D&D 5E Zard's Warlord Concept

[Zardnaar]

JC I have not paid that much attention to the other warlord threads.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure, so does the Cleric, but it doesn't exactly sacrifice spell power for it.

That's what I thought, so the question of how do they stack up compared to spells is inevitable.

How does that mesh with CS dice?



To paraphrase the old saying: all's fair in hate & War(lords). ;P

Seriously, though, the logic of reasoning from 1/3rd-caster-equivalent (because: Battlemaster) would lead to 3x the CS dice of the battlemaster: 6 at third (presumably 2-4 before that), going up to 12, maybe ~18 if optimized.

But, even that logic is questionable, since CS dice synergize with battlemaster multiple attacks.

Since you based it on the Warlock, maybe how much healing could a Warlock dish out using all it's slots over a standard 2-rest day if casting from the Cleric list?

We still haven't seen the sheer giant number that would be: Life Cleric, optimized for healing, optimally assigning all it's slots to maximize healing for a party.


Uh.... what he said... ??? (JC: weren't you violently opposed to that idea in another thread?)

Z: You could move all the rallying stuff under exploits maneuvers...

[sblock="just need to rant about WotC for a moment, nothing to see here"]As a general rule, I don't go and rant against WotC being somehow mean to it's fans, but there is one, little, cynical, disingenuous, trivial little thing they've been doing that has been annoying me since 4e was announced. Effing around with language to try to defuse valid criticism, by introducing key words used in that criticism into jargon. 3.5 caught a lot of flack for unintended synergies that could break the game, if they were 'exploited,' thus, they got called 'exploits.' They get ready to roll rev, and use 'exploit,' for martial maneuvers. 3.5 got played 'Core Only' a lot to avoid all those exploits - not martial maneuvers, but broken combos - so they start slapping 'Core Rule Book' on every other thing they publish and, to give it teeth, spread out classes that were core over a couple of those books. People complain there's too much 'errata,' so they take to calling errata 'updates.' Fans say they want the Warlord so they can play an "Inspiring Leader," and that phrase becomes a feat - and an out-of-place indie mechanic and a Bard feature /both/ get called 'Inspiration.' [/sblock] So, yeah, 'maneuvers,' please.

If you're going to be 'the' maneuver class, probably all the way, so around 3x the Battlemaster maneuvers as a guide, but keeping in mind that it doesn't have Extra Attacks to synergize with them nor blow through them. Level- or tier- gating maneuvers would also make a lot of sense. The Battlemaster's maneuvers are essentially all 1st-level abilities (again, using the BM-EK equivalency).


Y'know, I've double-checked just whom I'm quoting twice, now.

My Warlord already have manoeuvres via superiority dice the exploits are a martial invocation equivalent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My Warlord already have manoeuvres via superiority dice the exploits are a martial invocation equivalent.

I thought it was odd, calling-back to 4e like that by changing 'maneuver' back to 'exploit' - I assumed it was some sort of mocking irony. That they're two separate things makes more sense. Don't see how anything the warlord might do would stack up to invocations, but it makes sense to try to map to them, given your Warlock-as-chassis approach....

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I thought it was odd, calling-back to 4e like that by changing 'maneuver' back to 'exploit' - I assumed it was some sort of mocking irony.

Do you so often seek out ways to assume people are mocking 4e?

That they're two separate things makes more sense. Don't see how anything the warlord might do would stack up to invocations, but it makes sense to try to map to them, given your Warlock-as-chassis approach....

I think "martial warlock" is a brilliant idea for a warlord chassis.

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought it was odd, calling-back to 4e like that by changing 'maneuver' back to 'exploit' - I assumed it was some sort of mocking irony. That they're two separate things makes more sense. Don't see how anything the warlord might do would stack up to invocations, but it makes sense to try to map to them, given your Warlock-as-chassis approach....

They don't have to stack up to invocations as they have other advantages over Warlocks. Armor, weapons, dsaves, superiority dice etc. THey get to do kewl stuff more but Warlocks have to spamn Eldritch blasts a lot.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They don't have to stack up to invocations as they have other advantages over Warlocks. Armor, weapons, dsaves, superiority dice etc. THey get to do kewl stuff more but Warlocks have to spamn Eldritch blasts a lot.

None of those are significant. Weapons are just spammable at-will attacks, not as good as an Eldritch blast for a class w/o Extra Attack. Clerics get decent armor and saves but don't give up spellcasting resources for them. Superiority dice are just a rest-recharge resource like slots.

 

[Zardnaar]

None of those are significant. Weapons are just spammable at-will attacks, not as good as an Eldritch blast for a class w/o Extra Attack. Clerics get decent armor and saves but don't give up spellcasting resources for them. Superiority dice are just a rest-recharge resource like slots.

Go and p[lay a bladelock warlock then and get back to me about weapons and armor not being good. Being good at combat in 5E requires more than proficiency in martial weapons and armor. It requires an extra damage source like hunters mark/hex, a fighting style, a class ability (colossus slayer, action surge, rage).

My Warlords are ok at fighintg ok at healing and good at buffing others. Look at the inspiration exploit I did include. At will charisma to damge the tactical one grants at well INt bonus to allies for AC. In a world of bounded accuracy thats good. I think people are alos missing that in 4E terms superiority dice may not be that good to duplicate a 4E warlord, in the 5E world they are a great class ability (like bard inspiration dice) that recharge on a short rest.

Sure Warlord exploits do not equal invocations but warlocks do not get rallying cry, weapons and armor and shields, and superiority dice either. The fighter is not an awful class in 5E and the Battlemaster Fighter is the best one and around the middle in terms of the power classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Being good at combat in 5E requires more than proficiency in martial weapons and armor. It requires an extra damage source like hunters mark/hex, a fighting style, a class ability (colossus slayer, action surge, rage).

So having a slightly better weapon selection shouldn't be that big a deal.

Sure Warlord exploits do not equal invocations but warlocks do not get rallying cry, weapons and armor and shields, and superiority dice either.

Superiority dice are still just short-rest-recharge resources to power maneuvers, just like slots are short-rest-recharge resources to power spells. CSd ~ slots; maneuvers ~ spells; exploits ~ evocations. That's what you've set up by using the Warlock as a template.

The fighter is not an awful class in 5E and the Battlemaster Fighter is the best one and around the middle in terms of the power classes.

I never suggested that it was an awful class in any edition, nor lacked power in 5e. It's awful at providing support, and the battlemaster would make an awful substitute for a Warlord, but that's just because the Fighter is so very good at and, and so irrevocably invested in, what it does - DPR - which is not what the Warlord needs to do.

 

[Zardnaar]

So having a slightly better weapon selection shouldn't be that big a deal.

Superiority dice are still just short-rest-recharge resources to power maneuvers, just like slots are short-rest-recharge resources to power spells. CSd ~ slots; maneuvers ~ spells; exploits ~ evocations. That's what you've set up by using the Warlock as a template.

I never suggested that it was an awful class in any edition, nor lacked power in 5e. It's awful at providing support, and the battlemaster would make an awful substitute for a Warlord, but that's just because the Fighter is so very good at and, and so irrevocably invested in, what it does - DPR - which is not what the Warlord needs to do.

Whats yout pount then? I have stripped out the fighter stuff and buffed the warlord stuff. You seem to want to have fombat power better than the warlock with exploits as powerful as invocations and spells + healing.
Why bladelocjs are not that great at combat is AC + d8 hit dice. You do not seem to have read any of my expoits or know how good superiorty dice are.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Whats yout pount then?

CSd ~ slots; maneuvers ~ spells; exploits ~ evocations. That's what you've set up by using the Warlock as a template.

You've got some fairly obvious equivalencies, there, and that creates an expectation (a valid one) that they'll be comparable. That's a high bar, it'll be interesting to see what you come up with.

You seem to want to have fombat power better than the warlock with exploits as powerful as invocations and spells + healing.

If you're worried that you're on track to create a class too OP for 5e to handle, don't. How would a class without Extra Attack ever match, let alone exceed, the combat power of a Warlock with Eldritch Blast and Hex? You give a class abilities in the same pattern as short-rest-recharge spells slots & spells invocations, yes, there's an implication there that those abilities will be as powerful.

Putting Rallying Cry 'under' either or both of those wouldn't hurt, though, it'd remove that "+healing" objection, and it would let folks like JesterC avoid "martial healing" by simply choosing a different maneuver or exploit, should they ever actually try to play your version.