D&D 5E Boop

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

Insects sting not from malice, but because they want to live. It is the same with critics; they desire our blood, not our pain.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

So I bet Nietzsche and you raise me Carruthers? I see how it is.

If this work seems so threatening, this is because it isn't simply eccentric or strange, but competent, rigorously argued, and carrying conviction.

So there.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

As much fun as this is I'm going to wave the white flag so we don't crap all over this thread. Nice playing the dozens with you sir.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Garthanos]

Yep, definitely see it, it's just that it's best for the aspects of the Warlord for which there's the least urgent call already in 5e: a Paladin-based Warlord would be just a little bit more Warlordly than the BM. The Bard as a template also already gives us a more melee-oriented build, as well, though, so I feel it's a good mechanical guide for more of the full range of the class. Similarly, the Cleric is a good template, because it maximizes rest resources, being one of the less at-will-DPR-committed classes in the game.

Of course, the ultimate would be not using a template, at all, but creating a mechanically unique Warlord, concept-first, which'd also be very much in accord with 5e design principles, just, y'know, requiring a professional designer initiated into whatever inner mysteries of those there may be...

What happens if one adds Bravura bits to the Valor Bard ;p

 

[Tony Vargas]

Don't discount that monk just yet. I'm pretty happy with the foundation, but the devil is in the abilities and the scaling. I think it has promise anyway.

Don't discount that monk just yet. I'm pretty happy with the foundation, but the devil is in the abilities and the scaling. I think it has promise anyway.

I'll keep an open mind and look at the result if something comes of it.

Mind you, I have no Warlord baggage of any kind, so I might be easier to please then your average bear.

There is a lot of lingering edition-war animosity towards the class, still, yes. And comparable defensiveness in reaction to it.

What happens if one adds Bravura bits to the Valor Bard ;p

The Valor sub-class seems analogous to the Bravura, Lore to the Hector & Lazy, room for most everything else between...

...But Cleric strikes me as a slightly better template.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If we can get this first attempt to work, making another one based off of the bard would be a logical next attempt.

....but I'll have to respectfully decline to participate being responsible for the Paladin version.

Honestly if things go well in the monk version, I’m maybe gonna tinker a rework of the fighter that simply turns the fighter base class into a “warlord”, leveraging at-will control and support instead of personal DPR.
Mostly because the Captain is what the fighter shoulda been, IMO. A paragon of martial prowess who is so damn good they raise the morale of their allies and dismay their enemies.

I don’t really see the value of the bard to the concept, though. It’s just a full caster with a short rest heal and a dice mechanic that you either throw out to bring in a new mechanic, or emulate directly, at which point you haven’t built a class, you’ve just...reflavored the bard.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly if things go well in the monk version, I’m maybe gonna tinker a rework of the fighter that simply turns the fighter base class into a “warlord”

I have to admit to that line of thought, at times, too. A class based around manuevers, just more, more varied, more customizable, more versatile - and level-gated.

From that you could build a fighter that takes up a combination of tanking, single or multi- target DPR, support, or even control, depending on build, tactics and weapon mix. Done well, with 5e's fairly seamless STR/DEX decision, you might even fold rogue into it.

It's tempting, like the thought of consolidating arcane casters into a Mage class, or divine classes into a Priest.

leveraging at-will control and support instead of personal DPR.

At-will abilities are pretty limited. Guidance is an example of at-will support. It's oddly controversial. At-will healing is hard to imagine.

I don’t really see the value of the bard to the concept, though. It’s just a full caster

Its a template of at-will to short to long rest recharges, weighted towards the last, which is where critical support functions fit. Cleric or Bard, really.

The trick is to use a different, martial resource, like manuevers, but moreso...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have to admit to that line of thought, at times, too. A class based around manuevers, just more, more varied, more customizable, more versatile - and level-gated.

From that you could build a fighter that takes up a combination of tanking, single or multi- target DPR, support, or even control, depending on build, tactics and weapon mix. Done well, with 5e's fairly seamless STR/DEX decision, you might even fold rogue into it.

It's tempting, like the thought of consolidating arcane casters into a Mage class, or divine classes into a Priest.

At-will abilities are pretty limited. Guidance is an example of at-will support. It's oddly controversial. At-will healing is hard to imagine.

Its a template of at-will to short to long rest recharges, weighted towards the last, which is where critical support functions fit. Cleric or Bard, really.

The trick is to use a different, martial resource, like manuevers, but moreso...

So, make new spells, but call them something else. I just...can’t be inspired by that.

it’s okay to not have reality warping power once a day, and instead have significant power that will change the course of every scene in a day.

anyway, I’d not try to fold too much into one class, and I don’t agree that it could ever be flexible enough to do both the Cavalier and the Rogue justice, but otherwise I’m interested in making the fighter more interesting.

my ideal Fighter class would have leaned toward captain/paragon from the start, and would have gained Legendary Actions instead of Extra Extra Attacks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, make new spells, but call them something else. I just...can’t be inspired by that.

IDK, do BM Manuevers seem like spells?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

IDK, do BM Manuevers seem like spells?

I mean, they’re pretty limited. I’m not convinced one could go much beyond what they do without duplicating spells.

 

[Garthanos]

Guidance is an example of at-will support.

Your aura of martial supremacy causes the enemy overreach and stumble ie make guidance into a presence which for warlord types can affect enemies negatively as well

...But Cleric strikes me as a slightly better template.

?

anyway, I’d not try to fold too much into one class

They made two martial classes and whelp we are done... those ought to be uber versatile no?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

The bard has some healing, dice used to help allies and hurt enemies, and full spell casting to convert into other abilities as needed. There's a reason why people though it was a good chassis for the Warlord. Personally, I like the Paladin better, but that's just me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

Those words make as much sense as, "As pretty as a gaping head wound."

Don't tell me you wouldnt love to wring all the righteousness out of the class, I know you would.