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

[ECMO3]

Still optional.

I could talk to my DM and use a homebrew warlord instead.

Or you could use the rules provided.

I also find it hard to believe your DM won't allow feats but will allow an entire new class .... even if it was published in a new rulebook since it would surely be optional.

Strike 1.

Describe a improvised action that could use those manevuers that would be worth spending the dice.

I described one use in the example above and I gave you the page number in the PHB so you could look it up, but I will put the text from the PHB here, note the bolded text:

"..... intimidating enemies, sensing weakness in magical defenses or calling for parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or they genuinely don't think it's a good implementation and would like something good instead of 'good enough'?

Like no one ever accepts 'good enough' for wizards, but people who want to play non-magical weapon masters just have to suck it up.

Of course everyone has opinions about how a thing should be optimally implemented, and it probably differs somewhat from what is published. This doesn't uniquely apply to this situation. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would want caster rules to be implemented differently than they currently are too.

 

[Minigiant]

no. The point of a warlords is they facilitate group tactics. And experience can be more valuable than mental stats.

Then you are changing the meaning of the D&D warlord. Because the warlord in the past used their mental stats more than experience.

By that logic, melee attacks should not get Strength modifier bonuses.

 

[Sithlord]

Then you are changing the meaning of the D&D warlord. Because the warlord in the pastused their mental stats more than experience.

By that logic, melee attacks should not get Strength modifier bonuses.

Completely disagree with your point of view. But I can respect it. And again I would like to see more BM with mental stats. But that is nice but not neccessary

 

[Maxperson]

Or you could use the rules provided.

I also find it hard to believe your DM won't allow feats but will allow an entire new class .... even if it was published in a new rulebook since it would surely be optional.

You can't expect anything optional to be used just because you personally feel like it would be a good fit. Others might not feel the same or have a hard no feat rule.

"..... intimidating enemies, sensing weakness in magical defenses or calling for parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores."

Improvised actions by nature cannot be as good or better than normal actions or they become the new norm.

 

[Minigiant]

Or you could use the rules provided.

I also find it hard to believe your DM won't allow feats but will allow an entire new class .... even if it was published in a new rulebook since it would surely be optional.

It could happen.
The point is if optional content is a valid fix then any optional content is a viable fix.

I described one use in the example above and I gave you the page number in the PHB so you could look it up, but I will put the text from the PHB here, note the bolded text:

"..... intimidating enemies, sensing weakness in magical defenses or calling for parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores."

You didn't give the specifics of

1. the check rolled
2. the effects on success or failure
3. how often you can do it.

Therefore you aren't demonstrating how the maneuvers could be used in combat.

When I DM, there is a way they could be used in combat. However that's because my games are flooded with houserules no one but I use.

 

[ECMO3]

You can't expect anything optional to be used just because you personally feel like it would be a good fit. Others might not feel the same or have a hard no feat rule.

This is a catch-22. Homebrew like a warlord would be optional, it would even be optional if it was published.

You can't expect anyone to use a new Warlord class even if such a class existed.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is a catch-22. Homebrew like a warlord would be optional, it would even be optional if it was published.

You can't expect anyone to use a new Warlord class even if such a class existed.

There is a difference between Rule 0 fiat and things the game goes out of its way to say is optional.

It's like doing a science experiment: standard temperature and pressure are a given unless you have a reason to change that, but there are a lot of other variables that have to be considered. Feats used to be STP. They SHOULD be STP. But they're not STP.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a catch-22. Homebrew like a warlord would be optional, it would even be optional if it was published.

You can't expect anyone to use a new Warlord class even if such a class existed.

People in my experience are far more likely to allow a new class than a category that they've eliminated entirely. Especially an official one.

 

[ECMO3]

Improvised actions by nature cannot be as good or better than normal actions or they become the new norm.

The rules say otherwise, as quoted above "the ONLY limits ..... are your imagination and your characters ability scores"

that means they can be as good or better than normal actions and are not limited by such.

In the example I used above, using intimidate can knock out 4 or more foes in a single turn. If I used the attack action I would eliminate 1 at most. This is an example where the improvised action can be FAR MORE effective than a normal action and this is an example which is explicitly mentioned in the improvised action tone box.