D&D 5E Boop

[Fenris-77]

I don't think the fighter has enough design space to be anything other than a very limited version of what I imagine a warlord to be. You need more than just the room of the maneuver dice (which you can only buff so far). You'd probably have to give up the third and fourth attacks, plus a ribbon or two to clear room, and even then I'm not sure I like the result enough to bother. That's just me though. I'd build a marital WL on the Paladin chassis and trade in the spells for WL abilities and rejig the auras. It seems way easier to balance out. YMMV.

I like the option of limiting things to 1/encounter. That seems like the right place for those OMG emergency type abilities to retreat, mass heal, or whatever. If they scaled with level, or were gated by level, it could be very cool.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't think the fighter has enough design space to be anything other than a very limited version of what I imagine a warlord to be.

That is generally what I have heard by most everyone who seems to have tried to make a full blown Warlord in spite of the poll and why Tony implied the poll was more saboutaged than a legit opinion when it came to "chassis".

 

[Fenris-77]

Let's be honest though, part of the reason the Paladin is so much better is that it's better, generally, than the fighter. Conceptually, the ranger is also a better fit than the fighter, but I don't see anyone rushing to brew than one at home. You can do a partial, very hitty Warlord on the fighter chassis, and if that's what you want cool. It's not what I want because I don't find a lightly reskinned Battlemaster that interesting, but YMMV of course. I want to play with more knobs and dials, which means I want more design room.

The real value in doing a fighter version, IMO, is that it would force some real creativity with the limited design pace, which could be a very positive experiment to attempt before a more complex build.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's be honest though, part of the reason the Paladin is so much better is that it's better, generally, than the fighter. Conceptually, the ranger is also a better fit than the fighter, but I don't see anyone rushing to brew than one at home. You can do a partial, very hitty Warlord on the fighter chassis, and if that's what you want cool. It's not what I want because I don't find a lightly reskinned Battlemaster that interesting, but YMMV of course. I want to play with more knobs and dials, which means I want more design room.

The real value in doing a fighter version, IMO, is that it would force some real creativity with the limited design pace, which could be a very positive experiment to attempt before a more complex build.

I think if we can get a good subsystem or subsystems that allow for:
1. Granting allies attacks
2. Granting allies advantage
3. Granting allies temp hp
4. Granting allies movement (including OA exceptions)
5. Granting allies initiative
6. Granting allies damage

I see a few abilities that make sense that are already in the game.
1. Glamour Bards temp hp ability
2. Mastermind Rouges bonus action ranged help action
3. Battlemaster maneuvers - extra movement and temp hp
4. Order Cleric attack granting ability

I really think the best path is to build our own chasis.

Give him some abilities he can use per attack and then a big party buff that lasts for a turn that he can use once per encoutner.

 

[Garthanos]

This is definitely an element that feels less in a way that 5e was supposed to be more

That's a good point. 5e's also supposed to be concept-first. A 1/encounter or 1/target (ever) or other limitation on use than n/rest could handle the concept better, while being a readily comparable resource.

 

[Garthanos]

The real value in doing a fighter version, IMO, is that it would force some real creativity with the limited design pace, which could be a very positive experiment to attempt before a more complex build.

I admit to liking a challenge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is definitely an element that feels less in a way that 5e was supposed to be more

You mean 5e design doesn't seem as concept-first as it was supposed to be?

The Sorcerer thread made me think of this: the concepts of some classes have been defined by the mechanics they've had for so long...

 

[Undrave]

You mean 5e design doesn't seem as concept-first as it was supposed to be?

The Sorcerer thread made me think of this: the concepts of some classes have been defined by the mechanics they've had for so long...

Like the Wizard being so defined by its Vancian casting roots that the 4e version was probably the worse PHB class?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Like the Wizard being so defined by its Vancian casting roots that the 4e version was probably the worse PHB class?

Considering just the PH1? The 'A' classes, wizard included, were just better-done than the 'V's.

But, yes, the 4e wizard's Vancian-ness and spellbook, among other things, could've seemed grandfathered-in.

 

[Garthanos]

You mean 5e design doesn't seem as concept-first as it was supposed to be?

The Sorcerer thread made me think of this: the concepts of some classes have been defined by the mechanics they've had for so long...

yup tradition interferes