D&D 5E What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.

[Corwin]

It was a personal comment on the design choice that is made BUT the train has not left, a martial class designed to be advanced could still be designed. Personally I think that whilst the Battlemaster is mechanccaly effective it was a half ass attempt to appease those who wanted an advanced martial character. Another issue I have with fighter design is shared with the designer which is that there is a mish mash of mechanics that tell no story or flavour (Mike Mearls has spoken on this several times). I believe that a subclass should have mechanics that point to story or flavour and that is by far and wide one of the fighters failures. Mind you a lot of this is said through my personal lense which wants the fighter to be great and believes that aside from the edition that shall not be mentioned for 40 years fighter were designed by nerds who suffered having their heads flushed by jocks all their life thus fighter design is largely nerd revenge fantasy constrained by D&D tradition and grognard resistance to change. So when I discuss matial classes I am willing to admit a bias of believing that it suffers from unfair design restraints both mechanical and philosophical.

And so what has he done? He's released new fighter sublclass playtest materials where the maneuvers are just pre-selected. What he hasn't done is redo the fighter.

I'd also like to read his issues with what you describe, in his own words, if you have a link. Thanks in advance.

 

[Eubani]

And so what has he done? He's released new fighter sublclass playtest materials where the maneuvers are just pre-selected. What he hasn't done is redo the fighter.

I'd also like to read his issues with what you describe, in his own words, if you have a link. Thanks in advance.

What he has done is thrown out a few TEST ideas to see what the players think and are not yet in full form what is there is more just thoughts.

 

[Eubani]

And so what has he done? He's released new fighter sublclass playtest materials where the maneuvers are just pre-selected. What he hasn't done is redo the fighter.

I'd also like to read his issues with what you describe, in his own words, if you have a link. Thanks in advance.

I found the thread discussing the interview but I am having issues finding a working link to the interview. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...mments-on-Fighter-Subclasses-Lacking-Identity

 

[mellored]

Nope. It already is a "full class". It a fighter (battlemaster). It gets a whole class worth of cool things to do.

If you think multi-attacking is cool, the more power to you.
Not everyone wants to spam attack actions though.

Such maneuvers would be so watered down as to be ribbons. No thanks. I like my maneuvers to have bite and substance. To impact play when I chose to use them. Or, conversely, in order to maintain their weight, they'd have to be delayed during advancement. So you wouldn't actually get them for the life of your "advanced fighter".

Why do you think a class based around maneuvers would have watered down maneuvers?

 

[Corwin]

If you think multi-attacking is cool, the more power to you.
Not everyone wants to spam attack actions though.

And this gets us back ,full circle, to you admitting that there are plenty of ways fighters already have for sacrificing damage for control. Have you tried those in play (assuming you play 5e, that is)?

Why do you think a class based around maneuvers would have watered down maneuvers?

Just a hunch.

 

[Corwin]

What he has done is thrown out a few TEST ideas to see what the players think and are not yet in full form what is there is more just thoughts.

Well, let me know when you see a TEST full fighter redo...

 

[Paul Smart]

OP here. I do not know and personally do not care what the edition war was, I was too busy fighting a real one. Let me tell you, once you have seen your friends die you get a different perspective on things. What I do know is that we all love this game so lets keep it respectful everyone. Now, back on point, what kind of mechanics can we either take from 5e or create to make a Warlord that fits into 5e's game design philosophy?

 

[Guest 6801328]

OP here. I do not know and personally do not care what the edition war was, I was too busy fighting a real one. Let me tell you, once you have seen your friends die you get a different perspective on things. What I do know is that we all love this game so lets keep it respectful everyone. Now, back on point, what kind of mechanics can we either take from 5e or create to make a Warlord that fits into 5e's game design philosophy?

My favorite:

- As a bonus action, intentionally expose yourself to an Attack of Opportunity by a chosen enemy. If the enemy makes the attack, it provokes an Attack of Opportunity from any enemies within 5'. The target may make a contested Wisdom (Insight) roll versus the character's Charisma (Deception) to resist making the attack.

I would rather have it be an Intelligence roll, but D&D is lacking a "Battle" skill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thanks for the history lesson and "insights" in to the previous edition(s).

You're welcome, I guess. Could you quote the post that provided those things, though? It sounds like me (I do like prattling on about the olden days), but I seem to have lost it.

Also any reply to the post you actually quoted (at least the bits after the lame joke.. ok, if any, that kinda got away from me) might potentially be worth a look.

 

[Paul Smart]

My favorite:

- As a bonus action, intentionally expose yourself to an Attack of Opportunity by a chosen enemy. If the enemy makes the attack, it provokes an Attack of Opportunity from any enemies within 5'. The target may make a contested Wisdom (Insight) roll versus the character's Charisma (Deception) to resist making the attack.

I would rather have it be an Intelligence roll, but D&D is lacking a "Battle" skill.

Interesting. I would love a battle skill based off of intelligence. What should be in it? How can we make one?