Vaalingrade
Legend
The designers however have decided that the wizard gets the (heh) advantage in getting that spotlight because they can do just like, way more than Stabby McOnlyattacks.
D&D 5E Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
You've fallen a page behind.
Because the fighter has less to do in mechanical terms, the fighter player has the cognitive room to follow the fiction and the play, and so advise the wizards and bards on what they should do.
It's game-design genius!
Time to play the princess with no combat abilty.
I'll dominate the whole game.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I am a person that thinks there is too many die rolls to resolve things outside of combat that should be resolved by paying attention and thinking. But lets see fighters max out charisma and take expertise persuasion. Or intelligence and expertise investigation. They want it. It’s there for them.
Undrave
Legend
BE a Warlord without expending ressources, for one thing. BE a Warlord at level 1 for another?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Nothing about expertise precludes that playstyle. In this case, expertise is just a fall back instead of the main option.
Don Durito
Hero
The issue here is how the only thing that supports the social pillar being a pillar is that someone called it that. (A clever trick really - who knew that all you had to do to convince people a game supports something is say that it does - it's a real labour saving technique.)
I want a Fighter to contribute in ways appropriate to a Fighter. Like the example from Adventures in Middle Earth I gave earlier in the thread when you can get advantage on Persuasion when you wave your magic sword around. That's cool because it requires a certain kind of situation. Persuading the queens lady in waiting to introduce you to the royal princess - not the sort of situation where you want to be waving your sword around - leave that to the bard; convincing a group of relucnant guardsmen to follow you into the cultists headquarter as backup by giving a speech about how you used this sword to fight their nations enemy in the last war? - that's more in the Fighter's wheelhouse.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Let's be honest though. There are a few of classes that don't feel like their class from a purely mechanical perspective at level 1. Paladins and Rangers being perhaps the worst offenders. Then there are also classes that feel like their class at level 1 but suck in comparison to most others (i'm looking at monks and sorcerers here).
Point I'm trying to make is that, a Warlord doesn't need a ton at level 1 to make it feel as warlordy as a paladin feels paladiny.
Why do you say this? Lay on Hands and Detect Evil (sorry, Divine Sense) for the Paladin; Natural Explorer for the Ranger.
The analogue for the warlord might be an ability to bolster in some fashion - either hp restoration, action economy manipulation, or an appropriately balanced way of doing both.
You could be a small town gang leader or militia lieutenant as a level 1 warlord.
Manbearcat
Legend
GM: Alright Vanessa, Amy, Bill...here are your character sheets.
Vanessa, Amy, Bill: AWESOME!
Timmy: Where's my character sheet?
GM: Silly Timmy. You don't get one. You won First Prize for this campaign (Second Prize is a set of steak knives)! You're uniquely positioned to have the privilege of getting to "pay_attention" and "tell_other_people_what_you'd_like_them_to_do!" Now, I know...I know. You're going to ask me "BUT GM, THIS CRAZY OVERPOWERED ABILITY MUST BE RATIONED TO BE ONLY ONCE PER ADVENTURING DAY?!" No Timmy...this is the incredible thing... You can use this "at_will." Yeah...
Timmy: ...
In the PHB under combat actions it is listed as an improvised action. That is the ONLY place it is listed under combat actions.
Where does the PHB (or any RAW) list a persuasion check as an action in combat?
I know people do not need to know every detail of the rules to play, and it is irrelevant anyway because it is just one action in both cases, but a persuasion check is clearly an improvised action according to the rules and it is one that is in this case "more powerful" than a standard action.
The game will never be unbalanced by making improvised actions more powerful than standard actions. By definition if you are doing them then are more powerful in that specific circumstance (or at least you think they are).
Slaughtering 15 people is pretty intimidating.
Generally intimidation appeals to fear and emotion, persuasion appeals to logic.
That is not true, most of what defined them was the same. According to the rules, Paladins and Rangers even became regular fighters with an alignment shift.
Intimidation is not an action in the PHB.
Intimidation is covered under "improvised actions" on page 193, it is specifically mentioned as an example of an improvised action.
In the PHB, The only skill checks that are actually actions by themselves are stealth (part of "hide" action) and investigation or perception (part of "search" action). Athletics checks are also part of several things you can do with the "attack" action, but that is the attack action, not an athletics check action. In the DMG Athletics and Acrobatics checks are part of the "Overun", "Shove aside" and "tumble" actions (all of which are optional)
Any other skill check you do is part of the "improvising an action" action.
Ok then play a warlord built on the Rogue chassis. Use your Rogue class features to take feats like prodigy, observant, skill expert
What is it that you want to do exactly? I keep getting vague references to "use intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom" in combat. What are you trying to build, I will help you get there and I am pretty sure I can build it using RAW.
Don Durito
Hero
I'm pretty sure the issue is not whether you can translate a fictional concept into 5e rules in some way.
The question is whether doing so will be satisfying and fun.
In UA, a Cavalier can become a regular Fighter (but with weapons of choice rather than weapon specialisation) under certain conditions. Yet - for reasons that aren't clear to me - the Cavalier is not flagged as a sub-class of Fighter.
What defines a Fighter, in AD&D, is an attack and save table, a d10 HD, multiple attacks, the ability to use any armour and weapons, and the lack of an alignment restriction. A Fighter who builds a castle gets benefits.
What defines a Ranger, in AD&D, is sharing the fighter attack and save table, having a d8 HD (2d8 at 1st level), multiple attacks that are different from the Fighter's, the ability to use any armour and weapons, multiple special abilities like tracking and surprise enhancement, and having to be of good alignment and adhere to certain limits on owning wealth/goods. A Ranger who builds a castle doesn't get the benefits a fighter does.
Being a sub-class of Fighter dictates a ranger's attack and save tables. That's it. It doesn't dictate ability score requirements, nor HD, nor special abilities, nor alignment and related requirements. It doesn't dictate magical item use (qv Illusionists) nor weapon and armour use (qv Clerics vs Druids).
It's nothing like the concept of sub-class in 5e. In fact the only thing that sub-class defines in AD&D is irrelevant in 5e, where everyone uses the same progression table (ie proficiencies) for attacks and saves.
You can already do this if you convince your DM the situation warrants it.
I don't think that has anything to do with class. It has to do with Charisma. Now if you are a fighter you might use your sword as a prop to do that, but it being able to convince those people has nothing to do with being a fighter. Quite frankly it has nothing to do with class at all and a Bard that decided to dump Charisma would not (and should not) be very good at it either.
Hitler did not convince 80 million Germans to follow him into WW2 by talking about a great soldier he was in WW1.
Similar Threads
