D&D 5E Superiority Dice? How many and often?

[Ainulindalion]

I think trying for the maneuver/superiority dice method is too limiting to the warlord, myself, but that's not the question.

That said,

A 20th level Battle Master Fighter is supposed to be equal in power to the 20th level Eldritch Knight Fighter. If an EK is 1/3 of wizard, without wizard specializations....

A warlord relying solely on superiority dice would have dice and maneuvers equal to a level 20 battle master at 7th level, with additional specialization/archetype bonuses.

That... feels like a lot.

If you do that, I don't think you have any choice but to pull the second attack from the warlord.

So, that means... 1 Superiority Dice per level + higher of INT or CHA modifier, recharge on a short rest?

Start 'em at d6 and end at d12, like bardic inspiration dice?

Personally, I'd prefer maneuvers as a subclass option.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Rogues and barbarians don't have any short rest abilities.

My mistake. I thought Rage was short rest but was incorrect.

When I think of At-Will buffing I think of Help or a Bonus Action damage boost.
At-Will: Help+ (probably as less than an action)
Bonus action for +1d6 damage for ally (replacement for TWF or Polearm Mastery bonus, etc)

 

[Orlax]

It's the fighter's mechanic. Stop trying to take the fighter's cool stuff and hand it to other people. That was regularly indicated as an issue drawn with earlier editions. That the fighter never gets to keep its toys. This was heartily identified in the play test.

Come up with other systems to power the warlord. I know I am. I'm doing a command complexity system. On your turn you can take an action to formulate a strategy to call it out to your allys. The strategy is composed of strategic components. Different components cost a different number of points (such as movement costs 1 point or a granted attack costs 2), you can combine different pieces to form a full command (int mod max on how many points you can spend in a turn so with an int of 16 you can issue a move and attack on one turn). In order to regain points you can use your action to roll your command die (starts at d4 ends at d12 at max levels) and regain that many points, your pool maximum is the highest number on your command die. If you start your turn with 0 points roll the command die for free (no action).

Number of strategic components known starts at three then grows with level (though I may change that because there aren't all that many components and there are a lot of restrictions on then being able to issue commands)

Of course as you level and depending upon what subclass you take certain interactions change, like one subclass will definitely have a feature for if you use your action to issue strategic advice you may also make an attack.

I'm actually nesting healing and bolstering with temp into this structure as well. Healing will have a variable cost which determines how much you heal (points spent equals number of command dice rolled to figure out how much you heal) with an added restriction of an ally can only benefit from the heal ability once per short or long rest (possibly only once per long rest), and the temp hit points ability will have a variable cost which determines number of targets to receive a command die worth of temp hp (might just turn into a 2 cost that hands a command die with of temp to all allows within your commanding presence cha mod*10 feet).

Also most of the strategic components include expanding the capabilities that a character has on their next turn not giving them off turn actions (it's been stated as something the design team wants to stay away from so I'm staying away from of turn action grants, it also avoids the rogue issue outright). So if you use the attack component the target of that component gets an extra attack on their attack action next turn.

I'm just not really interested in trying to take superiority dice from fighter's when there are so many other possibilities for how to handle the command structures that incentivizes issuing commands rather than using the dice pool for damage.

 

[mellored]

It's the fighter's mechanic. Stop trying to take the fighter's cool stuff and hand it to other people. That was regularly indicated as an issue drawn with earlier editions. That the fighter never gets to keep its toys. This was heartily identified in the play test.

The fighter mechanic is multi-attack.

No one got to keep at-will superiority dice of the playtest.

On your turn you can take an action to formulate a strategy to call it out to your allys. The strategy is composed of strategic components. Different components cost a different number of points (such as movement costs 1 point or a granted attack costs 2)

So... superiority points?

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'd buy the 'don't take the fighter's toys' thing if the official de facto "Warlord" wasn't the Battle Master Fighter.

Since the Battle Master has a significant chunk of the Warlord's toys I would just expand it to include the rest.

 

[Orlax]

The fighter mechanic is multi-attack.

No one got to keep at-will superiority dice of the playtest.

So... superiority points?

Except they aren't tied to multiattacking (required in order to tie together multiple superiority die capabilities) or dealing damage directly like superiority dice are. They are a mechanic that is separated completely from attacking. Because we want an ability that can be used by a virtual noncombatant.

Superiority is attached to attacking and indeed multiple attacks. That's why I say abandon it completely. Leave the fighter it's toys, and come up with a different system for a noncombatant to use.

 

[mellored]

Except they aren't tied to multiattacking (required in order to tie together multiple superiority die capabilities) or dealing damage directly like superiority dice are. They are a mechanic that is separated completely from attacking. Because we want an ability that can be used by a virtual noncombatant.

Superiority is attached to attacking and indeed multiple attacks. That's why I say abandon it completely. Leave the fighter it's toys, and come up with a different system for a noncombatant to use.

The dice don't need to be tied to attacking.

"As an action, you can spend dice to allow a ally to attack."
"As a bonus action, you can expend dice to allow an ally to move upto 5' * the roll."
"As a bonus action, you can expend dice to give someone THP equal to the roll."

Basically the same thing, but dice can scale.

 

[Orlax]

The dice don't need to be tied to attacking.

"As an action, you can spend dice to allow a ally to attack."
"As a bonus action, you can expend dice to allow an ally to move upto 5' * the roll."
"As a bonus action, you can expend dice to give someone THP equal to the roll."

Basically the same thing, but dice can scale.

Then they aren't superiority dice, superiority dice are specifically tied to attacks. Also my system has a scaling die value it's the one you use to regain strategic complexity points. My system also takes having to finagle the action economy out of the mix for generating strategic advice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There have been a number of suggestions for the hypothetical warlord to have superiority dice and maneuvers, much in the manner of the battle master. The commonly repeated rationale being akin to the analogy eldritch knight:wizard::battle master:warlord. In other words, the battle master represents a truncated version of the warlord class package within the fighter chassis.

Yep, it's a logical enough theory.

The problems I see are with the CS die mechanic, itself.

• It's designed to work with the Battlemaster, to build on that sub-classes high-DPR contribution by tacking extra damage and riders onto it's multiple attacks. Divorced from the Battlemaster's primary DPR contribution and multi-attacking mechanic, it makes less sense.
• All battlemaster maneuvers become available at 3rd level, making them essentially all apprentice-level abilities. On the Battlemaster, that's not under-powered in an absolute sense, since the multi-attacking they're tacked onto scales with level. The Warlord will need resources that keep up with the demand of providing support to a party at higher levels.
• The short-rest recharge mechanic of CS dice is bland and abstract, a self-conscious nod to 4e encounter powers without much rationale. The Warlord's emphasis on Inspiration and Tectics could open up other, more significant and less abstract limitations on the use of it's abilities.

The Eldritch Knight gains only 4th level spells max. These spells work much like a wizard. You have cantrips, spell slots, spell levels, and then expended spells are regained following a long rest. The Battle Master, however, has four superiority dice (max six) that are regained following a short or long rest. There are no "maneuver levels" nor are there "maneuver cantrips."

The analogy between Battlemaster & Warlord and EK & Wizard is a reasonable one, but it's not exact. If the analogy were tighter, the EK would have to get only 1st level spells, and only 3-4 of the spells on it's list would actually have been shared with the Wizard.

Once you realize that, it becomes clear you can't just simply work from Battlemaster to Warlord the way you might be able to reverse-engineer the EK to uncover hints about Wizard design.

I'd buy the 'don't take the fighter's toys' thing if the official de facto "Warlord" wasn't the Battle Master Fighter.

Since the Battle Master has a significant chunk of the Warlord's toys I would just expand it to include the rest.

That sounds a little inside-out. If the Battlemaster /was/ the de-facto Warlord, then it's toys could be considered Warlord toys, not fighter toys. But, it's not, only 3-4 out of 17 maneuvers are at all warlordy, and they're not even a fair sampling of support abilities. CS dice and multiple attacks seem very much the Battlemaster's and more broadly, fighter's things. All very DPR-focused.

It's the fighter's mechanic. Stop trying to take the fighter's cool stuff and hand it to other people. That was regularly indicated as an issue drawn with earlier editions. That the fighter never gets to keep its toys. This was heartily identified in the play test.

Nod. And, in spite of that MDDs started as a fighter thing, got handed out to everyone, and then taken away.

Come up with other systems to power the warlord. [/quote]Maneuvers should probably still be a starting point, rather like spells are for all the caster classes, but powering them with CS dice doesn't really fit.

Superiority Dice:

I don't think the mechanic is up to the task, at all. The Warlord should hand out bonuses based on a secondary stat or something rather than a random die roll tied to extra damage.

Misc. Maneuvers + Dice: With the BM fighter, Superiority Dice are typically expended to activate a maneuver. Should that always be the case? In other words, could there effectively be "maneuver cantrips" that the warlord could use 'at-will' without expending Superiority Dice that would not be construed as overpowered?

There could be some maneuvers that are just as likely to work as any attack is to hit. They probably won't do much - assuming the Warlord doesn't have multiple attacks, they'd still have to do /something/ to keep up with cantrips, which do scale with level.

Also, Superiority Dice are typically, but not always, incorporated into maneuvers by being added to the damage of the Dice role associated with the maneuver? Is that necessarily appropriate for Warlord maneuvers? Or should other mechanics be considered?

Other mechanics should definitely be considered. CS dice are damage adding riders on top of a class already dedicated to high DPR via multiple attacks/round. That messes up the obvious inference of battlemaster being strictly analogous to EK, and EKs spells are often going to be cast /instead/ of a set of extra attacks, while the Battlemaster is always using his CS dice /on top of/ them. Thus CS dice must be considered to be very minor in effect and very limited in number compared to what a Warlord, without extra attacks, would have to be able to do to be balanced.

Maneuvers: Assuming that the list of maneuvers expands, how many maneuvers does a warlord "know" by 20th level? Or is it that the warlord does not "know" maneuvers, as per the BM fighter?

Other support classes, like the Cleric & Druid, do not have a 'known' mechanic limiting which certain class abilities they can choose to use on a given day, those that are up for re-assignment after a long rest are chosen from the whole class list.

If we view the warlord as the "martial wizard," does this mean that the warlord would instead 'prepare' maneuvers? And again, how many? (Prepared Total = Int + Warlord level?)

Warlord maneuvers should obviously involve one or more allies. 'Preparing' should be more a matter of /training/, of working with allies so that they can benefit from the maneuver. A warlord wouldn't learn/know a maneuver then prepare it, then forget it later, he'd be broadly conversant in tactics & maneuvers, and possibly create novel or one-off ones, but, he'd have to get his allies on board with each maneuver if they're to benefit from it, otherwise it wouldn't be of any particular use.

 

[Aldarc]

Re: Known/Prepared Maneuvers:

5) If we view the warlord as the "martial wizard," does this mean that the warlord would instead 'prepare' maneuvers?
This implies that they could know and ‘not know’ a maneuver. My feeling is ‘no’, they should not prepare maneuvers.

Other support classes, like the Cleric & Druid, do not have a 'known' mechanic limiting which certain class abilities they can choose to use on a given day, those that are up for re-assignment after a long rest are chosen from the whole class list. Warlord maneuvers should obviously involve one or more allies. 'Preparing' should be more a matter of /training/, of working with allies so that they can benefit from the maneuver. A warlord wouldn't learn/know a maneuver then prepare it, then forget it later, he'd be broadly conversant in tactics & maneuvers, and possibly create novel or one-off ones, but, he'd have to get his allies on board with each maneuver if they're to benefit from it, otherwise it wouldn't be of any particular use.

Yeah, clerics, druids, and wizards do not operate on a 'known' spells mechanic. They prepare a list of spells used in a given day equal to your Casting Stat plus their Class Level. I personally would probably prefer such a mechanic for the Warlord's maneuvers.

The Battle Master, however, does only know a set list of maneuvers, though they do not 'prepare' maneuvers. Having the Warlord 'prepare' maneuvers would help further distinguish the Warlord from the Battle Master. The Warlord effectively knows all the maneuvers, but can only 'prepare' so many tactical maneuvers in a given day. Think of them as the Point Guards or Quarterbacks who are running game plays from the play book. This is why I proposed having the Warlord having a list of 'prepared maneuvers' similarly equal to their Intelligence plus their Warlord Level. I would suggest Intelligence over Charisma, since that would emphasize the tactical nature of the maneuvers. A number of their maneuvers or sub-classes, however, would work off of Charisma. Would that make them MAD? Not necessarily anymore MAD than the Battle Master, which has a number of maneuvers linked to Strength, Wisdom, and Charisma. A more 'inspiring' Warlord would thereby be more inclined to invest their stronger stat in Charisma over Intelligence and pick Charisma-based maneuvers. That in itself would thereby help distinguish a Cha-based Warlord from an Int-based Warlord. The Int-based Warlord knows more tactical maneuvers, while the Cha-based Warlord knows less maneuvers, but has a more 'inspiring/commanding presence.' Other sub-classes may even work off of Charisma, which provide further rewards for the Cha-based Warlord or the Int-based Warlord. This was essentially how many of the 4e powers worked anyways. The tactical Warlord picked Int powers, while the inspiring Warlord picked Cha powers.

Aside: There was a reason why I proposed the known/prepared mechanic. The maneuvering precursors to both the Warlord and Battle Master - the Warblade/Crusader/Sword Sage (Book of Nine Swords) - also used a known/prepared maneuver mechanic. Each of these classes featured a column for known maneuvers and a separate one for the maneuvers prepared in a given day (as well as one for stances known). I'm inclined to think that we need to look beyond simply the 4e Warlord for determining the shape of the 5e Warlord. IMHO, it should also look back to the 3e Warblade (and its disciplines), the 3e Marshal, and other 1e-3e classes that effectively provided 'martial support.'

Brainstorming: This also makes me wonder whether 'stances' could effectively be the 'cantrips' used by Warlords. I.e., a Warlord adopts a 'stance' that provides small combat bonuses/buffs that could be changed mid-combat and that also supplement their maneuvers. Unlike maneuvers, the Warlord may be limited by their list of known stances. Stances may even require 'concentration' to maintain. Or there could be a small list of 'known' cantrip-like maneuvers that the Warlord could use without expending whatever their maneuvers per short/long rest mechanic may be. Again, just brainstorming here.

Re: Superiority Dice:

It's the fighter's mechanic. Stop trying to take the fighter's cool stuff and hand it to other people. That was regularly indicated as an issue drawn with earlier editions. That the fighter never gets to keep its toys. This was heartily identified in the play test.
...
I'm just not really interested in trying to take superiority dice from fighter's when there are so many other possibilities for how to handle the command structures that incentivizes issuing commands rather than using the dice pool for damage.

Regardless of one's feelings about whether the Warlord should have 'superiority dice,' it is necessary to talk about 'superiority dice' when discussing a hypothetical Warlord. People view the BM Fighter as the 'spiritual successor' of the Warlord while others see the BM Fighter as "a lesser Warlord in a Fighter's body" and the core basis for a Warlord class, and 'superiority dice' are part of that BM Fighter package.

I tend to agree, however, with both you and Tony Vargas on this issue. I have little desire to take the BM Fighter's 'superiority dice' mechanic, as it seems oriented primarily towards DPR. In many ways, 'superiority dice' are akin to the Warlock's pact casting: it effectively casts their limited 'casting mechanic' at its highest level. (And then recharges their 'spells' on a short or long rest.) I do see the BM Fighter's combat maneuvers, or at least a small subset thereof, as a meaningful starting point for the Warlord. The challenge, however, will be in determining what that mechanic for triggering/limiting Warlord maneuvers would be, since the BM Fighter's maneuvers are triggered, limited, and powered by 'superiority dice.'