5e is meant to be quality stuff that is streamlined. And, look... those previous ones were not streamlined. That's why D&D 5e will last for a fair while - they aren't bleeding themselves dry with constant content, new (questionable sometimes) ideas.
5e will do what no other edition of D&D succeeded at - it will last for a fair while, merely by not making a bajillion new classes instantly. It'll do it very slowly and gently. And that's a good thing. That is why 6e is not going to happen (at least, for some years) - there is still stuff they can improve on for 5e, but they can add that in their sourcebooks, which everyone is more likely to get as they're higher quality and there is fewer of them. So - no 6e, and probably no more 5e classes for a fair while yet.
Witch- right off the bat, witches in D&D are Fey Patron warlocks as witches aren't much in dnd lore.
Why do witches have to be connected to fey? You're thinking of hags, which are a different thing. Also, there are plenty of witch-type characters in D&D, Tasha being one of them. The Occultist (Witch type) that I've been developing is unique and distinct from other dark-magic flavored classes.
Rune Caster: Well, that's something that'd make a nice wizard subclass, I think.
Why would a rune caster have a spellbook or most of the wizardy things? When I think of a runecaster, I think of a dwarf, giant, or nordish runestone. Wizards don't fit that.
Warlord - Mastermind Rogue or a Crown Paladin or even a Purple Dragon Knight if ever I saw one (Purple Dragon Knight has its merits)
Mastermind Rogues are too rogue-y (only light armor, limited weapons, lower hit dice, sneak attack, everything else rogues get), Crown Paladins are too magical, and Purple Dragon Knights are objectively awful and have too much Fighter stuff, and not enough Warlord.
Gish - you could say Ranger, Bladesinger, or even way of four elements monk here, but this is one thing that I think would make a pretty stable full class. However, you could argue that it is also the Bladesinger or the Hexblade or any number of other subclasses (this one has been used so often!)
Rangers aren't arcane, Bladesingers are broken and too much Wizards, Four Elements Monks are awful and monks, Hexblades are Warlocks. A true arcane gish class would be a half-caster class.
Witch- right off the bat, witches in D&D are Fey Patron warlocks as witches aren't much in dnd lore.
Why do witches have to be connected to fey? You're thinking of hags, which are a different thing. Also, there are plenty of witch-type characters in D&D, Tasha being one of them. The Occultist (Witch type) that I've been developing is unique and distinct from other dark-magic flavored classes.
Rune Caster: Well, that's something that'd make a nice wizard subclass, I think.
Why would a rune caster have a spellbook or most of the wizardy things? When I think of a runecaster, I think of a dwarf, giant, or nordish runestone. Wizards don't fit that.
Warlord - Mastermind Rogue or a Crown Paladin or even a Purple Dragon Knight if ever I saw one (Purple Dragon Knight has its merits)
Mastermind Rogues are too rogue-y (only light armor, limited weapons, lower hit dice, sneak attack, everything else rogues get), Crown Paladins are too magical, and Purple Dragon Knights are objectively awful and have too much Fighter stuff, and not enough Warlord.
Gish - you could say Ranger, Bladesinger, or even way of four elements monk here, but this is one thing that I think would make a pretty stable full class. However, you could argue that it is also the Bladesinger or the Hexblade or any number of other subclasses (this one has been used so often!)
Rangers aren't arcane, Bladesingers are broken and too much Wizards, Four Elements Monks are awful and monks, Hexblades are Warlocks. A true arcane gish class would be a half-caster class.
Ugh, how can I silence this chat? Stop nitpicking! If you want that level of detail, homebrew it!
Witch- right off the bat, witches in D&D are Fey Patron warlocks as witches aren't much in dnd lore.
Why do witches have to be connected to fey? You're thinking of hags, which are a different thing. Also, there are plenty of witch-type characters in D&D, Tasha being one of them. The Occultist (Witch type) that I've been developing is unique and distinct from other dark-magic flavored classes.
Rune Caster: Well, that's something that'd make a nice wizard subclass, I think.
Why would a rune caster have a spellbook or most of the wizardy things? When I think of a runecaster, I think of a dwarf, giant, or nordish runestone. Wizards don't fit that.
Warlord - Mastermind Rogue or a Crown Paladin or even a Purple Dragon Knight if ever I saw one (Purple Dragon Knight has its merits)
Mastermind Rogues are too rogue-y (only light armor, limited weapons, lower hit dice, sneak attack, everything else rogues get), Crown Paladins are too magical, and Purple Dragon Knights are objectively awful and have too much Fighter stuff, and not enough Warlord.
Gish - you could say Ranger, Bladesinger, or even way of four elements monk here, but this is one thing that I think would make a pretty stable full class. However, you could argue that it is also the Bladesinger or the Hexblade or any number of other subclasses (this one has been used so often!)
Rangers aren't arcane, Bladesingers are broken and too much Wizards, Four Elements Monks are awful and monks, Hexblades are Warlocks. A true arcane gish class would be a half-caster class.
Witches: The biggest problem in this entire thread regarding discussion of any given class has been and seems to still be a lack of a common definition of 'witch.' There really seems to be no consensus. For me, they are hybrid arcane/divine with an emphasis on potions, curses (and blessings) and enchanting people, but everyone seems to see them differently. Fey-linked is as good a definition as mine or anyone else's.
Rune Caster: Runes are by definition a written thing. Why would they not have written lore / spell documentation?
Mystic and other classes: When you use the word 'broken' please articulate better. Broken as in UP? Or as in OP? or something else? A different concept than expected or desired does not in and of itself equal 'broken.'
Shaman: I agree with you completely that they should be divine and NOT arcane. An arcane or hybrid arcane / divine equivalent concept would be better described as a version of Witch.
Warlord: Here again there is a definition problem. People seem to be equating Warlord with some sort of powered up Battlemaster. To me a Warlord would specialize in leadership and large unit tactics, i.e. War instead of Battle.... Just my opinion, but nevertheless... As for your comment regarding mastermind rogues, think of sneak attack in terms of being a flanking tactic. It is not a concept only associated with rogues. Also with respect to purple dragon knights, how can a warlord be too 'fighter-y?' Major definition gap there. Can you explain, please?
Gish: Again the insistence that unless it is a perfect balance, it doesn't count. I agree that rangers would not count but the other examples do. And one could pretty easily make an arcane version of Ranger, i.e. one that uses wizard spells instead of 'ranger' spells as a new class.
Well put! Actually, that's the argument this thread has been needing!
Witch- right off the bat, witches in D&D are Fey Patron warlocks as witches aren't much in dnd lore.
Why do witches have to be connected to fey? You're thinking of hags, which are a different thing. Also, there are plenty of witch-type characters in D&D, Tasha being one of them. The Occultist (Witch type) that I've been developing is unique and distinct from other dark-magic flavored classes.
Rune Caster: Well, that's something that'd make a nice wizard subclass, I think.
Why would a rune caster have a spellbook or most of the wizardy things? When I think of a runecaster, I think of a dwarf, giant, or nordish runestone. Wizards don't fit that.
Warlord - Mastermind Rogue or a Crown Paladin or even a Purple Dragon Knight if ever I saw one (Purple Dragon Knight has its merits)
Mastermind Rogues are too rogue-y (only light armor, limited weapons, lower hit dice, sneak attack, everything else rogues get), Crown Paladins are too magical, and Purple Dragon Knights are objectively awful and have too much Fighter stuff, and not enough Warlord.
Gish - you could say Ranger, Bladesinger, or even way of four elements monk here, but this is one thing that I think would make a pretty stable full class. However, you could argue that it is also the Bladesinger or the Hexblade or any number of other subclasses (this one has been used so often!)
Rangers aren't arcane, Bladesingers are broken and too much Wizards, Four Elements Monks are awful and monks, Hexblades are Warlocks. A true arcane gish class would be a half-caster class.
Ugh, how can I silence this chat? Stop nitpicking! If you want that level of detail, homebrew it!
The easiest way to "silence this chat" would be to stop posting in a thread you clearly have no intention of actually reading. None of these things are nitpicking, and we are literally attempting to homebrew these very things, to a chorus of "BAD -- WRONG -- FUN" replies.
I'd argue that rangers are a far far better gish then EK, bladesinger, and hexblade. Those classes can either hit, or can cast. Not both. Ranger and paladin seamlessly blend their magic into their fighting.
They're half casters, and are capable of imbuing their weapon with certain spells on a bonus action and storing them there for 1 min until they manage to get a hit. Paladin and Ranger are the two classes which really make satisfying gish's, but sadly they're really thematically strong preventing either being the classic elemental arcane swordmage.
I'd argue that rangers are a far far better gish then EK, bladesinger, and hexblade. Those classes can either hit, or can cast. Not both. Ranger and paladin seamlessly blend their magic into their fighting.
They're half casters, and are capable of imbuing their weapon with certain spells on a bonus action and storing them there for 1 min until they manage to get a hit. Paladin and Ranger are the two classes which really make satisfying gish's, but sadly they're really thematically strong preventing either being the classic elemental arcane swordmage.
What about an int based ranger class replacing the ranger spell list either with the wizard spell list or an arcane ranger spell list? Other aspects could be tweaked, but it does seem a good starting point, doesn't it?
I mean that's what I was suggesting with the half classes suggestion. Basically build on the class variant features to make a set of half classes which share too much with existing classes to be their own class, and are too unique to fit into a subclass.
With due respect, statements such as 'broken' with no explanation, 'too much fighter, not enough warlord' with no explanation and generally 'But it does not fit my personal definition perfectly!' do not feel very constructive.
With due respect, I don't believe I quoted you, or called you out by name. I expect you also know exactly what I meant with the statement I made, which you quoted. Either you mistakenly attributed someone else's quote to me (with regards to 'broken'), or you are being willfully obstructive to the discussion.
Again it comes back to a statement I made very early in this discussion that there is too much 'That is not what I want!' and too little 'I want this.' One can create by trying to rule out everything unwanted, but it is very counter-productive.
Yuriel was extremely specific about what she felt a Shaman could be like, and it was met with agreement from quite a few people.
3rd Sundering has made attempts at both a Gish and a Witch/Occultist. There has been quite a bit of feedback about both of them.
Psionics has been done to death.
I've been quite clear on how I envision a summoner/minion master. I'm working on creating one right now.
Apparently, none of these things are specific enough for you. And when some measure of consensus is achieved, your stock retort then shifts to how overpowered this or that small piece is, so the whole thing is wrong. At this point I really do have to ask, why are you even posting in this thread? You've gone to great lengths to sabotage efforts that have absolutely zero effect upon you, and in doing so have angered quite a number of people.
Please, elaborate. What is your purpose in continuing this crusade?
Warlord: Here again there is a definition problem. People seem to be equating Warlord with some sort of powered up Battlemaster. To me a Warlord would specialize in leadership and large unit tactics, i.e. War instead of Battle.... Just my opinion, but nevertheless... As for your comment regarding mastermind rogues, think of sneak attack in terms of being a flanking tactic. It is not a concept only associated with rogues. Also with respect to purple dragon knights, how can a warlord be too 'fighter-y?' Major definition gap there. Can you explain, please?
I am currently working on a Warlord class, and would like to involve some actual large scale strategy. However, 5e has very little rules regarding actual war. Do you have any idea how a warlord could work mechanically? I might just give a ribbon ability or a sidebar that discusses large scale battles, and leave actual features to tactical combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Several pages ago there was a discussion on what D&D is and what it isn't and here we are, reading about a class whose utility is tied to a gameplay from which D&D specifically wanted to go away. I mean - maneuvers for units of 10+ people? Who is going to take that unless you are doing a very specific campaign?
5e has very little rules for war for the same reason it doesn't have dogfighting rules and lightsaber duels.
It's not a tactical war game.
As a homebrew you are welcome to do whatever you like but don't try to convince people that it's one of the classes that D&D needs from WotC.
Several pages ago there was a discussion on what D&D is and what it isn't and here we are, reading about a class whose utility is tied to a gameplay from which D&D specifically wanted to go away. I mean - maneuvers for units of 10+ people? Who is going to take that unless you are doing a very specific campaign?
5e has very little rules for war for the same reason it doesn't have dogfighting rules and lightsaber duels.
It's not a tactical war game.
As a homebrew you are welcome to do whatever you like but don't try to convince people that it's one of the classes that D&D needs from WotC.
Try having a battle with more than 20 participants, and you'll want to have a more streamlined system. And war is one of the types of campaigns suggested in the DMG.
Lightsaber duels do have rules, by the way. Sun blade is a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I am currently working on a Warlord class, and would like to involve some actual large scale strategy. However, 5e has very little rules regarding actual war. Do you have any idea how a warlord could work mechanically? I might just give a ribbon ability or a sidebar that discusses large scale battles, and leave actual features to tactical combat.
In another post, I was speaking on the lack of good things in 4e, but for me the Warlord was a really nice and new concept, I was sorry that it did not make the cut into 5e, not (D&D) historical enough anyway.
But you might want to have a look at its abilities in 4e, some are not that hard to replicate. It's really mostly a support class, should be charisma and strength based (intelligence is worth considering) as it can hold its own in combat, but its main strength is boosting the martial prowess of other characters, giving them additional actions (could be bonus, reactions, move, actual actions, etc.), or recovery (a bit like allowing other characters to have a second wind, which sort of makes sense if they direct actions to protect someone). You could add things like taunting or directing taunt, as well. Well worth a read.
When I did some of my NPCs, I used a number of abilities that are close to this, actually, like:
Formation Tactics. The assault soldier has advantage on saving throws against being charmed, frightened, grappled, or restrained while it is within 5 feet of at least one ally.
Leadership (Recharges after a Short or Long Rest). For 1 minute, the champion knight can utter a special command or warning whenever a nonhostile creature that it can see within 30 feet of it makes an attack roll or a saving throw. The creature can add a d4 to its roll provided it can hear and understand the champion knight. A creature can benefit from only one Leadership die at a time. This effect ends if the champion knight is incapacitated.
Hold the Line (Recharge 5-6). Until the end of the company captain's next turn, allies adjacent to it gain a +2 bonus to AC and cannot be moved from their position.
White Raven Formation (Recharge after a short or long rest). Each ally within 30 ft. of the company captain can move up to his speed as a reaction, provoking attacks of opportunity as usual.
White Raven's Strike (Recharge 4-6). As a bonus action, the company captain allows an ally to use his reaction to make a melee attack against a target choosen by the company captain.
White Raven Onslaught. If an ally within 60 ft. of the company captain moves at least 20 ft. in a straight line and attacks, it can add +3 to the damage. In addition, the ally can use a bonus action to shove the target, with the same +3 to his Strength (Athletics) check.
And, obviously, in a war campaign it would shine and would have bonuses for command, but the class worked well on its own.
Hmm, I was thinking intelligence based, simply because I don't like how little intelligence has to do with combat. My interpretation of the Warlord is more based around tactics than inspiration. These abilities are helpful, thank you for posting them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Several pages ago there was a discussion on what D&D is and what it isn't and here we are, reading about a class whose utility is tied to a gameplay from which D&D specifically wanted to go away. I mean - maneuvers for units of 10+ people? Who is going to take that unless you are doing a very specific campaign?
5e has very little rules for war for the same reason it doesn't have dogfighting rules and lightsaber duels.
It's not a tactical war game.
You do realize the tie to miniatures gaming is 40 years old, right? And that games such as Warhammer (or at least 40k) are still played? Something does not have to be a class for everyone to be an interesting class. Nor for every campaign.
Sure, they are popular. So if you want to play a war game, why not buy miniatures and play a war game?
And sure, like I said - homebrew it in every imaginable way possible. But don't try to convince me that this is something essential that is missing from D&D. You might as well create a King class because what if you wanna have a campaign where your players are rulers of their own kingdom?
Hmm, I was thinking intelligence based, simply because I don't like how little intelligence has to do with combat. My interpretation of the Warlord is more based around tactics than inspiration.
Actually, the warlord in 4e had two builds, which translate easily in 5e sub-classes:
Inspiring Warlord, more charisma based: "You lead by exhortation, encouragement, and inspiration. Your powers help your allies find new surges of courage and endurance within themselves, helping them heal, shrug off debilitating conditions, and defend themselves from attack. Your attack powers rely on Strength, so that should be your best ability score. The benefits you give your allies, though, depend almost entirely on Charisma, so make that second best. Intelligence is your best third choice, so you can dabble in other warlord powers and to help your Reflex defense."
Tactical Warlord, more intelligence based: "Your leadership takes the form of quick commands, cunning strategies, and tactical superiority. Your powers guide your allies to extra and more powerful attacks, as well as helping them move quickly in combat situations. You also assist your allies by moving your enemies around or knocking them prone. You use Strength for your attack powers, so make that your best ability score. Intelligence is secondary, because your Intelligence determines just how effective a leader you are. Charisma should be your third best score, so you can dabble in other warlord powers and to improve your Will defense."
Both are nice IMHO, Leading from the front or leading from the read. Or "Hot Iron" and "Cold Iron" if like me you love Malazan. :D
These abilities are helpful, thank you for posting them.
You're welcome, out of curiosity I opened my old 4e PH, there are tons more like this. I must admit that at start I did not understand the class and how it worked, but if you look at it the right way, it makes a lot of sense and can look really cool in play.
The latter of those two sounds a lot like the already existing battle master fighter...
It would be similar to the battle master, like the eldritch knight is similar to the wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Several pages ago there was a discussion on what D&D is and what it isn't and here we are, reading about a class whose utility is tied to a gameplay from which D&D specifically wanted to go away. I mean - maneuvers for units of 10+ people? Who is going to take that unless you are doing a very specific campaign?
5e has very little rules for war for the same reason it doesn't have dogfighting rules and lightsaber duels.
It's not a tactical war game.
As a homebrew you are welcome to do whatever you like but don't try to convince people that it's one of the classes that D&D needs from WotC.
Well... it is. 5e is a tactical war game. Be honest, 90% of the rules cover combat, equipment for combat, actions in combat, spells you can use in combat, balancing concerns for combat encounters... oh, and there's 10% more that tell the DM "it's not all about combat, so make the rest up yourself. Basically roll a D20 for everything and pick an ability you think suits it".
If you want a real focus on RP there are far better systems for that. 5e's strength is that it's simple enough to explain and understand in less than 5 minutes, but it totally is a combat focused game.
Several pages ago there was a discussion on what D&D is and what it isn't and here we are, reading about a class whose utility is tied to a gameplay from which D&D specifically wanted to go away. I mean - maneuvers for units of 10+ people? Who is going to take that unless you are doing a very specific campaign?
5e has very little rules for war for the same reason it doesn't have dogfighting rules and lightsaber duels.
It's not a tactical war game.
As a homebrew you are welcome to do whatever you like but don't try to convince people that it's one of the classes that D&D needs from WotC.
Well... it is. 5e is a tactical war game. Be honest, 90% of the rules cover combat, equipment for combat, actions in combat, spells you can use in combat, balancing concerns for combat encounters... oh, and there's 10% more that tell the DM "it's not all about combat, so make the rest up yourself. Basically roll a D20 for everything and pick an ability you think suits it".
If you want a real focus on RP there are far better systems for that. 5e's strength is that it's simple enough to explain and understand in less than 5 minutes, but it totally is a combat focused game.
Yeah I commonly see this as the crux of a lot of debate. People like to say "Its more about RP" but honestly the vast majority of the system is geared towards combat. I do enjoy RP and I love 5e but its not a system that was designed with the 95% RP tables in mind. It can work for those sure...but combat is suppose to be at least 1/3rd of the game if balanced as designed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The thread is only 15 days old, so it's not a super ancient thread. However, 57 pages was not expected.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
4e? 3e? 3.5e? AD&D? etc. ?
5e is meant to be quality stuff that is streamlined. And, look... those previous ones were not streamlined. That's why D&D 5e will last for a fair while - they aren't bleeding themselves dry with constant content, new (questionable sometimes) ideas.
5e will do what no other edition of D&D succeeded at - it will last for a fair while, merely by not making a bajillion new classes instantly. It'll do it very slowly and gently. And that's a good thing. That is why 6e is not going to happen (at least, for some years) - there is still stuff they can improve on for 5e, but they can add that in their sourcebooks, which everyone is more likely to get as they're higher quality and there is fewer of them. So - no 6e, and probably no more 5e classes for a fair while yet.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Ugh, this has been discussed to death, but here we go again.
Why do witches have to be connected to fey? You're thinking of hags, which are a different thing. Also, there are plenty of witch-type characters in D&D, Tasha being one of them. The Occultist (Witch type) that I've been developing is unique and distinct from other dark-magic flavored classes.
Why would a rune caster have a spellbook or most of the wizardy things? When I think of a runecaster, I think of a dwarf, giant, or nordish runestone. Wizards don't fit that.
Mystic was a broken class. The subclasses might work well for you, but not for me, Sposta, Yurei, Mezurrah, an many others in the D&D community.
Shamans are definitely not wizards or arcane casters in any way.
Mastermind Rogues are too rogue-y (only light armor, limited weapons, lower hit dice, sneak attack, everything else rogues get), Crown Paladins are too magical, and Purple Dragon Knights are objectively awful and have too much Fighter stuff, and not enough Warlord.
Rangers aren't arcane, Bladesingers are broken and too much Wizards, Four Elements Monks are awful and monks, Hexblades are Warlocks. A true arcane gish class would be a half-caster class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ugh, how can I silence this chat? Stop nitpicking! If you want that level of detail, homebrew it!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Well put! Actually, that's the argument this thread has been needing!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
...Did you even read the threa...what am I saying, it's 57 pages...
The easiest way to "silence this chat" would be to stop posting in a thread you clearly have no intention of actually reading. None of these things are nitpicking, and we are literally attempting to homebrew these very things, to a chorus of "BAD -- WRONG -- FUN" replies.
I'd argue that rangers are a far far better gish then EK, bladesinger, and hexblade. Those classes can either hit, or can cast. Not both. Ranger and paladin seamlessly blend their magic into their fighting.
They're half casters, and are capable of imbuing their weapon with certain spells on a bonus action and storing them there for 1 min until they manage to get a hit. Paladin and Ranger are the two classes which really make satisfying gish's, but sadly they're really thematically strong preventing either being the classic elemental arcane swordmage.
Kotath, out of curiosity, did you ever play around with 4e D&D?
I mean that's what I was suggesting with the half classes suggestion. Basically build on the class variant features to make a set of half classes which share too much with existing classes to be their own class, and are too unique to fit into a subclass.
With due respect, I don't believe I quoted you, or called you out by name. I expect you also know exactly what I meant with the statement I made, which you quoted. Either you mistakenly attributed someone else's quote to me (with regards to 'broken'), or you are being willfully obstructive to the discussion.
Yuriel was extremely specific about what she felt a Shaman could be like, and it was met with agreement from quite a few people.
3rd Sundering has made attempts at both a Gish and a Witch/Occultist. There has been quite a bit of feedback about both of them.
Psionics has been done to death.
I've been quite clear on how I envision a summoner/minion master. I'm working on creating one right now.
Apparently, none of these things are specific enough for you. And when some measure of consensus is achieved, your stock retort then shifts to how overpowered this or that small piece is, so the whole thing is wrong. At this point I really do have to ask, why are you even posting in this thread? You've gone to great lengths to sabotage efforts that have absolutely zero effect upon you, and in doing so have angered quite a number of people.
Please, elaborate. What is your purpose in continuing this crusade?
I am currently working on a Warlord class, and would like to involve some actual large scale strategy. However, 5e has very little rules regarding actual war. Do you have any idea how a warlord could work mechanically? I might just give a ribbon ability or a sidebar that discusses large scale battles, and leave actual features to tactical combat.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Current class/sublcass numbers are more than enough for me as a player and as a dm ;)
Several pages ago there was a discussion on what D&D is and what it isn't and here we are, reading about a class whose utility is tied to a gameplay from which D&D specifically wanted to go away. I mean - maneuvers for units of 10+ people? Who is going to take that unless you are doing a very specific campaign?
5e has very little rules for war for the same reason it doesn't have dogfighting rules and lightsaber duels.
It's not a tactical war game.
As a homebrew you are welcome to do whatever you like but don't try to convince people that it's one of the classes that D&D needs from WotC.
Try having a battle with more than 20 participants, and you'll want to have a more streamlined system. And war is one of the types of campaigns suggested in the DMG.
Lightsaber duels do have rules, by the way. Sun blade is a thing.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Hmm, I was thinking intelligence based, simply because I don't like how little intelligence has to do with combat. My interpretation of the Warlord is more based around tactics than inspiration. These abilities are helpful, thank you for posting them.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Sure, they are popular. So if you want to play a war game, why not buy miniatures and play a war game?
And sure, like I said - homebrew it in every imaginable way possible. But don't try to convince me that this is something essential that is missing from D&D. You might as well create a King class because what if you wanna have a campaign where your players are rulers of their own kingdom?
It would be similar to the battle master, like the eldritch knight is similar to the wizard.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Well... it is. 5e is a tactical war game. Be honest, 90% of the rules cover combat, equipment for combat, actions in combat, spells you can use in combat, balancing concerns for combat encounters... oh, and there's 10% more that tell the DM "it's not all about combat, so make the rest up yourself. Basically roll a D20 for everything and pick an ability you think suits it".
If you want a real focus on RP there are far better systems for that. 5e's strength is that it's simple enough to explain and understand in less than 5 minutes, but it totally is a combat focused game.
Yeah I commonly see this as the crux of a lot of debate. People like to say "Its more about RP" but honestly the vast majority of the system is geared towards combat. I do enjoy RP and I love 5e but its not a system that was designed with the 95% RP tables in mind. It can work for those sure...but combat is suppose to be at least 1/3rd of the game if balanced as designed.