Community

Note: this suggestion assumes Warlords in 5E will have some sort of basic healing/inspiring ability to start with, and then will gain more at higher levels.


Warlord Options at 1st Level
(choose one or the other)

Empowered Inspiration: Drawing on a supernatural ability to inspire and motivate others, your Warlords Shout can heal those around you. 

Benefit: Once per day as an action, you can use Empowered Shout (a magical effect). When you do so, choose a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you. That creature regains 1d8 HP.

If you choose this option, all of your Warlord healing abilities are considered magical effects.

Martial Inspiration: Drawing on your non-magical abilities to inspire and motivate others, your Warlords Shout can grant temporary HP to those around you.

Benefit: Once per day as an action, you can use Inspiring Shout. When you do so, choose a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you that is conscious and can hear you. That creature gains 1d10 temporary HP.

If you choose this option all of your warlord healing abilities are considered non-magical effects that only work on a target that is conscious and can hear you, and grant temporary hit points.


The player and DM are encouraged to work together to determine the origin of the Warlords abilities. If it is Empowered, is it divinely granted, an innate ability, a studied skill, or something else? If it is Martial skill where was it learned, from who, and how has he used it up to now?


(Aside: As the Warlord gets more healing abilities, the Martial version is always one die type higher. That can be tinkered with, maybe the same die type +3, or plus CHA modifier; as long as it is higher than "regular" healing, because it is less versatile.)


Why this will (hopefully!) work
Players/DMs who loved the 4E Warlord pick option 1.

Players/DMs who dislike the concept of martial healing pick option 2, and still have a neat idea to play with.

Players/DMs who think the class is better served as a fighter or cleric with a specialty, can ignore this class and do that.

Players/DMs who think the description is ALMOST right but one word or phrase bugs them, can refluff that bit of text without needing to mess with the mechanics.

..everybody's happy?

Apologies for length.

Oct 5, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Seerow wrote:

Oct 5, 2012 -- 11:58AM, wrecan wrote:

Oct 5, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Seerow wrote:

Provide proof that warlord healing was the primary factor in 4e sales not keeping up, or even a significant contributing factor.

Right after you produce evidence that people who dislike martial powers healing actual hp is an insignificant minority, as you previously claimed.

So what you're saying is, no evidence.

No, I'm saying it's hypocritical to ask for evidence after you refused to offer evidence for your own claim.  It's also beyond rude to accuse someone of somethign they repudiated twice.  But you didn't address either of those things and just kept on with the inappropriate tu quoque attack as if nobody on this thread is incapable of seeing the dodge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: hit points are the worst possible method of tracking damage and health. Excluding all others. 


Personally, I dislike warlords healing being identical to clerics.
It's fine as long as hit points represent no physical injury, but, at some points, hit points have to segue from vitality and energy to actual physical health and there's no firm deliniation. And I dislike the injured and unconcious person who is literal seconds from death springing back up because the warlord shouted at them. Plus it made clerical divine magic less special, less magical. What was impressive about a cleric's ability to heal wounds when it was mechanically identical to mundane healing. 
In 4e, I had to change how I as the DM described the game. Because a player's choice of class, I had to change how I narratively described combat. The player's choice changed what I did every round. Every turn. That was always a bit much.
I'm okay with temporary hit points though. Which I think adds a lovely strategic element to the warlord. Which is meant to be tactical. Do you use the temp hp boost right away or after an injury? Which ally first?  


I like the warlord. I really do. I dig the idea of a martial leader directing followers and troops, moving allies, and affecting the battlefield. I love how easily it applies to historical characters and characters from D&D ficton such as Tanis Half-Elven from Dragonlance or Roy Greenhilt from the Order of the Stick. However, almost universally, when someone talks about a warlord character they're describing someone that was a fighter in earlier editions but was in a leadership position.
It's fitting the narrative and story elements of a fighter into the class role of the warlord because it has the leader combat role. 
Every description I've ever read of the warlord focuses on their class abilities (crunch), their leadership qualities (personality), and their command of the battlefield (actions). Which, sadly, isn't enough for a class. Thinking of a cool mechanical hook and adding a character's personality does not make for a class, it makes for a unique PC. This is much the same problem I have with the avenger and the invoker: being talked to by god and not belonging to a clergy is a character background not the basis for an entire class. 
What is a warlord? Well, they use heavy armour and weaponry. They're a physical class without access to magic (read: spells) that is limited by human potential.  In the words of the PHB1 "they stand on the front line issuing commands and bolstering allies while leading the battle with weapon in hand." Except for the explicitly leadery bits of that, there's nothing there that does not overlap with the fighter. 

Warlords are thus a class entirely defined by their mechanics. So, mechanically, what does the warlord do? 
They heal. Whee. Hardly unique. What else?
They make action points awesome. Okay cool. Except action points aren't in 5e, and when they do appear they will undoubtely be an optional rules module. So affecting those is out.
They grant a bonus to initiative. That's neat. Although, from play, this was constantly forgotten and the warlord player had to remind everyone. Not a problem in 4e with a couple fights per session. But with six or seven quick battles this might become a huge hassle. 
So that's pretty much it: healing and a bonus to initiave. That's the base content a warlord would mechanically bring to 5e (and one of those is something not everyone likes). On paper, playing a cleric with a domain that grants allies an initiave bonus and reflavouring the magical healing as inspirational shouts will do everything a warlord does.  

As the flavour of a warlord is so tied to the fighter, lets look at a fighter fighting style. It's super easy to think of options.
Spend your expertise die to let an ally move 10 feet before or after the attack (esentially granting Shift).
Spend your expertise die to inspire an ally granting temp hp. Cannot use this again until previous temp hp are gone (in terms of damage absorbed, not that different from Protect).
When you take an action that isn't an attack, spend you expertise die to grant an ally a melee attack. 
If an ally hits an adjacent enemy you spend your expertise die to grant the attack extra damage. 
(There's also precedence for builds changing proficiencies, so you could drop down armour proficiency for the warlord build and slip in an initiave bonus ability).

It's less than what a 1st level warlord does, but 1st level characters in 5e are simpler than 1st level characters in 4e. It's fairer to compare a 3rd level or even a 5th level 5e character with a 1st level 4e character. A 3rd level fighter with its extra style options (plus the basic fighter ones) could be pretty close to a 4e warlord.
Plus, this variant would be able to stand alone. If needed it could attack and deal damage or take a couple hits, being less reliant on the party being in the right place.