*Deleted by user*
I think the issue there is that converting spellcasting into some other resource schedule is very much a ¯\(ツ)/¯ proposition. There's just no good template of how to do that conversion.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.
It's a mechanic to do it. (I personally think divine smite isn't a particularly GOOD mechanic.) You'd still need to develop a "warlord spell list", which kind of feels like it's against the concept of the warlord in the first place.Divine Smite is a good template for covering spell slots into another resource isn't it?
Sure, that makes a lot of sense. I don't want to come across as it's "undoable", just that there isn't a lot of guidance within the structures of the PHB classes to do so.One way to do it (not the only way) would be to give the Warlord an equivalent number of daily (long rest) features per day equal to the spells they would get at that level.
Then match power by looking at spells of the equivalent level.
So a 10th level bard-based Warlord would have-
4 different 'at will" abilities (cantrip equivalent)
A first level equivalent power (4x day)
A second level equivalent power (3x day)
A third level equivalent power (3x day)
A fourth level equivalent power (3x day)
A fifth level equivalent power (2x day)
What does this mean? Well, not saying that this should be the go-to example, but a lot of people use the whole "why can't a martial character jump" kind of thing.
Jump is a first level spell. So a 10th level bard-based Warlord could have a "Mighty Leap" 4 times a day.
Sure, but by the same token, these are fixed abilities, not spell slots. A spell slot can be used for multiple useful abilities depending on the situation. Having the option to do A+B+C is always better than just A, even if A is the most useful.You'd probably need to divide it by more than three.
The one slight caution in doing it completely 1:1 is that, unlike spells, there is no counterspell, or concentration issues, or dispel magic, or preparation/spellbooks etc. for these types of abilities.
Would definitely need to account for that. Especially if you're converting to spell points.
I am not inspired enough by the rogue to figure out how to balance a sneak attack replacement.Or the Warlock and Rogue who don't really care about long rest...
The issue isn't conceptual or modeling, it's that at-will abilities of any sort are, well "expensive" in class-design terms, and tend to be very limited or to just suck up the whole focus/design-space of a class.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
It's a slight difference, but the greater versatility of prepped fits the dynamism & adaptability of shifting tactics better than the Bard's eclectic known organization, the cleric's armor fits better but the bards weapons also fit better, and there's subtle differences in the resource balance, even though both weight rest-recharge heavily.
That sounds reasonable, but arcane classes are each very versatile, and there's now four or five of them? (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard, Artificer - yeah, 5, OK.) Class imbalances in D&D have always gone deeper than the merely mechanical.They made two martial classes and whelp we are done... those ought to be uber versatile no?
Presumably, you'd be developing a list of 'maneuvers' or the like, the BM serves as a very limited example of that, are powered by whatever long-rest resource claims the design space taken up by those spells in the 'template.' (Maybe not CS dice, which are conceptually and mechanically focused on personal superiority in weapon-swinging combat, which is, afterall the fighter's thang. Also, there might be some more appropriate limited-use criteria than resting.)You'd still need to develop a "warlord spell list", which kind of feels like it's against the concept of the warlord in the first place.
From what MM has shared, it sounds like 5e design has mostly been by feel (so, I suspect, much like it always has been), but, with a touchstone: spell slots, denominated in hit points. Magic in general and spellcasting in particular are the overriding focus of the game, as is reflected in the use of spells in every, single, class design, so you can't design a class, even if you are trying to design a revolutionary/unique-in-5e class that doesn't actually use spells at all, without at least referring to spells as a guideline.I was more saying that if you start out with a bard, and rip out all the spellcasting, I have no particular way to gauge the value of any replacement features. It would just be by feel at that point.
I’d love to contribute if you start a thread about it, I just don’t have any idea what the basic changeover would be.I'd actually be interested in trying myself.
I also need to put an hour aside and read the new Warlord thread... I got busy and it kinda ran away from me...