5E Boop

What is the best Chassis for a 5e Warlord class?

  • Artificer

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Bard

    Votes: 25 39.7%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 8 12.7%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 28 44.4%
  • Monk

    Votes: 5 7.9%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 11 17.5%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Druid

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 9 14.3%

  • Total voters
    63
This is a directly misleading account of what I said. I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt intention, and clarify.
I didn't say that the twilight zone comment to you, for one thing, nor does it imply that you're crazy for having your opinion. As for mechanical distinctions, yep. If there are no damage cantrips with meaningful mechanical distinction, then (speaking only very, very, mildly in hyperbole) dnd doesn't have meaningful mechanical distinctions.

None of which explains why your "joke" needed to involve comparing me to a lying thief, in the context of him lying about his theft to try to get people to not judge him for it, in a discussion about whether things that do different things in gameplay are different enough.

Accusing me of "calling you names" for calling out your behavior is pretty wild, too, tbh. It's fine to be insulting, as long the insults don't directly involve using a noun, I guess?





That's...rich. It's also not at all what happened, but okay. It's much more like you said that all metal songs sound the same, I said that's not true and asked what about them actually seems too similar while citing what makes them different, and then you reiterated your opinion that they are similar with a car analogy and then mocked me while implying that I'm similar to a lying thief of other people's work.
Now I'm not saying he was the Pope or anything, but you basically did everything he claimed...
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
This is a directly misleading account of what I said. I'm going to try to give you the benefit of the doubt wrt intention, and clarify.
...

Accusing me of "calling you names" for calling out your behavior is pretty wild, too, tbh. It's fine to be insulting, as long the insults don't directly involve using a noun, I guess?

... and then you reiterated your opinion that they are similar with a car analogy and then mocked me while implying that I'm similar to a lying thief of other people's work.
We're done.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Insulting other members
I only claimed ranged damage cantrips weren't meaningfully different. I stand by that. Were any of those cantrips you listed supposed to be considered a ranged damage cantrip?
Probably half the list, or so, are ranged cantrips that deal damage. Is there some other metric by which you categorize cantrips as ranged damage cantrips?

We're done.
oh man I do apologize, I thought that was pretty clear in the tone of my post. I have no respect for you as a person because of patterns I've seen in your behavior toward others, and the fact that behavior toward others is literally the only metric of the worth of a person, and won't be interacting with you any further for the forseeable future. I wasn't going to spell it out like that, but I guess I wasn't being clear. I've been told not to tell people I'm putting them on ignore, which seems like a nonsensical rule, to me, but I'll make an exception to my following that here, in case that wasn't clear, either.
 
Not feelin' ya here bro, you may need to get a little more granular for me.
If the concept calls for an armored caster I'll go Cleric or maybe Paladin. If I want a skill monkey I'll play a Bard and maybe ignore all the music and performance stuff. Whatever gets my concept off the ground. I'll ignore or reskin whatever needs it. The important part is that I'm always really excited about my characters.
You are saying you pick your classes off mechanics (possibly reskinned mechanics but mechanics nonetheless) which does imply that you find the classes to be meaningfully different. However, here in talking you say you don't find them to be meaningfully different.

I mean, I've probably been wrong more than I've been right - but it seems to me like you are describing meaningful differences in caster classes but then voicing the opinion that there are none.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Now I'm not saying he was the Pope or anything, but you basically did everything he claimed...
Not gonna argue with a third person about it, especially after putting him on my ignore list and making it clear why.

Obviously I disagree. Stating my disagreement is the end of my involvement in any discussion on the matter.

I'm happy to discuss mechanics and whatever this thread was actually about, though.
 
Not gonna argue with a third person about it, especially after putting him on my ignore list and making it clear why.

Obviously I disagree. Stating my disagreement is the end of my involvement in any discussion on the matter.

I'm happy to discuss mechanics and whatever this thread was actually about, though.
Okay. Then at the current time it doesn't seem beneficial for me to continue with you on this topic as I am concerned you will end up treating me as you did lowkey.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Okay. Then at the current time it doesn't seem beneficial for me to continue with you on this topic as I am concerned you will end up treating me as you did lowkey.
Whatever floats your boat. I treated lowkey with respect and curiosity until they turned to insulting comparisons and directly and intentionally dismissing and disrespectful humor, so...there's that.
 
Whatever floats your boat. I treated lowkey with respect and curiosity until they turned to insulting comparisons and directly and intentionally dismissing and disrespectful humor, so...there's that.
The most insulting and dismissive thing you can do to someone is to tell them they can't possibly believe something they sincerely do.
 
You are saying you pick your classes off mechanics (possibly reskinned mechanics but mechanics nonetheless) which does imply that you find the classes to be meaningfully different. However, here in talking you say you don't find them to be meaningfully different.

I mean, I've probably been wrong more than I've been right - but it seems to me like you are describing meaningful differences in caster classes but then voicing the opinion that there are none.
I don't find the casters meaningfully different, no. In a game with zero MC then a little moreso. It's mostly access to a handful of different spells and whether or not i have a good idea for one of the other mechanics which most often isn't really what its fluffed as. That's rare though.

Obviously there are mechanical differences between the classes but nothing that, to me, that separates the classes in a super meaningful thematic way. I never said there weren't mechanical differences btw, only that I didn't find the differences compelling from a character design standpoint, as odd as that sounds.
 
See, this I can understand. You've provided some explanation of what actually isn't generating a differentiated play experience. The difference is too mechanical (ie, about and involved in the mechanics of the game on a fairly meta level), and not fictional enough, for you to care about the difference in actual play. Is that roughly on target?
Pretty much, yeah. The rules mitigate for a certain set of choices for damage versus resistance, and a mix if targeted and save based, and deviating from that is significantly suboptimal at lower levels. However, the choices made dont really make a character feel any different in play, at least to me. I'd prefer the classes had their own cantrips that really pumped the class theme.
 
I don't find the casters meaningfully different, no. In a game with zero MC then a little moreso. It's mostly access to a handful of different spells and whether or not i have a good idea for one of the other mechanics which most often isn't really what its fluffed as. That's rare though.

Obviously there are mechanical differences between the classes but nothing that, to me, that separates the classes in a super meaningful thematic way. I never said there weren't mechanical differences btw, only that I didn't find the differences compelling from a character design standpoint, as odd as that sounds.
An example: you mentioned wanting to be a skill monkey and picking bard. I would call skill monkey a meaningful thematic difference between bard and the other casters. You do not?
 
Not really. You can get there or some of the way there with knowledge cleric too, or a level of rogue. And/or half elf if that works. Well, yes, it's a difference, bit not one I care about unless I happen to want a ton of skills. It would be a more compelling difference if there weren't so many other ways to do the same thing.

Honestly, in the cases where I'd pick a bard for skills its far more about the comparison to rogue than the other casters. The Lore Bard makes a way better magical rogue for a lot of builds than anything you can do with an actual rogue. This is an excellent example of what's at the heart of my indifference to class descriptions.

If you wanted to say that my impression of the classes is coloured my multiclassing, you'd be correct. In a no MC environment the differences mean more.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
oh man I do apologize, I thought that was pretty clear in the tone of my post. I have no respect for you as a person...
Mod Note:

"I apologize and here's an insult," is not acceptable. You're done in this thread.

Next time, please exert a bit more self-control, and disengage from the conversation before you flame out.
 
If you can leverage role flexibility into the Fighter well why not?
You can already see how the lack of formal Roles left some wiggle room in the fighter. It's a hardwired high-DPR class (Striker Role), but also has the hps & tankiness of a Defender. The BM & PDK get a couple of minor abilities that shade into Leader. The BM's maneuvers are a diverse resource mechanic - admittedly, not a fraction as diverse as spells, 16 vs hundreds, one level vs nine, laser-focused on armed combat - that could be leveraged and expanded to more fully embrace contributions beyond DPR... if there were any room left in the fighter chassis for that sort of thing, which there obviously isn't. So while the lack of formal Roles left the fighter free to be simultaneously tough like a defender (with no defender role support) and high-DPR like a Striker (but w/o typical striker mobility), by itself, it doesn't leave it free to fill a 4e-leader - broader/murkier 5e informal support - role.

But, if you take a resource-heavy, high-versatility chassis like Cleric - or even just a resource-heavy one like Bard, or short-rest-resource-heavy like Warlock - and swap in greatly expanded maneuvers as the resource, and you'd be able to adequately handle leader/controller (support) contributions for a party.


(BTW, the temptation(npi) to use Warlock is obvious: it's the single class heaviest on short-rest resources, and the BM's maneuvers happen to use short-rest-recharge CS dice. But, I still like the idea of decoupling maneuver resources from short-rest-recharging and going with per-encounter or per-enemy limitations, instead or as well.)
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
But, I still like the idea of decoupling maneuver resources from short-rest-recharging and going with per-encounter or per-enemy limitations, instead or as well.)
That is a dramatic one with more concept involved which yeh I like quite a bit, Martial Tricks for that one per-enemy or per fight maneuver.

And I think I just had a balance thought for those In 5e land they are I presume less intense unless you have more intense fights. So perhaps allow them to get boosts approximately based on fight length. One such trigger might be making them more intense if you or an ally or allies are bloodied it makes your trick more convincing - which makes a lot of sense for false openings and suckering them in and the like.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
You can already see how the lack of formal Roles left some wiggle room in the fighter. It's a hardwired high-DPR class (Striker Role), but also has the hps & tankiness of a Defender. The BM & PDK get a couple of minor abilities that shade into Leader. The BM's maneuvers are a diverse resource mechanic - admittedly, not a fraction as diverse as spells, 16 vs hundreds, one level vs nine, laser-focused on armed combat - that could be leveraged and expanded to more fully embrace contributions beyond DPR. instead or as well.)
Allow maneuvers which use risk to trade on the tankiness In 4e a fighter traded some of his superior defense in order to increase his offense and a Warlord (Bravura) could trade on it for increasing the amount of his inspiration or even to grant allies extra attacks. A ranger could trade on his higher damage to get control functions.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Looking back at the poll, it looks like fighter won. Although I don’t know that it’s a statistically significant victory over the Bard.

And, even though some people don’t like the fighter .... I still wouldn’t call them “Boop.” “Bop” at a minimum for hitting things.
 

Coroc

Adventurer
Looking back at the poll, it looks like fighter won. Although I don’t know that it’s a statistically significant victory over the Bard.

And, even though some people don’t like the fighter .... I still wouldn’t call them “Boop.” “Bop” at a minimum for hitting things.
A pet rabbit makes boop nudging you with its nose, I thought the OP was a bit embarrassed to ask for a vote maybe because the topic had so much discussion already (not that I mind) but that's only my impression.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
A pet rabbit makes boop nudging you with its nose, I thought the OP was a bit embarrassed to ask for a vote maybe because the topic had so much discussion already (not that I mind) but that's only my impression.
HA! I did not know that. So ... a fighter is much like a pet bunny ... touching you with its nose.

Oh boy, I'm going to have to remember that one.

I'm thinking about the other thread I started re: design principles in 5e and spells, and I'm not sure that there is a full design space for a martial warlord that would completely satisfy people that want a simacularum of the 4e version without some type of "re-skinning" of spellcasting as martial abilities.

Which would likely lead to the whole ouroboros debate of "is it martial, or magical." Meh.
 

Advertisement

Top