READ THIS FIRST I'm laying out some rules here. I'll report as disruptive any post that gets too far off topic (because that is disruptive). I hope others can do the same for my posts, and keep me in line too. Der RulesShow
(1) For the sake of this thread, we're ASSUMING that the Warlord (a) deserves to be a class, and (b) will be a class (as opposed to a "subclass" or whathaveyou). Arguments about that are off-topic, disruptive, and should be reported.
(2) For the sake of this thread, we're ASSUMING that the Warlord will be an option independant of any "Tactical Module". This means we should be designing with the same level of "theater of the mind vs. battlemat" as the other classes in DDN currently utilize, which heavily leans toward TotM. Arguments about TotM vs. Battlemats, or anything along those lines, are off-topic, disruptive, and should be reported.
(3) Tread lightly on the topic of "healing". If you like it for the class, try to implement it in your suggestions. If you don't, say so in your comments and critiques of others' work - but leave it at that. There's a fine line between discussing someone's suggestion or responding to a criticism and taking the "healing" thing completely off-topic. Watch it. Arguments about "healing" are probably off-topic, most likely disruptive, and should probably be reported. Use some judgement.
(4) We're here to discuss, brainstorm, and just play around with concepts and mechanics. Have fun. Offer critiques. Make suggestions of your own. Try to stay constructive.
So if you can't tell, I'm just a bit tired of the "warlord discussions" around here actually being arguments about those things listed above. So let's get away from that, for a while, and actually sit down and play around with design.
From another thread, this is where my current conceptualizing is starting:
I actually think the Warlord should go the Rogue-route with Skill Trick-like things, but using them to apply his or her skill dice as bonuses to allies – attacks, defences, movement, etc.
If I had to bet, right now, a "skill die"-based Warlord is what I would bet on seeing.
It's a compelling thought, but I find myself struggling with it.
A huge aspect of 'bard' when I think of bards is 'skills'. I'd hedge huge bets on the fact that the bard will have access to skill tricks in some form.
We quibble over whether the bard is part cleric, part druid, part wizard, or all of the above, but we all seem to agree that the bard is part rogue.
In the interest of differentiation, I'd keep warlords free of mechanics that monkey with the skill system in roguish ways. (See what I did there? )
Well, I don't think "monkeying with the skill die" is quite the same thing as "monkeying with the skill system". They're already using it to a degree on the Fighter with Parry, where "Skill Die" is used just to give a scaling numerical representation of "skill", not necessarily linked to Skills.
And while, yes, "some kind of ability that lets you spend your skill die for effects" sounds very similar to the Rogue's Skill Tricks, I think there are (or could be) two major distinctions. First, these abilities would be completely divorced from Skills, both conceptually and mechanically.You could seriously stretch it, and say that all of them are related to the Knowledge: Warfare (or Tactics, or whatever it is) Skill, but, like I said, it's something of a stretch. Second, whereas the Rogue's Skill Tricks are focused on affecting yourself or an enemy, the Warlord's abilities would be focused on affecting an ally or an enemy.
Differentiating from the Bard, beyond simply "Is it a spellcaster?", would be a little tougher - but I think only because we just don't really know what either class (Bard or Warlord) will really look like. Once we have one, the other shouldn't be too difficult to imagine the scope of - unless they take that one class and make it incredibly over-broad both mechanically and conceptually.
Personally, I would make an "Active vs. Passive" distinction. The Warlord would be designed primarily around active abilities - around using features to create immediate, short-lived, and focused effects. The Bard would be designed primarily around passive abilities - around using features to create long- or even persistent-duration effects across a broad range (usually whole groups).
No idea how you would actually implement that, especially if both "Warlord Leadership" and "Bardic Musicianship" were both conceptually tied directly to the Skill Die. Perhaps the more focused abilities of the Warlord might allow for multiple Skill Dice when used (like the Fighter is going to have multiple "Weapon Dice"), while the Bard would simply affect more targets? No idea, just brainstorming here.
So, with that all said, what the hell am I actually thinking of? Well, I think "Skill Tricks" are probably the best model we have, at the moment. Whatever the Fighter is going to look like may also be highly informative... but we just don't know what that is in great enough detail (or great enough detail for me to care).
Honestly, we just don't know... but it's fun to talk about it!
I'll put my own thoughts in a different post, to keep this one manageable (and sort of focussed?).
First, the Skill Die scales appropriately for what it's for - ability score checks. But when we turn to something like damage (either in "boost damage" or "reduce damage"), it can't even compete with the rate at which DDN currently scales in that aspect. Not without modification and, most likely, multiplication.
Something as simple as "When an ally deals damage to an enemy, you can let him add your Skill Die to the damage as a reaction" is complicated by DDN's (rapidly) scaling damage. Compare the 1d4 skill die and 1d8+1d6 damage (longsword+MDD) we have at level 1 to the 1d12 skill die and 1d8+6d6+20 damage (longsword+MDD+MDB) we have at level 20. It's just so dramatically different that honestly I can't imagine it being very feasible.
How could we make it work?
Just having a single universal feature that scales the SD for Warlord (active) abilities would be a pretty straightforward solution. Something like "Whenever you use your SD for an (active) warlord ability, roll your SD twice, and use the total results. At level X, roll it three times. At level Y, roll it four times."
Having a "pool" of resources that let you just boost the SD a certain number of times per encounter/day/whateverthehell would also work, and sounds like something along the lines of the "pseudo-Warblade" system the Fighter will use in the future. I'm not, personally, a big fan of the idea, but I'm not really sure where the Warlord could pull sufficient oomph from, if not from a limited-resource pool.
Hell, you could also just give the Warlord MDD like other classes get (which is almost certainly going to be the case - in whatever form "universal damage scaling" actually takes going forward), and let them use those for "buffs" instead of a Skill Die. I'm not, personally, a big fan of this idea either. I want the Warlord to be a combatant, certainly. Like the Rogue, "being good (if not great in their own way) in a fight" is how some people prefer their Warlords to run. I'm just not as much of a fan of using it to benefit allies (or hinder enemies), especially compared to Skill Die. Mostly on a conceptual level.
Honestly, I think I kind of talked myself out of it there. DDN's damage scaling is... let's call it interesting. I still think a Skill Die based mechanic is where I'd take it, but I really don't know how feasible that is with the interesting damage curve in DDN.
One of my recent thoughts is, as their reaction, a Warlord may grant any ally they can see, and that can hear them, Advantage on an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw.
I dunno, I'm just kinda of tired of the advantage mechanic.
It was cool the first 50 times.
I think the ability to call down the rest of the party's at-wills is essential. The thing the warlord does that sets him apart from the other classes is his action amplification abilities. In addition to being his schtick it gives him tactical flexibility allowing him to extend his influence beyond his immediate area and really driving home how important it is for the warlord to think about the whole battle.
Something That wasn't in 4e much but really seems right for the class is the war cry, rallying call, or rebel yell. This would admittedly be similar to various bardic or barbarian abilities of the past, but I don't see it as being exclusive territory.
NOt unless they bring out a Dhovakin class.
Now another thign that's important is that the warlord has to be compatible with every class. One of the major fails of the 3e era leader types was their reliance on having other weapon users around to provide offensive punch. The warlord has to be able to make a party of all wizards or all clerics appreciate having him around.
I dunno, I'm just kinda of tired of the advantage mechanic.
It was cool the first 50 times.
I think the ability to call down the rest of the party's at-wills is essential. The thing the warlord does that sets him apart from the other classes is his action amplification abilities. In addition to being his schtick it gives him tactical flexibility allowing him to extend his influence beyond his immediate area and really driving home how important it is for the warlord to think about the whole battle.
Something That wasn't in 4e much but really seems right for the class is the war cry, rallying call, or rebel yell. This would admittedly be similar to various bardic or barbarian abilities of the past, but I don't see it as being exclusive territory.
NOt unless they bring out a Dhovakin class.
Now another thign that's important is that the warlord has to be compatible with every class. One of the major fails of the 3e era leader types was their reliance on having other weapon users around to provide offensive punch. The warlord has to be able to make a party of all wizards or all clerics appreciate having him around.
Okay, I think any class would appreciate being able to take an action, so maybe... "As their action, a Warlord may allow one ally they can see, that can hear them, to use their reaction to take an action." This allows the Warlord to use their action to allow the wizard to cast a spell or the fighter to swing a sword. But it's kind of like a cleric that has to use their turn to heal, so a warlord attack that triggers actions in others would be the way to go...
1.) This needs to improve some how over the course of levels, maybe add a bonus, maybe in the form of encounter or daily boosts, or other powers that can be used in conjunction with this. Otherwise it's just the same as the pre-4 cleric boring, the warlord needs to do something besides just trade out his action for someone elses, otherwise why not just have an extra cleric or wizard along?
2.) This needs to be careful with the unlimited nature of the WYTAA rules.
3.) Not all classes get the same value from an action, mages for example have a much greater potential for mayhem with a blank check like taking an action. That's one of the reasons I specified the at-will.
1.) This needs to improve some how over the course of levels, maybe add a bonus, maybe in the form of encounter or daily boosts, or other powers that can be used in conjunction with this. Otherwise it's just the same as the pre-4 cleric boring, the warlord needs to do something besides just trade out his action for someone elses, otherwise why not just have an extra cleric or wizard along?
2.) This needs to be careful with the unlimited nature of the WYTAA rules.
3.) Not all classes get the same value from an action, mages for example have a much greater potential for mayhem with a blank check like taking an action. That's one of the reasons I specified the at-will.
So, the action grant needs more specifics. "When the Warlord hits with an attack, they may allow one ally they can see, that can hear them, to use their reaction to either cast a cantrip or make a weapon attack."
But now, this puts the fighter ally way ahead of the wizard ally, as the fighter's expertise presumably refreshed at the beginning of the warlord's turn. Hmmm...
EDIT:
"A Warlord may use his action to allow one ally they can see, that can hear them, to use their reaction take an action. Weapon attacks may add the Warlord's Expertise (or whatever) Dice."
"When the Warlord hits with an attack, the Warlord can allow one ally they can see, that can hear them, to use their reaction to cast a cantrip, make a weapon attack, or move."
"A Warlord may use their reaction to allow an ally they can see, that can hear them, to have advantage when making an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw."
What if the warlord class is like the fighter, but with abilities that support his allies instead of himself?
Instead of maneuvers, he get tactics. Offensive, Defensive, and Supportive.
Offensive: This means he is leading the charge. He's the follow me guy. Defensive: Stick close to him and you will be protected. Fights agaisnt fear and give AC bonus. Supportive: Give bonus to your healing, increase your spell DC, and can make you spend an HD to heal yourself in combat(for dat 4e favor).
Ported across from the last thread, because I think it was important to keep in mind:
Mearls has clarified that his comments about the Cleric and Hit Dice were in reference to the Basic game.
So Hit Dice are likely still in the Standard game and there will not be an expectation for Clerics as healers (if only because there will be other class options with healing available, possibly the Warlord but certainly the Druid and Bard).
He has also tweeted that there is a Warlord in development who is focused on action manipulation, enhancement and mitigation.
So we are likely to see the Warlord, probably in Standard and it also seems likely that there will be expansion options available in the (often mentioned though not yet seen) Tactical module.
The comments which have been made suggest that while Basic will operate under a "HP as meat" assumption that this will not extend to the Standard game, or certainly not into the Advanced options. This further suggests that options for Warlord (and other non-magical) healing will be available through one or more of the optional HP and Healing subsystems.
)
