D&D 5E Purple Dragon Knight = Warlord?

[Remathilis]

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm also entirely against I'm A Banana's idea of filing the serial numbers off spells and faking martial classes like the Warlord with them...

...there are just some oddities that I can't let go....

...also, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I couldn't remain entirely serious, so sorry if my humor doesn't always make sense to anyone else....

Well, at least we both agree that "nonmagical magic spells" is a terrible idea, even if not for exact same reasons. Its its fine, I don't most of your post seriously either. (I keed, I keed).

Clerics blazon their holy symbol on shields and slip by that requirement all the time, and how much help is that +1d4 to hit when you're in a capture scenario, anyway?

Aside from being able to lift stolen couches with one hand, the hypothetical power-up you describe might just be justified by a corresponding lack of versatility - depending on the actual design, of course. A Not-Warlord who not-casts not-magic not-spells from a list of a half dozen or so could reasonably have fairly powerful not-spells on that list compared to (not?)other casters, by virtue of having an order of magnitude or so fewer choices.

Again, people focus on the example rather than the message. Being able to replicate a SPELL and ignore the SPELL COMPONENTS is a power upgrade, however small and corner-case, vs. a spellcaster. Your giving The NMSC (NonMagicalSpellCaster) the potential ability to ignore S and M components that any caster needs to abide by. On Healing Word, that's not a big deal. On Revivify, Stoneskin, or abilities like that, its strictly better. Trust me, if a warlord gets "revivify" for free and a cleric costs 300 gp per casting, I know which one I will take every time, constricted options or no.

I'm sure there's other ways of preventing stacking. For instance if the not-Warlord not-casting not-bless needed to speak throughout, rather than just on initial not-casting.

So, just like Concentration then, except even more restrained since even clerics can cast other non-Concentration spells and cantrips while maintaining concentration, plus it can be blocked by a silence spell.

Seems legit.

So on, like, can be caught by a dexterous enemy and tossed back at him, maybe? Magic can be countered by magic. Mundane not-magic can presumably be countered by just about anything. Oh, including magic, just not metamagic.

Not if it works like Fireball; point of impact = kablooey. If your suggesting that it work differently than fireball, you're no longer using Fireball But Nonmagical, you're writing up a new power, which I thought was IAAB was trying to avoid.

Well, not the only reason, nor a very good one, since they didn't actually just recycle spells the way 5e already does for casters, but for non-casters as well, as I'm A Banana is suggesting, but, rather gave each class a unique set of 'powers,' that were consistent in number/availability and format, only.

My point was that if people complained about 4e being samey, give nonmagicals "spells" and see what happens...

What I'm A Banana is suggesting is a /lot/ more blatantly effects-based than that! Way above and beyond the imagined 'sameyness' of similar formating and balanced classes, to actually using /the exact same spell/, not just for both arcane and divine casters as 5e already does, but for martial characters, psions, alchemists, gunslingers, or whatever else you feel you can file the serial numbers off an existing caster to get.

That wouldn't earn WotC an Edition War II, it'd provoke The Edition Apocalypse.

Pretty much.

Other than swords being notoriously melee-oriented and slashing-damage, anyway. Maybe a magical flaming sword of swarming meteors, though, or a swarm of magical flaming swords.

Well, we're justifying nonmagical Healing Word and Nonmagical Bless, why not Nonmagical Meteor Swarm or Nonmagical Wish or Nonmagical Teleport?

Essentials sub-classes still all had powers, they were all still resolved using attack rolls (martial mostly vs AC, arcane mostly vs other defenses) and miss & effect lines and so forth, as before. Essentials martial classes just got far fewer powers, none of them dailies, and in a structure pointedly incompatible with their existing sub-classes (a strict power downgrade), while caster sub-classes got more powers and could draw upon all the powers of their existing sub-classes (and vice-versa).

And, yeah that was a "strict power upgrade" for the casters, especially the Wizard, who got new powers in virtually every book. Just not nearly as big a strict power upgrade as they received from 5e.

My point was that come 2010, WotC was moving away from the "One Size Fits All" method of class design. First with Psionics, then with Essential Martials. Why go back to that?

Well, you could make some investments....

While I agree with the conclusion (going back to the bizarre alternate gaming future of 2009 that we glimpsed, rather than staying here, in the early 90s, where D&D belongs, would be a huge mistake for 5e), I find your reasoning is strangely backwards. Greater mechanical consistency doesn't break games, D&D just has an image to maintain in service to it's fanbase that is incompatible with the particular kind of effects-based approach that the idea amounts too - something, as we've both pointed, that 4e was pilloried for doing to a much lesser degree.

You can sell people a lot of things that might be better, but if they don't want it, it doesn't matter. One-Size-Fits-All class design failed to make a dent in the larger fanbase, and come 2010 WotC was beginning to acknowledge that. There are lots of systems that do that well, I mentioned M&M for example; but that isn't D&D for most.

Faulty reasoning and even edition-warring aside, the idea of further re-cycling spells as mechanics for non-magical abilities is sheer madness. It's antithetical to 5e's design philosophy, which is concept-first, blurry lines between mechanics & fluff, and DM Rulings over the resulting Rules.

It's tempting Fate to even discuss such things.

I love how anytime a comment on 4e is made, its edition warring. It makes talking to you soooo much fun...

Least we both agree its a terrible idea.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Again, people focus on the example rather than the message. Being able to replicate a SPELL and ignore the SPELL COMPONENTS is a power upgrade

It is, for that spell. All other things being equal...

Trust me, if a warlord gets "revivify" for free and a cleric costs 300 gp per casting, I know which one I will take every time, constricted options or no.

That'd be gp-wise and power foolish. ;P Save 300 gp now and then, give up what, 90% of your spell list?

So, just like Concentration then, except even more restrained since even clerics can cast other non-Concentration spells and cantrips while maintaining concentration, plus it can be blocked by a silence spell.

Seems legit.

Not if it works like Fireball; point of impact = kablooey. If your suggesting that it work differently than fireball, you're no longer using Fireball But Nonmagical, you're writing up a new power, which I thought was IAAB was trying to avoid.

Both the above'd seem to fall into his idea of using class features to mod how spells work. So your hypothetical vial-tossing alchemist would have all his spells reduced in range to how far he can throw a vial, and have issues with said vials being broken prematurely....

My point was that if people complained about 4e being samey, give nonmagicals "spells" and see what happens...

Well, we're justifying nonmagical Healing Word and Nonmagical Bless, why not Nonmagical Meteor Swarm or Nonmagical Wish or Nonmagical Teleport?

Because re-gaining hps and doing a little better on an attack aren't supernatural, while conjuring flame ex nillo altering reality and teleportation are. Thought that'd've been obvious.

Though, at the effects-based level I'm A Banana is taking it, those might all be on the table - Teleport could be an escape-artist trick, Meteor Swarm blowing up a fireworks factory, and Wish, er... coincidence. If he were building powers in Hero System, mostly OK. In D&D, crime against humanity.

My point was that come 2010, WotC was moving away from the "One Size Fits All" method of class design. First with Psionics, then with Essential Martials. Why go back to that?

Because it makes for a potentially better game, but that's not the point...

You can sell people a lot of things that might be better, but if they don't want it, it doesn't matter.

That's the point.

I love how anytime a comment on 4e is made, its edition warring.

I'm more than a bit annoyed by it, if we're sharing how we feel.

Least we both agree its a terrible idea.

Sheer madness, indeed.

 

[Uchawi]

I would look at the cleric and healing in general in reference to what conditions a heal spell can remove or address when dealing with the term unconscious, comatose or lost limbs or appendages. Otherwise, it does not matter what the source of healing is if the game does not get that specific. The basic ability of healing is to recover hit points. At that point it is up to the table to decide.

I don't mind at all making a distinction on how one class heals versus others. So rallying to give the group temp hits points makes sense, and the martial healer restoring their own hit points directly makes sense, and by extension you could allow a martial healer to restore hit points at a slow rate with a specific individual using touch as long as they maintain concentration (to avoid the shout/hear arguments). And similar to a bard you can make a martial healer optimized for non-combat recovery. Whether a martial healer would be a equivalent of a magic healer will never reach an agreement. Tapping into other healing potential via hit dice all makes sense. I would have preferred any healing dice was based on the hit dice of a creature or character, but that is for another game.

 

[Pauln6]

So using feats and mult-classing, what warlordy builds can people come up with using the Banneret?

 

[mellored]

So using feats and mult-classing, what warlordy builds can people come up with using the Banneret?

The closest would probably be battlemaster 3, lore bard 5 (cutting words, heroism, healing word), paladin 6 (aura), mastermind rogue 3, with inspiring leader and shield master (expertise athletics).

Too bad you can't multi-class PDK and battlemaster. That would cover lots of ground.

 

[Pauln6]

You can buy two manoeuvres. Not always good value for money but doable.

So I suppose for purely martial you could go:

Mastermind 3+ Banneret 3+ (or vice versa depending on if you want to be a tactician or a warlord) plus Martial Adept once or twice and Inspiring Leader.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So using feats and mult-classing, what warlordy builds can people come up with using the Banneret?

You can't combine PDK & BM, so Fighter(PDK)/Rogue(MM) w/ Inspiring Leader & Martial Adept, with the Soldier or Noble background if you want a little rank.

You still can't do much more Warlordy stuff than you could by taking Student of Battle and a few other of the available multiclassing feats, but it's a build, and it's warlordy.

 

[Marandahir]

I'm happy with the various options – Skald, Banneret, Battle Master, Mastermind… there are a few Warlord concepts still untapped (Wise and Inspiring Archer Warlord from Martial Power 2, for example), but we're pretty close.

Banneret was a REALLY nice surprise when I opened up my copy of SCAG last week.

 

[Savevsdeath]

It's funny but I'd bet most Warlord fans who play 5e are fine with the Battlemaster, Mastermind and PDK as a replacement (and a very vocal minority who won't be appeased by anything but an actual warlord class.)... Of course this is just my opinion...

I'm not fine with it at all. All WotC has done is prove that they COULD make a good warlord class, but that they stubbornly refuse to do so for reasons I cannot even begin to comprehend. That's insulting, and annoying as hell. I didn't ask for pieces of the warlord spread among a half-dozen classes and archtypes - i wanted a warlord. But i don't dare speak for other fans of the class.

 

[mellored]

I'm not fine with it at all. All WotC has done is prove that they COULD make a good warlord class, but that they stubbornly refuse to do so for reasons I cannot even begin to comprehend.

Same reason they didn't make a bladesinger as a new class. They don't want to make ANY new classes.

Though they seem to have no problem making a sub-classes.