D&D 5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

[Garthanos]

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.

Yeah for instance making a secondary Attribute actually important ought to start right away.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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)

I'd just rather choose as a player who I target, and not have the weirdness of not being able to attack the same target twice when I can attack twice.

As for extra attack, the reason it's key, IMO, is that every single possible warlord archetype should be able to be built to be a competent combatant. Some archetypes require it, sure, but it shouldn't be a thing that only a couple archetypes have the option of.

 

[Garthanos]

I'd just rather choose as a player who I target, and not have the weirdness of not being able to attack the same target twice when I can attack twice.

Its a technique about how you are setting up your attack on a second enemy while attacking a first the second may not even expect an attack because you turned to the one ie that expectation creates the opening the first guy is ready for you upon your first attack ... I lunge at one guy making the other guy think he can move on my side and instead he actually took my bait and I get to attack him. The single bigger impressive strike is a much better style move for Bravura to be honest. Nothing bloody incompetent about either method just distinct in style.
.

 

[Garthanos]

Simple, and the best thing to do with it will almost always be to focus fire by attacking the same enemy twice per round until it drops.

Focus fire is overly optimal (In theory there are other ways one might make that less so what if when an attack first bloodies an enemy they were unable to attack the following round? the optimum might be to bloody as many enemies as possible at the beginning then focus fire?)

AND that is a D&D thing which is why you have to reward someone who does not focus fire if you want that something to happen when they have focus fire as the easy choice.

Multiple attacks the safest AND easiest way to do focus fire. You mentioned n[W] -- An interesting stat just One attack even if it did full nx damage 2[W]+2[Stat]+2[Static Mods] would have about 3 times the chance of utterly failing and almost half the chance of Critting.
Perhaps one of these Impressive hits grants an adjacent ally a bonus rush of thp or bonus to hit or Damage. (in addition to whatever the fighting style mod might do).

Perhaps that Bravura should be also able to grant allies even more rush when he crits on his Impressive Strike.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Its a technique about how you are setting up your attack on a second enemy while attacking a first the second may not even expect an attack because you turned to the one ie that expectation creates the opening the first guy is ready for you upon your first attack ... I lunge at one guy making the other guy think he can move on my side and instead he actually took my bait and I get to attack him. The single bigger impressive strike is a much better style move for Bravura to be honest. Nothing bloody incompetent about either method just distinct in style.
.

I didn’t say it was incompetent. But only being able to do that, while being incapable of just hitting the same person twice, is incomprehensible.

giving a bonus when the player chooses to split the attack makes sense. Limiting their second attack to only a second target cannot make sense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I'm not actually too sanguine about the idea of even a variant Extra Attack like the one above....

I'd just rather choose as a player who I target,

It kinda turns into an illusion of choice, though, since focus fire is such an obvious-best tactic under D&D hps.

As for extra attack, the reason it's key, IMO, is that every single possible warlord archetype should be able to be built to be a competent combatant.

Competence doesn't require Extra Attack, Proficiency reflects competence. Keeping DPR above the cantrip baseline of full casters requires Extra Attack - at the cost of significant resources. And, really, only one Warlord concept, the Bravura calls for more than mere competence, and one, the 'lazy' build, calls for the opposite (that is, I'd consider it to be a separate subclass, in 5e - I like 'Prince(ess),' but the genderless 'Icon' or something is probably a better name). It's worth noting that in 4e the 'lazy'lord and the Taclord used mostly the same features, but just had different stat arrangement, but, in 5e, it'd make more sense for them to be separate sub-classes.

and not have the weirdness of not being able to attack the same target twice when I can attack twice.

while being incapable of just hitting the same person twice, is incomprehensible. giving a bonus when the player chooses to split the attack makes sense. Limiting their second attack to only a second target cannot make sense.

I don't see the issue. It's not like an attack roll in D&D represents a single swing. If you're adjacent to two or more enemies in the course of the round, you've likely traded blows with each of them. Which one you hit logically shouldn't be entirely under your control, but, for convenience, and, perhaps, a teeny bit of player agency (though, again, mechanical effectiveness of focus-fire makes the choice of who to attack nearly illusory), it is left entirely up to the player.
The choice between attacking another opponent and granting an ally advantage against one you've already attacked isn't unreasonable or 'unrealistic' at all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While I'm not actually too sanguine about the idea of even a variant Extra Attack like the one above....

It kinda turns into an illusion of choice, though, since focus fire is such an obvious-best tactic under D&D hps.

Competence doesn't require Extra Attack, Proficiency reflects competence. Keeping DPR above the cantrip baseline of full casters requires Extra Attack - at the cost of significant resources. And, really, only one Warlord concept, the Bravura calls for more than mere competence, and one, the 'lazy' build, calls for the opposite (that is, I'd consider it to be a separate subclass, in 5e - I like 'Prince(ess),' but the genderless 'Icon' or something is probably a better name). It's worth noting that in 4e the 'lazy'lord and the Taclord used mostly the same features, but just had different stat arrangement, but, in 5e, it'd make more sense for them to be separate sub-classes.

I don't see the issue. It's not like an attack roll in D&D represents a single swing. If you're adjacent to two or more enemies in the course of the round, you've likely traded blows with each of them. Which one you hit logically shouldn't be entirely under your control, but, for convenience, and, perhaps, a teeny bit of player agency (though, again, mechanical effectiveness of focus-fire makes the choice of who to attack nearly illusory), it is left entirely up to the player.
The choice between attacking another opponent and granting an ally advantage against one you've already attacked isn't unreasonable or 'unrealistic' at all.

It's absolutely nonsensical on every level. You've got a character who literally cannot focus on a single enemy. That's weird on a level that something as simple as making weapon attacks shouldn't ever reach.

However, a bonus when you hit two targets in a round works just fine, as it represents training to fight a group of enemies, but still allows you to focus on a single target when that is the only viable thing available.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's absolutely nonsensical on every level.

Well, yes, OT1H, it is for D&D. OTOH, it is for D&D, and, in D&D, you resolve six seconds of fencing with a single 'attack,' so there's no plausible way of imagining that a single melee attack corresponds to a single swing of a sword.

You've got a character who literally cannot focus on a single enemy.

Of course he can focus on a single enemy: doing so gives the next ally to attack that enemy advantage.

 

[Fenris-77]

I feel like "nonsensical" isn't the same thing as "I don't agree at all". My personal preference is for an extra attack on at least the more martial variant, but Tony makes a very valid point about the value tied up in that extra attack from a design standpoint. The extra attack is a big rock, and you'll end up giving up something else in order to include it. Like it or not that's the design trade off.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, the level 5 Extra Attack is just what non-full casters get instead of cantrips, but okay. You could swap cantrips for extra attack on a cleric and it would be absolutely fine.