Warlord Homebrew Collaboration (+) (Create a 5e Warlord)

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I think the person who used cromulent in a sentence wins. I'm the only dissenting voice on moxie anyway, and I don't hate it, so why not just go with that then.

Speaking of deflect missiles, we could use a ranged defense ability. Obviously our boy isn't catching arrows and hucking them back, but maybe something that could improve cover by a step, either as an aura or targeting X allies within X? Same general idea, but more Marshall-y. Either as a BA or maybe even a reaction.
My idea is to just crib deflect missiles but with an attack against an ally within your Presence, as a reaction.
 
That would work too, although I do like the idea of straight cribbing as little as possible. Within reason of course. I'm good with either idea here. Maybe elide the part about hucking it back though...
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
That would work too, although I do like the idea of straight cribbing as little as possible. Within reason of course. I'm good with either idea here. Maybe elide the part about hucking it back though...
Yes, what I meant was simply that you reduce the damage, and if it reduces to 0 you can allow a counter attack by spending ki.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
mostly moves it around the battle sometimes more useful sometimes less, slightly more useful but thematically correct to make this word of warning work on melee attacks too.
Perhaps to make it different from the monk ability, you impose a penalty to hit equal to Gambit Die as a reaction, if it misses redirect that attack to another target within your Presence that the attacker can target by spending 1 ki.
 
Sure it increases the power. You essentially grant a reaction to further insulate a wizard from taking concentration checks for example (far more valuable than preventing damage to the monk). Not all targets are created equal. Further to that, or perhaps more generally, the monk ability only works on himself, whereas with range you are preventing damage far more generally and more often than in just cases where the monk is targeted. It's not that the ability itself is better, more than there are significantly more available occasions to use the ability, which I submit does make it more powerful.

A case that would mitigate the above is if the reaction slot for the Marshal ends up being crowded and he's forced to make meaningful decisions on a turn by turn basis about how best to use that part of his action economy.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Not all targets are created equal.
Hmmmm not really liking that thought. Situationally requires

The idea is about a LEADER and mitigation is the other hand of healing which is done after the fact and in larger dosage usually so there is that.

A case that would mitigate the above is if the reaction slot for the Marshal ends up being crowded and he's forced to make meaningful decisions on a turn by turn basis about how best to use that part of his action economy.
I expect a lot of competition for reaction to occur... yuppers already happens for defender style fighters in 5e perhaps over much
 
Perhaps to make it different from the monk ability, you impose a penalty to hit equal to Gambit Die as a reaction, if it misses redirect that attack to another target within your Presence that the attacker can target by spending 1 ki.
Compare that to the shield spell costing a first level spell slot. It's pretty close. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it cost one Ki to use the ability and a further Ki to redirect? If that's what you meant I'm more sanguine with the cost.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
A case that would mitigate the above is if the reaction slot for the Marshal ends up being crowded and he's forced to make meaningful decisions on a turn by turn basis about how best to use that part of his action economy.
I'm thinking that the desire for interesting options can be partly satiated (in this version) by the choice points required in the action economy; this means paying careful attention to the keys for the abilities (action, reaction, bonus).
 
To distill my post above, the same power, but with range and potential targets beyond self is, without room for argument, more powerful. Not that I'm not ok with, I am, but we need to be realistic about power levels.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Compare that to the shield spell costing a first level spell slot. It's pretty close. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it cost one Ki to use the ability and a further Ki to redirect? If that's what you meant I'm more sanguine with the cost.
Deflect Missiles is the comparison I’m working with, which always reduces the incoming damage, with a decent chance to get the follow up attack. Only the redirect costs ki.
To distill my post above, the same power, but with range and potential targets beyond self is, without room for argument, more powerful. Not that I'm not ok with, I am, but we need to be realistic about power levels.
However, it isn’t “targets beyond self”, it’s “only targets other than self”.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I'm thinking that the desire for interesting options can be partly satiated (in this version) by the choice points required in the action economy; this means paying careful attention to the keys for the abilities (action, reaction, bonus).
Agreed. The power of the class is also, I think, in doing something significant with every part of its action economy. That can be as simple as giving damage bonuses to everyone and their mom as a vanguard, or as complex as using different gambits with each attack and bonus action, changing the secondary effect of your aura, and whatever else, as a tactician.
My hope is that even the tactician is fun to play in TOTM.
 
Deflect Missiles is the comparison I’m working with, which always reduces the incoming damage, with a decent chance to get the follow up attack. Only the redirect costs ki.

However, it isn’t “targets beyond self”, it’s “only targets other than self”.
OK, that is somewhat mitigating. Here's my other problem, the whole idea strains credulity. Even suspended disbelief fantasy credulity. Let me turn this into a scenario to try and explain my issue with it, I'll compare the monk power to the one you propose as we go.

An arrow is fired at the monk and he uses martial arts to deflect it. Fine.

An arrow is fired at the wizard and the Marshal shouts 'duck!' to reduce the damage
. Again, fine.

In both cases a die is rolled and the amount is enough to reduce the incoming damage to 0. Cool. Now we get to the sticky part....

The monk snatches the arrow out of the air and hurls it back at the enemy
. Sure, it's pretty kung fu, but ok.

The wizard ducks (or whatever) and the arrow ... What? What does the arrow do? With the monk you roll to attack which makes sense, here nothing makes sense. The Marshal isn't doing it, the Wizard certainly isn't doing it. Even if you did away with the roll it still wouldn't make sense. You could easily have scenarios where that arrow gets redirected, through a swirling melee, to an free target 30' away.

I'm not trying to crap on the idea, I just can't form a mental picture where the counter attack makes any logical sense, even fantasy logic. The idea that the wizard ducks and it hits an orc behind him has a certain amount of explanatory power, but not when the range is 30', and not when the arrow only ever hits unoccupied enemies. |I just want to be able to picture it in my head without rolling my eyes. The eye roll test is a pretty important design tool. Call it the laugh test it you like. Is there a way to explain it that a player reading the class for the first time will get what's going on?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
OK, that is somewhat mitigating. Here's my other problem, the whole idea strains credulity. Even suspended disbelief fantasy credulity. Let me turn this into a scenario to try and explain my issue with it, I'll compare the monk power to the one you propose as we go.

An arrow is fired at the monk and he uses martial arts to deflect it. Fine.

An arrow is fired at the wizard and the Marshal shouts 'duck!' to reduce the damage. Again, fine.

In both cases a die is rolled and the amount is enough to reduce the incoming damage to 0. Cool. Now we get to the sticky part....

The monk snatches the arrow out of the air and hurls it back at the enemy. Sure, it's pretty kung fu, but ok.

The wizard ducks (or whatever) and the arrow ... What? What does the arrow do? With the monk you roll to attack which makes sense, here nothing makes sense. The Marshal isn't doing it, the Wizard certainly isn't doing it. Even if you did away with the roll it still wouldn't make sense. You could easily have scenarios where that arrow gets redirected, through a swirling melee, to an free target 30' away.

I'm not trying to crap on the idea, I just can't form a mental picture where the counter attack makes any logical sense, even fantasy logic. The idea that the wizard ducks and it hits an orc behind him has a certain amount of explanatory power, but not when the range is 30', and not when the arrow only ever hits unoccupied enemies. |I just want to be able to picture it in my head without rolling my eyes. The eye roll test is a pretty important design tool. Call it the laugh test it you like. Is there a way to explain it that a player reading the class for the first time will get what's going on?
Well, I’ll remind you that my first proposal for this ability was that the marshal can spend a ki to allow an ally within their Presence to make a counter attack.

I will also say, however, that an arrow going past the wizard into an enemy orc 30ft away absolutely passes the laugh test for me.

but I’m fine with a counterattack instead.
 

Advertisement

Top