D&D 5E Homebrew Marshal Class (+Thread)

[Tony Vargas]

@Tony Vargas - The name's a dead issue dude, let it go. If we think of something cooler we can use it, but there's no profit I can see in cluttering up the thread with it at this point.

This is a "+" thread. That means that this thread is only for positive contributions about the Warlord. The purpose of this thread is to crowdsource a Warlord.

I have made positive contributions about the Warlord, specifically in why it was a good name for a new take on the Warlord class.

I came up with as many as I could for the alternate name Marshal, too.

On balance, I think the former outweigh the latter. Particularly given the mission statement of the thread using "Warlord," itself.

 

[TwoSix]

I can totally see the Monk chassis working well.

Have we discussed proficiencies and stuff like that? 'Cause I volunteer the set up I did for my homebrew if you guys want:



We could easily go down to D8 HP if you think it would be better. I still think a class that wants good mental stats would end up with less HP than other D10 classes and would balance out. Especially without Evasion and easy disengage.



Not to hijack the thread of anything, but have you taken a look at my own aforementioned home-brew?

I did, actually...I had some thoughts, but I don't want to clutter up this thread with them. I'll make a post over there.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, I like the reaction stuff as defense and maybe healing, at least to start. Attack based stuff as a reaction should be farther up the food chain.

Much higher, yea. Every ability they get to leverage someone's action needs to have a high cost, as they're almost certainly leveraging the highest offense character's abilities. You can be a little more liberal with the action grants IF you add rules to ensure any one character only gets one extra attack per round as you'll be giving attacks to the 2nd strongest character, 3rd strongest, etc.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Tony Vargas - We've already had a thread about this derailed due to people being more interested in pushing buttons that anything else. Can we maybe not start doing the same thing to this thread right off the bat? I'd appreciate it, and I know DBW would too. Thanks.

 

[Fenris-77]

Much higher, yea. Every ability they get to leverage someone's action needs to have a high cost, as they're almost certainly leveraging the highest offense character's abilities. You can be a little more liberal with the action grants IF you add rules to ensure any one character only gets one extra attack per round as you'll be giving attacks to the 2nd strongest character, 3rd strongest, etc.

Yeah, there's significantly diminished returns past probably the first couple of attacks in the case of most parties. I agree about the costing too.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok, so it looks like the low-level action economy functions like this:

1) Action: Attack with weapon, OR spend 1 Mettle to grant ally attack, OR possibly subclass feature.
2) No action: When attack or mettle use as an action, grant one ally 1 GD to damage on next attack.
3) Bonus action: 1 mettle to do something (right now that looks like monk leftovers).

I would encourage the following to fill out Tier 1.

1) If the subclasses are going to be at level 1, this is the point to make sure the outline of the subclasses are fleshed out and given some low-level abilities. There's gaps in the action economy that look custom-made to be filled with subclass features.

Yep. The plan, from the last thread, was to make level 1 where the basic identity and strategy of each subclass comes into play, just like with a cleric. Giving them different things to do with the bonus action coould fit here, but I'm tempted to make these be upgrades to various Gambits that cost mettle, like Open Hand and Drunken Master monks upgrade Flurry of Blows rather than replace it.

2) I would say a utility bonus action that costs 0 Mettle should come online by level 3, otherwise there's a stronger incentive for the class to fill the gap with Polearm master. We don't need any more classes that synergize with Polearm Master. Ability differentiated by subclass would fit in well here, maybe a level 3 ability?

Agreed. Perhaps a simple movement boost? This would dramatically change party tactics in every fight by allowing free movement nearly every round potentially. Still, if the stuff that costs mettle is stronger, it won't happen every round except in fights that feel low-threat. Any other ideas?
Preliminarily, you'd use a bonus action to grant all allies within your presence a safe movement equal to your presence radius? So, it would start at 15ft. Then one of the Gambits would be to spend 1 Mettle to grant movement equal to twice that, with a bonus to any ability checks made as part of the movement equal to your GB? This would be the step of the wind equivalent.

3) I would say at least one subclass should be able to fill in the lazylord niche by gaining a 0 Mettle attack grant. I got outvoted on the methodology of the attack grant, which is totally OK, but I still feel strongly that even a crowdsourced Marshal should be able to do a lazylord (lazy-shal?)

Absolutely. I think that perhaps in place of Stunning Strike, the Marshal might gain the ability to spend 1 ki in place of an attack as part of the attack action and grant an attack to an ally who can see and hear them, against 1 enemy, either attacker or target must be within presence, etc. Stunning Strike leaves a pretty significant power budget, tbh. That's one reason I liked the Monk for this project.

I think that attacks and attack given up is where granted attacks belong if you follow me. The BA slot sounds like a good place for some of the more defensive or utility options. So I wouldn't design an granted attack coming from the Marshal's bonus action. Not at low levels anyway. I'd rather buff an existing attack grant at higher levels by shifting it over to the BA slot.

A less martial subclass with a 0 mettle attack grant shouldn't be a huge issue, especially if that precludes doing some of the other stuff the class is capable of using that action for. I don't mind it being a choice, but I'd prefer it to be a choice with consequences.

Are we saving reaction based abilities for higher than Tier 1 levels (or least levels 1-3)? I'm ok with that.

A tactician who grants attacks at-will at only the cost of their own attacks sounds perfect, to me.

The question with all attack granting is, should it cost the attacker their reaction? Should the main class version grant it on the attacker's next turn, while the tactician grants it as a reaction? Something else?

Reaction based abilities as of right now come online at level 3 with Warning Shout. It's a defensive ability that has a chance of allowing you to spend 1 mettle to grant an attack using the attacker's reaction. Could be upgraded at a higher level to not use the ally's reaction, if we want to keep the base class simpler than the monk, and upgrade more abilities in some places where the monk grants a whole new thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Much higher, yea. Every ability they get to leverage someone's action needs to have a high cost, as they're almost certainly leveraging the highest offense character's abilities. You can be a little more liberal with the action grants IF you add rules to ensure any one character only gets one extra attack per round as you'll be giving attacks to the 2nd strongest character, 3rd strongest, etc.

All you need to accomplish that are two things.

1, require the use of the attacker's reaction.

2, Limit the Marshal's ability to grant attacks by leveraging the Marshal's action economy. ie, you can do it twice on your turn, because you can only trade attacks as part of the attack action, and you don't get more extra attacks.

2a, don't make granted attacks simply add to the attack action of the ally being granted an attack, if we do make it "the ally can make an additional attack on their turn", and instead word it so that it isn't part of the attack action, and we don't have to worry about 4 tactician warlords stacking extra attacks onto a vanguard warlord for some sort of stakcing damage bonus granted attack shenanigans.

 

[Undrave]

Agreed. I would vote against any attack granted as a bonus action, until at least Tier 2 with a Mettle cost or a Tier 3 upgrade. Especially since attacks granted at those levels are a lot more likely to have riders attached. (Divine Smite, Divine Strike, GWM or SS, etc.)

Ideally, I'd like to see at least one subclass where the attack grant is their primary at-will. If there isn't one in the finalized version, I can always homebrew a subclass for the homebrew.

I would definitely vote for reaction-based abilities at Tier 2. This might be a good place for reaction-based damage prevention (as a form of preventive healing).

I think the POINT of granting attacks would be to trade your own, mediocre attacks, with your allies' superior attack. So trading one of your attack for it seems like the basic.

 

[Fenris-77]

That upgrade shouldn't be free though. Which it essentially is if you just give up the BA. Even giving up your own actual attack should probably cost something since the resulting shared attack will likely be far more effective, not to mention the added bonus of focused fire.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even giving up your own actual attack should probably cost something since the resulting shared attack will likely be far more effective, not to mention the added bonus of focused fire.

When MM was building his micro-Warlord fighter archetype, he opined that was not a problem, that it was just something 'cool' for players to figure out to do, or something like that.
And, TBF, it's more a buff to the ally's DPR than a boosting of the Marshal's, just at the cost of his own action - which, even if his attacks aren't awesome, should be a meaningful cost, since, presumably, his only alternative wont be just attacking himself every round.

I think the POINT of granting attacks would be to trade your own, mediocre attacks, with your allies' superior attack. So trading one of your attack for it seems like the basic.

That's the Marshalazy/Lazy'shal? idea, sure, and to do so at-will.
For other archetypes, the point of an attack grant might be to pile-on to the target of the Marshal's own, meaningful, attack - that kind of thing, though, wouldn't make tons of sense at-will, but rather with a 'point' spend.