I think its kind of spot on actually... it gives the extra attack .... but its a big picture extra attack a "controller" style extra attack in 4e or a leader style one right out the gate. Instead of the single target fighter smashem variety.
That's close to my plan for the marshal we're working on. Rather than focusing on bonus action ki abilities, my goal is focus on abilities you use in place of an attack. This way, they scale automatically at level 5, and then at level 11 we give each archetype a different power boost that is particular to their methodology.
Sure hmmm I think the suggestion is that the extra attack gained is basically never going to be exactly like the normal open ended one that fighters get. The warlord is paying attention to the whole field of battle and enhancing allies or diminishing the enemy so not so much focusing on one bit.
Good way of putting it. It's an extra attack that speaks to situational awareness rather than ferocity.
Easiest things is to just leave it to the player on a turn by turn basis. I don't want to play a lazylord, I want to play a vanguard type who is attacking and giving bonuses to allies when I do. The base class has to support both, and the actual easiest and most elegant way to do that is to allow either an attack or a purely support move in place of an attack, including mixing both in a single round by making one attack and then using the other attack for granting an attack or granting a group buff or whatever.
My lazylord isnt attacking two adjacent enemies at the same time as default, I am particularly thinking the have archetype selected at level 1 is important. Why did you think the default was lazy lord OR that it isnt adjustable? I am confused why a Vanguard wouldnt want to attack more than one enemy (or a Hector warlord wouldn't want to influence multiple of them in that fashion some time ). IF you think a Vanguard must have focus fire and I am now agreeing maybe an Impressive Strike lets him do even bigger damage in one attack.... see that is impressive. (a little less reliable than making one roll for each but impressive when it works and appropriate for riders to an ally to compensate the loss of reliable)
Nod. If you choose Archetype at 3rd, your archetype can't actually define you that much, the sub-classes can't be very different. We've already seen some movement toward patching that, with Fighter Combat Styles that 'lead into' EK and BM. With Warlords running the gamut from mix-it-up Bravuras to Insightful archers overwatching the battle, to virtual non-combatant 'lazy' side-kicks, the Archetype makes more sense at 1st level. Also, it'd be a complex, optional class, so there's not a lot of call to 'get into it slowly.'
Yeh that was what i was thinking the Whole Distinction between Warlord and Fighter and Why the Battlemaster Fighter isnt a Warlord is because they are generally a focused awareness character and the Warlord is a general battlefield awareness one.
Good point. I could see the Bravura leaping in with a single all-or-nothing n[W] attack rather than a flurry. But, then again, it's the closest the Warlord skates to the Fighter's idiom.
That plus yes we both protect our allies and sometimes make ourselves the center of enemy ire. Sure that latter is with an ulterior motive of being a faux sacrifice but hey.Good point. I could see the Bravura leaping in with a single all-or-nothing n[W] attack rather than a flurry. But, then again, it's the closest the Warlord skates to the Fighter's idiom.
