Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[discosoc]

Yeah, there's a reason for that - it's one maneuver out of the 334 the Warlord actually did have. The Battlemaster is 0.33% warlord, in that sense.

I guess you should just go back to playing 4th edition then. Sounds like it has exactly what you want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The arguments never changed, but [collective] we are still arguing on how valid the arguments to prove the validity of the validity of the arguments are.

Sounds valid to me.

I guess you should just go back to playing 4th edition then. Sounds like it has exactly what you want.

It was an edition of D&D, and I am a fan of D&D, 4e not excepted. But, no, not exactly, just the only example of the Warlord. I couldn't very well compare the BM to the 2e Warlord, for instance, because there wasn't one.

 

[Hussar]

I guess you should just go back to playing 4th edition then. Sounds like it has exactly what you want.

So, the only valid warlord is the one you envision? I posted a pretty specific outline of a warlord, and you brushed it off as "not a warlord to you". So, what do you see as a warlord? A Battlemaster with, say, Noble background and choosing all the support options STILL has the best AC in the game, can only actually do warlordy stuff a very limited number of times per short rest - something like 4-7 when a short rest should see something like 10-20 rounds of combat. A high level Battlemaster would have FORTY attacks in that time, and he could actually do anything like a warlord 7 times. He blows through that in 1 round on an action surge. The other 90% of the time he's a fighter.

Would you accept a wizard that only casts spells 1 round in 10? Why or why not? That's every bit as much of a wizard as your Battlemaster is a warlord. Should be perfectly acceptable.

 

[discosoc]

I still think you just want an OP battlemaster, but won't come out and say it.

 

[MoonSong]

I still think you just want an OP battlemaster, but won't come out and say it.

No, it isn't the case. Hussar has made very clear what he wants in a warlord. So have I, so please if you have the time to spare you could check the en5ider Noble and see if it looks like an OP BM.

 

[Jester David]

Well other have said it, if a fighter subclass could satisfy us all of this chat would be moot. There is no room in the fighter for the warlord as we want it.

Great. There's 5 or 6 of you here. So to get enough money to offset my design time, the 5-6 page PDF will cost, oh, $20.
Sound good?

Again, it's a supply and demand thing. If there was really a demand, people would have supplied a book. Because there'd be money to be made.

Just like there is no room on the wizard for the sorcerer and never has been

I disagree with that. More class features just have to be in subclasses.
I'm curious what wizard abilities you feel just would not work with the sorcerer. Arcane recovery or spell mastery?

And it seems to be mainly about maneuvers, and your commander still has a huge number of attacks, and Int becomes relevant quite late... Still, 1 sale per day is quite good I think.

It actually slowed down a bit. It's well below a sale a day now.

 

[Jester David]

Would you accept a wizard that only casts spells 1 round in 10? Why or why not? That's every bit as much of a wizard as your Battlemaster is a warlord. Should be perfectly acceptable.

Sounds like every wizard in 1-3e.
And now, in 5e, it's still *technically* true since cantrips are cantrips and not spells. Semantics.

So, really, you just need a fighter with extra at-will powers, right? A "Tactical Combat Options Rules Module" that lets warriors trade ability score to damage or just the weapon dice but have an additional effect would be interesting. But likely unneeded with the options already available.

But attack cantrips really just let spellcasters *almost* keep up with martials. Cantrips are basically sword swing with a little kicker to offset the crap damage. (They need to take a class feature just to keep up and add their casting stat to damage). And any martial class can trip or push, having better odds at success due to not having a Str dump stat. So a martial out of the gate might have as many attack options each round.
More if disarm and cleave are allowed. At which point each martial likely has more options than a spellcaster will have offensive cantrips.

So, really, we just need an at-will utility powers.

But making those gets tricky, especially in a rules lite system. Because you're codifying what you can or cannot physically do. In theory, any physical task should be possible with a decent ability check. If the fighter gains an ability that lets them stand up quickly with an Acrobatics check, that means a DM cannot make a ruling to let a player do that. It's taking away a potential option from everyone else. It's not really granting more options, it's reducing them.

 

[pemerton]

I still think you just want an OP battlemaster, but won't come out and say it.

How does support character like a bard or cleric, but non-magical come to mean "OP battlemaster"? The posters to whom you're responding (@Hussar, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]) have explicitly talked about reducing the damage-dealing capabilities of the character (eg not having the same extra attacks as the BM has; not having sneak attack dice like the rogue).

You're the one who is saying that the warlord is a type of fighter. Which means either (i) it's not a full-blooded warlord, or (ii) it risks becoming OP by piling too much stuff onto the fighter chassis.

It's those posters whom you are deriding who are looking for a way to get more warlord stuff without becoming OP by putting it onto to a chassis that is more like a bard or cleric and less like a fighter.

 

[pemerton]

Is the great case against warlords (1) that there is no design space for them in 5e, or (2) that there is no market for them among purchasers (actual or prospective) of 5e material?

I thought the argument was (1), but somewhere along the line it seems to have morphed into (2). (Although, oddly enough, on the WotC surveys warlords seem to rank higher than some other classes that have received attention from the WotC team. So I'm not even sure that (2) is true, is it? Unless the claim about market is factoring in that some people will refuse to engage with 5e if it has warlords as an available option.

 

[Aldarc]

I still think you just want an OP battlemaster, but won't come out and say it.

So OP of a BM that we would be getting rid of the Fighter's Second Surge, most of their extra attacks per round, their d10 HD for a d8, and their non-Warlord maneuvers.