Warlordy build?

[Sans.]

I wanted to make a Warlord in 5e. Currently I'm thinking some sort of Valor Bard/Battle Master and taking Martial Adept and Inspiring Leader (it's probably going be a Variant Human because this build is feat-heavy), but I feel like there isn't enough healing between delayed spell progression and Faerie Fire, Heroism, Sleep, Thunderwave... etc.

Another idea: Halfling Bard/Divination Wizard with Lucky and a few Battle Master levels thrown in. Very MAD, but might be good.

Thoughts?

[Talionis]

Seems a waste to do Battlemaster and Valor Bard. So much of Valor Bards power comes from extra attack and access to armor and weapons. But I could still see it I guess.

Mastermind Rogue has potential possibly with Battle Master.

Wolf totem Barbarian.

[Specter]

I would go with only 1 level of Fighter for a fighting style, and take Tough as a feat - as a Valor Bard, it's effectively Barbarian HD, and that's what your troops want, an undying, inspiring figure.

[Sans.]

Butbutbut... maneuvers D;

[Specter]

Butbutbut... maneuvers D;

Hah! The only real Warlord maneuver I see is Rally, but I don't think it's vital to the concept. Bardic Inspiration will serve you better.

[Mbarbs]

An evenish split, I think, is the least effective way to realize this concept. I think you want to decide between straight bard, bard with 1-3 levels in fighter, straight fighter, and fighter with a level in Bard.

I think that cutting too many levels out of Bard for a noncaster class makes the Bard half pretty unimpressive for this particular purpose. Bard X/Fighter 3 gets you both maneuvers and all of the bard stuff, but at the pretty significant cost of delaying your extra attack for a really long time unless you go to Bard 6 before you start taking Fighter levels. I'd still be kind of tempted, because Battlemaster is a very frontloaded subclass, and Fighter levels 1 and 2 are also quite nice. Fighter 4 gets you an ASI and Fighter 5 gets you extra attack, but at that point you've cut so much out of Bard that I'm not sure what you're doing taking many levels in Bard at all.

A mostly-fighter build doesn't really benefit from taking a bunch of bard levels. After Bard 1, which gets you cantrips and Bardic Inspiration, you don't get much that supports the specific goal of being warlordy.

The thing about going to level 3 in Bard (in a mostly-fighter build) to actually become a Valbard is that most of the exciting stuff about being a Valbard is stuff you have anyway from your fighter levels. All you get is the ability to use your Inspiration dice for other people's damage and AC, plus some more spells. You delay your fighter features in exchange for not much.

Another realistic option is Paladin.

I'd break it down like this:

* If you want to primarily be warlordy by tripping, re-positioning, etc., and don't care much about having your inspirational prowess represented mechanically, and you either don't care about magic or want to actively avoid being overtly magical, go straight Fighter. Note that it's really hard to justify having a super-high Charisma with this choice, especially if there's a Paladin/Sorc/Warlock/Bard in the party, because it's only getting you tiny bonuses to skill checks and Inspiring Leader. Inspiring Leader is a reward for having high charisma, not a reason to put points into Charisma.

* If you mostly want the above but want to mechanically represent inspiration, go Fighter X/Bard 1. For the Bard level to be useful, you need charisma, however.

* If you want to maximize the breadth of your warlordy options at the expense of your personal combat prowess, go Bard X/Fighter 3. This option eventually surpasses Bard X in personal combat prowess, at the cost of spellcasting.

* If you want to be an inspirational leader that makes a meaningful contribution on the front line and also has an arsenal of magical tricks, go Bard X.

* If you want to be an inspiring leader in a more passive fashion, go Paladin X.

[Corran]

It's just personal taste, but I would definitely want either fighter 3 or the martial adept feat, just so I can get the maneuvre commander's strike, so that I can shout mid-encounter ''HIT THEM AGAIN!!!!''.

[Sirdar]

I don't know if this homebrew is balanced or not, but check it out for inspiration at least! :smallsmile:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386929-The-Warlord-now-in-5e!

[Arkhios]

Or this (also found in my signature) (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BkFKKZGNe). ^^

It should be fairly balanced, having gone through several revisions with the help of Playgrounders over the course of almost a year of development. Then again, I'm only a "freelance" designer, at best. Or just a hobbyist. Anyway, the more options, the better, I'd say. If you don't like Sirdar's suggestion, check out mine. If you don't like mine, that's quite alright too. We're all free to have our own opinions. :smallsmile:

That said, if homebrew is out of question, Bard/Battle Master would be my way to go with this (and it actually was where I based my homebrew in the first place). I'd probably be more inclined towards College of Valor, but I wouldn't take more than 5 levels, because I'd much rather advance fighter to at least 11th level for the one additional extra attack, and with 5 levels in bard, you'd already be at 16th character level, total.

The main reason for the bard "dip" would obviously be Bardic Inspiration, and I would prioritize Charisma over your weapon attack ability score (strength or dexterity, depending which way you want to go), because Charisma affects the amount of Bardic Inspiration you have. More so at 5th Bard level forward. While, yes, the Bardic Inspiration die would cap at d8, it's really not that bad. The average result is only ~2 points lower than from d12 (which would be the maximum for it), which isn't the end of the world. Also, a Warlord isn't exactly a spellcaster, so even if your spellcasting from bard caps at 3rd level spells, that's all a big bonus to your otherwise martial inclination.

[Sans.]

How about starting as a Fighter, Bard for 5 levels, Fighter for 2 or 3 more and then Bard for the rest?

[Arkhios]

How about starting as a Fighter, Bard for 5 levels, Fighter for 2 or 3 more and then Bard for the rest?

Which college?

With College of Lore you wouldn't get Extra Attack at all.

With College of Valor, you would be waiting for Extra Attack until your 8th or 9th character level.

Extra Attack is really, honestly, huge improvement on a martially inclined class/concept, delaying the feature beyond 6th level seems really unwise, to me.

[Prophes0r]

I think we really need to know what "Being a Warlord" means to you. There are a lot of things that kinda carried over to 5e, but some of them require heavy investment in one idea or another.

You should ALSO be trying to make a good 5e character too.

So let us know what Warlord things you REALLY want, and what you can live without.

[Sception]

If UA is allowed, the Mystic class's Avatar subclass and disciplines are probably the best translation of the 4e warlord into 5e so far, though mixing in up to 3 levels of fighter might still be worthwhile for a more martial feel.

Sadly, there really isn't a perfect translation of the 'lazylord' style warlor whose combat actions consisted entirely of having other characters in the party perform actions for them, you're going to be stuck making your own attacks eventually, but with the Avatar Mystic's Mantle of Command discipline you can put it off as long as your psi points hold out.

[Sans.]

Which college?

With College of Lore you wouldn't get Extra Attack at all.

With College of Valor, you would be waiting for Extra Attack until your 8th or 9th character level.

Extra Attack is really, honestly, huge improvement on a martially inclined class/concept, delaying the feature beyond 6th level seems really unwise, to me.

College of Valor. Only getting it at 7th level sucks but everything else compensates.


I think we really need to know what "Being a Warlord" means to you. There are a lot of things that kinda carried over to 5e, but some of them require heavy investment in one idea or another.

You should ALSO be trying to make a good 5e character too.

So let us know what Warlord things you REALLY want, and what you can live without.

In order of priority:
1. Buffing party members (Inspiration, Heroism, Rally, Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike)
2. CC/debuffs (Vicious Mockery, Faerie Fire, Menacing/Goading Attack)
3. Actually attacking (Heavy armour, shield, Extra Attack)
4. Healing (Healing Word, Rally)

Also, I was thinking about taking Magic Initiate: Cleric, for Guidance and an extra heal a day.

[Prophes0r]

Paladin6/BardX feels like it could be worthwhile. Your charisma works with both. You can also pick up extra attack from Paladin. Your spell progression isn't TOO stunted.

Bless is really REALLY good.

Maybe:

Variant Human + Sentinel + Strength and Charisma focus.
Start as a Paladin go to 2 for Tunnel Fighter (OAs don't use your reaction)
Use a polearm for battlefield control

Then either start with Bard levels, or press on to Paladin 5-6 for extra attack

[Citan]

I wanted to make a Warlord in 5e. Currently I'm thinking some sort of Valor Bard/Battle Master and taking Martial Adept and Inspiring Leader (it's probably going be a Variant Human because this build is feat-heavy), but I feel like there isn't enough healing between delayed spell progression and Faerie Fire, Heroism, Sleep, Thunderwave... etc.

Another idea: Halfling Bard/Divination Wizard with Lucky and a few Battle Master levels thrown in. Very MAD, but might be good.

Thoughts?
Hi!

You have several "Warlordish" features that you can pick, depending on your character concept and associated fluff.
1. Barbarian: Reckless Advantage, Wolf Totem: be the leader that drives the pack into the thick of it.
2. Bard: Expertise in CHA skills obviously, but also Bardic Inspiration (Cutting Words -Lore- and Combat Inspiration -Valor- both fit well) and spells such as Enhance Ability. Which can be fluffed as great speeches or a "projection" of your strength of will. Because Bard.
3. Cleric: Light and Nature domain provide defensive features. Plus you get all the buff spells.
4. Druid: many useful spells for controlling battlefield, but not really fitting the classic image of a Warlord.
5. Fighter: Battlemaster manoeuvers obviously.
6. Monk: class provides Stunning Strike, Long Death lvl3 fits the "imperturbable leader", Open Hand lvl3 expands your soft control ability.
7. Paladin: Crown Oath CD, Auras, Paladin spells (including Command and Compelled Duel)
8. Ranger (revised preferably): advantage on Initiative and easier travel in some environments can fit the "leader" feel. If DM accepts, taking Spellless Ranger gives you a whole other bunch of Manoeuvers.
9. Swashbuckler Rogue: both lvl 3 and lvl 9 are fitting one image of leader that provides mental strength to his troops by taking the most dangerous foe 1 vs 1. A case could also be made for the Mastermind archetype.
10. Sorcerer: not much to see here (no mistake, it has great control/debuff potential, but it's totally "magic-powered" which does not fit imo to the Warlord image). Mechanically though, nice spells could be picked here.
11. Warlock: same as above: nice features mechanically, but fluff is really opposite imo.
12. Wizard: still the same (Bladesinger and Abjurer seem the most fitting).

As for feats: Inspiring Leader, Observant, Sentinel or Mage Slayer are also fitting. :)

Based on that, you can cherry-pick and build your character. Maybe building up on some suggestions I made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21385339&postcount=6) and there (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428942-Welcome-most-Warlordish-build-)&highlight=warlord) (note these suggestions are a bit old, so there may be better builds using the latest UA that I don't know).

Have fun!

[Sans.]

Palabard actually seems ok, but I don't think it has enough party buffing mechanics until around 6th level. More generally, I think the problem is that having any martial class as the main class and dipping into somewhere else means that you delay Extra Attack by a lot. D: I can't really think of a way around it...

[Arkhios]

Palabard actually seems ok, but I don't think it has enough party buffing mechanics until around 6th level. More generally, I think the problem is that having any martial class as the main class and dipping into somewhere else means that you delay Extra Attack by a lot. D: I can't really think of a way around it...

Well, starting with Bard you gain the "party buffing mechanic" right from the first level, and improve it at 3rd level (as a Valor bard), and finally at 6th level you get extra attack to improve your own martial capability.

Basically, if you disregard a bard's spellcasting, a valor bard is quite "martial" class already. The spells are just gravy.

[Corran]

Or this (also found in my signature) (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BkFKKZGNe). ^^

I like it. If I would play it, I would probably go for a vanguard warlord, with the dual wielder feat for a longsword and a spear (would you say that the spear can be my banner?). Plant the banner down when I am using bolster and carry on with just the longsword using it as a two handed (d10). Perhaps picking up the banner after a round or two to carry on with dual wielding. Nothing optimal, but I always wanted to play a character (probably elf) that dual wields longsword and spear, and if having the spear be also the banner, all the more thematic impressive, I think. Maybe I'll have to try it out sometime, it sure seems an interesting option that would save me time on looking how to best multiclass to ahieve a warlord feel. Nice work!

ps: Reading the fluff text in the beginning, I was so phyched at the thought that the tactician archtype would rely on intelligence rather than charisma, but going deeper into the class mechanics I can see how that must have been rather difficult to pull off (so many base class features make sense to trigger off charisma, and tying archtype features to intelligence would make this character seriously MAD. You could have the tactician have everything in the class that triggers off of charisma instead trigger of intelligence, but that would perhaps feel too artificial.... (feel more like 4e than 5e). Still, it's a shame there is no mechanical reason for a warlord of the tactician archtype to go for intelligence over charisma. I would love to play a military genius fighter (with mecanics that support the concept), and the warlord seems like the ideal chassis for such a concept (a lot more than an EK, at least imo).

[Specter]

Palabard actually seems ok, but I don't think it has enough party buffing mechanics until around 6th level. More generally, I think the problem is that having any martial class as the main class and dipping into somewhere else means that you delay Extra Attack by a lot. D: I can't really think of a way around it...

There's always Booming Blade/GFB to offset the delay a bit. You'll attack once, but with +1d8 to it and a rider effect.

[Biggstick]

Palabard actually seems ok, but I don't think it has enough party buffing mechanics until around 6th level. More generally, I think the problem is that having any martial class as the main class and dipping into somewhere else means that you delay Extra Attack by a lot. D: I can't really think of a way around it...

Paladin 6 // Lore Bard 14.

Get a 16-18 in your Strength, and then max out Charisma. Grab the Inspiring Leader feat as well.

It really doesn't matter too much with Oath you go, as the good stuff is all contained in the base Paladin chassis. After 6 levels of Paladin, break over for your Bard levels. You'll have tons of versatility with this build in being able to choose from a selection of fantastic support/buffing/debuffing support spells. You'll also be pretty defensive with your Cha mod t osaves + Cutting Words.

Another option altogether is to go 2 levels of Paladin and then 18 levels of Valor Bard. This runs into the issue you've pointed out already, but I've heard that it's an extremely fun build.

[Sirdar]

I would ask myself the following question:

How does the best 'Warlordy build' I can come up with using only official material stack up against my favorite Warlord homebrew

If the official build feels lackluster in comparison to the homebrew, I would discuss the homebrew with the DM and the other players.

At what point would the homebrew be accepted? How much must I nerf it until it is accepted by everyone in the group? Do I still prefer the nerfed homebrew over the official build?

Life is short, make sure you play the character you want! :-)

[Arkhios]

If I would play it, I would probably go for a vanguard warlord, with the dual wielder feat for a longsword and a spear (would you say that the spear can be my banner?). Plant the banner down when I am using bolster and carry on with just the longsword using it as a two handed (d10). Perhaps picking up the banner after a round or two to carry on with dual wielding. Nothing optimal, but I always wanted to play a character (probably elf) that dual wields longsword and spear, and if having the spear be also the banner, all the more thematic impressive, I think. Maybe I'll have to try it out sometime, it sure seems an interesting option that would save me time on looking how to best multiclass to ahieve a warlord feel. Nice work!

ps: Reading the fluff text in the beginning, I was so phyched at the thought that the tactician archtype would rely on intelligence rather than charisma, but going deeper into the class mechanics I can see how that must have been rather difficult to pull off (so many base class features make sense to trigger off charisma, and tying archtype features to intelligence would make this character seriously MAD. You could have the tactician have everything in the class that triggers off of charisma instead trigger of intelligence, but that would perhaps feel too artificial.... (feel more like 4e than 5e). Still, it's a shame there is no mechanical reason for a warlord of the tactician archtype to go for intelligence over charisma. I would love to play a military genius fighter (with mecanics that support the concept), and the warlord seems like the ideal chassis for such a concept (a lot more than an EK, at least imo).

Keying Tactician off of intelligence was something I struggled with as well, and I faced the same "issues" you noticed too.
I believe tactical ingenuity is something that can be studied and thus learned, so I might actually change Swift and Shrewd a little, to give Tactician double proficiency in History instead of Deception, although I might give them both as bonus proficiencies. In fact, on hindsight I think all Warlords probably should have proficiency in History.

Spear would definitely work as a banner! It's a long hafted weapon, though light enough to be wielded in one hand.

Overall, glad you like it. It took such a long time to come together, so I appreciate the kind words a lot! :)

PS. Warlord was my favourite class in 4e and my first (or maybe it was second) character (in 4e) was Eladrin Tactical (Int secondary) Warlord wielding a greatspear.

[Draco4472]

The SCAG's Purple Dragon Knight has some of what you're looking for in a Warlord. Otherwise I'd recommend Battlemaster for its maneuvers.

[Sirdar]

Or this (also found in my signature) (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BkFKKZGNe). ^^

It should be fairly balanced, having gone through several revisions with the help of Playgrounders over the course of almost a year of development. Then again, I'm only a "freelance" designer, at best. Or just a hobbyist. Anyway, the more options, the better, I'd say. If you don't like Sirdar's suggestion, check out mine. If you don't like mine, that's quite alright too. We're all free to have our own opinions. :smallsmile:


Arkhios: I finally got the time to read your homebrewed Warlord. Well done, it looks really solid and balanced. The Vanguard is my favorite subclass of the three, but I could see myself playing the Tactician as well. I agree with Corran - Excellent work!

[Arkhios]

Arkhios: I finally got the time to read your homebrewed Warlord. Well done, it looks really solid and balanced. The Vanguard is my favorite subclass of the three, but I could see myself playing the Tactician as well. I agree with Corran - Excellent work!

Oh my... Thank you! :smallredface: