Something that has bothered me with 5th edition since the release of the Player's Handbook has been the lack of a warlord. Every other core class from every edition got support in 5th edition except for the Warlord. It's one of the few black marks against the game.
In looking at the Warlock I thought of how similar it's setup is to the old AED setup of 4th ed. It's spellslots recharge on a short rest (encounter), it gets more cantrips and more powerful cantrips than any other class (at-will) and the 6th-9th level spells are only once a day (daily).
I've been trying to jury-rig the warlord onto the fighter because I really liked the maneuvers in the battlemaster class and thought it did a great job of getting the encounter powers, but did a poor job of representing the various warlord archetypes and of getting at-wills (other than a melee basic attack) or dailies. I didn't want to make a "warlord" option that was essentially the fighter (battlemaster) but better as that's simple power creep. I also wanted to get access to those maneuvers.
I've decided to treat the Fighter (battlemaster) much like the Fighter (Eldritch Knight) gets treated. Those maneuvers are available to the core "warlord" class and the warlord gets more of them, just like the sorcerer gets more spells known then a Fighter (Eldritch Knight). However any "warlord" class needs to be balanced against the fighter so that if both classes focus on dealing damage then they should be of comparable strengths.
My current version of this is the Tactician class v0.1.
It's incomplete, but enough is there to show where my current thinking is at.Here's a run down of it's features:
- Like the warlord of 4th ed it gets light and medium armour and less hit points. It's got a lot of versatility and so it felt appropriate to make it a bit less robust then your standard fighter.
- It gets a subclass at level 1 that grants a minor bonus.
- It gets superiority dice from day one, unlike the battlemaster, however a Tactician 3 and a Fighter (Battlemaster) 3 are around on par with their superiority dice and maneuvers known.
- The Maneuvers Known column advances at the same rate as the Warlock.
- Superiority Dice advances at the same rate as the Fighter (Battlemaster).
- Techniques Known gives the fighter a fighting style boost, but then it largely grants a LOT of versatility. The Tactician doesn't get the fighter's second wind or action surge class features. The Battle Techniques is where they get compensated for that. This gives them the ability to gain interesting at-will attacks and should help enable the lazy-lord (may need some more work to get there though).
- Feat advancement is the same as the Fighter.
- Extra attack only grants 1 extra attack. This gives the fighter yet another unique class feature that helps differentiate it from the Tactician.
- Advanced Maneuvers are the Tactician's daily powers. The math needs to be worked out on them but this should help compensate for the lack of action surge.
- Inner Reserves is the martial equivalent of the warlock's Eldritch Master ability.
Obviously a lot of work to go. But what do people think of the general idea?
My suggestion is to wait until the future module about henchmen and allies for skirmishes and mass battles.
Warlord is already there in Battlemaster Fighter or Valor Bard. The only one stopping you from recognizing this is you.
strider13x wrote:
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
IMO: i don't see a need for "daily" powers on a warlord. Or even much in the way of short rests ones. They should be mostly at-will, with a passive buffs.
So to rearrange stuff a bit....
Level 1: Manuver's (at-will).
Commander's Strike
Rally
Disarm
Setup Strike (advantage on the next attack).
Spell Strike (increase DC of the next spell against the target by 2).
Level 2: Basic Battle Tactics. Durring a short or long rest, you can do some basic training with your team. Those allies (and yourself) gain one of the following benifits as long as they can see and hear you. You can change battle tactics durring another short rest.
Marching Formation: Advantage on inititive.
Ambush: Advantage on stealth if you don't move.
Phalanx: +1 AC while adjacent to another ally. (maximum +2).
Scouting Formation: Move at a faster pace without taking a penatly on perception or stealth checks.
Level 3: Specilization: As a bonus action you can do...
Insperational: Grant THP equal to your Cha mod.
Front Line: Help.
Skirmisher: Let an ally move 5', without provoking an OA.
And then expand from there.
JohnLynch wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
thr complaint was that bards would work well but they are spell casters. As I pointed out they are only spell casters if they actually cast spells.
But more importantly than that I also pointed out another solution. Many spells offer effects that aren't very spell like. Healing word. Calm emotions are great examples of what an ally that bolsters your confidence can do without magic.
Vahnyu wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
First, the problem is not in attempting to make a warlod class. I'm all for that. In fact I think I made such a thread a few months ago.
The problem I have is that when the most warlord like class got brought up you diminshed it's usefulness by claiming "I can't use bard because it's an arcane class". That's a sorry excuse for refusing to attempt to use already existing class mechanics to create the warlord class especially when spell usage isn't required and/or many spells can be refluffed.
JohnLynch wrote:
It's like asking what a good arcane blaster class is and saying nope I can't ever consider a class that multiclasses and uses fighter's action surge because he's a martial class and I'm wanting an arcane class.
It's like asking what if I want a martial character that only uses a sword and shield and is very good against bow ranged attacks but I refuse to look at monk because he gets the ability to make a bonus unarmed attack and I don't want to do ninja stuff or attack with something other than my weapon.
It's like trying to make an unarmored cleric with a decent AC and complaining that I have to take either monk or sorceror or barbarian levels to accomplsh.....
Vahnyu wrote:
Where did I suggest to go pure bard to level 20? A dip of 5 or 6 levels into bard gives just about all the mechanics that warlord style character finds useful out of the bard class. Surely just not casting your few spells or finding a few to refluff and use only them would work just fine?
Secondly a level 1 bard multiclass also works great for a warlord style build and surely no one is goign to suggest that two level 1 spells per day is going to have a significant impact on anything but the first few levels.
Diffan wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
"Spells" is just the game mechanics. Even you suggested using Warlock mechanics! Call it "Tactics" (which still may require Verbal and Semantics to get the point across) and the Valor Bard is it. Replace the word Arcane where you need to and build the character from there. Don't pick "Tactics" that allow flames to spark from your fingers. Ranger can be non-mystical as well with proper "Spell" selection. Why limit your imaginations!?
And Bawylie-
John in another thread used the same "its all you" logic so I was picking at him. This is D&D so of course we want to tinker! But I honestly see the Bard or Fighter working if you dont roleplay all metagamey (i.e. "I cast a spell" rather than "I bark orders attempting to...")
Teamwork
Starting at 3rd level, you can use a bonus
action to grant an ally one of your superiority
dice and the ability to use a single maneuver.
They must do so within 1 minute and you
cannot use any superiority dice until they do
so.
Well, if you are willing to say not using 2 level 1 spells (that you don't even get till level 4 or so at the earliest) impacts the game so much that you can't forgot using them for roleplay reasons then I can't argue with that. All I can say is that IMO my suggestion would be an appropriate tradeoff for many people. Maybe not for all though.
By the way I totally agree that going pure Bard and trying to play that without spells is a non-option. Hopefully that gives us some common ground 
Vahnyu wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
It continues to amaze me that the "How can I create a Warlord in 5e?" threads get snowed under by people who have no interest whatsoever in doing so.
Why are they even looking in the thread?
P.S. Warlord on a Paladin chassis (via a new Oath) found some really fun options in 3.5e Champions of Valor. (Including "train the militia" in case your background is Folk Hero.) I've also borrowed the mirror-image book Masters of Ruin but haven't looked in it yet.
of the current classes, i think warlord as a rogue would be best.
reflavor sneak attack to team attack, allow help as a bonus action, ect...
BRJN wrote:
Interesting mechanics other than extra attacks that can be applied to allies.
A fighter's Action Surge style ability - allows ally to take exactly 1 more action on his next turn as long as he can see and hear you
Barbarian Rage style ability - applies to ally instead of you
Rogue expertise style ability - allows for double proficiency bonus to be given to an ally that has the chosen skills
Warlock fiend pact temp hp type ability - that gives temp hp to an ally when they see you kill an enemy
Rogue cunning action style ability - gives allies ability to bonus action dash or hide or disengage
Monk KI type ability that - lets you spend ki to bonus action dodge, dash or disengage for an ally
Fighter champions expanded crit dice style ability for an ally
Fighter 2nd sind style ability but for an ally
Clerics Wardomain bonus action attack but for allies wisdom mod times per day
Clerics Wardomain channel divinity power but for allies (+10 to attack)
also, Barbarian Rage style level 3 wolf totem ability would make a great fit for a warlord. Limit it to a few times per day usage.
I wish this thing would die. Let's split the Fighter into two classes, call one a name that invokes a high level of play, but make him/her/it into a not-magic cheerleader!
FrogReaver wrote:
Reassuring word has no duration.
Teamwork prevents the use of superiority die until you use superiority die?
Maybe warning shout needs to also specify that if the warlord is not surprised the party isn't either, or something.
Strangely lacking in the use of mental stats, not even int or wis save proficiency?
Does inner reserves actually do anything useful? because you already get your die back with a short rest.
Absolutely no caster compatibility which renders the class dependent on being in a weapon using party.
Battlemaster maneuvers are not a good basis for a dedicated warlord class.
I did a subclass for the fighter with a dash of warlord here.
Reviewing your class.
First, gaining maneuvers at first level seems a bit much. The battlemaster fighter is meant to be the best at fighting. That's their thing. This class gets more maneuvers and identical amounts and size of superiority dice.
AND it gains more fighting styles than the champion. Being good at multiple sytles is unique to that subclass.
Most classes get 5 ability score improvements (4, 8, 12, 16, and 19). Only the rogue and fighter get more (6 and 7 respectively). At low levels (<14) the tactician will have as many feats/ability score improvements as a fighter.
The class really takes all of the fighter's unique things, and does them as well as the fighter. This feels like making a class that's a better assassin than a rogue, or better with a pet than a beastmaster ranger. Or, in the case of fighting styles, much better.
The class doesn't have a decision point. All 5e classes have a subclass chosen at 3rd level (with the exception of the cleric, sorcerer, and warlock for obvious reasons), and the druid and wizard who gets theirs at 2nd level for balance reasons due to the potency of 2nd level spells.
There's no reason the tactician should get their tactical speciality at level 1.
This also makes the class very appealing as a dip class. A battlemaster fighter can take 1 level of tactician to almost double their maneuvers, and increase their dice by 50%,
The class has quite a lot of choices, picking techniqies and maneuvers each level. With techniques regularly adjusting maneuvers.
The maneuver modifiying techniques are very powerful. There's no reason not to use distracting attack after every single attack. So you're pretty much always granting allies advantage. Again, being better than fighter. Since the power's only limit is "weapon attack" it pairs nicely with ranged attacks, so the lower hit points and armour class of the warlord are less likely to come up.
What action is warning shout? This ability is super good, especially for level 1. The barbarian gets something simmilar just for themselves at level 7.
Teamwork is an overly complicate power that will slow down play. It's an ability that says "here, let me teach you an entirely new class feature to just remember." It doesn't really mesh with the simple play of 5e, or the design of only needing to know the rules pertinent to your character.
Does it spend a dice? Can you regain that dice?
Reassuring word is poorly phrased. Reactions need a trigger. I'd reccomend reading a few powers that use reactions to get the wording down.
Surprising attack is odd. Your level 14 feature is someone else attacks? What if you're incapacitated? Making an attack action is pretty good, especially if the character can make multiple attacks when taking the Attack action.
For an entirely new class, it doesn't really DO much that is unique from the fighter. It just gets fightery things at a different rate. in 5e attempts were made to make the sorcerer different than the wizard, giving an alternate resource and metamagic feats to differentiate. This class doesn't get anything unique until level 11. It's like a 3e prestige class.
There are some neat ideas here..
If one of my players wanted to created a Warlord character (in absense of an actual Warlord class), this is what I would suggest
- Start with a Fighter/Battlemaster.
- Change Second Wind so that it affects an ally, instead of your self. Change the name to "Inspiring Word" or something similiar.
- Change Action Surge so that it affects an ally, instead of yourself. Change the name, as well.
- I would replace the Fighting Style with Bardic Inspiration (d6), reskinning it and changing the name to "Tactical Inspiration" or something similiar.
- I would limit the character's Manuevers to Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Goading Attack, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally.
- I would allow the character to start with three maneuvers, just like a fighter, but at 7th, 10th, and 15th level he would gain only one (instead of two). This is partially because I have shorted his list of available maneuvers, but also because I would increase his Tactical Inspiration (to d8, d10, and d12) at those levels.
- Finally, I might allow the character to have Combat Inspiration (like a Valor Bard) in exchange for something else. Maybe in place of the "extra" attribute bump that fighters get at 6th level? Maybe in exhange for two known maneuvers? I could even allow the player choose.
- I would also consider replacing Relentless with the ability to use Superiority Dice and Tactical Inspiration Dice interchangeably.
Although this creates a reasonable Warlord character (IMO), I realize that it doesn't exactly create a class. For one thing, it takes too much away from the bard. That isn't really a big deal if nobody is playing one, but as an available class, that would become an issue.
Kayal wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Rogues do not get a second attack.
They manage fine as DPR warriors.
Alternatives include being able to grant the next ally that attacks the guy you targeted/hit the effects of the help action on their attack, or maybe a damage bonus. Or just swapping out your action to give an ally the ability to move, dodge, dash, cast a cantrip, or make an attack action of their own (note attack action thus allowing extra-attacks, but not bonus action attacks). Frankly the Warlord's personal damage out put shouldn't be too close to a traditional dedicated warrior class's, becasue the warlord isn't a traditional dedicated warrior class.
rampant wrote:
I agree with Mello Red. The rogue is a better place to start building a warlord. There are a number of feats in 3e/4e that let you trade sneak attack dice for other affects. Since rogues start off with a decent number of sneak attack dice and get more as they level, so they could do more and more complicated "tactics" by vitue of having more dice to trade in.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DO NOT ALLOW WARLORDS TO SPEND ATTACKS TO GIVE COMMANDS! ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A MULTI-ATTCKING WARLORD!
The warlord NEEDS to be compatible with any other class which means he needs to be able to grant casters somehting useful with his commands as well. However the cantrip's auto-scaling is supposed to compensate for the lack of extra attacks on mages. SO if you don't allow cantrips to be commanded you're proabbly lockign the class into only being useful in warrior parties, especially in terms of offensive contribution, lacking offensive presence in caster heavy parties is part of what killed the 3.5 marshal. On the other hand if you let them trade attacks for cantrips then they're getitng a massive trade up, and doing way too much with casters.
The best Action grant I've manage to figure out is to cash in the Warlords ACTION in exchange for allowing an ally to use the dash, dodge, attack ACTION (so it benefits from their own multi-attack abilities if relevant, but not bonus action attacks/abilities, and can be used with things like grabbing and shoving), or cast a cantrip. This is a fairly even trade but has a lot of tactical utility.
Of course that's assuming it's a resource free ability, if you're willing to give the warlord resources to spend that changes the equation a bit.
rampant wrote:
What one spell per round limit? I mean even the classes that aren't sorcerors can get reaction spells, and the closest thing to such a limit I coould find only applies in turns you cast bonus action spells, and cantrips don't count against that.
The simple fact is that trading weapon attacks, especially on a mult-attacking class, just doesn't give up enough to alow spell casting, not even cantrips because oof the difference in how weapon attacks scale vs. cantrips. On the other hand Leaving the warlord offensively neutered in a caster heavy party is also unacceptable.
So the obvious solution is:
Command: As an action you may allow an ally to act in your place. The ally may use the Dodge action, move up to their speed, cast a cantrip, or take an attack action as if it were their turn.
-Alternatively-
Priority Target: When you attack an enemy you may direct your allies to kill it quickly. The next time an ally would deal damage to the target before the start of your next turn it takes an additional X damage (where X is some scaling value).
Command is more versatile, and probably simpler and easier to handle from a book keeping perspective, while priority target is probably best for overall and future compatability.
Now upper tier commands with use limits and resource expenditure have a bit more leeway of course, but for basic I can do this every round type stuff I think these two are the best approach to warlord battle directives.
One thing that I have suggested before with other warlord class conversions that I don't see in the OP (or in the OP's link) is the ability to trade initiative counts with an ally who would otherwise act later. I think that could be helpful without being an overpowered ability.
rampant wrote:
How does it hurt the fighter? He can still spend his attacks on things like pushes or grabs, and yeah he can't move-attack-move or the reverse it's just that his shiny extra action is limited, it doens't interfere with the normal actions, and bitchng and moaning because you ganked everyone around you and can't move closer to the next guy off turn seems a bit petty. You aren't granting an extra turn here, just one of a limited set of possible actions.
As for the whole buying attacks with attacks, and spells with actions idea, better, but you're forgetitng something. Rogues, they are high damage mono-attackers similar to mages, but they use a wepaon attack to do so. In a party with two rogues trading attacks for attacks, and having a multi-attacking warlord could net you two sneak attacks per warlord turn. The action grant model I suggested can get you 1 sneak attack per warlord turn which is fine because if a PC gives up an action it should get a PC level action out of it, but getitng doubles or triples is another thing entirely. The various classes seem to be roughly balanced on the potential value of their action, and have varrying approaches to making that action scale up. Many weapon users go for multiple attacks, while mages tend towards mono-attackers, but you have middl ground classes like the rogue screwing things up so you gotta be careful.
rampant wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
rampant wrote:
It's also potentially overpowered with other classes. Take barbarians, for example. If the barbarian can go Reckless to gain advantage on his attacks, but then he gets more that his usual number of attacks per round, because warlords are granting them, it diminishes the likelihood of the enemy standing long enough to benefit from advantage in kind and retaliate when it's turn finally comes around.
Not to mention just how much more damage the barbarian can do that the warlord, presumably. Thus making it that the warlord "hits like a barbarian" for all intents and purposes.
There are, I'm sure, many other examples of how granted attacks can potentially break 5e action economy.
OK, so 5e's action economy might just be a little too sloppy for action-granting. And, yeah, attack granting is too limited, and kludges like "you can grant casting, but only a cantrip, and it works at level 1' and 'you can grant a rogue an attack, but not an SA, unless it hasn't SA'd at all this round' or whatever to make the ability both less abuseable yet still worthwhile, would quickly get too cumbersome.
Basically It has to be at the action level or it's not gonna work.
What Chris fails to recognize in regards to action grants in general is that that granting limited actions while potent, isn't nealry as dramatic as he's makign it out to because of one simple factor: Every class has abilities beyond their basic cantrip or attack action that they can't use in conjunction with the warlord's action grant, yes the warlord gets a huge boost to his potential at-will action by mooching off his party members, but to do so he's not using any of his other abilities, and probably getitng a sub-standard action out of it anyway since even with my generous model a single attack action doens't let them dual wield, or benefit form similar bonus action attacks/abilities, to say nothign of positioning issues.
Also the problem with a multi-attacking warlord passing individual attacks to his allies wasn't an issue of multipple warlords it wa s problem of muiltiple rogues. 1 Warlord + rogues could equal 4 SA per round without reactions because the warlord could pass one off-turn attack to both rogues and potentially get a sneak attack that way. While at the same time it screwed fighters since they have probably the lowest damage per individual attack of the weapon user classes.
rampant wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
And you're both ignoring that he's not hitting like the best hitter, he's hititng at about 60-85% of the best hitter.
rampant wrote:
Well like I said you can't dual wield or use the staff feat to get bonus attacks, monks can't use the martial arts extra attack.
rampant wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Reius wrote:
rampant wrote:
No, but a lot do and its a major source of extra damage/special powers, alot of the heavy hitting classes/builds use it to get their heavy hits.
Diffan wrote:
Okay, I'm the first to point out a few classes that are broken as heck due to over versartility and that the attack vs. save system needs to be overhauled, but there was actually a lot of effort put into balancing the classes in 5e. I mean it probably won't hold together as more and more new spells get released, but at the starting point there was a real attempt to keep things from spiralling out of control.
rampant wrote:
rampant wrote:
Just to further drive my point home. A human variant with polearm master will do 27.6 average damage at level 5. A dwarf or halforc fighter with a greatsword will do 24.66 average damage at level 5. That's only maybe a 12% difference.
The point I am trying to make is that even polearm master classes don't necessarily do 15% more damage than their non polearm master counterparts.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Its a shame to see how much is going on, alas. Too much arguing, no one actually invested in making warlord work. I'm beginning to feel like this is the same thing as a "spellless" ranger. A never solved problem.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Agreed.
Kinda intersting when, "What you propose doesn't work in 5e for the following reasons," or "That's too powerful," is viewed as arguing.
Perhaps it isn't whether some people are invested that is the issue, but rather that some people might be over-invested?
Interestingly, this is a very similar situation for the "spellless ranger" just mentioned, as far as I have seen.
In both cases, I am of the opinion that 5e already handles both just fine, as is. But I realize some people don't like to hear that...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Well if you don't freaking like the action grants I provided the priority target alternative, no one ever seems to wanna talk about that.
Back to action grant mitigators
Rogues have reduced chance of sneak attack without the ability to move or use cunning action to help set up.
Rangers can't use their boosting spells/special multi-attack abilities.
Barbarians can't frenzy or reckless attack
What you really need to worry about are battlemasters and paladins since they can turn any extra hits into an chance to used encounter/daily powers.
Also I guess I just don't see the problem, you said it yourself Frog, the numbers are so close together on the offensive and defense fronts that I don't see the issue with letitng the warlord play musical Acitions. I mean yeah giving the warlord the ability to pass his action to other characters is potent but it's still inferior to just havign another member of that class on hand, and since this action grant would replace the warlord's scaling basic action I don't see it as a problem, this is what the warlord gets instead of sneak attack or tons of attacks, or holy power channeled into his weapons. It's not adding on to his existing attacks.
FrogReaver wrote:
The batlte master is a horrible warlord, no caster compatibility, limited tactical options with even weapon using allies, and no at-will teamwork powers.
Also stop using the term attack grant if you;re going to do grants you need to grant actions because apparently 5e decided that it really needed to treat magic differently again after 4e brought too much rationality to game design. The simple fact is that granting individual attacks is gonna be a lot more abuseable than granting actions.
Frankly I'm still not convinced that an at-will ACTION grant is in any way equal or superior to havign another member of the same class along, so I don;'t see how a guy who's at-will schtick is to effectively take a weaker version of another party member's turn is an issue. The at-will abilities of most of the classes line up pretty well so I don't see how you;re getitng the idea that it's imbalanced.
However if you don't want to do that as an at-will there are alternatives like priority targeting and such.
The thing you have to realize is that the warlord needs to do SOMETHING interesting and unique, and most importantly compatible with a wide array of party compositions. Action grants are the obvious method because it's the warlord facilittating what the rest of the party would be doing anyway. I've tried offering alternatives but all peopel do is shout about how imbalanced action grants are, despite being wrong.
IF you don't like the offensive action grants, what about support grants? Instead of gainining an extra attack at level 5 the warlord can (as part of his attack action) grant an ally the dodge action, or let them move up to their speed.
rampant wrote:
rampant wrote:
Nope warlord was perfectly compatible with casters in 4e because magical attacks weren't special if the warlord granted a basic attack the mages could use it to cast basic attack spells, of which several of their at-wills were, such as warlock's EB. It had issues with ranged classes and at-will action grants early on but they fixed that. The bonuses that a warlord handed out could be used wiht magical or non-magical attacks equally well because everythign ran on the same system.
The classes of 5e have the ability to do something class appropriate and effective every roudn as an at-will. A warlord's class approprate powers would naturally involve teamwork and tactics. Therefore a well designed 5e warlord should do have an at-will ability to do something potent and tactical/teamworky.
Kayal: Stop talking about granting individual attacks, especially in exchange for a warlords individual attacks, I've explained how this is twice as broken as whole action grants could ever be, and it doens't work with casters.
rampant wrote:
Name one that didn;t have it?
rampant wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
rampant wrote:
Conceptually the "warlord" is redundant. Fighters are the lords of war in D&D. From the foot soldier in the ranks to the general who commands his army, all those warriors fit exactly into what the fighter class is.
If what is wanted is just more battle-inspiration and battlefied strategy mechanics then a skill/feat module or a subclass for the fighter is appropriate.
There is no conceptual reason to make a whole new class that is exactly what the Fighter is.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Macrocosm156 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Kayal wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
They have already indicated that they are going to give rangers alternative feature options that can be used to replace existing class features for those who find the ranger lacking. There is no reason why they could not either produce a full-on warlord subclass or a variant battlemaster with slightly different class features. An alternative might be a couple of warlordy feats so that you can have non-fighter warlords.
pauln6 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
pauln6 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The OP is about a warlord class which teh Poster already worked up a big chunk of. Anyone debating whether or not ther ehsould be a warlord or if it's just a sub-class or whatever, you're already late to the party.
THis thread is supposedly about wokrign out the gaps and rough edges, but I'm not sure if the OP is still here or not.
Kayal wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Kayal wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kayal wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kayal wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Yeah, yeah. Sure. OK, so now he still wants "someone who leads armies", but translated into skirmish-level based play. Uh huh. Whatever that means.
So then, even though I said last time was the last time, I will ask again:
What does "someone who leads armies" do in a skirmish-level based game, that isn't already doable using existing material?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
the issue:
Person1: I want a class that grants attacks to allies.
Person 2: that would be unbalanced because...
Person 1: I don't care I want it
Person 2: okay the battle master can do that
Person 1: the battle master doesn't do it enough, it should be at will
Person 2: that would be unbalanced
Person1: I don't care I want it
The problem isn't that the battle master doens't do it enough, it's that it's a non-specialized maneuver fighter, not a warlord, and that it doens't mesh well with mages.
Also I disagree, the one argument about at-will action grants, when done carefully, being imbalanced that holds up is that it allows them to mooch off the best at-will action in the party with little to no investment of their own. Which would be true, if the ability to make the action grant itself didn't count as an investment. This would be the ability the warlord gains instead of lots of extra attacks, sneak attack, rage, auto-scaling cantrips, and/or smiting.
If you still don't buyt that I've suggested an alternative to the at-will action grant in the form of priority targeting. The Tech is pretty simple to alter as well, instead of damage you can grant different advantages ore even take a debuff route where the warlord attacks do things that make the enemy easier to hit/hurt.
rampant wrote:
It's not the maneuver system that is the problem mind you, it's that commander's strike is a horrible warlord power if that's the only offensive action grant you get, especially since it's a net action loss and doens't work with mage types. Other powers would be things like knight's move, give up your movement to grant an ally the ability to move, or since you're spending a resource maybe just let them move. Something that lets them heal a bit, maybe they can spend up to X HD and add your die roll? Maybe one that would let you trade your whole action for an action from the ally targetted and this would allow for multi-attacks and cantrips. Maybe one that marks a target for a round and any attack that hits him ass your die roll to the damage? One that grants allies the dodge action off turn? Or a rapid re-roll for a save or attack roll?
Then there's still the issue that the battlemaster is attached ot the fighter which means the vast majority of it's class resources are being spent on being the fighter which means that you can barely dabble as a warlord instead of beign a dedicated warlord even with a full suite of maneuvers. More and better maneuvers designed for a dedicated warlord rather than a dabbler with 1-3 other thigns he needs to be doing would be an absolute minimum.
I guess I don't see the warlord using his allies stats for at-will attacks as being terribly different from classes that provide at-will attack options that run off the spell casting stat you'd be using for your other abilities anyway. I don't see how it differs form wizards and clerics gettin at-will powers based on their casting stat, i.e. cantrips. Also like I said hadning out individual attack sis almost certainly going to be trouble.
FrogReaver wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Kayal wrote:
Nothing important should ever be tied to crits, if you don't want them to use an ability more than once every x turns just use a recharge mechanic. Class abilities need to be consistent.
rampant wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
THink more like the 3.5 binder where it had abilities that could be used and then you had to wait 5 rounds to do it again. It's a bit different from an x uses between rests systems because it involves a touch more book keeping, but on the other hand allows you to have abilities that you can't burn through too quickly. THings that logically don't come up every turn but do come up more the longer the fight drags on. Like rolling 1d4 between dragon breaths but less random. Plus you can have alternate recharge triggers like dropping to half health for the first time in a fight.
RUnning things on crits doesn't work for two major reasons, distribution and again class composition. You gran tthe ability to follow p on a crit that means whoever gets the most crits is the one benefitting form your ability. Let's say you're adding to the traditional 4-man party. Mialee, Lidda, Regdar, and Jozan welcome Percival the Warlord to the group. Of the original 4 members only regdar has multiple attacks under 5e rules. Furthermore many of Jozan and Mialee's abilities can't crit, and half the time they wouldn't want a free weapon attack because they specced to use magic and put their attributes in int or wis, and would probably whiff assumign they're even holding a weapon that can actually reach anyone. Next up the simple fact is that crits are randomly distributed because dice. Which means that while in theory things should and do even out in to a predictable number it takes many sesisons and many groups to achieve this and individual warlords and parties will be all over the fracking map. This proposed follow up a crit feature is rewarding the players who are already rollign well and leave the guys who are struggling out in the cold. Also it nukes a huge portion of the warlord's agency since they don't distribute action grants based on their own judgement.
Kayal: My suggestions and critiques of the maneuvers were based on the assumption that you'd be paying for them seeing as how you asked me to evaluate under the assumption of a costed maneuver system. The bits in that third thing you quoted from me are all based on somehting similar to the extant battlemaster maneuver system, LIKE YOU ASKED ME TO. There is nothing inherently wrong witht he battlemaster's maneuver system, it's just that the maneuvers themselves are underwhelming, clumsy, and insufficient for a dedicated warlord, and that they don't have enough invested into it because the battle master is a sub-class to the fighter which means most of it's power lies in doing fighter things. A maneuver based warlord is totally doable using somehtign pretty simil;ar to the battle master system. We just need more and better warlord maneuvers, and to make the maneuvers a core class feature rather than a sub-class feature.
As for sticking an 8 in you 'attacking' stat um, so what? I mean i still don't see how this is different from a wizard with 8 str and/or dex and 20 int he can make potent at-will attacks using cantrip's but can't make effective use of opportunity attacks. The warlord can make potent attacks (but not as potent as the action granted character's actual turn would have been), and sucks at opportunity attacks. If anything you should be getitng mad at clerics and druids for being able to attack, and use higher level abilities base don wisdom since that's a key somponent to many social and exploration encounters as well as being a major saving throw. Assuming you have an at-will action grant that lets you mooch an allied stat I just don't get how it's any different from a class giving out a cantrip based on a casting stat. It lets you ignore the traditional 'attackign stat' allowing you to focus on the stat your class runs on. The wizard does it by making everythign int based, the warlord does it by using an allied stat. Both of them get a reduced reliance on str and/or dex for offense and the accompanying increased freedom in where to put points. IF anything making the granted attacks run on the warlord's int/cha would increase the warlord's ability to ignore the traditional attack stats. In a set up where the warlord has a stat mooching at-will you have to encourage the importance of the attackign stats vioa higher level abilities. For example 4e warlord had a power that if you nailed someone with a melee attack you could pin them in place as long as you stuck close, and let your allies set up on the poor sod. If you want the warlord to care about str/dex give them abilities that use str/dex. We don't have to have an at-will offensive action grant, Priority targeting or somethign along those lines can be the alternative warlord at-will. My contention is that the at-will offensive action grant is not unbalanced, not that it is 'the one true way of the warlord'.
Frog: You have some interesting ideas but your suggestions don't give the warlord a lot of agency. Most of those powers are auto triggered and the warlord is just kinda there.
Kayal, -Could the pure attack granting mechanic be given at level 5? Maybe.
The biggest reason to place a true extra attack feature at level 11 is to make sure that most of the warlords damage is coming from his own abiliities. This forces him to invest in his own attack stats. I'm not sure there would be as much of a concern to invest much in your own attack stats if you can make 1 attack and grant an extra attack every turn at level 5. Especially if the level 3 feature also allows you to grant even more attacks in some way. Though even this kind of a feature may be unbalanced with a rogue in the party and I'm not sure how to get around that.
-So my goal was to give some extra attack granting feature at level 3 that had limitations by resources or a chance of occuring or. This should give enough attack granting flavor and mechanics till you reach level 11 and get the true at will extra attack.
-The level 3 feature could be reworked. At level 3 it should be able to provide around 60 damage a day. Whatever you allow the warlord to do at level 3 should not be able to give drastically more damage than that. The amount of damage this feature casues should increase slightly once level 5 is reached. Probably to around 80ish.
-part of the reason i chose crits for the level 3 feature is that they scale very weil with level. Such a feature doesn't overvalue giving the rogue extra attacks.
-I also wanted to include some initiative boosting feature since alot of people liked that from the 4e warlord. I also wanted to include a party movement style feature for the same reason. What did you think of those features?
rampant wrote:
YEs action grants, especially pure actions grants can be higher level, as long as the warlord has somethign worthwile to do until then.
Frog the big issue I see is that you're still trying to trade/hand out attacks, which doens't work because half or mor eof the classes don't run on attacking, you need to be cantrip compatible. Also the rogue screws that up. True action grants cover htis a lot better because they are compatible with every class, you just need to up the cost to being your whole action, and/or an in class reosurce such as superiority die, or somehting. The game so far seems set up around the action, and each class has a roughly analagous at-will offesnive action, whether it be cantrips, multi-attacking, or whatever what generalized term for what the rogue does ends up being. You're tryign to be too granular in a game where half the classes are using wooden blocks.
rampant wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
1. Both I believe. I've explained the problems with handing out individual attacks before it's wildly imbalancing in the favor of high damage few attacks weapon classes such as rogue, paladin, and some clerics, paltry for the multi-attackers like monk and fighter, and just flat useless for the cantrip users.
2. No it's not. None of your arguments for that make any sense. Rogues are MORE imbalanced in your system. The whole action grant evens the palying field. And all that crap about not needing an attack stat is only true if you don't give the warlord a reaosn to use their own attacks. IF you can't give the class somehting to spend it's action on besides granting an inferior verison of an ally's usual turn then you're doing somehtign wrong.
3. I'm fine wiht it being higher level, hell iI've come up with alternatives to the whole mess, I don't need it to show up ever, or bein an at-will. I just want it done intelligently if it does get used.
rampant wrote:
So the updated warlord would look something like
Level 1: second wind style ability that targets allies
Level 2: +2 to party initiiative every short rest
Level 3: Grant extra attack to an ally who crits an enemy. (This allows cantrip extra attacks too)
Level 4:
Level 5: extra attack
Level 6: Once per short rest ability to trade your action for an allies action
Level 7: give allies 5ft more speed on turn 1 of fight
Level 9
Level 10
Level 11:
Level 12
Level 13
Level 14
Level 15: grant allies free dash or disengage action on turn 1
Level 16
Level 17:
Level 18
Level 19
Level 20: 4 times per short rest abilitiy to trade your action for an allies action.
FrogReaver wrote:
rampant wrote:
Other level 3 class features:
crit on 19-20
allies near you get advantage on their melee attacks while you are raging
deal 1d8 more damage to an injured creature once per turn
Get advantage on any creature who hasn't acted yet
superiority dice, 4 dice per short rest of size 1d8
ability to free attack a creature within 5 ft of the one you just attacked
Better damage resisance while you are raging
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing how the ability to grant an extra attack or cantrip cast to an ally that crits doesn't line up with these types of abilities?
so apparently out of all my suggestions we only know about the ones rampant doesn't agree with.......
rampant wrote:
Kayal wrote:
kayal, i think part of our difference of opinion is that I'm trying to avoid the warlord feeling "unnatural". While I'm all for movement grants, they don't make nearly as much sense thematically to many people. As such treating the warlord as a preparing allies for battle type class that helps them out on turn one is the route im trying to go.
FrogReaver wrote:
Ok so it's the complete unreliance on any of the warlord's own stats that is the issue. Hmmmm well that gives me an idea for somethign else entirely, I can't help but think that a lot of problems would be solved by making the classes less directly stat dependent, but that's a major overhaul.
I really don't see that as a bad thing to be honest. I wish more stuff was like that.
Use limit seems the best option since I don't wanna screw with the attack/damage numbers because then I have to commplicate the language in order to maintain class compatibility.
Action grants, especially limited ones that only give at-will powers, are not as powerful as people make them out to be as long as you're paying an action cost equivalent to the action gained, especially without hte option to use the bonus action boosters or stuff like that. A fighter can't action surge, or dual wield. A rogue isn't getitng any more sneak attacks than he would in the attack trade model. You'r epaying a higher cost to get a bigger result I don't see why that's so OP. That said an at-will offensive action grant is probably somehting that should be handed out no earlier than level 5, but again we don't have to go that route. One that uses a resource such as dice or points however, in the maneuver model would not be a huge problem at any level because it's limited by the points. Though somehtign fun might be a higher cost version that is flat out extra actions.
rampant wrote:
I liked the initiative aura and the ally targetign 2nd wind.
Well sinc ethe OP crafted a maneuver based warlord how about we move forward with the assumption that we are discussing a maneuver based warlord using the superiority dice system, not the individual battlemaster maneuvers mind yo bbut the general system. Although Again I think that Int and/or cha should be involved more than the OP had set up.
A unified mechanic to work with will probably help keep things from getting too out of hand.
rampant wrote:
Coordinated Offensive
As long as you are not surprised, you can expend one of your maneuver dice at the begining of combat to grant you, and all allies within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you, a bonus to their inititaive equal to the result.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kayal wrote:
How about something the let's the warlord "lend" his superiority die to someone, similiar to what a bard does with inspiration?
Inspired Guidance
You can inspire others with rousing words or insightful guidance. To do so, you use a bonus action on your turn to choose one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you who can hear you. That creaturs gains one "Tactical Inspiration" die. Once wihtin the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes. The creature can wait until after it it rolls the d20 before decidinf the use the Tactical Inspiration die, but must decide before the DM says whether the roll succeeds to fails. Once the Tactical Inspiration is rolled, it is lost. A creature can only have one Tactical Inspiration die at a time.
Tactical Guidance
You learn to inspire others in battle. To do so, you use a bonus action on your turn to choose one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you who can hear you. That creaturs gains one "Tactical Inspiration" die. Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll roll that die and addthe number to a damage roll it just made. Alternately, when an attack roll is made against the creature, it can use its reaction to roll the Tactical Inspiration die and add the number rolled to its AC against the attack, after seeing the roll but before knowing whether it hits or misses. A creature can only have one Tactical Inspiration die at a time.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Why is it that home brew always borders on the side of overpowered instead of balanced?
An extra 1d8 initiative for the entire party at level 3 is insane.... And for the cost of one superiority dice per encounter??? Whoa!
<shrug> Why do some people tend to place so much undue weight on something as situationally beneficial as initiative*?
It's cyclical people. But since you are being so bold, maybe, oh I dunno, back up your claims with something other than "it's insane". You know, like, to show your work?
I noticed you avoided responding to what I said to Daom. WRT monsters winning when they go first. Maybe you could tackle that one while you're at it?
(*because clearly Alert is such a broken and OP feat. My gaud, how can anyone look at Alert and not just puke from the overwhelming brokenedness?)
if alert just gave the whole party an average of +5 initiative then it would be a must take.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
In my game, the PCs - all of them - generally go first in every fight. We stopped using individual initiative back in 4th just because we couldn't be bothered. So now each player rolls, and if one of them beats my roll, the whole party goes first, and they each act in whatever order they want each round. The combats are fun, still very dangerous, and I have less book keeping.
I've also, as a player in both 3e and 4th, rarely cared about going first. I've had several characters, in fact, where I didn't want to win initiative.
Satyrn wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pretty amatuerish dodging there, Tex. Hey, how 'bout you address the question I posed multiple times, then? You know, the one you are afraid to tackle because it shows how hyperbolic your "initiative is the uber-roxxor" argument...
Here, I'll make it super easy for you by presenting it in a very concise version:
If going first is such a "win button", what do you do when the monsters roll higher on initiative?
FrogReaver wrote:
It's hard to tell if CC is being facetious or just his usual "charming" self, but yes, always winning IS boring. That's largely why 5th ed is more fun to more people. Without the chance of failure aka death, there's no point in playing. If surviving is near-assured, there is no excitement, no danger. This is a basic fact of game design, exploited well by games such as classic D&D, Everquest, Prince of Persia (1), Dark Souls.
Challenge simply does not exist when you are assured success.
Party-wide initiative boosts must be kept very limited. Always or almost always going first is also tremendously boring. There's a reason why in virtually every sport or board game they alternate which player starts on which side. Being on the defensive or surprised adds excitement to the game. Always winning initiative through a fiat-ability removes the players having to actually jockey for surprise, which also is something that 5e re-emphasized : the setup to the battle is often at least (if not more) key to success than a straight up fair fight. I like winning against the odds, by tilting them back in our favour. This is the heart and soul of D&D, and why party-wide initiative boosts, if they are added, must be kept very small or it will become a must-have OP ability.
I encourage people who do not understand why initiative boosts are unbalanced, to visit this thread from the 4e era:
"KillSwitch, a "We Win" button for your party"
http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2676866
Because winning all the time is fun? No, no it isn't. Try being the DM with a killswitch in the group, you will throw up your hands and grieve at your inability to challenge the party with anything resembling a "fair fight".
Fair fight implies fair chances of winning, and in D&D, winning is quite often dictated by which actors get to act first. Another basic truism of D&D that most people will realize from experience in actual play.
So your evidence that going first is broken is to cite another ruleset? How 'bout we stick to 5e. Tell me how going first wins 5e. Hows 'bout that?
Also, at the very least, if you could show how a +1d8 means always going first, that'd be a decent start.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Go ahead, then. Frame your argument. Maybe keep the stuff from your previous post in there though, so as not to look like you are re-framing it. Stuff like "insane" and "Whoa!". 
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Going first isn't everything, but it is certianly huge. To illustrate, I'll use really simple numbers. Let's look at a party of five, witn an average of 25 HPs each, and dealing an average of 10 damage each. Let's compare them a group of five monsters who also have 25 HPs each and deal 10 damage per round on average. (This set-up has identicle damage and HP on both dies, which isolates the effect of initiative).
Round One
Side A wins Init and focuses fire, dealing 30 damage to one foe and 20 to another.
Side B (now down a man) goes a second. They too focus fire, dealing 30 damage to one foe and 10 to another.
Round Two
Side A (now down a man) focuses fire, again, dealing 10 damage to one foe and 30 to another.
Side B (now down three men) goes a second. They focus fire, dealing 20 damage to one foe.
Round Three
Side A (now down two men) focuses fire, again, dealing 30 damage to one foe.
Side B (now down to one guy) goes a second. He deals 20 damage to one foe.
Round Four
Side A (now down two men) focuses fire, again, dealing 30 damage to one foe.
Side B is dead.
FrogReaver wrote:
Kayal wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The number of situations where it helps to have just 1 party member go before the monsters and the others to go after the monsters is few. However, the number of situations where it helps to have all but 1 party member go before the monsters is many.
What I am trying to say is that an individuals initiative typically has very little impact on group battles. However, group initiative does have a rather large impact.
The benefits for initiative are pretty much all decided based on how many party members go before the monsters. So yes, increasing your individual initiative increases the parties chance of having most of the party members go before team monster. However, increasing all members of the parties initiative greatly increases the parties chance of having most of the party members go before team monster.
Absolutely right. As evident by Satyrn's post upthread.
Going first is not a "win button".
And +1d8 =/= going first, even if that were true.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I like how you just effectively told Satyrn that s/he's a fool and that their games are a cake-walk. You rule.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Well, after considering both of your points, I do think Coordinated Offensive as described on page 4 is a little strong. (As long as you are not surprised, you can expend one of your maneuver dice at the begining of combat to grant you, and all allies within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you, a bonus to their inititaive equal to the result.)
Let's compare Coordinated Offenive to Commander's Strike ...
- Commander's Strike uses one of your attacks. Coordinated Offensive does not. It's kind of like a reaction, except that it doesn't restrict your use od other reactions. Point goes to CO.
- Commander's Strike is line-of-sight. Coordinated Offensive is limited to 30 feet. Point goes to CS.
- Commander's Strike affects one target. Coordinated Offensive affects all allies within range. Point goes to CO.
- Commander's Strike automatically grants one attack. Coordinated Offensive could let an ally (or multiple allies) use a move, a bonus action, and an entire action (including spells and multiple attacks) earlier than they might of, which (depending on how to combat rolls out) is likely be a net increase of more than one additional attack. It's not gauranteed, but it's very likely. Point goes to CO; possibly several points, actually.
-
Commander's Strike also adds d8 to the damage of that one extra attack. Coordinated Offensive does not. Point goes to CS.
-
Commander's Strike only works with weapons attack. Coordinated Offensive works with spells (not just spell attacks, either, but all spells). Point goes to CO; possibly several points, actually.
-
By virtue of the last three bullets, Coordinated Offensive is very likely to reduce the total damage caused by the enemy by significant amount more than Commander's Strike will. An extra attack plus another d8 just isn't close to what a couple of allies can do with their entire actions. Point goes to CO.
The way I see it, that's 5 to 2 (or worse) in favor of Coordinated Offenive. As written, I think it's too powerful. I do really like it, though, flavor-wise. is there someway we can tone this down a bit? Maybe one ally you can see gets to re-roll initiative AND add a d8 to the result?
Odd use of comparative logic.
So if one ability gives 5 allies one apple each, and another ability grants a single ally an orange...
Also, nothing CO does will ever convert a missed attack into a hit. So Precision Strike is clearly so over-the-top cray-cray!
And don't get me started with Rally. That can potentially completely negate a monster's whole attack action. That's practically like the equivelant of a stun effect for 1 round!
---
I'm getting a kick out of how much fear you guys have of initiative. I'd put money on the fact that you both opened your PHBs for the first time, saw the +5 granted by Alert and freaked the eff out.
No doubt. At all.
I mean. that’s a 25% increase in what Improved Initiative gave in the last few editions! So WTF were the devs thinking, amIright? OMG!
Nope. Alert is fine. If your maneuver targeted 1 ally it would be fine. Heck I could even see it allowing an extra d20 rolled to replace any single allies initiative and then giving that ally +1d8 damage on an enemy he hits that hasn't had a turn yet, the 1d8 only applies to one hit of course. (That's about as strong as I could see it getting).
If alert gave whole party +5 initiative then I would be like omg!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I just don't know. I can't shake the feeling that some of this smells of white roomery.
Some of the other maneuvers are going to be used in the moment, when their impact will more-than-likely matter. Where as, a bonus to initiative, even if it moves a few people ahead, only change when they will go (not granting an "extra action"). Plus, when this benefit is being applied, the combat has just begun. So how can it be known that benefit is being used best? Who knows if it was even needed? What if the DM rolls a "1" for his baddies? Or beats a good chunk of the PC's by at least 8? Both of these things happen in 5e. With BA, moreso than in the last few editions.
Also, there's a lot of weight being given to these "moved up attacks" (again, assuming the initiative bonus even counted for enough to matter) as being successful. If they aren't, the net benefit was moot.
I think, like certain other things in 5e that people initially freaked out about, playtesting it in the trenches will bear more useful fruit than armchair theory-crafting.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Not it sure what alert has to do with a party wide initiative buff? Maybe you can explain that?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
If, as Sleeps presents it, having a hightened initiative bonus (as would be theorized from a party wide buff) is such a no-brainer "must take", then a similar benefit can already be achieved simply by the whole group taking Alert. Which is even more potent than my proposed maneuver could ever be. By a crapton. Because not only is the bonus always on, but because you get to actually act in that surprise round (as mentioned--even when they are the ones being surprised) before going first again on the following round, as Sleeps suggests.
So if Sleeps' table finds a benefit, like a boost to initiative, to be so uber, it would only stand to reason that they would all take the feat ASAP.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
On the other hand the maneuver only works once per encounter and ceases to be of benefit after the first turn. However 5e does tend towards faster combats than 3e or 4e, and that first turn can be crucial. Plus it's running on a resource that will often be full up durign that turn. What if you made it burn 2 dice and you roll the lowest? or locked it behind a level barrier? Or maybe had a handful of super maneuvers that a warlord gets fewer of, and are abit conditional, but very potent, but would only be accessed at a higher level, and you only get 2-3?
Alternatively make it so that the maneuver works liek this: If you are not surprised in the first round of combat you may spend a superioty die and any allies within x feet are also not surprised, and just leave the initiative total out. Just because we're using dice to represent the points doesn't mean every maneuver has to have a die roll.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Perhaps instead of everyone bitching about whether or not the maneuver is too powerful someone could actually use it in a few games and report back.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
cbwjm wrote:
Here's one: Let's compare Finger of Death to Fireball!
Finger of Death affects only a single target.
Fireball can affect up to 64 medium sized creatures! Or 512 medium sized creatures in the air!!!
- Point for Fireball.
Finger of Death has a range of only 60 feet.
Fireball has a range of 150 feet. That's almost triple!
- Point for Fireball.
Finger of Death requires an action to cast.
Fireball also takes an action to cast.
- So this one is a tie.
Finger of Death requires your only 7th-level spell slot for the day. That's a huge cost.
Fireball only uses a 3rd-level slot. That's practically nothing.
- Point for Fireball.
Clearly, as evident by this comparison, Fireball is so vastly superior to Finger of Death something must be done! Immediately! Talk about design fail! What were the devs thinking?!?!?!?!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
You didn't take clumping or damage into consideration.
Kayal wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Will it? I've found, thus far, that initiative isn't a 50/50 game vs. the monsters. Players tend to have at least a few PCs that regularly go ahead (unless the DM get'sa really lucky roll). So when at least half the party isn't generally benefitting from the bonus, it skews the theoretical maths being touted as this "average" you are seeing.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I'm honestly surprised chris hasn't brought up the two major points of comparison
1. The superiority dice feat that gives a single d6 superiority dice. Apparently a single superiority dice is strong enough for a feat. In other words, the battle master feature at level 3 is close to taking about 4 feats.
2. The alert feat gives +5 initiative and a few other things.
So a proposal to create a single manuever that gives 4 characters a nearly alert based bonus to initiative may have some logical basis as being balanced in the system.
How important is an initiative bonus when opponents start out of reach (behind corners, say), forcing the winner to spend his turn moving to engage instead of attacking Or when enemies enter combat in later rounds on their initiative, no matter how low? Or the numerous other ways of setting up dynamic fights that every DM uses?
I just find winning initiative to be only occasionally useful, so I would want this maneuver to be significant the times the player decides to use it. To the point where it does let most of players go first. Otherwise why ever bother with it.
Satyrn wrote:
Satyrn wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
How about splitting the differance and adding the characters proficiency bonus instead of the die roll that way the power scales and is a fixed bonus the DM can plan for.
Suggestion (not mine, I think I stole it upthread).
Maneuver: Wake up call
Immediately after rolling initiative, you may grant a re-roll to a target that can hear you, including yourself.
The re-roll adds your superiority die and must be used even if the result is lower than the initial result.
I used this in a team with 4 party members to grant a re-roll to the lowest rolling character if that roll was < 11.
Simulated 100 times yielded the following increases to the targets initiative:
0 3 7 0 8 2 3 15 14 2 0 0 2 2 15 0 2 11 7 18 14 0 13 16 11 10 9
12 3 4 0 17 -4 9 11 14 25 18 11 -6 7 0 18 15 11 2 5 22 0 11 -2 17 6 14
4 6 8 1 17 19 11 6 15 10 -2 0 4 11 18 12 9 21 6 10 6 18 10 3 13 1 3
15 17 0 10 0 17 0 16 13 13 2 15 19 13 17 12 -2 7 17
This seems to me to be a very useful alternative to the people who flinch at the party-wide initiative buff.
EDIT: Source code is a matlab script
clear
clc
N=100;
Init = zeros(N,4);
Init2 = zeros(N,4);
for i = 1:N
for j = 1:4
Init(i,j) = ceil(rand()*20);
Init2(i,j) = Init(i,j);
end
[m, p] = min(Init2(i,: ));
if m < 11
Init2(i,p) = ceil(rand()*20) + ceil(rand()*8);
end
end
[Init zeros(N,1) Init2];
Bonus = (Init2 - Init);
Bonus = Bonus*ones(4,1);
Bonus'
The suggested maneuver could be a reaction or it could allow for more dice spent to affect more allies. Those are finer points...
Lokiron wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
I wonder if it is too good compared to a bard's inspire thingie.. EDIT: With a million simulations, the average bonus to the target's initiative (still only used when roll < 11) was +10.3. That's just with a d8. d12 yields an avarage bonus of 12.2
EDIT2: It could actually very well be a feature of a new Bard College...
Kayal wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
BRJN wrote: