Quite so.You can scale the damage capability by scaling the number of attacks it can grant others grant. Instead of giving the Warlord let it grant 1 more attack per turn than it otherwise would of.
I do agree. Taking a big ol' review of the options available and just going from there could be a thingHonestly, I'm not sure a crowd sourced based design is the way to go. Probably better would be to have a few different complete attempts and then people can pick the ones they like. IOW, exactly the way all the other 5e classes have been designed.
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.
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.
Sure, I’ll volunteer for person b. I’m not attached to specific mechanics, even the ones I think make the most sense.Well, yeah, but then people actually have to do the whole thing. OTOH, crowdsourcing would allow people to contribute to building it without haveing to commit to building a whole class themselves.
YMMV.
@doctorbadwolf & @Undrave - if you want, I'd set up the + homebrew thread and be responsible for making edits (be person A); y'all would have to decide which SRD class you want to use as the base chassis* and who makes the determination as to when a feature is set (person B). Or not.
*I'd recommend a non-spellcaster to keep things simple .... certainly for the first try to see how it works.
The highest-DPR 4e Warlord builds didn't deliver much of that DPR, themselves, so definitely not trying for a conventional fighter style if Extra-attack driven DPR.I'm not convinced a "striker" warlord is justified. Isn't that just a fighter?
Yes, definitely. One of the Warlord sub-classes brainstormed on here in the past was more a Defender.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.
That seems the most reasonable way to go.I would still give it extra attack - which I would definitely NOT make a core warlord ability (see how it got removed from the core artificer, because it was basically a useless ability for some of the subclasses).
The only purpose of the exercise would be to "prove no one can agree on what the Warlord should be." As has been pointed out, such attempts drown in minutia and have high turnover.Honestly, I'm not sure a crowd sourced based design is the way to go. Probably better would be to have a few different complete attempts and then people can pick the ones they like. IOW, exactly the way all the other 5e classes have been designed.