Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7385682" data-attributes="member: 37579">As myself and others have said ad naseum, not every warlord is a lazylord. And none of the published builds fit that description, so it's not even an "official" build. While it should be part of the class, it's not a mandatory part: being a princess warlord is a build. A choice. A character decision. And in 5e, the main decision of your character is their subclass. You opt into that. Which means the action/ movement granting aspects should be in a subclass. Looking at the 4e warlord and the 3e marshal, granting movement is common to both. So that's what I prioritised for the marshal subclass. The level 3 power. The level 7 power comes after the level 5 and 6, which were both big abilities (the later being the the default class' Strategem feature, which can also grant someone an off-turn attack if planned in that direction) so that level ended up being a weaker power by design, focusing more on situational or ribbon abilities. That left 10th level for the action granting. Granting a full action is just too good. Because it's trading your two attacks for one an amazing rogue attack or three fighter attacks or a high level wizard spell. The cost you pay (what you could do on your action) is so much lower than the benefit (one of your allies' actions). Especially when you consider the action of the support character is likely not going to deal as much damage, since they're not going to have taken those feats or prioritised those ability scores. Even trading an attack for an attack runs into the same problems, as their attacks can be so much better than yours. The "cost" seems slightly less since you still need to be in a position to make an attack, but then that means the "princess" warlord still has to make attacks to grant an attack, which removes the potential of just having the character direct actions from the back. That said... the ability could grant an action like haste. Where you can move or hide or dodge but only make a single attack. But then that's getting into the realm of effectively being able to cast a 3rd level spell at-will and without the spell's downside (the lost turn). No.Because your argument is also fairly disingenuous. Are all wizards strikers then because they can choose to memorise a spell that deals damage? Would you make the exact same claim about the druid as you do about the cleric, given druids have access to just as much healing as clerics?The POINT of that argument is that the cleric =/= healer. They can heal, and when they have enough spells to prep they might feel comfortable wasting one on healing, but you can also build a cleric that is a tank (War cleric) or a face (Trickster cleric) or the party sneak (also Trickster cleric) or blaster (Light cleric, Tempest cleric). You can now have a buffing cleric that isn't a healer (Forge cleric). Because 5e classes are not bound to a single role. You don't expect the cleric of Loki or Ares or or Tiamat or Shar to heal. To focus their attentions on curing wounds over doing something else with their action. As such, the warlord should also not be bound into the single role of the healer, and should have to opt into that build. And as I said above, the decision point for characters is typically the subclass. So a healing subclass would be just fine. Just like the default sorcerer or warlock who also need to subclass into those spells/ abilities.If you include a healing ability in the warlord, that means all builds of the warlord have some mandated healing. But if the warlord isn't playing the healer, than someone else in the party is likely filling that role. So the warlord doesn't need to heal as there's a Divine Soul sorcerer or bard or Life cleric in the party. Meanwhile, the warlord is expected to be tanking or dealing damage. If one of their major abilities is focused on healing rather than a generic role-neutral ability, then that means they have an ability that does not fit their build and serves little purpose. They're less good at the role they chose to fill—what the player wants to do—and better and something they explicitly chose not to do. Could the class have an ability that lets them choose healing? Like a Totem barbarian picks from 3-5 totems or a Hunter ranger picks from a few powers. Sure. I suppose that'd work as well. That could be slotted into level 5* with "extra attack" being one of the options. But why? At that point it's still coming after the subclass (or the Healer feat). What's the benefit?  * Why level 5 and not level 1 or 2? Fighting Style at level 2 is a little funky, but it's an important choice. Like the paladin and ranger, the class does some fighting, and needs to be able to opt into two-weapon fighting or being better at ranged attacks or wearing armour. That's a key element, as warlords shouldn't be locked into sword-and-board. And giving a choice between "fighting style" and healing would be awkward creating a nesting doll of choices where one choice has its own choices... So why then not at first level? Because the first level ability should be a super iconic ability. Something universal. Something that helps define the class. Like sneak attack, rage, bardic inspiration, lay on hands, channel divinity, or unarmed strike. There shouldn't be a choice of abilities here. You shouldn't be able to trade out of your signature power.</blockquote>

Verification