Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 6725911" data-attributes="member: 5142">MOVED from Rogue:Mastermind thread: Would you agree that a class constructs a package of abilities in a way that typically better provides you with a smoother progression and sense of character/archetype growth? Would you agree that multiclassing a lot of classes tends to slow down a lot of progression (e.g., ability modifiers, feats, etc.). Not snarky. Just want to make sure we agree on some basic viewpoints. Keep in mind that this is my own sense for the warlord. I have not attempted to construct a homebrew warlord for 5e. It's really just brainstorming at this point. Some of this may even be moved to particular sub-classes of the warlord. IMHO, the battle master is akin to the warlock. It has a limited list of known maneuvers and a resource that it can expend X times between rests, and it's effectively 'cast' at maximum potency. Preferably, the warlord would go more the direction of the wizard or cleric in terms of superiority dice and maneuvers: possibly different tiers of superiority dice and maneuvers with ranging costs and limitations. And while the BM picks maneuvers that they know, the warlord could prepare maneuvers every day from a list, almost like a quarterback preparing plays and initial gameplans. And this would certainly further distinguish the BM from the warlord. This would likely put the superiority dice on a "per day" model as opposed to the BM's "between rests" model. Here is where I would definitely say that testing would need to be done, since spells can be resisted or stripped via anti-magic, so the warlord's 'non-magical' maneuvers would have to be balanced with that consideration in mind. Some seem to think that the core warlord should get extra attack as per core. I would err on the conservative side before playtesting here by initially reserving "extra attack" for one of the warlord sub-classes, perhaps the sort of basic sub-class (e.g. rogue:thief, cleric:life domain, fighter:champion, etc.). In terms of weapon and armor proficiency, possibly restrict it to just light armor proficiency but with martial weapon training and maybe shields. Again, sub-classes could add further armor training. So a hypothetical 'lazylord' - not my thing but whatever - could be an arcane-magic warlord sub-class (the herald), and it would only have light armor proficiency. You see the battle master as 5e's answer to the 4e warlord, but when I read the battle master's abilities, I see it as being 5e's answer to the 3e expertise-feat branch fighter, and I would like to keep that as the battle master's schtick. I have said elsewhere that I prefer that most of the battle master's maneuvers to be unique to the battle master, but with the warlord expanding its own list of support-oriented maneuvers, with only minor overlap with the BM. (Aside: I would like to see other classes or sub-classes with maneuvers, since then WotC could develop maneuver lists similar to spell lists. Spell lists tend to get expanded more readily than martial abilities, apart from maybe feats. And maneuvers have the potential to be the martial answer to spells. After all, it's not as if the EK and AT dilute the flavor of the wizard because they all have spells.) In terms of healing, I think that the warlord should have HP healing options among these maneuvers that are quasi-competitive with magic healers. Magic healers should still be preferred in most cases due to miraculous things like revive, raise dead, restoration, etc. I don't see the warlord as being as good of a healer as a cleric, druid, or bard. Some bare basics: a single-target touch, a single-target range, an AoE. The warlord may even provide their superiority dice as healing, but acting effectively as 'bonus HD,' which is an idea that gained some traction among pro-warlord and anti-warlord discussants working towards a compromise. Perhaps the warlord grants a party member a superiority dice for the explicit purpose of healing: i.e. the recipient can choose on their own gosh-darn terms when they want to feel inspired to draw upon their internal reserves. Essentially, using superiority dice to empower others with their own second winds. The HP healing could even come a bit slower than with the other classes. I would place the emphasis for the warlord then on damage mitigation. So for example, there could be a maneuver that provides someone within sight of the warlord with resistance against piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage: call it "Brace for Impact!" or something. And yes, there could be THP. It's just that there should be sufficient - and I well realize that's an ambiguously dangerous word - HP healing available to the warlord. Again, this is something that would need playtesting. This is where I would start. "Help as a bonus action" is an idea that people have thrown around. I think it's a flavorful idea for a warlord that definitely brings a lot to the table, but it's not something I see as necessary or a deal breaker. It's more of a "if there's room for it" type thing. This sort of power could be replicated by maneuvers/superiority dice on a more limited resource. For the record, compare that to a third-level (valor) bard. At that point they gain 2nd-level spells - allowing them to heal like a cleric and an at-will cantrip that gives an opponent disadvantage - bardic inspiration (1d6), jack-of-all-trades, song of rest (1d6), expertise, martial weapons, shields, medium armor, and combat inspiration.</blockquote>

Verification