log in or register to remove this ad

 

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


log in or register to remove this ad

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Competence doesn't require Extra Attack, Proficiency reflects competence. Keeping DPR above the cantrip baseline of full casters requires Extra Attack - at the cost of significant resources.
The inspiring umm focused attack is only subtly Bravura in a sense sounds just as much like other archetypes as anything until you look closer at what you pass up vs 2 attacks, it could be an option for more than one archetype and maybe make the Bravura build get a better one. (maybe while sacrificing personal armor class too). 4e said pick two they are small on at-wills. And your other choices decided which ended up being best (far too often non-tactically but that is a different discussion).
And, really, only one Warlord concept, the Bravura calls for more than mere competence, and one, the 'lazy' build, calls for the opposite (that is, I'd consider it to be a separate subclass, in 5e - I like 'Prince(ess),' but the genderless 'Icon' or something is probably a better name).
Icon is certainly not bad at all actually I am copacetic and yes I only call it lazy lord out of expediency.

The term Vanguard imples the guy who who goes first and protects allies by risking self but misses the encourages allies to risk themselves element which is Bravura bread and butter.

It's worth noting that in 4e the 'lazy'lord and the Taclord used mostly the same features, but just had different stat arrangement, but, in 5e, it'd make more sense for them to be separate sub-classes.
Yes in part the lazylord didnt have a class feature all its own except its granted attacks were stronger from attribute shifting ... although one could do some of the other builds moves too for instance the Bravura risky running to the side of an ally an risking your hide to inspire the target while doing it and a few attacks actually worked better if you missed... lol
 
Last edited:


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The inspiring umm focused attack is only subtly Bravura in a sense sounds just as much like other archetypes as anything until you look closer at what you pass up vs 2 attacks, it could be an option for more than one archetype and maybe make the Bravura build get a better one. (maybe while sacrificing personal armor class too).
The Tacticians focus fire might not be inspiring but enable a disengage by an ally.
The Hector warlords focus fire might not be inspiring but trigger fear in a nearby enemy.

Each are technically riskier which has been pointed out is like a Rogue in some ways. (Rogues riders basically being does even more damage)
 
Last edited:



Keeping DPR above the cantrip baseline of full casters requires Extra Attack - at the cost of significant resources.
Well, not quite. Rogues don't get extra attacks.
Some significant at-will source of DPR, yes. The point is that higher-than-cantrip-DPR at-will damage-grinding rapidly removes meaningful resources from a class template. A single extra attack will punch you down to 1/2 caster; collecting the full Fighter set of Extra Attacks or the Rogue's SA, to "1/3rd" caster, and /that/ is apparently meant to be valued about the same as the Champion's improved crit, &c.
I mean, the level 5 Extra Attack is just what non-full casters get instead of cantrips.
Instead of cantrips, and full casting
, but okay, You could swap cantrips for extra attack on a cleric and it would be absolutely fine.
Or would it be obliged to turn into a half-caster Paladin?
 



doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So your hypothetical Cleric should be able to stand in combat the equal of a 1/2-caster, while also getting spells up to 9th level instead of only 5th because...?

Divine Right?
Having extra attack, by itself, wouldn’t put them on the same footing as a 1/2 caster warrior. It would put them on equal footing with a cleric with cantrips.
 

Having extra attack, by itself, wouldn’t put them on the same footing as a 1/2 caster warrior. It would put them on equal footing with a cleric with cantrips.
I think I'm beginning to see the problem. You are not valuing at-will weapon attacks as highly as 5e seems to have, based on the designs in the PH.

And based on simplistic DPR calculations:
A cantrip does 1d of damage, at 5th, 2d.​
A weapon attack does 1d+modifier, and extra attack does that twice.​
AFAIK, clerics don't have a facile way of getting at stat modifier added to their cantrip damage, so, if one were to invest in a high weapon attack stat, it'd be doing pretty close to double the average damage of a cantrip.

Now, I'm not saying any of the above is "right" per se, but it does seem like 5e class & sub-class designs are handled that way. At-will damage-grinding is highly valued, because it's multiplied out by the many rounds of the prescribed 6-8 encounter day.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I think I'm beginning to see the problem. You are not valuing at-will weapon attacks as highly as 5e seems to have, based on the designs in the PH.

And based on simplistic DPR calculations:
A cantrip does 1d of damage, at 5th, 2d.​
A weapon attack does 1d+modifier, and extra attack does that twice.​
AFAIK, clerics don't have a facile way of getting at stat modifier added to their cantrip damage, so, if one were to invest in a high weapon attack stat, it'd be doing pretty close to double the average damage of a cantrip.

Now, I'm not saying any of the above is "right" per se, but it does seem like 5e class & sub-class designs are handled that way. At-will damage-grinding is highly valued, because it's multiplied out by the many rounds of the prescribed 6-8 encounter day.
The issue is that you’re ignoring rider effects, which are worth at least as much as the +stat to damage, and the value of having multiple choices of magical damage types and different rider effects.
 

The issue is that you’re ignoring rider effects, which are worth at least as much as the +stat to damage, and the value of having multiple choices of magical damage types and different rider effects.
I don't really want to ignore those things, but I'd have to guess that 5e design, both from the content of the PH, and the comments from MM, largely does. They're 'situational' and if there's a 'best' trick to be played with it then discovering and orchestrating it is legit player fun, &c....

Besides, Clerics don't exactly have a lot of attack cantrips. In the PH, they have one.
d8, radiant, no rider (it forces a save with no benefit from cover, tho, which, I'm afraid, falls into the above)

Next?
 
Last edited:

The issue is that you’re ignoring rider effects, which are worth at least as much as the +stat to damage, and the value of having multiple choices of magical damage types and different rider effects.
Riders are generally worth around 1 or two points of damage per die, if you compare cantrips to each other.
The reason that I mentioned Extra Attack at level 11 is that that would be where it would stay level with cantrip damage.

In terms of having multiple different riders to choose from, bear in mind that most warrior-types carry more different weapons than most casters have attack cantrips.
 

Hurin88

Explorer
It needs to be the class because it's the only healer class I ever had fun playing.
I guess it only needs to be a class if you want me to heal, or anyone else like me.
Otherwise, shrug.
This ^.

I don't normally play a healer, but I did for 4e, and I ended up loving this class more than any other I have played.

Now it's time for me to be the healer again in 5e, and I am having a much harder time making it interesting. Right now I'm leaning towards a Bard... but I'm sad I'll never get to yell 'Rub Some Dirt On it!' to another party member.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Riders are generally worth around 1 or two points of damage per die, if you compare cantrips to each other.
The reason that I mentioned Extra Attack at level 11 is that that would be where it would stay level with cantrip damage.

In terms of having multiple different riders to choose from, bear in mind that most warrior-types carry more different weapons than most casters have attack cantrips.
Different weapons are comparable to choosing between cantrips, nor does it compare to having magical damage from the jump.

extra attack only even keeps up with cantrips if you also get a damage boost around 11, and/or have some other damage boost feature.

so, works fine on a Cleric.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I don't really want to ignore those things, but I'd have to guess that 5e design, both from the content of the PH, and the comments from MM, largely does. They're 'situational' and if there's a 'best' trick to be played with it then discovering and orchestrating it is legit player fun, &c....

Besides, Clerics don't exactly have a lot of attack cantrips. In the PH, they have one.
d8, radiant, no rider (it forces a save with no benefit from cover, tho, which, I'm afraid, falls into the above)

Next?
😂 “next?”

do you read your comments before posting them?

anyway, the design very clearly doesn’t ignore any of those things. Cantrips that do literally nothing but deal damage with an attack roll do more damage than those that have som sort of extra factor, which includes ignoring cover while dealing a damage type that isn’t common at-will, is rarely resisted especially at lower levels, and many creatures are vulnerable to.

and they have since expanded the cleric’s attack cantrip list, because they obviously underestimated how many people want to play clerics that wreck stuff more than heal and provide buffs.
 

you said it yourself:
and the wheel turns again, and nothing new ever happens.
anyway
anyway, the design very clearly doesn’t ignore any of those things. Cantrips that do literally nothing but deal damage with an attack roll do more damage than those that have som sort of extra factor, which includes ignoring cover
Sure, the highest-damage cantrip is what, a d10, and you can ignore cover with a d8 cantrip... making that 'rider' worth a whole 1 pt of average damage.
5e design just highly-values DPR.

(not say'n it should, just if you come up with a better way to design & balance classes and abilities, the results just might look 'broken' when the inevitable DPR calculations start flying)
 
Last edited:

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Technically the highest damage cantrip is Toll the Dead which can do a d12. I've been told by reliable sources that technically correct is the best kind of correct. :p

Your point about the value placed on DPR by 5e's design remains cogent, despite the technicality of my correctness.
 

extra attack only even keeps up with cantrips if you also get a damage boost around 11, and/or have some other damage boost feature.
Lets see . . .
Most basic damage cantrip. No riders that might cause confusion: Fire Bolt
Damage at level 11: 3d10, or 17ish.
Extra attack with a longbow (closest equivalent). Assume stat at 20 but not magic or other bonuses.
Damage at level 11: 2d8+10, or 19ish.

So it looks like we're both wrong. Extra attack at level 11 doesn't stay level with cantrip damage. It surpasses it.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top