Makes me think that maybe the Warlord should primarily interact with martial classes and actions, not enable extra spellcasting.
In a magical world he is going to need to do both... the TS dice may however convert rather directly to enable his fighters normal style of actions and be more of a first line ability.
Sure, you have to deal with magic as a warlord. But, even if the formal 'sources' are being burried, the warlord is still a martial character. He understands how to set up a fellow warrior. He might buy a wizard some time, or trick enemies into 'bunching up' in the beaten zone of his fireball, but how can he make the wizard wiz harder? A pep talk or drill-seargant shouting isn't going to aid his concentration...
Anyway, with or without a supporting rationale, an extra spell/round by any means has proven broken in the past. The warlord should hand out movement & attacks, not full-blown actions, and most especially not casting. ... :sigh: Of course, that just leads to the inevitable conclusion that the party would be better off with another caster, like a Cleric, instead of a warlord. The caster doesn't just give you more spells/round, he gives you more spells.
In a magical world he is going to need to do both... the TS dice may however convert rather directly to enable his fighters normal style of actions and be more of a first line ability.[/quote]Sure, you have to deal with magic as a warlord. But, even
Makes me think that maybe the Warlord should primarily interact with martial classes and actions, not enable extra spellcasting.
In a magical world he is going to need to do both... the TS dice may however convert rather directly to enable his fighters normal style of actions and be more of a first line ability.
Sure, you have to deal with magic as a warlord. But, even if the formal 'sources' are being burried, the warlord is still a martial character. He understands how to set up a fellow warrior. He might buy a wizard some time, or trick enemies into 'bunching up' in the beaten zone of his fireball, but how can he make the wizard wiz harder? A pep talk or drill-seargant shouting isn't going to aid his concentration...
Anyway, with or without a supporting rationale, an extra spell/round by any means has proven broken in the past. The warlord should hand out movement & attacks, not full-blown actions, and most especially not casting.
Agreed.
In a magical world he is going to need to do both... the TS dice may however convert rather directly to enable his fighters normal style of actions and be more of a first line ability.[/quote]Sure, you have to deal with magic as a warlord. But, even
Makes me think that maybe the Warlord should primarily interact with martial classes and actions, not enable extra spellcasting.
In a magical world he is going to need to do both... the TS dice may however convert rather directly to enable his fighters normal style of actions and be more of a first line ability.
Sure, you have to deal with magic as a warlord. But, even if the formal 'sources' are being burried, the warlord is still a martial character. He understands how to set up a fellow warrior. He might buy a wizard some time, or trick enemies into 'bunching up' in the beaten zone of his fireball, but how can he make the wizard wiz harder? A pep talk or drill-seargant shouting isn't going to aid his concentration...
Anyway, with or without a supporting rationale, an extra spell/round by any means has proven broken in the past. The warlord should hand out movement & attacks, not full-blown actions, and most especially not casting.
Agreed.
... :sigh: Of course, that just leads to the inevitable conclusion that the party would be better off with another caster, like a Cleric, instead of a warlord. The caster doesn't just give you more spells/round, he gives you more spells.
In a magical world he is going to need to do both... the TS dice may however convert rather directly to enable his fighters normal style of actions and be more of a first line ability.[/quote]Sure, you have to deal with magic as a warlord. But, even
Sure, you have to deal with magic as a warlord. But, even if the formal 'sources' are being burried, the warlord is still a martial character. He understands how to set up a fellow warrior. He might buy a wizard some time, or trick enemies into 'bunching up' in the beaten zone of his fireball, but how can he make the wizard wiz harder? A pep talk or drill-seargant shouting isn't going to aid his concentration...
A motivated character does everything better but that seems like something you do a round before they cast however interacting with a Sorcerors Will Power seems a fairly likely thing.
A motivated character does everything better but that seems like something you do a round before they cast however interacting with a Sorcerors Will Power seems a fairly likely thing.
Overly complex James Bond Villian Master Plan (Daily). :D
Wouldn't that be monthly?
I certainly have wanted something with a more protracted period on it but a monthly sounds uncomformtable or atleast my wife says so.
Wouldn't that be monthly?[/quote]I certainly have wanted something with a more protracted period on it but a monthly sounds uncomformtable or atleast my wife says so.
A motivated character does everything better but that seems like something you do a round before they cast however interacting with a Sorcerors Will Power seems a fairly likely thing.
I'm utterly resistant to anything that takes multiple rounds to accomplish, such as spellcasting, buffing, etc. The game flows so smoothly now, I'd hate for it to get bogged down by finicky things to track and remember.
I'm utterly resistant to anything that takes multiple rounds to accomplish, such as spellcasting, buffing, etc. The game flows so smoothly now, I'd hate for it to get bogged down by finicky things to track and remember. :nonono:
A motivated character does everything better but that seems like something you do a round before they cast however interacting with a Sorcerors Will Power seems a fairly likely thing.
I'm utterly resistant to anything that takes multiple rounds to accomplish, such as spellcasting, buffing, etc. The game flows so smoothly now, I'd hate for it to get bogged down by finicky things to track and remember.
I think this would be something like the Warlord's ability giving all spell casters +1 on all dice rolled for spell damage or healing until the start of their next turn. Is that what you mean? I doubt that will slow the game down or interupt the flow any more than it already does.
I'm utterly resistant to anything that takes multiple rounds to accomplish, such as spellcasting, buffing, etc. The game flows so smoothly now, I'd hate for it to get bogged down by finicky things to track and remember. :nonono:[/quote]I think this w
I think this would be something like the Warlord's ability giving all spell casters +1 on all dice rolled for spell damage or healing until the start of their next turn. Is that what you mean? I doubt that will slow the game down or interupt the flow any more than it already does.
That's not what I mean, no, that scenario is fine. I'm specifically addressing things like cool-down periods for spellcasters, interactive things that happen over multiple rounds, etc. (Other things related to the idea of spellcasters that Garthanos has submitted to the thread.)
That's not what I mean, no, that scenario is fine. I'm specifically addressing things like cool-down periods for spellcasters, interactive things that happen over multiple rounds, etc. (Other things related to the idea of spellcasters that Garthanos
Thought: While I've never played sports, I've heard enough people talking and watched enough movies (both sports and war) to know shouting orders in a battle/play situation is non-ideal. There's a limited number of actions you can take. Football players call the play ahead of time for that reason: because in-play is not possible. Now, a warlord is special. So obviously he knows how to bark orders really well. But he should still have a very limited pallet to paint with each fight. For realism and for preventing choice overload. What if we played with that a bit. Say a warlord needs to "call the plays" before a fight. They have six potential "commands" known but they pick 3 for a fight, called beforehand (role-playing the call, we don't need them actually declared in game; really they just pick). They can change calls before a fight for flexibility but can't once the fight begins. It makes them flexible yet fixed without option overload. If someone wants to be complicated they can change up their orders every fight and be tactical and plan based on what's expected. Or they can just go with a defualt and seldom change. Their commands could be simple at-will commands or encounter commands (tricks that are cooler but only work once as the enemy won't fall for the same trick twice). There might be a limit, say no more than 2 encounter commands. Plus, at higher levels, in addition to knowing more commands the number called could increase. Thoughts?
+1 to the overall idea. Preping the team durring a short rest fits really nicely to the whole warlord idea. As well as adding a unique mechanic to the game. Though what about knowing a number of commands based off Int?
The idea kinda works like the fighter, only the warlord knows more commands but essentially memorized 2-4 before a fight. Re-picking At-Will / encounters every short rest. The number they can use should be set (and higher than their Int bonus). They might have more bonus commands know based on a high Int though.
Yes and no. Having played a lot of sport, I know that Jester's first statement is incorrect with the exception of some sports. American football (and any sport that relies on a bat) relies on set plays unless (everything goes to crap or the defending team gets lucky) however, the same cannot be said for many other team sports. These other sports benefit greatly from a captain who can call plays, send players into open space or to do a specific task, or simply rally the troops so to speak. Given this, I disagree that this typifies the warlord.
Sports is just an analogy that works well. Every knows the football payers shouting plays and has seen the playbooks. There's no time for baseball style communication in either type of football or basketball. It's over too quick. Think of it in military terms. The army plans it's moves. The cavalry moves on a certain signal and the archers fire at other signals. We've all seen the strategy sessions in war movies.
I think what has been described above is a particular type of of warlord who lives by the code "Preparation = Win". However, historically some leaders were not like this and that worked to their advantage. This didn't mean they were any less effective simply because they could read the battle as it was unfolding and knew that a slight change to formation, a sudden charge or a short retreat to draw the enemy then unleash some devastating offensive could win a battle. Communication in the field is the key. This is more a difference of those that lead from the front or by example and the master-strategist. I'm not saying there is no merit is prepping before battle (clearly there is) but I feel a distinction should be made between warlord subclasses/types that work differently to the "set-play" warlord.
D&D battles are closer to skirmishes. It's all over in under a minute. Quick reactions are key, but it helps to have commands readied. Orders have to done quickly.
One of the things that really jarred my immersion in previous editions was the 'before combat buffing/charging' that took place. The devs have largely streamlined the process of powering up by allowing you to take a swing along with your spell buff, and that fact is literally one of my favorite aspects of the system at present. Now, what of we ran with your idea and made it a surprise round option? Something special that only warlords can do whenever the party gains a surprise round? We've already established that they should have initiative modifiers for the party, why not run with the 'act first and get a plan in action' idea?
It's less buffing and more power selection. Tying it to surprise rounds really limits powers. Surprise rounds aren't that common. But there could and should be powers useful in surprise rounds.
What do you think about having Plans using two or more encounter commands that get executed in a specific order for greater benefit? I ask because I was thinking it working like a chess opening to add flavor to the mechanic.
That's a cool idea. I had considered having commands in a set order. Kinda like Robo Rally where you have to do your commands in the order you set them initially. But that seemed impractical for D&D. But having a bonus for getting your commands out in the pre-planned order would be fun.
+1 to the overall idea. Preping the team durring a short rest fits really nicely to the whole warlord idea. As well as adding a unique mechanic to the game. Though what about knowing a number of commands based off Int?[/quote]The idea kinda works lik
A motivated character does everything better but that seems like something you do a round before they cast however interacting with a Sorcerors Will Power seems a fairly likely thing.
I'm utterly resistant to anything that takes multiple rounds to accomplish, such as spellcasting, buffing, etc. The game flows so smoothly now, I'd hate for it to get bogged down by finicky things to track and remember.
Think of it as the Rogue doing something to hide so they can pull off an awesome and only ever one round...
I'm utterly resistant to anything that takes multiple rounds to accomplish, such as spellcasting, buffing, etc. The game flows so smoothly now, I'd hate for it to get bogged down by finicky things to track and remember. :nonono:[/quote]Think of it as
It's less buffing and more power selection. Tying it to surprise rounds really limits powers. Surprise rounds aren't that common. But there could and should be powers useful in surprise rounds.
Yeah, I think I fleshed out the idea a bit more in subsequent posts. -- We were on the same wavelength.
Yeah, I think I fleshed out the idea a bit more in subsequent posts. -- We were on the same wavelength. :)
Explain how allowing the wizard to double cast fireball is fair without allowing the rogue a double sneak attack or allowing the fighter to regain his Combat expertise die for the granted attack?
If balancing daily resources against at-will resources actually worked, it probably would be just fine. Letting the wizard cast leveled spells at twice the rate, but with the result that he runs out of spells in half the time, would approximately balance against allowing the rogue and fighter an extra attack without increasing their use of their respective class features.
Sadly, *at best* balancing daily resources against at-will resources works okay for only a narrow range of "how much combat per day". And there is not a significant history of it working well at all.
If balancing daily resources against at-will resources actually worked, it probably would be just fine. Letting the wizard cast leveled spells at twice the rate, but with the result that he runs out of spells in half the time, would approximately bal
I think that we should be looking at two different "builds" of Warlord.
1: Focused around granting minor bonuses to allies while attacking themselves.
- This build might include healing, advantage, moves etc in addition to the Warlord attack.
2: Focused around granting significantly enhanced actions to allies while giving up their own actions.
- This build might offer multi-character moves, multi-character advantage, multi-character damage bonuses etc.
Each "build" can include elements which are designed to be complementary, like a series of healing powers which all key off Charisma, or a series of damage enhancers which all key off Intelligence, or save bonuses which all key off Wisdom.
But Warlords who wanted to be more generalist could pick and choose from amongst these.
Of all the classes I think that Warlord would best suit a "per opponent" (which is similar to, but different from, an Encounter mechanism) which would allow them to use each "tactic" against an individual foe only once. The "fool me once" concept.
This will allow Warlord powers to be mechanically more powerful, as they will be restricted in nature, but should avoid straining the "vir-sim-my-illitude" crowd too hard.
I think that we should be looking at two different "builds" of Warlord.1: Focused around granting minor bonuses to allies while attacking themselves.- This build might include healing, advantage, moves etc in addition to the Warlord attack. 2: Focus
Those get incredibly difficult to track and quite frankly a stratagem that stops working because you've used it once on some guy does not rate a class ability.
Frankly I think we're getitng far ahead of ourselves here.
First of all we need a basic outline, and then we can start filling stuff in.
I advise Rogue attack bonuses, d8 for HP, and and +1 to sanity saves caused by his own party's antics.
Those get incredibly difficult to track and quite frankly a stratagem that stops working because you've used it once on some guy does not rate a class ability.Frankly I think we're getitng far ahead of ourselves here.First of all we need a basic outl
They need, at least, to have the same attack bonuses as a Fighter... at least for the "hit and effect" build.
Because they are already going to be trailing so far behind in terms of raw damage due to CS dice that they need to at least land attacks!
They need, at least, to have the same attack bonuses as a Fighter... at least for the "hit and effect" build.Because they are already going to be trailing so far behind in terms of raw damage due to CS dice that they need to at least land attacks!
The CS dice mechanic already demonstrates the "superority" of the Fighter.
Why make Warlord players suffer mechanically with decreased accuracy?
Especially with the number of people saying its really just a sub-class of fighter or that fighters should eat the Warlord so that they have proper versatility. The Warlord in 4e was Strength Primary with strong mental and social secondary ummmm most of the time... Lazylord as much as I like it shouldnt be the default.
Especially with the number of people saying its really just a sub-class of fighter or that fighters should eat the Warlord so that they have proper versatility. The Warlord in 4e was Strength Primary with strong mental and social secondary ummmm most
A pep talk or drill-seargant shouting isn't going to aid his concentration...
Why not?
Anyway, with or without a supporting rationale, an extra spell/round by any means has proven broken in the past.
Spells in general where broken in the past.
The warlord should hand out movement & attacks, not full-blown actions, and most especially not casting. ... :sigh: Of course, that just leads to the inevitable conclusion that the party would be better off with another caster, like a Cleric, instead of a warlord. The caster doesn't just give you more spells/round, he gives you more spells.
Right. Fix spells. Don't fix warlords.
Why not?Spells in general where broken in the past.Right. Fix spells. Don't fix warlords.
"Of course, that just leads to the inevitable conclusion that the party would be better off with another caster, like a Cleric, instead of a warlord. The caster doesn't just give you more spells/round, he gives you more spells."
Whether that is true is dependent on the same thing that moderates the usefulness of casters vs non-casters in general; whether the DM chooses to prolong the "adventuring day" past the point where the spellcasters run out of spells.
If they do, the non-spellcasters (and particularly the Warlord) are worth their weight in gold. If they don't, not so much.
The "power brake" is narrative rather than systemic. Some people love that; some hate it with the fury of a thousand suns. That division tends to break along pre/post 4E lines, but not universally.
... Back on topic.
The whole reason I opened that can of worms many posts ago was to point out there is no "Basic Attack" in 5E; so if we are going to port over the Warlords "Grant an attack" ability we need a good way of wording it that is easily applied to both existing mechanics and ones that will be added in the future.
"Of course, that just leads to the inevitable conclusion that the party would be better off with another caster, like a Cleric, instead of a warlord. The caster doesn't just give you more spells/round, he gives you more spells."Whether that is true
They need, at least, to have the same attack bonuses as a Fighter... at least for the "hit and effect" build.
Not neccicaraly. Just let TS dice apply more without hitting, or even without attacking.
"Covering Manuver: When an ally moves, you can spend a TS dice to negate OAs (negating 1 OA per dice spent).".
Lazylord as much as I like it shouldnt be the default.
I think it should be an option.
If hitting isn't neccicary, Int/Wis/Cha only have a small impact, and all warlords have the ability to grant actions, then you can play it however you want.
Not neccicaraly. Just let TS dice apply more without hitting, or even without attacking."Covering Manuver: When an ally moves, you can spend a TS dice to negate OAs (negating 1 OA per dice spent).".I think it should be an option.If hitting isn't ne
The whole reason I opened that can of worms many posts ago was to point out there is no "Basic Attack" in 5E; so if we are going to port over the Warlords "Grant an attack" ability we need a good way of wording it that is easily applied to both existing mechanics and ones that will be added in the future.
"Grant an attack as a reaction" sounds fine to me.
I agree with rampant that "when you take another action" things shouldn't be doubled.
"Grant an attack as a reaction" sounds fine to me.I agree with rampant that "when you take another action" things shouldn't be doubled.
Leveled spells are not something the basic action grant should allow for the same reason it shouldn't recharge E-dice or s-attack, it would over power the warlord.
The ability needs to grant "an attack or minor spell that targets a single creature."
And stop trying to work the reaction mechanic into it.
Direct the Strike: As an Action the Warlord may direct any ally within 10 squares to make an attack or cast a minor spell that targets one enemy the ally can see. The ally is not considered to be taking an action but must be capable of taking actions in order for the Warlord to use them for this ability.
Leveled spells are not something the basic action grant should allow for the same reason it shouldn't recharge E-dice or s-attack, it would over power the warlord.The ability needs to grant "an attack or minor spell that targets a single creature."An
Leveled spells are not something the basic action grant should allow for the same reason it shouldn't recharge E-dice or s-attack, it would over power the warlord.
The ability needs to grant "an attack or minor spell that targets a single creature."
And stop trying to work the reaction mechanic into it.
Direct the Strike: As an Action the Warlord may direct any ally within 10 squares to make an attack or cast a minor spell that targets one enemy the ally can see. The warlord's action is used not the ally's.
I agree it shouldn't recharge e-dice, s-attacks, or spells.
However, your suggestion let's you USE e-dice and s-attacks, but not spells. Which isn't fair. You can't have it both ways.
As for reactions, that's more for versimilitude. Otherwise you'd be able to have 9.99*10^9 warlords grant attacks to 1 fighter. Which would be fast enough to set fire to the atmosphear. And we don't want an officer's training school to be the BBEG.
I agree it shouldn't recharge e-dice, s-attacks, or spells.However, your suggestion let's you USE e-dice and s-attacks, but not spells. Which isn't fair. You can't have it both ways.As for reactions, that's more for versimilitude. Otherwise you'd
That's a good start; it could use a little work though. How about;
Direct the Strike As an action the Warlord may direct a single ally that they can see within 50 feet to make an attack against a target of the ally's choice. If the ally chooses to use a spell to attack it must be a minor spell. The ally is not considered to be taking an action but must be capable of making an attack in order for this ability to affect them.
Edited as per Rampants suggestion.
That's a good start; it could use a little work though. How about;Direct the StrikeAs an action the Warlord may direct a single ally that they can see within 50 feet to make an attack against a target of the ally's choice. If the ally chooses to use
E-dice and sneak attack are turn limited allowing their use doesn't actually increase their impact over the course of a turn, the total contribution to damage based on those dice effects remains the same no matter how many attacks are granted to a fighter or rogue, the same cannot be said for spells.
D-monkey, try 'attack against a target', attack at a target sounds wierd.
E-dice and sneak attack are turn limited allowing their use doesn't actually increase their impact over the course of a turn, the total contribution to damage based on those dice effects remains the same no matter how many attacks are granted to a fi
E-dice and sneak attackspells are turnday limited allowing their use doesn't actually increase their impact over the course of a turnday, the total contribution to damage based on those dice effects remains the same no matter how many attacks are granted to a fighter or roguewizard, the same cannot be said for spells. dice
Sure a warlord could help a wizard blow though all his spells in 1 combat, but then what does he do for the rest of the day? If there's any sort of balance, then the wizard would need to ration his spells, and would only rarely want to blow them in quick succession.
But i guess we'll just have to disagree. Let's move on to something more productive.
The ally is not considered to be taking an action but must be capable of making an attack in order for this ability to affect them.
That works.
:fix:Sure a warlord could help a wizard blow though all his spells in 1 combat, but then what does he do for the rest of the day? If there's any sort of balance, then the wizard would need to ration his spells, and would only rarely want to blow th
E-dice and sneak attackspells are turnday limited allowing their use doesn't actually increase their impact over the course of a turnday, the total contribution to damage based on those dice effects remains the same no matter how many attacks are granted to a fighter or roguewizard, the same cannot be said for spells. dice
Sure a warlord could help a wizard blow though all his spells in 1 combat, but then what does he do for the rest of the day? If there's any sort of balance, then the wizard would need to ration his spells, and would only rarely want to blow them in quick succession.
But i guess we'll just have to disagree. Let's move on to something more productive.
The ally is not considered to be taking an action but must be capable of making an attack in order for this ability to affect them.
That works.
Nod I dont mind either limited actions with the Warlord able to contribute his tactics more fully to the action ie exploiting TS die feature or the target being able to directly use there resources.
There might be an argument that allowing both at the same time is over-powered.
And with the limited version it keeps the temptation to want to ask the big gun to use his bit gun first farther down on the list (see earlier about this) --- I am still wanting some non-caster abilitiies to be just as big of gun as the spell casters...
:fix:Sure a warlord could help a wizard blow though all his spells in 1 combat, but then what does he do for the rest of the day? If there's any sort of balance, then the wizard would need to ration his spells, and would only rarely want to blow th
I agree it shouldn't recharge e-dice, s-attacks, or spells.
However, your suggestion let's you USE e-dice and s-attacks, but not spells. Which isn't fair. You can't have it both ways.
As an at-will power, I think I would much prefer it to be restricted the use of all three and have added affects coming from a warlord resource.
As for reactions, that's more for versimilitude. Otherwise you'd be able to have 9.99*10^9 warlords grant attacks to 1 fighter. Which would be fast enough to set fire to the atmosphear. And we don't want an officer's training school to be the BBEG.
I don't really see the problem with it. It would be like 3 thugs beating up some dude in an alley. Two of the thugs holding him while the third beats the stuffing out of him.
As an at-will power, I think I would much prefer it to be restricted the use of all three and have added affects coming from a warlord resource.I don't really see the problem with it. It would be like 3 thugs beating up some dude in an alley. Two of
Sure a warlord could help a wizard blow though all his spells in 1 combat, but then what does he do for the rest of the day? If there's any sort of balance, then the wizard would need to ration his spells, and would only rarely want to blow them in quick succession.
That is really something I would have to see played out in the game. Spell caster's being able to pull a fast nova strike with a warlord is a bigger concern then a warlord giving a fighter an extra chance to use his per turn powers if he missed on his turn, but I'm not sure it is a big enough one to require being banned. I would want to see how this plays out in the game.
The ally is not considered to be taking an action but must be capable of making an attack in order for this ability to affect them.
I don't really like that wording, because I see it as creating odd situations down the road when the granted attack triggers other powers, or doesn't trigger them because the ally is doing something, but is not considered to be taking an action. I like this better.
Direct the Strike As an action the Warlord may direct an ally that they can see within 50 feet to make an attack against a target of the ally's choice. The ally gains an extra action that must be used immediately to make an attack or the extra action is lost.
This does need to be limited somehow, but I don't like this power using up the ally's reaction, reactions are so limited of a resource that many characters would turn this down rather then use up their reaction. Rather then making the power use the ally's reaction, I think a rule to the effect that a character can not receive more then one extra action and one extra move per turn from anything is a good idea.
That is really something I would have to see played out in the game. Spell caster's being able to pull a fast nova strike with a warlord is a bigger concern then a warlord giving a fighter an extra chance to use his per turn powers if he missed on hi
"I don't really like that wording, because I see it as creating odd situations down the road when the granted attack triggers other powers, or doesn't trigger them because the ally is doing something, but is not considered to be taking an action. I like this better."
Your rewording would actually trigger things that happen on an action AND things that happen on an attack. I don't see how that improves the situation when the intent is to JUST give an attack.
"Rather then making the power use the ally's reaction, I think a rule to the effect that a character can not receive more then one extra action and one extra move per turn from anything is a good idea."
That would be ideal except that it introduces another pseudo-resource that needs to be kept track of. They eliminated minor actions exactly to get away from that sort of thing.
If a party really has three warlords and they all want to shout at the same fighter, let them. It's not unbalanced mechanically, it's just a little conceptually silly; I think it's so much of a corner case that it can just be ignored.
"I don't really like that wording, because I see it as creating odd situations down the road when the granted attack triggers other powers, or doesn't trigger them because the ally is doing something, but is not considered to be taking an action. I l
That's a good start; it could use a little work though. How about;
Direct the Strike As an action the Warlord may direct a single ally that they can see within 50 feet to make an attack against a target of the ally's choice. If the ally chooses to use a spell to attack it must be a minor spell. The ally is not considered to be taking an action but must be capable of making an attack in order for this ability to affect them.
Edited as per Rampants suggestion.
How about we just re-introduce the term "basic attack" (or something similar) and label certain spells as basic attacks? Then if some other mechanic is added for another class in the future, they just need to reference the term "basic attack" to maintain compatibility with the Warlord.
It's almost as if the standardized power blocks and keywords of 4e were a good idea that made rules dramatically simpler to write and easier to understand.
How about we just re-introduce the term "basic attack" (or something similar) and label certain spells as basic attacks? Then if some other mechanic is added for another class in the future, they just need to reference the term "basic attack" to mai
I agree it shouldn't recharge e-dice, s-attacks, or spells.
However, your suggestion let's you USE e-dice and s-attacks, but not spells. Which isn't fair. You can't have it both ways.
As an at-will power, I think I would much prefer it to be restricted the use of all three and have added affects coming from a warlord resource.
I could work with that. At least at a base level, but it still seems limiting. Perhaps being able to grant fuller actions as you level?
As for reactions, that's more for versimilitude. Otherwise you'd be able to have 9.99*10^9 warlords grant attacks to 1 fighter. Which would be fast enough to set fire to the atmosphear. And we don't want an officer's training school to be the BBEG.
I don't really see the problem with it. It would be like 3 thugs beating up some dude in an alley. Two of the thugs holding him while the third beats the stuffing out of him.
Except it's more like 1 thug beating on a guy and a stadium of people cheering him on.
But i guess it's fine.
As an at-will power, I think I would much prefer it to be restricted the use of all three and have added affects coming from a warlord resource.[/quote]I could work with that. At least at a base level, but it still seems limiting. Perhaps being abl
It's almost as if the standardized power blocks and keywords of 4e were a good idea that made rules dramatically simpler to write and easier to understand.
impossible - every class needs its own subsystem... so ummmm people with *flowers in there avatars hair will know the classes are different.
*its now how I picture anyone who uses posts with the word feel more than onces in them.
impossible - every class needs its own subsystem... so ummmm people with *flowers in there avatars hair will know the classes are different.*its now how I picture anyone who uses posts with the word feel more than onces in them.
"I could work with that. At least at a base level, but it still seems limiting. Perhaps being able to grant fuller actions as you level?"
That was my thinking as well.
"I could work with that. At least at a base level, but it still seems limiting. Perhaps being able to grant fuller actions as you level?"That was my thinking as well.
Your rewording would actually trigger things that happen on an action AND things that happen on an attack. I don't see how that improves the situation when the intent is to JUST give an attack.
Having both trigger was actually the point, every normal attack is an action. I don't think it is a huge issue, but I see the potential for it to interact weirdly with other powers when a character can take an attack without making an action at all.
That would be ideal except that it introduces another pseudo-resource that needs to be kept track of. They eliminated minor actions exactly to get away from that sort of thing.
If a party really has three warlords and they all want to shout at the same fighter, let them. It's not unbalanced mechanically, it's just a little conceptually silly; I think it's so much of a corner case that it can just be ignored.
Well, it can be unbalanced mechanically, if the fighter stacks up constant bonuses on his attack and damage then granting him more attacks multiplies the effect of those bonuses. For example, if the cleric uses a spell that gives the fighter +4 to hit for one turn, and then a bunch of warlords give him a stack of extra attacks, that spell becomes vastly more powerful. However, that sort of mechanical imbalance was not my primary concern.
I was actually looking at it more as a universal meta rule, to prevent warlords stacking with spells stacking with action points stacking with items stacking with powers and so on. Situations where the wizard casts Haste, the cleric casts Frenzy, and now the warlord can use directed attack 3 times on the fighter who already had 3 attacks.
Having both trigger was actually the point, every normal attack is an action. I don't think it is a huge issue, but I see the potential for it to interact weirdly with other powers when a character can take an attack without making an action at all.W
I was actually looking at it more as a universal meta rule, to prevent warlords stacking with spells stacking with action points stacking with items stacking with powers and so on. Situations where the wizard casts Haste, the cleric casts Frenzy, and now the warlord can use directed attack 3 times on the fighter who already had 3 attacks.
Part of the reason you need to limit "when you take an action" stuff.
For instance, clerics spiritual hammer would effectivly adds 1d8 to all the warlord granted attacks as well.
Part of the reason you need to limit "when you take an action" stuff.For instance, clerics spiritual hammer would effectivly adds 1d8 to all the warlord granted attacks as well.
Well, it can be unbalanced mechanically, if the fighter stacks up constant bonuses on his attack and damage then granting him more attacks multiplies the effect of those bonuses. For example, if the cleric uses a spell that gives the fighter +4 to hit for one turn, and then a bunch of warlords give him a stack of extra attacks, that spell becomes vastly more powerful. However, that sort of mechanical imbalance was not my primary concern.
You say unbalanced, I say rewards team play. People should be encouraged to build synergies within the party.
And the specifc "unbalance" you doesn't even sound very problematic. It even sounds fun!
You say unbalanced, I say rewards team play. People should be encouraged to build synergies within the party.And the specifc "unbalance" you doesn't even sound very problematic. It even sounds fun!
I could work with that. At least at a base level, but it still seems limiting. Perhaps being able to grant fuller actions as you level?
As an advanced maneuver I think I could be fine with it. However, my concern is if there are no available casters in the party will the warlords ability to manage the parties health be greatly effected. The maneuver could greatly increase or decrease the classes value by the availability of offensive magic. An attack with a sword, magic missile, etc can at most take one opportunity to damage the party; an extra sleep spell at the right moment might take 2 or more actions from enemies. If the warlord tools for conserve the parties health hinges on removing enemy action by granting attacks, then AOE spells will greatly impact effectiveness.
It really is more of a concern then a problem; I just don't want the see the potential of another class become something that gets used as a major constraint for designing the warlord.
Me too. I think in a party that is okay with that, its not a problem. If they want to walk around as the fighters entourage cheering her on I think that is kind of amusing. I mean there are a lot of antagonist in books and movie that go around beating people up while her friends cheer and shouting "hit him in the face!." Peer pressure is as good a way to describe how you grant your actions as any...
Edit: Fixing the butchered quotes.
As an advanced maneuver I think I could be fine with it. However, my concern is if there are no available casters in the party will the warlords ability to manage the parties health be greatly effected. The maneuver could greatly increase or decrease
It's almost as if the standardized power blocks and keywords of 4e were a good idea that made rules dramatically simpler to write and easier to understand.
impossible - every class needs its own subsystem... so ummmm people with *flowers in there avatars hair will know the classes are different.
*its now how I picture anyone who uses posts with the word feel more than onces in them.
I have one of the flowers of the bouqet of pink origami lilies I made for my wife on valentines day sitting on my desk; so that is probably an accurate depiction for me :p
impossible - every class needs its own subsystem... so ummmm people with *flowers in there avatars hair will know the classes are different.*its now how I picture anyone who uses posts with the word feel more than onces in them.[/quote]I have one of
It's almost as if the standardized power blocks and keywords of 4e were a good idea that made rules dramatically simpler to write and easier to understand.
impossible - every class needs its own subsystem... so ummmm people with *flowers in there avatars hair will know the classes are different.
*its now how I picture anyone who uses posts with the word feel more than onces in them.
I have one of the flowers of the bouqet of pink origami lilies I made for my wife on valentines day sitting on my desk; so that is probably an accurate depiction for me :p
hey I like recieving flowers - context is everything.
impossible - every class needs its own subsystem... so ummmm people with *flowers in there avatars hair will know the classes are different.*its now how I picture anyone who uses posts with the word feel more than onces in them.[/quote]I have one of
Your rewording would actually trigger things that happen on an action AND things that happen on an attack. I don't see how that improves the situation when the intent is to JUST give an attack.
Having both trigger was actually the point, every normal attack is an action. I don't think it is a huge issue, but I see the potential for it to interact weirdly with other powers when a character can take an attack without making an action at all.
That would be ideal except that it introduces another pseudo-resource that needs to be kept track of. They eliminated minor actions exactly to get away from that sort of thing.
If a party really has three warlords and they all want to shout at the same fighter, let them. It's not unbalanced mechanically, it's just a little conceptually silly; I think it's so much of a corner case that it can just be ignored.
Well, it can be unbalanced mechanically, if the fighter stacks up constant bonuses on his attack and damage then granting him more attacks multiplies the effect of those bonuses. For example, if the cleric uses a spell that gives the fighter +4 to hit for one turn, and then a bunch of warlords give him a stack of extra attacks, that spell becomes vastly more powerful. However, that sort of mechanical imbalance was not my primary concern.
I was actually looking at it more as a universal meta rule, to prevent warlords stacking with spells stacking with action points stacking with items stacking with powers and so on. Situations where the wizard casts Haste, the cleric casts Frenzy, and now the warlord can use directed attack 3 times on the fighter who already had 3 attacks.
I don't really see the problem with warlords in this example. Each of those supporting characters spent an action to give the fighter another action. If anything at all is a problem, its the fact that haste and frenzy last for more then one round so the casters accomplished the warlords job in the following rounds without giving up an action. There is at least a persistant cost to the warlord ability.
Having both trigger was actually the point, every normal attack is an action. I don't think it is a huge issue, but I see the potential for it to interact weirdly with other powers when a character can take an attack without making an action at all.W
Part of the reason you need to limit "when you take an action" stuff.
For instance, clerics spiritual hammer would effectivly adds 1d8 to all the warlord granted attacks as well.
Yes, you are right. Potentially a multi-class cleric/warlord could cast spiritual hammer and then use Directed Strike on himself whenver he wanted to attack so that the hammer would go twice. All of the "when you take an action" stuff needs to specify once per turn unless they really mean to let you do it more then once.
Really, there isn't a huge way to abuse this or most of the rest of the rules yet. However, getting it right now so that things continue to work when the characters are 25th level is important. This is where 3e fell apart, the rules where not tested or written with an eye towards high level play and a lot of stuff just doesn't work without a lot of DM fudging.
You say unbalanced, I say rewards team play. People should be encouraged to build synergies within the party.
And the specifc "unbalance" you doesn't even sound very problematic. It even sounds fun!
A lot of balance destroying characters work by taking advantage of overly efficient synergies. When you have two powers that individually make a character 5% more poweful but when stacked together make a character 25% more powerful, game balance falls apart. Building up some synergy between characters is good, having the warlord say "I'll grant the fighter an attack on my turns when they come up. I'll be in the kitchen for the rest of the fight, come get me if something else comes up." is bad.
Yes, you are right. Potentially a multi-class cleric/warlord could cast spiritual hammer and then use Directed Strike on himself whenver he wanted to attack so that the hammer would go twice. All of the "when you take an action" stuff needs to specif
Part of the reason you need to limit "when you take an action" stuff.
For instance, clerics spiritual hammer would effectivly adds 1d8 to all the warlord granted attacks as well.
Yes, you are right. Potentially a multi-class cleric/warlord could cast spiritual hammer and then use Directed Strike on himself whenver he wanted to attack so that the hammer would go twice. All of the "when you take an action" stuff needs to specify once per turn unless they really mean to let you do it more then once.
I didn't even think of the warlord granting himself an action...
Possibly 2 warlord/clerics, since "ally" will likely be in there, but still, that's infinite damage by level 2.
So yea... can't have WYTAA triggering.
Yes, you are right. Potentially a multi-class cleric/warlord could cast spiritual hammer and then use Directed Strike on himself whenver he wanted to attack so that the hammer would go twice. All of the "when you take an action" stuff needs to specif
That kind of synergy is exactly the kind of thing which Warlords SHOULD be able to amplify.
If there is an issue with Wizard spells being too numerous and powerful that a Warlord allowing another to be cast is overpowered then that's a problem with the Wizard spells, not the Warlord action granting.
Likewise if there is an issue with WYTAA powers activating again then that is only emphasising the need for them to be unfolded out of "actions" and into a category of their own to prevent these issues.
In other words, we are showing problems NOT with Warlord action granting but instead with Wizard spell (power and/or number per day) and WYTAA abilities (especially potential for stacking).
I disagree.That kind of synergy is exactly the kind of thing which Warlords SHOULD be able to amplify.If there is an issue with Wizard spells being too numerous and powerful that a Warlord allowing another to be cast is overpowered then that's a prob
Unless there is at least the potential for the "grant an attack" option to be BETTER than the Warlord just making the attack themselves, why would you ever do it?
(Not a rhetorical question.)
Unless there is at least the potential for the "grant an attack" option to be BETTER than the Warlord just making the attack themselves, why would you ever do it?(Not a rhetorical question.)
Unless there is at least the potential for the "grant an attack" option to be BETTER than the Warlord just making the attack themselves, why would you ever do it?
(Not a rhetorical question.)
Well, exactly.
That's why I suggested either significantly enhanced "granted actions" (advantage and/or substantial damage bonusesw) OR "granted actions" AS WELL as a Warlord attack.
Well, exactly.That's why I suggested either significantly enhanced "granted actions" (advantage and/or substantial damage bonusesw) OR "granted actions" AS WELL as a Warlord attack.
Reasons for a warlord to give up his action for another character to get an attack or MINOR spell.
1. Other character might have ongoing buff/item that gives said character an edge. 2. Other character can target the creature that needs to die right now, i.e. not bogged down by the mook screen. 3. Other character might be in 'one-on-one' combat. 4. Attack/Minor spell may have rider or specific effect needed. 6. Ally might be in advantageous position and thus have a better chance of hitting/critting. 7. Warlord doesn't feel like getting out from behind his nice safe wall. 8. Because making the little puppets do as you command is fun.
The way I see it the basic at-will version of the warlord ability needs to allow attacks, and minor spells only, and do so without triggering the WYTAA stuff.
Bigger granted actions and special bonuses can be use limited abilities and/or gained at higher levels.
Reasons for a warlord to give up his action for another character to get an attack or MINOR spell.1. Other character might have ongoing buff/item that gives said character an edge. 2. Other character can target the creature that needs to die right no
I'd think of keeping it related to specific actions.
United Strike When you make a melee attack against a figure you may grant a basic attack to an ally also adjacent to that figure.
Coordinated Attack When you make a ranged attack against a target you may grant an ally within 30 feet a basic ranged attack or cantrip against the same target.
Evade You use your reaction to allow an ally within 30 feet to move without provoking an AoO once per turn if you have moved 10 feet this round.
Of course for my Warlord these also cost TS die but you can keep the concept without them. Why can't you just grant an ally a basic attack?
I'd think of keeping it related to specific actions.United StrikeWhen you make a melee attack against a figure you may grant a basic attack to an ally also adjacent to that figure.Coordinated AttackWhen you make a ranged attack against a target you m
Maybe I missed something, but it seems like even those of us who want to see the Warlord class are milling around the idea of it being something like a Fighter, anyway, with a CS-like dice pool and so forth.
5e classes are supposed to harken back to the original vision of the class, are they not? To evoke the core concept of it?
What is the definitive version of the Warlord?
Well, the /only/ version of the warlord is the 4e version, so I guess it's the definitive one. The Warlord had Inspiring Words, Commanding Presence, and he had both at-will and limited-use exploits to manage.
Each class is supposed to be mechanically distinct. Rather than making the Warlord kinda like the fighter but doing different things with his dice pool, why not give it it's own unique mechanics?
I don't see any other 5e classes using AEDU...
Maybe I missed something, but it seems like even those of us who want to see the Warlord class are milling around the idea of it being something like a Fighter, anyway, with a CS-like dice pool and so forth.5e classes are supposed to harken back to t
Maybe I missed something, but it seems like even those of us who want to see the Warlord class are milling around the idea of it being something like a Fighter, anyway, with a CS-like dice pool and so forth.
People are actually asking I think for an underlying theme to the mechanics (a consistancy for martial classes atleast)
And many of us here are still progressives in spite of the nostalgia influence we see, so we are trying to connect with new and interesting is attractive, AEDU had benefits on its own but its primary one (systematic universality) isnt available in 5e.
People are actually asking I think for an underlying theme to the mechanics (a consistancy for martial classes atleast)And many of us here are still progressives in spite of the nostalgia influence we see, so we are trying to connect with new and int
That kind of synergy is exactly the kind of thing which Warlords SHOULD be able to amplify.
If there is an issue with Wizard spells being too numerous and powerful that a Warlord allowing another to be cast is overpowered then that's a problem with the Wizard spells, not the Warlord action granting.
Likewise if there is an issue with WYTAA powers activating again then that is only emphasising the need for them to be unfolded out of "actions" and into a category of their own to prevent these issues.
In other words, we are showing problems NOT with Warlord action granting but instead with Wizard spell (power and/or number per day) and WYTAA abilities (especially potential for stacking).
WYTAA are (currently) intended to be only 1/round. Warlord's shouldn't break that.
You can either put the restriction on the warlords, or you change all the WYTAA to "once per round, when you take an action". (OPRWYTAA is a bit of a mouth full).
Each class is supposed to be mechanically distinct. Rather than making the Warlord kinda like the fighter but doing different things with his dice pool, why not give it it's own unique mechanics?
TS dice are at-wills. And the pre-panning would be encounters. Healing would be utility.
It's a bit harder to justify a daily on a martial class.
So you really do have most of AEDU represented.
WYTAA are (currently) intended to be only 1/round. Warlord's shouldn't break that. You can either put the restriction on the warlords, or you change all the WYTAA to "once per round, when you take an action". (OPRWYTAA is a bit of a mouth full).TS
Reasons for a warlord to give up his action for another character to get an attack or MINOR spell.
1. Other character might have ongoing buff/item that gives said character an edge. 2. Other character can target the creature that needs to die right now, i.e. not bogged down by the mook screen. 3. Other character might be in 'one-on-one' combat. 4. Attack/Minor spell may have rider or specific effect needed. 6. Ally might be in advantageous position and thus have a better chance of hitting/critting. 7. Warlord doesn't feel like getting out from behind his nice safe wall. 8. Because making the little puppets do as you command is fun.
The way I see it the basic at-will version of the warlord ability needs to allow attacks, and minor spells only, and do so without triggering the WYTAA stuff.
Bigger granted actions and special bonuses can be use limited abilities and/or gained at higher levels.
I'd think of keeping it related to specific actions.
United Strike When you make a melee attack against a figure you may grant a basic attack to an ally also adjacent to that figure.
Coordinated Attack When you make a ranged attack against a target you may grant an ally within 30 feet a basic ranged attack or cantrip against the same target.
Evade You use your reaction to allow an ally within 30 feet to move without provoking an AoO once per turn if you have moved 10 feet this round.
Of course for my Warlord these also cost TS die but you can keep the concept without them. Why can't you just grant an ally a basic attack?
Maybe I missed something, but it seems like even those of us who want to see the Warlord class are milling around the idea of it being something like a Fighter, anyway, with a CS-like dice pool and so forth.
People are actually asking I think for an underlying theme to the mechanics (a consistancy for martial classes atleast)
And many of us here are still progressives in spite of the nostalgia influence we see, so we are trying to connect with new and interesting is attractive, AEDU had benefits on its own but its primary one (systematic universality) isnt available in 5e.
I think that I'd define myself as a nostalgic progressive; having a deep affection for what is old, with a keen interest in seeing something new.
On that note, 'systematic universality' is not something I'm aiming for. -- It just makes sense to me that a Combat Superiority-like dice mechanic is flavorful and fitting for the warlord (in my opinion).
I have submitted a few ways in which we could make it unique, though.
Yes!Yes!People are actually asking I think for an underlying theme to the mechanics (a consistancy for martial classes atleast)And many of us here are still progressives in spite of the nostalgia influence we see, so we are trying to connect with new
WYTAA are (currently) intended to be only 1/round. Warlord's shouldn't break that.
You can either put the restriction on the warlords, or you change all the WYTAA to "once per round, when you take an action". (OPRWYTAA is a bit of a mouth full).
I agree with all of that. LOL
TS dice are at-wills. And the pre-panning would be encounters. Healing would be utility.
It's a bit harder to justify a daily on a martial class.
Reasons for a warlord to give up his action for another character to get an attack or MINOR spell.
1. Other character might have ongoing buff/item that gives said character an edge. 2. Other character can target the creature that needs to die right now, i.e. not bogged down by the mook screen. 3. Other character might be in 'one-on-one' combat. 4. Attack/Minor spell may have rider or specific effect needed. 6. Ally might be in advantageous position and thus have a better chance of hitting/critting. 7. Warlord doesn't feel like getting out from behind his nice safe wall. 8. Because making the little puppets do as you command is fun.
The way I see it the basic at-will version of the warlord ability needs to allow attacks, and minor spells only, and do so without triggering the WYTAA stuff.
Bigger granted actions and special bonuses can be use limited abilities and/or gained at higher levels.
Except for a MINOR disagreement.
This. Warlords get versatility as a bonus. Being able to "attack" from anywhere, with a variety of weapons, ranges, and effects, is a strong boon.
Except for a MINOR disagreement. :rimshot:This. Warlords get versatility as a bonus. Being able to "attack" from anywhere, with a variety of weapons, ranges, and effects, is a strong boon.
Unless there is at least the potential for the "grant an attack" option to be BETTER than the Warlord just making the attack themselves, why would you ever do it?
Granted attacks will be better, even if they don't grant any bonus. In some situations there are tactical advantages to granting an attack, such as only one character being able to reach the enemy leader, or the warlord not having the right type of weapon for hurting monsters. But even beyond that, the fighter's straight melee attack will probably have a slightly better attack bonus and have higher damage then the warlords.
In addition, if the granted attack has a significant bonus, why would the warlord ever attack anything directly?
Well, the /only/ version of the warlord is the 4e version, so I guess it's the definitive one. The Warlord had Inspiring Words, Commanding Presence, and he had both at-will and limited-use exploits to manage.
The 3e Marshal had the same conceptual space as the Warlord, and there where several related prestige classes, so it wasn't really invented for 4e. Also, one of the things I want the Warlord to get away from is the class playing like a martial cleric, and I get the impression other people feel the same way. I would like to see a viable Warlord class with no healing at all, at least as an option.
Granted attacks will be better, even if they don't grant any bonus. In some situations there are tactical advantages to granting an attack, such as only one character being able to reach the enemy leader, or the warlord not having the right type of w
Unless there is at least the potential for the "grant an attack" option to be BETTER than the Warlord just making the attack themselves, why would you ever do it?
(Not a rhetorical question.)
That just it, I don't think it should be potentially better, I think it should be roughly equal. Not every warlord should be forced to be a lazylord. Leading throuh example should be just as viabable a option.
That just it, I don't think it should be potentially better, I think it should be roughly equal. Not every warlord should be forced to be a lazylord. Leading throuh example should be just as viabable a option.
Yeah somtimes cracking heads is something the boss man's gotta do.
The problem with dragon gaurdian's idea is that it's specific to cantrips, need to make that any minor spell. Also the inability to target creatures you can't hit kinda defeats some of the purpose and tactical flexibility.
Also why make the melee and ranged versions different abilities?
What's wrong with?
Direct the Strike: As an action you may have one ally within 10 squares (50 ft.) attack or cast a minor spell at any creature they can percieve and target with the attack or spell. The ally must be capable of taking such an action, however you are still the one considered to be taking an action.
Yeah somtimes cracking heads is something the boss man's gotta do.The problem with dragon gaurdian's idea is that it's specific to cantrips, need to make that any minor spell. Also the inability to target creatures you can't hit kinda defeats some of
Maybe I missed something, but it seems like even those of us who want to see the Warlord class are milling around the idea of it being something like a Fighter, anyway, with a CS-like dice pool and so forth.
5e classes are supposed to harken back to the original vision of the class, are they not? To evoke the core concept of it?
What is the definitive version of the Warlord?
Well, the /only/ version of the warlord is the 4e version, so I guess it's the definitive one. The Warlord had Inspiring Words, Commanding Presence, and he had both at-will and limited-use exploits to manage.
Each class is supposed to be mechanically distinct. Rather than making the Warlord kinda like the fighter but doing different things with his dice pool, why not give it it's own unique mechanics?
I don't see any other 5e classes using AEDU...
Well there have been various suggestion for all the different 4e AEDU abilities, they are being express in a different fashion (the current hallmark of 5e it seems).
Well there have been various suggestion for all the different 4e AEDU abilities, they are being express in a different fashion (the current hallmark of 5e it seems).
Yeah somtimes cracking heads is something the boss man's gotta do.
The problem with dragon gaurdian's idea is that it's specific to cantrips, need to make that any minor spell. Also the inability to target creatures you can't hit kinda defeats some of the purpose and tactical flexibility.
Also why make the melee and ranged versions different abilities?
What's wrong with?
Direct the Strike: As an action you may have one ally within 10 squares (50 ft.) attack or cast a minor spell at any creature they can percieve and target with the attack or spell. The ally must be capable of taking such an action, however you are still the one considered to be taking an action.
The reason to make it a different ability, would be because there maybe wording that need to be tweaked because of some other function or feature. For instance, if you want to make particular builds of warlord better at one then the other or wanted to bake in a mechanical advantage that would only benefit one type of attack.
The reason to make it a different ability, would be because there maybe wording that need to be tweaked because of some other function or feature. For instance, if you want to make particular builds of warlord better at one then the other or wanted t
Guided Shot: Whenever you use an action to cause another creature to attack with a ranged weapon the damage roll gains a +2 bonus. This bonus increases to 3 at level 6, to 4 at level 12, and to 5 at level 18.
Tracer Shot: As an action you make a ranged attack against a target, but do no damage on a hit. If you hit all attack rolls made against that target gain a +2 bonus until the end of your next turn.
Guided Volley: When you use an action to cause another creature to attack with a ranged weapon you may sacrifice the damage bonus of guided shot and instead use the action to cause 2 creatures to attack the same target with a ranged weapon.
Those can be add-ons.Archery Captain SpecialtyGuided Shot: Whenever you use an action to cause another creature to attack with a ranged weapon the damage roll gains a +2 bonus. This bonus increases to 3 at level 6, to 4 at level 12, and to 5 at level
Actually that was written as a specialty so it could be used by people with leader-esque specialties, other class abilities, or even those using dominated or summoned creatures in addition to warlords, or at least that's what I was going for.
I'm thinking that the warlord's class features should be aimed at the leadership style rather than focusing on melee/range/magic. So a solid set of core warlord abilities + your style (tactical, bravura, intuitive, etc.), and then maybe some exploration/social type abilities, maybe the ability to assist on skill checks without being nearby, or something like that.
The focus on range or melee would be a little much to make the class try to cover unaided in my mind.
Actually that was written as a specialty so it could be used by people with leader-esque specialties, other class abilities, or even those using dominated or summoned creatures in addition to warlords, or at least that's what I was going for.I'm thin
So, do you imagine these as specialty maneuvers that you will gain one of every two levels, like the Fighter Fighting Styles?
I really don't have a strong feeling on how the powers get expressed. I think their are any number of ways to present them and make it work. However, sense it seems like a lot of the discussion is in the direction of having something similiar to CS then the fact that there are powers that are somewhat similiar, but for range only or melee, that it would be that way for consistance. Also, I could see melee vs range have a mechanical themed differents. Such as ranged attacks lean towards shifting allies and melee abilities lean more heavily towards shifting enemies. I can see a signal to directing a fireball strike being part of the signal to allies to hit the deck or move out the way or calling for a archer to shoot to cover a withrawl. Where a melee maneuvers would lean towards driving enemys back or creating advantage. Something like that. Just a thought.
I really don't have a strong feeling on how the powers get expressed. I think their are any number of ways to present them and make it work. However, sense it seems like a lot of the discussion is in the direction of having something similiar to CS t
You can either put the restriction on the warlords, or you change all the WYTAA to "once per round, when you take an action". (OPRWYTAA is a bit of a mouth full).
OMG I just had an idea. Why don't we rename OPRWYTAA to "minor action" and give each character 1 on his turn?
OMG I just had an idea. Why don't we rename OPRWYTAA to "minor action" and give each character 1 on his turn?
Actually that was written as a specialty so it could be used by people with leader-esque specialties, other class abilities, or even those using dominated or summoned creatures in addition to warlords, or at least that's what I was going for.
I'm thinking that the warlord's class features should be aimed at the leadership style rather than focusing on melee/range/magic. So a solid set of core warlord abilities + your style (tactical, bravura, intuitive, etc.), and then maybe some exploration/social type abilities, maybe the ability to assist on skill checks without being nearby, or something like that.
The focus on range or melee would be a little much to make the class try to cover unaided in my mind.
You can either put the restriction on the warlords, or you change all the WYTAA to "once per round, when you take an action". (OPRWYTAA is a bit of a mouth full).
OMG I just had an idea. Why don't we rename OPRWYTAA to "minor action" and give each character 1 on his turn?
Because you should be able to keep 2+ spirital hammers going.
And OPRWYTAA is less letters then "minor action"
OMG I just had an idea. Why don't we rename OPRWYTAA to "minor action" and give each character 1 on his turn?[/quote]Because you should be able to keep 2+ spirital hammers going.And OPRWYTAA is less letters then "minor action" :-P
The way I see it they're trying to fill the design space of the 3e swift action or the 4e minor, without looking like they're filling that design space.
Back to the warlord, since people seem to have mixed feelings on the healing would making the healing powers part of the style abilities be a good idea? that way we could make 1 or 2 styles without healing for the OMG MAGIC IS THE ONLY THING ALLOWED TO HAVE FLASHY TOYS! crowd. Or more precisely for the much beleagured players with such a DM?
The way I see it they're trying to fill the design space of the 3e swift action or the 4e minor, without looking like they're filling that design space.Back to the warlord, since people seem to have mixed feelings on the healing would making the heal
Resourceful -> better use of surges hit dice points Tactical -> plot coupon based damage negation... uhm, I meant CS like damage reduction, but using AC instead of damage reduction. Inspirational -> I want to say temp hit points, but I can't since a have no idea what temp hit points are in DnDN. Bravada -> Stand below 0 hit points of sheer confidence.
Resourceful -> better use of surges hit dice pointsTactical -> plot coupon based damage negation... uhm, I meant CS like damage reduction, but using AC instead of damage reduction.Inspirational -> I want to say temp hit points, but I can't since a h
Specialty? Warlord specialities could be called Commanding Presence, as in 3e, or for a modernist military spin, "Doctrines."
Resourceful -> I'd picture the Resourceful Warlord as preparing his troops: having bandanges & first aid training, wearing silk because it's easier to withdraw from wounds, things like that. Tactical -> 'Healing' could represent improved morale when a 'plan comes together,' or better positioning on other tactical advantage the Warlord engineers for his allies, making them better able to stand up to attacks. Inspirational -> Classic 'rallying' of the troops' morale, probably by example. Bravura -> Also 'rallying' by sheer exuberant example.
Ultimately, though, I think 'Inspiring' Word works for all, morale is part of every warlord's portfolio, not just the Inspiring ones, who just do it best/most. You can't ignore morale when making tactical plans, or capitalizing on opportunity, and you certainly can't ignore it when pushing them to feats of daring.
Specialty? Warlord specialities could be called Commanding Presence, as in 3e, or for a modernist military spin, "Doctrines."Resourceful -> I'd picture the Resourceful Warlord as preparing his troops: having bandanges & first aid training, wearing
No one is saying a build should ignore morale, and there should be a basic feature that all warlords get to represent it, such as the combat leader ability ala 4e. I'm just saying that in order to throw the grognards a bone we could have 1 or 2 builds that do not have regular healing abilities (thp and DR should probably be involved instead) so that warlord fans with grognard DMs can still play the best class. It's something to consider, I mean I know my warlords hate wasting minor actions healing the idiots who didn't listen.
No one is saying a build should ignore morale, and there should be a basic feature that all warlords get to represent it, such as the combat leader ability ala 4e. I'm just saying that in order to throw the grognards a bone we could have 1 or 2 build
I'd be fine with a few builds not having healing. Tactical in paticular doesn't seem like it would have alot of recovery options.
Tactical -> No healing or recovery options. They give bonuses to defense and saving throws, ensuring allies take less damage in the first place.
Resourceful -> Trained in first aid and triage. bonus to healing kits / hit dice. Can stabilize allies.
Bravada -> Allies do not fall unconcious when below 1 hit point. They still need to make death saving throws and can still die.
Insperational -> As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear* you gains ... hit points.
*hearing prevents the biggest grognard complaint.
I'd be fine with a few builds not having healing. Tactical in paticular doesn't seem like it would have alot of recovery options. Tactical -> No healing or recovery options. They give bonuses to defense and saving throws, ensuring allies take less
How about allies that can percieve and understand you.
Just because I'm a telepathic mole doesn't mean I shouldn't benefit from having a warlord around.
How about allies that can percieve and understand you.Just because I'm a telepathic mole doesn't mean I shouldn't benefit from having a warlord around.
Hmm... I'm of the opinion that the warlord should have a healing mechanic that blankets the class, without variances based upon build options. Warlord healing should be warlord healing; distinguishable, unique, and class-specific. Toying with it at the subclass level is needless complexity.
The fans should come to a consensus on what is the most appropriate mechanic overall.
Hmm... I'm of the opinion that the warlord should have a healing mechanic that blankets the class, without variances based upon build options. Warlord healing should be warlord healing; distinguishable, unique, and class-specific. Toying with it at t
"The fans should come to a consensus on what is the most appropriate mechanic overall."
Can't we start with something easier to reach consensus on? Like "What is the meaning of life if it isn't 42?"
"The fans should come to a consensus on what is the most appropriate mechanic overall."Can't we start with something easier to reach consensus on? Like "What is the meaning of life if it isn't 42?"
I'd be fine with a few builds not having healing. Tactical in paticular doesn't seem like it would have alot of recovery options.
Tactical -> No healing or recovery options. They give bonuses to defense and saving throws, ensuring allies take less damage in the first place.
Resourceful -> Trained in first aid and triage. bonus to healing kits / hit dice. Can stabilize allies.
Bravada -> Allies do not fall unconcious when below 1 hit point. They still need to make death saving throws and can still die.
Insperational -> As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear* you gains ... hit points.
*hearing prevents the biggest grognard complaint.
I personally would rather it be this.
As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear*see or hear you gains hit points.
However, if they keep the name "inspiring word" I expect that it would only have a sound component based on the flavor. If it ends up with a different name though I would expect the mechanics to match the flavor of that name. The flavor should have more of an impact than the grognard's in this particular situation.
How about allies that can percieve and understand you.
Just because I'm a telepathic mole doesn't mean I shouldn't benefit from having a warlord around.
I think telepathic mole has enough of a means to comunicate that hear covers it well enough already.
I personally would rather it be this. As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear* see or hear you gains hit points.However, if they keep the name "inspiring word" I expect that it would o
I'd be fine with a few builds not having healing. Tactical in paticular doesn't seem like it would have alot of recovery options.
Tactical -> No healing or recovery options. They give bonuses to defense and saving throws, ensuring allies take less damage in the first place.
Resourceful -> Trained in first aid and triage. bonus to healing kits / hit dice. Can stabilize allies.
Bravada -> Allies do not fall unconcious when below 1 hit point. They still need to make death saving throws and can still die.
Insperational -> As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear* you gains ... hit points.
*hearing prevents the biggest grognard complaint.
I personally would rather it be this.
As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear*see or hear you gains hit points.
However, if they keep the name "inspiring word" I expect that it would only have a sound component based on the flavor. If it ends up with a different name though I would expect the mechanics to match the flavor of that name. The flavor should have more of an impact than the grognard's in this particular situation.
Call it inspiring act - what act do you use to inspire? A cheerful smile, nod and confident grin maybe even a pointed thumbs up being a Princess build warlords flavor can be rather fun... but sometimes maybe its actually a rush of tears and a waft of perfume that invokes a memory or two. Crying over the downed ally and reminding them the world needs them - It doesnt have to be a "rub dirt in it soldier and get back in the fight" admonishment.
I personally would rather it be this. As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear* see or hear you gains hit points.However, if they keep the name "inspiring word" I expect that it would o
I'd be fine with a few builds not having healing. Tactical in paticular doesn't seem like it would have alot of recovery options.
Tactical -> No healing or recovery options. They give bonuses to defense and saving throws, ensuring allies take less damage in the first place.
Resourceful -> Trained in first aid and triage. bonus to healing kits / hit dice. Can stabilize allies.
Bravada -> Allies do not fall unconcious when below 1 hit point. They still need to make death saving throws and can still die.
Insperational -> As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear* you gains ... hit points.
*hearing prevents the biggest grognard complaint.
I personally would rather it be this.
As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear*see or hear you gains hit points.
However, if they keep the name "inspiring word" I expect that it would only have a sound component based on the flavor. If it ends up with a different name though I would expect the mechanics to match the flavor of that name. The flavor should have more of an impact than the grognard's in this particular situation.
Call it inspiring act - what act do you use to inspire? A cheerful smile, nod and confident grin maybe even a pointed thumbs up being a Princess build warlords flavor can be rather fun... but sometimes maybe its actually a rush of tears and a waft of perfume that invokes a memory or two. Crying over the downed ally and reminding them the world needs them - It doesnt have to be a "rub dirt in it soldier and get back in the fight" admonishment.
I would not mind having a more generic name, but really the ability being available means more to me then then it's name. I fear sending the conversation on a tangent, but if its labelled inspiring word then it should be affect by things that would block your ability to communicate.
I personally would rather it be this. As an action, you can inspire you allies, raising moral and their will to fight. Each ally that can hear* see or hear you gains hit points.However, if they keep the name "inspiring word" I expect that it would o
Call it inspiring act - what act do you use to inspire? A cheerful smile, nod and confident grin maybe even a pointed thumbs up being a Princess build warlords flavor can be rather fun... but sometimes maybe its actually a rush of tears and a waft of perfume that invokes a memory or two. Crying over the downed ally and reminding them the world needs them - It doesnt have to be a "rub dirt in it soldier and get back in the fight" admonishment.
Question: How does this help adjudicate the conditions under which the ability is (and is not) effective?
Call it inspiring act - what act do you use to inspire?A cheerful smile, nod and confident grin maybe even a pointed thumbs up being a Princess build warlords flavor can be rather fun... but sometimes maybe its actually a rush of tears and a waft of
Call it inspiring act - what act do you use to inspire? A cheerful smile, nod and confident grin maybe even a pointed thumbs up being a Princess build warlords flavor can be rather fun... but sometimes maybe its actually a rush of tears and a waft of perfume that invokes a memory or two. Crying over the downed ally and reminding them the world needs them - It doesnt have to be a "rub dirt in it soldier and get back in the fight" admonishment.
Question: How does this help adjudicate the conditions under which the ability is (and is not) effective?
I rather like rampant's "allies that can percieve and understand you".
It's broad, yet flexible.
I rather like rampant's "allies that can percieve and understand you".It's broad, yet flexible.
Call it inspiring act - what act do you use to inspire? A cheerful smile, nod and confident grin maybe even a pointed thumbs up being a Princess build warlords flavor can be rather fun... but sometimes maybe its actually a rush of tears and a waft of perfume that invokes a memory or two. Crying over the downed ally and reminding them the world needs them - It doesnt have to be a "rub dirt in it soldier and get back in the fight" admonishment.
Question: How does this help adjudicate the conditions under which the ability is (and is not) effective?
DM fiat I would assume. The only other way to adjudicated it that way would be that the target has to be conscience to be inspired.
On a side note, I just cringed thinking about a warlord who is a worshipper Sune or Sharess. I think I'm leaning towards inspiring word now :p
DM fiat I would assume. The only other way to adjudicated it that way would be that the target has to be conscience to be inspired.On a side note, I just cringed thinking about a warlord who is a worshipper Sune or Sharess. I think I'm leaning toward
So are we going to make Cleric healing not work on worshippers of other faiths.. better convert to your clerics god.. or tough luck buddy.
... wait what? /facepalm
I meant what type of actions they would use as an inspiring act. Sune is The Lady of Love and Sharess is assosiated with cats.
I get that it wasn't all that clear a reference, but that was quite a mightly leap you made to get to that conclusion...
... wait what? /facepalmI meant what type of actions they would use as an inspiring act. Sune is The Lady of Love and Sharess is assosiated with cats.I get that it wasn't all that clear a reference, but that was quite a mightly leap you made to get t
So are we going to make Cleric healing not work on worshippers of other faiths.. better convert to your clerics god.. or tough luck buddy.
... wait what? /facepalm
I meant what type of actions they would use as an inspiring act. Sune is The Lady of Love and Sharess is assosiated with cats.
I get that it wasn't all that clear a reference, but that was quite a mightly leap you made to get to that conclusion...
Didnt mean to connect directly with what you said it was a general statement about all the figuring out how to stop warlord healing.
Its obvious the goddess of cats has you lick the wounds.... and umm the other is obvious too.
... wait what? /facepalmI meant what type of actions they would use as an inspiring act. Sune is The Lady of Love and Sharess is assosiated with cats.I get that it wasn't all that clear a reference, but that was quite a mightly leap you made to get t
I would not mind having a more generic name, but really the ability being available means more to me then then it's name. I fear sending the conversation on a tangent, but if its labelled inspiring word then it should be affect by things that would block your ability to communicate.
Call it "Warlord's Inspiration," then, or "Inspire Ally."
This conversation is driving home to me the virtue of separating descriptive text and rules the way 4e did. Players shouldn't be deprived of options just because of the names or colorful descriptions of those options. The purpose of a description is to be evocative and thus add to the gaming experience, not to be restrictive and detract from it.
Call it "Warlord's Inspiration," then, or "Inspire Ally." This conversation is driving home to me the virtue of separating descriptive text and rules the way 4e did. Players shouldn't be deprived of options just because of the names or colorful des
"This conversation is driving home to me the virtue of separating descriptive text and rules the way 4e did. Players shouldn't be deprived of options just because of the names or colorful descriptions of those options. The purpose of a description is to be evocative and thus add to the gaming experience, not to be restrictive and detract from it."
I'm not sure 5E is going to have the same "function before form" emphasis that 4E did.
In 4E, a power would do whatever it listed period, end of discussion. What it looked/sounded like was for all intents and purposes irrelevant, and so could be altered freely. You could call it "Warlords Banana" and have the fluff read "Using the power of fruit you revive your ally with martial ape energy", as long as the power text read "The ally can spend a healing surge."
The approach PRIOR to 4E was that form mattered. If the power was a word, it wouldn't work in silence. If it was a hypnotic gesture it wouldn't work on a blind opponent. If it was a banana it wouldn't work on a carnivore.
There are advantages to both approaches - 4E was much easier to adjudicate, pre-4E was more troublesome but sometimes more immersive - but it looks so far like they are leaning more towards the pre-4E approach.
So whether the power is actually a word or not, would make a difference.
"This conversation is driving home to me the virtue of separating descriptive text and rules the way 4e did. Players shouldn't be deprived of options just because of the names or colorful descriptions of those options. The purpose of a description
I would not mind having a more generic name, but really the ability being available means more to me then then it's name. I fear sending the conversation on a tangent, but if its labelled inspiring word then it should be affect by things that would block your ability to communicate.
Call it "Warlord's Inspiration," then, or "Inspire Ally."
This conversation is driving home to me the virtue of separating descriptive text and rules the way 4e did. Players shouldn't be deprived of options just because of the names or colorful descriptions of those options. The purpose of a description is to be evocative and thus add to the gaming experience, not to be restrictive and detract from it.
yup... its also an example of the reason gaming style... is not really adjustable by modules.
Call it "Warlord's Inspiration," then, or "Inspire Ally." This conversation is driving home to me the virtue of separating descriptive text and rules the way 4e did. Players shouldn't be deprived of options just because of the names or colorful des
No one is saying a build should ignore morale, and there should be a basic feature that all warlords get to represent it, such as the combat leader ability ala 4e. I'm just saying that in order to throw the grognards a bone we could have 1 or 2 builds that do not have regular healing abilities.
Sure, and we can have a few wizard builds that don't use vancian casting, and a few fighter builds that do. Some people hate warlords, the class is not for them, they don't have to play it. In a game with something for everybody, there's going to be something for everyone to hate, too.
Sure, and we can have a few wizard builds that don't use vancian casting, and a few fighter builds that do. Some people hate warlords, the class is not for them, they don't have to play it. In a game with something for everybody, there's going to b
Eh, I'd have traded my healing powers for extra action enabling any day.
I figure healing could have been part of the spectrum the builds varied on but if not I guess that's okay.
Eh, I'd have traded my healing powers for extra action enabling any day.I figure healing could have been part of the spectrum the builds varied on but if not I guess that's okay.
And we don't want an officer's training school to be the BBEG.
