Rogue Mastermind Archetype Up, Courtesy of Extra Life

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

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You get that this character's action economy is insane right. Yeah he doesn't have disintegrate. He can walk up next to someone heal them, help them in their next attack against an enemy within 30 feet, then attack that enemy twice and direct the strike to have the guy you just healed attack the enemy with advantage and have another character whose got temp hit points and a floating bardic inspiration die also attack the enemy you shot. You can do this once or twice every short rest, and can net advantage to an attack for an ally every single round in addition to attacking twice. This doesn't even take into account actually using the spell casting you have, or the fact that your durability is incredibly high thanks to second wind, or that your skill proficiencies are quite numerous and you have expertise to like three of those skills. This character is quite useful to the point that it is in my book as a character I'm going to play. Sure it can't cast disintegrate, but that isn't the point of this character.

unless your bonus action was limited to Heal OR Help, and you could make 2 attacks or 1 attack and commander strike...or 1 attack and grant a move or 0 attacks and have an ally more and attack... that action economy is in no way what NEEDs to be...

heck in my mind you have 1 bonus action to chose A inspire, b heal, c help you have 1 action that can be two attacks or use the dice to modify attacks, and you have your move...

 

[Imaro]

I guess the odd thing for me is that 5e seems designed to allow for characters to shine and function in solo scenarios (given proper encounter design of course), and this character doesn't seem like it would function in any scenario like that. To each their own, though.

Ding...ding...ding. This has been my biggest gripe with the warlord as both archetype and as a class in 5e. 5e characters are already really competent past 4th/5th level without the warlord... many can already buff themselves & others, heal themselves & others, grant advantage to themselves and others, etc... So what is the warlord bringing uniquely as far as a contribution to the characters?

Archetype wise... the inspirational leader always seems to be part of another archetype. Gandalf... but he's also a wizard, Aragorn... but he's also a Ranger skilled in woodland lore and minor magics... King Arthur.... but he's also a warrior whocan hold his own in one on one battle...etc. I rarely if ever see this archetype as a singular entity that only leads and inspires. In fact I think the way 5e is dealing with it (builds within other classes) is more true to most of the literary examples people cite than having an entire class centered around it... to me that's a remnant of 4e design not a necessity to have a non-magical character that can heal and inspire.

 

[TwoSix]

You get that this character's action economy is insane right. Yeah he doesn't have disintegrate. He can walk up next to someone heal them, help them in their next attack against an enemy within 30 feet, then attack that enemy twice and direct the strike to have the guy you just healed attack the enemy with advantage and have another character whose got temp hit points and a floating bardic inspiration die also attack the enemy you shot. You can do this once or twice every short rest, and can net advantage to an attack for an ally every single round in addition to attacking twice. This doesn't even take into account actually using the spell casting you have, or the fact that your durability is incredibly high thanks to second wind, or that your skill proficiencies are quite numerous and you have expertise to like three of those skills. This character is quite useful to the point that it is in my book as a character I'm going to play. Sure it can't cast disintegrate, but that isn't the point of this character.

I agree, he's quite useful as a 12th level character. 12th level characters are usually pretty awesome. A large amount of games don't get to 12th level.

As a design point in 5e, classes should have their identifying feature by 3rd level. Rage, Inspiration, Action Surge, Maneuvers, Spellcasting, Wild Shape, Sneak Attack, Animal Companion, Sorcery Points, Invocations, Smites, School Specializations. All by 3rd level. Everything you gain afterwards are upgrades to these basic abilities. The warlord class (not a build that mimics the warlord) needs its defining feature by 3rd level.

Many people say that a Fighter/Cleric is analogous to a Paladin, and thus a Paladin class is not needed. Other people require a Paladin class.
Many people say that a Fighter/Bard is analogous to a Warlord, and thus a Warlord class is not needed. Other people require a Warlord class.

ANDDD I'm done talking about Warlords in the Mastermind thread. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You can be a wizard, a bard, or druid, all at level 1, and be able to do and play the way you want...

Not true. I've already shown that. I want my 1st level wizard to cast fireballs. Can't. I want my valor bard too... (nevermind, I can't be a valor bard at 1st level). I want my druid to be able to turn into a canary. Can't.

you can cast goodberries at level 5 as a straight bard, or 4 if you spend a feat...

You can be an inspirational "warlord" as early as 4th level (3rd as an alt human) as well.

I on the other hand have to multi through 3 classes and only have low level powers in a high level game because my concept and class doesn't exsisit out of the box...

It's called balance. multiclassing offers flexibility. That comes at a cost. I know because I've played a 3-class MC character all the way up through 13 levels. He's fine. Do you have anything besides white-room theory-craft that says otherwise? I'd love to hear about it.

Your right, I'm a fighter for 3 levels, and a rogue for 3 levels so I am a pretty good if not great combat monster...

That's not how 5e works. Are you thinking of the old 2e bard rules where you had to not use your previous class(es) as you went through the progressions?

I don't want everything I want a damn balanced warlord

Show me. I've yet to see one.

it doesn't need to be as good with skills as a rouge, it doesn't need to be as good at combat as the fighter and it doesn't need (and most likely shouldn't have) spells like a bard... and defiantly not the music/story teller aspect of the bard... the problem is to pick the one or 2 aspects of each class you get all the rest...

Cherry picking is one of the surest ways to break a new class. Good luck. Post it here when you do. I look forward to seeing how you pull it off. Genuinely.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

well I suck at balanceing homebrew...

Should I weigh this when I read your posts about what you think a warlord class should have?

I bet if there was a company full of professional designers they would do better...

Well I have some news you aren't going to like (but given the point you just made above, I'm going to assume that's a good thing). The professional designers all sat down for a few years worth of hard work, with tons of public feedback, and did as you ask. It's just that the end result is not what you wanted (the warlord "concept"--there's that word again--is in the 5e PHB).

 

[Orlax]

unless your bonus action was limited to Heal OR Help, and you could make 2 attacks or 1 attack and commander strike...or 1 attack and grant a move or 0 attacks and have an ally more and attack... that action economy is in no way what NEEDs to be...

heck in my mind you have 1 bonus action to chose A inspire, b heal, c help you have 1 action that can be two attacks or use the dice to modify attacks, and you have your move...

Healer feat
Master of tactics
Action surge
Attack action with a superiority die used on both attacks.

That's the actions used in my example, and my example was more to show that yes this is s character of 12th level strength and contribution, and is contributing in exactly the requested manner (healing allies, buffing allies, and netting them off turn attacks.) And is exactly what they should be doing at that level.

 

[Aldarc]

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...

And I have a feeling that you are misconstruing what GMforPowerGamers is saying, and that will continue to happen. You really do need to be at least fifty-percent less hostile when it comes to discussions on the warlord and an attentive listener who doesn't just keep throwing out strawmen about what warlord fans want.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

And I have a feeling that you are misconstruing what GMforPowerGamers is saying, and that will continue to happen. You really do need to be at least fifty-percent less hostile when it comes to discussions on the warlord and an attentive listener who doesn't just keep throwing out strawmen about what warlord fans want.

Reported. Also, wrong. Feeling? Really? You are attributing negativity where there is none. I'll bet you didn't even know that I loved 4e and played it for the entirety of it's run. Faithfully and regularly. Both in Organized Play and home campaigns. So when I say that the only way to play a 4e warlord is to play 4e, that's not an insult. It is a recommendation. And the only logical one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Should I weigh this when I read your posts about what you think a warlord class should have?

not just wrlord, but prestige classes and subclass too...
anything I make is a good starting point for a discussion on how to do something, but most would make horrible ending places without a lot of playtesting and finish touch up...

Well I have some news you aren't going to like (but given the point you just made above, I'm going to assume that's a good thing). The professional designers all sat down for a few years worth of hard work, with tons of public feedback, and did as you ask. It's just that the end result is not what you wanted (the warlord "concept"--there's that word again--is in the 5e PHB).

there isn't a warlord concept in that book, there is a way to kitbash it almost if you take a bunch of things and tweek them (refulff and multi at high level), but the concept itself isn't... infact 1/3 the kitbash is from a preview for a new book not the phb

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Reported. Also, wrong. Feeling? Really? You are attributing negativity where there is none. I'll bet you didn't even know that I loved 4e and played it for the entirety of it's run. Faithfully and regularly. Both in Organized Play and home campaigns. So when I say that the only way to play a 4e warlord is to play 4e, that's not an insult. It is a recommendation. And the only logical one.

ok that's cool but I don't want to play a 4e warlord... I want to play a 5e version of the class...

I want wotc to look at the 3 main sources (maybe there are more let me know) the warlord of 4e the marshal of 3e and the white ravon tactics of Bo9S and make not a direct 1-1 exchange but a 5e class that stands with the others as an equal and fun character to play...