D&D 5E Boop

[Tony Vargas]

I’m not sure what any of this even means. The subclasses would just add more support to the base class, not interfere, while the more offensive subs would steer it more toward An offense/support split.

I suppose I did make four quite different points there. The one about sub-class is an aside, the BM and PDK are failures a warlord substitutes, but that, alone,doesn't mean a completely new class just built on the same sort of template would be....
...to be clear, it would necessarily fail, unless you essentially changed the template in the process, but it sounds like you might be willing to go there.

and replacing the features with similarly themed and structured features that provide support wouldn’t be hard, as I’ve shown.

You can replace a feature, sure. But the structure of the class puts most of it's effectiveness in at-will features (most dramatically Extra Attack), which aren't that versatile, so you'd just end up with a class that contributes too much of whatever that one support feature is, most of the time (including when it's not needed, at all), enough some of the time, and not enough when it matters most. And fails to contribute when other sorts of support would be helpful.

The fighter gets away with it's inflexible structure because it is contributing the most design-valued, fungible, universally called for in combat thing in the game: single-target DPR.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I suppose I did make four quite different points there. The one about sub-class is an aside, the BM and PDK are failures a warlord substitutes, but that, alone,doesn't mean a completely new class just built on the same sort of template would be....
...to be clear, it would necessarily fail, unless you essentially changed the template in the process, but it sounds like you might be willing to go there.

You can replace a feature, sure. But the structure of the class puts most of it's effectiveness in at-will features (most dramatically Extra Attack), which aren't that versatile, so you'd just end up with a class that contributes too much of whatever that one support feature is, most of the time (including when it's not needed, at all), enough some of the time, and not enough when it matters most. And fails to contribute when other sorts of support would be helpful.

The fighter gets away with it's inflexible structure because it is contributing the most design-valued, fungible, universally called for in combat thing in the game: single-target DPR.

All a fighter-Captain needs to do is redirect its existing features to making an ally do the thing, or protecting an ally.

it doesn’t need individual abilities that are as extreme as high level spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All a fighter-Captain needs to do is redirect its existing features to making an ally do the thing, or protecting an ally.

I mean, if that's the concept you're building from, fine, but it's narrower than the Warlord was, and 4e classes were constrained by Role.

it doesn’t need individual abilities that are as extreme as high level spells.

Imagine that as a single-class PC when no one else wanted to play a support character.

Contrast that with how a the same party would do with a Cleric or Bard in that role.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, if that's the concept you're building from, fine, but it's narrower than the Warlord was, and 4e classes were constrained by Role.

nope. Not at all. It’s much less narrow.

Imagine that as a single-class PC when no one else wanted to play a support character.

Contrast that with how a the same party would do with a Cleric or Bard in that role.

Yep, it’ll work quite well.

have you actually played a decent amount of 5e, Tony? Bc sometimes it seems like you’re arguing from theory, not experience.

 

[Garthanos]

it doesn’t need individual abilities that are as extreme as high level spells.

so what fighter abilities is going to be traded out for that casting of a high level spell or more precisely is Action Surge and something something something resources going to inspire a Wizard to regain their high level spell slot?

 

[Tony Vargas]

nope. Not at all. It’s much less narrow.
Yep, it’ll work quite well.

1/short rest action grant, 1/short rest poorly-scaling healing, 3/day save boost, and adding to the 6 leaderish short-rest recharge maneuvers is objectively 'narrower' than even the 4e Role-restricted Warlord with 2/encounter solidly scalling healing, at-will action grants, presence benefits, and hundreds of maneuvers, let alone compared to the extant 5e support classes like the winner of this poll, the Bard.

So, while the Fighter Chassis might work of a "Fighter-Captain" or even a Marshal (it was heavily all-at-will, in the Miniature's Handbook, and more narrowly focused on buffing than a 4e leader or other editions' traditional 'cleric'-replacements or what I've been calling 'support contributions' in the context of 5e), it's not a viable candidate for doing a Warlord.

have you actually played a decent amount of 5e, Tony? Bc sometimes it seems like you’re arguing from theory, not experience.

I've run an indecent amount of it, but as a player, no not so much. Design and theory are, of course, closely related, any discussion of design is going to go into theory, especially before you get to playtesting.
5e design has it's own set of priorities, and it's own way of approximating balance....

 

[doctorbadwolf]

1/short rest action grant, 1/short rest poorly-scaling healing, 3/day save boost, and adding to the 6 leaderish short-rest recharge maneuvers is objectively 'narrower' than even the 4e Role-restricted Warlord with 2/encounter solidly scalling healing, at-will action grants, presence benefits, and hundreds of maneuvers, let alone compared to the extant 5e support classes like the winner of this poll, the Bard.

So, while the Fighter Chassis might work of a "Fighter-Captain" or even a Marshal (it was heavily all-at-will, in the Miniature's Handbook, and more narrowly focused on buffing than a 4e leader or other editions' traditional 'cleric'-replacements or what I've been calling 'support contributions' in the context of 5e), it's not a viable candidate for doing a Warlord.

I've run an indecent amount of it, but as a player, no not so much. Design and theory are, of course, closely related, any discussion of design is going to go into theory, especially before you get to playtesting.
5e design has it's own set of priorities, and it's own way of approximating balance....

You know that 5e classes have subclasses, yes?

And that variant class feature options are an increase in versatility?

Also, healing doesn’t have to scale unless your character is primarily a healer. That is for subclasses, in 5e. A fighter with the variant second wind can get another character up from 0. That’s literally the most important facet of healing in 5e dnd. Wanna play a stronger healer, there can be a subclass for that. Hell, take Eldritch Knight, change the stat to wisdom, spell list to cleric, and you’re 90% there. A mundane healer subclass could have improved short rest healing, improved resource regain on long and short rests, and a mix of HP and THP healing in renewable resources based on a short rest.

Meanwhile, a Champion can swap one or two offense features in the base class for support features, to gain just a soft secondary of support.

or any point in between.

 

[Garthanos]

So looking at the bard Since its Popular. aside from spells a Valor Bard is fairly close to a type of Warlord this was true in 4e as well th

Bardic Inspiration is almost directly a Warlord ability akin to the Warlords Presence of 4e one could come up with different ones that reflect different styles of warlords.

Warlord Cantrips
Battle Signs - you can communicate with others of your team with whom you have created this sign language requires line of site basically allows you to do the help action at 30 foot distance your allies can do the same once per short rest. Battlesigns are adjusted each time individuals learn new tricks in addition to periodic rehearsals. Any group member can become the designated leader but this is generally the Warlord themselves as it supplements other abilities (the leader can do ranged help every turn if they desired).
Extended Signs - the standard use of Battle signs only refer to highly custom referencing of the abilities and gambits of the combatants on the team and can be adjusted frequently extended signs are a personalized coded sign language that it takes longer for individuals to learn but is more generalized not combat related information.
Whistles In the dark using audible signs the party can compensate for darkness this is similar to the above the Warlord reminds and rehearses this with the party periodically to renew it. (aka light cantrip?). Knowing where each other and engaged enemies and obstacles are in the dark involves making enough noise this is not the great stealth tool it might be. This must be initiated with a role call bonus action (individuals identify and locate themselves), generally at the beginning of a fight or change of scene.
Predatory Stare (Hector Warlord) - (based on vicious mockery) Searching for vulnerabilities your unnerving focus drives your enemy to overcompensate inducing it to have disadvantage on its first attack following and you discover its vulnerability if it fails a wisdom save. The next successful attack against that enemy during the following round gains bonus damage of d6 or 2d6 at 5th level 3d6 at 11th and 4d6 at 17th level.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do like the hand-sign ability.

 

[Garthanos]

adjusted predatory stare and clarified a bit