D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll

[Sithlord]

It isn't even intimidation. There was no threat of cutting them open and letting their entrails spill out if they don't surrender. It was just a demand to drop their weapons. That's persuasion. I'd give it advantage since 15 of their friends were just wiped out.

The blue box in the PHB, though, seems to make any skill use in combat an action, which is silly to me.

Was it a demand by heavily armored people carrying very lethal and deadly weapons with a necromancer dressed in black robes and a priest of war ?

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but you can only make that determination for you. For others, anything that isn't a good Warlord fails to achieve the concept. I mean, some people would think that $100 fulfills the concept of having a lot of money. For me it's not even close. You can say these objective qualities(Battle Master maneuvers) are what I use to fulfill the concept of Warlord for me, but that doesn't meant that they will for others. Each person has to make that determination for himself, and I doubt the majority of those who want a Warlord will agree with you on this.

If you can actually describe the things a warlord should do we can look at the mechanics implemented and ask - does this character do those things. We might not agree about whether those things you cite actually describe a warlord, but we can sure as heck objectively evaluate whether whatever is produced matches up with whatever criteria you state.

As I pointed out earlier, I don't feel that way at all. I'm happy with 10 different classes that are all conceptually close, but not the same. When I look to fulfill a concept, I want to hit it exactly. I don't want, "Well this is kinda sorta in the same ballpark." Now, I'm exaggerating a little with the number 10, but I don't see were 2-4 similar classes are a bad thing.

I get that. And in designing a game from the ground up that's fine. But there's a problem when the game is designed around class X being able to fulfill X concept and then we go, that's not good enough, we don't like how class X fulfills that concept so let's make a new class to fulfill that concept.

For some, sure. For others it might not be enough. It won't be a Warlord, though, and Warlord is what folks want.

What is a Warlord?

 

[FrogReaver]

It handles the concept poorly. That's the problem.

Howso?

It's like saying you could be a beastmaster in 5e before Tasha's. You could. But you'd stink at it and sacrifice a lot of resources to make it serviceable. Despite beastmasters being a D&D archetype for multiple editions by then.

The only people pleased by then implementation were people who were not going to run the archetype. And it took SIX YEARS to come out. That's just... inexcusable.

They didn't create a new class for it, they rewrote what they had. I'm all for that.

 

[Maxperson]

If you can actually describe the things a warlord should do we can look at the mechanics implemented and ask - does this character do those things. We might not agree about whether those things you cite actually describe a warlord, but we can sure as heck objectively evaluate whether whatever is produced matches up with whatever criteria you state.

And if we evaluate them and they come up short, then they failed to fulfill the concept. That's what's happening here. You're evaluating them and saying yes, which is true for you. We're evaluating them and saying no, they fail to get there. A few steps in the right direction does not get you to your destination.

I get that. And in designing a game from the ground up that's fine. But there's a problem when the game is designed around class X being able to fulfill X concept and then we go, that's not good enough, we don't like how class X fulfills that concept so let's make a new class to fulfill that concept.

If only the class fulfilled the concept, but I think I'm safe in saying that for most, probably even the vast majority of those who want Warlords, there is no class that fulfills the concept.

What is a Warlord?

A variety of things, really. The inspiring leader is just one of the mantels. It's not that you don't have a grasp of what a Warlord is. It's that what is acceptable to you as fulfilling the Warlord concept, is only a few steps towards that concept for most others.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

There's actually very little design space from level 1-4. You give a character a d8 or d10 hp, martial weapons and medium/heavy armor and shields and there's not a ton of room left in tier 1. Battlemaster's are the pinacle of what level 1-4 martial characters get in those levels and all they get are:

1. Fighting Style
2. Second Wind
3. Action Surge
4. Battlemaster Manuevers

For those levels (1-4), I don't know how you are going to shove anything that feels signficantly more like a warlord than the battlemaster into a mechanical box that's no bigger than the Battlemaster's (and probably a bit smaller as Battlemasters are notoriously front loaded in the early levels). Also, don't forget a good portion of that box is going to have to be filled by Warlord subclass abilities.

That's the challenge and basis of the whole discussion though, isn't it? There are people that want a character that is leaning much harder into leaderly/warlord stuff, more than the Battlemaster does. Because even with feats and manuvers, you still have a lot of your class impact defined by fighting style, action surge, etc.

And as you point out, the Fighter chasis perhaps doesn't give you enough wiggle room. Therefore, the solution I guess has to be a new class.

I think we've got to uncouple concept from mechanics. I don't think the 5e Battlemaster has great warlord mechanics. I do think it fulfills the concept though. I think there is some objective truth in there and not just truth 'for you' as you described it.

But it doesn't for a bunch of people. I believe the "concept" people are asking for is not "deadly swordsman than can inspire people", but rather "paragon of martial leadership that can hold their own in combat if needed but whose impact and value to the party primarily comes from her leadership/warlordy stuff".

Regarless of the mechanics, I don't think the 5e Battlemaster does it. In design speak, too much "impact" was spent on direct weapon damage, durability, etc. and that has been "locked in".

If you want to trade off some of that direct weapon skill, durablity, etc. for more leadership/warlordyness can you do it and still be under the Fighter umbrella? Based on the Battlemaster, maybe not.

 

[Minigiant]

Howso?

Because it never makes up for taking INT/WIS/CHA as a secondary score in a fighter while pushing the importance of Ability Scores in 5e.

If you take the feat, you are still rolling 1d20+1d8+2 for a skill check using a resource vs a proficient users' 1d20+7. Allwhile knowingly nerfing yourself by knowing your higher than average INT/WIS/CHA has no effect in combat and barely helps without spending a precious die.

 

[pemerton]

On the issue of mechanical overlap:

I don't know a great deal about Battle Master manoeuvres. But here are some I found on a wiki:

Ambush: When you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check or an initiative roll, you can expend one superiority die and add the die to the roll, provided you aren't incapacitated.​

​

Commanding Presence: When you make a Charisma (Intimidation), a Charisma (Performance), or a Charisma (Persuasion) check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check.​

​

Menacing Attack: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to frighten the target. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it is frightened of you until the end of your next turn.​

​

Tactical Assessment: When you make an Intelligence (Investigation), an Intelligence (History), or a Wisdom (Insight) check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check.​

The same wiki also tells me that Battle Masters get this ability at 7th level:

Know Your Enemy: Starting at 7th level, if you spend at least 1 minute observing or interacting with another creature outside combat, you can learn certain information about its capabilities compared to your own. The DM tells you if the creature is your equal, superior, or inferior in regard to two of the following characteristics of your choice:​

• Strength score
• Dexterity score
• Constitution score
• Armor Class
• Current hit points
• Total class levels, if any
• Fighter class levels, if any

To me, this all looks like a red-hot mess. I'm not sure I've spotted all the weirdnesses yet, but here are some:

* In the fiction, what is the difference between Menacing Attack and using Commanding Presence to bolster an Intimidation check?​

​

* In the fiction, what is the difference between (i) a Battle Master who N times between short rests can make certain CHA-based skill checks with a random bonus between 1 and 8, 10, or 12, and (ii) a Bard who has a constant bonus to certain CHA-based skill checks (from Expertise) that is a flat +2 to +6? Or to put it another way, why does the system use such different mechanical devices to model the same thing - ie being a charming or commanding presence?​

​

* In the fiction, what is the difference between a 7th level Battle Master spending a minute to size up an enemy, and any one else at any time doing so just by looking at them? Presumably the information provided by the Know Your Enemy ability is information that is knowable just buy looking, so why can't others look? Why does the 7th level Battle Master not just get a bonus to, or minimum roll for, the appropriate WIS (Perception) or WIS (Insight) or whatever check is appropriate?​

​

* In the fiction, what is the difference between a Battle Master making a Tactical Assessment and a Battle Master Knowing His/Her Enemy? Even if we ignore the previous dot point, why such different mechanics for what is, in the fiction, presumably the same intellectual capability?​

​

* Isn't is just stupid that a 3rd level Battle Master can, on a good roll of the superiority die for Tactical Assessment, do better at an Intelligence (History) check than a scholarly Bard of the same level? Likewise for Stealth via Ambush, compared to a sneaky Rogue.​

It seems to me that this is not a case of different classes with different mechanics for different concepts; but rather a fetishisation of a particular mechanic (superiority dice) producing inconsistent and I would say incoherent mechanical realisations of the same concept.

 

[Sithlord]

On the issue of mechanical overlap:

I don't know a great deal about Battle Master manoeuvres. But here are some I found on a wiki:

Ambush: When you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check or an initiative roll, you can expend one superiority die and add the die to the roll, provided you aren't incapacitated.​

​

Commanding Presence: When you make a Charisma (Intimidation), a Charisma (Performance), or a Charisma (Persuasion) check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check.​

​

Menacing Attack: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to frighten the target. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it is frightened of you until the end of your next turn.​

​

Tactical Assessment: When you make an Intelligence (Investigation), an Intelligence (History), or a Wisdom (Insight) check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check.​

The same wiki also tells me that Battle Masters get this ability at 7th level:

Know Your Enemy: Starting at 7th level, if you spend at least 1 minute observing or interacting with another creature outside combat, you can learn certain information about its capabilities compared to your own. The DM tells you if the creature is your equal, superior, or inferior in regard to two of the following characteristics of your choice:​

​

[INDENT

• Strength score
• Dexterity score
• Constitution score
• Armor Class
• Current hit points
• Total class levels, if any
• Fighter class levels, if any
  [/INDENT]

To me, this all looks like a red-hot mess. I'm not sure I've spotted all the weirdnesses yet, but here are some:

* In the fiction, what is the difference between Menacing Attack and using Commanding Presence to bolster an Intimidation check?​

​

* In the fiction, what is the difference between (i) a Battle Master who N times between short rests can make certain CHA-based skill checks with a random bonus between 1 and 8, 10, or 12, and (ii) a Bard who has a constant bonus to certain CHA-based skill checks (from Expertise) that is a flat +2 to +6? Or to put it another way, why does the system use such different mechanical devices to model the same thing - ie being a charming or commanding presence?​

​

* In the fiction, what is the difference between a 7th level Battle Master spending a minute to size up an enemy, and any one else at any time doing so just by looking at them? Presumably the information provided by the Know Your Enemy ability is information that is knowable just buy looking, so why can't others look? Why does the 7th level Battle Master not just get a bonus to, or minimum roll for, the appropriate WIS (Perception) or WIS (Insight) or whatever check is appropriate?​

​

* In the fiction, what is the difference between a Battle Master making a Tactical Assessment and a Battle Master Knowing His/Her Enemy? Even if we ignore the previous dot point, why such different mechanics for what is, in the fiction, presumably the same intellectual capability?​

​

* Isn't is just stupid that a 3rd level Battle Master can, on a good roll of the superiority die for Tactical Assessment, do better at an Intelligence (History) check than a scholarly Bard of the same level? Likewise for Stealth via Ambush, compared to a sneaky Rogue.​

It seems to me that this is not a case of different classes with different mechanics for different concepts; but rather a fetishisation of a particular mechanic (superiority dice) producing inconsistent and I would say incoherent mechanical realisations of the same concept.

Because a BM’s mind and training is different than the bard and others. He is pulling information from difference sources and experiences and training that others. That’s why they use a different mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

Because a BM’s mind and training is different than the bard and others. He is pulling information from difference sources and experiences and training that others. That’s why they use a different mechanic.

What does this mean?

How is their mind different? They're both human beings (or elves or whatever). They're both remembering things they were taught by their mentors, learned at their schools, and have picked up during their travels.

Some of the issues I'm pointing to look like the result of supplements: I assume that Ambush, Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment are later editions to the PHB list.

But Know Your Enemy looks original, and its already stupid that that is not done via the skill system in the same way as (say Rogues' Reliable Talent.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

If only the class fulfilled the concept, but I think I'm safe in saying that for most, probably even the vast majority of those who want Warlords, there is no class that fulfills the concept.

If you can actually describe the things a warlord should do we can look at the mechanics implemented and ask - does this character do those things. We might not agree about whether those things you cite actually describe a warlord, but we can sure as heck objectively evaluate whether whatever is produced matches up with whatever criteria you state.

What is a Warlord?

As I described above, to me it is a question of where your primary impact comes from.

The differentiator in concept is that the Warlord should have primary impact through their leaderly/warlordy stuff and only secondary impact from directly hitting things.

The Battlemaster does just fine with the accomplished swordman who is a leader.

What does leaderly / warlordy stuff mean? It can mean a bunch of things that have already been listed -- inspiring, demoralizing, making teammates better through tactics, etc.

The concept difference is that this stuff should be the primary vechicle for impact for a Warlord. A warlord should be looking to do leadery stuff and mechnically incentivized to do it as the 1st option.