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

[Maxperson]

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.

No matter how you slice it, feats cannot be used to make a Warlord since you can give the same feats to the Wizard, Rogue and Barbarian and they can do the same thing.

A Warlord needs to be its own unique class. It can't be based on things that the Wizard, Rogue, Barbarian and 10 year old down the street can also do.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

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

How is that not balanced?

The game is about imagination, I find it far more cheesy to have the guards line up in a congo line to be slaughtered to the last man than to surrender when it is asked for after half their party is dead.

Now if my group of 4 bad asses walks in on 20 guards and says "throw down your arms!" they are probably going to laugh, but 18 seconds later when we have wiped out 15 of them with our barbarian covered in blood and chopping through them like a meat grinder and the wizard just burned 5 of them alive .... at that point it is probably like a 10 DC intimidation ..... AND that is both a lot more effective and more realistic than a normal action.

 

[Maxperson]

How is that not balanced?

How is allowing improvised actions to equal or exceed normal actions not balanced?

The game is about imagination, I find it far more cheesy to have the guards line up in a congo line to be slaughtered to the last man than to surrender when it is asked for after half their party is dead.

Me, too. No guard slaughtering conga lines.

Now if my group of 4 bad asses walks in on 20 guards and says "throw down your arms!" they are probably going to laugh, but 18 seconds later when we have wiped out 15 of them with our barbarian covered in blood and chopping through them like a meat grinder and the wizard just burned 5 of them alive .... at that point it is probably like a 10 DC intimidation ..... AND it is both a lot more effective and more realistic than a normal action.

That's.................not an improvised action. That's a persuasion check.

 

[ECMO3]

No matter how you slice it, feats cannot be used to make a Warlord since you can give the same feats to the Wizard, Rogue and Barbarian and they can do the same thing.

A Warlord needs to be its own unique class. It can't be based on things that the Wizard, Rogue, Barbarian and 10 year old down the street can also do.

Every class can get feats and and because of that you can make a warlord using the Rogue chassis. A wizard or Barbarian would be more difficult because they don't have the battlemaster maneuvers and fighting style to do it well and even with feats they can't get enough of them. The Rogue doesn't have that either, but the larger number of proficiencies and expertise built in cover a lot of that ground.

I think Bard actually would be the best class to build the Warlord.

 

[ECMO3]

How is allowing improvised actions to equal or exceed normal actions not balanced?

Me, too. No guard slaughtering conga lines.

That's.................not an improvised action. That's a persuasion check.

It is an improvised action. It is intimidation, or parlay which are both mentioned specifically under improvised action.

I think the only skill checks that are not improvised actions in combat using PHB rules are hide and search and those that are attacks.

Actions in combat include:
Attack
Cast a Spell
Dash
Disengage
Dodge
Help
Hide
Ready
Search
Use an Object
Improvise an action (this includes persuasion, intimidation and anything not covered above)

Some class and subclass features also give other actions not covered above. The DMG has a few other optional actions as well, but persuasion would still always be an improvised action in combat.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Of course everyone has opinions about how a thing should be optimally implemented, and it probably differs somewhat from what is published. This doesn't uniquely apply to this situation. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would want caster rules to be implemented differently than they currently are too.

It's the result of the implementation -- not fulfilling the concept of a Warlord/leaderly character whose impact is much more on the Warlord/martial leaderly side than on the swinging sword side.


#1 Current 5e Battlemaster by picking the leaderly maneuvers and feats (1-5 scale, 5 is great):
Weapon beating prowess = 4; Martial leaderly prowess = 3

People are asking for a character that is #2:
Weapon beating prowess = 2 or 3; Martial leaderly prowess = 5

Same impact but in different ways.

This seems like a pretty reasonable ask -- "I want to play a character than leans a lot more heavily on the martial leaderly and less on martial fighting than the current Battlemaster". Maybe for many #1 is just fine for leaderly stuff, but surely you can envision a character with better/more martial leaderly options than exist today?

So you create the Warlord that is primarily/defined by martial leading (granting actions, buff/debuff, temporary HPs, shifting battlefield, tactical bonuses for team actions, etc.) and can fall back on lesser (but not worthless) sword swings or archery when needed. And if we go totally crazy, maybe the Warlord has a few out of combat options built in as well based on INT, CHA, or WIS flavor of leader.

You can also play the Battlemaster with Fighter like sword swings, and significant but not defining leaderly stuff though maneuvers and feats.

Everybody wins...

I'm less concerned with how it gets modeled in mechanics, but it seems like by definition the leaderly stuff has to go beyond what the current Battlemaster can do with maneuvers and feats. Thus something has to be taken away somewhere else. Which is why people are talking about potentially a new class.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The issue is that Feats are optional content design to be used in place of a ASI
Meaning

• it is balanced around increasing one's Ability Score.
• it it is weaker than increasing one's Primary Ability Score
• you can't get it until level 4 and likely would not take it until level 8
• it may or may not be allowed by the DM

Basically the warlord concept is bigger than one feat and you have a chance to not be able to take it. And if you did, your fighter is likely weaker in combat AND out of combat.

That's the problem. The reformed bandit leader as a warlord can still be a good archer for his level and inspire his allies to fight on. As a battlemaster, you likely have to wait until

checks books

level 8 for the concept to come into fruition. Right before most campaigns end.

 

[Maxperson]

It is an improvised action. It is intimidation, or parlay which are both mentioned specifically under improvised action.

It's not intimidation, which would require some sort of intimidating act. Combat isn't enough on it's own. Nor is it a parlay since you aren't stopping to have a conversation. You are telling them to drop their weapons, which would be a persuasion check.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then you are changing the meaning of the D&D warlord. Because the warlord in the past used their mental stats more than experience.

By that logic, melee attacks should not get Strength modifier bonuses.

The one and only implementation that we have - the one specific to 4e that gave all classes secondary stat riders used mental stats. Since very few of the other classes in 5e are tied to secondary mental stats, I don't get why you would be that tied to that specific implentation that had abilities scale by secondary stats?

 

[Maxperson]

The one and only implementation that we have - the one specific to 4e that gave all classes secondary stat riders used mental stats. Since very few of the other classes in 5e are tied to secondary mental stats, I don't get why you would be that tied to that specific implentation that had abilities scale by secondary stats?

We have exactly zero implementations of the Warlord. Not one. You're trying to take an existing class, the Battle Master, and squint at it sideways so you can declare it to be a Warlord. It's not a Warlord no matter how you look at it.