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

[Maxperson]

Feats and ASIs are part of your class chassis, you get them based on class level, not character level.

No they aren't. Only ASIs are a part of it. Feats are an optional rule that the DM has to opt into, so you cannot count them as part of any class or subclass.

They are even listed on the class tables in the PHB, they are not listed anywhere else. Without the class you get no feats (except racial feats).

Without feats you get no feats. You DO get a class anyway, though.

 

[ECMO3]

No they aren't. Only ASIs are a part of it. Feats are an optional rule that the DM has to opt into, so you cannot count them as part of any class or subclass.

Feats are an optional rule that allow you to build a warlord. If your DM does not allow you to build a warlord using the rules as presented then that is on him, not the game.

The rules as they are written allow you to build a warlord character, using only the fighter/battlemaster chassis, without the need for a new class.

Also as an aside, if they publish a Warlord class it will be optional as is the Artificer and other new material published in Tasha's and several other books.

 

[Minigiant]

Inspiring leader uses charisma

Feats are optional.
Strike 1

commanding presence uses charisma,

Not a combat ability
Swing and a miss. Strike 2.

tactical assessment

Not a combat ability.

Strike 3. You're out.

The point of the warlord is that they bring the mental stats into the martial aspects of battle.

 

[Minigiant]

It's a warlord, it is not the specific mechanical implementation of warlord you want. Give it an inspiring leader feat and perhaps some social skills and it sounds perfectly fine to me.

Not a warlord though. Sense it misses the point of the warlord class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not a warlord though. Sense it misses the point of the warlord class.

Not to me. It is a warrior that can lead and inspire others. That's a warlord.

 

[ECMO3]

Feats are optional.

Talk to you DM and tell him you need to build a warlord. They are optional meaning she can use them RAW if she wants.

strike 1

Not a combat ability

Absolutely is a combat ability. Reference actions in combat- improvised actions page 192-193

strike 2

Not a combat ability.

Again is a combat ability, reference search action PHB page 193, also falls under improvised actions page 192-193.

strike 3

The point of the warlord is that they bring the mental stats into the martial aspects of battle.

Just like the build I mentioned which is doable entirely within the rules as written.

If you would care to tell me specifically what this Warlord can not do that you want them to do please go ahead and detail such for me.

 

[Maxperson]

Feats are an optional rule that allow you to build a warlord. If your DM does not allow you to build a warlord using the rules as presented then that is on him, not the game.

No. That's not how class building works. If they build a Warlord, I guarantee you that it won't require feats.

The rules as they are written allow you to build a warlord character, using only the fighter/battlemaster chassis, without the need for a new class.

No they don't. Not even WITH feats. The best you can do is a crappy Warlord wannabe. Perhaps you are satisfied with that, but the people who want a Warlord won't be.

Also as an aside, if they publish a Warlord class it will be optional as is the Artificer and other new material published in Tasha's and several other books.

Okay. The people that want it will opt in. I will opt out.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's a warlord, it is not the specific mechanical implementation of warlord you want. Give it an inspiring leader feat and perhaps some social skills and it sounds perfectly fine to me.

This is pretty much the crux of the whole issue isn't it?

It's a martial character. It's not good, it's not what you want to play, but it should be good enough because we gave you a cardboard cutout of the thing you want without any of the functions. It's fine to me, someone who doesn't care, so it should be fine for you, who does. Why couldn't you just want casters like a normal person?

 

[Minigiant]

Not to me. It is a warrior that can lead and inspire others. That's a warlord.

Indeed. And those leadership and inspirations would have mechanical effects. And since weapons are Ability based, so should the leadership and inspirations.

The problem

A fighter's Subclass lacks enough mechanical power to untilize a Fighter's Ability score as a reliable bonus to any of the combat eolls in D&D.

You can't add your INT/WIS/CHA bonus to anything in 5e combat over and over. It would be the most OP fighter subclass automatically.

 

[ECMO3]

Subclass meant something completely different in 1E than 5E. In 1E they were basically their own class. 2E created groups with classes being a member of a group. The classes in 2E were similar to subclasses in 1E.

Not really. The basic abilities of a Fighter, Ranger and Paladin were the same. Same attack tables, same save tables, same weapons (initially). Could use the same magic items (except for the subclass-specific holy avenger, which could actually still be used by fighters but not as well).

Subclasses in 1E were a lot closer to the base class with the vast majority of mechanics coming from the base class and only a few add on, mostly minor, abilities from the Paladin or Ranger subclass. The main thing was they all got to use all weapons and all armor. when the Paladin went under the Cavalier, they transitioned to the cavalier abilities and restrictions.

2E did introduce some separation between them.