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

Should spellcasters be as effective as martial characters in combat?

  • 1. Yes, all classes should be evenly balanced for combat at each level.

    Votes: 11 5.3%
  • 2. Yes, spellcasters should be as effective as martial characters in combat, but in a different way

    Votes: 111 53.9%
  • 3. No, martial characters should be superior in combat.

    Votes: 49 23.8%
  • 4. No, spellcasters should be superior in combat.

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • 5. If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?

    Votes: 27 13.1%

  • Poll closed .

Undrave

Legend
the warlord's abilities have, indeed, been displaced about the various different classes and would suffer from lack of identity.
You keep saying that as if its true without any backing up.
Ive never played a class for its theme, ever. To be quite honest, I don't like the overall theme of D&D as a whole. But I enjoy D&D for the mechanics that it has and how they are structured, even if it has a few hiccups.
You're probably in the minority then, considering how much whining some theme based decision in 4e caused...
What is Warlord doing that's unique to any of these three classes?
It could do plenty, with just a little imagination.

I've offered my own version and gotten some good comment about the mechanics. It's not perfect (I'm already working on a new version) but it shows there's plenty that can be done.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Yeah. Let's just have a game with classes called Defender, Close Distance Striker, Ranged, Striker, Support, etc. Then they could have abilities like Single Target Attack 1, Single Target Attack 2, Area Attack 1, HP Replenishment 2 and so forth, that they could use to defeat foes such as Fast Enemy 4 and Elite 2. :rolleyes:
In all seriousness, I will fully recognize that the term "Leader" turned people off. I would potentially shift the term "Leader" to "Guardian" and then "Defender" to "Bruiser."
 

To me, them being magical or nonmagical is almost equivalent to fluff.
Well good for you! As far as I'm aware you are literally the only person who thinks that a collection of things explicitly called spells, given their own chapter, that use special, specific, and exclusive mechanics, and that have distinctive interactions is just fluff.

I'm neither opposed to it nor unopposed but I wouldn't enjoy a class that just rewrote spells and said "look, they're nonmagical now" And called it a day.
And no one is proposing that. This is a straw man. There are precisely four classes (counting the monk) existing in the whole of 5e that aren't casters - and the warlord would look mechanically more like them than the rest.
 


In all seriousness, I will fully recognize that the term "Leader" turned people off. I would potentially shift the term "Leader" to "Guardian" and then "Defender" to "Bruiser."

I might go the other direction. Something like:

IMPORTANT JOCK THAT PUSHES AROUND THE DUMB PENCIL-NECK WIZARD "DID I TELL YOU YOU COULD SPEND YOUR ACTION ECONOMY ON YOUR COOL HIGH LEVEL SPELL THAT DEMOLISHES THE ENCOUNTER...NO I DID NOT...CAST PRESTIDIGITATION ON MY BOOTS AGAIN, MAGGOT...I WANT TO SEE MY SQUARE JAW TOUGH GUY SCOWL LOOKING BACK AT ME."

I think something like that should unite the fan base.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
They share some class features but not all. Rogues and Bard share expertise while Rogues and Monks share Evasion. Yet Rogues share Cunning Action, Sneak Attack, and Uncanny Dodge; features that define the rogue's playstyle, with no other.

The same could be said for Fighter's 7th ASI, Action Surge, and their 3rd/4th extra attack. These are features that define and differentiate the fighter's class.

The warlord, as it stands in this conversation, only holds that it can share attacks. But that's not enough to truly make it stand out if the rest of the abilities are "Cast Haste but not a spell." or "Cast shield but on another character."

And nonmagical isn't an identity nor is it tangible to gameplay. I'm sure you appreciate the fact that Warlords are nonmagical but if Warlords were a poor performing class yet was complex and nonmagical, would you say that the nonmagical aspect of it made it better? Do you think other players would be more likely to play the class if its gimmick was that its nonmagical?
I think it’s that conceptually the Battlemaster with the right maneuvers fits the warlord concept - non magical martial leader.

I think there is no mechanical identity outside what the Battlemaster already can do - except do it more and better. And I think you are right that this is problematic. *that’s only for 4e style warlords though.

If we were to make a new warlord based on the concept of martial leadership and implement new mechanics, it wouldn’t necessarily play like the old warlord but I think there would be enough there for a class.

It’s a class I would love and hate. Love because I like leader characters and hate because it diminishes to some degree the fighter as a leader.
 


In all seriousness, I will fully recognize that the term "Leader" turned people off. I would potentially shift the term "Leader" to "Guardian" and then "Defender" to "Bruiser."
I really didn't have an issue with the term, except in the context of having an issue with assigning classes any such explicit roles to begin with.
 


Undrave

Legend
Battlemaster already ticks all those boxes.
A mechanical niche my own take on the Warlord takes is that of reactions. They get more reaction options and they gain additional reactions as they level up. This has the effect that a Warlord HAS to pay attention to what their allies are doing around them and not just think of themselves, just like the in-universe characters does. I think it's a design space that is not explored by any 5e class and, if done well (so as not to overwhelm the player and cause too much option paralysis), could be a signature aspect of a Warlord.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top