Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6660662" data-attributes="member: 87792">It provides specifics - working out what's wrong is easier than working out how to get it right. You do need to point out how given classes people propose would be miserable failures as warlords (as has been done). Solving it is a task that the pros don't seem to have managed.The fighter version <a href="http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html" target="_blank">is in the second half of this post</a>. The more complex <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?464013-Warlording-the-fighter/page4&p=6659322&viewfull=1#post6659322" target="_blank">3.5 Crusader-derived tactician is here</a>.Deciding on the hit dice at the start is putting the cart before the horse. d8 is the aesthetically appealing one - but in practice the fighter is not a d10 class. With Second Wind they get d10 extra HP and an extra hp per level, making them closer to d12.All else being equal, d8 would be preferable to d10. But d10 still doesn't make them as tough as the fighter (the warlord shouldn't be as tough as the fighter). And a lot depends on their class features and how tough it makes them; every single class has some sort of defensive feature, whether it's the Rogue's defensive roll, the fighter's Second Wind and Indomitable, the Barbarian's rage, or just spells.I would therefore default the warlord's hit dice to a d8 (putting them level with a cleric), but this is a number I'd pencil in pending first writing other features then playtesting. A d10 would not on its own be incompatible with the warlord being a warlord. And I suspect that I speak for almost almost all Warlord fans in this, that all else being equal d8 is the way to go, but a d10 would not be a dealbreaker. Especially if the warlord ended up as short of defensive features for themselves because by default they gave them all away to the other PCs.What I think I'd like here is from my fighter example. Multiple attacks that I can give away to other PCs and no static damage boosts for myself. (I can of course use these multiple attacks for myself, but fighters hit things with their axe, warlords hit things with the barbarian).By default I'd go for the armour proficiencies of the cleric and full martial weapon profs. But this should be adjustable at level 1 both up and down with your first level pick, from the battlefront leader in full fighter or even paladin armour to the sneak-attack-less rogue who loves it when a plan comes together (probably going full lazylord). At level 3 you pick between Tactical, Inspiring, Bravura, Trickster (think roguish Arcane Trickster), and Exemplar (Paladin's second cousin).And yes, I have no problems with subtypes of Warlord having spells. It just shouldn't be the default.I've already given ways of including them. For me the three big ones are the two lazylord powers (Commander's Strike and Direct the Strike) - giving your attacks away at will. And Brash Assault where the warlord takes ridiculous risks but the enemy gets punished if they accept. The next biggest on my list is Powerful Warning (normally known as "Duck!") And I don't expect the big ones in 5e.Have you played a warlord?This is 5e. I want something that can open up the vistas of characters I can play that were enabled by 4e and are no longer effectively viable in 5e.No. We want the people who are saying "It can be done as an existing class" to shut up because it is quite clear that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. It is about a year after the release of 5e. That was all tried in the first two weeks after the publication of the PHB. If you think your solution is obvious then ask yourself why it isn't in common use. Then if you can't work that out ask someone who actually understands the issues why it isn't in common use.If you have a radical redesign of any of the classes normally proposed (fighter, cleric, bard - and I don't know why no one ever suggests the paladin) that deals with the issues with them, feel free to propose it. But do not assume either that people who want a warlord are arguing in bad faith or that we have root vegetables in place of brains. The exploration of what is there already has been done. If you want the notes from the exploration, ask. But don't say "Hey guys, I found this great way on the map" and then take offence when one of us points out that there's a river in the way and no bridge.Yes. Are you willing to accept that nothing currently exists in 5e that even comes close to working and any extension to a class would require a radical alteration to that class to change the very way it is intended to function - and that that point there is little difference between that and an entirely new class?</blockquote>

Verification