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

[doctorbadwolf]

Tough to make any comments until it's been marked black or orange. I don't wish to spend time critiquing or overanalyzing any decision that's been finalized.

well, assume anything can be changed, even if it is finalised. We can always review something after a consensus, because the consensus can changed based on new decisions.

That said, I will be putting things that haven't been touched in orange, or that are just placeholders, right now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We had a vote on it and that's what won? Not a fan of it myself but le shrug

My favorites all ranked fairly low, with the highest being Captain, which was in like 4th place, IIRC.

So, I could be selfish and just pick the one that is highest ranked of those I actually like, or I could just use Marshal because I don't care that much as long as it isn't an actively bad name, and move on.

As for the chassis, since that also came up, others are obviously welcome to use the bard or any other class. I am not going to work out a fitting replacement for spellcasting on a very heavy spellcasting class. The chassis poll is interesting, but ultimately the people making the thing (originally me, @Fenris-77 and @lowkey13 for the most part) need to like the basic structure of the chassis class for the homebrew class. We liked the structure of the monk, and the ability to either focus on a very small set of limited use abilities to supplement a mostly at-will class, or focus harder on those limited use abilities and expand the list of options, all on a class that gets a healthy mix of damage, defense, control, exploration, and interaction, benefits. The marshal will probably have more interaction where the monk has more exploration, but the model is a very easy fit.

And that is the last I will say on it, in this thread.

 

[Fenris-77]

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.

 

[TwoSix]

well, assume anything can be changed, even if it is finalised. We can always review something after a consensus, because the consensus can changed based on new decisions.

That said, I will be putting things that haven't been touched in orange, or that are just placeholders, right now.

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.
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?
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?)

 

[Fenris-77]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Taking you at your word in the OP:

Positives about using the Warlord as the name for the Warlord class:

Obviously, a big one is continuity with the original class and concept, as illustrated by the choice to use "Warlord" in the OP quoted above, twice. Warlord clearly communicates the concept and puts it immediately in the context of D&D, where it was a core class appearing in a PH1.

Warlord, like "adventurer," implies absence and/or defiance of authority, and the use of force (and other less polite means) to accomplish goals under difficult circumstances where civilized solutions are not always available. Warlords don't require a military hierarchy, officer's training school or the backing of a society with armed forces, they spring up, much like other adventurers, though, in their case, more defined by their allies than anything else.

The word is suggestive of the genre, both in the mere look & sound of the primitive-feeling portmanteau of War + Lord, and in it's usage therein.

Evokes specific fantasy and related-genre heroic characters, like John Carter, Xena, and DC's Warlord.

Similarly, another interesting one is imagery. Do a google image search for Warlord:

Pretty fantasy/D&D-appropriate

 

[Undrave]

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:

Hit Points

• Hit Dice: 1d10 per warlord level
• Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + your Constitution modifier
• Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d10 (or 6) + your Constitution modifier per warlord level after 1st

Proficiencies

• Armor: Light armor, Medium armor, Shields
• Weapons: Simple weapons, halberd, longsword, pike, shortsword, warhammer
• Tools: Choose one from Calligrapher's supplies, Cartographer's tools, Herbalism kit, Navigator's tools or one musical instrument

• Saving Throws: Intelligence, Wisdom
• Skills: Choose three from Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidate, Medecine, Nature and Persuasion

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:

• (a) a longword and a shield, (b) two simple weapons, or (c)a pike
• (a) five javelins or (b) a shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows
• (a) a diplomat's pack, (b) a dungeoneer's pack, or (c) an explorer's pack
• (a) scale armor or (b) leather armor and a shield
• One tool or instrument you are proficient with

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.

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?)

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

 

[Fenris-77]

@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.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

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).

 

[Fenris-77]

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.