I articulated it, and you dismissed it as not mattering because you actively do not want the things that do not fit.Considering that you have failed to articulate why fighter subclass cannot sufficiently fulfill the role of a warlord it seems you just want rule bloat for the sake of it.
Yes you did:No I didn't [say a Summoner class does not make sense]. I'm sure there are many games where a dedicated summoner class makes perfect sense. Fifth edition D&D just isn't one of them.
Frankly, this is getting back into head banging territory. You keep trying to prove that your personal taste is objectively superior to our presonal taste and, when you get pushback on that, challenging us to do the opposite. But that is neither required nor possible. De gustibus non est disputandum.But 'summoner' really isn't a class in any sensible sense.
Set up another way to qualify for sneak attack, some Intelligence synergy, and allow swapping of thieves' cant and tools for another language and tool proficiency. Rogue has that niche covered fairly well.
Sneak attack is just a way of representing observing and making a single decisive strike rather than the flurry of openings that the fighter uses. Perhaps the subclass would be able to make an intelligence check and then grant an ally their sneak attack damage against an opponent?
That's . . . not hugely helpful for someone who isn't familiar with those mechanics. How would they differ from spells, and what would the class be doing when in combat, and out of it?I imagine the shaman like a mixture of totemist (from magic of incarnum) and with a game mechanic to summon totem spirits like the vestige pact magic. But this time some powers would work as martial maneuvers, in the middle between at-will and once-encounter, with the option of reloading thanks special actions, for example a concentration check.
The only part of the base Rogue inherently linked to thievery is the Thieves Cant language and the tools. I view those as eminently swappable.The rogue is way too focused on skullduggery and agility. It favors dexterous ruffians who use openings from stealth and distracted enemies and not intelligence, wisdom, charisma, nor perception. The base phb options are thief, assassin, and arcane trickster. Categorizing every nonmage adventurer as a master swordsman, master martial artist, master thief, or master berserker seems extremely limiting.
Professor Plum doesn't scout out a cultist base nor backflip away from fireballs. He recalls the origin and truenames of the demons they are summoning and suggests the tactic General Goldhiem used 200 years ago for a bonus to Dexterity saves.
It's not like the samurai or cavalier as those subclasses already assume a martial background. TSR firmly blackened the thief class with criminal activity and WOTC barely scraped off the layers.
Essentially if you must rip apart the class features of the rogue to form the subclass, then the subclass is not one of the rogue. Not the 5e rogue anyway.
Personal the 6e rogue won't be an underhanded sneak. However the 5e one is.
only part of the base Rogue inherently linked to thievery is the Thieves Cant language and the tools. I view those as eminently swappable.
The only part of the base rogue inherently linked to Dexterity is Evasion, and that they are proficient in Dexterity saves.
A lot of what you talked about is baggage from previous editions that just isn't borne out in 5e.
If your desire is to have class who is all support, no fight, then yes, that doesn't fit in 5E design paradigm.I articulated it, and you dismissed it as not mattering because you actively do not want the things that do not fit.
I am of course talking about in the context of D&D fifth edition. Summoners make perfect sense in Final Fantasy 14 for example.Yes you did:
Thank you, I can see your point. Not that all of these feel particularly distinct to me but some do. But this kinda comes down to the granularity level one wants. You can always subdivide any concept into even more specific concepts. For example perhaps the chosen one could be a class and there would be subclasses based on the sort of faith or divine entity that provides their divine spark.Because a Warlord is wider than a single subclass. It's like saying we don't need the Rogue class when we can just have a Thief subclass for the Fighter. Or trying to cram all the Bard college concept into a single Wizard subclass alongside the 8 existing Wizard subclasses. Again, my own Warlord has 8 subclasses, with a 9th I'm working on:
The Ardent Soul, a Psionic Warlord who fills his allies with his inner fire
The Ballistarius, a Warlord who specializes in leading ranged attack squads
The Borderland Marshal, a Warlord who is used to limited ressources and skirmishing in the wild
The Chosen One, a Warlord with a divine spark in their soul that pushes them toward becoming a figure of legends
The Rabble Rouser, a Warlord used to facing superior forces and using dirty tricks to overcome obstacles
The Silverblade Captain, a Warlord who leads anti-caster squads and inquisitors
The Steel Protector, a Combat Medic Warlord who fights on the frontline and support their allies more than lead them
The White Raven Tactician, the classically trained Warlord and master of formations
And the new one:
The Crimson Sparrow Herald, a Warlord who can lead either a platoon of warrior or a diplomatic mission
Do you really think the Chosen One, and the Arcane Archer feel like the same class? The White Raven Tactician and the Champion? At that point the Fighter might as well be a blank slate with a few proficiencies and extra attack progression and nothing else.
plus, I feel like a Fighter is a more self-centered concept and suite of core abilities, while a Warlord‘s core abilities would be more allies-centered. The disconnect would be too jarring.
Backgrounds can provide that, as well as potentially swapping out Thieves tools/Cant.The rogue lacks proficiency with any lore skills and artisan tools.
Do you have Xanathar's Guide to Everything? Because that sounds almost exactly like the Inquisitive. (Enabling Sneak attack through an Insight check.)Sneak Attack cannot be initiated by the rogue's own mental force.
The rogue's combat ability is lovely based on it's dexterity or strength and cannot bring his or her Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma into the fight as a benefit to themselves nor their allies.
The four rogue subclasses in Xanathar's are not criminal-flavoured and at least two have other methods of enabling sneak attack.WOTC may have not put the TSR baggage as outright flavor into the rogue. However the class still is built and still plays as an upgraded TSR thief. The class is still built like a criminal and still plays by jumping out of shadows or having a warrior flank with him.
It would be something else if the 5e rogue fought more like a 4e rogue which was more like a duelist than a sneak and could set up their own strikes and pull their own mental scores into combat bonuses. However the 5e sneak attack is way too impactful to allow such freedom and the 5e rogue is just too Dexterity biases and discouraging to mental scores.
Why do you feel that you would be dragging down the team by making one of those stats your primary?I want to put my 15 into Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma without being a caster or feeling as I am dragging down team effectiveness. I think this is some of the same feeling some have for the warlord.
There is a place between "All support, no fight" and "Almost all fight, hardly any support."If your desire is to have class who is all support, no fight, then yes, that doesn't fit in 5E design paradigm.
There are different ways of approach. I had a warlock-like choice to determine amount, type and refresh of superiority dice. The three subclasses were based on tactical support, inspiring leadership, and personal combat, but all use the same pool of maneuvers, they just get bonuses to different ones and other features.Thank you, I can see your point. Not that all of these feel particularly distinct to me but some do. But this kinda comes down to the granularity level one wants. You can always subdivide any concept into even more specific concepts. For example perhaps the chosen one could be a class and there would be subclasses based on the sort of faith or divine entity that provides their divine spark.
My preference is to keep things pretty broad and flexible. I feel that more subclasses should be written in a manner that lets people choose from a list of options instead of just everyone getting the same ones. The totem barbarian is a good example of this done well. For each feature they can choose from a list of different totems, so you can make a bunch of totem barbarians who all have different set of traits. If done this way one subclass can provide a wide variety of builds.
One could also see some of your concepts being subclasses of classes other than fighter. For example divine warlord could be a type of a paladin, your rabble rouser could be a subclass of a rogue etc.
But yeah. I'm not saying your approach is 'wrong' just not how I'd prefer to do it.
Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.There is a place between "All support, no fight" and "Almost all fight, hardly any support."
If that is what you got from my post, I see no point in replying further on the issue... we just won't see eye-to-eye. I'm fine with that and certain you are as well. Happy gaming!So, you don't want more classes because it would cause you a minor inconvenience. Okay, then. I guess I'll continue homebrewing classes until WotC decides to do their job because certain people in the community don't want to say no to a player.
Yes, that would be correct.Is it correct to say, you don't want any more clases or subclasses, but if you had to pick you'd much rather have the sub-classes?
Yes, that would be correct.
I'd rather not see more subclasses either, because IMO if you want a certain sort of character, just PLAY them that way. It worked for many, many years in 1E and it still works now. We had people playing "swashbucklers" and "diviners" and "sages" and many others in 1E without needing classes or subclasses for them. Your weapon and armor selection, your spells, your proficiencies (once WSG and DSG came out), etc. all factored in, but also your character's personality, decisions, etc. were more important.
Think of it this way: a lot of people play 5E with the free material WotC offers, which has only one subclass per class, and they have great games and happy players and DMs alike. The game is simpler and your choices, more so than your features, determine who your character is.
It is nothing like equal fight/support split as the cleric. Bear in mind that what you are suggesting, and what we have been telling you doesn't really fit with a full warlord, already exists: the BM fighter with the Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack and Rally maneuvers.Yes, and I feel that by dedicating the whole fighter subclass budget for support (and writing the rules well) we get about equal fight/support split than the clerics do (as they can use their magic for fighting as well as for support, whereas all fight in warlord has to come from their mundane abilities) so that seems like a decent balance for me.
Then develop the character. You want a PC who can "end the world", make a wizard who quests to create a world-ending artifact or something.Except many character concepts cannot be played within the scope of the current rules.
I once had a player who wanted only 2 things: 1) the ability to end the world with a single thought, 2) for everyone to instantly know he had that power. So we did it. He was an average Joe who could end all existence and everyone he met knew it.
Balanced? No way. He was overpowered and underpowered at the same time.
Did it work out? Absolutely. Everyone enjoyed it.
Then develop the character. You want a PC who can "end the world", make a wizard who quests to create a world-ending artifact or something.
Why "give" such a PC to a player? Make them work for it.
If you just want to "give" it to them as you did, you don't need a class or subclass for it. You make it part of the story that your god has given you this horrible power and responsibility or something. Now you have what you want and you can have it with ANY class and race.
Then to me you wasted your money on a bunch of tools you don't end up using.I prefer a larger toolbox than a smaller one, even if I don't end up using all of the tools inside.
Then to me you wasted your money on a bunch of tools you don't end up using.
But that's fine. Use what you want, buy what you want. It's your game, so enjoy it!