Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Lawolf Nov 25, 2014 15:56:45	What do you think the Warlord subclass should have?   Temp HP granting? HP recovery? Attack granting? Movement granting? Increased benefits from tactical decisions? Combat Inspiration?   Let's design one as a community. Say a few things you want for a Warlord to Subclass to have and how you might go about including those abilities.
#2 Chakravant Nov 25, 2014 16:28:51	Attack granting is a big one for me.  Granting one attack at the cost of your attack action and both players' bonus action just doesn't cut it.   Proposed solution: Divorce standard attack granting from Superiority Dice, allowing a Warlord to grant one attack to one player in exchange for losing one of their attacks.  Limit it to one additional attack per player to avoid buff stacking.  If the designers still want to include Superiority Dice with the option, make it an option in addition to this new variant (giving the Warlord the option to add the SD bonus if they want to).   I understand the two reasons why the Lazylord was concerning to the designers.  Attack granting on top of multiple attacks makes for a more confusing, difficult subclass.  Buff stacking was always an "issue" with the Lazylord.   The alternative WotC chose is simply unworkable.  It takes a class/build with only a handful of easily fixed issues and literally makes it impossible.
#3 DarkSphinx Nov 25, 2014 16:50:23	Though a Warlord of sorts is already available in the Fighter class, further feats/maneuvers (or features of a new Subclass) should have attack and movement granting, perhaps by judicious use of the Bonus Action and Reaction mechanic.  If by the Bonus Action method, it could be limited to those in the Warlord's party who come later in initiative (such that it could be beneficial for some party members to withhold actions until after the Warlord's turn).  This would go far toward evoking the leader image.  Granting Reactions to party members based on potential actions of an enemy are especially flavorful for the Warlord, I think.   I personally like the Temporary HP mechanic for all cases of a Warlord granting HP: in other words, useful in a pinch, but not permanent.  I'd like to see this even to the point of enabling comrades to continue fighting with negative HP (though the negative HP appears to be gone in 5e).   I played a Tactical Warlord in 4e, and really enjoyed maneuvering the Strikers around and watching them deal out the extra damage where it counted.  I played the "healing" as if my Warlord could get a "wounded" character to "shake it off" realizing that they were just dazed, grazed, or in shock.  The DM though, based in 3.5, had some trouble grokking some of the Warlord's powers.  I am fully into roleplaying and did my best to flavor things such that my character just had a knack for pulling out historical tactics from great battles of the past and applying them to any given situation.  He was really more of a scholar than a warrior, while simultaneously being absolutely fearless and clear thinking on the battlefield.   -DS
#4 pukunui Nov 25, 2014 16:54:28	Lawolf wrote:
#5 Chakravant Nov 25, 2014 17:03:19	DarkSphinx wrote:
#6 Azzy1974 Nov 25, 2014 17:04:26	I didn't play 4e, so I really don't know much about the warlord class (except that certain people loathe it) and I doubt that I could provide much help. However, I'm interested in what you guys come up with—after all, I've hear some neat things about the "lazylord" warlord build.   My question, though: Is it possible to turn a battle master into a decent warlord emulator through the additions of additional maneuvers? If not, what are some of the difining traits of a warlord and how would they need to be implemented (in a rough sort of sense)?
#7 Uchawi Nov 25, 2014 17:15:54	You need to take a step back and figure out how martial classes can share ability. How can you define a wizard, without knowing what a cleric, sorcerer, or druid can do?
#8 Chakravant Nov 25, 2014 17:24:46	Commander's Strike needs to be rewritten for a viable Lazylord build, full stop.  It is the "bread and butter" of the Lazylord, and the build needs to be able to grant all of its attacks to other players.   Defining traits of the Warlord (IMO) include:   Martial healing, a sticky issue to say the least. Attack action granting, mentioned above. Party buffing/damage mitigation A Fighter-style "chassis", doing this while having the armor and fighting prowess to not die if on the front lines of combat.   Most of these are fairly well implemented in some class or another in 5E.  Aside from the word "martial", and Commander's Strike, it mostly resembles a Cleric build.
#9 BRJN Nov 25, 2014 17:36:44	At his best, a Warlord should hand off his actions to another character who can do it better, or more effectively in the tactical situation.   In effect, a class-specific Action to allow somebody else to take an Action as a free event.  (And in this case, "Move" would be included as an Action) All Warlords should have some healing capability in the middle of a fight, perhaps on the same magnitude as the Inspiring Leader feat.  +1 to using THPs for this. Reasonably armored / defended so he can off-tank for a moment, and give the real tank a minute's respite.   My son played a 4e Warlord, and his best moments were not when he stood in the center of the spotlight; they were when he turned the spotlight on somebody else and gave them another shot at what THEY do best.  (Barbarian running through difficult terrain, MBA/RBA to Strikers, heal a character at 1 HP which gives that player confidence to stay in the middle of the fight)
#10 Lawolf Nov 25, 2014 18:00:41	Odd thought...warlords as rogues?   Here are some ideas for features:   Medium Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency.    Can use cunning action to take the Help Action as a bonus action.    When you use the Help Action, the creature you help can immediately make a saving throw to end an ongoing condition.    When you use the help action, the ally can use their reaction to move a distance up to half their speed.    When you use the help action, instead of the normal benefits, you can grant the target temp HP equal to half your level + your Charisma modifier.    Special Actions:   Coordinated Assault Use your action to coordinate your allies. Choose an enemy within 30 feat of you. Until the end of your next turn, the first time each of your allies hit the chosen enemy with an attack, that attack deals additional damage equal to half of your sneak attack dice.   Tactical Assault Use your action to command a nearby ally to attack. Choose an ally within 30 feet of you. The chosen ally can use their reaction to take a single action of their choice.
#11 draegn Nov 25, 2014 18:16:35	Lawolf wrote:
#12 Chakravant Nov 25, 2014 18:19:47	So you're giving up your entire attack action and the ally is giving up their reaction just so the ally can get a single attack?   That's worse than the current Commander's Strike.  At least it gains a SD bonus, although it also causes the Battlemaster to use an additional action (unsire if it is bonus or reaction off the top of my head).   4E Commander's Strike caused nobody to lose an action.  It transformed one attack action into another's basic attack.  The 5E version can't result in a net loss of actions and be an adequate revision.  The moment somebody has to give up a reaction or bonus action, the option becomes mechanically inferior.
#13 Lawolf Nov 25, 2014 18:21:54	draegn wrote:
#14 lawrencehoy Nov 25, 2014 22:16:58	Lawolf wrote:
#15 Chakravant Nov 25, 2014 22:16:44	On one hand, I am leery of supporting Warlords granting entire Attack Actions, as I can imagine a Sorcerer Twin Spelling the action for massive damage.  I was thinking of keeping it to Attacks as a balancing point (acknowledging it doesn't make it an accurate reworking of the original).   On the other hand, at a sufficiently high level I can see it being on par with other classes.
#16 lawrencehoy Nov 25, 2014 22:18:35	Chakravant wrote:
#17 MechaPilot Nov 25, 2014 22:30:59	Lawolf wrote:
#18 LuisCarlos17f Nov 25, 2014 22:53:45	My opinion is warlord/marshall should to be a variant class, not a subclass. What is a a variant class? The same class but with a different pack of class features. For example the gladiator class from Dark Sun would be a variant class.    About powers I suggest the raven queen school from "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords".    I guess the warlord would be very different if we could use the module about henchmen and mass battles. Some new subclasses should be created to be used with certain modules.   My house rule for skirmishes is the squads are like swarns of humanoids, with "pain points". When a squad loses all pains points aren´t really "killed" but desmoralized (like a 2nd AD&D losing morality check). The warlord could "heal pain points" but it wouldn´t be supernatural healing magic.
#19 Zardnaar Nov 25, 2014 23:54:14	Battlemaster is already the best fighter so there is that. Commanders sstrike as is is already decent handing over your attack to a rogue or whatever. You probably need a newclass not a subclass. Kind of luke a mc valor bard and battlemaster but tradin in bard spells and fighter toughness in exchange for some abilities from each class at level 1 or 2.
#20 Chakravant Nov 26, 2014 0:19:59	Zardnaar wrote:
#21 SirEmilCrane Nov 26, 2014 0:51:54	Chakravant wrote:
#22 lawrencehoy Nov 26, 2014 2:46:47	MechaPilot wrote:
#23 sleypy Nov 26, 2014 5:32:10	Azzy1974 wrote:
#42 Chiisai_Usagi Nov 27, 2014 0:40:50	MechaPilot wrote:
#43 rampant Nov 27, 2014 0:49:15	Partly because the mass combat rules are as yet unreleased, and may well  be so worthless or uninspired that no one cares.
(Reply to #24) dave2008	mellored wrote:
#45 UngeheuerLich Nov 27, 2014 8:53:03	I do like this warlord class.   I am still bothered about the "lazy warlord" thing. I am really bothered about how in 4e, there were guides how to fail at your attack, because on a miss the effect was better than the hit. Then it started becoming totally ridiculous. Dropping to the ground, closing your eyes etc, all during battle.   I can see the "princess" commanding her protectors, allowing to use their reactions instead of her own attacks. But I would then design a class that really does that, and should not "give up" her attacks and gain multi attack, but instead give her an action to command her allies. Using up an action means, she will never use her action to attack. Don´t build a class that theoretically could fight on his own, but only stands around doing nothing. This really gets ridiculous fast.
#46 ShinQuickMan Nov 27, 2014 9:53:40	For me, it would be regrettable if the Lazylord did not make a comeback, but it would be a tragedy if were built into the wrong chassis.::cough cough:: fighters ::cough:: hack::  rogues ::wheeze:: monks ::sputter:: For this reason, I'd rather wait and see how the Psion is made and, if it has nice toys otherwise, make the lazylord a subclass of that.
#47 ClockworkNecktie Nov 27, 2014 9:33:13	Personally I'd be satisfied with a feat or two that added onto what the valor bard and batllemaster can already do.   Tactical Leader As an action, you can allow an ally within 60ft to immediately take an action of their own. This counts as the ally's reaction. Once you do this, you cannot do it again until you complete a short or long rest.   Too good for a feat? It might need to be bumped to long rest only.
#48 Lawolf Nov 27, 2014 9:40:41	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#49 mellored Nov 27, 2014 10:01:50	Right, the lazylord uses his action to command, like the battle masters commander's strike. Except more often. Lazy is a bit of a misnomer, since he's still doing stuff.
#50 rampant Nov 27, 2014 11:36:35	No not like the battle master's commander's strike, battle master's commander's strike sucks and screws over defender builds, doesn't work with a caster heavy party, and is generally not worth it. A dedicated 'warlord' class or sub-class should be good at being a 'warlord'.
#51 mellored Nov 27, 2014 11:39:56	Like battle master's commander strike doesn't mean identical to it. Obviously the class dedicated to it would do it better.
#52 UngeheuerLich Nov 27, 2014 11:42:03	Lawolf wrote:
#53 rampant Nov 27, 2014 12:00:13	Ok I get that someone doing silly things like closing their eyes or dropping on the gorund to ensure a miss is a silly abuse of the rules, but the concept of the power seems to be that if they move to avoid your attack it sets them up for the rest of the party to gank him, which is exactly the kind of thing a wardlord should be doing, mechanically a better representation might have been to deal no damage on a hit and the allies get the extra attacks, and you get your on basic attack damage if you miss, which while admittedly nice for a miss is pretty bad compared to a warlords allies hititng.    Eating your llies reaction powers, and focusing on the attack action alone is gonna cripple the warlord because it makes it only useful to all out offensive attackers, meaning that defensive warrior builds that make use of reaction abilities or mage heavy parties are gonna hate lugging a warlord around. YOu have to make them appealing to a wide variety of party compositions.   Why sould experienced soldiers take the commands of a rookie officer seriousl? Hmmmm, because the officer is in charge and most any military worth its salt does understand the need for a chain of command, and a good soldier knows that a half-decent officer serves a different role than they do and will do their job by letitng the officer do theirs. A bunch of experience being a soldier does not make you fit to be an officer and an experienced soldier knows this. DO they prefer a veteran officer (all else being equal)? YES! But that's the same everywhere, officers prefer veteran soldiers, chefs want experienced assistants, that's a universal concern and most people have to learn to live with not getting legendary figures in the field on their side.    Furthermore level one warlords beling in level 1 parties commanding level 1 adventurers A level warlord is not gonna walk up to elminster and conan and start barking orders anymore than a level 1 cleric is gonna take over healing duties for a party of level 18 barbarians who just lost their bard.   FInally, name aside, warlords need to be competent tactical boosters for a party of PCs, not leading a sqad of soldiers. Very different set of requirements.
#54 EnglishLanguage Nov 27, 2014 12:04:36	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#55 mellored Nov 27, 2014 12:30:11	The intentional missing thing, which I wrote the guide on, was mostly abusing the "do not expend a power if you miss", and a few poorly written powers. The warlock was the biggest offender if i recall, and it was for fun. But non of that really has anything to do with the warlord.
#56 FFSAA Nov 27, 2014 12:54:51	Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
#57 masterfat78 Nov 27, 2014 13:16:03	It has been shown now that the fighter is not a good match for the warlord. It really needs its own class that has multiple subclasses for it. Im hoping that a third party might make one that is worth using.
#58 Chiisai_Usagi Nov 27, 2014 14:19:25	FFSAA wrote:
#59 Zardnaar Nov 27, 2014 18:35:16	I think a battlemaster/valor bard MC with the healers feat could come close to a 4E warlord taking into account the difference between the power level of 4E and 5E.    You wil have to be a bit more tactical in how you use your bardic dice/superiority dice as 4E was always "on" in effect and it was not as tactical in that regard just find a power you want and spam it as much as you can.
#60 EnglishLanguage Nov 27, 2014 18:58:16	Power spamming in 4e generally only happened at early levels, where you really only had one daily and one encounter power to work with.   Heck, during the recent(well, "recent", group briefly disbanded for the time being) level 20+ games I was in, I can't think of any time I spammed one move over and over again.
#61 Zardnaar Nov 27, 2014 19:23:34	Commanders strike in 5E is inherently broken though, there is a reason. IN 4E Rogues dealt 2d6 rxtra sneak attack damage (2d8 with a feat IIRC) vs 3d6+ in 5E at level 5. Same arguement can be made in regards to Barbarians and Fighter types using great weapon master feat or Rangers+hunters mark.   Imagine having a level 11 Rogue with a Warlord in 5E. Every round trade in your attack for an extra 1d8+6d6+dex every round is damned good. Its great when you use it with commanders strike using a limited resource.
#62 rampant Nov 27, 2014 19:31:40	Um the sneak attack already prevents this, it limits how often it can be used unlike 3e.
#63 EnglishLanguage Nov 27, 2014 19:52:48	rampant wrote:
#64 Zardnaar Nov 27, 2014 21:24:56	rampant wrote:
#65 rampant Nov 27, 2014 21:39:51	Sneak attack works once per turn, so no matter how many actions a warlord grants the rogue he's getting off maybe 1 extra sneak attack per round, assuming the target qualifies for sneak attack and the rogue is in position.
#66 Zardnaar Nov 27, 2014 22:06:22	rampant wrote:
#67 FFSAA Nov 27, 2014 22:19:58	The DMG's marking rule sounds like it will open up yet another chance for rogues to get off a sneak attack.  A battlemaster being able to reliably give a rogue a second death strike (with sneak damage) already destroys encounters, being able to pull off 3 sneak attacks in a round is getting pretty abusive too.
#68 Zardnaar Nov 27, 2014 23:13:15	FFSAA wrote:
#69 rampant Nov 28, 2014 0:40:23	I guess I don't see how warlord action grants are any more unbalanced than having another rogue in the party. If anything 1 battle master, 1 warlord, and 1 rogue are going to be sneak attacking less than 3 rogues because the non-rogues have a harder time turning reactions into sneak attacks, and they rely on one rogue being in position for all the sneak attacks. So the idea that warlords using a good action grant system will somehow break the game doesn't seem to hold much weight. Unless you're going to claim that three rogues in the same party is somehow broken.
#70 Zardnaar Nov 28, 2014 0:41:24	rampant wrote:
#71 rampant Nov 28, 2014 0:47:41	How is 3 rogues, giving up something that 1 rogue, 1 warlord, 1 battlemaster is not? You're investing the class choice of three characters either way.  I'm not trying to make commander's strike more powerful, I'm trying to make sure the warlord doesn't use commander's strike and has an ability that suits a class that specializes in this stuff rather than the battle master who dabbles.
#72 powerroleplayer Nov 28, 2014 6:49:05	Lawolf wrote:
#73 mellored Nov 28, 2014 7:21:14	commander's strike isn't quite as powerful as people are claiming, even with sneak attack. Remember the fighter is giving up his own attack.
#74 mellored Nov 28, 2014 7:26:56	as far as ability's go, it would be cool if some where based off Cha, and some where based off Int, along with the dex/str of a normal attack. So depending on your stats, you could be inspiring, tactical, lazy, or some mix. It would also give humans a favorit class
#75 FFSAA Nov 28, 2014 9:22:34	mellored wrote:
#76 Zardnaar Nov 28, 2014 10:32:50	mellored wrote:
#77 Zardnaar Nov 28, 2014 10:37:25	FFSAA wrote:
#78 rampant Nov 28, 2014 11:57:59	I'm not trying to make commander's strike better, I;m trying to explain that a dedicated warlord shouldn't use commander's strike.   Also you keep spouting about how letitng rogues get more sneak attacks is unbalancing, but you haven't explained how commander's strike or even any of the potential action grant options that have been discussed would allow more or even an equal number of sneak attacks than if the action granter had just played another rogue.    Now the big problem with offensive action grants is the fact that 5e lacks the universal class appropriate basic attacks that if not granted to every caracter automatically were at least made into a viable option. Since magic users rely on cantrips that scale differently than weapon users getting extra attacks it's a bit more problematic than in 4e where you could just hand out basic attacks and everyone would be able to do something class appropriate. Currently allowing the use of attacks or cantrips covers the problem but if a non-weapon using class without cantrips, or even cantrips by another name, comes along there could be an issue. This is why I hate sloppy class design where every class has to have a completely different format and set up, making them look like special snowflakes on paper invariably ends up making it difficult to create decent tactical classes. Instead of saying grants a basic attack action we have to say grants a standard action that can only be used to use an ability that targets another creature,  deals damage, and can be used freely without requiring a rest.
#79 Zardnaar Nov 28, 2014 12:08:17	rampant wrote:
#80 rampant Nov 28, 2014 13:15:53	No one! the game's not been out long enough, my only fighter player so far has been a champion. Further Saying 'you don't know because you haven't actually seen it' is like saying I don't know the sun is hot because I haven't been there. I can read, I can evaluate costs and payoffs and make predictions without having to live through every single scenario first. Otherwise no one would be cmpetent to do anything until long after we'd turned to dirt. That's the point of having a brain: So I don't need to stick my hand in a snake's mouth before deciding it's a bad idea.    Actually encounter or daily powers that could be used as basic attacks were incredibly rare and always had some sort of limit or trigger, for example there was a swordmage encounter power that could be used as a basic attack only for the purposes of the basic attack granted by their assault aegis they coudn't use it with a warlord's granted attacks. NOw there were several at-will powers that specifically stated they could be used as basic attacks and yes generally they made the characters who selected them the best choices for action grants, but these at-wills generally had minimal advantages over an actual basic attack, and most of the time the advantage was being tied to the implement and ability score combo that was appropriate to their class rathe rthan forcing wizards to carry crossbows or get into knife range in order to synthesize properly with a warlord. BEcause the action was granted in the off turn the player couldn't use special powers to buff the attack that weren't either automatic or already in place, yes that meant that maybe a fighter was less likely to get an action granted than say a raging barbarian, or a ranger whose mark the warlord wants taken down quickly, and in fact in most cases the strikers would be considered first pick for a granted attack action however the advantage of the basic attack was that it meant that the odds were that a warlord could grant an actin to whoever needed the action and they'd be able to do something useful with it. Look at the marshal in 3e, great support unit but in a caster heavy party it had little to no offensive presence because it lacked any offensive powers of its own beyond a moderate BaB, and auras which didn't provide offensive bonuses that most casters cared about.    The action grant is never going to be better than having another member of the class that the action gets granted to, even if you grant all your action grants to the rogue you won't be as good as having another rogue would have been at doing rogue things, the advantage of the action granter is timing and versatility. An action granter would have to be getitng 2-for-1 deals on granted actiosn to even think about being better than two of the characters he's granting actions to. Yes rogue and action granter warlord can be powerful, but it's not better than two rogues unless the warlord is handign out more actions than he's losing and has defenses so thick a barbarian couldn't crack him.    The most liberal action grant I've seen dscussed would allow the warlord to grant his attack actiosn to other classes to make wepaon attacks, with the option to spend his bonus action to either give one attack a bonus, or allow one of the granted wepaon attacks to be a cantrip instead. Now this has some problems of course, and is probably not a good idea for using with the idea of the fighter as a base class with the warlord as a sub-class because the ability to make three attacks and a cantrip in a turn (not even going into the various bonuss that could be in place) is nuts. The idea is to make an action grant ability that will work, not to make an improved commander's strike. No one cares about commander's strike! We are sick and tired of hearing about commander's strike! Yes a well timed commander's strike can be deadly but that's not what we're worrying about. We're trying to develope a separate subclass form battle master that's specialized in warlord style stuff.   Now that said there are several flavors of warlord, the tactition, the shouter, and the guide. The tacticion seems best for the 4e style action grants, the shouter is the one with rallying cries fear effects morale bonuses etc, and the guide is the one that would do the set-up maneuvers things like attacking in a manner that enemy is left vulnerable to the warlord's allies. If we're doing warlord as sub-classes they need to be separated, the tactition works for the rogue, maybe fighter, the shouter could be the fighter or the barbarian, the guide is probably the one that is most solidly the fighter's cup of tea although it could be ranger or monk as well.    This would be less pure action grants and more things like attacks that leave the foe vulnerable or causing enemies to draw opportunity attacks, the ability to switch places with a nearby ally as a reaction, stuff that requires the character to be up close and personal, in the middle of things. That works better for a fighter sub-class. A lazy lord works better for a rogue or something.
#81 Zardnaar Nov 28, 2014 13:43:19	rampant wrote:
#82 rampant Nov 28, 2014 17:52:57	Honestly 5e looks meh on paper but when you get deeper there's really something good there, perfect? not even close, but lots better than 3e and actually has some interesting toys to play with. Battlemaster is a lot more solid than it looks at first, that seems to be the concensus, but like I said, I'm not trying to make battlemaster better battlemaster is battlemaster's problem.
#83 Hebitsuikaza Dec 03, 2014 9:06:07	The Warlord CANNOT function as a subclass of Fighter.   There is a VERY limited space in which the Fighter class allows itself to be customized.  That space, the amount of extra power you can add to it, is not going to be enough to allow for a Warlord/Commander to be under that umbrella.   It NEEDS to be its own class, even more so thant he Ranger, Paladin or Barbarian which are ALL a lot closer to a mildly customized Fighter class variant.   The Warlord might, at best, be some sort of mix between a Fighter and a Bard. Not quite as much staying power and no where near the direct reliable damage potential of the Fighter, none of the magic casting power or the special access to knowledge skills of the Bard-- but would have a lot more ability to stand in direct combat than the Bard and would be more skilled with far better support skills than the Fighter.   Frankly, it would be more feasable to build a proper Warlord class out of the Cleric than it would out of the Fighter. Remove all the religious and deity stuff, get rid of the turn undead ability, parse the Cleric's spell list down to just the sort of the less miraculous spells (you can use encouragement to boost or recharge someone's hit points or raise their AC, but you aren't going to make water or fire appear out of thin air), make the maximum spell casting level lower but allow the spells to recharge during short rests. Then maybe give then access to martial weapons.   If you do that, you would be a lot closer to a proper Warlord than you ever could building it out of the Fighter.
#84 rampant Dec 03, 2014 9:23:27	Well If you want the whole suite of abilities in a single character then yes you need a full class, sub-classes can only really add 1 major component, or a couple of minor components of what a warlord needs to do so it would need to be spread amongst multiple sub-classes to get everything.
#85 Hebitsuikaza Dec 03, 2014 9:34:18	Right! So it kind of needs to be its own class. Perhaps make it to the Cleric what the Warlock is to the Wizard and explain within its flavor text, to make it more palatable to old schoolers, that they are subconsciously tapping into the basic divinity of the human spirit in order to produce the effects that they do or that they use some sort of latent psychic power that anyone with the will to train can use. Or suggest both possibilities and just leave it open for personal interpretation.   But the concept just isn't a Fighter subclass. The Battlemaster tried to incorporate it and kind of failed miserably.
#86 rampant Dec 03, 2014 9:47:45	The battlemaster has one maneuver that's warlordesque, that's not an attempt at incorporation.   That said the warlord doens't need to be a whole class, there's no problem with a slew of warlord inspired sub-classes that emphasize different aspects of what a warlord can do.   HOwever if you want a dedicated warlord character then yes you need a base class, and no you shouldn't use the cleric as a model. FOr starters warlord healing needs to draw on the HD mechanic, they can allow HD use in battle and at greater efficiency, things like adding their level and cha mod to the healing granted by HD and the ability to spend a bonus action to allow a nearby ally to use a HIt Die in combat.
#87 mellored Dec 03, 2014 9:59:25	The battlemaster dips it's toes into warlord like the eldrich knight dips it's toes into wizard.
#88 Hebitsuikaza Dec 03, 2014 10:11:48	But that is ultimately nothing more than Healing Word or Mass Healing Word that is more effective on companions who have larger hit dice but comes at the cost of a resource to the recipiant....   Which may or may not make it a more needlessly complicated version of Healing Word. Instead of rolling one or two die, adding your modifier and then telling everyone they recieved X hit points, you are asking everyone else to roll their die, mark off a healing dice spent and then they gain an addition based on your modifier.   Seriously-- putting 4th edition out of your mind and narrowing in on the Cleric spell list to see which existing game effects are appropriate to this edition and what level those effects were considered balanced to come into play.   Having things like movement effects or altering initiative or such things were intentionally eliminated from powers that any class has. Adding those things is certain to attract more hate.   It is better to have similar powers gained in a different way and a different amount coupled with a different skills, equipment, etc.   Class abilities have to be comparable to be balanced. Making something more complicated and convoluted simply so that it can be different and thereby justified in existing really isn't the best way to go.   Like I said, if the mechanical differences between a Warlord and a Cleric were much like those between a Warlock and a Wizard-- fewer powers, more frequently usable, slightly better in combat-- it would probably feel quite right, particularly if the "spells" they used (though they might be redescribed as "manuevers" or "tactics") were limited only to the ones that one could imagine coming across like obviously miraculous in nature.   And then make their spells/tactics Charisma or Intelligence based (maybe determined by subclass) and rewrite their skill list and adjust their proficient saves,
#89 ClockworkNecktie Dec 03, 2014 10:27:58	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#90 rampant Dec 03, 2014 10:43:49	What maneuvers I've seen the battlemaster, there's only one maneuver that's warlord-like.   The purpose of drawing on the HD mechanic is simple, usage limit. A warlord has no magic so their basic healing powers have to be limited in some fashion and drawing on HD makes more sense in their case than an arbitrary daily limit. The warlord is supposed to get the most out of their allies and that's a good basic method of demonstrating that. Advanced abilities can of course generate even more healing per HD, but even the greatest warlords have to deal with the limits of their troops.
#91 sleypy Dec 03, 2014 11:14:34	ClockworkNecktie wrote:
#122 Alex_ Dec 04, 2014 0:04:52	rampant wrote:
#123 rampant Dec 04, 2014 0:14:56	I wasn't being edition specific, sorry for not being clear. But I don't see how a 4e lazy lord is any different from a 3e support only mage. Well aside from being cooler, and being from an edition that had solid class design.   Why does it matter if the warlord PC is a princess? I mean it's better than lugging an actual aristocrat around who won't be handing out bonuses.
#124 sleypy Dec 04, 2014 4:17:00	rampant wrote:
#162 rampant Dec 05, 2014 18:48:34	What is this stacking nonsense you people are on about? It eats their action, they can only give out one a turn! IF you have a party with multiple warlords yes it might be a bit silly with one or two PCs doing most if not all the attacking for the entire party but heavily skewed class compositions will always cause sillyness one way or another, lots of rogues or fighters leads to insane damage, tons of clerics ends in heals for days, wizard heavy ends in locked down enemies, and more than two bards ends in fire and tomatoes.
#163 mellored Dec 05, 2014 20:11:48	I'd still like to know where you think the warlord would go from there.
#164 rampant Dec 05, 2014 22:43:04	Well I've got plenty of ideas for sub-class options, tacticians, chalords, huntlords, auralords, bravelords, terrorlords, etc.    The big problem is that beyond the action grant and the supplemental healing power I'm not really flush with solid ideas for core abilities. I'm thinking maybe an aura that allows them to add their prof bonus to allied initiative rolls, and advantage vs. fear effects.
#165 Chameleon-X Dec 06, 2014 13:28:20	Warlord (Fighter Archetype) Inspiring Word (Level 3) As a bonus action, you may bolster yourself or your allies using a quick speech, or some other motivational oratory. You must be able to speak to use this feature, and your target must be able to hear and understand you. Choose yourself or one ally within 50 feet of you; that creature gains temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier + half your level. Once you have used this feature, you must take a short or long rest before you can use it again. At 11th level, you may use it one additional time.   Commander's Strike (Level 3) When you use the attack action, you may give up your attack (or one of your attacks, if you have the Extra Attack feature) in order to grant an ally within 50 feet of you the ability to make a single attack with a weapon against a creature you choose. You may use this feature only once per round.   Knight's Move (Level 7) You may forgo your movement on your turn in order to allow an ally to move up to one half their speed.   Combat Leader (Level 10) When you roll initiative, you may take disadvantage on your initiative check to grant one of your allies advantage on their initiative check.   Guiding Strike (Level 15) When you score a critical hit with a weapon attack, the target also grants advantage  until the end of your next turn.   Stand the Fallen (Level 17) Once per day, when an ally within 50 feet of you is reduced to 0 hit points, you may use your reaction to compel them to keep fighting. Your ally must be able to hear and understand you, and you must be able to speak. The target is instead reduced to 1 hit point, and gains temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier + your level.
#166 Zardnaar Dec 06, 2014 15:52:09	rampant wrote:
#167 rampant Dec 06, 2014 21:05:03	No, a  granted action is different from a  bonus action, a character could get both in the same round, but the warlord granted action is limited in scope and occurs on their turn not the turn fo the Pc the action is granted to. Having a warlord in the party will not grant universal extra bonus actions, it will allow the warlord to trade his action for another PC taking a limited action, currently I'm using Clockworknecktie's suggestion of a dash, a dodge, an attack action, or casting a cantrip. The current model can't even grant bonus actions. Yes a PC with a warlord in the party is likey to take more actions than normal, however the extras are of limited scope, and the total number of actions taken don't change much because the warlord is granting his own actions in order to do it. The potential exists for maneuvers that would increase the action count, but these would certainly not be at-will abilities, they would have some sort of major use limitation. The basic warlord action grant is not so much a true extra action, but a transfer, the warlord lacks the kind of direct offensive abilities that the other classes have, and as such uses other PCs to act in his stead most of the time since most of the time they hit harder or have the right cantrip, or need the movement or dodge more than the warlord does.   As for chameleon X's warlord sub-class, it's very underwhelming. See one of the problems with trying to make the action granting warlord out of the fighter is the fighter is generally one of the guys the warlord needs to be granting actions to. IF you want a fighter sub-class for the warlord I suggest the guiding warlord or the inspiring or maybe the bravura. Those are the warlord types that can be integrated with the fighter chassis, Your's is trying too hard to cover the tactician and the core warlord stuff, and not doing a good job. Knight's moe is underpowered, Guiding strike is of iffy utility due to a  lack of PC agency. And stand the fallen is just unimpressive for what is suppsoed to be a once a day sub-class capstone.    You tried to cram too many aspects of the warlord into too little design space, to cover the who thing you need a class, in a sub-class you have to pick limited aspects of the warlord that will integrate with your base class of choice.
#168 BRJN Dec 10, 2014 15:06:41	Chameleon-X wrote:
#169 BRJN Jan 02, 2015 3:02:48	Having FINALLY read the Paladin rules, I can see a Warlord built on a Paladin chassis.  It's already STR/CHR -friendly.   "Oath of the Social Contract".
#170 Samrin Jan 02, 2015 6:00:52	Needs to be non magical though.
#171 rampant Jan 02, 2015 10:11:43	Well if you want the sub-class route, what you could do is break up the warlord stuff among several sub-classes and give them to the best class for that slice of the warlord's pie.   Fighter gets the jammer and teamwork techniques to help his allies set up the battlefield, roge gets the action grants and tactical maenuvers, barbarians get the warcries, and then you could use osme of the magic classes to doe warlord-like stuff that was too magicla for the 4e warlord, paladin could for example hand out auras like a 3e marshal, nly set up so that it works with mages too, druid could apply the blessings of nature to the whole party, wizard could clad their allies in runes and wards, etc.
(Reply to #126) arnwolf666	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #150) arnwolf666	mellored wrote:
#174 masterfat78 Jan 02, 2015 13:21:00	arnwolf666 wrote:
#175 masterfat78 Jan 02, 2015 13:23:52	I would like some of the warlords options to use his reaction when team mates use their action and enhance them. Still I think the warlord needs his own class and not be shoved into classes he doesnt belong(fighter aand pally).
#176 Uchawi Jan 02, 2015 14:04:43	masterfat78 wrote:
#177 masterfat78 Jan 02, 2015 19:02:05	Uchawi wrote:
#178 rampant Jan 03, 2015 0:05:04	Ok how about this for a basic unlimited use ability? Is there any class this doesn't work with?:   _________: A warlord may spend an action to grant an ally the opportunity to act in their place. As an action you may grant an allied character the ability to cast a cantrip, use the dodge action, use the dash action, or use the attack action.
#179 Brock_Landers Jan 03, 2015 1:37:07	Samrin wrote:
#180 BRJN Jan 03, 2015 9:43:35	Samrin wrote:
#181 sleypy Jan 03, 2015 13:15:31	BRJN wrote:
#202 rampant Jan 04, 2015 13:14:11	The battlemaster has 1 maneuver that could be called warlordesque, maybe two. It's far more akin to the trippng-pushing-etc fighters from 3e.   Essentially a warlord is a completely different type of warrior, his emphasis is not on his own personal power but on employing the power of his allies. A warlord class should not get more than two attacks for itself, if that. The fighter class has too much of itself invested in the chassis, most asttacks, lots of HP, lots of feats/attribute boosts. A warlord sub-class is workable but it needs to focuse on a limited selection of what the warlord doe sand it has to be a selection that works with the fighter's chassis, the action granting and tactical warlord are not the right aspects to shove into the fighter, you'd be better off with bravura or maybe inspiring warlord type abilities. To get the core warlord you'd need your own class, it's a support class that focuses on enabling offense for any party composition.
#203 ChrisCarlson Jan 04, 2015 14:56:07	rampant wrote:
#204 rampant Jan 04, 2015 18:01:37	I don't think the devs were thinking anything of the sort. I think they created the battlemaster as a maneuver based FIGHTER and gave it a wide array of maneuvers drawing from multiple sources of inspiration. I don' think it in any way represents the ultimate limits of what 5e can do with any given source. I don't see how you could come to that conclusion.   Furthermore I don't think 5e is so fragile that it can't handle a warlord, in fact the HD mechanic seems like a great way to enable warlord healing.
#205 The_Jester Jan 04, 2015 19:00:49	rampant wrote:
#206 rampant Jan 04, 2015 21:50:31	Ok I should have said distinctly warlordesque. Both distraction and temp hp grant are things other classes and builds have done both before and during 4e. Heck if you wanted to be picky you could claim the move ally bit opriginates with the 3e marshal. However the big strike out is that the action grants are too situational in their value, and too limited for a full time warlord. The Fighter has too much invested in it's core chasis for the sub-class to cover a whole other class with a completely different set of priorities. Even if the designers are dim enough to think that the battlemaster somehow covers the warlord, doens't mean that it worls as a primary warlord, it's called a sub-class for a reason. Finally it just doesn't work! The attack action grant is too specific to weapon users it'll never count as a warlord until it doesn't care about party composition.   Now anyone who isn't interested in helping HOMBREW a warlord needs to go away and post somewhere else, start an 'I hate warlords thread' and butt out.    I suggested htis for a core mechanic,   _________: A warlord may spend an action to grant an ally the opportunity to act in their place. As an action you may grant an allied character the ability to cast a cantrip, use the dodge action, use the dash action, or use the attack action.
#207 sleypy Jan 05, 2015 5:29:37	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#242 Brock_Landers Jan 05, 2015 13:19:05	So, yeah, someone please "home-brew" up us a Warlord, and let's have a gander.
#243 sleypy Jan 05, 2015 13:31:30	Brock_Landers wrote:
#282 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 11:47:40	masterfat78 wrote:
#283 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 11:48:32	masterfat78 wrote:
#284 masterfat78 Jan 06, 2015 11:56:01	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#285 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 13:10:57	masterfat78 wrote:
#286 EnglishLanguage Jan 06, 2015 13:19:47	Eh, I wouldn't use charge cheese as a point towards the Warlord being able to do things himself.   With charge cheese, a PC without a class or race can still do really good damage, as the char op boards mathed out a while back.
#287 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 13:26:58	So a warlord able to do things as well as any other character is somehow a point for lazylord? Huh?   Besides which, not relevant. I simply pointed out that I've played 3 of 3 warlords in my 4e hayday that were fully capable of independant action and not a lazy action-gift spammer. How they went about it is not the issue.
#288 rampant Jan 06, 2015 13:54:18	Lazy lord wa s term for a warlord who never made their own attacks or got mixed up in things, it's not the only form of warlord and most warlords weren't lazy lords. However it's a solid core mechanic and the easiest way to do it in 5e, without the 4e style power selection it's very hard to set up a broad selection of at-will powers to make every one happy, the fact taht the action grant is the core-at-will is in fact a concession to 5e design. It's the easiest and most balanced way to do warlord's scaling at-will, this is what the warlord does instead of attacking a lot, or channeling holy power through their weapons, or whatever the ranger does, the only alternative is some wonky arse set up power that involves way too much stuff.   What exactly is wrong with the concept of granting actions because the rest of your party is better at something than you? that is infact what  a good leader does, they arrange thigns so their team can do what the team is good at. You don't like how a warlord does it? Play a paladin or a cleric.   No one is saying lazy lords ar eth eonly lords, but I'm not scrapping one of the most useful abilities in the arsenal just because lazy lords ate your dog or something. The problem with a warlord based on a fighter sub-class is that the fighter is not a class that supports stepping back. Look at that improved action surge,  most of the itme the fighter is better off keeping that for themselves because their action is the one likely to do the most work. Fighters are very efficient in combat but they ar enot a class designed to step back, or to support stepping back.
#289 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 13:58:39	Answered already.
#290 rampant Jan 06, 2015 14:06:17	Jester made a decent stab at it, that's an excellent teamwork fighter. The problem is it's caster compliancy is iffy, and relies far too much on the party composition being weapon users.
#291 The_Jester Jan 06, 2015 15:18:22	rampant wrote:
#292 ShinQuickMan Jan 06, 2015 15:47:26	That usually depended on two things: whether the caster had any basic attack powers to use, and, since most implement-based attacks were ranged attacks, whether the Warlord had powers that enabled ranged/any type of basic attacks. Warlords themselves had a handful of ways to do that.
#293 rampant Jan 06, 2015 16:14:16	The important bit was that one of those was an at-will. I wouldn't require that for jester's idea of course, but maybe he can spend a dice to allow a caster to cast a cantrip as if they were level 1?
#294 The_Jester Jan 06, 2015 16:22:52	rampant wrote:
#295 The_Jester Jan 06, 2015 16:36:02	ShinQuickMan wrote:
#296 masterfat78 Jan 06, 2015 17:22:54	I dont think atwills are needed for the warlord this edition. I think the warlord either needs to be a two attack class like most martial or the cha subclass needs the second attack as a skill. I think any powersw that let other classes attack or move when its not their turn need to be limited as encounters and maybe use up their or the warlords reaction in the process. Those powers need to be attached to a subclass though, not the core class.
#297 ShinQuickMan Jan 06, 2015 17:31:28	@TheJester   Actually, Warlords had Direct the Strike, which allowed for any type of basic attack and need not have the Warlord adjacent to the beneficiary/victim, at the cost of missing out on extra damage. For most Lazylords, it was a hard choice between that power, or the more damaging but melee-only Commander's Strike.   There was at least one other power, one that granted ranged attacks specifically, but I don't remember much of it now.
#298 rampant Jan 06, 2015 17:40:01	Also Note I've been using the attack action, so a fighter would get all his attacks. The battle master hands out a given sinngle weapon attack, the version I use is the whole action which is what the various classes who use weapons modify so the balance issue between a fighter and a raging barbarian is no different than normal.
#299 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 17:38:52	masterfat78 wrote:
#300 rampant Jan 06, 2015 17:41:26	At wills is a useful shorthand, as is encounter ( a lot shorter than saying x/uses btween rests, anyway).
#301 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 17:43:48	rampant wrote:
#302 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 17:46:11	rampant wrote:
#303 MechaPilot Jan 06, 2015 18:39:47	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#304 rampant Jan 06, 2015 19:02:37	I know the warlord is offensively potent compared to say the clerics who don't get the divine strike, or well, gee that's the closest hting you get to a lame at will set isn't it? Anyway The warlord's an offensive support character rather than a defensive one like the cleric, that's why I'm making his other abilities more limited. His healing is no where near as efficient as even the bard's for starters, and burns up HD.
#305 ChrisCarlson Jan 06, 2015 19:34:42	MechaPilot wrote:
#306 rampant Jan 06, 2015 19:44:50	I'm not doing anything to the system, the system i what you have before classes and races and backgrounds, I'm not modifying it at all. I'm working within it. Ther eis nothing in the 5e system that causes a problem with action grants.
#307 rampant Jan 06, 2015 21:28:18	What? And the problem isn't just martial classes the warlord has to be able to function with casters and such as well.
#308 ChrisCarlson Jan 07, 2015 6:15:05	rampant wrote:
#309 ChrisCarlson Jan 07, 2015 6:17:37	rampant wrote:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?403259-Fighter-Subclass-Commander#ixzz3OB7cFtFS The_Jester Jan 07, 2015 14:43:08	I'm continuing to tweak my subclass:   Commander Those who take the path of the commander view combat as a game, tactically planning battles, continually thinking strategy and directing their allies in battle.Those who take the path of the commander view battles as one would a game, continually thinking strategy, planning out skirmishes in advance, and directing their allies in the middle of combat. Commanders come educated in the art of war, often in military academies where they were taught how to best direct a squad. Others learned how to command from experience, working as a town guard or mercenary under a skilled leader.      Improved Action Surge When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you learn how to see openings in the enemy's defences, and know the right time to strike. When you use the Action Surge feature, instead of taking an extra action you can choose to grant an ally that can see and hear you your extra action. This action can only be used to cast a cantrip or take the Attack, Dash, or Dodge actions.     Tactical Superiority At 3rd level, you learn maneuvers that are fueled by special dice called superiority dice. Commander's Maneuvers. You learn the Rally maneuver and three additional maneuvers chosen from the list of commander's maneuvers. You can use only one maneuver per attack. Full rules on maneuvers are in the Player's Handbook, with new ones detailed below.  Rally. This maneuver functions as in the Player's Handbook, only you can choose to use your Intelligence modifier in place of your Charisma modifier for its effect.  Superiority Dice. You have six superiority dice, which are d6s. A superiority die is expended when you use it. You regain all expended superiority dice when you finish a short or long rest. You gain another superiority die at 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th level.     Combat Leader When you reach 7th level, so long as you are not surprised, you and all allies that can see and hear you can choose to apply your proficiency bonus to initiative checks.     Improved Tactical Superiority Starting at 10th level, you learn two new maneuvers, at least one of which as to be from the list of commander's maneuvers. You can also choose to replace one maneuver you know with a different one.  Additionally, you add your proficiency bonus to the temporary hit points gained from the Rally maneuver.     Complex Stratagem At 15th level, you can use two maneuvers in the same attack. These must be two different maneuvers and doing so costs an extra superiority die beyond the cost required for the maneuvers.      Evaluate the Situation Starting at 15th level, you can observe the unfolding battle as an action, allowing you to regain 1 superiority die. This die must be used before the end of your next turn.      Reliable Maneuver At 18th level you know how to best direct your allies. When you spend only a single superiority die on your turn, you can choose to use your Intelligence modifier in place of the die roll.     Maneuvers These are fighter maneuvers. The Commander must pick their maneuvers from this list.  Castling. You spend a superiority die as a bonus action to switch places with a friendly creature within 5 feet that can see and hear you and is able to move. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.  Commander's Strike. See the Player's Handbook. Distracting Strike. See the Player's Handbook. Focus Concentration. When a friendly creature that can see and hear you rolls a Constitution saving throw to avoid losing concentration on a spell, you can expend one superiority die and use your reaction to help them maintain their focus. The creature adds the superiority die to the saving throw.  Knight's Gambit. You spend a superiority die and grant a creature advantage on attack rolls against you. If the creature attacks you before the end of your next turn you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the creature. If the attack hits, you add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll. Maneuvering Attack. See the Player's Handbook. Shake It Off. When a friendly creature that can see and hear you fails a saving throw, you can expend one superiority die and use your reaction to try and encourage them to fight off the effect. The creature rerolls their saving throw, adding the superiority die to the result.  Warning Cry. When a friendly creature that can see and hear you is attacked by another creature, you can expend one superiority die and use your reaction to shout a warning telling them to block or which direction to dodge. They can reduce the damage by the number you rolled on your superiority + your Intelligence modifier. Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?403259-Fighter-Subclass-Commander#ixzz3OB7cFtFS
#311 rampant Jan 07, 2015 14:43:51	I never said that, I said that the system is not individual classes, it is the framework aorund which classes are assembled, and in which they operate, the fighter is not the system, the elf is not the system. The system connects them, it binds and penetrates them, but they are not the system.   I'm not changing how levels, HD, HP, checks, or proficiency bonus works.    As far as balance, no one has managed to explain to me WHY the action grant the way I set it up is unbalanced. The most coherent argument seems to be a concern about damage, such as a rogue getitng additional sneak attacks or the fighter's multi-attacks, however that doesn't seem like much of an issue because the action expended by the warlord to grant that is the same as the action would normally require for the character granted the action. The damage is never going to be more than if you had a second character of whatever type instead of the warlord.
#312 ChrisCarlson Jan 07, 2015 15:25:23	rampant wrote:
#313 rampant Jan 07, 2015 18:50:24	'No I never claimed it wa simpossible to imbalance the classes or whatever, what I'm saying is that it doesn't affect or overhaul the system. YOu can build completely balanced, or imbalanced classes within the system I admit. But they don't overhaul the system they are individual cases of imbalance as long as they don't eff with proficiency, levels, etc.   Your complaint about the action grant is that it's just as good as the heavy hitter's action? Um... yeah, the warlord is an offensive support class as opposed to a defensive one like the cleric it has to have a potent offense, that's why most of his abilities center around enabling offense, compared to the warrior classes he's fragile, compared to the healer classes he's got very limited juice, and he lacks the mobility of the monk, rogue, or ranger. This is what he does, he should be pretty damned good at it.
#314 Lady_Auralla Jan 07, 2015 19:35:46	I like using proficiency dice from the dmg. This allows for a Warlord who can get involved for example a Warlord ability that if the Warlord successfully hits an enemy with a melee attack any ally that hits that ally adds the Warlords proficiency dice to damage done.
#315 rampant Jan 07, 2015 19:58:41	Well now there's an idea.
#316 MechaPilot Jan 07, 2015 20:42:59	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#317 Brock_Landers Jan 08, 2015 0:14:07	MechaPilot wrote:
#318 ChrisCarlson Jan 08, 2015 6:41:33	MechaPilot wrote:
#319 Brock_Landers Jan 08, 2015 9:28:51	I have considered being able to merge your extra attacks into one big attack (or break it up), if you wish, like Deadly Strike from the Playtest.
#320 MechaPilot Jan 08, 2015 19:15:16	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#321 Brock_Landers Jan 08, 2015 21:54:02	MechaPilot wrote:
#322 MechaPilot Jan 08, 2015 22:05:14	Brock_Landers wrote:
#323 rampant Jan 08, 2015 23:38:04	Had an idea for a warlord at-will that wouldn't have some of the issues the action grants seem to attract.   Set-Up: When you take an attack action you can declare the target (or one of the targets if you have an ability that would allow such) to have been Set-Up. The next time an ally of yours damages a Set-Up target they deal X additional damage. A target remains Set-Up until the start of your next turn.   So warlord knocks the schmuck down and then the Rogue runs in and ganks the poor bozo for massive damage.
#324 ORC_Cricket Jan 08, 2015 23:58:51	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.     Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
#325 draegn Jan 09, 2015 5:18:00	rampant wrote:
(Reply to #325) Diffan	draegn wrote:
#327 Orethalion Jan 09, 2015 9:26:53	MechaPilot wrote:
#328 Brock_Landers Jan 09, 2015 9:54:28	MechaPilot wrote:
#329 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 10:02:49	Exactamundo.   We've gone an entire adventuring day in 5e where we never took the requisite hour to benefit from a short rest.   In the years playing 4e I cannot recall anything close to that ever happening. Not remotely.
#330 Brock_Landers Jan 09, 2015 10:10:41	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #330) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
#332 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 10:47:30	4 minutes =/= 59 minutes.
(Reply to #332) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#334 MechaPilot Jan 09, 2015 12:02:54	Brock_Landers wrote:
#335 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 12:04:12	Diffan wrote:
#336 MechaPilot Jan 09, 2015 12:12:52	Brock_Landers wrote:
#337 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 12:26:38	MechaPilot wrote:
#338 rampant Jan 09, 2015 12:54:33	@ dreagn, players have been able to puppeteer each other since command and dominate person became things. Also note the ability doesn't do that, it creates the opportunity for the rogue or someone one to lay the smack downbut doesn't play with the action economy directly.
#339 MechaPilot Jan 09, 2015 14:20:54	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #335) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#341 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 14:35:46	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #341) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#343 THEMNGMNT Jan 09, 2015 19:23:14	I thought this thread was supposed to be about a warlord subclass. It may have gone off the rails a bit.
(Reply to #310) THEMNGMNT	The_Jester wrote:
#345 ChrisCarlson Jan 09, 2015 19:23:47	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #345) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#347 rampant Jan 09, 2015 20:05:17	The Problem I have with jester's version is that it still seems so weapon user reliant, I mean the real problem is that there's no commander's strike equivalent for mages.
#348 THEMNGMNT Jan 09, 2015 20:07:11	Any suggestions for a maneuver that might address that?
#349 rampant Jan 09, 2015 20:09:08	Replace weapon attack with cast cantrip but as if the caster was level 1? But otherwise steal the text of commander's strike?
#350 draegn Jan 10, 2015 6:37:39	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #350) Diffan	draegn wrote:
#352 Criswell Jan 10, 2015 10:23:26	This is literally the first I have heard of the Warlord class causing arguments at Encounters, and after years of edition wars you figure that would have come up before.
#353 Darth_Caffeineus Jan 10, 2015 12:40:11	warlord has no magic warlord has nice things ancient law state those without magic shall not have nice things therefore the Warlord is evil1!!1!!1!!11!1
#354 Brock_Landers Jan 10, 2015 12:43:20	Diffan wrote:
#355 Brock_Landers Jan 10, 2015 12:46:42	MechaPilot wrote:
#356 draegn Jan 10, 2015 12:56:56	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #356) Satyrn	draegn wrote:
#358 MechaPilot Jan 10, 2015 15:25:30	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #357) Samrin	Satyrn wrote:
#360 The_Jester Jan 10, 2015 15:55:24	rampant wrote:
#361 rampant Jan 10, 2015 18:39:00	Lotta people quoting my set-up idea, not a lot of discussion about it's merits/flaws.
#362 Brock_Landers Jan 10, 2015 21:29:23	MechaPilot wrote:
#363 MechaPilot Jan 10, 2015 21:53:38	Brock_Landers wrote:
#364 Brock_Landers Jan 11, 2015 0:39:12	MechaPilot wrote:
#365 LuisCarlos17f Jan 11, 2015 0:51:32	Lazylord is too boring to be a PC, better a ally nPC or a magic item with the same powers.   The warlord has to be designed to have got a right balance of power, but also a fun gameplay (I don´t like to use the buffer or nerfers, I am more storyteller than about numbers and dices). Warlod has to be playtested to be used with the future modules about henchmen, skirmishes and mass batlles modules.... and the "monster pets".   Most of warlord's work is out of battlefield (money, food, medicines, armours and weapons, mounts, camps..).
#366 Samrin Jan 11, 2015 8:48:33	Lazylord is one of the most fun warlord builds I've ever played. So I have to disagree with the above post entirely.    Again. In a thread dedicated to home brewing this kind of thing up, saying it's too boring and should be an npc class is counterproductive and hinders the discussion. It obviously isn't boring to the ones wanting to home brew it.
(Reply to #354) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #356) Diffan	draegn wrote:
#369 Criswell Jan 11, 2015 9:49:23	There's the potential drawback of bookkeeping/keeping track, true. Hirelings and such were easy to manage in early editions because they were one, maybe two lines' worth of stats.
#370 The_Jester Jan 11, 2015 10:08:01	rampant wrote:
#371 rampant Jan 11, 2015 11:22:50	Barbarian rage damage works on the assumption you'll be getitng multiple attacks at some point, and this ability isn't need until level 5 or so, when the other classes would be getitng extra attacks. That might alter the math a bit.    Also it was intentionally not limited to hitting and dealing damage for two reasons. 1.) So like the other warrior classes the warlord wouldn't be putitng all his eggs in one basket, and 2.) so the warlord can use shove and knockdown instead of just weapon attacks, you'll note that most classes with the multiple attack feature actually have the ability to use their multiple attacks ona  number of options including grabs, shoves, and weapon attacks.
#372 MechaPilot Jan 11, 2015 12:33:50	Brock_Landers wrote:
#373 ShinQuickMan Jan 11, 2015 14:14:22	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#374 Orethalion Jan 11, 2015 14:24:43	MechaPilot wrote:
#375 BRJN Jan 11, 2015 15:56:04	draegn wrote:
(Reply to #373) rampant	ShinQuickMan wrote:
#377 EnglishLanguage Jan 11, 2015 18:07:51	draegn wrote:
#378 MechaPilot Jan 11, 2015 19:02:45	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #377) Diffan	EnglishLanguage wrote:
#380 Criswell Jan 11, 2015 21:14:10	ShinQuickMan wrote:
#381 The_Jester Jan 11, 2015 22:25:26	Diffan wrote:
#382 rampant Jan 11, 2015 23:23:06	I can't help but think that the king would have the warlord around specifically as an acid test to make sure is advisors and viziers were toeing the line. Plus it's funny.
#383 Brock_Landers Jan 11, 2015 23:44:07	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #381) Diffan	The_Jester wrote:
(Reply to #383) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
#386 The_Jester Jan 12, 2015 8:02:13	Diffan wrote:
#387 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 8:17:30	rampant wrote:
#388 Criswell Jan 12, 2015 9:15:11	The_Jester wrote:
#389 Brock_Landers Jan 12, 2015 9:55:51	Diffan wrote:
#390 The_Jester Jan 12, 2015 10:28:48	rampant wrote:
#391 The_Jester Jan 12, 2015 10:30:08	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#392 Brock_Landers Jan 12, 2015 10:36:22	The_Jester wrote:
#393 rampant Jan 12, 2015 12:38:37	Can also be called sour grapes.   Rogues can hide with cunning action, they do not need melee characters to sneak attack. Even f you still consider that an issue, then the rogue has a design flaw, or maybe there's some other option they use to deal with it. Even if they are somehow gimped by a range heavy party, guess what that's a design flaw. Mistakes aren't the end of the world, but they shouldn't be copied.
#394 ChrisCarlson Jan 12, 2015 12:50:52	rampant wrote:
#395 EnglishLanguage Jan 12, 2015 14:08:35	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #394) rampant	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #395) Diffan	EnglishLanguage wrote:
#398 MechaPilot Jan 12, 2015 17:14:48	Brock_Landers wrote:
#399 BRJN Jan 12, 2015 19:08:37	Diffan wrote:
#400 sleypy Jan 12, 2015 22:34:28	ShinQuickMan wrote:
#402 LuisCarlos17f Jan 13, 2015 0:01:45	Have you thought about a warlord with an ally squad? How to explain better the ally squad? Let´s imagine a druid whose animal companion is a vermin swarm. (yes, it was possible in 3.5th ed). The ally squad would be like a mixture of second PC controlled by same player and a little/medium size humanoid version of swarm druid's animal companion. Even a 1st level ally squad would be useful to recharge crossbows used by the PC.   I imagine warlord with aura bonus for Willpower saves.. spending money for Con saves (soldier's health) and training during hours or even days for Ref saves, with a extraordinary power to counterspell mindaffecting powers.    * Let´s imagine a future Real-Time-Strategy D&D videogame where one of the champions is a warlord class. How would be her class features to fight in the battlefield? For me the key is the economy...to hire more mercenaries or to buy a new magic item?
#403 Brock_Landers Jan 13, 2015 0:04:33	MechaPilot wrote:
#404 Brock_Landers Jan 13, 2015 0:07:22	rampant wrote:
#405 rampant Jan 13, 2015 0:27:59	Shouldn't every class be a bit of a snowflake? I mean if the class is not distinct in some fashion isn't it a tad pointless?   The saying "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" has a time and place, that time and place is not to justify the replication of mistakes. "Sour grapes" is the saying I generally understand to be associated with the argument that because something sucked in the past it's okay to replicate that suckage in the present, with a new target and those who had previously gotten shafted now doing the shafting.    Also how are any of my requirements for a warlord class at all unreasonable or strange? Party composition nuetrality is essential, even the much maligned rogue has some degree sine it can in fact sneak attack without allies via the use of cunning action if nothing else.
#406 ChrisCarlson Jan 13, 2015 6:53:41	rampant wrote:
#407 ChrisCarlson Jan 13, 2015 6:55:19	rampant wrote:
#408 rampant Jan 13, 2015 8:55:39	I have to DM it mostly.    Yes the rogue can sneak attack more easily if he has melee allies, however he is not dependent on them, he can reliably sneak attack every roud thanks to cunning action, even if he doesn't have any allies.    Yes making a class that depends on the rest of the party being specific classes would constitute a mistake. Erodes player choice and agency in addition to being highly unbalanced because classes that are party neutral will be more powerful and adaptable than those that aren't.   It's not arrogance or a bold proclomation to say the devs did something wrong. They admit to their own humanity on a regular basis. You are also putitng a lot of words into my mouth. I said that IF the rogue was truly dependent on melee allies for sneak attack that it would be a mistake, and then I explained that it in fact does not depend on melee allies, even if it does like having them around. I'm not trying to make any changes to the core game in order ot make a warlord class, you are the one that seems to equate creativity to major reocnstruction.    Seeing as how 5e does not have a published list of system design tenents don't think either of us actually knows what the devs consider to be design tenants, beyond the obvious stuff like not screwing with the proficiency bonus. None of the other classes depend on party composition, not even the rogue, so I don't see how it's some sort of dramatic thing to expect the same of a warlord.
#409 Brock_Landers Jan 13, 2015 9:50:09	rampant wrote:
#410 ChrisCarlson Jan 13, 2015 9:52:18	rampant wrote:
#411 sleypy Jan 13, 2015 9:59:03	rampant wrote:
#442 Vahnyu Jan 14, 2015 18:51:32	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#443 cbwjm Jan 14, 2015 18:55:12	If you want to talk about differences I would say the at-will/encounter/daily powers account for the majority of the difference between editions. It totally changed the feel of the game from DnD to what was effectively an entirely new system. This funadamental change to the game is likely a major reason why many people gave up on DnD and moved to Pathfinder or continued to play their earlier DnD editions. Sure, it might have balanced classes but otherwise it just didn't feel like DnD. Note, I'm not saying it was bad; although I didn't like it as much as previous editions I still thought it was a great system and had some fun times playing with friends.   I look at 5e and now I have a system that is far less like 4e and more like 2e/3e. Sure, cantrips might account for at-wills in 4e, the proficiency bonus might mean that a wizard and rogue, all else being equal, hit with the same bonus while using a long sword, but the two systems are still incredibly different.   On a side note, 4e actually brought in some aspects of Star Wars Saga (skills and saves were similar) but I wouldn't consider the two systems (discounting the different settings) to be similar in any way.
#444 ChrisCarlson Jan 14, 2015 19:11:22	Caveats and excuses. Lovely.
(Reply to #441) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #443) Diffan	cbwjm wrote:
#447 ChrisCarlson Jan 15, 2015 6:24:14	Diffan wrote:
#448 ChrisCarlson Jan 15, 2015 6:25:49	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #447) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#450 ChrisCarlson Jan 15, 2015 7:00:52	...says the guy who just said the same thing to someone else, in an effort to correct them, with as little to back it up...
(Reply to #450) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#452 ChrisCarlson Jan 15, 2015 7:26:41	5e was influenced by 4e and Essentials by a few factors, primarily character /class agency via maneuvers and short rest mechanics. Hit points, saving throws, attack bonuses, and overall class design (features, progression, Skills, etc) are all unique to 5e's new core design principles and system paradigm. The greatest of which being bounded accuracy (i.e., the opposite of 4e's system chasis).
#453 shpelley Jan 15, 2015 7:41:43	Is there a particular reason why there is so much random posturing and dick-waving amongst a select few, instead of say...providing constructive options for people to use? Pointing out why you don't think it's required is fine, but once the point has been made, there is no point in repeatedly declaring things unviable/wrong without providing some sort of workable alternative. The debate about whether it "should" exist or not is pointless.
(Reply to #452) Diffan	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#455 Brock_Landers Jan 15, 2015 10:03:36	Diffan wrote:
#456 draegn Jan 15, 2015 17:09:08	Diffan wrote:
#457 Uchawi Jan 15, 2015 17:12:48	I always thought 4E was an attempt to create the Magic: The Gathering editon for the simple fact of introducing an uniform power structure (AEDU). Unfortunately, the two system don't mesh, i.e. D&D and a card game.
#458 Gatt Jan 15, 2015 18:36:27	Uchawi wrote:
#459 Brock_Landers Jan 15, 2015 19:42:47	Gatt wrote:
(Reply to #458) AaronOfBarbaria	Gatt wrote:
#461 EnglishLanguage Jan 16, 2015 12:03:23	Gatt wrote:
#462 Zardnaar Jan 16, 2015 12:35:23	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #437) Criswell	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #425) Criswell	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #462) Criswell	Zardnaar wrote:
#466 Zardnaar Jan 16, 2015 13:01:06	Criswell wrote:
#467 ChrisCarlson Jan 16, 2015 13:27:59	Zardnaar wrote:
#468 ChrisCarlson Jan 16, 2015 13:35:31	Criswell wrote:
#469 masterfat78 Jan 16, 2015 13:58:32	Messing with othetr players action economy should not be a core ability for the warlord. It should be abilities in the tactical subclass. The base class should focus more on light healing(or maybe temp HPs in this edition) and some very generic martial stuff. The you have two subclasses to start, tactical and inspiring. Tactical should be a midcombat specializing in action economy and maybe some control or debuffing. Inspuiring focus more on setting up team mates for the money shot and buffing, he should be a little more frontline than the tactical(hence maybe heavy armor, whereas the tactical goes for med or light). The tactitions action economy powers need to be limited by short rests and maybe with reactions. I dont feel the tactition should be moving someone around all the time.
(Reply to #469) Diffan	masterfat78 wrote: