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

[doctorbadwolf]

Gambits for discrete actions works for me. Morale for the aura doesn't because most of the stuff we've thrown around has nothing to do with morale unless you want to seriously elasticize the meaning of the word. Maybe tactical control area? IDK...

I was suggest morale for the Ki replacement. You spend Ki to do your special moves.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, for the moment we can call them snot stacks. Names can wait. Maybe just aura powers and direct powers, and points if we want to be specific.

I was picturing Ki as the points powering both kinds of abilities. We can call Ki Morale if you like, or morale points.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, for the moment we can call them snot stacks. Names can wait. Maybe just aura powers and direct powers, and points if we want to be specific.

I was picturing Ki as the points powering both kinds of abilities. We can call Ki Morale if you like, or morale points.

That’s where I’m at as well. For now let’s just call them Ki and Gambits. I don’t think that we need a distinction between “aura powers” and “direct powers”, they can just all be gambits and describe how they work in their own text.

I don’t want to have this end up hyper complex.

 

[Garthanos]

Then the subclass would definitely need to come online at level one.

oh definitely good reasons for that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, what if your subclass determines your level 1 aura, then? Level 1 sub classes tend to have more power at level 1 than level 3 sub classes, excepting maybe fighter, but that’s fine. We just make level 3 a little lighter than it is for monks.

 

[Fenris-77]

It sounds like our three subclasses are roughly analogous to tank, striker and support. We could make the choice at level one essentially that of a fighting style. If we're using the Ki model that comes online at level 2, so the difference at level one could be proficiencies and skills and not much else, other than the fact that all the other future abilities are keyed off the choice of style (read subclass). Give each one a different base ability to reflect their style and we're pretty set. Those don't have to be Ki powered, but KI expenditure can modify and enhance that ability.

So we need to decide how to differentiate the the two core abilities we have into three different school. Maybe. The base skills could easily be the same and the differentiation comes from abilities gain through leveling. Either way would work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

<redacted>

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It sounds like our three subclasses are roughly analogous to tank, striker and support. We could make the choice at level one essentially that of a fighting style. If we're using the Ki model that comes online at level 2, so the difference at level one could be proficiencies and skills and not much else, other than the fact that all the other future abilities are keyed off the choice of style (read subclass). Give each one a different base ability to reflect their style and we're pretty set. Those don't have to be Ki powered, but KI expenditure can modify and enhance that ability.

So we need to decide how to differentiate the the two core abilities we have into three different school. Maybe. The base skills could easily be the same and the differentiation comes from abilities gain through leveling. Either way would work.

If we are gonna split an ability into 3 choices, I’d make it the Pressence (aura), and have it provide the Initiative bonus for all Marshals, but add a secondary benefit based on archetype.

off the cuff:

Vanguard: When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack as part of the Attack Action, you can [provide a damage bonus to the next ally that hits within your Pressence]

Tactician: When you take the attack action, you can direct an ally within your Pressence to attack in your place. Alternatively, you can direct an ally outside of your Pressence to attack a creature within your Pressence. [this either uses the ally’s reaction, or adds an attack to their next turn if they use the attack action. One favors the rogue, while others favors characters who can stack this with Smite style spells]

Warden: When you attack a creature as part of the attack action, you can Mark them. If a creature marked by you attacks an ally within your Pressence, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack. The next ally that hits that creature gains a bonus to damage equal to your Wisdom Mod. /maybe instead you can spend a reaction to grant an ally an attack against the attacking marked enemy?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Cool. And I'm stayn positive and focused on the Marshal class, until I'm told it's not the Marshal, like it says in the class, nor the Warlord, like the title.

So, just some basic clarity, is all?

The Bard came out well ahead on the poll for a chassis...

Support classes - full ones, not like the Marshal - are complex, though.

So, OK, if it's to be limited support like the Marshal, using that class as the concept & 5e Monk as a template for a 5e version, I'm down with that, but shouldn't the title & OP reflect that, as well?

You’re not being positive, you’re nitpicking and refusing to stop trying to hold the design to a past edition class, while being passive aggressive about the goals of the thread.

It sharing a name with the late 3.5 class Marshal does not mean we have to recreate that class.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*