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

[Hussar]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

 

[Don Durito]

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.

 

[generic]

Argument #I'm tired of this discussion: The Waifu should be a class, change my mind!

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Absolutely! We were just discussing that in the warlord homebrew thread ...

Speaking of, I noticed y'all went with the winning name, but not with the winning 'Chassis' (Bard)?

 

[Fenris-77]

I feel like I should be dropping a line to my local office of the Bard Anti-Defamation League. This could be an actionable issue.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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]

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.