That first Extra Attack does seem to be valued low, even a wizard (Bladesinger) can scoop it up as though it were little more than a ribbon.In 5e, Extra Attack is not a striker feature outside of the Fighter. Every other warrior uses some other feature on top of EA to attain “striker” damage.
The similarity is obvious, but Extra Attack is the whole thing - make 2-4 attacks per round vs just a 2-4d attack, for 6-8 encounters and pull even with caster's slot-powered blasting - if you have Extra Attack you apparently can't be allowed the versatility a support character needs.Extra attack is there to create a similar damage baseline to cantrips.
That first Extra Attack does seem to be valued low, even a wizard (Bladesinger) can scoop it up as though it were little more than a ribbon.
So, yeah a Warlord sub-class or two that are particularly aggressive, like the Bravura, could do likewise. Not for the class chassis, though.
The similarity is obvious, but Extra Attack is the whole thing - make 2-4 attacks per round vs just a 2-4d attack, for 6-8 encounters and pull even with caster's slot-powered blasting - if you have Extra Attack you apparently can't be allowed the versatility a support character needs.
Though, beyond simple DPR, that whole balance scheme doesn't hold up well, anyway.
Out of 6 or 8 builds, only the Bravura shaded into the fighter's bailiwick enough to yoink some of its mechanics, it's the only sub-class that should definitely have one extra attack, as not much more than a "yeah, we bad" ribbon, really.it holds up fine, and yes it belongs in the class, not subclasses. Otherwise it ends up with most subclasses having it, and 1 or 2 not, which is bloody weird.
The Paladin has silo'd support features, it cant easily be built not to. But it can easily fall into being mainly tanky DPR, like the Fighter, and just provide basic support from those silos. That's the wrong emphasis for the Warlord, personal asskickery needs to be strictly secondary, if it's to come through a faithful rendition.Firstly, the Paladin can easily be built to focus on support. Second, the base class doesn’t have to have any other features that are about dealing damage directly.
I'm not convinced a "striker" warlord is justified. Isn't that just a fighter? It seems to me that a "tank" warlord would be more appropriate - it's a front-liner, but it is focused on controlling the battlefield, not doing damage itself. And it's not something fighters do all that well.So, yeah a Warlord sub-class or two that are particularly aggressive, like the Bravura, could do likewise. Not for the class chassis, though.
I think it has been tried on here many times actuallyPeople really want to crowdsource a warlord? We can't even agree on this one basic ability to boost their combat effectiveness.
It is essential for the warlord to justify it's existence as a separate class rather than a fighter subclass that it not get the same abilities as a fighter at the same level as a fighter. If (and I don't think it does) need a damage boost, it needs to find a different way to do it.The warlord should also have some kind of damage scaling ability as part of its core class feature, extra attack at level 5 fits
Not all extra attacks are of equal value. on a bladesinger extra attack action is competing with cast a spell action, and most of the time cast a spell is better. Add to that that they can't use 2H weapons - an extra attack with a 2H sword is a lot better than an extra attack with a poxy rapier. When you add in abilities that buff damage per attack (and the warlord under 5e rules would be able to buff themselves) extra attack would be even stronger.That first Extra Attack does seem to be valued low, even a wizard (Bladesinger) can scoop it up as though it were little more than a ribbon.