Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Homebrewed Warlord take 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7940813" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>I love the structure and basic ideas of the class, first of all. I do have various concerns, however.</p><p></p><p><strong>Battlefield Insight</strong> has too many "if, then" clauses required for it to do anything. I'd either </p><p></p><p>*make it so that you apply insight dice regardless of hit or miss, and/or make the dice only be spent if you hit (or the ally decides whether to use the dice after hitting)</p><p>or</p><p>*raise the die up to at least a d10</p><p></p><p>Remember that the rogue is dealing that damage, on top of a lot of other really strong abilities, simply by hitting at least once per turn. Your insight dice are...much less likely to get used, than the rogues sneak attack dice. One die step is a very small difference comparatively. At level 20, you're talking about a difference of ~10 damage, on average. </p><p>You also aren't as often actually adding that many dice to an individual round of damage dealing.</p><p></p><p><strong>Shouts and Signals </strong>are interesting. Why not have a clause that you can put Insight Dice on a target if they are targeted by an attack granted to an ally by you? Or perhaps just say, you can use Battlefield Insight on a target you can see within X feet whenever you take the Attack Action. That way, regardless of what you do with your Attack Action, you can be applying the core ability of the class. Especially since Signals require Insight Dice to even use. </p><p>Right now, Shouts and Signals work directly against eachother until level 5. That is really the main thing that would make me reluctant to play this class, as it is. I don't want my core class features to be mutually exclusive. </p><p></p><p>If the int requirement of Signals there for balance, or flavor? Because IRL a dog could probably be taught these things and in dnd said dog would have an int of 3 or something. Maybe require an extra hour per signal for int below 6? Or an animal handling check or the help of a character who the animal trusts and takes commands from? </p><p></p><p>Some of the signals, like pin the legs, are going to be confusing for a lot of players. Is the idea for the class to be "advanced", with a steeper learning curve than other 5e classes? If not, maybe it should just cost 1 die, halve their speed or deny them the ability to disengage, and allow you to spend more insight dice later on to hinder them further or continue the effect. Also, a lot of these should require a save. Without that, they're more powerful than a lot of battlemaster maneuvers. </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure the balance works out of allowing someone to draw and use an object as a reaction having no cost beyond your bonus action. </p><p></p><p><strong>Why No Synergy With Casters?</strong> I know this was an item of contention in my own marshal thread, but it just makes no sense to me that such a character would not no idea, unless utterly specialised in doing so, how to get more out of the spellcasters around them. Strike! could easily allow an extra spell attack that deals 1 of the same die of the same damage type if the ally casts a cantrip that requires an attack roll, for instance. </p><p>Or, a shout that simply increases the chance to hit and the damage of the ally's next attack, and don't specify attack action or weapon attack. </p><p></p><p>The rest looks good, but I'm not as worried about anything above level 5 or 6 in a class.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7940813, member: 6704184"] I love the structure and basic ideas of the class, first of all. I do have various concerns, however. [B]Battlefield Insight[/B] has too many "if, then" clauses required for it to do anything. I'd either *make it so that you apply insight dice regardless of hit or miss, and/or make the dice only be spent if you hit (or the ally decides whether to use the dice after hitting) or *raise the die up to at least a d10 Remember that the rogue is dealing that damage, on top of a lot of other really strong abilities, simply by hitting at least once per turn. Your insight dice are...much less likely to get used, than the rogues sneak attack dice. One die step is a very small difference comparatively. At level 20, you're talking about a difference of ~10 damage, on average. You also aren't as often actually adding that many dice to an individual round of damage dealing. [B]Shouts and Signals [/B]are interesting. Why not have a clause that you can put Insight Dice on a target if they are targeted by an attack granted to an ally by you? Or perhaps just say, you can use Battlefield Insight on a target you can see within X feet whenever you take the Attack Action. That way, regardless of what you do with your Attack Action, you can be applying the core ability of the class. Especially since Signals require Insight Dice to even use. Right now, Shouts and Signals work directly against eachother until level 5. That is really the main thing that would make me reluctant to play this class, as it is. I don't want my core class features to be mutually exclusive. If the int requirement of Signals there for balance, or flavor? Because IRL a dog could probably be taught these things and in dnd said dog would have an int of 3 or something. Maybe require an extra hour per signal for int below 6? Or an animal handling check or the help of a character who the animal trusts and takes commands from? Some of the signals, like pin the legs, are going to be confusing for a lot of players. Is the idea for the class to be "advanced", with a steeper learning curve than other 5e classes? If not, maybe it should just cost 1 die, halve their speed or deny them the ability to disengage, and allow you to spend more insight dice later on to hinder them further or continue the effect. Also, a lot of these should require a save. Without that, they're more powerful than a lot of battlemaster maneuvers. I'm not sure the balance works out of allowing someone to draw and use an object as a reaction having no cost beyond your bonus action. [B]Why No Synergy With Casters?[/B] I know this was an item of contention in my own marshal thread, but it just makes no sense to me that such a character would not no idea, unless utterly specialised in doing so, how to get more out of the spellcasters around them. Strike! could easily allow an extra spell attack that deals 1 of the same die of the same damage type if the ally casts a cantrip that requires an attack roll, for instance. Or, a shout that simply increases the chance to hit and the damage of the ally's next attack, and don't specify attack action or weapon attack. The rest looks good, but I'm not as worried about anything above level 5 or 6 in a class. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Homebrewed Warlord take 2
Top