D&D 5E Boop

[Fenris-77]

The Paladin with specific spells reskinned as X/day abilities might be even closer to the mark, although that messes with Divine Smite. Actually, someone mentioned the Warlock above and that template would probably work with the right spell list if applied to the Paladin chassis. Some spells changed to X/X abilities with some spell slots left open to power an altered smite. For fluff reasons it could all be reskinned of course, but that's not my main concern from a design standpoint.

 

[Undrave]

As mentioned in the other thread, I am going warlock (sort of warlock/cleric hybrid actually). We know WotC isn't going to create a new class that introduces new mechanics to learn, so it has to fit into an existing system. And I think warlock does that nicely. Why?

Warlord features can be broken down into three categories: minor abilities that can be used at will, major abilities that have a recharge, and a specialized theme (the INT vs CHA warlord, etc as mentioned in the other thread)

So...

Minor abilities are cantrips, major abilities are spells that scale like the warlock, and specialized theme are invocations. Just call them something different of course. The only change you'd have to do with the class chassis is instead of having as many pact features, you have other warlord features (like a battle warlord getting better armor and weapons and extra attack, while a tactician warlord possibly getting bonuses to initiative or swapping initiative or something that replicates a bless spell for example).

I agree. Warlock is a more interesting set up. Plus, you got a neat mix-and-match style to it that could give good customization options.

Just replace the Pact Magic with 'Military Tradition', like White Raven and others and then have the Invocations be 'tactics' or something like that.

It would be cool.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing to keep in mind about a class 'chassis' or 'template' is that 5e doesn't just give all classes spells, it also uses a spell-slot to DPR formula to balance even those few sub-classes who do not cast spells nor use magic, at all.

That was exactly the approach Mike Mearls took when creating a fairly narrow take on the Tactical Warlord build as a 'warlord' fighter sub-class - he was just using a template with far too much hardwired DPR and far too little versatility & flexibility.

So, to use, say, the Cleric (which has the right armor, HD, and sub-class-only access to Extra attack for the Warlord, and the needed resources & versatility to provide support, by itself, to a whole party) as a template doesn't mean casting spells, nor re-skinning spells, rather, it means a resource model in which maneuvers and perhaps some dice mechanic less focused on damage than CS dice, could be structured and balanced.

...


To really get the maximum benefit from the class, the Warlord should be able to fill the support needs of a full-sized party without other primary or secondary support characters, shortened adventuring days, or other adjustments. That would both let players interested in that style of play but not wanting to play a magic-using concept finally get that option back, but would, with the additional non-supernatural sub-classes that have also seen the light of UA, at least, open up the possibility of running low-/no- magic campaigns and setting without radically re-balancing the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We may need a vote on whether a Warlord should have Extra Attack, I guess.

I think it’s obvious that it should, Tony at least thinks it obviously shouldn’t.

I don’t wanna do a whole thread for it. (Unless @Morrus wants to make a warlord subforum?)

Extra attack as a class feature means they can keep up with everyone else in personal combat. It isn’t an extra damage feature, it’s the baseline for people who don’t have cantrips.

I literally cannot imagine this class not being able to do that. The idea seems entirely absurd, to me.

 

[Sacrosanct]

We may need a vote on whether a Warlord should have Extra Attack, I guess.

I think it’s obvious that it should, Tony at least thinks it obviously shouldn’t.

I don’t wanna do a whole thread for it. (Unless @Morrus wants to make a warlord subforum?)

Extra attack as a class feature means they can keep up with everyone else in personal combat. It isn’t an extra damage feature, it’s the baseline for people who don’t have cantrips.

I literally cannot imagine this class not being able to do that. The idea seems entirely absurd, to me.

Illustrating one of the big issues with designing the warlord. And not limited to the warlord, but we've seen it with the psion as well. Even dedicated fans can't agree on some really important features. An extra attack is no small thing. It's a pretty big deal.

Personally, I think it can be both, depending on subclass. The core warlord doesn't get it, but the subclass that focuses on participatory combat (rather than tactician) may get it as a subclass feature. Support classes in general do not get an extra attack. It's a special feature of a subclass. I think the warlord should follow the same existing template if it is in fact a support class.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, you have X rocks and ribbons to design the class. Extra Attack seems appropriate, but may mean excluding something else cool. I'd probably hold off until you have an actual set of abilities roughed out and then weight the extra attack against some of the alternatives. If you're doing enough buff/debuff personal damage isn't actually all that important (although, to be fair, my first reaction was "of course he should" just like you).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Illustrating one of the big issues with designing the warlord. And not limited to the warlord, but we've seen it with the psion as well. Even dedicated fans can't agree on some really important features. An extra attack is no small thing. It's a pretty big deal.

Personally, I think it can be both, depending on subclass. The core warlord doesn't get it, but the subclass that focuses on participatory combat (rather than tactician) may get it as a subclass feature.

But most subclasses should be able to actually fight, and therefor need either it or a new feature that adds damage onto an attack.

and, the system of replacing attacks with other stuff, and adding boosts for others onto attacks, can very elegantly be leveraged into support features. The subclasses that don’t lead while fighting themselves (which is maybe 2?) can lean more heavily into replacing attacks.

that is much simpler than putting extra attack to a subclass (well, several subclasses. Every single one that leads from the front at all).

but seriously guys, if a class is supposed to be in the front fighting with weapons it has extra attack. Only exception is the rogue, who gets a whole different way to deal damage.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Extra attack as a class feature means they can keep up with everyone else in personal combat. It isn’t an extra damage feature, it’s the baseline for people who don’t have cantrips.

I more got the impression was that cantrips were baseline at-will damage, for classes that get substantial daily resources.

I literally cannot imagine this class not being able to do that. The idea seems entirely absurd, to me.

There are many classes that have Extra Attack only in sub-classes, so I don't see the issue.

OTOH, I'd see nothing wrong with the Warlord having some at-will maneuvers (ie that don't use CS dice or anything of that nature).

 

[Sacrosanct]

But most subclasses should be able to actually fight, and therefor need either it or a new feature that adds damage onto an attack.

and, the system of replacing attacks with other stuff, and adding boosts for others onto attacks, can very elegantly be leveraged into support features. The subclasses that don’t lead while fighting themselves (which is maybe 2?) can lean more heavily into replacing attacks.

that is much simpler than putting extra attack to a subclass (well, several subclasses. Every single one that leads from the front at all).

but seriously guys, if a class is supposed to be in the front fighting with weapons it has extra attack. Only exception is the rogue, who gets a whole different way to deal damage.

I"m sorry, this simply isn't true. The war cleric (and the tempest cleric) are right on the front lines, and they don't get extra attacks.

The way 5e is designed, classes that are support do not get extra attack unless it's an exception within a subclass. As my partner's 4 year old says all the time, "That's a fact, Jack."

So either the warlord is a support class, or it's not. That will dictate on how it's designed.

edit as a support class, what I see it being is similar to the cleric, which gets an extra d8 at 8th level, but instead of only applying to their own attacks, being a warlord and all, they have the option to send it over to an ally instead.

 

[Tony Vargas]

but seriously guys, if a class is supposed to be in the front fighting with weapons it has extra attack. Only exception is the rogue, who gets a whole different way to deal damage.

Because, like SA, Extra Attack is an extra-damage feature.