• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Warlording the fighter

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Drop hit dice to d8 to line up with cleric.

Cool. Limited sample so far, but there seems to be consensus on this, or at least ambivalence. So D8 it is.



Drop armor down to, probably, medium and maybe no shields.

Why no shields? Even the 4E Warlord had at minimum, proficiency with Light Shield (granted, 5E doesn't have Light Shield, but we're only talking the difference of +1 between a 4E Light Shield of +1 bonus and a 5E shield of +2 bonus).

Core class features include some form of manipulation of the action economy - granting attacks and/or movement to allies. Something similar to bardic inspiration, maybe, but with a specific combat focus. Some healing capabilities, most likely allowing allies to access some hit dice while in combat. The first extra attack is fine, but not the later ones; those are the Fighter's toys.

That's a little vague. Any ideas on specific 4E Warlord class features to incorporate? Any ideas on how to modify bardic inspiration to match the Warlord concept?

How do you feel about replacing the extra attacks with Superiority Dice (after keeping the first extra attack)...?

Personally, that's the part of the Battle Master that I don't like. I don't like having to keep track of another resource. I prefer a simple, always on feature like extra actions; but I haven't really seen any similar opinions expressed by others, so I'm probably an outlier on this.

If you Superiority Dice are okay, how many should they have? Same as a Battle Master? More? Less?

Subclasses can operate on a maneuver basis, using Battlemaster as something of a model. One set focuses more on inspiration (including healing and buffs) and one on tactics (including positioning and attacks).

Agreed. Seems like the best approach.

Class balance should use clerics and bards as the basic model, since they are the closest thematically.

Interesting. Does anybody else have feedback on this? Agree? Disagree?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For Fighting Style, I'd add a variant of the Rogue's Cunning Action which lets an adjacent ally Dash their speed or Disengage and moves 1/2 their speed.
I wouldn't be so quick to just yank out Fighting Style. Many warlords get up in melee or combat themselves, and having a way to differentiate your ranged warlord, defensive warlord, and sword-and-board warlord would be nice. Although it could be delayed until level 2 or so.

For Second Wind, I'd add a version of Song of Rest which allow grants THP with the HP.
But there's no combat healing inherent in that. Which is apparently essential.

For Action Surge. I'd give them a Combined attack which lets them replace one of their attacks with an ally adjacent to the enemy for a reaction.
Some of the feedback I received for the early drafts of my commander subclass focused on how just granting an extra attack didn't work well with spellcasters. Allowing someone to take an action and then limiting the action to a set list (make an attack, cast a cantrip, dash, disengage, dodge, etc) gives some nice flexibility.
Tying it to a reaction also seems unnecessary, since the warlord is giving up something. It's not an extra attack, it's a trade.

There's still the question of extra attacks and the extra ability score increases.
And if they should have the same armour and HD of a fighter.
 

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
On tactical warlord:
The Tactical warlord would get the same dice and maneuvers as a Battlemaster fighter.

Cool.

On in combat healing:
I'm in the small group of warlord fans who think warlords don't need in combat healing. In combat healing was an necessity to the battle system.

Cool. No offense intended, but from what I've read throughout the thread, I think this is a no-sell for most. Seems to me that this is what most that want a Warlord feel that 5E is lacking. I think this is specifically what [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] was talking about as pertains to running more Swords & Sorcery style games. I think I agree with him on this, but this isn't about me. So...

Anybody else have feedback on this?

On THP
I would do both and this would negate most issue. My "Speech of Rest" would grant THP and HP on long and short rests.

Okay.

For clarification purposes, you're talking about using the Bard's "Song of Rest" as a Warlord Class Feature and calling it "Speech of Rest"...? (I apologize...juggling multiple conversations...:eek:)
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I personally don't think the warlord needs in combat healing. In combat healing isn't part of 5th edition's stuff you need. 4th edition was based on your HP ping longing up and down so you wanted an Xing Word and Second Wind.

In 5th edition, in combat healing is not a necessity. "If'n you need to heal during a fight in 5th, you'all done messed up or sombody gonna die soon most of the time. " You only need a "get back in there" feature to perk up downed allies.
 

No. This is an approach destined for disappointment also, as it provides no specifics or feedback. It's a declaration only, a declaration that assumes this is fact, while making subjective claims. This is called Dogmatism or Appeal to False Authority.

It provides specifics - working out what's wrong is easier than working out how to get it right. You do need to point out how given classes people propose would be miserable failures as warlords (as has been done). Solving it is a task that the pros don't seem to have managed.

Can you link to these please? I really don't want to comb 170+ posts, or even other threads, to find the relevant portions. It would really help if you could point them out.

The fighter version is in the second half of this post. The more complex 3.5 Crusader-derived tactician is here.


Is there a mechanical reason why this is irrelevant, or is this personal opinion?

I ask because another has specifically stated that less is desirable.

I know that the 4E Warlord had smaller Hit Dice than the Fighter, but I also know that survivability in 5E is less about To-Hit bonuses, than it is about HP (the two sides of the Bounded Accuracy coin).

Which do you prefer of these two options, D10 or D8...?

Deciding on the hit dice at the start is putting the cart before the horse. d8 is the aesthetically appealing one - but in practice the fighter is not a d10 class. With Second Wind they get d10 extra HP and an extra hp per level, making them closer to d12.

All else being equal, d8 would be preferable to d10. But d10 still doesn't make them as tough as the fighter (the warlord shouldn't be as tough as the fighter). And a lot depends on their class features and how tough it makes them; every single class has some sort of defensive feature, whether it's the Rogue's defensive roll, the fighter's Second Wind and Indomitable, the Barbarian's rage, or just spells.

I would therefore default the warlord's hit dice to a d8 (putting them level with a cleric), but this is a number I'd pencil in pending first writing other features then playtesting. A d10 would not on its own be incompatible with the warlord being a warlord. And I suspect that I speak for almost almost all Warlord fans in this, that all else being equal d8 is the way to go, but a d10 would not be a dealbreaker. Especially if the warlord ended up as short of defensive features for themselves because by default they gave them all away to the other PCs.

Okay. I understand what you're saying. Question though: Would you prefer a scaled attack ala valorous bard, and lose the potential action economy resource of multiple actions (attacks), or would you like both?

What I think I'd like here is from my fighter example. Multiple attacks that I can give away to other PCs and no static damage boosts for myself. (I can of course use these multiple attacks for myself, but fighters hit things with their axe, warlords hit things with the barbarian).

So, Feats rather than class abilities? Or should Tactical Warlord and Inspiring Warlord be subclasses (archetypes) of a Warlord class, with armor and weapon proficiencies stated there? If so, what should the default armor and weapon proficiencies be?

By default I'd go for the armour proficiencies of the cleric and full martial weapon profs. But this should be adjustable at level 1 both up and down with your first level pick, from the battlefront leader in full fighter or even paladin armour to the sneak-attack-less rogue who loves it when a plan comes together (probably going full lazylord). At level 3 you pick between Tactical, Inspiring, Bravura, Trickster (think roguish Arcane Trickster), and Exemplar (Paladin's second cousin).

And yes, I have no problems with subtypes of Warlord having spells. It just shouldn't be the default.

I find it hard to believe that you can't identify some of the powers that would be absolutely crucial to include...

I've already given ways of including them. For me the three big ones are the two lazylord powers (Commander's Strike and Direct the Strike) - giving your attacks away at will. And Brash Assault where the warlord takes ridiculous risks but the enemy gets punished if they accept. The next biggest on my list is Powerful Warning (normally known as "Duck!") And I don't expect the big ones in 5e.

And therein lies a significant piece of the problem. "Too divergent" is non-specific and objective. As concerns actually getting what one wants - which in this case is a Warlord that feels, smells, and plays like a Warlord - these kinds of statements are worse than useless. They're frustrating and counterproductive.

Have you played a warlord?

Do you want a Warlord that feels, smells, and plays like a 4E Warlord?

This is 5e. I want something that can open up the vistas of characters I can play that were enabled by 4e and are no longer effectively viable in 5e.

Or do you want to continue limiting your options or approaches to providing that, by demanding it must be done as a separate class?

No. We want the people who are saying "It can be done as an existing class" to shut up because it is quite clear that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. It is about a year after the release of 5e. That was all tried in the first two weeks after the publication of the PHB. If you think your solution is obvious then ask yourself why it isn't in common use. Then if you can't work that out ask someone who actually understands the issues why it isn't in common use.

If you have a radical redesign of any of the classes normally proposed (fighter, cleric, bard - and I don't know why no one ever suggests the paladin) that deals with the issues with them, feel free to propose it. But do not assume either that people who want a warlord are arguing in bad faith or that we have root vegetables in place of brains. The exploration of what is there already has been done. If you want the notes from the exploration, ask. But don't say "Hey guys, I found this great way on the map" and then take offence when one of us points out that there's a river in the way and no bridge.

Are you willing to accept a Warlord that works within the conceits and mechanics of 5E? Understanding that because they are significantly different systems, an exact port simply is not possible...?

Yes. Are you willing to accept that nothing currently exists in 5e that even comes close to working and any extension to a class would require a radical alteration to that class to change the very way it is intended to function - and that that point there is little difference between that and an entirely new class?
 

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Some of the feedback I received for the early drafts of my commander subclass focused on how just granting an extra attack didn't work well with spellcasters. Allowing someone to take an action and then limiting the action to a set list (make an attack, cast a cantrip, dash, disengage, dodge, etc) gives some nice flexibility.
Tying it to a reaction also seems unnecessary, since the warlord is giving up something. It's not an extra attack, it's a trade.

This sounds like an important consideration to keep in mind.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
@El Mahdi, do you ever play Dungeon World or Fate Core? I bought a supplement (to hopefully play once my DW group wraps up our in-the-home-stretch campaign) called Grim World, which has some interesting features to it. The big reason I bought it was because it included a class, perhaps-unfortunately called the Battlemaster, though it didn't hurt that it also had an "I can't believe it's not Dragonborn" race. It might not be everything you want, but it seems like a fun place to start or to grab mechanics/ideas from.

The first core mechanic around which the Grim World Battlemaster spins is "Gambit." Each time you or one of your party members* takes damage from an outside source (not necessarily in a fight), "it was all part of the plan," and you get +1 Gambit. Normally, once things have cooled off, your Gambit is reset to 0, so it has to be "built up" over the course of a fight, reflecting the "putting together a plan" nature. There are various, powerful ways to expend Gambit, such as granting an ally a free hit or handing out a +1 to a roll (a VERY big deal in a game with such limited bonuses)--though some of these are things you have to pick up after levelling up (such as the free attack for an ally). Various level-up options help you gain (or retain) Gambit and spend it in new or interesting ways, and some of both types are "high risk, high reward" type choices.

The second core mechanic, which is more personal as opposed to the both-self-and-other nature of Gambit, is Tactics, which are essentially stances that provide various battle effects. One lets you do damage even when you "miss," another replaces normal attacks (properly "Hack and Slash") with counterattacks, which essentially let you "defend" and, if you get a major success (10+ on 2d6 + Dex, or Str with one of the level-up moves) you get a free hit in as well. Tactics can be changed in battle, though you take a risk to do it (that is, you have to roll). Many of their effects are very potent, IF you can leverage them well, which fits perfectly with the class's conception--most of its moves depend on Intelligence, and many of its level-up moves let you replace the stat normally used for an action with Int (for example, one lets you take the "Defend" move--which is for protecting other people or things, not yourself--with Int instead of the normal Con).

Finally, it has two purely non-combat starting features (as most DW classes do): one gives a bonus to "Spout Lore" (essentially Knowledge) checks regarding "combat topics" such as politics, warfare, military history, fighting styles, etc. and the other is just so flavorful I have to quote it (fortunately, it's available in the Free Preview, so I'm not stealing anything you couldn't find yourself):

Battle of Wits
You always know in which goblet resides the poison. When an enemy is watching you and there's a difficult choice to make, the GM will tell you what the enemy expects you to do.

Emphasis in original, as with most DW moves. And, as with most things, the DM is in fact required to state this truthfully (though just because you know what they expect doesn't mean you know the right answer!)

Probably the only thing it lacks is any form of "real" healing, but healing is much rarer and more difficult in DW than it is in any version of D&D.

Also, here's the pic of the "Drakarn" (essentially their uniquely-fluffed version of Dragonborn) Battlemaster:
[sblock] 195956a6a851961904d7dad2823a75cd_large.jpg[/sblock]
 

In-combat healing

As it seems to be a tangent.

It is not necessary that all warlords be able to manage in-combat healing. Indeed on a number of warlords it has felt forced.

However all parties should have a panic button - and this sort of panic button requires in-combat healing to a point that even downed PCs are able to pull themselves back to their feet and leg it. And this sort of panic button is the domain even of the most anti-social of tactical warlords.

It is further extremely desirable that parties with no spellcasters at all should work effectively. One of the good things the Warlord did to the metagame was removed the requirement for clerics.

This all means that any warlord should be able to take as an optional class feature that grants in-combat healing even if it is not a default for all warlords. And it should be a single ability rather than tie them to a path.
 

fuindordm

Adventurer
Okay.

So, just for a place to start, let's take the Fighter chassis.

Now, let's strip out Second Wind, Action Surge, Fighting Style, Indomitable, and Extra Attack 2&3 (at least for right now, we may want them later as an action economy resource...)

Now we change the name at the top of the class entry to Warlord (under construction)

What class attributes do we install to replace the one's we took out?

If we start from a fighter, I would strip out Second Wind, Action Surge, 2 ASIs, Indomitable, and Extra attacks 3 and 4 from the base class. This is enough change to make it a new class, rather than a subclass of fighter. It's still a martial class, so I think the 2nd attack at L5 is a must.

What to replace these with?

(L1) Second Wind --> Inspiration Dice (following the trend of several monsters and NPCs)--use as bonus to attack or temp HP
(L2) Action Surge --> "Hammer & Anvil" (Grant ally extra attack on a monster you just attacked)
(L6) bonus ASI --> Improved inspiration--can be used as damage bonus
(L9) Indomitable --> Can grant ally new saving throw on your turn, even if they already failed this round (more uses L13 and L17)
(L11) 3rd Attack --> Use bonus action to let an ally dash, disengage, or dodge
(L14) bonus ASI --> Improved inspiration -- new use
(L17) 2nd action Surge --> 2nd "Hammer and Anvil"?
(L20) 4th attack --> "Lead the Charge" grant all allies an extra action on their round, once per long rest--maybe costing a level of exhaustion if too powerful but this is a nice capstone.

Sort of a fighter/bard/beastmaster hybrid. Inspiration dice as temp HP is enough damage mitigation for me, and stacks with the Inspiring Leader feat. Otherwise you have class features to grant your allies extra attacks and actions, or to help them succeed at their actions.

The nice thing about this is that you can actually import the fighter subclasses on top of this. The subclasses are additive, and everything they give synergizes nicely with the base class.

Warlord/Champion --> Ajax
Warlord/Battlemaster --> Ulysses
Warlord/Eldritch Knight --> having trouble thinking of an example

It's a little funky for the Warlord/Battlemaster to have two kinds of dice, but no big deal.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top