Warlord, mechanics and sub-classes.

So now that it's nearly universally decided that there's room for the warlord in the game. What mechanics should they have? And what sub-classes should there be?

I see the base warlord as having 4 major features.
1) Giveing up his attack to grant an attack from someone else. (Direct the strike.)
2) let allies move more easily, based on Int. (Battlefront Shift, reorient the axis)
3) let allies fight longer, based on Cha. (Healing, THP, or fighting past 0).
4) gives bonuses/penalites to hit/damage/defense/armor (Paint the Bulls-Eye).

Tempered with moderate fighting ability (+2 to hit, medium armor, and martial weapons). That leaves you with plenty of options of how to build the warlord, including Str, Dex, or lazy.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

So now that it's nearly universally decided that there's room for the warlord in the game. What mechanics should they have? And what sub-classes should there be? I see the base warlord as having 4 major features. 1) Giveing up his attack to grant an attack from someone else. (Direct the strike. Probably uses the allies reaction.) 2) let allies move more easily, based on Int. (Battlefront Shift, reorient the axis) 3) let allies fight longer, based on Cha. (Healing, THP, or fighting past 0). 4) Moderate fighting ability (+2 to hit, medium armor, and martial weapons). That leaves you with plenty of options of how to build the warlord, including Str, Dex, or lazy.


1. I don't see it as only attack for attack, but broader. Maybe action for action. Like giving increased movement by using a move action. Still needs a broader scope.
2. Really seems to be just part of 1.
3. THP and being able to keep acting past 0 hp seem to fit the impression of the Warlord I have.  
4. This could be a place to implement CS dice for the Warlord. Making use of those to implement the previous ideas. Tactically decide between improved personal combat or improved team combat. Based on what is the better tactical option.

My 2 cp. 
Unless that direct the strike comes with a huge bonus it's not worth both the warlord's attack and the other guys reaction, in addition to limiting the potential to use their own class or specialty powers, which is something a warlord should never do, most of the attacking classes rely on a per round mechanic for oomph, E-dice and S-attack, so their extra hit isn't gonna be worth much more than the attack the Warlord gives up, especially in the case of a rogue whose already popped off an S-attack this round.

I think you're forgetting a couple of tricks, the warlord should also be able to 'paint' a target. Whether simply by singling him out as the poor schmuck the party's gonna kill first, or by pinning him down so the rest of the party can catch the punk in a dog-pile.

Warlord builds should eventually include the option for the classic evil warlord who uses fear as both a method of controlling his own team, and to disrupt his enemies.
Hmm... It's these conversations that are antiproductive and make me feel as though the warlord will be best presented to us in a Player's Option: Combat and Tactics splatbook.

What are we going to call the selectable build options? (Rogues have Schemes, Clerics have Domains, etc). Identifying things like that should help get us into more of a creative/shared storytelling mode and reduce our asphyxiation on the 'warlords do x mechanically which is different than y' stuff. I still believe that it's the validity of the concept that people struggle with, not the mechanics. If the concept can be concisely nailed down in a unique and compelling way, the mechanics should write themselves.

Unless that direct the strike comes with a huge bonus it's not worth both the warlord's attack and the other guys reaction, in addition to limiting the potential to use their own class or specialty powers, which is something a warlord should never do, most of the attacking classes rely on a per round mechanic for oomph, E-dice and S-attack, so their extra hit isn't gonna be worth much more than the attack the Warlord gives up, especially in the case of a rogue whose already popped off an S-attack this round.

My thoughts exactly.

I think you're forgetting a couple of tricks, the warlord should also be able to 'paint' a target. Whether simply by singling him out as the poor schmuck the party's gonna kill first, or by pinning him down so the rest of the party can catch the punk in a dog-pile.

Singling the baddy out as the poor schmuck the party's gonna kill first was a hallmark of the bard's piñata effects in 4E. -- I really like such mechanics!

Danny

So now that it's nearly universally decided that there's room for the warlord in the game.

And what "universe" would that be? Sure not mine. Tongue Out

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

The Gnoll leader in the beastiary has something that makes me think Warlord.
The Incite Blood Frenzy - "The gnoll grants a +4 to damage rolls to creatures of its choice that have the Blood Frenzy ability within 30 feet of it, not counting itself or any creature already gaining this bonus." 
Or the Hobgoblin Leader Commander +2 ability - "Friendly creatures with the disciplined trait that can see of hear the hobgoblin and are within 30 feet of it gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls. If multiple creatures have the commander trait, only the highest bonus applies."
I would say that a Warlord class needs features that incorporate similar mechanics.
So now that it's nearly universally decided that there's room for the warlord in the game.

And what "universe" would that be? Sure not mine. 



Except there's no other way to get the Warlord into the game.

It has way too much stuff to be put into a Specialty(and if it was, it'd have so much stuff as a Specialty, it'd already be a complete class of it's own, head and shoulders above any other Specialty)
The problem with eating the ally's reaction has been covered adequately already. If anything I'd make it just take the Warlord's action, and have the Warlord apply a scaling bonus to damage to the ally's attack. 

Other consideration: Warlord interraction with casters. Do you want the Warlord to let the caster blow an extra spell, or at least a minor spell? If so, with bonuses? What about ranged non-magical attacks? Can a Warlord have the Archer shoot an extra arrow, or can he only direct melee?


On mobility, I'd like to see increased movement speeds, granting extra move actions, having allies swap places (or swapping places with an ally), negating enemy AoOs against allies as a reaction.

I'd also like to see an initiative booster worked in there. And on the Charisma side, as well as being better at healing, being better at providing allies bonuses for actions on their turns.
The Gnoll leader in the beastiary has something that makes me think Warlord.
The Incite Blood Frenzy - "The gnoll grants a +4 to damage rolls to creatures of its choice that have the Blood Frenzy ability within 30 feet of it, not counting itself or any creature already gaining this bonus." 
Or the Hobgoblin Leader Commander +2 ability - "Friendly creatures with the disciplined trait that can see of hear the hobgoblin and are within 30 feet of it gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls. If multiple creatures have the commander trait, only the highest bonus applies."
I would say that a Warlord class needs features that incorporate similar mechanics.

This.

Danny

The concept of warlord is simple, it's the guys like Sokka, or Charles Xaviar that while certainly head and shoulders above the general run of average people are more focused on improving their team than advancing their own powers. They are the Lui Beis, the Captain Americas, and even Hiccup from the dreamworks franchise (not so familiar with the books so I have no idea whether book Hiccup counts).

I don't really understand why this is so hard for some people to grasp.


Anyway yes that's one of the things I think the painting would be good for, for spell casters I imagine a painted target would take a penalty to saves or something. Yes the Warlord should be able to work with ranged attackers, there should not be a class that the warlord cannot boost with the possible exception of lazy lords, and similar builds, even then I think there might be some tricks that a warlord and a pacifist cleric could pull off. 
The concept of warlord is simple, it's the guys like Sokka, or Charles Xaviar that while certainly head and shoulders above the general run of average people are more focused on improving their team than advancing their own powers. They are the Lui Beis, the Captain Americas, and even Hiccup from the dreamworks franchise (not so familiar with the books so I have no idea whether book Hiccup counts).

I don't really understand why this is so hard for some people to grasp.

It's grasping the aspect of performing as a team conductor that is somehow unique and/or different than anyone else with tactical insight sharing their knowledge at the table.

It's seeing it in game terms, as opposed to meta-knowledge terms.

Anyway yes that's one of the things I think the painting would be good for, for spell casters I imagine a painted target would take a penalty to saves or something. Yes the Warlord should be able to work with ranged attackers, there should not be a class that the warlord cannot boost with the possible exception of lazy lords, and similar builds, even then I think there might be some tricks that a warlord and a pacifist cleric could pull off.

How will these effects significantly differ from the bard's? (If they bard again claims them as part of his repetoire.)

Danny

There is going to be some over lap, just as the bard and cleric overlap. What's gotta be different is the execution, bards use song to apply small boonuses and penalties accross wide areas and rely on a small selection of spells for the more targeted stuff. With warlords on the other hand a few aura buffs wouldn't be a bad plan but the warlord should probably focus less on handing out numerical bonuses and more on positioning, tactical maneuvers, and special opportunities, painting should probably start as one of the numerical bonuses/penalties a warlord can apply, but could grow to allow for casters ranged weapon users to auto cast/shoot at a painted target. Or maybe even allow for Casters to target foes they can't actually see.

Warlord, guy who whacks ogre in the knee so fighter can get a shot at his back, the guy who shouts the timely warning that lets the rogue scramble out of reach of the hydra's jaws, the guy who keeps that addle brained berserker alive by making sure the rest of the party can get to him in time even when he rushes the BBEG whose minions close ranks after the stupid lug. The guy who is shouting directions and keeping the party on track. What is so bloody hard to   figure out? There's a difference between having tactical insight (most of us have that), and being able to respond to a chagning battlefield with it, while comunicating to the rest of your team what they need to do. That is who the warlord is in game terms, the guy who is putitng it all together.
When I submit statements specific to the struggle of wrapping one's head around the concept of the warlord as a viably unique standalone class, I'm speaking from the perspective of an objective observer. -- It's what I see taking place when people are arguing against it, not necessarily my own opinion on the subject.

As an aside, 'boonuses' may be a typo, but it's an awesome word.

There is going to be some over lap, just as the bard and cleric overlap. What's gotta be different is the execution, bards use song to apply small boonuses and penalties accross wide areas and rely on a small selection of spells for the more targeted stuff. With warlords on the other hand a few aura buffs wouldn't be a bad plan but the warlord should probably focus less on handing out numerical bonuses and more on positioning, tactical maneuvers, and special opportunities, painting should probably start as one of the numerical bonuses/penalties a warlord can apply, but could grow to allow for casters ranged weapon users to auto cast/shoot at a painted target. Or maybe even allow for Casters to target foes they can't actually see.

Warlord, guy who whacks ogre in the knee so fighter can get a shot at his back, the guy who shouts the timely warning that lets the rogue scramble out of reach of the hydra's jaws, the guy who keeps that addle brained berserker alive by making sure the rest of the party can get to him in time even when he rushes the BBEG whose minions close ranks after the stupid lug. The guy who is shouting directions and keeping the party on track. What is so bloody hard to   figure out? There's a difference between having tactical insight (most of us have that), and being able to respond to a chagning battlefield with it, while comunicating to the rest of your team what they need to do. That is who the warlord is in game terms, the guy who is putitng it all together.

I get the colorful imagery, it's just that I could explain many of those same outcomes as the result of a foppish dandy who's bounding through the fray, cajoling, and otherwise tipping the scales in favor of his allies. The ways in which the bard and warlord go about doing what they do need to be explicitly distinct, with as little overlap as possible in order for either to claim uniqueness. 

Danny

The 4 warlord types could be supported.

The Tactical Warlord allow allies to at as a cohesive unit.

The Inspirational Warlord bolsters the defenses and courage of his allies.

The Bravura Warlord lets allies take additional risks for greater benefit

The Resourceful Warlord lets the safer options than provide benefits even on failure.

Shake it off: The warlord can use an reaction to allow an ally within 30 feet of him that can see or hear him another chance to make a saving throw against an affliction affecting him.

Tactical: All allies within 30ft can make a saving throw.
Inspirational: The ally gains a bonus to the saving throw equal to the warlord's Charisma Modifier.
Bravura: If the ally succeeds on the saving throw, they have advantage on their next action. If they fail, they have disadvantage on their next action instead.
Resourceful: The ally has advantage on the additional saving throw

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I still think we should aim to add the scary warlord in for 5e.

And maybe the rage lord, but I'm not sure thats a distinct build so much as a subset of the inspiration or bravura powers. 
It has way too much stuff to be put into a Specialty(and if it was, it'd have so much stuff as a Specialty, it'd already be a complete class of it's own, head and shoulders above any other Specialty)

I don't think so. It doesn't have any more "stuff" than what can fit easily within the 4 feats provided by a Specialty and an appropriate Background like Soldier.

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

The 4 warlord types could be supported.

The Tactical Warlord allow allies to at as a cohesive unit.

The Inspirational Warlord bolsters the defenses and courage of his allies.

The Bravura Warlord lets allies take additional risks for greater benefit

The Resourceful Warlord lets the safer options than provide benefits even on failure.

Shake it off: The warlord can use an reaction to allow an ally within 30 feet of him that can see or hear him another chance to make a saving throw against an affliction affecting him.

Tactical: All allies within 30ft can make a saving throw.
Inspirational: The ally gains a bonus to the saving throw equal to the warlord's Charisma Modifier.
Bravura: If the ally succeeds on the saving throw, they have advantage on their next action. If they fail, they have disadvantage on their next action instead.
Resourceful: The ally has advantage on the additional saving throw

I think this mode of thought is too deeply rooted in 4E paradigms and related approaches to the game.

5E is intent upon creating a game around the story. Working from the mechanics outwards is far too engine-centric in order for this project to succeed.

Danny

I call bollox. 

How exactly is 5e any more story driven than any other edition ever.

The reason the mechanics of 4e got so much focus was because they were good most of the time, they weren't any more or less story driven than 3e or 5e they just got more notice and comment because they were different than previous formats and sucked less.

And how else does one design a class? 
The 4 warlord types could be supported.

The Tactical Warlord allow allies to at as a cohesive unit.

The Inspirational Warlord bolsters the defenses and courage of his allies.

The Bravura Warlord lets allies take additional risks for greater benefit

The Resourceful Warlord lets the safer options than provide benefits even on failure.

Shake it off: The warlord can use an reaction to allow an ally within 30 feet of him that can see or hear him another chance to make a saving throw against an affliction affecting him.

Tactical: All allies within 30ft can make a saving throw.
Inspirational: The ally gains a bonus to the saving throw equal to the warlord's Charisma Modifier.
Bravura: If the ally succeeds on the saving throw, they have advantage on their next action. If they fail, they have disadvantage on their next action instead.
Resourceful: The ally has advantage on the additional saving throw

I think this mode of thought is too deeply rooted in 4E paradigms and related approaches to the game.

5E is intent upon creating a game around the story. Working from the mechanics outwards is far too engine-centric in order for this project to succeed.




How so.
The 4E builds match story very well.

There is the distant historic Tactical 'lord vs the empathetic present Inspiational 'lord.
Then the risky Bravura 'lord vs the safer Resourceul 'lord.

As the warlord is a leadership class, then personailty into mechanics would make a lost of sense.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I call bollox. 

How exactly is 5e any more story driven than any other edition ever.

The reason the mechanics of 4e got so much focus was because they were good most of the time, they weren't any more or less story driven than 3e or 5e they just got more notice and comment because they were different than previous formats and sucked less.

And how else does one design a class? 

The reason the mechanics of 4E got so much focus was because they were apparent in all aspects of play. -- The engine was so simplistic that it was ever-present in our gaming interactions, and the effects of choices were pointedly tactics dependent. Every aspect of the game was defined, able to be referenced, and covered by a codified adjudication.

If the designers are to be believed, 5E is actively working against this.

Danny

That seems tantamount to sabatouge.

And doesn't answer the question, or if it did I didn't understand. 
How so.
The 4E builds match story very well.

There is the distant historic Tactical 'lord vs the empathetic present Inspiational 'lord.
Then the risky Bravura 'lord vs the safer Resourceul 'lord.

As the warlord is a leadership class, then personailty into mechanics would make a lost of sense.

I don't disagree that the 4E builds match story well. For all classes.

What I'm cautioning against is the inclination towards building classes around gimmicks. Unique mechanics should have more meaningful depth than the device-like feel of stat-riders on a go-to feature. -- 4E was 'gimmicky' in that regard.

Danny

That seems tantamount to sabatouge.

And doesn't answer the question, or if it did I didn't understand. 

 Missed the question part...

And how else does one design a class?

There's been an article or two detailing the process they're using, but I've gathered that it involves identifying the unique story elements of each concept and then building out from there in such a way as to tie the concept into the larger narrative and express those elements in game terms. 

Danny


What I'm cautioning against is the inclination towards building classes around gimmicks. Unique mechanics should have more meaningful depth than the device-like feel of stat-riders on a go-to feature. -- 4E was 'gimmicky' in that regard.

Not sure I agree.  I have 2 words that sum up gimmicks in 5e. Combat. Superiority.  

Sure, one might argue that the fighter is a class that represents a fundamental pillar of D&D but you can't tell me that combat superiority isn't a gimmick and is a core foundation of the quintessential fighter.

How so.
The 4E builds match story very well.

There is the distant historic Tactical 'lord vs the empathetic present Inspiational 'lord.
Then the risky Bravura 'lord vs the safer Resourceul 'lord.

As the warlord is a leadership class, then personailty into mechanics would make a lost of sense.

I don't disagree that the 4E builds match story well. For all classes.

What I'm cautioning against is the inclination towards building classes around gimmicks. Unique mechanics should have more meaningful depth than the device-like feel of stat-riders on a go-to feature. -- 4E was 'gimmicky' in that regard.




But warlord are leaders and how a person leads is often heavily influenced by their personality. TVtropes agrees

Sure it was a little gimmicky but the gimmick was close to reality.

If warlords "heal" morale, then an Inspirational warlord would heal the most.
Some warlords take risks while others plan for near guarantees.

So you'd take what a warlord should do based on their story then tweak it to the warlord's personality.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Not sure I agree.  I have 2 words that sum up gimmicks in 5e. Combat. Superiority.  

Sure, one might argue that the fighter is a class that represents a fundamental pillar of D&D but you can't tell me that combat superiority isn't a gimmick and is a core foundation of the quintessential fighter.

Combat Superiority is a far more complex means of expressing capability than 4E's quasi-universal 'Mark' gimmick.

Danny

I don't even know how we got to marks.

I thought this was a warlord thread. 
To differentiate them from bards the focus should be on Intelligence-base warlords at first. The tactlords as it were, emphasising strategy and tactics and letting the bard inspire. 
Additionally, focusing on Int and not other stats means warlords can choose to be dexterous with bows or strong with swords. 

* I'm not a fan of warlords healing but they need something. Having them grant temporary hitpoints is probably a nice option. Plus it's use is more strategic.

* At low levels they should grant bonuses to damage. That's a nice basic power: when they're adjacent to an ally that ally does more damage. I thought about having the warlords attacks make an enemy more vulnerable, but that was always a pain to track.

* Granting attacks is tricky, but works at higher levels. When the warlord uses his action to not attack an ally can make an attack. It might only do half damage though. 

* Granting move actions can't happen, as there's no such thing. But warlords could let allies move with them, or when they make an attack.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Why can't a warlord grant a full damage attack?

Also I don't think the 5ft damage boost aura is a good idea, first rule of fantasy combat is not to clump up like that.
So now that it's nearly universally decided that there's room for the warlord in the game. What mechanics should they have? And what sub-classes should there be? I see the base warlord as having 4 major features. 1) Giveing up his attack to grant an attack from someone else. (Direct the strike. Probably uses the allies reaction.) 2) let allies move more easily, based on Int. (Battlefront Shift, reorient the axis) 3) let allies fight longer, based on Cha. (Healing, THP, or fighting past 0). 4) Moderate fighting ability (+2 to hit, medium armor, and martial weapons). That leaves you with plenty of options of how to build the warlord, including Str, Dex, or lazy.



A feature I think that is missing from your list is the abilities to affect the opening round of combat. Things like initiative bonuses and pre-combat shifts. I think abilities like negating surprise would fit as well. 

I would also like to see warlords have something that represent pre-combat speeches. A inspirational warlord might be able to deliver a moving speech that give out thp. An evil/bravura warlord might give an extra action that leaves allies at a disadvantage, because they were forced to do something or because they were whip up into a frenzy and take risks.

A option I would like to see is a warlord that is focused on political warfare. I envision a spy master who had to organize the running of a spy network; a Captain of the Watch who spent a lot of time organizing work schedules and coddling the nobility; Possibly filling the niche of kings adviser that wizards sometimes fills.

 

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

Those seem like you're bordering NPC territory.
I still think we should aim to add the scary warlord in for 5e.

And maybe the rage lord, but I'm not sure thats a distinct build so much as a subset of the inspiration or bravura powers. 



Yup give him more enemy manipulation powers...  He's batman, well part of batman.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

* At low levels they should grant bonuses to damage. That's a nice basic power: when they're adjacent to an ally that ally does more damage. I thought about having the warlords attacks make an enemy more vulnerable, but that was always a pain to track.

* Granting attacks is tricky, but works at higher levels. When the warlord uses his action to not attack an ally can make an attack. It might only do half damage though. 

* Granting move actions can't happen, as there's no such thing. But warlords could let allies move with them, or when they make an attack.



I think the spell spirit hammer includes all the mechanics necessary to deal with both the granted attack and movement without introducing anything significantly different. The action of commanding an ally to attack. Something like this:

Once during each of your turns, when you issue an attack command to an ally, you can also move the ally up to 20

feet and make the attack against a creature within 5 feet of that ally.


Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

Why can't a warlord grant a full damage attack?


Because a warlord's damage would not be the same as a rogue's or DPS fighter. It would be sacraficing a low damage attack for a high damage attack.
And it would lead to the combo of the rogue spending her turn hiding and sacraficing their action (gaining advantage) while the warlord allowed her to attack again with advantage and sneak. Sneak damage every round. 

Also I don't think the 5ft damage boost aura is a good idea, first rule of fantasy combat is not to clump up like that.


True but it needs to be simple. Allies adjacent to the warlord deal an extra d6 on all weapon damage. This seems like a nice small static bonus. An extra if you're right there by the warlord. 
Likewise an initiative bonus might be nice. The pre-combat shifting seems a little finicky for Theatre of the Mind so I don't see that working as well.

The default warlord mechanic could be something like "Issue Commands". Spend you action and bark an order. You get a couple commands at 1st level and more commands at higher levels.
Although some commands might be quick and allow you to also make an attack. One of the "builds" could focus on that, with lesser commands paired with offensive actions. 
A different build might focus entirely on command, allowing allies to either move and attack in place of the warlord. A variant on the lazy warlord.
A third build might be more defensive, allowing allies to defend against attacks with warning cries and distractions. Reactions might have to play a larger part in that. As would greater emphasis on granting temp hp. They might also be able to trigger additional saving throws against spells and effects ("Shake it off man, you can do it.")

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Those seem like you're bordering NPC territory.


I don't agree. There are suppose to be 3 pillars. Focusing on the other 2 doesn't in my mind automatically make it border on NPC.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

No but spy captains need to stay where their network can find them and that limits them geographically unless you introduce something akin to cell phones, or at the very least telegrams.

Furthermore a royal advisor needs to be advising the royalty, and competent royalty tends to stay away from ancient tombs and haunted bogs that are the natural habitats of the PC.

Um how is that rogue warlord combo any different from a warlord using the help action to do the exact same thing only without the rogue having to hide?

YEah the warlord is gonna sacrifice his attack on the assumption that he's gonna get a better one or at least one in the proper place. Fighters and rogues can only use their damage boosts so many times per round, so the actual damage increase compared to a warlord attacking himself is already minimal unless the rogue missed, and somehow still has advantage.

Damage boost while adjacent to warlord is dumb, if you want aura abilities the combat leader ability from 4e should be just as good now as it was then, +2 on initiative for all allies within 50ft or so.

Give them the ability to direct an ally granting either an attack or a minor spell using the warlord's action, or allow the ally to move. Since the warlord is the one taking the action the actual granted ability doesn't have to be an action, it's just got to offer at least one option that is consitently equal to or better than the warlord attacking on his own to justify the cost of his action.

The whole point is that the warlord should be be doing something that is better than his baseline attack action, every class has methods of improving or replacing their basic attack each round, why shouldn't the warlord?
my sugestion for warlord "healing"
when a warlord hist with a attack he can let an ally within 30 feet spend a number of it's healing dice.
instead of healing these hitpoints are gained as temporery hitpoints.

the amount of hit dice a warlord can have allies spend during a encounter depends on level see table








































level 11
level 32
level 53
level 74
level 95
level 116
level 137
level 158
level 179




during the first short rest after a combat encounter the warlord rallies his allies.
if your party includes a warlord you re gain 1 healing hit dice during a short rest.
 
No but spy captains need to stay where their network can find them and that limits them geographically unless you introduce something akin to cell phones, or at the very least telegrams.

Furthermore a royal advisor needs to be advising the royalty, and competent royalty tends to stay away from ancient tombs and haunted bogs that are the natural habitats of the PC.


Some people games revolve around life in a city or running a kingdom. Not everyone plays their game like a dungeon crawler.


Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

my sugestion for warlord "healing"
when a warlord hist with a attack he can let an ally within 30 feet spend a number of it's healing dice.
instead of healing these hitpoints are gained as temporery hitpoints.

the amount of hit dice a warlord can have allies spend during a encounter depends on level see table








































level 11
level 32
level 53
level 74
level 95
level 116
level 137
level 158
level 179




during the first short rest after a combat encounter the warlord rallies his allies.
if your party includes a warlord you re gain 1 healing hit dice during a short rest.
 




So wait, not only are you tying the healing to hit dice, you're making it temp hp only on top of that?


I'm liking everything I'm hearing from sleypy and The_Jester.

Sure it was a little gimmicky but the gimmick was close to reality.

If warlords "heal" morale, then an Inspirational warlord would heal the most.
Some warlords take risks while others plan for near guarantees.

So you'd take what a warlord should do based on their story then tweak it to the warlord's personality.

Just my opinion, but I recognize this language (specifically utilized terms) as a trap. Immediately it triggers a 'but don't bards heal morale?' thought process.

Also, since the days of 3E on these boards I've witnessed countless submissions of 'the bard guarantees success in all endeavors' and 'the bard is the insurance policy' (to the extent that I agree and use them myself). Using these defenses is undermining to our goal of giving the warlord an incontestable right to stand as a unique class.

If we can innovate and really draw out the solely unique pieces that make the warlord the warlord, perhaps we'll inspire a creative seed in any lurking designers...


I don't even know how we got to marks.

I thought this was a warlord thread. 

Well, they are just fighters of another stripe, no? 

/yes kidding

Danny

Anyway yes that's one of the things I think the painting would be good for, for spell casters I imagine a painted target would take a penalty to saves or something. Yes the Warlord should be able to work with ranged attackers, there should not be a class that the warlord cannot boost with the possible exception of lazy lords, and similar builds, even then I think there might be some tricks that a warlord and a pacifist cleric could pull off.

How will these effects significantly differ from the bard's? (If they bard again claims them as part of his repetoire.)

Not much.  

Except bards claim them as part of their repetoir.  They will dabble in it.
Warlords will claim it as their focus.  They will master it.

So take the bard, drop the spells casting and rogue skills, and double down on the bard song.  Expanding the bonuses to cover more things, like movement and action granting.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Sign In to post comments