D&D 5E New UE Classes

[CapnZapp]

But, at the end of the day, the leader has been covered. There's a feat, a bard subclasses, and two fighter subclasses that touch on its abilities. Each of those appeals to some fans of the archetype. There's less pressure for a full class, which would also make those options redundant. In contrast, there's a lot of other builds and archetypes that haven't been covered once, let alone four times. "Not perfectly replicating a class from an old edition" isn't a strong enough reason to go back to it again.

If you are talking about the warlord, that argument will only infuriate its defenders.

Efforts like the purple knight does nothing for the Warlord fan, and so it is a poor argument for not providing a real Warlord.

There is no existing or UA subclass that comes even close to what the Warlord fans want: which is completely magic-free healing combined with a sturdy chassis for "remote controlling" your allies.

Somewhat like the battlemaster maneuver subsystem but with all the choices geared towards using your allies as playing pieces.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5E lacks the terminology to separate between "a regular attack, one that you can apply any game effect to" (I don't know: paladin smites; sneak damage; the +10 from greatweapon mastery just to pick three) and a "restricted limited attack that is ability plus weapon and nothing else".

5e does have a distinction between an action used to attack (which kicks in Extra Attack) and a single attack roll that's vaguely comparable to (though certainly not the same as) the 3.5 attack/full attack and 4e basic-attack/class-power distinctions.

Besides, 5e lacks all sorts of terminology (jargon) because:natural language, and that doesn't stop it from including things that used such in the past for clarity (and brevity). So, under the 5e natural language style, a lot of maneuvers might contain repeated language like "...can make a single attack roll against an enemy, but cannot apply...." or the like.

 

[Jester David]

If you are talking about the warlord, that argument will only infuriate its defenders.

Efforts like the purple knight does nothing for the Warlord fan, and so it is a poor argument for not providing a real Warlord.

There is no existing or UA subclass that comes even close to what the Warlord fans want: which is completely magic-free healing combined with a sturdy chassis for "remote controlling" your allies.

Somewhat like the battlemaster maneuver subsystem but with all the choices geared towards using your allies as playing pieces.

No true Scotsman, eh?

I'm sure many "warlord fans" are quite happy with the purple dragon knight or valor bard or any of the dozen 3PP takes on the warlord.

 

[CapnZapp]

No true Scotsman, eh?

I'm sure many "warlord fans" are quite happy with the purple dragon knight or valor bard or any of the dozen 3PP takes on the warlord.

Okay if you say so.

Still doesn't mean those wanting a Warlord should be denied one.

 

[CapnZapp]

5e does have a distinction between an action used to attack (which kicks in Extra Attack) and a single attack roll that's vaguely comparable to (though certainly not the same as) the 3.5 attack/full attack and 4e basic-attack/class-power distinctions.

Besides, 5e lacks all sorts of terminology (jargon) because:natural language, and that doesn't stop it from including things that used such in the past for clarity (and brevity). So, under the 5e natural language style, a lot of maneuvers might contain repeated language like "...can make a single attack roll against an enemy, but cannot apply...." or the like.

It does separate "attack" from "attack action" if that's what you mean.

And yes, I'm not saying the problem can't be solved; just that it's a design challenge to keep in mind.

Take the NPC Warlord (from Volo) as an example. It's got the "command ally" ability as a legendary action allowing it to grant one ally a weapon attack (with advantage no less). Since this expends the target's reaction, it doesn't get into trouble - but now consider if it didn't:

Such a NPC Warlord would be Daisy the Rogue's best friend. After Ann's turn - sneak attack by Daisy! After Bob's turn - sneak attack by Daisy! After Cyril's turn - sneak attack by Daisy!

 

[fuindordm]

I'm a big warlord fan, but I think the battlemaster suffices.

Regarding new classes, in addition to the Mystic and Artificer the only other one that I feel is needed is a fully Mundane Ranger for low-magic games. They'll probably release the alt-ranger, but I really, really wish the spellcasting were not part of the core class.

Ideally, I'd like a mundane core ranger with the subclasses Hunter (powerful favored enemy), Beastmaster (powerful companion), and Spellcaster (minor spellcasting equivalent to Eldritch Knight)--but I'm not going to get it. If I don't get it, then I would like two alt-rangers, the one I'm going to get and another one without any subclasses or spellcasting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm a big warlord fan

, but are you a True Scotsman?

I'm sure many "warlord fans" are quite happy with the purple dragon knight or valor bard.

Possibly almost as many as wizard fans who would be quite happy to have only the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Charlatan to choose from.

any of the dozen 3PP takes on the warlord.

You exagerate wildly. Both in number, there might a few, and in that they're not 3pp, but DMsG.

But, even if there were a great 3pp Warlord in a published 5th edition of the world's first RPG compatible supplement somewhere it wouldn't blunt the desire for an official version. If D&D fans were so easily molified, there'd've been no edition war in the first place, as d20 made 3pp material of the sort desired available in perprtuity. No edition war, no rift to heal, no 5e. That there is a 5e is proof positive that you can't just toss some of your fans and expect 3pps to take up the slack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It does separate "attack" from "attack action" if that's what you mean.

And yes, I'm not saying the problem can't be solved; just that it's a design challenge to keep in mind.

Take the NPC Warlord (from Volo) as an example. It's got the "command ally" ability as a legendary action allowing it to grant one ally a weapon attack (with advantage no less). Since this expends the target's reaction, it doesn't get into trouble - but now consider if it didn't:

Such a NPC Warlord would be Daisy the Rogue's best friend. After Ann's turn - sneak attack by Daisy! After Bob's turn - sneak attack by Daisy! After Cyril's turn - sneak attack by Daisy!

So, your point is that a hypothetical Warlord class, like all extant PC options, should not have Legendary Actions. Hardly an unfair stipulation, but not a critically important one, I'd think.

 

[Xeviat]

The warlord letting he Rogue take extra sneak attacks isn't really a big issue if the Warlord is giving up their action to let the Rogue do this. If the rogue's sneak attack were the best thing for a warlord to use their action, then you simply have to balance the warlord against the rogue. An action is an action. Rogue sneak attacks seem about as good as fighter full attacks to me, aren't they?

Level 1 Rogue: 1d6+Dex (main) +1d6 off hand +1d6 sneak attack. (13.5)
Level 1 Fighter: 2d6*+Str. (11.33)

Lvl 5 Rogue: 5d6+Dex potential (21.5)
Level 5 Fighter: 4d6*+(str*2) (24.66)

Level 11 Rogue: 8d6+Dex potential (33)
Level 11 Fighter: 6d6*+(Str*3) (40)

The rogue is definitely more smooth, but they're pretty close; close enough for Government work. If the Warlord could only grant a single attack, then definitely you wouldn't want it to have sneak attack, or anything really.

I wanted to build a Warlord off the Warlock chassis. Spells would become per shortrest abilities, and be chosen from a list based around the least magical of bard spells. At-will abilities would be constructed around cantrips like greenflame blade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

So, your point is that a hypothetical Warlord class, like all extant PC options, should not have Legendary Actions. Hardly an unfair stipulation, but not a critically important one, I'd think.

Heh. Well, no... again I'm talking about one of the ways a "real" Warlord distingishing itself from the rather timid attempts we've gotten so far: the ability to actually give away actions, and not just at the expense of the target's reaction (since that is not really a net gain).

The design challenge is to phrase this ability in a succtinct way and still avoid all the baggage of a regular attack.