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

[Tony Vargas]

<redacted>

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Look, it would be a positive thing to synch up the title, goal, and class name in this thread.
Just to be clear, open, & honest about it.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, just find it.

There is no discrepancy to correct.

 

[Garthanos]

I haven't bought into this to some huge degree but I am more than willing to try and inspire and contribute and toss in ideas that attempt to work within the framework as it develops. But I am curious I have also contributed or tried to on several other such threads so I do not feel a huge need to be super invested in a given one.

My assumptions include that this will end up being more flexible and complex than the Monk including role flexibility. Additional assumptions is that ki/tactic points are going to drive a complex gambits which may be allowed level scaling and similar. Not entirely sure how greater inspirational healing in significant degrees are scheduled to take place excepting as functions of that. Nor sure how far this can go.

 

[Tony Vargas]

<redacted>

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I haven't bought into this to some huge degree but I am more than willing to try and inspire and contribute and toss in ideas that attempt to work within the framework as it develops. But I am curious I have also contributed or tried to on several other such threads so I do not feel a huge need to be super invested in a given one.

My assumptions include that this will end up being more flexible and complex than the Monk including role flexibility. Additional assumptions is that ki/tactic points are going to drive a complex gambits which may be allowed level scaling and similar. Not entirely sure how greater inspirational healing in significant degrees are scheduled to take place excepting as functions of that. Nor sure how far this can go.

My rough idea for healing is to make it a thing you can do with a bonus action, and as part of a short rest, and have a subclass that focuses on it more. Medic or maybe Hospitalier.

I would like to have level gated, or level scaling, abilities in all pillars.

I think we need to focus more on pillars than role, though, and make sure this is a class that performs in all three pillars, albeit most marshals will excel more in combat and interaction than in exploration.

Let the Outlaw focus more on exploration.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The title of the Thread says Warlord.
The class being developed says Marshal.
When I bring up the Marshal, I'm told it's not about that.

Just pick one term and stick to it, for clarity.
What would it hurt for the thread to say, "Create a 5e Marshal" the class & verbiage in the OP use the name "Marshal" and positive input based on the concept & abilities of the past-ed Marshal class to be acceptable?

Alternately, since it sounds closer to what I can divine of your intent, use "Consensus leader-themed Support class for 5e" in the title and verbiage, and use the name and class chassis template from the two recent polls, making it clear those are the reasons for both.

Alter-alternately, if you want to simplify the exercise, and use the 6th-runner-up Monk, also use a name for the "Consensus leader-themed Support class for 5e" that dies not carry past-edition baggage.

But, if you want the experiment to work, present it consistently.

Every participant but you is engaging with the thread as is. Everyone else knows that “create a 5e warlord” doesn’t mean recreate the 4e warlord, and that naming it marshal doesn’t mean recreating the 3.5 marshal. Not trying to be mean, it’s just very frustrating to have the thread derailed over a nitpick.

Please stop. I’ve explained what the aim of the thread is. Please just either engage in the aim of the thread, and stop arguing about the format of the thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay!

Level 1:

Gambits. You gain a Gambit Die that starts at 1d4, and increases as you level, as well as the following Gambit. You gain access to more Gambits as you level, as well as from your Archetype.
Marshal’s Gambit. As a bonus action when you take the Attack Action, you can grant an ally a bonus equal to your Gambit Die on their next damage roll with an attack.

Martial Presence. You gain an aura, 15 ft to start, scale same as Unarmored movement from there (5ft more at those levels). It is always on, unless you are incapacitated.
You, and a number of creatures within your Presence equal to your proficiency bonus, gain your choice of a bonus or penalty to Initiative Checks equal to your Gambit Die.

Martial Archetype. At level 1, you choose an Archetype. [each one mainly gives an added benefit to the Presence, and maybe some extra proficiencies if needed]

can we agree on this for now?

@lowkey13 does this feel like it will be easy to use in ToTM, so long as the specific gambits stay within 5e’s normal paradigms?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Every participant but you is engaging with the thread as is. Everyone else knows that “create a 5e warlord” doesn’t mean recreate the 4e warlord, and that naming it marshal doesn’t mean recreating the 3.5 marshal.

They might, now. But, what's the harm in making that clear in the title and OP?

What does using the labels Warlord and Marshal gain us?

 

[Tony Vargas]

<redacted>

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fits the Marshal and adapts the Monk well.

Could CHA or INT come into this? (Or the radius, but see below?)

Agree w/Archetype at 1st level.

No less so than any other 15'r but, a qualitative "allies who can hear & understand you" and/or "creatures who can clearly see you" might work better in TotM, since it calls for DM judgement, rather than measuring tape.

thanks

I could see the archetypes adding a secondary stat to The number for the initiative modifier, or the bonuses gained using Gambit dice.

making it “see and hear” would perhaps be too big to do anything interesting as an always on benefit. I think “am I within 15ft?” Is at least within 5e’s level of ToTM friendliness, but I’d like to hear from someone who doesn't like or use the grid on that.