D&D 5E How many fans want a 5E Warlord?

[Imaro]

Right, for fighters, paladins, and rangers a 'Directed Attack' is not going to be that big a deal since 5e achieves damage scaling by multiple attacks.

I think the issue here is why would you ever give anyone but the character who can deal the most damage your extra attack? In other words if the damage were to be set at the same amount for all choices it becomes an interesting decision around tactics... but if it's 1d8 vs. 2d12, IMO...it's almost a no brainer outside of specific circumstances.

 

[mellored]

I think the issue here is why would you ever give anyone but the character who can deal the most damage your extra attack? In other words if the damage were to be set at the same amount for all choices it becomes an interesting decision around tactics... but if it's 1d8 vs. 2d12, IMO...it's almost a no brainer outside of specific circumstances.

Because you could do something else with your action / die.

But why is that a problem? I can build a character who only has 1 combat options like a champion. The only choice needed is when to use action surge. Beyond that, every turn he just attacks with his biggest weapon.

So what's wrong with a support that only uses 1 combat option?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

What the hell is a Warlord?

Nice handle...

 

[Imaro]

Because you could do something else with your action / die.

But why is that a problem? I can build a character who only has 1 combat options like a champion. The only choice needed is when to use action surge. Beyond that, every turn he just attacks with his biggest weapon.

So what's wrong with a support that only uses 1 combat option?

It's not an interesting decision point... This warlord guy is supposed to be all about tactics and leading but... he makes the same choice nearly every time. Beyond that I can see it messing with the difficulty of combat depending on whether you have a character that does high single attack damage (2d12) or say something like a dual wielder who needs two attacks to get up to that level of damage... so on a warlord granted attack he only gets 1d8 damage.

 

[Remathilis]

Spit ball idea.

Tactical dice equal to level + int. Refresh on long rest, with an ability to regain some on a short.

Tactic powers are 3 plus 1 per 2 levels or so.

A power costs a die to use. Most powers are one shot, but others can be maintained with concentration.

A tactical die adds 1d6 to a d20 roll. Powers and class features can expand their use. (Such as adding it to a save or AC)

Powers can negate surprise, grant a specific action, (an attack, the dash action, etc), give temp HP, or even allow an ally to spend a HD in combat if dropped to 0 HP. (Rouse the Fallen: spend an action to allow a fallen ally adjacent to you to spend a HD.) Longer buffs burn a die to grant bonuses (tactical strike: all allies in 30ft get your int to damage with melee weapon attacks for 1 min, concentration)

That is the bulk of it.

 

[mellored]

It's not an interesting decision point... This warlord guy is supposed to be all about tactics and leading but... he makes the same choice nearly every time. Beyond that I can see it messing with the difficulty of combat depending on whether you have a character that does high single attack damage (2d12) or say something like a dual wielder who needs two attacks to get up to that level of damage... so on a warlord granted attack he only gets 1d8 damage.

There's plenty of decision points to be made.

Option 1: A full turn of advantage to the TWF.
Option 2: 1 extra attack for the 2-hander.

Now act like a tactician, do some pre-battle analysis (math) of your troops and tell me which is better?

 

[mellored]

Tactical dice equal to level + int. Refresh on long rest, with an ability to regain some on a short.

Can't say i like the long rest idea. There are already plenty of long rest classes.
Half the point is to be different.


But a point-buy style could work.

1 point = +1d4
2 points = +1d6
ect...

1 point= advantage to 1 attack
2 points = advantage to 1 attack, and it's a crit.
ect..

But it might be too complex.

 

[Minigiant]

BAND OF THIEVES
At the Xth level, you and your allies become more roguish. Whenever a creature who has at least one of your tactical dice (including you) makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, or Stealth) check, they can treat a d20 roll of 4 or lower as a 5.

BEACON OF HOPE
At the Xth level, you and your allies become stronger in mind. Creatures who have at least one of your tactical dice (including you) have advantage on saving throws against being charmed or frightened.

INSIGHTFUL PRESENCE
At the Xth level, you can tell your allies the paths of incoming arrows. Ranged attacks have disadvantage against creatures who have at least one of your tactical dice (including you).

Spitballing ideas.

Basic premise. The warlord get X tactical die per short rest. The warlord can grant others a die as a bonus action.
Having a die grants passive bonus.
A person can spend a dice for another bonus but you lose all passive bonuses.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the issue here is why would you ever give anyone but the character who can deal the most damage your extra attack? In other words if the damage were to be set at the same amount for all choices it becomes an interesting decision around tactics... but if it's 1d8 vs. 2d12, IMO...it's almost a no brainer outside of specific circumstances.

Well, we played with this a LOT in our 4e games, and it just didn't work out that way. For one thing it wasn't always one guy that did the best attack. It was at least situational. It was also quite common for one guy to be in the right place to deliver the RIGHT attack, which didn't have to be the highest damage one.

For instance the dwarf fighter pretty much outdamaged everyone else in the early going of our first game, so it would make sense to give him the attack, pretty often, but the rogue was of course pretty much on par with him, better if she had SA, but that might not apply (especially off-turn, remember you aren't in total control here of what the situation is). So it was always a choice between those two at the very least. The STR cleric sometimes was a good choice too, her MBA wasn't shabby and might just do the trick.

Also you might have had various possible riders on MBA/RBA attacks, so if you needed to push someone, maybe the answer was the guy with the force weapon, if it was undead, the guy with the radiant damage rider, etc.

Honestly, I think it wasn't an issue, at least I didn't see it as one. Now, maybe 5e is so skewed to one character having all the DPR that it just never makes sense, but IME even the battlemaster, tough as he is, doesn't outmatch the EK or the rogue consistently in that department. I THINK we can make it work.

 

[Imaro]

There's plenty of decision points to be made.

Option 1: A full turn of advantage to the TWF.
Option 2: 1 extra attack for the 2-hander.

Now act like a tactician, do some pre-battle analysis (math) of your troops and tell me which is better?

Ultimately though...its always the 2-hander and with the bonuses I see in my game.... of the top of my head I'd grant the extra attack, since the two-hander paladin is already able to soak up the -5 from GWM and regularly hit... plus we have a wolf barbarian that grants advantage to everyone...

EDIT: Honestly it's the fact that advantage is pretty easy to get in this game, so unless you have multiple disadvantage that's cancelling it or something... I'm going with the extra attack.