D&D 5E What Classes in PHB?

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not entirely convinced that's true. Obviously we haven't seen final versions, and my familiarity with the playtest materials is shaky at best, but doesn't the College of Valor bard cover most of this? More melee potential, in terms of equipment; abilities that enhance allies' options in battle; and of course, the bard can wirj with music or oration.

If I see someone on the front line, wearing armor, swinging a sword, and verbally urging his/her allies on to ever greater efforts... That pretty much says 4E warlord to me.

Not if the Alpha is to be believed.

The Valour Bard was drastically nerfed from earlier playtests, and is arguably less helpful in combat than even a 3.XE/PF Bard. He can't really "enhance allies' options" in combat", not when he gets 3-5 x +1d6 (to one person, for one roll!) goes per day, and has to do give that out AS A BONUS ACTION ON HIS TURN (so can't use it in a "clutch" way).

He also has Wizard HP, and no other significant defensive stuff, meaning that him being on the front line or even near it is pretty dangerous. He has two attacks, eventually, but you do NOT want to be meleeing with him if you enjoy being alive (unless you know the DM will ignore you).

So sadly he's very un-Warlord-y.

The Battle Master Fighter has two Warlord abilities - Commander's Strike, which lets you donate an attack to an ally (and he does extra damage), and Rally, which lets you grant THP (small amount, but ranged). That's it. All the other Warlord stuff? Nope. All the White Raven stuff from 3.5E? Nope. All the team-work-type stuff from Pathfinder? Nope. So when you've got those two abilities (which is L3, inexplicably, given Clerics and Wizards get their similar stuff at L1 and L2 respectively), you're as Warlord as you'll ever get.

He's still more Warlord-y than the Bard, at least the Alpha Bard. I am praying that they reverted to a more October Playtest-style Bard before printing, because right now, the best "Warlord" would be to go to 5th as a Fighter, then MC to Cleric and just make sure you cast Bless every fight (easily done after a couple of levels).

Hopefully too, later splatbooks will provide more Warlord options, but given Mearls apparent open contempt for Warlords, we shall see.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. But to put it bluntly: it looks stupid. Most historically accurate combat styles aren't as aesthetically pleasing to modern sensibilities as sword-combat in action movies. I can't remember having ever seen a swashbuckler using a buckler. Either they have a free hand or are dual-wielding. I'd rather have swordplay express cinematic battles than attempt to recreate awkward looking historical re-enactments. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people would agree with me on that preference.

TWF with a Scimitar and Dagger, Rogue or Fighter. My first thought, Error Flynn or Three Musketeers.

Not seeing the issue. If you do not want a shield or buckler, don't take one.

 

[Juriel]

right now, the best "Warlord" would be to go to 5th as a Fighter, then MC to Cleric and just make sure you cast Bless every fight (easily done after a couple of levels).

So... Paladin?

But yeah, if you're martial, you don't get options.

Battle Master would be the logical place to put Warlord, but then, they could've called it Warlord if that was the case. As is, they're not one, as (in Alpha) they get laughably few uses of their little tricks, so that won't help - you'll just be basic attacking the other 90% of a combat, just like any Fighter ever.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So... Paladin?

Kinda. I don't think Paladin can spam Bless as well, and he wouldn't get the Commander's Strike stuff, which is the main Warlord thing.

 

[Chaltab]

I don't know, between the lack of a solid Warlord option and the Fighter's Superiority Dice being so limited it seems like the new edition is more focused on getting combat out of the way than it is making it interesting. Tactical decisions take a back seat to more damage. I'm just getting the sense that, especially with the price of the core books, DDN will be a 'wait and see' thing for me.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

TWF with a Scimitar and Dagger, Rogue or Fighter. My first thought, Error Flynn or Three Musketeers.

Not seeing the issue. If you do not want a shield or buckler, don't take one.

The main issue is that there are two archetypes--the single rapier fighters, and the single longsword (or scimitar for that matter) wielder which are not represented. The only way to represent them is, as you say, to take the dueling style and just not use a shield.

I think the issue here is that I shouldn't have to sacrifice +2 AC for style. +1 AC for style I will gladly do, but +2 is absurd.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know, between the lack of a solid Warlord option and the Fighter's Superiority Dice being so limited it seems like the new edition is more focused on getting combat out of the way than it is making it interesting. Tactical decisions take a back seat to more damage. I'm just getting the sense that, especially with the price of the core books, DDN will be a 'wait and see' thing for me.

'Slow Combat' having been an edition-war rallying cry, it's hardly surprising that 5e is going overboard trying to speed up combat by removing tactical decisions (from martial classes) and going back to multiple attacks and scaling spell damage while simultaneously dropping monster hps. No question, the playtest combats were fast. The sheer DPR of PCs in the Basic game suggest monsters can be a little tougher while still all dying by round 3, most of the time.

 

[Chaltab]

All the monsters dead by round 3 has been true in a lot of my 4E games... it's just the rounds take a lot longer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All the monsters dead by round 3 has been true in a lot of my 4E games... it's just the rounds take a lot longer.

That's contrary to my experience - 4e combats can get very involved, 3 rounds would be awfully short. Not that it can't happen, given, say, an optimized or striker-heavy party and a less than complex/tough encounter, just that it's not the norm. And, rounds can take a bit longer in 4e because all PC turns potentially take comparable amounts of time to resolve, which generally means casters taking maybe a little less time, but martial ones potentially noticeably more. But, mostly the difference is that 4e combats go more rounds, because everyone has more hps relative to the damage being put out - they're designed to be longer, so tactics can be brought to fruition, and combats kept 'dynamic.' Really, because, just as 5e is over-reacting to complaints about 4e being slow, 4e was over-reacting to complaints about 3e being 'static' and 'boring.'

Often, it seems, the game just doesn't need as much grease as the squeaky wheels among it's fans demand.

 

[KarinsDad]

The main issue is that there are two archetypes--the single rapier fighters, and the single longsword (or scimitar for that matter) wielder which are not represented. The only way to represent them is, as you say, to take the dueling style and just not use a shield.

I think the issue here is that I shouldn't have to sacrifice +2 AC for style. +1 AC for style I will gladly do, but +2 is absurd.

The fact is that two weapon fighting (in the real world) was one of the best types, but it was difficult to master. There's just so much that one can do with a weapon in each hand and too many styles with blows coming from various directions.

Then came weapon and shield which most trained militia could manage. But even that was too difficult for the common folk, so they ended up using various types of polearms when enlisted.

Single weapon, though, is good against unarmed peasants, but any sufficiently trained soldier using one of the previous two styles would typically kick that person's butt.


Granted, Hollywood has enhanced the swashbuckler image. But in most of those Hollywood genres (Robin Hood, Three Musketeers, Scarlet Pimpernel, various pirate movies), practically nobody was fighting with weapon and shield (maybe in Robin Hood, although some were fighting with two weapon like rapier and dagger in various films, or even cutlass and dagger).

Yes, modern fencing uses a single weapon. But historically, it was not a rapier. It was a larger heavier blade.

Single weapon just isn't much of a style and even Hollywood doesn't show Robin Hood going up against a trained two bladed opponent. He'd get his butt kicked (IIRC, Basil Rathbone did pull a second blade out on Error Flynn at the end of their fight, but he fought one bladed most of the time, or I might be confusing this with a different movie).


So yeah, in a game like 7th Sea RPG where the genre might call for it, I might agree with you. But in D&D, nah. To get the AC boost, one should use a shield (or if there is a rule for parrying with a second weapon). Getting the AC without the shield is not particularly fair to the player whose PC purchases one and lugs it around and does not get the defense if he does not have his shield ready.

A PC shouldn't get an AC boost, just for standing there with a weapon. That's what defending with the second hand should gain. IMO. You should talk to your DM about it and convince him to allow your PC to use a buckler as +2 AC and have your PC be a true swashbuckler (i.e. sword and buckler).