D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[ECMO3]

People in my experience are far more likely to allow a new class than a category that they've eliminated entirely. Especially an official one.

People in my experience are far more likely to allow feat than homebrew of any kind and I am very confident that the vast majority of tables allow feats, while also not allowing unpublished classes.

 

[ECMO3]

It's like doing a science experiment: standard temperature and pressure are a given unless you have a reason to change that, but there are a lot of other variables that have to be considered. Feats used to be STP. They SHOULD be STP. But they're not STP.

Warlords in 5E are not STP either.

There is a difference, things that are optional are specifically allowed and withing the RAW. Homebrew isn't.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules say otherwise, as quoted above "the ONLY limits ..... are your imagination and your characters ability scores"

Actual game balance refutes that. You can destroy your game by allowing anything, but if a DM makes an improvised action as good or better than a regular action, it will not remain improvised. It will be used in every fight as the new go to action.

that means they can be as good or better than normal actions and are not limited by such.

Sure if balance means nothing to you, go for it.

 

[Minigiant]

Completely disagree with your point of view. But I can respect it. And again I would like to see more BM with mental stats. But that is nice but not neccessary

I respect the view of experience over state. The Battlemaster's tacticsand inspiration increases as he levels up and are independent on their stats.

The iissue is that the Warlord's use of mental stats allowed the Warlord better access to Out of Combat roles without weakening its ability in its chosen Combat role. By removing the importance of mental stats, the Warlord's out of combat ability was diminish and the importance of Mental stats were weakened. And since combat and out of combat maneuvers use the same resource twice (# of dice and # of maneuvers),you severely weaken a fighter's combat ability by making a battlemaster work like a warlord. The Warlord was still a very good warrior, they were just narrower and weaker than the Fighter.

Which goes back the very beginning of the conversation. Because the fighter is weak in out of combat action, other classes should not be allowed to reach or bypass fighters in combat power overthe adventuring day without the same sacrifice (aka barbarian).

 

[Maxperson]

People in my experience are far more likely to allow feat than homebrew of any kind and I am very confident that the vast majority of tables allow feats, while also not allowing unpublished classes.

This is true I think, but it's not guaranteed.

 

[ECMO3]

It could happen.
The point is if optional content is a valid fix then any optional content is a viable fix.


You didn't give the specifics of

1. the check rolled
2. the effects on success or failure
3. how often you can do it.

Therefore you aren't demonstrating how the maneuvers could be used in combat.

When I DM, there is a way they could be used in combat. However that's because my games are flooded with houserules no one but I use.

1. I did give specifics. I said intimidation or persuasion in the post above as examples, but as noted in the text you are only limited by imagination and ability. Overall there are 14 different skills associated with Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, there are the 3 abilities themselves, then there are 4 other skills that could be used with Int/Wis/Cha under the variant ability check rules. that is 21 different ways to make checks with these three abilities.

2. The DM determines the effects on success or failure.

3. You can do one action a turn. This is in the rules. A fighter could do it twice a turn with action surge.

 

[ECMO3]

Your experience is that DMs will allow homebrew content over official content?

No just the opposite. Feats are official (and optional) content. A warlord is not official and would like a feat be "optional" even if it was published in an official book.

That is my problem with the whole "feats are optional" arguement. Yes they are optional, just like the vast majority of races and subclasses are optional. But they are official rules and using only official rules they allow you to build a RAW fighter with the traits you say are needed.

 

[Maxperson]

1. I did give specifics. I said intimidation or persuasion in the post above as examples, but as noted in the text you are only limited by imagination and ability. Overall there are 14 different skills associated with Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, there are the 3 abilities themselves, then there are 4 other skills that could be used with Int/Wis/Cha under the variant ability check rules. that is 21 different ways to make checks with these three abilities.

2. The DM determines the effects on success or failure.

3. You can do one action a turn. This is in the rules. A fighter could do it twice a turn with action surge.

What's the purpose of this improvised action tangent? It can't be used to be a Warlord, since almost everyone can attempt the same improvised actions. You can hardly call yourself a Warlord over an improvised action that the 10 year old over there can also do.

 

[Minigiant]

1. I did give specifics. I said intimidation or persuasion in the post above as examples, but as noted in the text you are only limited by imagination and ability. Overall there are 14 different skills associated with Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, there are the three abilities themselves, then there are 4 other skills that could be used with Int/Wis/Cha under the variant ability check rules. that is 21 different checks you could make with these three abilities.

2. The DM determines the effects on success or failure.

3. You can do an improvised action as often as you want.

No specifics is

1. Charisma (Intimidation) vs Wisdom (Insight)
2. On Sucess, the Target, stops fighting. On Failure, nothing
3. Uses an action. Usuable unlimited times a battle.

And that's what I am inferring by your example.

 

[Maxperson]

No just the opposite. Feats are official (and optional) content. A warlord is not official and would like a feat be "optional" even if it was published in an official book.

I misread your post and corrected. You apparently grabbed it too quickly