D&D 5E Boop

[doctorbadwolf]

I think having the choice between attacking and giving a bonus or foregoing your own attack to grant one to someone would be interesting.

I would definitely want the “give a bonus” action to be heftier.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also bear in mind that even the most support-ty of support classes can hold their own, on their own, to some extent. The class should not be helpless or completely ineffective when its not on its own.

There's at least one classic (if we can call 11yo 'classic') build that calls for exactly that. And, really, also mainly one that calls for attacking all the time. Really, it just needs to be a class that gives the player a lot of choice.

 

[Blue]

Which one do you think will work best?

I voted, but I did not consider the lazylord, which I think will be a bit devisive in terms of chassis. From my point of view, lazylord isn't a subclass of the 4e warlord class, it's an artifact that there happened to be non-attack powers available at enough levels to dump what was otherwise a primary part of the class, melee attacks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I voted, but I did not consider the lazylord, which I think will be a bit decisive in terms of chassis. From my point of view, lazylord isn't a subclass of the 4e warlord class, it's an artifact that there happened to be non-attack powers available at enough levels to dump what was otherwise a primary part of the class, melee attacks.

I agree.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I voted, but I did not consider the lazylord, which I think will be a bit decisive in terms of chassis. From my point of view, lazylord isn't a subclass of the 4e warlord class, it's an artifact that there happened to be non-attack powers available at enough levels to dump what was otherwise a primary part of the class, melee attacks.

There weren't enough such in the PH1, it didn't stop players from going on about the build, and essentially ignoring some of their dailies & encounters to do it. There were quite a few added in Martial Power, making it practical to go all-in on attack-granting without 'wasting' encounter/daily attack choices.

So, yeah, it started as an unintended oddity, but it ended up fully-supported.

 

[Blue]

There weren't enough such in the PH1, it didn't stop players from going on about the build, and essentially ignoring some of their dailies & encounters to do it. There were quite a few added in Martial Power, making it practical to go all-in on attack-granting without 'wasting' encounter/daily attack choices.

So, yeah, it started as an unintended oddity, but it ended up fully-supported.

And that's why I think it will be divisive. To some, the lazylord is a warlord build that needs to be supported by whatever chassis we pick in 5e. To others, the chassis should strongly support the PH1 warlord. I don't think either is "the one true path". But I do think that it will shift choice of existing classes as a chassis in non-trivial ways.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that's why I think it will be divisive. To some, the lazylord is a warlord build that needs to be supported by whatever chassis we pick in 5e. To others, the chassis should strongly support the PH1 warlord.

The PH1 Warlord was just 2 out of 6-8 builds (Archer & Lazy didn't have a specific Presence, so might be arguable), and part of the deal with 5e is classes are supposed to be able to support 6+ (or maybe it was even 10?) sub-classes...
...so focusing on just 2?

I don't think either is "the one true path". But I do think that it will shift choice of existing classes as a chassis in non-trivial ways.

I actually question the wisdom of using an existing class as anything more than a sort of resource template, if that.
Sure, there are 5e classes that are prettymuch the same, with different splat slotted into each space - Cleric & Druid, most obviously; Paladin & Ranger, for another - but there are also reasonably unique ones, like the Warlock.

 

[Blue]

The PH1 Warlord was just 2 out of 6-8 builds (Archer & Lazy didn't have a specific Presence, so might be arguable), and part of the deal with 5e is classes are supposed to be able to support 6+ (or maybe it was even 10?) sub-classes...
...so focusing on just 2?

I actually question the wisdom of using an existing class as anything more than a sort of resource template, if that.
Sure, there are 5e classes that are prettymuch the same, with different splat slotted into each space - Cleric & Druid, most obviously; Paladin & Ranger, for another - but there are also reasonably unique ones, like the Warlock.

In 5e I wouldn't expect 6+ subclasses, 4e had a different design philosophy - or perhaps more honestly a differnet publishing rate philosophy that steered design. If we're doing 3-ish subclasses for a class, what can cover the most range of the warlord?

I would put forth that the PH1 parts of the warlord are the most "iconic" to be covered, and then see what else can be fit in from there.

But I'm not wedded to that. The thing I do feel very strongly about is that if we make a 5e Warlord, we put just as much emphasis on "5e" as on "Warlord" and make it a good, seemless, fit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 5e I wouldn't expect 6+ subclasses, 4e had a different design philosophy - or perhaps more honestly a differnet publishing rate philosophy that steered design.

Apparently we should not just (eventually) expect 6+ sub-classes for any given class, but not having the potential for that many has been sited as justification for excluding a class from the edition entirely.

The thing I do feel very strongly about is that if we make a 5e Warlord, we put just as much emphasis on "5e" as on "Warlord" and make it a good, seemless, fit.

Nod. Simply porting the 4e warlord over in mechanical transliteration would be under-versatile, under-powered, and non-viable as a party's sole support contributor. No 5e support class is as constrained from stepping on other roles, particularly controller, as they were in 4e. etc..

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also bear in mind that even the most support-ty of support classes can hold their own, on their own, to some extent. The class should not be helpless or completely ineffective when its not on its own.

Except for a build or two, the 'lazy' Prince(ss) builds that work by inviting rescue or the tactician who's more theoretical than practical, or the sidekicks who's pluck and heart far exceed their skill.

There is a lot of discussion about combat powers, but I think that its important to remember that the class will need things to do outside of combat, for skill usage and such.
Granting skill bonuses like the Bard is an option, as is doing things similar to the Rogue does with skills, just to other people.

And, it seems, Bard is the clear winner.