D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[ZickZak]

I'm not sure where you're getting this impression. I haven't seen anyone express that a Battlemaster doesn't work as a Warlord because there aren't enough maneuvers.

The Battlemaster, if anything (IMO), has too many maneuvers.

The Battlemaster also doesn't have enough maneuvers that actually do what a Warlord is supposed to do.

The Battlemaster doesn't need more maneuvers, it just needs better maneuvers. It needs to have the maneuvers it does have, rewritten so they do what a Warlord is supposed to do.

But, as highlighted before, a Battlemaster comes with Fighter baggage that isn't part of the Warlord concept - which is one of the arguments for why the Warlord should be a separate class.

A bit above someone said Battlemaster needs like 12 superior dice per short rest to be good.
I agree with all you said except the last part. Everything comes with some form of "baggage" when you MC. That is purely based on the player though. I think druids should have companions and not rangers for example, even though every book/game says otherwise.

I think it's pretty clear that those who want a warlord don't think they can do all the warlord stuff. Paladin and cleric, for instance, bring a whole lot of baggage (around oaths, gods, magic, etc) that a warlord is meant to be independent of.

Same as the above. More over, this is just an RP thing, as well as the healing. "I MCd cleric but it has no god and heals are non-mgical" Then it depends with what GM you play.

 

[El Mahdi]

A bit above someone said Battlemaster needs like 12 superior dice per short rest to be good.

Ahh...quantity of maneuvers one can do in a period of time, not quantity of unique maneuvers.

Gotcha. My misunderstanding.

 

[mellored]

3. Fair I guess, but convert it to feet for TotM play. (I doubt you meant 5-10 feet).

It was in feet.
And I was multiplying not adding. So 5'-25'


Though that's probably a bit small. 10'x int (10' - 50') would be better.

 

[mellored]

Battlemaster can't Warlord effectively because Commander's Strike sucks.
You give up an attack, your bonus action and their reaction to have them make an attack. Sure. 3:1 cost to reward ratio, what the hell were they smoking?

Rogue's are the ones that make it tricky.

Giving up 2d6+dex+dex (assuming TWF), for 11d6+dex as a reaction (+die), could easily be worth while.
Not including the possibility of assassinate crits.


If sneak attack wasn't the way it is, then it would be rather weak.

 

[Ristamar]

Battlemaster can't Warlord effectively because Commander's Strike sucks.
You give up an attack, your bonus action and their reaction to have them make an attack. Sure. 3:1 cost to reward ratio, what the hell were they smoking?

It's quite useful in instances where another party member can deliver a devastating blow (e.g. Sneak Attack, Divine Smite) or the Battlemaster can't effectively deal damage that round (e.g. out of range, restrained, debuffed, creature is resistant/immune to the Battlemaster's weapon, etc).

 

[Yunru]

It's no more a problem than for a Warlick blast-pushing a creature into a sentinel/polearm master's (whichever it is) range.

 

[Ristamar]

It's no more a problem than for a Warlick blast-pushing a creature into a sentinel/polearm master's (whichever it is) range.

Forced movement never provokes Opportunity Attacks.

 

[Remathilis]

Battlemaster can't Warlord effectively because Commander's Strike sucks.
You give up an attack, your bonus action and their reaction to have them make an attack. Sure. 3:1 cost to reward ratio, what the hell were they smoking?

Because there is no limits on what bonuses with the attack granted. I mean at 8th level, you can do +1d8 with your own attack, or give the rogue a sneak attack for +4d6+1d8 damage, or let the paladin smite for +4d8 damage, or to the gwm barbarian for +1d8+12 damage, or to the war cleric or hunter ranger for +2d8 damage, etc.

 

[Yunru]

Because there is no limits on what bonuses with the attack granted. I mean at 8th level, you can do +1d8 with your own attack, or give the rogue a sneak attack for +4d6+1d8 damage, or let the paladin smite for +4d8 damage, or to the gwm barbarian for +1d8+12 damage, or to the war cleric or hunter ranger for +2d8 damage, etc.

Which means the Paladin and Barbarian can't dominate an area, although the other points do stand.

My point, however, is it's as powerful as any other reaction attack.

 

[mellored]

Ahh...quantity of maneuvers one can do in a period of time, not quantity of unique maneuvers.

Gotcha. My misunderstanding.

It's both.

Again, the caster equivalent is the EK. The battlemaster's maneuvers are equivalent to level 1-2 spells, and they have a low number of slots.

They need both more slots (dice) and higher level maneuvers (probably costing 2 or 3 dice), like mass rally or mass menacing attack, or mass charge.

Along with access to the other schools, like illusion (stealth), and abjuration (bonus vs spells).