maybe fall off a cliff like an obliging Disney villain.  



> Alternatively, perhaps have it work like the sleep spell.  Superiority dice result x charisma modifier. Compare the total against the HP of opponents like the sleep spell, and those affected have their morale broken and will either flee or surrender.



 5e uses that mechanic enough it's worth considering.


----------



## jasper (Apr 12, 2018)

This Bob. His class does not matter. He is a Lord of what ever kingdom you choose. His kingdom is at war. Have fun.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 12, 2018)

Theres goodness in this thread.


----------



## Garthanos (Apr 13, 2018)

mellored said:


> Basily, yea.
> You start a battle with 2, use your action on your first turn to get 2, and use the short rest feature to get 2 more.  Giving you 6 for your nova turn.
> That and you try to find ways to sneak up and spend a few actions surveying the battlefield.  You actually get a big benefit for recon (maybe a bit too much, as I'm really tempted to dip rogue for sneak expertise, so I may reduce the max points a bit).
> 
> It's very flavorful, flexible, and fun.  I'm definitely keeping the core idea.




Yes you have me thinking of a benefit from changing position on your surveying the field... or even high ground benefit.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 13, 2018)

Fighter

fighting style: warlord
whenever you take the attack action you can forfeit an attack to have an ally use a reaction to make a melee attack.
your second wind now does not heal you and instead targets an allied creature of your choice that can hear you.

done.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 13, 2018)

Poster

Posting style:  Troll
When you post on a community build thread, you can say something lame, and finish with the word "Done" and kid yourself you've made some deep philosophical point.
In addition, you get blocked by anyone sick of your behavior.

*plonk*


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2018)

I dunno Tony.  I look at his solution and see something that's 99% of the way there.  I really don't think that these quite complicated classes are the way to go.  A couple of minor additions to the Battlemaster and we're good to go.


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Fighter
> 
> fighting style: warlord
> whenever you take the attack action you can forfeit an attack to have an ally use a reaction to make a melee attack.
> ...



That would be overpowered in some parties (rogues), while neigh useless in others (casters).
Still needs work.



Hussar said:


> I dunno Tony.  I look at his solution and see something that's 99% of the way there.  I really don't think that these quite complicated classes are the way to go.  A couple of minor additions to the Battlemaster and we're good to go.



Which one is more complicated than a battlemaster?


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> That would be overpowered in some parties (rogues), while neigh useless in others (casters).
> Still needs work.
> 
> Which one is more complicated than a battlemaster?




Yours seems pretty complicated


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Yours seems pretty complicated



Not a big difference IMO.
You pick some moves from the list, and get a pool of dice/points to spend them on.  I just recharge points a lot faster.

My sub-classes need work though.


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

In fact...

Battlemaster redux...
When you roll initiative, you have 2 dice.
When you take the attack action, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.

Maneuver.
Fight On!: When an ally takes damage, you can spend a die to reduces the incoming damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, the attack is a miss and they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.
Cunning Strike: When you make a weapon attack, instead of rolling an attack roll, the target makes an Intelligence saving throw. If they fail, you hit and deal damage equal to your die roll.
First Aid: You can use your action to allow a creature to spend a hit die for each die spent. Add your roll to the result.  Once a creature benefits from this, they cannot benefit again until they take a short rest.
First Strike: When a creature rolls initiative, you can give a bonus equal youe roll.
Sacrificial Opportunity: When a creature would make a melee attack against you, you can be automatically be hit in order to have it provoke an opportunity attack from one creature adjacent to it, excluding yourself. Reduce the damage you take by the die roll.
Exploit Weakness: When a creature hits another creature with an attack, it deals extra damage equal to the die roll.
Drive the Point: When a creature makes with an attack, you can spend a die to increase the roll by the result.
Hold your Ground: When a creature would be pushed or pulled, reduce the distance by 5'.
Direct the Strike: When an ally takes an attack action, you can spend a die to allow them to make 1 additional attack against the same target. You can use this once per attack turn.
Skirmish: When a creature would provoke an opportunity attack, they do not provoke an opportunity attack.
Ect...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I dunno Tony.  I look at his solution and see something that's 99% of the way there.



 More like 1%.


> A couple of minor additions to the Battlemaster and we're good to go.



 The BM is about 3% Warlord.



> I really don't think that these quite complicated classes are the way to go.



 Neither the concept nor the nature of support contributions are suited to simplistic designs.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2018)

I have to admit, I'm nowhere near as fixated on specific warlord designs as you seem to be.  So long as the character is providing attacks, more than about 1/2 the time which is about what a battlmaster can do now, provides some healing, about the level of a paladin, and provides some means of granting other actions, I'm good.

You've kinda painted yourself into a corner with this insistance that a "lazy lord" must be supported.  I don't actually care about the lazy lord, since it was never actually a class but was simply a style of play.  I've always been of the opinion that a battlemaster is about 2/3rds of the way there, not enough for me, but, not a bad start.  Mellored's BM redux above pretty much hits all the right notes AFAIC.


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, I'm nowhere near as fixated on specific warlord designs as you seem to be.  So long as the character is providing attacks, more than about 1/2 the time which is about what a battlmaster can do now, provides some healing, about the level of a paladin, and provides some means of granting other actions, I'm good.
> 
> You've kinda painted yourself into a corner with this insistance that a "lazy lord" must be supported.  I don't actually care about the lazy lord, since it was never actually a class but was simply a style of play.  I've always been of the opinion that a battlemaster is about 2/3rds of the way there, not enough for me, but, not a bad start.  Mellored's BM redux above pretty much hits all the right notes AFAIC.



That battlemaster redux can work as a lazy lord.  Just trade away all your attacks for dice.  And rebalance the moves to make sure they are worth giving up an attack for.  (Need to change the save DC to Int or Cha as well).
Minor issue of it starting at level 3 instead of 1.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> That battlemaster redux can work as a lazy lord.  Just trade away all your attacks for dice.  And rebalance the moves to make sure they are worth giving up an attack for.  (Need to change the save DC to Int or Cha as well).
> Minor issue of it starting at level 3 instead of 1.




I would think a fighting style that gives a +2 bonus to initiative to the party would help the late bloomer issue


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> That would be overpowered in some parties (rogues), while neigh useless in others (casters).
> Still needs work.
> 
> Which one is more complicated than a battlemaster?




Hmmh. You are right. Maybe it needs to be forfeiting all attacks. I still believe this is the easiest solition.
Maybe you can add: at second level, when you use action surge, you can allow another character to take an ation as a reaction.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> That battlemaster redux can work as a lazy lord.  Just trade away all your attacks for dice.  And rebalance the moves to make sure they are worth giving up an attack for.  (Need to change the save DC to Int or Cha as well).
> Minor issue of it starting at level 3 instead of 1.



Yea, gotta say, I like that version quite a bit.  Having direct the strike be an extra attack on top of current attacks handles "the rogue issue" nicely.


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

Hmm... Maybe I should use the base classes as "sub-classes".
Maneuvers can be shared between classes, the same way spells are.


Fighter Warlord
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you roll initiative, you have 2 dice.
When you take the attack action, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.


Rogue One: Blue Leader
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
You can use your sneak attack dice to power the maneuvers.  Dice spent this way are unavailable until the end of your next turn.


Monk Abbot
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
You can spend ki to perform maneuvers.  Your die size is d8's.


Barbarian Jarl
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you take damage you gain a d6 manuver die until the end of your next turn.  If you are raging, the die is a d12.
In addition, you can take an extra oppertunity attack each turn.


Ranger Pathfinder
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
As a bonus action, select a target.  Each turn you gain a d6 die to use manuvers against that target.  This increases to 2 d6's at level 5,  3 d6's at level 11, and 4d6 at level 12.
In addition, you can track your selected target.


Paladin Marshal  (Oath of Teamwork)
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
You can use your lay on hand (maybe spell slots? maybe both?) to power maneuvers.  The size is a d4 for each 2 points spent. (1d8 per spell slot)





*Manuvers*
Fight On!: When an ally takes damage, you can spend a die to reduces the incoming damage by the result. If the damage is reduced to 0, the attack is a miss and they gain the remainder as temporary hit points.
Cunning Strike: When you make a weapon attack, instead of rolling an attack roll, the target makes an Intelligence saving throw. If they fail, you hit and deal damage equal to your die roll.
First Aid: You can use your action to allow a creature to spend a hit die for each die spent. Add your roll to the result. Once a creature benefits from this, they cannot benefit again until they take a short rest.
First Strike: When a creature rolls initiative, you can give a bonus equal youe roll.
Sacrificial Opportunity: When a creature would make a melee attack against you, you can be automatically be hit in order to have it provoke an opportunity attack from one creature adjacent to it, excluding yourself. Reduce the damage you take by the die roll.
Exploit Weakness: When a creature hits another creature with an attack, it deals extra damage equal to the die roll.
Drive the Point: When a creature makes with an attack, you can spend a die to increase the roll by the result.
Hold your Ground: When a creature would be pushed or pulled, reduce the distance by 5'.
Direct the Strike: When an ally takes an attack action, you can spend a die to allow them to make 1 additional attack against the same target. You can use this once per attack turn.
Skirmish: When a creature would provoke an opportunity attack, they do not provoke an opportunity attack.
Ect...



Still seems a bit backwards, but I could live with it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 14, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, gotta say, I like that version quite a bit.  Having direct the strike be an extra attack on top of current attacks handles "the rogue issue" nicely.



 That aspect seems like a good design, on its own merits, but it's ironic that it's a standard that Mearls didn't even hold himself to when balancing his Fighter(Warlord).



mellored said:


> Hmm... Maybe I should use the base classes as "sub-classes".



 That could certainly work for the kind of 'faux MC' sub-classes 5e seems to go in for, but it probably shouldn't be comprehensive.



> Maneuvers can be shared between classes, the same way spells are.



 I'm not surprised they didn't go for that, but it is a good idea.  It'd've been a good idea for 4e, for that matter.



> Rogue One: Blue Leader



 Lol.


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That could certainly work for the kind of 'faux MC' sub-classes 5e seems to go in for, but it probably shouldn't be comprehensive.



I don't know what you mean by that.


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

Some refinement to allow for lazy-lords in each class, and to make them a bit more unique.


Fighter Warlord
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you take the attack action, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.
In addition, you gain 2 dice when you roll initiative.


Rogue One: Blue Leader
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you take the attack action, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.
In addition, you can use your sneak attack dice to power the maneuvers. Dice spent this way are unavailable until the end of your next turn.


Monk Abbot
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you take the attack action, use martial arts, or flurry of blows, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.
In addition, you can use stunning strike though an ally when they hit a creature.


Barbarian Jarl
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you take the attack action, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.  You gain 2 dice if you recklessly attack.
In addition, when you enter a rage, you allies gain THP equal to your rage bonus.


Ranger Packmaster
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you take the attack action, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.
In addition, you gain hunter's mark as a bonus spell.  When you use hunter's mark, all of your allies benefit from it.


Paladin Marshal (Oath of Teamwork)
Learn 4 maneuvers from the maneuver list.
When you take the attack action, you can trade your attack(s) to gain 1 die for each attack you don't make.
In addition, you can use divine smite though an ally when they hit with an attack.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> I don't know what you mean by that.



Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, primarily.  A Fighter/Wizard or Rogue/Wizard multiclass wrapped in a subclass.


----------



## mellored (Apr 14, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, primarily.  A Fighter/Wizard or Rogue/Wizard multiclass wrapped in a subclass.



Ok....
So... you want a way to trade attacks for spell slots?


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 14, 2018)

mellored said:


> Ok....
> So... you want a way to trade attacks for spell slots?



No, just wanted to explain what Tony meant by "faux-MC" classes, since it seemed to cause some confusion.  Pretty sure he meant that since a maneuver system for warlords would logically be bundled up into one class, spreading the one system to multiple classes via the subclass route would be analogous to spreading Wizard spells to multiple classes, like the EK and AT do, in lieu of just making an actual multiclass Fighter/Wizard or Rogue/Wizard. 

Therefore, in making those kinds of subclasses, it doesn't preclude that fact that it still makes sense to make that set of features the focus of another, full class (that being a Warlord), just like the Wizard class still exists despite having its mechanics used in the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 15, 2018)

So thinking on the battlemaster as a warlord.  What if:

Level 1:  Drop Fighting Style.  Drop Second Wind.  Gain 2 (1d6) superiority dice and 3 maneuvers.  (Redo Commanders strike to grant ally an on turn attack).
Level 2:  Action Surge fits great (way to fuel additional maneuvers)
Level 3: go up to 6 total superiority dice and even more additional maneuvers (finish remaining levels as is and scale superiority dice as they are now)

***Add in a few new maneuvers***

Personally I think we are 90% of the way to a warlord with these changes.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 15, 2018)

To help codify the changes:

I will introduce a new Fighter fighting style:  Warlord Style - You gain two 1d6 superiority dice and your choice of 3 maneuvers.  When you choose this style you lose the Second Wind ability.

Level 3 Battlemaster subclass change: If you took the Warlord Style as your fighting style then everything is additive with the superiority dice and maneuvers you already have (need much better wording here)

Successful Warlord!


----------



## mellored (Apr 15, 2018)

Key points from my homebrew playtesting.

1: Instant ("reaction") bonuses work really well.  It leaves the spotlight on the other player.
1b: It's better to say "reduce the enemies AC" than "increase the allies attack".
1c: 2-3 "reactions" per round seems like a good baseline.  With 5-6 "reactions" as a nova round.
1d: Avoid creating extra off-turn d20 rolls.  Like saving throws to prevent an enemy from attacking.

2: Action to gain dice works really well.  Really helps keeps things balanced with multi-classing.
2b: You need to start each battle with some dice. 
2c: You need a way to use spend unspent dice.  Otherwise, you feel bad when your allies all roll well and you can't use your abilities.
  2cb: Probably some big move that cost a lot (i.e. spend 5 dice to let all your allies take a full action) so you feel good that they all rolled well.

3: Dice are better than points.  People like rolling dice and it keeps things a bit less predictable.
3b: Dice also help make each "reaction" more chunky.  (helping solve point 1c).
3c: You can play with dice sizes, to allow different sub-builds to work better with different maneuvers.  (Barbarian giving out a few d12's, while rogues have more d4's.  Avoiding an OA cost 1 die, so it cost the rogue less).

4: There's a big power difference between before the roll and after the roll.  Seems pretty promising as the level 11 feature.
4b: Bonuses to d20 rolls (attack, save, skills) automatically scale.  Bonuses to HP/damage need to have built-in scaling.

5: Hit dice healing works just fine, even at-will.  Though it's tricky to balance given how it scales.
5b: Healing 1 hit die at a time can be annoying with the "whack-a-mole" thing.  No worse than healing word, but still not great.

6: Having different ways to gain dice can give each character a unique "class" flavor, but can also be fiddly.  There's a balance here I failed to reach.



Might be a while before I get to try anything else.


----------



## mellored (Apr 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> To help codify the changes:
> 
> I will introduce a new Fighter fighting style:  Warlord Style - You gain two 1d6 superiority dice and your choice of 3 maneuvers.  When you choose this style you lose the Second Wind ability.
> 
> ...



IMO:
Warlord Fighting Style - At the start of each battle, you gain 2 superiority dice that are d4's, and your choice of 2 maneuvers.
In addition, when you use second wind, you can let an ally within 5' receive the healing instead of you.

Level 3: You learn 2 maneuvers.  Whenever you would make a weapon attack, you can forgo the attack to gain a superiority die.   Your superiority dice are d6's.  If you had superiority dice from another source, such as Warlord Fighting Style, increase the size of those dice to d6 as well.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> IMO:
> Warlord Fighting Style - At the start of each battle, you gain 2 superiority dice that are d4's, and your choice of 2 maneuvers.
> In addition, when you use second wind, you can let an ally within 5' receive the healing instead of you.
> 
> Level 3: You learn 2 maneuvers.  Whenever you would make a weapon attack, you can forgo the attack to gain a superiority die.   Your superiority dice are d6's.  If you had superiority dice from another source, such as Warlord Fighting Style, increase the size of those dice to d6 as well.




Then aren't you doing much more healing and temp hp generation better than even a life cleric?

IMO, just make a healing maneuver.  Heals 1d6 at level 1.


----------



## mellored (Apr 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Then aren't you doing much more healing and temp hp generation better than even a life cleric?



Hmm...  at level 2

Second wind = 5.5+2 * 3 = 22.5
Rally = 2.5+2 * 2 uses * 6 battles = 54 THP.
= 76.5

Healing Word = 2.5+3+3 * 3 = 25.5  (31.5 with cure wounds).
Preserve Life = 10 * 3 = 30
= 55.5  (61.5 with cure wounds).

So.. yea.  Might be a bit too much at level 1.


Warlord Fighting Style
At the start of each battle, you gain 1 superiority dice that are d4's, and your choice of 2 maneuvers.
In addition, when you use second wind, you can let an ally within 5' receive the healing instead of you.

Now at level 2...
Second wind = 5.5+2 * 3 = 22.5
Rally = 2.5+2 * 1 uses * 6 battles = 27 THP.
= 49.5

vs the life clerics 55.5


Level 3: You learn 2 maneuvers.  You gain 1 superiroty dice at the beginning of each battle, in addition to any other feature that gives you dice.  Your superiority dice are d6's. If you had superiority dice from another source, such as Warlord Fighting Style, increase the size of those dice to d6 as well.  In addition, whenever you would make a weapon attack, you can forgo the attack to gain a superiority die.

Second wind = 5.5+3 * 3 = 25.5
Rally = 3.5+2 * 2 uses * 6 battles = 66 THP.
= 91.5

vs clerics
Healing word = 2.5+3+3 * 4 = 34
Preserve Life = 15 * 3 = 45
Prayer of Healing = 9+3+4 * 5 targets * 2 uses = 160
= 239

So yea.  Not worried about it past level 3.



> IMO, just make a healing maneuver. Heals 1d6 at level 1.



If this was a new class, then I would agree.
But IMO, It feels bad to say "you don't get second wind".


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> Hmm...  at level 2
> 
> Second wind = 5.5+2 * 3 = 22.5
> Rally = 2.5+2 * 2 uses * 6 battles = 54 THP.
> ...




How about 1 superiority dice per short rest and 2nd wind can affect allies?


----------



## mellored (Apr 15, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> How about 1 superiority dice per short rest and 2nd wind can affect allies?



Second wind = 5.5+2 * 3 = 22.5
Rally = 2.5+2 * 3 = 13.5 THP.
= 36

vs 55.5 for cleric.


Actually, why not allow the lazy-lord from level 1?


Warlord Fighting Style
When you would make a weapon attack in combat, you can forgo the attack to study the enemy instead.  You gain a superiority die for each attack you don't make, up to a maximum of your Int modifier.  These dice last until the end of combat, as a new enemy means a new tactic.  You learn 2 maneuvers to use these dice on.
In addition, when you use second wind, you can let an ally within 5' receive the healing instead of you.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Apr 15, 2018)

mellored said:


> Key points from my homebrew playtesting.
> 
> 1: Instant ("reaction") bonuses work really well.  It leaves the spotlight on the other player.
> 1b: It's better to say "reduce the enemies AC" than "increase the allies attack".
> ...




Interesting field notes.


----------



## mellored (Apr 16, 2018)

Elfcrusher said:


> Interesting field notes.



To be fair, that's only from 1 table, and it was in the middle of messy "everyone bring your homebrew class" sessions which had all sorts of weird interactions and things going on.
So take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 16, 2018)

mellored said:


> Second wind = 5.5+2 * 3 = 22.5
> Rally = 2.5+2 * 3 = 13.5 THP.
> = 36
> 
> ...




I feel like you are intentionally ignoring level 1


----------



## mellored (Apr 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> I feel like you are intentionally ignoring level 1



Level 1

Second wind = 5.5+1 * 3 = 19.5

Healing word = 2.5+3+3 *2 = 17

A level 1 regular fighter can already heal herself more than a life cleric.  So I'm not really worried about it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 16, 2018)

mellored said:


> Level 1
> 
> Second wind = 5.5+1 * 3 = 19.5
> 
> ...




Maybe try cure wounds???
Maybe factor in the THP from the superiority dice you are giving said fighter???


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe try cure wounds???
> Maybe factor in the THP from the superiority dice you are giving said fighter???



I can't extract a hypothesis from your latest posts.  Do you think [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION]'s latest iteration has too much healing, or too little?


----------



## mellored (Apr 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe try cure wounds???
> Maybe factor in the THP from the superiority dice you are giving said fighter???



Cure wounds takes an action.  Doesn't seem fair to compare it to a bonus action heal.
Also, I've been assuming 14 Cha on a fighter, which isn't free.
But sure.  Your still focused on Level 1 I assume?

Second wind = 5.5+1 * 3 = 19.5

Cure Wounds = 4.5+3+3 *2 = 21


Level 2:

Second wind = 5.5+1 * 3 = 19.5

Cure Wounds = 4.5+3+3 *3 = 31.5
Preserve Life = 10 * 3 = 30



Level 3:
Second wind = 5.5+3 * 3 = 25.5
Rally = 3.5+2 * 6 battles = 33 THP.
= 58.5

Healing word = 2.5+3+3 * 4 = 34
Preserve Life = 15 * 3 = 45
Prayer of Healing = 9+3+4 * 5 targets * 2 uses = 160
= 239


I switched it to only give THP if you give up an attack at level 1.  So the only way to "out heal" a life cleric, is to let the life cleric "out damage" you.
Or a better idea, since there should be a pacifist cleric option.

New Cleric Cantrip: 
Words of Faith:  You say a little prayer, giving a creature some minor protection from harm.
Casting Time: 1 Action
One creature within 60' who can hear you gains 1d6 + your casting modifier THP.
Higher level: Increase to 2d6 at level 5, 3d6 at level 11, and 4d6 at level 17.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 16, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> I can't extract a hypothesis from your latest posts.  Do you think [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION]'s latest iteration has too much healing, or too little?




Mellored Proposal was to give fighter 2 (1d4) superiority dice per short rest at level 1 and let second wind affect allies. 

At level 1 this is far to much hp generation since it way overshadows what a life cleric can heal at level 1.


----------



## mellored (Apr 16, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> Mellored Proposal was to give fighter 2 (1d4) superiority dice per short rest at level 1 and let second wind affect allies.
> 
> At level 1 this is far to much hp generation since it way overshadows what a life cleric can heal at level 1.



I already agreed that was too much, and switched the level 1 and level 3 features around.


Level 1 gives you the ability to trade attacks for dice.  And a 1/short-rest heal.  (slightly worse than healing word).
Level 2 gives action surge (which can be traded for extra dice).
Level 3 gives you the bonus short rest dice.
Level 4 ABI
Level 5 gives you extra attack, which can be traded for extra dice.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 17, 2018)

mellored said:


> I already agreed that was too much, and switched the level 1 and level 3 features around.
> 
> 
> Level 1 gives you the ability to trade attacks for dice.  And a 1/short-rest heal.  (slightly worse than healing word).
> ...




The ability to trade an attack for a dice is fine in the general sense.  However, the ability to trade an attack now for a dice that can be used in the future just feels weird for a non-magical mechanic.  The fiction of what is taking place doesn't readily flow from that mechanic.  If anything it would have to be forced upon it because there's not a lot of explanation that can explain what's going on with that in game.  So I really dislike that mechanic.  If it's more immediate it makes a lot more sense, but you can't have it be so immediate with only a single attack.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> The ability to trade an attack for a dice is fine in the general sense.  However, the ability to trade an attack now for a dice that can be used in the future just feels weird for a non-magical mechanic.



 Why would it make sense to have a magical ability that you trade a weapon attack now for an extra die later?  



> The fiction of what is taking place doesn't readily flow from that mechanic.



 The fiction is feeling out enemies (making 'probing attacks' if in melee, for instance) and observing the battle to gain tactical insight, obviously.  It could also represent 'conditioning' tactics, in which you make a repeated pattern of attacks that the enemy can easily counter, then vary one part of it when they've gotten used to your 'predictability,' creating an opening.


----------



## FrogReaver (Apr 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Why would it make sense to have a magical ability that you trade a weapon attack now for an extra die later?
> 
> The fiction is feeling out enemies (making 'probing attacks' if in melee, for instance) and observing the battle to gain tactical insight, obviously.  It could also represent 'conditioning' tactics, in which you make a repeated pattern of attacks that the enemy can easily counter, then vary one part of it when they've gotten used to your 'predictability,' creating an opening.




That might be a lot more satisfying of an explanation if the character in question didn't also get uses of the same abilities without having to feel out enemies by making probing attacks etc.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 18, 2018)

mellored said:


> Level 1 gives you the ability to trade attacks for dice.  And a 1/short-rest heal.  (slightly worse than healing word).
> Level 2 gives action surge (which can be traded for extra dice).
> Level 3 gives you the bonus short rest dice.
> Level 4 ABI
> Level 5 gives you extra attack, which can be traded for extra dice.



 When you trade action/attack for extra dice, are these dice just added to your short-rest dice pool, or do they have to be used in the same round as the action/attack they were traded for?


----------



## mellored (Apr 18, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> When you trade action/attack for extra dice, are these dice just added to your short-rest dice pool, or do they have to be used in the same round as the action/attack they were traded for?



I found a pre-battle pool to work best.  It also fits the flavor of studing the enemy, so your tricks only works against those enemies, and let's you "pre-buff" if you scout.

But, I'm not sure what the best wording would be if your trying to squeeze it in with the current battlemaster.  Suggestions?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2018)

FrogReaver said:


> That might be a lot more satisfying of an explanation if the character in question didn't also get uses of the same abilities without having to feel out enemies by making probing attacks etc.



 What's the issue with the BM having CS dice, up-front - a limited ability to pull tricks in combat, either because combat presents limited opportunities (abstract reasoning) or because pulling such a trick 'cold' requires the ol' 'deep reserves' or whatever the current BM explanation is - and also being able to set up tricks by forgoing attacks to 'probe' or 'condition' the enemy, or by scouting out & assessing the enemy in advance?  

Different means to the same ends hardly seems out of line for martial maneuvers, "all's fair in Love andCombat as War..."


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> I found a pre-battle pool to work best.  It also fits the flavor of studing the enemy, so your tricks only works against those enemies, and let's you "pre-buff" if you scout.
> 
> But, I'm not sure what the best wording would be if your trying to squeeze it in with the current battlemaster.  Suggestions?



 Ah. So its not short-rest. I was wondering whether some of the objections to your suggestion were that it looked like you could build up dice in one fight to use in another, and there didn't seem to be a maximum number anywhere.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Apr 19, 2018)

I'm looking into different options for maneuver mechanics. Could I get some opinions on this one please?

(This is intended for offensive maneuvers, as an alternative to expending a superiority dice and forcing the opponent to make a save or suffer a condition.)

_"The warlord chooses a number of superiority dice to roll when initiating the maneuver. The total is compared against the ability score of the target. If it is greater, then the maneuver takes effect. If the total of the SD is less than the target's ability score, the maneuver fails."_

Many of the maneuvers will target the Constitution score of the target, and inflict conditions (anything from deafened to paralysed depending upon the level of the maneuver.)
Do people think that this mechanic is worth exploring for my warlord design, or would sticking to the saving throw system be better?

Stuff to bear in mind: My warlord has two variants (Mindsets) One will have a dice pool of Ability mod + prof bonus of up to d12s, renewing on short rest. The other will have up to 4d8 renewing every round.

Thus an architect-mindset warlord willing to invest a lot of their dice will have a very reliable chance of applying that maneuver to most human-level opponents, and even a lot of much more powerful foes if they're willing to really go all-in. 
- This is what I'm worried about, but I'm not sure whether its an actual issue or not.


----------



## mellored (Apr 19, 2018)

> Ah. So its not short-rest. I was wondering whether some of the objections to your suggestion were that it looked like you could build up dice in one fight to use in another, and there didn't seem to be a maximum number anywhere.



I was using Int mod as a cap, but I didn't really like it.  Since it forces you to raise your Int to use the big 5 dice moves.

But I still wanted a small cap, since you could build up dice while scouting.




Cap'n Kobold said:


> _"The warlord chooses a number of superiority dice to roll when initiating the maneuver. The total is compared against the ability score of the target. If it is greater, then the maneuver takes effect. If the total of the SD is less than the target's ability score, the maneuver fails."_



Seems fine to me, except that it's not worth trading 1 attack for 1 die.  I would add in some flat bonus instead.

Maybe something like Int modifier + die roll vs ability score...
Nah.  Too small.

Int + proficency + die?
Still seems a bit small.

Maybe just give more dice?
So if you traded 1 attack for 2d6 dice... then you could hand out out as bonus damage or damage reduction.
Just don't hand out 1d6's as a bonuses to-hit.
(Possibly 2d6 take the highest as the to-hit bonus?  And scale to 2d12?
Hmmm....)



> Do people think that this mechanic is worth exploring for my warlord design, or would sticking to the saving throw system be better?



I like the warlord rolling the die.  Though I would have liked the wizard rolling the "saves' as well.
Still, it gives it a different feel from "magic". (which was the excuse for magic to use saving throws).



> Thus an architect-mindset warlord willing to invest a lot of their dice will have a very reliable chance of applying that maneuver to most human-level opponents, and even a lot of much more powerful foes if they're willing to really go all-in.
> - This is what I'm worried about, but I'm not sure whether its an actual issue or not.



True.
Ability scores vary twice as much as ability modifiers.  It undermines the bounded accuracy thing.
The whole math was set up around the d20....


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 19, 2018)

mellored said:


> I was using Int mod as a cap, but I didn't really like it.  Since it forces you to raise your Int to use the big 5 dice moves.
> 
> But I still wanted a small cap, since you could build up dice while scouting.



 I do like the 'build up dice while scouting' idea, nicely evokes planning, without actually having to listen to players 'planning' for a long time.  ;P



Cap'n Kobold said:


> I'm looking into different options for maneuver mechanics. Could I get some opinions on this one please?
> _"The warlord chooses a number of superiority dice to roll when initiating the maneuver. The total is compared against the ability score of the target. If it is greater, then the maneuver takes effect. If the total of the SD is less than the target's ability score, the maneuver fails."_



 Well, my first impression is that the class'd need a lot of such dice to do anything.  Second impression is that it doesn't take the target's level into account, which seems off.  

And, of course, it's adding a /third/  method of resolving an offensive action, on top of attack rolls and saving throws, when any more than one is just needless complexity, in the first place.  (Or is it fourth? do contested checks count, as well?  Does 5e have anything like the old Bluff vs Sense Motive to 'feint,' for instance? Hm, even if it doesn't, explicitly, a player might declare an action that leads the DM to using a contested Deception v Insight like that as part of the resolution....)  



> Do people think that this mechanic is worth exploring for my warlord design, or would sticking to the saving throw system be better?



 Save DC of 8 + relevant mod + proficiency seems well-established, and 'attacks' a stat in the same sense, including the possibility of hammering a low-stat, non-proficient save, even vs a high-level target.



> Stuff to bear in mind: My warlord has two variants (Mindsets) One will have a dice pool of Ability mod + prof bonus of up to d12s, renewing on short rest. The other will have up to 4d8 renewing every round.



 That bears on the 'you'd need more than a few dice' observation.  



> Thus an architect-mindset warlord willing to invest a lot of their dice will have a very reliable chance of applying that maneuver to most human-level opponents, and even a lot of much more powerful foes if they're willing to really go all-in.
> - This is what I'm worried about, but I'm not sure whether its an actual issue or not.



 It's kinda an iffy mechanic, that way.  Some player's'd be fine with rolling a d12 and hopping to beat a very low stat, other's'd throw great handfuls of dice just to be sure...  
...could end up not playing at all well with BA.




mellored said:


> Seems fine to me, except that it's not worth trading 1 attack for 1 die.  I would add in some flat bonus instead.



 maybe if you started with 2d and each attack added one?



> I like the warlord rolling the die.  Though I would have liked the wizard rolling the "saves' as well.
> Still, it gives it a different feel from "magic". (which was the excuse for magic to use saving throws).



 It also, incidentally, gives your target 6 "ACs" to maintain, one or a few of which are almost inevitably going to be really low.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 12, 2018)

*Threaddddd Necromancy!!!*

Okay, finishing up a revision I'm making of the Tactician I started seven or eight months back.

When I started designing this, I had the following concepts in mind:
*1) Do what the concept should do.* I wanted to think about what a "warlord" type character would do and make that. I didn't want to limit it to "just what it did in 4e" but what you might expect a smart, field commander to do. Really, I wanted to update the _concept_ and not just update the previous implementation. 
*2) Encourage teamwork.* I wanted this class to work with its allies and use abilities that implied teamwork, either overtly in the mechanics, or via the story. 
*3) Be Smart.* I wanted it to use Intelligence over Charisma. The charming, inspiring leader is already the bard. Doubling down on the cunning, intelligent leader gives the tactician/ warlord a more unique place in the game. 
*4) Choices but Limited Complexity.* As this was the class designed to appeal to the person wanting to be a "tactical genius", I wanted to give interesting choices each round. But not so many that you actually needed to be a master tactician to play the class.

Other design thoughts: 

_*Replacing the Cleric.*_ This is less necessary in 5e as the druid and bard can heal in the PHB just fine. And through other subclasses, the warlock and sorcerer can unlock healing. 
Replacing the cleric feels like a less necessary design goal. (Just like designing the sorcerer as the "wizard replacement" or the barbarian as the "fighter replacement".) Classes should be designed around the concept, not around another class.
I wanted to focus more on what made the warlord conceptually interesting and less on replacing the cleric. This also allows a "warlord" to be in the same party as a cleric without completely overlapping and stepping on each other's toes or feeling redundant. 
Plus, this also sidestepped trying to find "replacements" for cleric features, such as raising the dead, removing disease, or unpetrifying a stone PC. 

_*Party Role.*_ The above said, I still wanted this to potentially be a martial healer. However, I also wanted this to be a "simple" healer. There's not a lot of "simple healing" in 5e. Keeping the "warlord" complexity lite allowed it to also fill this gap. It's an option if "no one wants to play the cleric" except the one player who dislikes spellcasters. 
Which is the point of the warlord: to be the healer that doesn't use magic. If the "cleric replacement" works and feels just like the cleric… it's not really a *different* option. 
That said, 5e doesn't tie classes to a single combat role. While the cleric can excel as a healer, they can also work quite well as the party face, the tank, a striker/DPR character, or even a tricky rogue type. As such, it was important to make a 5e "warlord" inspired class do more than the single role. But to do so in a warlordy way.

Going to take any feedback and sit on this design for a few days. And then maybe do a final edit pass and throw this on the DMsGuild.


 



 







 




PDF link

Curious if any of the other posters in this thread have a PDF to show off as well...


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 13, 2018)

Jester David said:


> *Threaddddd Necromancy!!!*
> 
> Okay, finishing up a revision I'm making of the Tactician I started seven or eight months back.
> 
> ...




Quick response - love your goals. updating the concept - good there were options that seemed to never make it to the table with the 4e Warlord (in spite of it being already very role versatile and having a lot of support, I think actually battlefield control could have been better and having some striker functionality? intrigues me)  . Teamwork also vital (this is missing from the feel of Battlemaster subtype so  few maneuvers were full party boosters ). And Intelligence is also very very nice. Indeed arguably the whole purpose of roleplaying is the opportunity to feel the flow of something you likely aren't while I don't mind some complexity a lot is not required with the right elegance.  I even like the simple healer idea. 

I am picturing the Legend of Arslan after reading this.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 13, 2018)

A couple of ideas I had seem like they could  be used by Warlord/Fighter variants

One was a low level feature that helps out the Strength based character called

*Battle ready*
For most the beginning of a battle is something they have to react to and its reflexes that take over but for you its a fulfillment of your expectations and your plans.
You may pick and alternative stat (instead of dexterity to base your initiative on)
Intelligence - Quick Thinking / Charisma - Cunning  / Wisdom  - for Perception even considered Constitution - for instinctive response. 

The other is a fighting style that enables Warlord like function with every successful strike. Works alright even if it is just you. 

*Leading(or Probing) Strike*
Your every attack creates openings for yourself and your allies to exploit.
Subsequent attacks against a target you successfully attack this turn gain +1 to the attack.
or maybe just the first gains a +3 damage.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 14, 2018)

Garthanos said:


> A couple of ideas I had seem like they could  be used by Warlord/Fighter variants
> 
> One was a low level feature that helps out the Strength based character called
> 
> ...



I considered having them use Intelligence instead of Dexterity. Or something like Investigation/ Perception checks. 
Instead, I opted to give them the choice of adding or subtracting Int, which gives them more of a range, and lets them decide where they want to act. Which adds a quick decision element that feels tactical. 



Garthanos said:


> The other is a fighting style that enables Warlord like function with every successful strike. Works alright even if it is just you.
> 
> *Leading(or Probing) Strike*
> Your every attack creates openings for yourself and your allies to exploit.
> ...



I do like the idea of adding a new fighting style! It's also be a neat way of slipping just that dash of leadership into the fighter.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 14, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I considered having them use Intelligence instead of Dexterity. Or something like Investigation/ Perception checks.
> Instead, I opted to give them the choice of adding or subtracting Int, which gives them more of a range, and lets them decide where they want to act. Which adds a quick decision element that feels tactical.




Agreed nice for Warlord  I approve though I think Battle Ready could also be just any fighter. So those who opt for Strength get their favored secondary as initiative (and its barely more than a tweak)



Jester David said:


> I do like the idea of adding a new fighting style! It's also be a neat way of slipping just that dash of leadership into the fighter.




Yeh I think both of these are minimal fuss modifications, I even like the Battlemaster name being a pretty fair synonym of the "War" "Lord"


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 14, 2018)

I like hearing design thoughts on house builds ... I found the Variant Fighter very interesting


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 14, 2018)

Should reinvigorating call be "can't use it on them again until the subject/target finishes a short or long rest"?


----------



## Jester David (Nov 14, 2018)

Garthanos said:


> Should reinvigorating call be "can't use it on them again until the subject/target finishes a short or long rest"?




It can go either way. There's examples of both in the book. But it would make more sense...


----------



## Jester David (Nov 24, 2018)

Threw the semi-final draft onto the Guild:
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/259581/5-Minute-Workday-Presents-Tactician-Class?src=newest_in_dmg

Might come up with another subclass or two. There could be a debuffer as well, that wasn't quite ready.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 24, 2018)

Any other Star Wars Saga Edition players here? 

Im away from my books, but what I’d like to see is something mechanically based on the various types of Saga Noble talent trees, especially Inspiration, Leadership, etc. I think there was one that was all about being a revolutionary? 

Also, the mechanics of the Officer prestige class are great mining material. 

The mechanical language of Saga is pretty easy to translate to 5e, and the talents are of a similar power level range to 5e class features, and they do what we all want from the class, IMO.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 27, 2018)

More Necromancy!!! 



mellored said:


> To be fair, that's only from 1 table, and it was in the middle of messy "everyone bring your homebrew class" sessions which had all sorts of weird interactions and things going on.
> So take it with a grain of salt.




So where has this development reached? Could you synopsis what you have so far?


----------



## mellored (Nov 29, 2018)

I haven't played 5e in a while, and haven't played a warlord in even longer, but the best warlord version (IMO), was...

Level 1; you can help as a reaction.
  Subclasses weapons/armor proficiency
Level 2: before you take a reaction, you can move 5' per Int, up to your speed, in order to get into range.
  For each reaction you do not spend, you gain +1d4 to your next attack roll and damage rolls on the following turn.
Level 3: give Cha THP as a minor action.
  Subclasses reaction maneuver
5: you gain an extra reaction each turn.
6: helping with a skill gives a min d20 roll of half your warlord level
7: a few reaction maneuvers (push allies/enemy out/in of a fireball, prevent an OA, and some others)
9: don't provoke OA when using reactions.
10: subclass out of combat feature
11: 3rd reaction.
13: a few advanced maneuvers that take 2 reactions (interrupt spell casting, advantage on a save, and more)
14: subclass reaction that takes 2 reactions
15: all allies gain Cha THP as a minor action
17: 4th reaction
18: subclass ultimate
20: help no longer takes an action

Sub-class
martyr (shield, become the target of an attack, 2 reactions to have eveyone in an AoE take disadvantage to saves if you are included)
warlord (2-handed, attacks with allies, 2 reactions to turn an ally attack into a crit)
Medic (1-hands, immediately heal half of the the damage taken, 2 reactions to prevent death)
Shouty-lazy-lord that I had a better name for (bonus skill, can help and manuvers at range without moving, 2 reactions for a group shout)


----------



## mellored (Nov 29, 2018)

The study enemies to build up dice worked nice most of the time, but there where a lot of corner cases that I never got around to ironing out.  Such as studying someone else to build up dice and using it on a completely different fight.

In the end, using reactions as a pool just worked better.  And the movement made it feel more active, tactical, and team-work-ish, as positioning matters.  "I can't help you if you go over there" was a common and fitting thing to say.

I did try out the statigum idea, but it always ended up being either too vague as to basically be just a "whenever" buff.  Either that or it was too specific and we felt bad that out plan never came together.  It was rarely that happy middle ground where it felt like a real plan than came together.  (though it was pretty cool the few times it did happen).


----------



## FrogReaver (Dec 1, 2018)

mellored said:


> I haven't played 5e in a while, and haven't played a warlord in even longer, but the best warlord version (IMO), was...
> 
> Level 1; you can help as a reaction.
> Subclasses weapons/armor proficiency
> ...




Something like this still sounds like the most fun Warlord type character to me.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 16, 2018)

mellored said:


> I haven't played 5e in a while, and haven't played a warlord in even longer, but the best warlord version (IMO), was...
> 
> Level 1; you can help as a reaction.
> Subclasses weapons/armor proficiency
> ...




Lots of interesting things in there which I missed on first glance .. I think shouty at a range isnt a subclass thing specific to lazylord tricks though. 

Lots of reactions == lots of fast thinking huh


----------



## Paul Smart (Dec 16, 2018)

Lots of great ideas here.  Keep them coming.


----------



## mellored (Dec 16, 2018)

Garthanos said:


> Lots of interesting things in there which I missed on first glance ..




Yea. I got a chance to playtest and do some refinement after... I forget who, suggested using run-up-and-help as a reaction.

I'm particularly proud of the d4 hit and damage.
*You don't feel useless if you didn't get a chance to use your reactions, including if you are caught alone.
*It is still best to use your reactions to help (advantage) for an ally, or any of the other ones.
*A single high accuracy attack it feels different than any other attacker.

Though, I think I had it scale to d6 at some point to keep a bit ahead of a non-smiting paladin.
Also, level 6 looks wrong... Good feature, but rolling a 1-2 when you have advantage is pretty much never going to happen so that's a dead level.
I think I forgot the mid-tier THP.
So...

6: Helping with a skill gives a min d20 roll of half your warlord level.
2 allies gain Cha THP as a bonus action

10: subclass out of combat feature.
Increase the didn't-spend-a-reaction bonus die from d4 to d6.

That looks better. I think...
Anyways... Suggestions welcome, or you can just take it and run with it.



> I think shouty at a range isn't a subclass thing specific to lazylord tricks though.



Yea, nothing prevents you from attacking or anything like that. It worked well as a shouty bow-lord too. It's just extra range and helps make sure you always have a non-attack action to take, so you _could_ go 20 Int/Cha Lazy.
Also I tried a Lazy-Martyr with 20 Con + dodge action + defensive dualist which worked pretty great as well. No need for "once per round".

Seems like pacifist medic should be an option as well. But "as an action you can heal someone" wouldn't work, so I'm not sure what to give them as an alternitive.



> Lots of reactions == lots of fast thinking huh



Yup, you actually have to pay attention to what everyone is doing, and where everyone is. It feels very different from cast-bless-and-wait for your turn.

It also solves the biggest, or at least loudest, complaint about 4e warlords. There is no mechanic where you get to say "attack that guy" or "move there".
You can still say it _in character_, but no more than a monk/wizard/sorcerer/bard can after they stuns someone.


----------



## Garthanos (Dec 17, 2018)

mellored said:


> The study enemies to build up dice worked nice most of the time, but there where a lot of corner cases that I never got around to ironing out.  Such as studying someone else to build up dice and using it on a completely different fight.




Ulterior motive on this was to have a general adjusted action system that enabled combos.


----------



## mellored (Dec 17, 2018)

Garthanos said:


> Ulterior motive on this was to have a general adjusted action system that enabled combos.



Using the dice pool to power maneuver and combos worked fine.  It was what I actually expected way back in the play test. I just wanted other, more flavorful ways of recharging the pool beside a flat X per turn.

At very least, make it recharge at the end of your turn, so you have them available for off-turn actions, and can spend the left overs on your turn.


----------

