Also, I don't think all the stuff will fit.
While I like the ideas, all the stuff, mixed with fighters high damage just too much for a single class.
Also, I don't think all the stuff will fit.
While I like the ideas, all the stuff, mixed with fighters high damage just too much for a single class.
only because he was trying to copy the eldrich knight power level, with cantrip and spells. Not any story reason.Maybe I missed the reasoning - did he go into why tactical insight and Gambits drew off different resource pools?
IMO, Base warlord should be at-will features only (or psudo-at-will, like letting people spend hit dice, or triggering on a condition, like initiative). With the daily resources in the sub-class.I'd think it'd make more sense, if not for this sub-class, then for an actual Warlord class, to have one daily resource pool, analogous to CS Dice or tactical insight, fueling all the warlord's tricks.
only because he was trying to copy the eldrich knight power level, with cantrip and spells. Not any story reason.
Though he did mention not wanting to spam the same maneuvers.
IMO, Base warlord should be at-will features only (or psudo-at-will, like letting people spend hit dice, or triggering on a condition, like initiative). With the daily resources in the sub-class.
This way, you can have a "simple" warlord, like the champion, and knocks all enemies prone when they roll a 1, or something similar.
It's also why I moved the zone idea into a sub-class for my homebrew warlord.
Maybe I missed the reasoning - did he go into why tactical insight and Gambits drew off different resource pools?
I'd think it'd make more sense, if not for this sub-class, then for an actual Warlord class, to have one daily resource pool, analogous to CS Dice or tactical insight, fueling all the warlord's tricks.
So there was no special point to it? OK...I dislike the 2 resource pools as well. I think you have to make options tactically interesting if you want to eliminate spam. Then again most classes "spam" the same stuff over and over. So while I agree with him I would rather see something else, I don't think its a big enough issue to worry about trying to force upon players in design
One idea I was toying with was the Warlord getting a few at-will maneuvers (comparable in number/power to cantrips, sure), that could be amped up with a use from the daily pool, like the BM does with CS dice. Gambits &c would require use of the resource.only because he was trying to copy the eldrich knight power level, with cantrip and spells. Not any story reason.
Though he did mention not wanting to spam the same maneuvers.
IMO, Base warlord should be at-will features only (or psudo-at-will, like letting people spend hit dice, or triggering on a condition, like initiative). With the daily resources in the sub-class.
I think the PDK works for a 'simple warlord,' already.This way, you can have a "simple" warlord, like the champion, and knocks all enemies prone when they roll a 1, or something similar.
It's also why I moved the zone idea into a sub-class for my homebrew warlord.
Sure you can, if the heal uses on HD, and the attack is on the allies turn. For instance....If base warlord is only at will features then healing or attack granting likely won't be available to him in the base class?
Sure you can, if the heal uses on HD, and the attack is on the allies turn. For instance....
Level 1:
First Aid: as an action, you can let a creature spend a hit die. If they are prone, you can stand them up.
Tactician's Help: When you take the help action to help with an attack, that ally can make one additional attack instead of gaining advantage. When you help with a skill (some other small bonus).
The out-of turn attacks (force an enemy to provoke an OA's), and non-HD healing need to be limited. But that can be in the sub-class.
That's the important perspective, I think. 5e combats aren't balanced around characters getting knocked down to 0 every fight, healing's more of an emergency thing, but 5e days are balanced around the party handling up to 6-8 encounters, so whether you heal in or out of combat isn't that critically important, as long as you /can/ heal in combat, now and then.From one perspective it's not adding any daily resources to the party so the parties power isn't increasing.
Instead, the allies' HD are spent, also a serious issue. Blowing HD to heal in combat is 'better' than spending HD in one sense, but it adds nothing to the day's healing capacity, so the party is less likely to hit the magic number of encounters/day.From another perspective it's allowing as much healing in a narrow timeframe as a cleric that spends all his slots on healing. The cleric afterwards is spent.
The fighter going back to true multi-attacking after languishing with 4e exploits and 3.x iterative attacks for so long is hard to complain about, fighters get tremendous DPR because multi-attacking is so potent and acts as a multiplier on every little damage bonus you can scrape together. But it does make the game less consistent and harder to add anything to because you have classes working so very differently. It's just part of the challenge of designing for 5e, but, by the same token, there's nothing stopping a design from tackling all that. No line to have to color within. ...The tacticians help ability is better but still looks to be very hard for a warlord to scale up with such an ability. Does he always grant 1 attack? Does he eventually grant 2? If that ability doesn't become stronger or get empowered by some other feature then you've either made a worthless ability after level 5 or a worthless class after then.