D&D 5E Pick only one: What should the next class be?

What is the next class that needs to be released?

  • Warlord

    Votes: 19 15.6%
  • Psion

    Votes: 62 50.8%
  • Shaman

    Votes: 6 4.9%
  • Warden

    Votes: 7 5.7%
  • Rune priest

    Votes: 2 1.6%
  • Dedicated summoner

    Votes: 6 4.9%
  • other

    Votes: 20 16.4%

Ashrym

Legend
I think the biggest problem with the Battlemaster's Commander Strike is that in 5e your basic melee attacks don't scale as well as they did in 4e (and in 4e you had one reaction PER TURN instead of PER ROUND). Your Fighter's Attack scales with iterative attack, but in 4e you'd not get extra attacks, but instead extra damage in the same way cantrips do in 5e (with damage expressed in 'W', for Weapon Dice).

So granting an attack to anyone BUT the Rogue is usually not that much better than you getting to attack yourself unless you go for really poor STR. If you go dual wield it also eats up your bonus action.

Also, your maneuvers don't really scale well and until the UA we hadn't gotten new maneuvers at all.



If I wanted a Warlord-y character I'd need to start at level 6. Battlemaster 3/Mastermind 3. I'd probably try to go all in on the Lazylord thing and get Commander's Striker, Rally, and the new skill based maneuvers... maybe with Archery Style so I don't need THAT good of a DEX score if I ever want to attack? And the Healer Fear (or Inspirational Leader with enough CHA but I think INT would be better here).

I think if a person want the same ability as a past edition there are other classes that would need to start at a higher level. That's because of how 4e was implemented and how 5e is implemented.

It's hard to make a build focused on granting abilities to others in a system that deliberately removed strong granting of abilities to others. 5e doesn't actually support the playstyle that made warlords good, as I see it anyway, in respect to lazylords.

And commander's strike is very situational. It's good for handing out attacks to rogues or recklessly attacking GWM barbarians, or possibly a smite hungry paladin. It also benefits from granting a melee attack that would be from range for the fighter who might not be moving that far for whatever reason. I agree, it's not a replacement for the lazylord style. At all. But it does fit within 5e's approach.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ashrym

Legend
Both of which are much better as subclasses than the original class. The 3rd edition spellcasting assassin was a particular abomination.

I knew a lot of people who really liked the first edition assassin, however. There is also the viewpoint that warlords with good system mastery were OP and considered CoDzilla-like, and the viewpoint that warlords were clerics casting spells but pretending they weren't casting spells because martial.

There were people who considered warlords a bad thing too. Is your opinion the only one that WotC should listen to? ;)
 








Ashrym

Legend
I know I am an ancient old fart. Had had many cases of Jim Beam, Mad Dog 20/20 and lots of bad beer. But you are going have to give me a book and page number for the Skald.
It was a Kit in the Complete Bard.

I don't think the kit was actually necessary. The original and 1e bard didn't need anything to play as a skald. The 2e kit offered a slight improvement in armor and inspiration iirc.
 

Remove ads

Top