D&D 5E 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part VI: Fighters)

[JoeyD473]

I haven't seen, and probably never will, see someone Vicious Mockeried to death, so that's a non-issue. There is almost always physical damage of some sort, so wounds will be present.

My group used to have a bard who quite often vicious mockeried (is that word) to death

 

[DND_Reborn]

My group used to have a bard who quite often vicious mockeried (is that word) to death

Well, all bards deserve to be mocked to death... so that makes sense.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, all bards deserve to be mocked to death... so that makes sense.

Only 3rd edition Bards. Maybe 2nd, I have little experience with them. 1e Bard was a whole friggin' mini-campaign just to become one, with OP powers in line with the 3e Druid (rogue, fighter, and druid powers, IIRC?)

4e made the Bard good. Really good, actually. Good enough that despite being the "assiduously deny 4e ever existed" edition, 5e copied several elements of the 4e Bard...including vicious mockery.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, Bards and Paladins both became actual classes in 4e and managed to stay that way in 5.

Though the issue with 3e bards was mostly that the concept of 'control' wasn't in the fandom's lexicon, so no one knew what the bard was good at -- which turn out to be turning encounters with anything with a mind off almost instantly.

 

[Undrave]

Hm. As you describe it, @Vaalingrade, it seems like a lot of what the Warlord does could be handled with the Bardic Inspiration mechanic (reskinned, of course). Maybe add a suite of new Maneuvers (calling them something else to avoid confusion/mixing with the Battle Master.)

But I'm sure it's not that simple, or it would have been done already.

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. If folks want a Warlord that plays the way it did back in 4E, it would require combat to work the way it did in 4E. So of course that's gonna be a ton of work for just one character class, and all attempts to do so are going to miss the mark.

In my own attempts at making a Warlord class, my biggest challenge was that, unlike 4e, 5e has both attack rolls and DC vs saving throws. In 4e, your Warlord could hand out +2 to attacks and ANYBODY could benefit. In 5e, you have to write a whole paragraph to somehow make it work with those pesky spell casters because you want to be compatible with the whole party. It's a pain in the butt.

Yep. We made Bards half-casters because they are already too good otherwise. Also, we made Sorcerers CON-based casters.

I like the idea of CON sorcerers because it would make them easy to MC into by design. Whatever your class, you can always discover you have a magical bloodline and start to tap into it effectively.

 

[JoeyD473]

Yeah, Bards and Paladins both became actual classes in 4e and managed to stay that way in 5.

Though the issue with 3e bards was mostly that the concept of 'control' wasn't in the fandom's lexicon, so no one knew what the bard was good at -- which turn out to be turning encounters with anything with a mind off almost instantly.

Bards and Paladins were classes before 4e

 

[Vaalingrade]

Bards and Paladins were classes before 4e

I said 'actual' classes, not the chaos pudding with no clear direciton that was the bard and the fight starter that was the Paladin.

They earned their right to exist.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Both classes were ACTUAL classes before 4E... even if you don't personally like them.

I like the idea of CON sorcerers because it would make them easy to MC into by design. Whatever your class, you can always discover you have a magical bloodline and start to tap into it effectively.

We did it just because their magic is supposed to come from within them. While CHA works for this, 5E went overboard with the CHA-loving, so CON made sense as also "from within". Also, because sorcerers have just a d6 HD, it helps there HP by default. In our first 5E campaign, our Dragonborn draconic bloodline had over 200 hp IIRC... it was crazy with that CON 20!

 

[Undrave]

LOL fair enough!

It would seem like Warlord could be its own class, but I have no idea what the subclasses would be! Or having it a subclass of Fighter.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

Fighter should be a subclass of Warlord (and the ‘simple melee’ guy, like the Champion, should be the Barbarian) because I posit the Warlord is closer to the old Fighting Man than today’s Fighter because it represents a new take on their old ability to gather followers. The Warlord can steal the Fighter’s name.

We did it just because their magic is supposed to come from within them. While CHA works for this, 5E went overboard with the CHA-loving, so CON made sense as also "from within". Also, because sorcerers have just a d6 HD, it helps there HP by default. In our first 5E campaign, our Dragonborn draconic bloodline had over 200 hp IIRC... it was crazy with that CON 20!

Oh yeah I'm on board for that aspect as well!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fighter should be a subclass of Warlord (and the ‘simple melee’ guy, like the Champion, should be the Barbarian) because I posit the Warlord is closer to the old Fighting Man than today’s Fighter because it represents a new take on their old ability to gather followers. The Warlord can steal the Fighter’s name.

I made a Fighter subclass a while ago, which while not a 4E Warlord, might have some appealing aspects:

Tactician

No description.

homebrewery.naturalcrit.com

The "Warlord" is on page 3.