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

[Tony Vargas]

Right, but 4e was much more free with such things, and was a higher power level at level 1.

The Marshal's Minor "Motivate Dexterity" Aura in question was, of course, 3e and 3e was about the same lower-level at 1st as 5e is.
It was much freer with bonuses, though, yes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm, that extra attack is better than the monk's as it's whatever their normal attack is, but with extra damage. Perhaps it should be an extra attack that does that die in damage period, like the BA you get from Polearm Master, plus whatever appropriate stat. Maybe it's not too strong, but that's what first popped into into my head when I read the post above.

Well it’s comparing to Flurry of Blows, the monk’s main damage feature. It costs a reaction and bonus action, and 1 Morale, and isn’t more powerful than an OA enabler feat’s OA enabling benefit, whereas flurry lets you make 2 attacks as a bonus action, both of which include you Dex mod.

the at Will version is “Marshall Arts”, which simply adds 1d6 damage to an ally’s turn. This is the warlord’s basic fallback buff ability. Could be replaced with an aura, but I think maybe auras should be more a subclass and tier 2 thing?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Gambits works, tactical points works, gambit points doesn't work. I like gambit actually. Spend one gambit to... or spend two gambits to... I like it.

I only hate it a little, so I’m willing to compromise here.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, the auras are good chance to really separate the various subclasses.

I feel like arguing over names can be done later too. Once we have a class cobbled together we can discuss balance and small details. We can stick a pin in the exact mechanics for the Flurry replacement and circle back to it. I like the basic idea just fine.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, the auras are good chance to really separate the various subclasses.

I feel like arguing over names can be done later too. Once we have a class cobbled together we can discuss balance and small details. We can stick a pin in the exact mechanics for the Flurry replacement and circle back to it. I like the basic idea just fine.

I'd vote in favor of the at-will bonus action (the replacement for Monk Martials, basically), being a +1d6 damage to an allies next attack. Scaling could roughly follow the monk track.

I'm agnostic on the heavy armor issue. My vote is for medium for above stated reasons, and because giving away things like heavy armor raises the illusion of being overpowered despite not being so. I hate to give the "Warlord fans think the class should be able to do everything" contingent unnecessary ammunition.

 

[Fenris-77]

If the Marshal can use the tactical 'shield' reaction from my post above on himself then Med armor is just fine. Heavy armor and that ability might be to strong. I'm fine with Med armor anyway. HA could still be a subclass feature.

 

[Tony Vargas]

<redacted>

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Auras were pretty much the Marshal's whole shtick, they represented "haranguing, ordering, directing, encouraging, cajoling, or calming" his troops in battle.
You could, after 1st, have two auras going at once, a major & minor, but you could eventually know a number of each.

There really wasn't a lot of explanation of the distinction. One used CHAmod, the other a smaller scaling bonus.
I suppose you make the distinction between passive inspiration, lead by example, keying if CHA, requiring allies be able to see you, and active tactical direction, requiring subordinates be able to hear & understand your orders, keying off INT. That'd be a rationale for having em both up at once.

I’ll look into that after work, but I will say now that I’m not that worried about how past editions did the thing. I’d rather stay focused on how things tend to work in 5e, and use older eds as inspiration only.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Auras were pretty much the Marshal's whole shtick, they represented "haranguing, ordering, directing, encouraging, cajoling, or calming" his troops in battle.
You could, after 1st, have two auras going at once, a major & minor, but you could eventually know a number of each.

There really wasn't a lot of explanation of the distinction. One used CHAmod, the other a smaller scaling bonus.
I suppose you make the distinction between passive inspiration, lead by example, keying if CHA, requiring allies be able to see you, and active tactical direction, requiring subordinates be able to hear & understand your orders, keying off INT. That'd be a rationale for having em both up at once.

What about a choice of fighting style sort of feature that give group buffs in a 10’ aura, and archetypes add to the aura, and then it gets bigger at 11?

 

[Tony Vargas]

<redacted>