D&D (2024) How should the Warlord be implemented in 1DnD?
Undrave
Legend
I made multiple attempt at a Warlord for 5e and every one of them ran into the same damn issue: Spellcasters.
Making a support class for other Martial types is really easy. A +X to attack here, a +dX to damage there, pretty simple stuff, writes itself really… But when those DAMN Spellcasters and their friggin’ saving throws show up you gotta contort your wording and find some balanced way to also synergize with your spell slinging team mate. Because 5e is the ‘Spell Edition’ you are likely to have more spellcaster teammates than non-spellcasting one, so you gotta account for them if you want a proper support character.
The warlord thrives in an environment where every offensive action of the PC is an attack roll. This half-attack, half-saves, system throws everything out of whack.
You also run into the issue that there’s no standard wording for effects that can be ended by a saving throw on subsequent turns that would be a good place to buff. The 5e system is not… systematic… enough to make writing a Warlord easy.
Making a support class for other Martial types is really easy. A +X to attack here, a +dX to damage there, pretty simple stuff, writes itself really… But when those DAMN Spellcasters and their friggin’ saving throws show up you gotta contort your wording and find some balanced way to also synergize with your spell slinging team mate. Because 5e is the ‘Spell Edition’ you are likely to have more spellcaster teammates than non-spellcasting one, so you gotta account for them if you want a proper support character.
The warlord thrives in an environment where every offensive action of the PC is an attack roll. This half-attack, half-saves, system throws everything out of whack.
You also run into the issue that there’s no standard wording for effects that can be ended by a saving throw on subsequent turns that would be a good place to buff. The 5e system is not… systematic… enough to make writing a Warlord easy.
Why couldn't Warlords increase save DC's or impose disadvantage on enemy saves then? Saving throws aren't completely the province of spellcasters; Battlemasters and Monks have abilities that require saves.
Undrave
Legend
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that any ability that it gets REALLY wordy, and fast, if you have to throw that into anything. It makes everything twice as complex as it needs to be.
Furthermore, a bonus to attack is not always worth a bonus to a save DC because attacks and spells aren’t balanced to one another.
When a 4e warrior gives a +INT to an ally’s next attack roll, any of the classes can spend a daily resource to make use of it and land a big effect.
Giving your INT to a Wizard’s Save DC is much more impactful than a +INT to the fighter’s next attack, for exemple.
Vaalingrade
Legend
mellored
Legend
Vaalingrade
Legend
Both. They're just death spiral mechanics all in the same vein of the attitude that makes Exploration so miserable: more penalties equals interest.
I think I'd need an example, in my mind it seems pretty simple, like:
"Bolstering Shout": using a bonus action, you utter a battle cry that gives all allies that can hear you a +1d4 bonus to attack rolls and the save DC's of their abilities.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You clearly didn’t track what you were replying to, then, before replying. Because what you replied to had nothing to do with the warlord, and your reply did not clarify that you were replying to me about the warlord, which is something I hadn’t even been talking about.
That’s the exchange you interjected into without checking the context. An exchange about the psion.
Undrave
Legend
In this case you could use it on the Rogue who might get 2 attacks on a target and might still miss both! OR on the Wizard who could unload a Fireball on 6 enemies. Why would you ever Bolster anybody but the casters? How often do you get to Bolster and what do you balance it against? The Rogue’s minor action attack or the Caster’s highest level spell?
Similar Threads
