log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E The Warlord shouldn't be a class... change my mind!

Hussar

Legend
Either path is fine in isolation but in regards to the class in question which design gives you the tools you need to further your design goals?
Exactly. I think this is a better, and far more succinct, way of saying what I was trying to say. :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I guess my quibble is over "competent". Do you need two attacks to be a competent fighter? Like you say, rogues don't get it, and they are competent combatants. Sure, the warlord was up in front smacking things, but, the majority of the warlord's contribution was the effect of that attack, not really the damage of the attack itself.

5e has an awful lot of full casters. Clerics were long meant to be "competent physical combatants" but don't get multiple attacks. Druids were also on par, but, now their attacks tend to come from the shape change. I'm just saying that I'm not sure if "equal to all other fighter types until 10th level" is the same as "competent physical combatant". Granting the second attack means that there is less room for rider effects which is what sets the warlord apart.
There really isn’t any significant loss in room. No class relies entirely on EA for damage output. Having it doesn’t put Warlords on equal damage dealing footing with anyone. The Vanguard should be able to be comparable, probably, but still shouldn’t be top tier.

As for the Druid and Cleric, they weren't going to give them a major feature that would be incompatible with casting when they could just give them cantrips that deal damage instead. Notice that no one gets both in the base class.
Surely you don’t see Warlocks and Sorcerers as support classes? The Wizard...maybe, tho not IME.

anyway, as I’ve stated over and over, allowing riders on an attack, and features which replace an attack, can make for a warlord that can choose how frontline they need or want to be dynamically, and every type of marshal should be able to be up front leading the fight with their weapon. Including the Tactician. Every single archetype should be capable of being played as a warrior, because the base concept includes the concept of being a warrior.

The simplest and most elegant way to do that IMO is to give the base class Extra Attack, and focus abilities on attack riders, bonus actions when you take the attack action, and trading attacks for other things.
 

The simplest and most elegant way to do that IMO is to give the base class Extra Attack, and focus abilities on attack riders, bonus actions when you take the attack action, and trading attacks for other things.
Yes. It's nice to have fall back options, when your plan A isn't working or suitable - makes characters feel a bit more rounded.

I'd say give extra attack, but make it more attractive and more optimal to trade out that extra attack in many situations. I.e You attack and if you hit with your first attack, an ally also engaged with the target may make your second attack with Advantage.
 


5e has an awful lot of full casters.
Yeah, it kinda does.
There really isn’t any significant loss in room.
No? Compare classes with one Extra Attack on the base class to those with it in a sub-class. The former are 1/2 casters, the latter full casters. The Fighter with two more extra attacks, can be a "1/3rd" caster.
The price of that first Extra Attack sure seems high.

And, it's understandable, multiple attacks compatible with focus-fire have been problematic in every edition, they act as multipliers to any per-attack damage bonus you can come up with - and all weapon attacks already add STR or DEX mod to damage.

No class relies entirely on EA for damage output. Having it doesn’t put Warlords on equal damage dealing footing with anyone.
Overall, in 5e, everyone is on a more or less equal damage footing, the trick is getting that theoretical overall damage out of at-will grinding and into versatile resources that can actually be used for support.

anyway, as I’ve stated over and over, allowing riders on an attack, and features which replace an attack, can make for a Warlord that can choose how frontline they need or want to be dynamically
Attacks are at-will, so that reduces whatever those riders can reasonably be to minor spammable perks even lower-impact and less significant than BM maneuvers. Support contributions aren't just the kind of things you can grind out a little at a time each round, sometimes they have to be reactive and significant.

There's a reason the BM falls so far short of the Warlord, and giving the Warlord base class Extra Attack just pushes it in that same direction.

Every single archetype should be capable of being played as a warrior
So you're writing off at least one of the more interesting and unique builds, completely. I'd prefer the 5e Warlord, no longer constrained by Role, to actually add more viable character concept & playstyle support than it did in 4e, not less.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yes. It's nice to have fall back options, when your plan A isn't working or suitable - makes characters feel a bit more rounded.

I'd say give extra attack, but make it more attractive and more optimal to trade out that extra attack in many situations. I.e You attack and if you hit with your first attack, an ally also engaged with the target may make your second attack with Advantage.
Absolutely! We were just discussing that in the warlord homebrew thread as a Vanguard ability, but it could easily be a base class thing that the Vanguard does in an even more offensive manner.
 



If having an additional attack at say, level 11 to keep pace with cantrip damage is regarded as "too martial", you could always just have some of the at-will maneuvers that the class can pick from grant something similar.

That way, a marshal can choose to have an option that lets them contribute to damage themselves rather than relying on having another martial character in the party and available.
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
The warlord does need something at level 11 to keep pace with other classes. All classes get something at levels 5 and 11 to help with combat. For a warlord I'd definitely give them extra attack at level 5. Level 11 a class gets either something like a damage bonus (improved divine smite, extra attack) or a defensive buff (like the barbarian and, I think, the monk gets though I can't recall what they're called).

For the warlord, I'd probably make level 11 a subclass ability that provides a different ability dependent on the subclass's general philosophy around how it works as a warlord or make it a class ability but give options in a way similar to the hunter ranger.
 

The warlord does need something at level 11 to keep pace with other classes. All classes get something at levels 5 and 11 to help with combat. For a warlord I'd definitely give them extra attack at level 5. Level 11 a class gets either something like a damage bonus (improved divine smite, extra attack) or a defensive buff (like the barbarian and, I think, the monk gets though I can't recall what they're called).
At level 5 you could grant the ability to make an attack in addition to using a maneuver that would usually take their action (which might involve also making an attack).

Have some features like Help action at range that can be substituted for an attack, so the class can always contribute without having to make an attack. (Or make that specific to 'lazylord'/'princess' build.)

At level 11 allow the warlord to use two maneuvers as their action.

(I'm using maneuver here as an interim name for a marshal ability, whether at-will, or resource-spend.)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The warlord does need something at level 11 to keep pace with other classes. All classes get something at levels 5 and 11 to help with combat. For a warlord I'd definitely give them extra attack at level 5. Level 11 a class gets either something like a damage bonus (improved divine smite, extra attack) or a defensive buff (like the barbarian and, I think, the monk gets though I can't recall what they're called).

For the warlord, I'd probably make level 11 a subclass ability that provides a different ability dependent on the subclass's general philosophy around how it works as a warlord or make it a class ability but give options in a way similar to the hunter ranger.
Makes sense.
Maybe level 11 is a strong group buff that normally keys off of either making or granting attacks? My concept is already that the warlord can trade an attack as part of the attack action to Help or Grant An Attack, both with some sort of bonus. So, when they use the attack action, at level 11 and up, they also grant a group buff?
 

If having an additional attack at say, level 11 to keep pace with cantrip damage
Keeping pace with cantrip damage is an odd way to put it. Cantrips stay behind the single-target at-will DPR of half and non-casters to leave room for the rest-recharge resources they gain as spells.

you could always just have some of the at-will maneuvers that the class can pick from grant something similar.
Like Warlocks' Eldritch Blast?
That would be better than hardwiring Extra Attack to the base class. (For that matter, even at lower level, a manuever that attacked a second target wouldn't be out of line.)
 

Keeping pace with cantrip damage is an odd way to put it. Cantrips stay behind the single-target at-will DPR of half and non-casters to leave room for the rest-recharge resources they gain as spells.
Indeed. You have fairly unequivocally stated that you find the idea of the marshal having an extra attack as unacceptable since it would draw class power away from the other options.

Presumably in the same way that having access to cantrips that scale with level draws power away from classes without extra attack.

Putting the extra attack at 11th level brings it fairly closely in line with a baseline cantrip in terms of individual at-will damage contribution.
 

Presumably in the same way that having access to cantrips that scale with level draws power away from classes without extra attack.
Clearly to a different degree, since the classes with Cantrips as their scaling baseline at-will DPR are full casters, while those with even one Extra Attack are 1/2 or 1/3rd casters.

That is, the point of Extra Attack isn't to keep up with cantrips, but to stay ahead of them, and the price for that is reduced rest-recharge resources.

Putting the extra attack at 11th level brings it fairly closely in line with a baseline cantrip in terms of individual at-will damage contribution.
That does sound better than the usual 5th.
 
Last edited:



Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Sounds kinky. Wonder what Guenivere thinks.
Not sure sometimes that might be her idea kaching though the stories were fraught with variations.

TBH the lancelot story seems almost like it was somewhat cribbed from the historical Flavius Belisarius from the 500s (which is a well documented one actually)
 

Keeps it martial though Arthur wont be spanking Lancelot directly LOL
... another thought on adapting Extra Attack...

One is, a maneuver that let you attack more than once, but didn't stack damage the way Extra Attack does. Say, make two attacks, vs one or two targets. Damage is 1 weapon die per hit, + damage modifiers, once.

The other is an alternate Extra Attack that doesn't go to single-target DPR, directly. Like, here's the normal Extra Attack:
Beginning at 5th Level, you can Attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on Your Turn.
Simple, and the best thing to do with it will almost always be to focus fire by attacking the same enemy twice per round until it drops.

A variant Extra Attack might go something like: Whenever you take the Attack action on Your Turn, you can make a second attack against a different target, or give an ally advantage on their next attack against your first target.

While a maneuver might go: "When you use Variant Extra Attack to give an ally advantage against an enemy you attacked, that ally can use his Reaction to attack that enemy, immediately." or "When you use Variant Extra Attack to give an ally advantage against an enemy you attacked, that ally gains temporary hit points if his next attack hits." etc...


...meh... it's a thought, not sure it has much potential.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
... another thought on adapting Extra Attack...

One is, a maneuver that let you attack more than once, but didn't stack damage the way Extra Attack does. Say, make two attacks, vs one or two targets. Damage is 1 weapon die per hit, + damage modifiers, once.

The other is an alternate Extra Attack that doesn't go to single-target DPR, directly. Like, here's the normal Extra Attack: Simple, and the best thing to do with it will almost always be to focus fire by attacking the same enemy twice per round until it drops.

A variant Extra Attack might go something like: Whenever you take the Attack action on Your Turn, you can make a second attack against a different target, or give an ally advantage on their next attack against your first target.

While a maneuver might go: "When you use Variant Extra Attack to give an ally advantage against an enemy you attacked, that ally can use his Reaction to attack that enemy, immediately." or "When you use Variant Extra Attack to give an ally advantage against an enemy you attacked, that ally gains temporary hit points if his next attack hits." etc...


...meh... it's a thought, not sure it has much potential.
I considered Granted attacks not providing attribute bonuses.... or providing only bonuses based on weapon type and attribute of the Warlord not the target.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top