Rogue Mastermind Archetype Up, Courtesy of Extra Life

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

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Pretty sure he meant a build of Fighter (Battlemaster) 5/Rogue (Mastermind 3)/Bard (Valor) 4.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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?

This is pretty vague, but zero for both? What kind of party goal? Why are you hinging anything important on an all-important single roll? Yuck.

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).

Again, this is pretty vague but it sounds like poor application of skill checks. If you are going to make a McGuffin so important, don't place it in the hands of fate by hoping someone makes a skill check to acquire/achieve it. This is just poor encounter design.

 

[Orlax]

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.

Wtf are you babbling about 18 levels. It's a 12th level character, and yeah if you can't see the problem with having the capabilities of a 12th level character at 3rd level, the problem is on your end and is indicative of the whole everything you suggest for a warlord is overpowered and broken. Also truth be told you can get near it by 9th level with a 3/3/3 split. I just threw in the other 3 levels for feats and a second attack.

 

[Imaro]

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.

You're making alot of assumptions here that won't/don't necessarily hold true to everyone's game. In my game where there is alot of unknowns (Unexplored swaths of frozen wilderness that were once populated by ancient civilizations and dotted with sparse settlements under the politics and rule of a dimension spanning empire)... Intelligence skills are pretty important (the fact that the importance of particular skills cannot be determined for individual campaigns is, IMO, just another reason the substitution of attributes is a bad idea)... as are charisma and wisdom.

As to your other points... A rogue with the charlatan background and high forgery/disguise skills is pretty much guaranteed not to have a ton of/any DM barriers... and I'm not sure why charisma would necessarily come into play if your forgeries or disguise rolls are good enough... at the least they would enhance any Charisma rolls you have to make (advantage) if successful.

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.

Wait... what? if a single hit meant instant death it would have the opposite effect. Players would try to get AC as high as possible and for many, who can't wear heavy armor, Dex is the main way to do this. You can still try to avoid combat, but I'm unclear as to your reasoning that you wouldn't also hedge your bets in case you couldn't avoid it... IME that's exactly what most people do.

If every attack with Dex required an attack with Strength... people would all attack with Strength if they could... but I'm unclear on what this example is supporting... could you explain in more detail?

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).

Okay in 5e a "failure" on a skill roll means... makes no progress towards the objective or makes progress combined with a setback. It's right there in the PHB and doesn't state it means instant failure of overall goal and closure of any and all paths to said goal... so I'm not sure where you're getting your "Instantly failing the plan on a failed roll" assumption from. It also states in the DMG that even if a failure cuts off an avenue to success... another approach or different avenue can be used to retry.

As to your point b... This is the same as a prolonged combat. You're making multiple rolls that culminate in success or failure of the overall goal... just like in combat. I'm not sure why the goal is to try to never roll, because the penalty... at least by the actual rules for 5e (see above)... isn't that steep at all. there are also the "Success At A Cost" & "Degrees of Failure" rules in the DMG

Also as a side note we have monsters that can bypass hit points to kill characters quickly or instantly... So even if the rules above have rare exceptions... it's still pretty similar to combat.

It seems that you are extrapolating how others run ability/prof checks in their games from how you choose to run them in your own, even though the advice and rules in the actual books point to a different methodology.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

So, I have to wait 12 levels before I get to play the character I want to play?

Well, let's see...

• How long do you have to wait to be an archmage? You are in for disappointment if that's the character you want to play.
• Why do I have to wait til 10th level for my bard to be able to cast goodberries? It's only a 1st level spell, for cryin' inna bucket. My bard concept is that he can cast it starting at 1st. That's not fair. That's the character I want to play.
• Why can't my druid turn into a raven until 8th level. That's lame. I want to be a raven earlier. That's my character concept. That's the character I want to play.

And no, you are not "being nothing" until 12th level. You are growing into the end-result like every other class. You are picking up warlord aspects from as early as 1st level if you make certain choices at character creation. You just don't get everything out of the gate. No different than anyone else. It's the "It needs to do it all," that puts so many people off to the idea of this class. I don't think it can be anything but broken by the time you fit everything you folks want it to have. I say that with the evidence of every homebrew I've seen to date. Show me one that isn't broken and we'll talk. But it is my opinion that the handful of you religiously advocating for one will never be happy because it will never live up to your expectations and demands.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Pretty sure he meant a build of Fighter (Battlemaster) 5/Rogue (Mastermind 3)/Bard (Valor) 4.

Agreed. This, to me, shows signs of perhaps not having even a basic understanding of 5e's system. You can't take "battlemaster levels" separate from fighter levels. This isn't 3e (or to some extent, 4e) where you are tacking on separate PRC levels or whathaveyou. Battlemaster 5 simply means a 5th level fighter who chose the battlemaster subclass. That's 5e 101.

 

[TwoSix]

Agreed. This, to me, shows signs of perhaps not having even a basic understanding of 5e's system. You can't take "battlemaster levels" separate from fighter levels. This isn't 3e (or to some extent, 4e) where you are tacking on separate PRC levels or whathaveyou. Battlemaster 5 simply means a 5th level fighter who chose the battlemaster subclass. That's 5e 101.

Hussar's a pretty smart poster. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just misinterpreted what Orlax said.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

yup... and at level 12 (well you could do it at 3/3/2 with either 3 being a 4 for the feat or human for bonus feat so 8-9)you can be close to the concept that 4e let you play from level 1 :/ and your stuck with the bard fluff... including magic...

 

[Orlax]

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.

See the problem with stripping out the abilities you don't want (or more precisely need) is toy are still going to end up at about 9th or tenth level to get all of those abilities we want:

Superiority dice
Bardic inspiration
Spell casting (or comparable feature that allows for healing)
Master of tactics

Basically it would be inspiration and spell casting at first level, expertise at second, superiority dice at third, master of tactics at third, 4th level is ability score increase as usual, 5th is extra attack, and then the valor bard ability to use inspiration dice for attack and defense at about 7th. On top of that it is a d8 hit die with full armor and weapon profs and about 3 skills and some kind of toolkit from class. Even trying to trim the fat and cram these abilities into 1 "class" we endup at 7th level to get all the abilities in and it's still a bit of an overpowered class.

The second problem there is that it's a class composed of bits sullen from other classes. It's interesting for home brew but is something that likely won't ever be officially built.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

yup... and at level 12 (well you could do it at 3/3/2 with either 3 being a 4 for the feat or human for bonus feat so 8-9)you can be close to the concept that 4e let you play from level 1 :/ and your stuck with the bard fluff... including magic...

You said "concept". I think that's an important word. Because you can actually play the "concept" or a warlord as early as 1st level (3rd gets you a bit more crunch to represent mechanically, but the "concept" comes as early as right away).

"Concept".

But I have a feeling, when you said "concept that 4e...", you meant "all the mechanics that 4e...". Which will never happen. This ain't 4e. But if you are ultimately interested in playing all the warlord mechanics found in 4e, I have an easy solution for you...