D&D 5E Boop

[doctorbadwolf]

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

No, it isn’t. No more than having cantrips is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, it isn’t. No more than having cantrips is.

So, what's being able to hit people with a big chunk of metal? Losing damage?

Seems like simply attacking with whatever weapon's at hand is the baseline. Extra Attacks and Cantrip scaling increase that, but Extra Attack moreso than Cantrip Scaling, thanks to the doubling up on static bonuses, starting with STR or DEX to damage.
That gap between Extra Attack & Cantrip, multiplied out over the many presumed rounds of a 6-8 encounter day, is how 5e theoretically balances casters' spell resources.

 

[Weiley31]

I like the idea of reskinning the Monk and having the MA dice represent the tactical aspect/command.
The extra attack I feel should be represented by making an alley do another attack.

Yet Paladin Aura makes sense too.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

If a lot of warlord maneuvers are along the lines of "Make an attack and . . ." (grant an ally a buff, enemy a debuff etc) or "As an attack . . . " then extra attacks would give the class some inherent scaling.

If you put the extra attack at level 9 or 11 rather than 5, that should allay Tony''s fears of being considered an extra damage feature, since it will be close to matching a non-boosted cantrip. Thus it becomes a fall-back option that holds up the class theme rather than a focus of the class' power.

 

[Fenris-77]

In some cases the cantrip is better than the extra attack, or at least as good. By the time the extra attack drops the catnip has scaled and it's a coin flip at best. At least without adding in feats. The Bladesinger is a great example of this.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If a lot of warlord maneuvers are along the lines of "Make an attack and . . ." (grant an ally a buff, enemy a debuff etc) or "As an attack . . . " then extra attacks would give the class some inherent scaling.

If you put the extra attack at level 9 or 11 rather than 5, that should allay Tony''s fears of being considered an extra damage feature, since it will be close to matching a non-boosted cantrip. Thus it becomes a fall-back option that holds up the class theme rather than a focus of the class' power.

As I mentioned, I think it's best handled like the other support classes are handled. Like front line battle clerics who get an additional d8 damage at 8th level. As a warlord, maybe have the option to give that extra damage to an ally X times per short rest or whatever. Doing it that way also aligns closely with current 5e design, which I think is really important. The more you reinvent the wheel, or try to add additional mechanics, the more you get away from 5e design philosophy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If a lot of warlord maneuvers are along the lines of "Make an attack and . . ." (grant an ally a buff, enemy a debuff etc) or "As an attack . . . " then extra attacks would give the class some inherent scaling.

If you put the extra attack at level 9 or 11 rather than 5, that should allay Tony''s fears of being considered an extra damage feature, since it will be close to matching a non-boosted cantrip. Thus it becomes a fall-back option that holds up the class theme rather than a focus of the class' power.

I mean, I’ll try to maintain enthusiasm for the project if it doesn’t have extra attack, but...it just seems bafflingly weird for the class to fall behind the absolute baseline warrior class damage before extra damage mechanics.

And it’s a wasted opportunity. The class can scale its support on the same scale that damage classes scale their damage, using a very simple design. When you give the class a “when you make an attack, XYZ” ability, it scales at 5th level, and then further scaling can come from subclass features or from limited use “add to an attack” features, like maneuvers but with tiers of efficacy.

The non-attacker subclasses (srsly is anyone really imagining there to be more than maybe 2 of those?) can have abilities that replace attacks, perhaps while still allowing the base class secondary riders.

Ie, at level 1/3, you can grant an attack to an ally within 30ft who can hear you instead of making one without spending a (whatever the cost normally is). When you do, you can use one of your [class feature] options as if you had made the attack.

Done. The basis of the “lazylord” is covered, and higher level features are just scaling and exploring the space.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I mean, I’ll try to maintain enthusiasm for the project if it doesn’t have extra attack, but...it just seems bafflingly weird for the class to fall behind the absolute baseline warrior class damage before extra damage mechanics.

I don't think it's baffling at all. In fact, I think it makes total sense that a support class falls behind the main warrior class. Because they are a support class, not a baseline warrior. And have other features focusing on support rather than martial DPR.

*Edit And I"m not sure why you keep saying this "non attacking" class. Every class attacks. Just in different ways. There are many examples of classes that attack with weapons and don't get extra attacks (like most clerics and rogues). What seems baffling is that you seem to be equating a "non attacking class" with one like the war cleric because neither gets an extra attack. Pretty sure the war cleric attacks, and they don't really get extra attacks. Only a limited number of times, and you have to use a bonus action to do so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think it's baffling at all. In fact, I think it makes total sense that a support class falls behind the main warrior class. Because they are a support class, not a baseline warrior. And have other features focusing on support rather than martial DPR.

But they are a warrior. They’re not a front line damage dealer, but they’re still a warrior. They’re like the ranger, except hopefully designed well. If you don’t take damage spells, and find a support/exploration focused subclass, you aren’t going to be in the top half of damage in the party, but you can still fight competently when called upon.
The warlord just gets support features instead of exploration features, and more support abilities than non support abilities.

Using extra attack with options to replace attacks with support manuevers allows the class to choose at each attack whether to focus on support, or to lead the attack.
And leading the attack should not be a secondary archetype siloed into a subclass. It should be one of the primary ways to build nearly any member of the class.

whether it’s a vanguard, an outlaw, a rabble rouser, or yes, tactician, everybroad type of warlord should be capable of leading from the front.
The idea of leading the attack being a tertiary thing that only 1 or two subclasses get is just...absolutely bonkers!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*