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

[Undrave]

Your class is pretty good. It does slide into the areas of design that I feel is reminiscent of an illusion of choice, though.

To illustrate what I mean, Radiating Confidence is made better when the Warlord uses a different feature that grants temporary hit points but in order for the Warlord to actually have that feature, they must take the Inspiring Presence feature. This means an Ardent Soul Warlord is so highly incentivized to have Inspiring Presence that it may as well not have a choice at all.

But Inspiring Presence grants the Strike! shout a bonus. This would be okay on its own but Strike! has a pretty heavy implication that one player in your party is playing a character with a good Attack action. So the result is that Ardent Soul feels like a suboptimal subclass based on whether your other party members chose a different martial character. A whole subclass that is made better or worse based on the other player's choices gives me bad vibes.

Well, I think you're looking at it the wrong way... it's not 'Ardent Soul has no choice but to pick Inspiring Presence', but rather 'Inspiring Presence is tempted to pick Ardent Soul, but there is also Rabble Rouser and Chosen One'. You pick your Presence before your subclass,afterall. Also, if you think that's bad here is what the older version of that Presence was like:

Inspiring Presence: When you roll for initiative, and you are not surprised, you and all creatures of your choice that can see you within 30 feet of you gain temporary hit points equal to your level plus your Charisma modifier. Furthermore, if you use the RISE UP! shout, the creature you target gains temporary hit points equal to your level plus your Charisma modifier.

So yeah, I reigned it in so that, while not optimal, you CAN build with a different presence for a different benefit and not be useless. (you could also just get the Inspiring Leader feat, BTW). I also reworked the Ardent Soul's own Temp HP granting feature so they worked better.

You see, I'm a big fan of your character starting with hints of what their subclass will be. For exemple, I think the Fighter who wants to go Eldtrich Knight should start their career with Arcana proficiency and probably should have access to an Arcane style 'Blessed Warrior' fighting style. So, you going with the Presence that key off Charisma is a way to align yourself with your future Ardent Soul goal. It's building blocks leading to it. The starting gear options I include and tools proficiency are also all designed to allow you to hint at your future subclass in subtle ways if you know what you're doing.

As for the Shout... Well, each of the three shout (in their current form) gives a bonus based on a mental stat, with the minimal bonus always being +1 (so, even if you get an 8 you still get a marginal benefit). The RISE UP shout keys off Charisma, and Inspiring Presence adds another bonus to STRIKE so that, after your Presence, you always have 2 good shouts and one middling one, regardless of your favored stat.

Now STRIKE I do admit is a victim of the lack of a consistent approach to who picks up the dice in 5e. It's difficult to make it synergize with Spellcasters, but its bonus to damage roll works no matter if its an attack or a spell damage (and it's no necessarily a bonus to the bonus attack granted by the Shout, mind you). I also have to contend with the limitation put on reactions so I have to avoid making it compete with OA for the frontliner. That's why it doesn't just grant a reaction.

I do like the Insight pool and the fact that it uses a more randomized resource. I would probably have the max pool a bit more understandable since at a glance I wasn't sure if the maximum was supposed to be randomly generated each fight, if the maximum was the dice maximum, or if the maximum was 2 dice.

The maximum number of dice is denoted in the 'Max Insight' column of the class feature table. You know, the one that list all the features and proficiency bonuses? At level 1 the maximum is 2d6 and at level 20 it's 10d6.

It also has alot of moving parts that a newbie has to immediately balance around. They might get confused about when they roll the insight dice, how they expend their insight pool, when they can actually use it, etc. Its spelled out plainly but I've seen new players struggle with easier concepts. It might be, in some ways, wiser to have the insight pool be introduced at level 2 or 3.

It's kinda meant to be more complex. For the Insight Pool, I would recommend just moving around actual physical dice (I do that with my Superiority Dice when I play a Battlemaster). I've also been trying to streamline the whole thing as much as possible over each itiration of the class (the first version is a mess!). In previous versions, Expose Weakness was a thing you did as a bonus action. I've folded it into the Help Action to limit the ammount of things you can do per turn and how much stuff you need to track.

I really tried to focus on short duration buffs (usually until the start of the Warlord's next turn) or flat bonuses so there's not a lot of tracking. Usually you're tracking 1 buff on 1 ally (or a Weakness on 1 creature) until the start of your next turn while keeping an eye out for when you can spend your reaction for buffing your allies' damage output. Then at the start of your next turn you forget everything and re-evaluate the situation. Or you can just attack yourself and only care about the Insight dice bonus! That's also totally possible! Ironically, the most straight forward and simple build would be one with INT as a secondary! You just give out your Initiative bonus, focus on attacking with a good versatile weapon, then go into Steel Vanguard and upgrade your weapon and armor, and maybe sometimes use a shove or a grapple as you gain attacks.

I will admit to be struggling a bit with the pacing of abilities. This Warlord is, as hard as it might be to notice, actually based on the ROGUE's basic frame. As the only fully At-Will class, the Rogue was a fascinating design for me and I wanted the challenge of creating a similar class. The Rogue's class progression is full of stuff! It doesn't look like it but if you don't just copy-paste Expertise you end up with tons of levels where you need a replacement out-of-combat feature, AND there's still a ton of in-combat feature and the Rogue's first two level are pretty busy too! Subclasses are pretty easy, thankfully.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. Thank you for your criticism! I'm actually considering more changes for V6 and I'll be sure to keep my simplification streak going somehow and your comments in mind. I'm probably going to excise ability modifiers from Shouts, for exemple...

 

[Dausuul]

I really like the idea of a reaction-focused warlord class. It's a mechanical area that hasn't been much explored in 5E, and it clicks perfectly with the warlord concept. It's also a strong point of distinction from the bard and cleric. You don't hand out ongoing buffs; instead you grant a boost at the moment it's needed.

(The fact that it also dovetails with my own love of playing battlefield puppet master has nothing to do with it. Nope. Don't know what you're talking about.)

 

[Aldarc]

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.

"Who made you a 'Controller'? You don't control me?" or "Ugh. I can defend myself without your help, mister high and mighty 'Defender.'"

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.

I similarly thought that a Psion could toy around with the Concentration mechanics. There is still a lot of design space that 5e still has left to explore.

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.

Again, I appreciated that it opened design and conceptual space for different classes with their own identities and class fantasies while also helping to provide guidance and set player expectations regarding the class in combat with the mechanics of the class reinforcing the role, the power source, and the fantasy of the class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And again, I'm not really much advocating for the Warlord.

I, Minigiant, am advocating for the discontinuation of D&D pigeonholing every skill user into th elite warrior that is the Fighter and the sneaky underworlder that is the Rogue.

If you take every skill in D&D, there should be a class or 2 that is tied to their expert use.

• Atheletics- Fighter/Barbarian
• Acrobatics- Rogue/Monk
• Sleight or Hand- Rogue
• Stealth- Rogue
• Arcana- Wizard
• History- ???
• Investigation- ????
• Nature- Ranger/Druid
• Religion- Cleric/Druid
• Animal Handling- Ranger/Fighter
• Insight- ???
• Medicine- ????
• Perception-Ranger/Druid
• Survival- Ranger
• Deception- Rogue
• Intimidation- Fighter/Barbarian
• Performance- Bard
• Persuasion- Bard

There are many holes in skill expert mastery. And this is with 5e's narrow range of skills and reduction of skills to tools

• Artisan's Tools- Artificer for alchemy
• Disguise kit- Rogue
• Forgery Kit- Rogue
• Gaming set- ????
• Herbalism kit- ???
• Musical instrument- Bard
• Navigator's tools- ????
• Poisoner's kit- Rogue
• Thieves tools- Rogue
• Vehicles- ???
• Language- ???

Then you have skills and tools lots to time like Accounting, Information Gathering/Streetwise, Local lore, Nobility, Dungeoneering, Achitechure and Engineering, rgulary old Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, Deciphering, and Ropes. Or what Warlord players want Military.

Yes, an accountant class, that's what the game needs! 'An expert skill user' is not a class, it's a feat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, I appreciated that it opened design and conceptual space for different classes with their own identities and class fantasies while also helping to provide guidance and set player expectations regarding the class in combat with the mechanics of the class reinforcing the role, the power source, and the fantasy of the class.

How it opened the design space? It needlessly limited it! It completely artificially tied the fiction to a gamey MMO role and forced inventing fluff-thin grid-filler classes. Hell, even in WoW you can spec most classes to fulfil different roles! The bear totem barbarian with shieldmaster feat in our game is definitely more defendery barbarian, but that was build choice made within one subclass. Another barbarian, even another totem barbarian could have been more strikery.

 

[Aldarc]

How it opened the design space? It needlessly limited it! It completely artificially tied the fiction to a gamey MMO role and forced inventing fluff-thin grid-filler classes. Hell, even in WoW you can spec most classes to fulfil different roles! The bear totem barbarian with shieldmaster feat in our game is definitely more defendery barbarian, but that was build choice made within one subclass. Another barbarian, even another totem barbarian could have been more strikery.

It hardly seems like you are approaching my comment in good faith if you are going to just angrily shout the answer to your own question at me before giving me a chance to answer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It hardly seems like you are approaching my comment in good faith if you are going to just angrily shout the answer to your own question at me before giving me a chance to answer.

Sorry if it came across that way. But yeah, that whole role thing certainly was one of those super polarising 4e things that some people loved and some despised.

 

[Aldarc]

Sorry if it came across that way. But yeah, that whole role thing certainly was one of those super polarising 4e things that some people loved and some despised.

I would like to note that we are in the middle of a much larger conversation where several people here have said that there is no mechanical and/or conceptual room for the warlord in 5e, and others elsewhere in this forum have made similar comments about other classes people have wanted added to the game (e.g., shaman, psion, arcane gish, summoner, etc.) or debating why we need sorcerer, wizard, and warlock classes in the game when one could suffice, and yet 5e is a game that eschews roles.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, an accountant class, that's what the game needs! 'An expert skill user' is not a class, it's a feat.

It's the scholar class.

One shouldn't beforced to be a complex wizard or a backstabbing rogue to be a scholar. They aren't in the really world, they should be that way in D&D.

People should be able to play fantasy Da Vinci or Holmes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How it opened the design space? It needlessly limited it! It completely artificially tied the fiction to a gamey MMO role and forced inventing fluff-thin grid-filler classes. Hell, even in WoW you can spec most classes to fulfil different roles! The bear totem barbarian with shieldmaster feat in our game is definitely more defendery barbarian, but that was build choice made within one subclass. Another barbarian, even another totem barbarian could have been more strikery.

And the same is true in 4e. We still have a running joke between a friend and myself that it doesn't matter what class either one of us plays, she ends up as a striker and I end up as a controller. Complete with one notorious game where she was literally playing a controller (Wrath Invoker) and I was a Striker (Fey Warlock) and she was significantly outdamaging me - but I was locking the boss monsters down and handing out things like -5 to hit on all their attacks or making the entire party invisible to them making the DM tear his hair out.

4e certainly did not prevent some barbarians being incredibly tough (which doesn't reach the bar for "defendery" in 4e, but never mind) and others focusing on all out damage. And given the greater degree of customisation in 4e there was, in my experience, more scope to do this than there is in 5e with the single exception that the Sentinel feat allows any melee combatant into the defender realms. Indeed it was made explicit to anyone who opened the rulebook that classes had a secondary role generally related to the power source, so martials were secondary striker, arcanists were secondary controller, divine characters were secondary leader no matter their primary role. It was also made explicit that there were subclasses - and those subclasses let you lean in a secondary direction, so a great weapon fighter was far more strikery - and a brawler fighter with their grabs was more controllery. Or a Thaneborn barbarian was more leadery and the stormborn more controllery.

So 4e does exactly what you are saying you want and is pretty good at it. And I'm sure even you will agree that there's very little that can make a barbarian a controller or a wizard a defender (OK, maybe the bladesinger being significantly OP might...) Other than the complete watering down of the defender role and exiling Sentinel to a feat the roles are still there.

What 4e making expected roles explicit did was two things:

1. It focused the minds of the designers into thinking what the classes should be good at so we didn't end up with any flaily useless messes like any of the versions of the 3.X monk, or even the 3.X sorcerer. (OK, if you dig deep enough into 4e there's arguably the Binder and both assassins - but then even 5e has the PHB Ranger)
2. It provided guidance to the player in what to expect from the class and how you were supposed to play them. Veteterans wouldn't need the guidance, but new players could see the roles and realise that the barbarian outdamaging their fighter was because the fighter was supposed to have other stuff they did.

Which of these do you think is a bad thing? Focusing the designers to make sure that every class could contribute or making it easy for newbies to know how their class was supposed to contribute?

For that matter for all you talk about fluff-thin roles it brought out classes like the Invoker - a divine caster who wasn't supposed to heal but instead bring down the wrath of their god. Not using the word "Leader" doesn't take away the expectation of a cleric being a healbot from either the designers or the players. But by making the Invoker an entirely different class the accreted expectations of the MMO role that has been the Cleric's since the beginning could be swept away.