D&D 5E Boop

[doctorbadwolf]

My point still stands. If you give the warlord the same martial DPR as a fighter, ranger, or paladin, do those classes have enough other abilities to be able to be traded off equitably (to ensure balance) and do everything warlord fans want out of the warlord? I don't think so. Based on what I'm seeing over the past few years, warlords fans want a warlord to:

• be able to do something warlordy every round if needed, like a cantrip
• have decent options of scalable bigger powers (like granting inspiration, healing, modifying initiative, etc)
• have specialized subclasses like INT based, and CHA based. A tactician vs a brawler, etc.

And looking at how the ranger and paladin are set up, there aren't enough of those ranger or paladin abilities to be swapped out to give the warlord those features. Rangers and paladins don't even have cantrips, so they don't even have the first bullet point achievable. You gotta give something up to get what you want. And IMO, that extra attack lies better with a subclass warlord that doesn't get as many and/or as powerful support features.

Extra attack doesn’t give a class the same or comparable DPR as those classes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Look at it like this. Let's say the base warlord is on par with the base paladin, and also gets the extra attck at 5th level. Let's look at what the warlord would look like by the paladin giving up it's class features to be replaced by warlord features, as similar in power as I can think of

Give up divine sense, and warlord gets advantage on intimidation/persuasion checks a number of times = CHA modifier
Lay on hands replaced by inspiring word. . Pool = 5x your level of healing
Fighting style stays the same (warlords should have this)
Divine smite replaced by precision attack (use one of your warlord abilities to increase the damage of an attack by 2d8 for level 1, +1d8 for higher levels)
Divine health replaced by battlefield instruction, which allows you to send your precision attack to an ally within 30ft, up to a number of times per short rest = to INT modifier
Then you've got whatever subclass feature you want.
Replace spellcasting with maneuvers. You can learn a number of maneuvers = your INT modifier + half your level, rounded down.

So a 5th level warlord with an 18 INT (assuming they do this instead of CHA) would have 6 maneuvers, which could be used 6 times per long rest (4 at lower power, 2 at enhanced power) assuming you never used your precision attack. If you use precision attack a lot, then you don't have any warlord maneuvers you can use.

No warlordy things at will. And only 6 maneuvers learned maximum (probably less). And choose between using precision attack or said maneuvers; not both. is this what warlord fans would be happy with? I highly doubt that. Not from what I've read over the past few years.

That's the give and take I'm talking about. If it's a support class, then treat it like every other support class. We have plenty of examples of how that could be done. Git rid of extra attack for the ability to have a pool of at will warlord abilities that scale with level, or broaden the number of total maneuvers they can learn and utilize per long rest, something. But you can't do both. Not without having major balance issues. All the other warrior classes (fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian) don't have enough other things to trade out and still get the extra attacks

So make something at-Will.
Firstly, even in that setup, I’d make the added damage something you can always add to an ally attack. Why give it an extra cost to be used that way?
Second, give it the option of a DPR fighting style where the damage boost applies to the next ally attack against the target you hit.
third, replace Paladin Aura with an aura that gives an offensive bonus or a more mundane defensive bonus.
Then replace Spellcasting with at-will and SR ally boosts that can be applied as riders when you attack, like BM manuevers. The at wills are small but worth remembering, while the short rest ones are more in line with manuevers in power level. most of these are support, but have a decent mix of enemy debuffs, CC type effects, and even “mark” style effects that help create catch-22 situations for enemies.

I’d like to see an at Will ability to grant attacks at the cost of a single attack, but if it has to be a maneuver, that’s fine.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So make something at-Will.
Firstly, even in that setup, I’d make the added damage something you can always add to an ally attack. Why give it an extra cost to be used that way?
Second, give it the option of a DPR fighting style where the damage boost applies to the next ally attack against the target you hit.
third, replace Paladin Aura with an aura that gives an offensive bonus or a more mundane defensive bonus.
Then replace Spellcasting with at-will and SR ally boosts that can be applied as riders when you attack, like BM manuevers. The at wills are small but worth remembering, while the short rest ones are more in line with manuevers in power level. most of these are support, but have a decent mix of enemy debuffs, CC type effects, and even “mark” style effects that help create catch-22 situations for enemies.

I’d like to see an at Will ability to grant attacks at the cost of a single attack, but if it has to be a maneuver, that’s fine.

See, this is giving the warlord more than anyone else again. I admit, as a designer, I view things like this foremost through a game design lens. Balance, etc.

For example, any time you're giving someone else bonus damage, it does come at an extra cost as opposed to you yourself getting that damage because it add more flexibility. Your ally might be able to attack the target where you couldn't so you're applying extra damage in a scenario that wouldn't be there if only you got that benefit. That's why there is an extra cost.

Secondly, that ability is a replacement for divine smite--something that is powered by spells. In your version, the warlord gets that, and also gets whatever you're replacing spells with, in this case at will and SR ally boosts. The paladin has to choose to use up spell slots to get divine smite, and you're giving the warlord both unrelated to each other.

This is what I'm talking about.

5e is very good at giving us templates (we know what happens at level 4, 8, etc. We know how casters work, etc). We need to build the warlord (and any class) within those templates. Otherwise you're inviting huge balance issues. So when you are using a warrior template (with extra attack), you need to balance that with how many options warrior template classes get and the power levels of said options when they appear.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

OK. So before we decide on the power of at-will abilities vs limited-use, we need to decide what sort of balance between them we're going to have. - Which base class is the Warlord going to emulate?

Bard? - Fairly low power at-will capabilities. Very powerful support. Very powerful limited use (full caster.)

Cleric? - Medium at-will. Good support. Very powerful limited-use.

Artificer? - Powerful at-will. Good support. Reasonable limited-use.

As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?

Well, just like the Hobgoblin captain ''Leadership'' replicate Bless, I'd say replicate the effect of some level 9 spells, like Mass Heal, Power Word Heal, Foresight, Invunerability, on an ally.

Same for level 5: Swift Quiver, Legend Lore, Skill Empowerment, Conjure Volley, Greater restoration.

Change the name for something more appropriate and remove the need for components.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK. So before we decide on the power of at-will abilities vs limited-use, we need to decide what sort of balance between them we're going to have.

Tactics, inspiration, planning, resourcefulness, insight, daring... the Warlord's concepts call for the kinds of gambits that work decisively when they can be set up and carried off successfully, under the right circumstance, so you'd want infrequent & high-impact support & control. Thus weighted toward limited-use, though exactly what limitation might be a place where some new design space could be explored, rather than just aping 4e's short/long rest recharge.

As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?

Equivalent, no, of course not - 5e has tried pretty hard to keep magic magical. Both the nominal effects and the qualifiers for casting would be quite a bit off, even more so than they are for psionics. However, the mechanical effects & power could be comparable.
For instance, I could imagine a 'perfect planning' sort of gambit mechanically similar to Foresight (9th) - probably quite different in the details of setting it up and ending it, of course. Similarly, the mechanical effect of Weird - frightened & psychic damage to nearby enemies - wouldn't be out of line for a top-level 'Hector's one-for-the-ages best intimidation effort.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

See, this is giving the warlord more than anyone else again. I admit, as a designer, I view things like this foremost through a game design lens. Balance, etc.

For example, any time you're giving someone else bonus damage, it does come at an extra cost as opposed to you yourself getting that damage because it add more flexibility. Your ally might be able to attack the target where you couldn't so you're applying extra damage in a scenario that wouldn't be there if only you got that benefit. That's why there is an extra cost.

Secondly, that ability is a replacement for divine smite--something that is powered by spells. In your version, the warlord gets that, and also gets whatever you're replacing spells with, in this case at will and SR ally boosts. The paladin has to choose to use up spell slots to get divine smite, and you're giving the warlord both unrelated to each other.

This is what I'm talking about.

5e is very good at giving us templates (we know what happens at level 4, 8, etc. We know how casters work, etc). We need to build the warlord (and any class) within those templates. Otherwise you're inviting huge balance issues. So when you are using a warrior template (with extra attack), you need to balance that with how many options warrior template classes get and the power levels of said options when they appear.

Your looking at what I’m saying, searching for any way to come to a conclusion you want to come to, and diving straight at that.

I’m done. Please stop crapping my thread.

also, I didn’t even present any hrs mechanics, and your talking about my “version”. Doesn’t exactly come across as good faith.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK. So before we decide on the power of at-will abilities vs limited-use, we need to decide what sort of balance between them we're going to have. - Which base class is the Warlord going to emulate?

Bard? - Fairly low power at-will capabilities. Very powerful support. Very powerful limited use (full caster.)

Cleric? - Medium at-will. Good support. Very powerful limited-use.

Artificer? - Powerful at-will. Good support. Reasonable limited-use.

As a baseline, can you think of maneuvers that the Warlord might have that would be the equivalent of level 9 spells? Level 5 spells?

I mean, we can do any of them using any class as a chassis, is the thing.
But, I’d say that it should be a short rest class if possible, with solid at-will performance.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your looking at what I’m saying, searching for any way to come to a conclusion you want to come to, and diving straight at that.

I’m done. Please stop crapping my thread.

This thread is about what chassis people think would best fit the warlord. Not “agree with me or don’t comment”. I’m not crapping in your thread. I’m posting in accordance with the topic, and have given reasons why. I’m looking at your words, and explaining why how I feel they create imbalance issues. That’s all.

If you wanted an echo chamber of confirmation bias, you shouldn’t have posted a poll with various options. You should have just said “make it a warrior chassis” then.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This thread is about what chassis people think would best fit the warlord. Not “agree with me or don’t comment”. I’m not crapping in your thread. I’m posting in accordance with the topic, and have given reasons why. I’m looking at your words, and explaining why how I feel they create imbalance issues. That’s all.

If you wanted an echo chamber of confirmation bias, you shouldn’t have posted a poll with various options. You should have just said “make it a warrior chassis” then.

No, you’re taking my words out of context and trying to claim that disagreements about what class chassis to use are why the warlord doesn’t exist in 5e already. You’re reading, “so make some of it at Will” and going on wild leaps to conclude that I’m trying to give them all manner of stuff I never mentioned or implied, as if I’d presented finished mechanics rather than broad strokes.