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

[doctorbadwolf]

One thought I had, from a balance tool perspective, is that we have in two of the Monk subclasses, a direct Ki to spell level conversion. We can use that as a gauge to help us balance both spell like effects and other abilities. From the Paladin class we have a spell level to damage die conversion tool in Divine Smite. Between those two tools we can do a lot of work to balance out some of the ideas we've had.

The trouble is, do we trust the shadow monk or elemental monk more, in terms of what a spell should cost.

Shadow monk, spells cost 1ki/spell level

Elemental monk, spells cost 1+1ki/spell level.

I think that cost is a big part of why the elemental monk kinda sucks, which the proposed UA enhancement mostly solves by adding a martials arts attack to any use of the disciplines, but it still leaves the elemental monk behind other spell using monks. We already have that built in with the wording of Marshal's Gambit, where any time you attack or use an ability that costs Mettle as an action you can grant a bonus to damage to someone, but the cost remains.

So, should marshal spell equivalents cost 1 mettle/spell level, or 1+1/level?

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?

The current setup was come up with in the old thread lowkey started, but I'm open to arguments about which setup is better. I do think there's merit to the argument that a Marshal isn't as likely as a fighter or ranger to have high con, and thus will likely have less HP than them on average even at the same HD, and they don't have any of the defensive abilities of the other d8 classes. But, OTOH, if they get medium armor and shields, maybe that evens out?

What about something unique, like a bonus to AC from "tactical positioning", which is simplified down to a bonus equal to the number of allies within your presence? This would come online just late enough that most PCs aren't going to MC Marshal just for that bonus, say level 5 or 6?

Just throwing ideas around.

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.

Well, sure. The cost is that it's one of your rather limited class features. The Monk doesn't pay some extra cost for gaining Martial Arts, it's just their main class feature which means they don't gain some other class feature.

So, I don't think that granting an attack needs to cost anything more than one of your attacks, any more than the rogue has to spend something to get Sneak Attack. But it should have limits, and since the Marshal is a class with spendable points, there should be an ability to do it better if you spend points.


Query to all: Should Marshal's Gambit use the bonus action, or stay as it is?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Query to all: Should Marshal's Gambit use the bonus action, or stay as it is?

Lots of things use bonus actions, so it's a matter of whether there's something else you want to freeze out from use with a Gambit.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, at the very least we should limit the extra attacks granted in any one turn to any one ally to one, at least until some much higher level. The GWM PAM Paladin doesn't need two extra attacks a turn.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, at the very least we should limit the extra attacks granted in any one turn to any one ally to one, at least until some much higher level. The GWM PAM Paladin doesn't need two extra attacks a turn.

I'm not sure I follow? Extra Attack is how most of your weapon-using allies' attacks are going to scale with level, right?

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not sure I follow? Extra Attack is how most of your weapon-using allies' attacks are going to scale with level, right?

Giving the same ally two additional attacks in the same turn seems a little strong to me, that's all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Giving the same ally two additional attacks in the same turn seems a little strong to me, that's all.

OK. I mean, if they get two attacks on all their turns, anyway, that's just their normal damage. I can see the issue with giving two attacks to a character that normally only gets one, just because the Marshal gets two being a serious problem, though - though, I suppose that's mostly just the Rogue...

I wonder if you could make the action-grant, well, an action that grants an action - with some sort of proviso like the target only benefits from the lower of his extra attacks or the marshal's?
That might also address the concerns of a lower-level marshal granting attacks to a higher-level ally.

Seems like, ceteris paribus, it'd mostly serve to make Fighters less attractive targets of the grant at high level.

 

[Fenris-77]

I actually meant two more on top of what they already get at whatever level. So, for example, doubling the Paladins attacks at level 5 from 2 to 4. One additional attack stacked on top seems like lots.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I actually meant two more on top of what they already get at whatever level. So, for example, doubling the Paladins attacks at level 5 from 2 to 4. One additional attack stacked on top seems like lots.

Oh right, rather than happening on the Marshal's turn, the granted attacks happen on the ally's next turn? That just means they happen later, which might have an impact based on where the two PCs are in the initiative order...

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm. What turn they happen on would probably depend on initiative.

Here's my issue as plainly as possible. At level 5 the Marshal has two attacks per attack action. He also has the ability to grant attacks to allies. Do we think it's ok that he grant both of those attacks, at whatever cost, to the same ally on the same turn? My thought was no, but I'll roll with the majority opinion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's my issue as plainly as possible. At level 5 the Marshal has two attacks per attack action. He also has the ability to grant attacks to allies. Do we think it's ok that he grant both of those attacks, at whatever cost, to the same ally on the same turn? My thought was no, but I'll roll with the majority opinion.

I see what you mean, it's not an obvious call.
I mean, if you're granting attacks to an ally who normally has multiple attacks - like a high-level fighter (let's assume of the same level, for now) - then if you can't give him multiple attacks, you're losing his normal level scaling, while other granted attacks might not lose scaling. OTOH, if can grant two attacks on your turn, and grant them both to one ally who's single attack does scale (or even two different ones like that), you're doubling up on that scaling.

That's where granting an action (the attack action, I guess? or "an action that must be used to attack?"), vs granting attacks, starts to make more sense: it allows allies to do their thing, scaled their way.