D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Tony Vargas]

Right, but when I try to make a warlord based on a half caster, I always get at least one person telling me that it has to have high level abilities comparable to high level spells.

Yes, a half-caster would probably fall short. Though the Paladin is an example of a half-caster capable of support, it's also still very fighty, with it's d10 hd, heavy armor, extra attack, and combat style...

The point I was making is that the Warlord has to back off on being so much like a fighter. It's supposed to fight in the front lines, but, like, Clerics can fight in the front lines without benefit of the Fighter's perquisites. You don't need d10 HD and Extra Attack and so forth.

Of course I also have come to dislike the idea of making it a support class as such. IMO it’s better to find the broader archetype in the concept and make support at least somewhat optional.

That is another point. A "support character" in 5e is a character capable of support, not a character dedicated to it. Full casters can take on some support functions, with healing being the most restricted one (Clerics, Bards, Druids, and the odd Sorcerer? Warlock? sub-class, get healing spells, while Wizard pointedly do not). Even a direct port of a 4e Warlord to 5e would be a trap choice, since it's too focused on that role, and would be an inferior addition to any party compared to a more versatile Cleric/Bard/Druid or the like.

 

[Seramus]

If you take away the Combat Pillar, is your class still 66% effective? Should it be?

 

[CreamCloud0]

If you take away the Combat Pillar, is your class still 66% effective? Should it be?

And If you take away the combat pillar and you’re only 33% effective does that mean you should be 33% more effective in the combat pillar than someone who’s 66% effective outside the combat pillar?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, a half-caster would probably fall short. Though the Paladin is an example of a half-caster capable of support, it's also still very fighty, with it's d10 hd, heavy armor, extra attack, and combat style...

The point I was making is that the Warlord has to back off on being so much like a fighter. It's supposed to fight in the front lines, but, like, Clerics can fight in the front lines without benefit of the Fighter's perquisites. You don't need d10 HD and Extra Attack and so forth.

I’m not sure I agree. I think the warlord should be a warrior. Maybe without fighting style but d10 HD, extra attack, good proficiencies, etc.

The Cleric doesn’t have warrior as a pillar of its base class identity (anymore, necessarily), while the warlord (by any name) does.

That is another point. A "support character" in 5e is a character capable of support, not a character dedicated to it. Full casters can take on some support functions, with healing being the most restricted one (Clerics, Bards, Druids, and the odd Sorcerer? Warlock? sub-class, get healing spells, while Wizard pointedly do not). Even a direct port of a 4e Warlord to 5e would be a trap choice, since it's too focused on that role, and would be an inferior addition to any party compared to a more versatile Cleric/Bard/Druid or the like.

This I largely agree with.

I think if you look at the Bard, drop casting in half (and turn it into non-spells), double bardic inspiration (or scale how many allies you can give the benefit to with one die) and trade Expert stuff for Warrior stuff, it works.

Instead of cantrips, you give it at-will ways to trade an attack for a tactical benefit, which means that extra attack becomes a versatility boost each round, and the class plays like no one else.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'd be interested to see a full-caster-level maneuver system...
I'm a tad skeptical it's even possible, with spells being what they are in 5e.

Yeah I’d love to see a caster grade manoeuvre system for martials, just, I wouldn’t want it based on the mechanics of the spellcasting system

 

[Micah Sweet]

You mean with UngeheuerLich's hypothetical Fighter with good hypothetical features? What's one more hypothetical to top that off?

Besides, there was this whole edition prior to 5e where all classes had a choice of features... But we can't talk about that edition, so I I suppose we'll just go with existing 5e subclasses like the Battlemaster, the Arcane Archer, and the Rune Knight.

And if you're fine with all the other things that edition did, it's a great option for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd be interested to see a full-caster-level maneuver system...
I'm a tad skeptical it's even possible, with spells being what they are in 5e.

That's the kind of thing I meant about the fighter chassis not working... 3 Extra Attacks? Nobody with anything comparable to the support casting of a cleric or bard, gets 3 Extra Attacks. An Extra attack, sure...

They have one in Level Up.

 

[Scribe]

What if you want to just kick a&* on your own, with no desire to be a leader of men? What class should you play?

Serious question. I actually like your idea on its face.

Barbarian (though I have no issue with it also being Fighter or Rogue.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah I’d love to see a caster grade manoeuvre system for martials, just, I wouldn’t want it based on the mechanics of the spellcasting system

That would be even worse than deciding to use spells for psionics, yes. And how little sense would it make? You need to chant in a strange tongue and have eye of newt or a spell focus to "cast" inspiring word? What does it take to inspire you people?

I’m not sure I agree. I think the warlord should be a warrior. Maybe without fighting style but d10 HD, extra attack, good proficiencies, etc.

Instead of cantrips, you give it at-will ways to trade an attack for a tactical benefit, which means that extra attack becomes a versatility boost each round, and the class plays like no one else.

It would be unique, but I doubt it would jibe with 5e design. For one thing, you're doing the Fighter thing, and then some - straight into the crab bucket you go. For another, at-will, in 5e, is just a dead end. If you can do something "all day" it's prettymuch gotta be low-impact, and just a handful of options.

But, in terms of resources, there are already both long- and short- rest recharge martial abilities, so that's doable... For that matter there's the odd BM maneuver that forces a save. Will save, even, IIRC.

And if you're fine with all the other things that edition did, it's a great option for you.

I mean, it might be, if it were covered by an OGL/SRD....

 

[CreamCloud0]

Instead of cantrips, you give it at-will ways to trade an attack for a tactical benefit, which means that extra attack becomes a versatility boost each round, and the class plays like no one else.

One free battlemaster manoeuvre use per turn as a baseline, it’s like the rogue’s backstab, and spend dice if you want effects on both your attacks, between tripping, pushing, luring, goading, distracting, commander’s striking you’ll always have a way to assist.

Like was said, to be to the battlemaster what the wizard is to the eldritch Knight