Rogue Mastermind Archetype Up, Courtesy of Extra Life

They stole my my help as a bonus action idea...

 

[Remathilis]

if you gave the master of tactics, the battlemaster dice, and a bard's inspiration and you could use the bard inspiration to heal as a bonus action (roll that die and add your cha mod as hp regained) and put a second attack in at 6th or 7th level... that would be a great start... make it a d8 HD class prof with heavy armor and all weapons.

better still would be combine the inperation and battle master dice into 1 pool...

I can get behind this...

 

[Imaro]

I'll be a kind soul and post every post with you as of late, and you can see where you are mistaken:


Finished? See me advocating for stat substitution? No? That's because I haven't. I sympathize with mechanical/incentive issues that spur people to view stat substitution as an option, but I have NOT advocated for stat substitution. That goes for you too @Orlax. So no, Imaro, you have neither heard nor listened to what I said. I do not think that a rogue, for example, should be good at most areas. I have expressed concern that often the assumptions and mechanics of the game encourage rogue players to place their highest stat in the "mechanically optimal combat stat" as opposed to what we might regard as the "conceptually optimal character stat." And even earlier I expressed my vexation of "magic exceptionalism" with Orlax at how casters/mages often effectively have stat substitution for a lot of their abilities. That was not an appeal for stat substitution; I would actually prefer that were was a greater stat spread for mages too. I like the idea of forcing some wizard spells to require Dex to aim/hit or perform the magical gestures.

I meant 'numerous areas.'

And yet nowhere in these posts do you come out and say... you don't advocate for it or even explain that you understand or support the other view point. In other words if all you show is sympathy for one side of an issue... it's the same as advocating for it. But whatever, I'm not in the mood for Pedantry and Particulars so I'll let you continue to sympathize without really advocating for and I'll continue with discussion elsewhere..

 

[Saeviomagy]

The main issue with boosting int over dex is that int applies to a few skills that are very vague and rare in application, and not much else. If you intend to use forgery and disguise, you have a whole swathe of DM barriers to get past before you can even start applying the skills, and then you have the issue that they tend to be "work or die" type skills, and usually are doubled up with reliance on charisma.

If D&D was changed such that any hit by a monster spelt instant death, people would most likely NOT boost dex at the cost of other stats. If each attack with dex also required an attack with strength, that would be the case even further. Combat would be a thing to be avoided, not to boost stats in preparation for.

And yet when the typical infiltration plan is put into action, typically players will end up:
a) Instantly failing the plan on a failed roll
b) Having to roll a forgery check AND a disguise check AND multiple persuade or deception checks.

In other words, having a high int and a high charisma doesn't help much. In combat a fight is not over in a single blow, so changing the average of rolls matters. In skill application, the goal is to try to never have to roll the dice, because the penalty for failure is so steep - so changing the average of the roll is irrelevant and therefore improving the stat backing up the skill is irrelevant. This was something that skill challenges were trying to address (but failed because their creators didn't really understand that they would need to approach the complexity of combat in order to be engaging).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

In other words, having a high int and a high charisma doesn't help much.

I concede this may be the case for you and your table. But that is not the D&D I know and play.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I concede this may be the case for you and your table. But that is not the D&D I know and play.

So, in your experience, what is the relative probability that a party goal will fail irrecoverably due to a single failed roll on a skill, vs the same thing hinged on a single failed roll on an attack?

If the answer is 50% or thereabouts, could you please illustrate the systems used to make it so? Because my experience has been that a party can have an entire round of failed attacks and still succeed in combat, but failing 5 skill rolls in a row typically means something has gone quite wrong (and often indicates that skill time is over, because combat or making saves time has commenced).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One of the big things that gets tossed out when discussing the warlord is that the Battlemaster isn't enough. Not that it doesn't have enough maneuvers to use or that it doesn't grant enough superiority dice to use them often, but the powers themselves aren't good enough. They demand more powerful maneuvers or the ability to use them nearly at will. Its not enough to grant allow a PC to use a HD in combat, the warlord should add his Charisma as a bonus. Commander's Strike costs too much; it should only cost a reaction to use. There's 174 pages of that.

Are they all power happy munchkins? No. Does it seem like in the chase to emulate specific warlord abilities they often forget how to balance abilities in 5e? Very much so.

Being one of the people who don't find the Battlemaster satisfactory (and consider the Valor Bard cromulent but far too magical), it's easy for me to cut that side some slack, and perhaps more than it deserves. However, I really do feel that you are doing the opposite--seeing that many ask for something more, but allowing all the different potential suggestions for what "more" *means* to blend together until ALL of them are implemented simultaneously--which I freely admit would probably end up broken. Honestly, I feel like that's what happened with magic in 3e. There were all the known complaints, but few to no people actually wanted every single one of those "problems" fixed. WotC did pretty much all of them though, and exacerbated it with later design choices and the unavoidable spell bloat--and as a result, magic was a stupidly big problem past the earliest levels (hence E6).

Yes, people certainly want to see something that is "better," in the sense of "better at being a Warlord"--whatever "being a Warlord" is defined as, which fundamentally varies from person to person because (believe it or not) people conceive of the class as not being perfectly defined by its 4th edition mechanics.* I've seen people asking for "more," in the sense of "capable of electing to do, or support, more things than the 4e Warlord could." Note the "electing"--it's NOT "I can do absolutely everything a 4e Warlord could potentially do AND a bunch of other stuff too!" but rather "I can do a few things analogous to what 4e Warlords could do, and can give up doing more things like what 4e Warlords could do, so that I can do a different thing they couldn't do--or I can take an option that's more like the classical concept." Just like how a Shadow Monk gives up Quivering Palm and Wholeness of Body, classic core Monk abilities, to do things no baseline Monk could do before, but that are flavorful, appropriate, balanced, and cool--or the Monk can choose Open Palm and be the 5e equivalent of a "classic" Monk.

If we take as mandatory absolutely every suggestion made by anyone who wants to see a 5e translation of a thing--be it a class, a feat, or whatever else--then I DO think it is a foregone conclusion that it's going to be broken. I just think it's unfair to argue that way, to lump absolutely every single suggestion and concept into one enormous amalgam and then declare that, because that amalgam is broken, all of its individual parts must be broken as well. And when structured that way, I see it as literally no different from saying that, because 3e-style Vancian casting was broken, all forms of Vancian-like magic are broken and cannot be used--which, plainly, people who play 5e consider false.

*However, since the 3e Marshal was generally seen as a not particularly good class, while the 4e Warlord was--from all the data I've seen--both popular and competent (even broken, with heavy optimization and abusive synergies of items and abilities), you're basically guaranteed to see more people reference the 4e implementation of the concept for mechanical inspiration than the 3e implementation. Similarly, the 4e Dragonborn race is both more balanced and, for fans of dragon-men, possesses better fluff than the 3e "Dragonborn of Bahamut" racial template, so people are probably going to turn to the 4th edition implementation of that concept for inspiration before they turn to the 3e implementation. For contrast, Tieflings have existed since 2nd edition at least, and there are fans of both the "classic" Tiefling with a random tell or two (horns, or a tail, or a smell of brimstone, etc.) and the "Turathi" Tiefling with a uniform physiological and cultural origin, thus you'll see some people drawing on one more than the other for their inspiration.

Simply put: We reference the 4e Warlord because it was a good implementation, not because it is the only implementation, nor was it the best. New edition inherently means new implementation, but just as the Monk both carries forward faithful translations of old mechanics while simultaneously providing new and exciting alternatives, so too could a "5e Warlord"--or whatever you want to call it--translate old mechanics into new forms, while providing additional alternative options as well.

 

[Uchawi]

Being one of the people who don't find the Battlemaster satisfactory (and consider the Valor Bard cromulent but far too magical), it's easy for me to cut that side some slack, and perhaps more than it deserves. However, I really do feel that you are doing the opposite--seeing that many ask for something more, but allowing all the different potential suggestions for what "more" *means* to blend together until ALL of them are implemented simultaneously--which I freely admit would probably end up broken. Honestly, I feel like that's what happened with magic in 3e. There were all the known complaints, but few to no people actually wanted every single one of those "problems" fixed. WotC did pretty much all of them though, and exacerbated it with later design choices and the unavoidable spell bloat--and as a result, magic was a stupidly big problem past the earliest levels (hence E6).

Yes, people certainly want to see something that is "better," in the sense of "better at being a Warlord"--whatever "being a Warlord" is defined as, which fundamentally varies from person to person because (believe it or not) people conceive of the class as not being perfectly defined by its 4th edition mechanics.* I've seen people asking for "more," in the sense of "capable of electing to do, or support, more things than the 4e Warlord could." Note the "electing"--it's NOT "I can do absolutely everything a 4e Warlord could potentially do AND a bunch of other stuff too!" but rather "I can do a few things analogous to what 4e Warlords could do, and can give up doing more things like what 4e Warlords could do, so that I can do a different thing they couldn't do--or I can take an option that's more like the classical concept." Just like how a Shadow Monk gives up Quivering Palm and Wholeness of Body, classic core Monk abilities, to do things no baseline Monk could do before, but that are flavorful, appropriate, balanced, and cool--or the Monk can choose Open Palm and be the 5e equivalent of a "classic" Monk.

If we take as mandatory absolutely every suggestion made by anyone who wants to see a 5e translation of a thing--be it a class, a feat, or whatever else--then I DO think it is a foregone conclusion that it's going to be broken. I just think it's unfair to argue that way, to lump absolutely every single suggestion and concept into one enormous amalgam and then declare that, because that amalgam is broken, all of its individual parts must be broken as well. And when structured that way, I see it as literally no different from saying that, because 3e-style Vancian casting was broken, all forms of Vancian-like magic are broken and cannot be used--which, plainly, people who play 5e consider false.

*However, since the 3e Marshal was generally seen as a not particularly good class, while the 4e Warlord was--from all the data I've seen--both popular and competent (even broken, with heavy optimization and abusive synergies of items and abilities), you're basically guaranteed to see more people reference the 4e implementation of the concept for mechanical inspiration than the 3e implementation. Similarly, the 4e Dragonborn race is both more balanced and, for fans of dragon-men, possesses better fluff than the 3e "Dragonborn of Bahamut" racial template, so people are probably going to turn to the 4th edition implementation of that concept for inspiration before they turn to the 3e implementation. For contrast, Tieflings have existed since 2nd edition at least, and there are fans of both the "classic" Tiefling with a random tell or two (horns, or a tail, or a smell of brimstone, etc.) and the "Turathi" Tiefling with a uniform physiological and cultural origin, thus you'll see some people drawing on one more than the other for their inspiration.

Simply put: We reference the 4e Warlord because it was a good implementation, not because it is the only implementation, nor was it the best. New edition inherently means new implementation, but just as the Monk both carries forward faithful translations of old mechanics while simultaneously providing new and exciting alternatives, so too could a "5e Warlord"--or whatever you want to call it--translate old mechanics into new forms, while providing additional alternative options as well.

I agree.

 

[Orlax]

One of the big things that gets tossed out when discussing the warlord is that the Battlemaster isn't enough. Not that it doesn't have enough maneuvers to use or that it doesn't grant enough superiority dice to use them often, but the powers themselves aren't good enough. They demand more powerful maneuvers or the ability to use them nearly at will. Its not enough to grant allow a PC to use a HD in combat, the warlord should add his Charisma as a bonus. Commander's Strike costs too much; it should only cost a reaction to use. There's 174 pages of that.

Are they all power happy munchkins? No. Does it seem like in the chase to emulate specific warlord abilities they often forget how to balance abilities in 5e? Very much so.

if you gave the master of tactics, the battlemaster dice, and a bard's inspiration and you could use the bard inspiration to heal as a bonus action (roll that die and add your cha mod as hp regained) and put a second attack in at 6th or 7th level... that would be a great start... make it a d8 HD class prof with heavy armor and all weapons.

better still would be combine the inperation and battle master dice into 1 pool...

5 levels of battle master, 3 levels of mastermind, 4 levels of valor bard. Take Healer and Inspiring leader as feats. Use the healing word spell from bard.

 

[Hussar]

5 levels of battle master, 3 levels of mastermind, 4 levels of valor bard. Take Healer and Inspiring leader as feats. Use the healing word spell from bard.

So, I have to wait 12 levels before I get to play the character I want to play? Isn't that a tad extreme? Wouldn't it be nice if we could play the character we wanted to play from, say, level 3 same as every other class? Two sessions in and I'm a Battlemaster, or a Totemic Barbarian, or a Paladin. But, I have to wait nine more levels after that just to fit the archetype of warlord? Just how powerful do you think a warlord should be?

/edit for my math

Wait a sec. Hang on. Before I can take those 5, 3 or 4 levels, I still have to take 2 levels of the base class as well. That's an 18th level character you just listed.

 

[TwoSix]

5 levels of battle master, 3 levels of mastermind, 4 levels of valor bard. Take Healer and Inspiring leader as feats. Use the healing word spell from bard.

I agree that's a good analogue for a warlord, but the issue with that approach is that it takes so long to gain all the relevant abilities. The benefit to a defined class is that you can give lower-powered analogues early on to match the concept, and not give the player abilities that might not fit their concept (like Second Wind, Sneak Attack, and musical skills in the Ftr5/Rog3/Bard4 build above.) But I'm not vehemently opposed to the multiclass representation.