Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9339497" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>You did notice that I have been vehemently opposed to the proposal given up thread where that was precisely what they wanted to do, right? That I have specifically cited both that <em>I</em> dislike it, and that there are folks who see that and immediately go, "Nope, nuh-uh, sorry, that's never going to be acceptable."</p><p></p><p>Because that's what I've been doing this whole thread. Easily the past sixty posts or more.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I made this exact argument to someone else upthread, so I'm not really sure why you're making it to me now. I already grant all of this. I don't want Warlords who cast spells. I am, instead, simply taking the <em>overall idea</em> of the Warlock. That is:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Split subclass, with a "main" subclass that defines your tone and style, and a "minor" subclass that defines your mechanical approach</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A small number of short-rest-recharging potent things you can do</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A selection of class-specific benefits, usually passive, or if not, then an augmentation to one of the previous two things</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More powerful high-level abilities, but which can't be used as often</li> </ul><p>That's it. Please, please, <em>please</em> do not interpret this as "Literally carbon-copying the Warlock but with the limitations on spells removed." That is emphatically NOT what I want. This is not a spellcaster. Literally the only things that I would be even remotely comfortable porting over mostly-unchanged would be <em>healing word</em> and (maybe) <em>cure wounds</em>, and even then I'm not sure about that. I would want the Warlord's short-rest-recharge stuff--call them "Strategies," call them "Exploits," call them "Spiarmf", don't care--to be things clearly distinct from spells. I don't want them to do blatantly supernatural things like:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Summoning or calling entities (objects, beings, energies) from anywhere else</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Creating elemental effects (with the <em>possible</em> and <em>rare</em> exception of psychic, thunder, or force damage, since those have SOME meaning as fear/morale damage, concussive damage that isn't bludgeoning, and physical pushing)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Leaving permanent changes to the world itself that aren't caused by, y'know, a person actually physically changing something</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Manipulating time or space (no teleports please)</li> </ul><p></p><p>Well...firstly, just so we're clear, I would generally not want to just carbon-copy <em>haste</em> because, again, I don't want spells. I want Warlord short-rest abilities that have their own distinct effects and style. Things that are fitting into the mechanical power budget that Warlock spells used to fill, but which are not themselves spells, but genuinely a completely distinct system.</p><p></p><p>That said, <em>haste</em> could be useful as a very high-level Warlord "Exploit" (or whatever we want to call them), but which might (again, spitballing, because as I've said I literally haven't written the homebrew for this):</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cost a resource, "Gambit," which can only be generated by having the Warlord or their party members take damage, miss attacks, or some other thing. AKA: they must build up to it, so the downside is that the Wizard can cast <em>haste</em> whenever she likes, but the Warlord must wait until he has enough Gambit, and if he just doesn't have enough when he would really like to use it...tough luck, buddy.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Require actively sustaining it in some way (as opposed to the passive sustain of spellcasters' Concentration), perhaps by being adjacent to the target at the start or end of your turn, meaning it could be disrupted in a genuinely unpreventable way if the enemy can separate the Warlord from their chosen ally.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Provide fewer benefits, but possibly a selection from round to round. So, you get an extra action, OR +2 AC, OR doubled speed and advantage on Dex saves. So it's still strong, but someone (Warlord or recipient, depends on how the final design would shake out) might need to take a gamble on which benefit is going to be most useful.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Shorter or unpredictable duration. <em>Haste</em> always lasts ten turns, unless the caster fails a Concentration check. Perhaps Exploits could have a check each round to determine if they persist or not, so there's always a chance that the effect fails after only a single turn, which would be a pretty significant downside compared to magic, I should hope.</li> </ul><p>I'm sleep deprived (have slept like absolute canine feces this week), so I hope the above is coherent. These are all spitballed ideas.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Question: Do Barbarian totems make every class want to have such effects?</p><p></p><p>In my experience, the answer is "absolutely not, folks understand that's a Barbarian thing." Same goes for Sneak Attack being a Rogue-only thing, or Ki being a Monk-only thing (even though that's a supernatural power source and thus, implicitly, "magic.") If designed as their own distinct thing, a mechanic specific to the Warlord, I think "Exploits"/"Strategies"/"Flugeldufels" would be likewise just fine. Battle Masters get Maneuvers, Rogues get Sneak Attack, Barbarians have Rage and Totems, Warlords have Exploits and Tactics. Each gets a distinct mechanical expression.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As said: I hear your concerns and I have explicitly advocated for those concerns in this very thread. I am opposed to giving martial characters spells. I have <em>stridently</em> opposed [USER=2067]@I'm A Banana[/USER] 's proposal to make allegedly non-magical spellcasting Warlords. I was not specifically thinking of you when I raised that opposition, but I was thinking of...well, pretty much this exact response, especially because part of their pitch was that existing players (and designers) would inherently find such an idea unobjectionable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9339497, member: 6790260"] You did notice that I have been vehemently opposed to the proposal given up thread where that was precisely what they wanted to do, right? That I have specifically cited both that [I]I[/I] dislike it, and that there are folks who see that and immediately go, "Nope, nuh-uh, sorry, that's never going to be acceptable." Because that's what I've been doing this whole thread. Easily the past sixty posts or more. I made this exact argument to someone else upthread, so I'm not really sure why you're making it to me now. I already grant all of this. I don't want Warlords who cast spells. I am, instead, simply taking the [I]overall idea[/I] of the Warlock. That is: [LIST] [*]Split subclass, with a "main" subclass that defines your tone and style, and a "minor" subclass that defines your mechanical approach [*]A small number of short-rest-recharging potent things you can do [*]A selection of class-specific benefits, usually passive, or if not, then an augmentation to one of the previous two things [*]More powerful high-level abilities, but which can't be used as often [/LIST] That's it. Please, please, [I]please[/I] do not interpret this as "Literally carbon-copying the Warlock but with the limitations on spells removed." That is emphatically NOT what I want. This is not a spellcaster. Literally the only things that I would be even remotely comfortable porting over mostly-unchanged would be [I]healing word[/I] and (maybe) [I]cure wounds[/I], and even then I'm not sure about that. I would want the Warlord's short-rest-recharge stuff--call them "Strategies," call them "Exploits," call them "Spiarmf", don't care--to be things clearly distinct from spells. I don't want them to do blatantly supernatural things like: [LIST] [*]Summoning or calling entities (objects, beings, energies) from anywhere else [*]Creating elemental effects (with the [I]possible[/I] and [I]rare[/I] exception of psychic, thunder, or force damage, since those have SOME meaning as fear/morale damage, concussive damage that isn't bludgeoning, and physical pushing) [*]Leaving permanent changes to the world itself that aren't caused by, y'know, a person actually physically changing something [*]Manipulating time or space (no teleports please) [/LIST] Well...firstly, just so we're clear, I would generally not want to just carbon-copy [I]haste[/I] because, again, I don't want spells. I want Warlord short-rest abilities that have their own distinct effects and style. Things that are fitting into the mechanical power budget that Warlock spells used to fill, but which are not themselves spells, but genuinely a completely distinct system. That said, [I]haste[/I] could be useful as a very high-level Warlord "Exploit" (or whatever we want to call them), but which might (again, spitballing, because as I've said I literally haven't written the homebrew for this): [LIST] [*]Cost a resource, "Gambit," which can only be generated by having the Warlord or their party members take damage, miss attacks, or some other thing. AKA: they must build up to it, so the downside is that the Wizard can cast [I]haste[/I] whenever she likes, but the Warlord must wait until he has enough Gambit, and if he just doesn't have enough when he would really like to use it...tough luck, buddy. [*]Require actively sustaining it in some way (as opposed to the passive sustain of spellcasters' Concentration), perhaps by being adjacent to the target at the start or end of your turn, meaning it could be disrupted in a genuinely unpreventable way if the enemy can separate the Warlord from their chosen ally. [*]Provide fewer benefits, but possibly a selection from round to round. So, you get an extra action, OR +2 AC, OR doubled speed and advantage on Dex saves. So it's still strong, but someone (Warlord or recipient, depends on how the final design would shake out) might need to take a gamble on which benefit is going to be most useful. [*]Shorter or unpredictable duration. [I]Haste[/I] always lasts ten turns, unless the caster fails a Concentration check. Perhaps Exploits could have a check each round to determine if they persist or not, so there's always a chance that the effect fails after only a single turn, which would be a pretty significant downside compared to magic, I should hope. [/LIST] I'm sleep deprived (have slept like absolute canine feces this week), so I hope the above is coherent. These are all spitballed ideas. Question: Do Barbarian totems make every class want to have such effects? In my experience, the answer is "absolutely not, folks understand that's a Barbarian thing." Same goes for Sneak Attack being a Rogue-only thing, or Ki being a Monk-only thing (even though that's a supernatural power source and thus, implicitly, "magic.") If designed as their own distinct thing, a mechanic specific to the Warlord, I think "Exploits"/"Strategies"/"Flugeldufels" would be likewise just fine. Battle Masters get Maneuvers, Rogues get Sneak Attack, Barbarians have Rage and Totems, Warlords have Exploits and Tactics. Each gets a distinct mechanical expression. As said: I hear your concerns and I have explicitly advocated for those concerns in this very thread. I am opposed to giving martial characters spells. I have [I]stridently[/I] opposed [USER=2067]@I'm A Banana[/USER] 's proposal to make allegedly non-magical spellcasting Warlords. I was not specifically thinking of you when I raised that opposition, but I was thinking of...well, pretty much this exact response, especially because part of their pitch was that existing players (and designers) would inherently find such an idea unobjectionable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why is There No Warlord Equivalent in 5E?
Top