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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Sure, we saw a lot of that all through the playtest. I don't recall often seeing martial options gaining depth in that processes, though. If the battlemaster does turn out to be the martial high-water mark for 5e...

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

Nothing like PF's CMB, either, but all a 5e skill is is a proficiency mod added to a check, so it's simplicity to just call for the check that makes the most sense plus proficiency.

The playtest briefly toyed with letting a skill use different stats as appropriate, so you could have had int + deception if you wanted.

 

[Corwin]

I seem to have lost it.

QFT

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nothing like PF's CMB, either, but all a 5e skill is is a proficiency mod added to a check, so it's simplicity to just call for the check that makes the most sense plus proficiency.

The playtest briefly toyed with letting a skill use different stats as appropriate, so you could have had int + deception if you wanted.

Funny, I thought about that: Int + Prof vs. Wis(Insight), but now it occurs to me that part of the class could be a general rule to this effect: e.g. when a skill test is called for in the context of combat, the (insert class name) is assumed to have proficiency, and may use Int in place of whichever stat would otherwise have been applicable. The wording is a little tricky, but I think the concept is clear. E.g., if the DM says, "Ok, the terrain is tricky here so you'll have to roll Athletics or Acrobatics each round, and if you fail you'll be considered to be Restrained on your turn." The (insert class name) gets proficiency, regardless of whether he has such in Athletics or Acrobatics, and gets to use his Int modifier if he so chooses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

QFT

So that's your new thing? Quoting snippets out of context to change meaning?

A step up, and economical, too, especially compared to my spamming Wall of Text like a 3e Sorcerer with no other forum- blasting spells.

I like it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you think multi-attacking is cool, the more power to you.

It is a step up from doing nothing but attacking 1/round, and 5e even lets you interspersed more than a 5' step among those attacks.

It's all relative. Relative to an Essentials Slayer, extra attack is awesome.

It also really leverages attack & damage bonuses, so can be downright optimal for DPR.

Not everyone wants to spam attack actions though.

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

They'd need to be watered down to balance with something like the Champion.

It's just that balance is an unimportant metric in 5e, and archetypes like the champion the wrong yardstick.

 

[mellored]

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.

I would simplify it.

When an enemy makes an OA against you, an ally who is also adjacent to the creature can use their reaction to make an attack against it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Funny, I thought about that: Int + Prof vs. Wis(Insight), but now it occurs to me that part of the class could be a general rule to this effect: e.g. when a skill test is called for in the context of combat, the (insert class name) is assumed to have proficiency, and may use Int in place of whichever stat would otherwise have been applicable.

Nod. I toyed with an idea like that for the 3e fighter: the fighter's cross-class ranks in any skill would have been doubled in combat applications. CMB was a more elegant solution, I think. But never implemented it, not because it occurred to me that it just further pigeonholed the fighter as a combat-only beatstick, but because I just couldn't bring myself to run 3.5 again at that point, I was just burned out on that style of DMing - though not on /playing/ I was not exactly enthused to put away my old 3e characters, not to mention the backlog of concepts I never got to play.

Anyway, the one downside of a combat only skill perk is, of course, that it's combat-only, when skills are an area that tends to cross pillar boundaries some of the time. For the Weaponmaster that could make a lot of sense, for the Warlord, not so much. It should just be one of those classes that gets more skills, and more features to enhance them.

Though the Ability + Proficiency angle still strikes me as one with some good potential, and is an example of how much freedom 5e's unstructured classes and system give designers, as well as DM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would simplify it.

When an enemy makes an OA against you, an ally who is also adjacent to the creature can use their reaction to make an attack against it.

Mmm...I sort of like the constraint of making it an intentional/focused thing. I don't like the idea that if you run through a crowd of enemies, every one of their OA's triggers the same. (Almost feels like..."magic". /wink) I'd at least add the caveat: "Once per round, you can choose on enemy; if that enemy makes an OA against you...etc."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mmm...I sort of like the constraint of making it an intentional/focused thing.

Agreed. It needn't be played as such IC, but that's the kind of thing that can be left to the table.

I don't like the idea that if you run through a crowd of enemies, every one of their OA's triggers the same. I'd at least add the caveat: "Once per round, you can choose on enemy; if that enemy makes an OA against you...etc."

OAs consume Reactions so no ally's making more than one a round, anyway, and if an enemy is in melee with all your buddies when it drops it's guard to get you...

(Then again, you never know what's coming down the pike, a feat like Combat Reflexes could drop and change all that.)

 

[mellored]

Mmm...I sort of like the constraint of making it an intentional/focused thing. I don't like the idea that if you run through a crowd of enemies, every one of their OA's triggers the same. (Almost feels like..."magic". /wink) I'd at least add the caveat: "Once per round, you can choose on enemy; if that enemy makes an OA against you...etc."

Using their reaction means it only works once per round per ally. Running though a crowd will just get you beat on.

Plus, a smart NPC can always choose not to. It's upto the DM to play it out.