:D. So you are in charge of making 5.5 Edition what do you do?

[CyberThread]

What wOuld you change about the current edition for this new edition edit!

[Ellington]

I'd probably wait a bit longer and see how things pan out before overhauling the system :smalltongue: I mean, we haven't even gotten the DM guide yet.

Anyway, if I'm not being a smartass here are some things I'm not a fan of in 5e that I'd like to see changed at some point.

- The Ranger class as a whole
- Some offenders in the spell list tweaked to prevent abuse
- Onion druids
- Some lackluster feats turned better
- The weapon system changed to make sense (I'm looking at you, trident, and rogues/bards without whip proficiency)
- Halfling artwork
- Some tweaks to the bard class (I'd not allow them to take spells from the paladin or ranger spell list)
- Other minor stuff

Things will probably add up over time but as it is I'm liking 5e as it is.

[Daishain]

As above, I'd have to say that more must be released, and more playtesting must be done before anything of this sort actually gets decided. But I do have some things in mind.

-Revamp/replace the concentration system. I understand the need to cut back on rediculous buff stacking and other shenanigans, but the current set up goes too far in my opinion. My suggestion, run it much like magic items, location dependent rather than source dependent limits. A character can only have one beneficial duration affect on them at a time. A specific location can only have one duration AOE effect active at once. Casting onto a character or location with a spell already active works a bit like dispel magic. Success means the prior spell is canceled, failure means the new spell is suppressed wherever it overlaps with the old.

-Restore the normal complement of actions to companions. Yes, it is advantageous to have companions capable of acting with their own action economy. But it is far from being an advantage that can't be compensated for.

-Revamp of wish. Instead of the 1/3 chance of burnout, nonstandard uses have backlash. Similar to the wild magic table, but significantly more severe. Particularly offensive abuses can have reality threatening consequences.

-Revamp of Simulacrum. casting simulacrum on a simulacrum has no effect. A particular caster can only maintain one simulacrum at a time, regardless of source.

-Wild shaped druids lose an extra use of the wild shape ability if forced to revert to normal form by being knocked to 0hp. If no wild shape uses are left, the druid is instead automatically knocked unconscious and begins dying.

-More variety in weapons. I don't necessarily mean more weapons, but rather that each option given has something fairly unique about it. Some nonfluff reason, however unlikely and niche, that a person might choose to use it. Bringing back crit modifiers would help in this, as would weapons with multiple damage types such as the morningstar.

[Chaosvii7]

It depends largely on what the DMG brings to the table, but I'd mostly work on taking what's already present and tweaking and refining it. I probably wouldn't make massive mechanical changes but I'd certainly twist a few knobs on some of the features.

There's two big changes I'd make; I'd take out the "Advantage/Disadvantage" aspect of status conditions to encourage actually roleplaying to earn advantage instead of just tacking on a debuff. Now, status conditions would still do things, it'd just make getting advantage or giving disadvantage rely more on player's interacting with the game world in a different or more interesting way.

The other big change is toning down racial bonuses so that each race comes out with a +1 bonus to two ability scores, and then bring back class-based ability score improvements. If you pick a race that synergizes with your class, you'd at best be getting +2 to the primary ability scores of your class. Otherwise it still allows players who want to use more varied race and class choices while still getting a 16 in their primary stat.

*I'd fix Barbarians up a bit to give them a fighting style, and then tack on a few extra things to make them a bit more specialized towards combat but generalized as a whole.

*Bards need to take a bit of a hit - I'd take away one instance of Expertise and one instance of Magical Secrets. I also think it wouldn't hurt to limit Magical Secrets to Wizard and Cleric lists. I'd rebalance the colleges against each other so that their first feature(the one that augments Bardic Inspiration) would better differentiate them. Even though they're fundamentally two different abilities they still feel too same-y to me.

*I'd either nerf Divine Intervention or replace it, and possibly do the same to Turn Undead. Not that Turn Undead is broken or a bad feature(and let's be real, Divine Intervention is like the ultimate luxury ability), but that's space that could go towards something more flavorful, and Turn Undead could easily wind up as a domain feature for a certain kind of Cleric. One thing I know I'd do is fix Cleric proficiencies to make the base cleric give only up to light armor and shields, so that way domains can offer greater flexibility in that some or most will augment armor options in a meaningful way. The number of domains that grant heavy armor proficiency is ludicrous, and it makes the Cleric too tanky for their own good anyways, so this lets me buff the lower end of Clerics and nerf the higher end of them.

*Can't really comment on the Druid, but I think you could solve the Onion Druid problem by simply not taking the monster's HP when you wild shape. To compensate, fix up Moon Druid to better support tanking while Wild Shaped, and also making it so that there's a clear choice between when one would want to shape and tank vs. staying normal and casting spells.

*As far as Fighters go, Champion Archetype needs to get the axe. I don't care where it ends up, but it can't stick around. It's just too lazy and a big mess of a concept. I wouldn't be opposed to making the second fighting style thing a Fighter feature so that fighters are just a little bit better differentiated. Eldritch Knight needs a slight buff. Possibly give Battle Master more maneuvers. I'd take away the second Action Surge but I'd give them something better to compensate.

*Monk capstone needs a fix so that it's relevant - or it'd probably be easier to make the Ki pool Unlimited at 20th level. I don't know how else they're lacking, because their ki abilities seem to cover a lot more niches than they used to.

*Paladins get the seal of approval. They're A-OK in my opinion. Maybe tweak Divine Smite so that you can either do less damage but more often/reliably, or make it so that the damage from the smite is a bit more tweaked so your spell slot investment feels a little heftier.

*I'm actually not too worried about Ranger and where they are. I'd definitely make Foe Slayer part of Favored Enemy and make their capstone actually good, squeeze in a few more Hunter tactics for variety, and make the Beast Master's Animal Companion CR scale like they ought to have done. Lastly, and most importantly, I'd make my long-desired Trapsmith Ranger archetype to give it a holy trinity of subclasses. It's still absolutely criminal that Rangers got shafted AND don't have a large variety of subclass choices.

*For Rogues, I'd make Evasion apply to any ability that affects multiple targets, as opposed to abilities that require a Dexterity save. I'd want to spice up Slippery Mind too, if I can find a good way to do so. I always hated what it was in 3.0 because I'm sure there was other things they could have done with that feature(such as make Mettle a whole 6 years before Complete Warrior did with the Hexblade)

*Sorcerers are mechanically fine on their own, but the concept of Sorcerous Origins conflicts far too greatly with the Warlock's concept of Pacts in my opinion. To fix this, I'd re-fluff the Origins to instead not focus on where you get your blood or what gave it to you, but just what having magical blood in general would do to you. For example, the scales feature of the Draconic bloodline being some sort of aspect of feral or warrior-like magic blood. Wild Magic would still exit, but it'd be it's own kind of blood mutation, just being Wildblooded.

*Warlock is in my opinion the most balanced class and I have no complaints or problems with it. It is perfect in every way and I aspire that every class past present and future be as balanced as it. I am unashamed when I say that because I love Warlocks with all of my heart.

*Wizards are probably in need of touch ups but all I'd do is make their arcane school features benefit allies moreso than themselves so they bring the utility of their school to their friends instead of being selfish shellfish. Obviously it's more important that you nerf the Wizard's spells if they're that powerful, but I don't think they cause nearly the same level of problems that they did back in the day.

As for non-class specific changes, here are some other quick ideas:

*Instead of Ability Score Improvements or Feats, it's +2 to one score and +1 to another, or +1 to one score and a Feat. I'd cut the +1 to ability score from most feats and supplement something else in there to make up for it, of course. Things like take 10s with Resilient. Obviously I'd clean up the wording on feats so that you can make rulings, but it's more clear in how you can do so instead of just leaving some text open-ended. Add more feats that represent more famous things from 3.X's feat structure.

*The old problem spells would obviously get hit in their appropriate ways; Simulacrum and Clone would get nerfs, Time Stop would give the caster a single extra turn instead of potentially multiple extra turns, etc.

That's everything off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more changes I'd make but everything else would just be minor tweaks, these are the only notable changes that I can think of off the top of my head.

[kestrel404]

Simplified class level charts -
Remove the Proficiency bonus that's listed on every chart, make the Attribute bonuses on the class charts just a standard feature of leveling (you get a bonus at level 4 even if you're an X 2/Y 2)

Everyone gets a second attack a level or two AFTER fighters get their 3rd attack if they haven't got one yet, and if they have, get a 3rd (fighters will still be the only ones with a 4th, and get their 3rd attack earlier than everyone else).

Advantage & Disadvantage do not concel completely when both are present - if you have twice as many or more Disadvantages as you have Advantages, you're still disadvantaged, and vice versa. So a goblin who's prone, and blind and has a flanking buddy is still disadvantaged, though his flanking buddy gets advantage so it's still not a complete loss, while a goblin who's prone, blind, stuck in the mud, has a flanking buddy and buffed with a True Strike spell is NOT disadvantaged.

Saving throw proficiencies for classes should be: Get 1, and get a 2nd depending on Path. Multiclass characters don't get the class-based save, but DO get the Path based save proficiency once they reach that point.

The +2 skill proficiencies that Rogues get should be a class feature, and everyone should just get 2 skill proficiencies off the class' skill list. Additional proficiencies in class skills should be granted to other classes (1/10 fighter or wizard levels, 1/6 monk or ranger levels, etc.) - giving up an entire feat to get a couple of extra skill proficiencies as you level up is just silly, considering how rare feats are.


Things I don't think should change:
The Concentration mechanic is great - it's THE best way of limiting caster shenanigans I've seen.

I like the idea of multiclass spellcasters having a joint spellcasting advancement.

Advantage & Disadvantage are great mechanics and easy to understand/implement on the fly.

[Person_Man]

1) The Player's Handbook must contain everything you need to know to play the game, including guides on how to DM, roleplaying, exploration, creating a campaign, creating encounters, etc., and not just character creation, spells, and basic skill and combat resolution mechanics. If you buy the game and read it, you should be able to play or run that game, and not be required to find someone who already knows how to DM so that they can teach you all the things the players handbook currently leaves out.

2) There are a lot of vague rules. I would provide clear rules instead, so that the default game plays mostly the same at different tables. I would also provide lots of side bars with DM advice and optional rules, with examples that clearly lay out the impact of the rules. Stealth works like X by default, but if you want to make it easier do Y, if you want to make it harder do Z, and this is the likely impact on your game.

3) Class abilities and spell lists should not overlap between classes. Each class should do their unique things. The exception to this is the Bard. The Bard's gets Expertise, Extra Attack, and a nifty and balanced selection of spells from other classes, because being a jack-of-all-trades is his thing. But the Bard cannot select spells from other classes, because the cherry picking of signature spells from other classes completely undermines playing those classes.

4) Feats and Extra Attack are gained by all characters at the same rate based on your character level. This makes multiclassing an actual viable option. Fighter (and only the Fighter) gets additional attacks as class abilities as well, and additional real class features at higher levels to make up for the loss of Feats.

5) Starting at level 11, non-spellcasters and partial-casters (Paladin, Ranger, Elritch Knightshould get class abilities that are comparable to 6th+ level spells in their awesomeness. They can be Short or Long Rest dependent as appropriate for their power level. They don't need to be magical. They just need to be awesome.

6) Add in some sort of Healing Surge or Short Rest heals everything or whatever mechanic into the core rules, so that Clerics or other dedicated healers are not required party members.

7) All spells that have a duration should require Concentration. If a spell requires Concentration, it should be worth using. I gate fiddly stuff that you sorta probably need but probably don't want to spend actual actions and/or resources on.

[Shadow]

-Wild shaped druids lose an extra use of the wild shape ability if forced to revert to normal form by being knocked to 0hp. If no wild shape uses are left, the druid is instead automatically knocked unconscious and begins dying.

Our group uses the following houserule in regards to wildshape:

Druids using wildshape do not use separate hit point pools for their wildshape and humanoid forms as the PHB states. Instead, when they use wildshape, they gain temporary hit points equal to one half of the beast's normal hit points, and revert back to humanoid form when their normal hit point total reaches zero unless they decide to revert earlier.

[CyberThread]

1) The Player's Handbook must contain everything you need to know to play the game, including guides on how to DM, roleplaying, exploration, creating a campaign, creating encounters, etc., and not just character creation, spells, and basic skill and combat resolution mechanics. If you buy the game and read it, you should be able to play or run that game, and not be required to find someone who already knows how to DM so that they can teach you all the things the players handbook currently leaves out.




How much thicker would the players handbook have to be to encompose that. The DM section alone in the DMG this edition looks to be about 100+ pages.



Also am surpirsed no one, has made mention that the spell list, would include what classes have access to those spells, when you are looking themup.

[Selkirk]

1)

6) Add in some sort of Healing Surge or Short Rest heals everything or whatever mechanic into the core rules, so that Clerics or other dedicated healers are not required party members.


this is a good idea. it also benefits parties with clerics. now you don't have to long rest so the cleric can get back healing spells. would speed up play quite a bit...give more flow to encounters.

[Galen]

What wOuld you change about the current edition for this new edition edit!Absolutely nothing, for the next two years at least. Let the kids play.

For now, I could be convinced to publish some errata to shut down the most obvious exploits (Simulacrum schenanigans, Contagion overly-optimistic reading) and clarifications (what's up with Evocation specialist and cantrips), but otherwise, nothing.

[kestrel404]

Also am surpirsed no one, has made mention that the spell list, would include what classes have access to those spells, when you are looking themup.

That reminds me of another idea I had which would be very handy:

Spells should be divided into Arcane, Divine or Universal, as keywords. All casters get access to Universal spells at their spell level. All Arcane casters get access to Arcane spells at the correct spell level, and they get access to Divine spells at the spell level +2 - so Wizards CAN cast Cure Light Wounds, as a level 3 spell. And vice versa, so Clerics can get a 3rd level Magic Missile, or a 5th level Fireball.

Spells that are used ONLY by a single specific class are available as Arcane/Divine spells of one level higher (depending on the class which grants them), so a 2nd level Paladin-only spell would be available at 3rd level to Clerics & Druids, or at 5th level to Arcane casters.

This way, all casters have some baseline of available spells to them, even if many of them aren't actually worth the spell level - you don't get minor casting classes in later base books which get NO support for themselves simply because their entire spell list is ONLY from that book, and this also resolves the issue of absolutely Needing a Cleric to use healing magic - which has always been more than a bit silly, considering that rogues have no problem using wands/scrolls from both sides.

[McBars]

Take a long nap.

core books aren't published yet, let it be.

[HorridElemental]

That reminds me of another idea I had which would be very handy:

Spells should be divided into Arcane, Divine or Universal, as keywords. All casters get access to Universal spells at their spell level. All Arcane casters get access to Arcane spells at the correct spell level, and they get access to Divine spells at the spell level +2 - so Wizards CAN cast Cure Light Wounds, as a level 3 spell. And vice versa, so Clerics can get a 3rd level Magic Missile, or a 5th level Fireball.

Spells that are used ONLY by a single specific class are available as Arcane/Divine spells of one level higher (depending on the class which grants them), so a 2nd level Paladin-only spell would be available at 3rd level to Clerics & Druids, or at 5th level to Arcane casters.

This way, all casters have some baseline of available spells to them, even if many of them aren't actually worth the spell level - you don't get minor casting classes in later base books which get NO support for themselves simply because their entire spell list is ONLY from that book, and this also resolves the issue of absolutely Needing a Cleric to use healing magic - which has always been more than a bit silly, considering that rogues have no problem using wands/scrolls from both sides.

Love it, adding this to my house rule possibilities.

The 3.P sorcerer can learn any spell and cast it as a arcane spell and it didn't really hurt the balance (it was already a tier 2 caster lol).

[LaserFace]

Absolutely nothing, for the next two years at least. Let the kids play.

For now, I could be convinced to publish some errata to shut down the most obvious exploits (Simulacrum schenanigans, Contagion overly-optimistic reading) and clarifications (what's up with Evocation specialist and cantrips), but otherwise, nothing.

Yeah, basically this.

[Shadow]

Love it, adding this to my house rule possibilities.

See, I'm on the other side of the fence. I think it's a terrible idea to allow every single caster access to every single spell in print (even if some of them do come at a higher level).

[SaintRidley]

Leave it alone for at least two years, and even then probably don't do it and issue errata.

7 things, and that's it.

1. Nix Fabricate
2. Nix Simulacrum
3. CR limit for True Polymorph is 1/2 level, rounded down
4. Clarify that the Ranger's animal buddy can use multiattack (it can, but making it explicit won't hurt)
5. Clarify Contagion so that it's clear that the disease only takes effect after the incubation period represented by three failed saves (it does, but making it explicit won't hurt)
6. Druid gets to replace their HP with animal HP once per long rest when wildshaping.
7. Rewrite the lycanthrope template language in the Monster Manual to advise DMs that they may smack their players in the face with the book if they think they can just wander up to a wearbear and get bitten. Also to say "the DM owns your character now and can give it back at their discretion."

[Daishain]

See, I'm on the other side of the fence. I think it's a terrible idea to allow every single caster access to every single spell in print (even if some of them do come at a higher level).
I don't know about it being terrible, but it certainly does eliminate a large portion of the reason people choose various spellcasters (and nearly all of the advantage that wizards have)

I might go for a limited and not quite as universal form of this. In 3.5, there were some spells that were available to specific classes at different levels. We could do something like that here.

For instance, Find familiar could be a 1st level wizard spell, 2nd level sorcerer spell, and 3rd level bard spell.

Similarly, Command, a 1st level cleric/paladin spell, might be available to druids and bards as 2nd level.

[Shadow]

I don't know about it being terrible, but it certainly does eliminate a large portion of the reason people choose various spellcasters (and nearly all of the advantage that wizards have)

I might go for a limited and not quite as universal form of this. In 3.5, there were some spells that were available to specific classes at different levels. We could do something like that here.

For instance, Find familiar could be a 1st level wizard spell, 2nd level sorcerer spell, and 3rd level bard spell.

Similarly, Command, a 1st level cleric/paladin spell, might be available to druids and bards as 2nd level.

Those would be small tweaks to the spell lists. He's talking about literally allowing every single spell ever printed to be available to every single caster that has spell slots available at appropriate levels. There's a huge difference.
It also takes one of the best class features that Bard has available and makes it utterly obsolete.

[Krymoar]

What wOuld you change about the current edition for this new edition edit!

Clarity on Warlock Invocations

Clarity on Hiding

Better mid level on Fighter Champion than athlete junk.

Clarity/Unarmed strikes explain that the dm assigns the weapon properties based on the type of unarmed strike

Clarity on improvised weapons.

Give Spears or pikes finesse

If hides intent is not to be attacked from then rehide, thus defining hide as more than obscuring your presence, rework on rogue to give itself advantage another way

[kestrel404]

Those would be small tweaks to the spell lists. He's talking about literally allowing every single spell ever printed to be available to every single caster that has spell slots available at appropriate levels. There's a huge difference.
It also takes one of the best class features that Bard has available and makes it utterly obsolete.

It is a huge difference. Why is it bad, though? It removes one arbitrary limitation from the way the magic system works and replaces it with a different one - but it doesn't significantly change the balance of the game. It just means that certain spellcasting roles can be covered (poorly) by the other spellcasting classes.

As far as it reducing the usefulness of Bards, perhaps just change that class feature a bit? I'm not saying that my suggestion wouldn't have knock-on effects, and I'm sure tweaks could improve it - maybe have spells only useable by 1 class be at +2 levels for others of the same type, and +3 or +4 (but no more than that) for the other type of caster. But honestly I don't see why Druids couldn't get Command as a 2nd level spell - it's a concentration spell I believe, so it means they're not keeping up something that was written as a 2nd level spell.

The thing that makes this idea work is the Concentration rules - either a spell is single-use/single-purpose and can, at best, take out a limited group of enemies with a single casting (damage, Save-or-X, whatever), in which case the level adjustment will essentially nerf the ability for other casters to use that spell to the point where it's balanced once more, or it is a Concentration spell, and each caster only gets one of those at a time - meaning they'd want the best one available. If a spell is so powerful that it's the one chosen by casters despite being two levels higher, then perhaps that means there's something wrong with that spell.

[Finieous]

I guess I'd mostly leave it alone, since most of the actual mechanics changes proposed in this thread are turrible. It needs some errata to clean up the oopsies, but that's about it for now.

[Scirocco]

Beastmaster Ranger needs some love and I suppose there could be a few clarifications, but overall I don't see the point in thinking about a .5 edition when the DMG isn't even out yet. Most of the balance issues come down to a DM not putting up with stupid player tricks (Oberoni fallacy, I know), and beyond that well, the edition isn't designed as a legal document so who cares?

[Kurald Galain]

Obviously 5.5 would bring back concepts from 3E and 4E that the designers intentionally discontinued but that some vocal minority of fans complains about missing. So we'd get skill challenges and heal-by-drowning again, yay? :smalltongue:

[CyberThread]

skill challenges


This will be in the DMG

[Vogonjeltz]

What wOuld you change about the current edition for this new edition edit!

I'm mostly satisfied with everything as is. Most every time I've been thinking something was lacking, it turns out I just wasn't looking in the right place. For example, the rules for training proficiency in tools/languages is found under Downtime Activities (pg 187).

I do have a complaint about some feats:

Feat that provides a null benefit:
Grappler. Why would you Pin someone (which negatively affects your ability to fight them) when you could just knock them prone? Effectively, pinning an opponent actually improves their position vis a vis your character.

Feat that lacks synergy it was seemingly intended to have:
Sentinel. The last benefit is nice, but it seems like it should actually work off the first benefit. (Thus, you can knock someone down, and they are down for their turn).


-Revamp of Simulacrum. casting simulacrum on a simulacrum has no effect. A particular caster can only maintain one simulacrum at a time, regardless of source.

This is already the case.


-More variety in weapons. I don't necessarily mean more weapons, but rather that each option given has something fairly unique about it. Some nonfluff reason, however unlikely and niche, that a person might choose to use it. Bringing back crit modifiers would help in this, as would weapons with multiple damage types such as the morningstar.

Ditto, as it stands there's no reason at all to use a Morningstar over a War pick. (Morningstar costs more and weighs more, they are otherwise identical in attributes).


6) Add in some sort of Healing Surge or Short Rest heals everything or whatever mechanic into the core rules, so that Clerics or other dedicated healers are not required party members.

I don't get this one. Are the Hit Dice heals on a short rest not enough?

[HorridElemental]

See, I'm on the other side of the fence. I think it's a terrible idea to allow every single caster access to every single spell in print (even if some of them do come at a higher level).

Well in a world where gods give some people magic, some research and make magic, and others happen upon stuff it is a bit... Illogical that one type of magic can't duplicate specific spells of the other type.

The divine/arcane divide on what spells has always bugged the crap out of me. A wizard can cast Conjuration (Really Awesome 9th level spell) but suddenly becomes an idiot and can't make a spell that cures light wounds?

[Shadow]

Well in a world where gods give some people magic, some research and make magic, and others happen upon stuff it is a bit... Illogical that one type of magic can't duplicate specific spells of the other type.

The divine/arcane divide on what spells has always bugged the crap out of me. A wizard can cast Conjuration (Really Awesome 9th level spell) but suddenly becomes an idiot and can't make a spell that cures light wounds?

"It doesn't make sense to me" shouldn't be enough of a reason to break casting wide open.
Those boundries you find so illogical exist for balance reasons, and the proposed change just throws that balance out the window. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

[HorridElemental]

"It doesn't make sense to me" shouldn't be enough of a reason to break casting wide open.
Those boundries you find so illogical exist for balance reasons, and the proposed change just throws that balance out the window. It's an absolutely terrible idea.

That is by far the worst response I have read recently on this forum.

First off a logical world where rules, even absurd rules compared to the real world (even ones where the rules are that the rules change on whims), is more important than making up arbitrary rules based off gamist principals that are not supported by in game narrative.

This isn't erfworld, the world of D&D isn't a game within itself. (I love that comic btw)

Allowing the proposed concept to work doesn't throw balance off all that much. Actually I think it as long as you fix the spells to begin with (spell system could use some work) it won't have any effect at all.

Explain to me, in game world, how you can cast 9th level arcane spells but not be able to make an arcane spell that duplicates a divine spell. It falls under healing by drowning; totally stupid, lazy, and/or ignorant world/rule design.

[Shadow]

Explain to me, in game world, how you can cast 9th level arcane spells but not be able to make an arcane spell that duplicates a divine spell. It falls under healing by drowning; totally stupid, lazy, and/or ignorant world/rule design.

You can cast a 9th level arcane spell which duplicates a divine spell. It's called Wish.

Explain to me, in game world, why any one character should inherently, and without multiclassing, be able to do literally every single thing available.
Blast stuff? Sure.
Control the battlefield? Sure.
Buff the party? Sure.
Debuff the enemies? Sure.
Melee adequately? Sure.
Shoot ranged weapons adequately? Sure.
Be the trapsmith? Sure.
Cast Paladin only spells? Sure.
Cast Ranger only spells? Sure.
Cast Wizard only spells? Sure.
Cast every single spell in the book? Sure.
Cast every single spell that might ever come into print via splat? Sure.

Nah, that won't imbalance anything, bro. Good on ya.
Just remind your players not to ever roll a melee class, because even though 5e balanced them well this time compared to casters, you just invalidated all of that.
In fact, just remind them all to play clerics and druids, so they can be wizards with better hit points and armor weapons and cool abilities like wildshape.
But you're right. My response was the worst that you've seen on this forum.

[McBars]

You can cast a 9th level arcane spell which duplicates a divine spell. It's called Wish.

Explain to me, in game world, why any one character should inherently, and without multiclassing, be able to do literally every single thing available.
Blast stuff? Sure.
Control the battlefield? Sure.
Buff the party? Sure.
Debuff the enemies? Sure.
Melee adequately? Sure.
Shoot ranged weapons adequately? Sure.
Be the trapsmith? Sure.
Cast Paladin only spells? Sure.
Cast Ranger only spells? Sure.
Cast Wizard only spells? Sure.
Cast every single spell in the book? Sure.
Cast every single spell that might ever come into print via splat? Sure.

Nah, that won't imbalance anything, bro. Good on ya.
Just remind your players not to ever roll a melee class, because even though 5e balanced them well this time compared to casters, you just invalidated all of that.
But you're right. My response was the worst that you've seen on this forum.

Where is the "like" option for this post?
If I could give you xp for it, I would

[Naanomi]

I'll echo what others have said, that it is a bit early to start this stuff; and that most of the 'changes' I would make would be better handled by Errata; but...

~Clarify the few points of rules that have been contentious since day 1 (Warlock Invocation requirements, Simulacrum, probably a few others)
~Slightly tweak Beastmaster Ranger to not have obvious weakness (Actually in play it has performed very well at my table, but it is enough of a 'looks weak' option that it should be addressed). I'd recommend letting beasts move and get one attack WITHOUT the ranger's bonus to attack/damage independently; and get the bonus only when commanded
~Retouch several level 20 Capstone abilities of various classes (Ranger + Monk immediately spring to mind, but I'm sure there are others)

[Eslin]

Leave it alone for at least two years, and even then probably don't do it and issue errata.

7 things, and that's it.

1. Nix Fabricate
2. Nix Simulacrum
3. CR limit for True Polymorph is 1/2 level, rounded down
4. Clarify that the Ranger's animal buddy can use multiattack (it can, but making it explicit won't hurt)
5. Clarify Contagion so that it's clear that the disease only takes effect after the incubation period represented by three failed saves (it does, but making it explicit won't hurt)
6. Druid gets to replace their HP with animal HP once per long rest when wildshaping.
7. Rewrite the lycanthrope template language in the Monster Manual to advise DMs that they may smack their players in the face with the book if they think they can just wander up to a wearbear and get bitten. Also to say "the DM owns your character now and can give it back at their discretion."

Good list, but note that 4 and 5 are incorrect - as written, companions can't multiattack and contagion comes into effect immediately.

[JoeJ]

Explain to me, in game world, how you can cast 9th level arcane spells but not be able to make an arcane spell that duplicates a divine spell. It falls under healing by drowning; totally stupid, lazy, and/or ignorant world/rule design.

In world you mean? How about:

- The gods reserve some uses of magic for themselves.

- Only certain aspects of magic can be understood with the intellect alone. Others must be felt, or simply accepted by faith.

- Wizards used to be able to cast those spells, long ago, but the majority of wizard spells have been lost over the vast ages of the world's history.

- Healing magic adds life energy to its subject, an operation requiring such precision that no wizards have yet been able to figure out how to do it safely.

[AuraTwilight]

1) Power up the Ranger.
2) The Druids need a weaker Capstone. Everyone else except the Paladin and Barbarian need better ones.
3) the 1/3 Wish Burnout thing needs to go.
4) Tweak some feats and the weapons table.
5) Make INT more useful in general for people who aren't wizards.
6) Every class in the book should have 3 subclasses, minimum. Like, seriously.
7) FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, organize the spell lists by level AND school, and every spell description should list their spell levels the same way 3E did. Playing an Arcane Trickster or an Eldritch Knight is currently a goddamn nightmare.

[JAL_1138]

1) Change the healing system. The DMG may address my concerns with Vitality, which if it's what I think it will be, breaks up the distinction between luck/near-misses/nonthreatening injuries (vitality) and serious wounds (health) so that someone doesn't just go "I got better" from a spear through the spleen by taking a nap. Vitality can come back without magic or medical attention / lengthy healing; Health can't. Crits bypass some elements of Vitality to deal Health damage; Vitality is not always available to soak damage (e.g., when paralyzed or unconscious)

2) If the character is described or otherwise generally regarded as non-magical or otherwise non-supernatural, then they shouldn't be able to--for example--jump clear over a live elephant in one bound. I don't mind it if you just go ahead and describe them as supernatural, e.g., the Monk--the monk has Ki, wire fu is a big part of what it's for--but the Fighter probably shouldn't be doing that in fullplate without enchanted Boots of Jumping or something. That's what the Immortals rules are for (once the aforesaid Fighter has ceased to be non-supernatural and gotten a bit of demigoddery to them) :smallbiggrin:

3) Revamp the skill system to more clearly illustrate and/or mechanically enable--for example--someone with training in Medicine to be more effective at first aid than a pair of commoners, and reduce other wonkiness that crops up if it's a flat DC (I don't mind floating DCs as many on the board interpret it, e.g., the Rogue's expertise lets them pick a particular pocket at 10, but it'd be DC20 or higher for an untrained commoner)

4) Clarify the more contentious rules interpretations caused by vague wording or unintuitive results--when multiple forums go to war, fairly evenly split, over the same issues repeatedly, they likely need patched.

5) Return to a longer combat round, e.g., 1 minute, to make it seem at least a little more plausible to get 8 shots with a heavy crossbow off in a round (assume a melee attack represents the final hit after a series of parries, dodges, and glancing blows, to avoid the problem of a trained duelist only being able to swing a sword once every 7.5 seconds at the fastest).

6) Bring back longer casting times for powerful crowd-control spells like Meteor Swarm (such that the wizard has to stay safe long enough for the spell to go off, failing Concentration during casting results in loss of spell and slot), and make Concentration checks easier to fail when taking damage. ...ok, just make it 2nd Edition again...I kid, I kid.

7) Nonmagical characters shouldn't operate on resource systems unless it's an exhaustion check after lengthy sustained combat; if you can swing a greatsword for an hour without penalty, you can kick an orc in the shin and trip him more than a couple times before you have to rest an hour. Perhaps spend an Action to recharge a given maneuver?

8) Nerf the heck out of the more exploitable spells, but keep them in the game (e.g., Fabricate, Conjure Woodland Beings, Animate Dead--AD has to be done in such a way as to make enemy Necromancer Lords possible, but too difficult to exploit in a normal campaign; e.g., building an undead army takes years)

9) Stratify Advantage and Disadvantage into Minor and Major variants in some fashion that stack up to a (probably fairly low) hard cap somehow; under the current version once you have Disadvantage from one source, you might as well do something that would normally carry Disadvantage of its own (firing a bow from prone in the dark is sort of the default example; casting in melee while suffering from Disadvantage from a fear effect against the thing giving you the effect)

10) Have the Beastmaster's animal companion be able to act without costing the Beastmaster's Action--not sure how to balance that; maybe at the expense of the Beastmaster's Reaction?

11) Guidelines for making, buying, and selling magical items that neither allow a lone Wizard to break the world's economy or the encounter balance, nor overly restrict how one would normally expect a market to develop

12) Whether combat interrupts a long rest should be a DM call based on how long the rest has been thus far, not how long the combat lasts (an hour of combat is 600 rounds, which is what Mearls stated on Twitter is needed to disrupt a rest)

13) Short rests dropped to 10 or 15 minutes instead of an hour.

14) Clarify multiclassing and bring back an option for 2e-style multiclassing (divide the XP between them from the start).

15) Fix the Halfling and Gnome art :smallbiggrin: More seriously, revise monster statblocks to include any and all information necessary to run the monster in the text (print the spell text for monsters with spell lists, list what their attacks and AC become when unarmed and unarmored, etc.; remove any need to consult any other source than the statblock for anything the monster can do. I'd rather buy a second Monster Manual for the extra monsters that would have to be cut than have to look up and write that sort of thing out before the game)

16) Revise the Challenge ratings and encounter building guidelines for clarity and consistency.

17) Revise the weapons and their damage types so that anything plausible works (a small heavy axe piercing armor, using the haft of a spear as a bludgeon, being able to stab with the big spearpoint affixed prominently on the top of a halberd, being able to stab someone with a medieval longsword:smallfurious: )

18) Make it much more prominent in the rule text that backgrounds, bonds and flaws are customizeable and expand the guidelines for making them from whole cloth, to prevent the misconception that the example ones are the only ones available

19) Revise certain monsters (e.g., make dragons harder to polymorph with a squad of pixies; give the Tarrasque regen and a ranged attack (throwing debris with the effect of a punt gun works nicely) and the ability to resist Maze and other similar spells; etc., etc., so on and so forth)

20) Make the main source of XP be quest completion (not necessarily plot quests or missions; could be "get to the next part of the dungeon alive and relatively intact" or "Map this fork of the River of Deep-Seated Uncertainty and establish trade relations with the tribesmen there" rather than "Return the MacGuffin to MacGuffinville" or "Bring me 10 bear pelts") rather than monsters.

21) Give me a severe XP penalty for complaining too much about what's ultimately a pretty decent edition with some minor flaws in wording, only a couple-three outright exploits, and a couple of things that run counter to my personal preferences, but that's genuinely a good compromise in most respects between various aspects of most of the various TSR and WotC editions.

[Tenmujiin]

1) Change the healing system. The DMG may address my concerns with Vitality, which if it's what I think it will be, breaks up the distinction between luck/near-misses/nonthreatening injuries (vitality) and serious wounds (health) so that someone doesn't just go "I got better" from a spear through the spleen by taking a nap. Vitality can come back without magic or medical attention / lengthy healing; Health can't. Crits bypass some elements of Vitality to deal Health damage; Vitality is not always available to soak damage (e.g., when paralyzed or unconscious)

What you are describing as vitality is basically what health is currently, what you are describing as health is what vitality will likely be.

[Shadow]

What you are describing as vitality is basically what health is currently, what you are describing as health is what vitality will likely be.

No, what he's refering to is vitality points and wound points. It was a system from another d20 game which became an optional variant rule in 3e.

Your Vitality points equal what your HP were under the normal rules.
Any "hit" didn't actually harm you. It lowered your available VP by the appropriate amount. Your VP represented your ability to dodge/block attacks that would otherwise have struck home. Magical healing healed worked differently, essentially giving you back energy (VP) and refreshing you to the point that you could dodge more attacks than you normally would be able to in most cases. They usually healed VP first and WP second. You didn't actually get injured at all by normal hits unless your VP were gone. Once your VP were gone, if you got hit again the damage went directly to your WP. VP slowly regenerated on thier own.
Your Wound points equaled your Con score.
They measured how much actual damage your body could withstand. Critical hits dealt no extra damage (had no multiplier, instead threat range increased), but instead bypassed VP to deal damage directly to your WP. Once a single point of damage was taken by your WP, you became fatigued (you are now officially injured). Each time you took Wound damge, you had to save or be stunned. Once you reached zero WP, you were disabled and had to save or fall unconscious and begin dying. Some healing spells healed WP first and VP second.

I prefered the VP/WP system immensely to the abstract HP system, and used it almost exclusively.

[Strill]

Revamp/replace the concentration system. I understand the need to cut back on rediculous buff stacking and other shenanigans, but the current set up goes too far in my opinion. My suggestion, run it much like magic items, location dependent rather than source dependent limits. A character can only have one beneficial duration affect on them at a time. A specific location can only have one duration AOE effect active at once. Casting onto a character or location with a spell already active works a bit like dispel magic. Success means the prior spell is canceled, failure means the new spell is suppressed wherever it overlaps with the old.

That's horrible. It's even MORE limiting than the current system. Your system limits a bunch of class features that aren't currently subject to Concentration. The Ranger can't even use Primeval Awareness without dispelling everything within a mile!

It also results in ridiculous inter-party bickering over who's allowed to use an AoE spell. The Paladin wants to cast Beacon of Hope, the Wizard wants to cast Cloudkill, the Monk wants to cast Darkness, and the Druid wants to cast Plant Growth. Now everyone's unhappy. Not to mention the fact that the Hallow spell is now useless.

[JAL_1138]

It was a system from another d20 game which became an optional variant rule in 3e.

[...]

I preferred the VP/WP system immensely to the abstract HP system, and used it almost exclusively.

Wounds, not Health, that was it. Thanks. I knew I was getting the term wrong somehow, but I couldn't remember.
It was from D20 Star Wars, I think. It's been years though and my memory's fuzzy. I agree--I favor it because it's not that much more complicated than HP and cuts way down on the verisimilitude problems HP abstraction brings, like ignoring a dagger at your unprotected throat because it's a measly d4+bonus, or the common "shouting lethal axe-wounds closed" complaint often leveled against the 4e Warlord. You also don't have to retcon a grievous bite wound from something with more teeth than the Osmond family that nearly killed you into a scratch that healed overnight if the player takes a nap and spends a hit die. I was very happy to see it in the DMG ToC.

[Daishain]

That's horrible. It's even MORE limiting than the current system. Your system limits a bunch of class features that aren't currently subject to Concentration. The Ranger can't even use Primeval Awareness without dispelling everything within a mile!

It also results in ridiculous inter-party bickering over who's allowed to use an AoE spell. The Paladin wants to cast Beacon of Hope, the Wizard wants to cast Cloudkill, the Monk wants to cast Darkness, and the Druid wants to cast Plant Growth. Now everyone's unhappy. Not to mention the fact that the Hallow spell is now useless.
I knew I should have gone into more detail. The idea depends on definitions not currently in place.

I was referring to active regional magical effects, and only within the region they are directly affecting.

Primeval awareness and other information gathering spells are completely unaffected, as are "radiating" spells such as Beacon of hope.

You do have conflict between stuff such as cloudkill and darkness, but that is just so it is difficult to hit one group with six different status effects at once. Some minimal level of coordination can still have anyone stumbling out of the darkness run into the gas cloud. Similarly, a wall of force can still be used to prevent people from leaving a cloudkill spell.

Also, if spells come into conflict, the caster can choose not to attempt a dispel on the prior one, or if they succeed, to have the older spell be the one suppressed within the area of the new one.

Frankly, I think it makes sense, with most AOE spells, two or more different "programs" are attempting to rewrite the weave in different ways at the same time and location. For there to be no conflict at all may be convenient in many cases, but not exactly likely.

[odigity]

You can cast a 9th level arcane spell which duplicates a divine spell. It's called Wish.

I wish I could hit a button that would delete every post complaining about Wish or using Wish as part of some kind of plan.

It's a 9th level spell. You only get it at 17th level, minimum, and you can only cast it once per day. It doesn't negate the usefullness of other abilities, and it's not even available for 80% of your characters's career (assuming a 20 level career) - realistically, not available for 99% of most characters lifetime since very few chars survive/get played through level 17 anyway.

Just let it go. Yes, it can be any spell, once per day. It's the wizard's capstone for not getting any other interesting abilities besides a really big spellbook. (lowest HD in the game and not even sorcery points or metamagic to play with) Let's move on now.

[MaxWilson]

Just let it go. Yes, it can be any spell, once per day. It's the wizard's capstone for not getting any other interesting abilities besides a really big spellbook. (lowest HD in the game and not even sorcery points or metamagic to play with) Let's move on now.

This isn't about Wish, but you're being unfair to wizards here. Diviners get a really interesting ability at 2nd (strengthened at 14th), Necromancers get interesting abilities at 6th and 14th, Transmuters get the best money-making noncombat ability in the game at 14th (sell eternal youthfulness!), Conjurors get amazing summons, Abjurors get magic resistance and damage resistance to spells... wizards get a lot of interesting abilities.

[JAL_1138]

I wish I could hit a button that would delete every post complaining about Wish or using Wish as part of some kind of plan.

It's a 9th level spell. You only get it at 17th level, minimum, and you can only cast it once per day. It doesn't negate the usefullness of other abilities, and it's not even available for 80% of your characters's career (assuming a 20 level career) - realistically, not available for 99% of most characters lifetime since very few chars survive/get played through level 17 anyway.

Just let it go. Yes, it can be any spell, once per day. It's the wizard's capstone for not getting any other interesting abilities besides a really big spellbook. (lowest HD in the game and not even sorcery points or metamagic to play with) Let's move on now.

And if they roll a 1 or 2 on a D6 after casting it, it's gone for good. Permanently, forever, this spell is dead, it has gone to meet its maker, it has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, this is an ex-spell, gone. I don't understand how it's a problem.

[odigity]

And if they roll a 1 or 2 on a D6 after casting it, it's gone for good. Permanently, forever, this spell is dead, it has gone to meet its maker, it has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, this is an ex-spell, gone. I don't understand how it's a problem.

That's only if you use it to do something other than casting a level 1-8 spell. As long as you only ever do that, you can continue to cast Wish once per day for the rest of your life at no extra cost.

Which is fine. It's once per day, and it's just a level 1-8 spell. You know, the same spells everyone else has access to and can cast, often more than once a day.

[JAL_1138]

That's only if you use it to do something other than casting a level 1-8 spell. As long as you only ever do that, you can continue to cast Wish once per day for the rest of your life at no extra cost.

Which is fine. It's once per day, and it's just a level 1-8 spell. You know, the same spells everyone else has access to and can cast, often more than once a day.

My mistake, away from book at the moment. Still, agreed. It's a non-issue. "Wizard" is the Old Grognardish word for "versatile" anyway. :smallsmile:

[mcintma]

I wish I could hit a button that would delete every post complaining about Wish or using Wish as part of some kind of plan.

It's a 9th level spell. You only get it at 17th level, minimum, and you can only cast it once per day. It doesn't negate the usefullness of other abilities, and it's not even available for 80% of your characters's career (assuming a 20 level career) - realistically, not available for 99% of most characters lifetime since very few chars survive/get played through level 17 anyway.

Just let it go. Yes, it can be any spell, once per day. It's the wizard's capstone for not getting any other interesting abilities besides a really big spellbook. (lowest HD in the game and not even sorcery points or metamagic to play with) Let's move on now.

Agree. Wizard has been nerfed in 5e (I'm talking high levels, 5e Wiz are solid at low-mid levels IME) and ppl should be worried more about 9 attacks/round martials and unkillable wildshapers at these levels than a 1/day spell that might actually accomplish something (or might not ... monster magic resistance, energy and condition immunities, legendary auto-saves, etc.)

[Lokiare]

1) The Player's Handbook must contain everything you need to know to play the game, including guides on how to DM, roleplaying, exploration, creating a campaign, creating encounters, etc., and not just character creation, spells, and basic skill and combat resolution mechanics. If you buy the game and read it, you should be able to play or run that game, and not be required to find someone who already knows how to DM so that they can teach you all the things the players handbook currently leaves out.

2) There are a lot of vague rules. I would provide clear rules instead, so that the default game plays mostly the same at different tables. I would also provide lots of side bars with DM advice and optional rules, with examples that clearly lay out the impact of the rules. Stealth works like X by default, but if you want to make it easier do Y, if you want to make it harder do Z, and this is the likely impact on your game.

3) Class abilities and spell lists should not overlap between classes. Each class should do their unique things. The exception to this is the Bard. The Bard's gets Expertise, Extra Attack, and a nifty and balanced selection of spells from other classes, because being a jack-of-all-trades is his thing. But the Bard cannot select spells from other classes, because the cherry picking of signature spells from other classes completely undermines playing those classes.

4) Feats and Extra Attack are gained by all characters at the same rate based on your character level. This makes multiclassing an actual viable option. Fighter (and only the Fighter) gets additional attacks as class abilities as well, and additional real class features at higher levels to make up for the loss of Feats.

5) Starting at level 11, non-spellcasters and partial-casters (Paladin, Ranger, Elritch Knightshould get class abilities that are comparable to 6th+ level spells in their awesomeness. They can be Short or Long Rest dependent as appropriate for their power level. They don't need to be magical. They just need to be awesome.

6) Add in some sort of Healing Surge or Short Rest heals everything or whatever mechanic into the core rules, so that Clerics or other dedicated healers are not required party members.

7) All spells that have a duration should require Concentration. If a spell requires Concentration, it should be worth using. I gate fiddly stuff that you sorta probably need but probably don't want to spend actual actions and/or resources on.


You can cast a 9th level arcane spell which duplicates a divine spell. It's called Wish.

Explain to me, in game world, why any one character should inherently, and without multiclassing, be able to do literally every single thing available.
Blast stuff? Sure.
Control the battlefield? Sure.
Buff the party? Sure.
Debuff the enemies? Sure.
Melee adequately? Sure.
Shoot ranged weapons adequately? Sure.
Be the trapsmith? Sure.
Cast Paladin only spells? Sure.
Cast Ranger only spells? Sure.
Cast Wizard only spells? Sure.
Cast every single spell in the book? Sure.
Cast every single spell that might ever come into print via splat? Sure.

Nah, that won't imbalance anything, bro. Good on ya.
Just remind your players not to ever roll a melee class, because even though 5e balanced them well this time compared to casters, you just invalidated all of that.
In fact, just remind them all to play clerics and druids, so they can be wizards with better hit points and armor weapons and cool abilities like wildshape.
But you're right. My response was the worst that you've seen on this forum.

You realize you nearly described the current Bard right?

I'd do most of the fixes in this thread and about 30 others that I can't remember now. I'd then send it through an independent software play testing company to run all combinations of all features of the game and tweak the numbers until it was balanced.

Some specific changes I would make:
Get rid of the concentration on many of the buff and multi-round area spells, replace with this:

Magical Field
You can only have one magical field on a creature or area of the same kind at a time. For instance Mage Armor produces an armor magical field and cannot be combined with Blur which also produces an armor magical field. Evard's Tentacles cannot be cast in the same area as a Stinking Cloud because they both produce aggressive magical fields.

Other than that I'd just chuck the whole thing and start over from the OGL and try to balance it while giving players the option of playing 4E style characters alongside their 3.x style counterparts (its what I'm doing with my OGL game).

[Shadow]

You realize you nearly described the current Bard right?

Not at all. The bard is extremely versatile, true. But he has access to six (or eight if you chose Lore) spells from different classes.
Not every. Single. Spell. Ever.
And his damage output sucks unless you multiclass or choose to use some of those magical secrets choices for blasting.
There's a big difference there.

[Lokiare]

Not at all. The bard is extremely versatile, true. But he has access to six (or eight if you chose Lore) spells from different classes.
Not every. Single. Spell. Ever.
And his damage output sucks unless you multiclass or choose to use some of those magical secrets choices for blasting.
There's a big difference there.

You only need 6 to get the best spells from each class including getting the Paladin and Ranger capstone spells before they do. They also get extra attacks, good weapons, spells that blast things etc...etc...

I also said nearly as they aren't in the top 3 DPR classes, but they are in the top 5 or so.

[Shadow]

You only need 6 to get the best spells from each class including getting the Paladin and Ranger capstone spells before they do. They also get extra attacks, good weapons, spells that blast things etc...etc...

I also said nearly as they aren't in the top 3 DPR classes, but they are in the top 5 or so.

You're missing the point though.
Under the rules suggested there wouldn't even be a reason to play a bard, because then you'd have to choose spells known.
There would literally be ZERO reason to play anything other than a cleric or druid.
D8 HD. Better weapons. Better armor. Cool abilities. Every single spell in the game without the need to learn them or find them, simply pray and it's yours.
That's WAY beyond what a bard can do, and if you think otherwise you're delusional.

[Lokiare]

You're missing the point though.
Under the rules suggested there wouldn't even be a reason to play a bard, because then you'd have to choose spells known.
There would literally be ZERO reason to play anything other than a cleric or druid.
D8 HD. Better weapons. Better armor. Cool abilities. Every single spell in the game without the need to learn them or find them, simply pray and it's yours.
That's WAY beyond what a bard can do, and if you think otherwise you're delusional.

Wow, calling me delusional.

First off I agree that the suggested rule wouldn't work. Second the Bard really is that good. You really only need about 6 awesome spells to break 5E over your knee like a dry twig. On top of the broken spells though bards get an extra attack, the ability to attack and cast in the same round, decent weapon and armor profs...etc...etc...

[JAL_1138]

I dunno about breaking it like a dry twig (though there are some spells that could use major fixes IMO) but I gotta agree that the 5e Bard is bonkers. Both subclasses. You can do a little of everything, but it's less "master of none" and more "master of a couple-three and pretty darn good at the rest."

EDIT: And by bonkers, I mean crazy-awesome.

[Nicol Bolas]

Is "throw out everything in the current edition" an option?

[charcoalninja]

- Replace Battlemaster Fighter with the 4e Fighter. Wouldn't even need to do much other than give them their marking mechanic, ability to take more than one reaction per Round (can be a level 12 or so ability) and pick some of the most iconic 4e Fighter powers to replace their crappy manuevers and call it a day.
- Add the Warlord. Seriously guys, how did you not include him. All his healing can be Temp HP to satisfy the "Shouting wounds closed" criticims and it would still be awesome.
- Add a Cleric Cantrip that heals a small amount of HP such as 4e's Astral Seal. The 4e leader role, healing your group every action was awesome, right now that doesn't exist. Seriously 5e Astral seal, On hit the next attack against the target has advantage to the roll and heals the attacker for 2+cha modifier. Range 60'. Done.
- Take pg 42 from the 4e DMG and put it in the PHB to give players some guidance on what they can do with their "actions the rules don't cover". Asking your DM for treats is fine for some, but I hate not knowing what my character can and can't do wholesail as 5e demands. If I want to do anything other than roll d20 and deal hp damage, I have to be a caster or beg the DM for freebies and that's not something I enjoy. With pg 42, you're still asking the DM for treats, but this way you have some idea of what's reasonable.
- Make short rests 5 minute affairs rather than 1 hour naps.
- Make all abilities from purely martial classes such as Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian and my new Warlord recharge on a short rest rather than a long rest. This helps the caster / martial divide by having casters have their uber utility magic as normal, but the trade off is that our mundies can go all day kicking ass.
- Indominable (Fighter feature) functions just like legendary resistance (3 auto succeeds) and recharges on a shourt rest.
- Trident is 1d8, Versitile 1d10.
That's about it really. Overall I like the core of the system, I just want more 4e in it. I'd change some of the monsters like Devils and Angels and Dragons to all include casting (ie cast spells as a caster = their CR so a Pit Fiend casts as a 20th level Cleric or Sorcerer)
- A feat at 1st level would be really REALLY nice.
EDIT:
oh forgot:
Druid Capstone - can change into any beast of CR 3 or lower unlimited
Wizard - Simulacrum altered to not allow simulacrums to make simulacrums.
True Polymorph - add that it can't make magical items
Paladin Smite spells - no longer require concentration.
A few housekeeping issues with the spell list, but overall the spells are pretty good this time around.

[Shadow]

-Paladin Smite spells - no longer require concentration.

You do realize that this is a blessing rather than a curse, right?
It's a bonus action to cast and it only applies when you hit with a melee attack. You're only going to actually concentrate on it if you miss, and even then you don't *have* to concentrate on it.
Making it a bonus action cast with concentration simply means that you don't lose the spell slot if the melee attack misses.
If you have another concentration spell active and the melee attack misses, you then have to choose whether you want to keep the former spell going or lose the smite slot that you used.
Smite spells being concentration spells is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Balyano]

Like it's been said before here, I think it will take a year or so to really get a good handle on what needs fixed.
Besides homebrew is more fun and if people don't like your homebrew they have an easier time ignoring it.

My homebrew uses a modified form of D20 Starwars Vitality/Wounds system. Pretty sure they plan to have this option available.

Class stat bonuses, +1 from race, +1 from subrace, +1 from class.
Each class giving a small selection to choose from.
I don't think they will go back to using class stat mods.
When I did it I redid humans as well.
Humans get +1 to a score of their choice and an additional +1 from their class, but can't choose the same one twice.
A human fighter would get +1 (any), +1 (str, dex, or con), +1 (str, dex, or con)
A human rogue would get +1 (any), +1 (dex, int, cha), +1 (dex, int, cha)
So a dwarven fighter might get +2 con (+1 dwarf, +1 fighter) +1 wis, a human fighter might get +1 str, +1 dex, +1 con, but can't stack to get a +2 str or +3 str

I'm experimenting with rangers and paladins using pact slots instead of spell slots.
The paladins pray to their god or an archangel for more miracles during rest.
The rangers negotiate with nature spirits, not a particular patron, might make deals with half a dozen spirits during a rest.
I figure wizards will offer some sort of rules for converting any class into a pact slot user, and probably for turning warlocks into a spell slot user, and probably a mana system will be an option in the rules, like the sorcerer in the playtest.

I redid the races to all have the race:subrace design.
Redid half races in general, my way makes any combination of two races easy to do, not sure about balance though.
I redid dragonborn as half-dragons and tieflings as half-fiends, trimmed them down and made them subraces that can be applied to any race.
I wouldn't expect wizards to do something like this though, people I've spoken to about it either love it or hate it.

[Person_Man]

RE: Bard and 5E class design in general

I love 5E. But to expand upon a point I made in my earlier post, the something that I strongly dislike about 5E is the Venn Diagram design of the classes. Classes have overlapping class abilities and spells. I believe that this is poor design for a number of different reasons.

First, it makes each class less unique. If a player wants to fill a specific role, they should clearly know which class fills that role best, or is mediocre at it, or is bad at it. The overlapping class features and spells forces players to have a high level of rules mastery in order to discern this, and it will constantly shift as new supplements are published.

Second, it leads to more imbalanced class resources. Some classes gain the same or same-ish stuff, but at different levels. This is particularly noteworthy when comparing the Paladin, Ranger, Eldridge Knight, and Arcane Trickster to full casters, particularly the Lore Bard.

Third, it makes it very hard (or at least time consuming) to discern what each spellcaster can do at each level. Since multiple classes can access each spell, the spells are lumped together in the back alphabetically, instead of being listed with each class by spell level. So if I'm a newer player (and we're all new-ish players to this edition right now) and I want to create a mid or high level spellcaster, the process of chosing spells can take hours upon hours of flipping back and forth trying to figure things out.

Fourth, and most importantly, it leads to lazy writing. Instead of having truly unique and interesting options for each class, each class gets a handful of cool unique-ish things kludged together with the more generic options.

If there are truly generic options that mutltiple classes should have access to, then they should be listed as Feats, and (if necessary) given classes starting Feat packages. If there are certain spells that every spellcaster should have access to, then they should be on a Universal spell list.

[Sartharina]

First off I agree that the suggested rule wouldn't work. Second the Bard really is that good. You really only need about 6 awesome spells to break 5E over your knee like a dry twig. On top of the broken spells though bards get an extra attack, the ability to attack and cast in the same round, decent weapon and armor profs...etc...etc...The timeframe you gain the out-of-class spells dramatically reduces the possibility of spell poaching abuse.

[charcoalninja]

You do realize that this is a blessing rather than a curse, right?
It's a bonus action to cast and it only applies when you hit with a melee attack. You're only going to actually concentrate on it if you miss, and even then you don't *have* to concentrate on it.
Making it a bonus action cast with concentration simply means that you don't lose the spell slot if the melee attack misses.
If you have another concentration spell active and the melee attack misses, you then have to choose whether you want to keep the former spell going or lose the smite slot that you used.
Smite spells being concentration spells is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Except that the moment you CAST the smite spell at all, your previous concentration spell ends (see the Spells section). Thus a Paladin cannot say, maintain bless or heroism on his party and actually use his smite spells. He has to choose, which is dumb. I'd rather the smite spell fail if they miss and waste the slot, if that means that a paladin can both fight and support his party at the same time.

[Shadow]

Except that the moment you CAST the smite spell at all, your previous concentration spell ends (see the Spells section). Thus a Paladin cannot say, maintain bless or heroism on his party and actually use his smite spells. He has to choose, which is dumb. I'd rather the smite spell fail if they miss and waste the slot, if that means that a paladin can both fight and support his party at the same time.

That's only true if ytour DM follows an *extremely* strict interpretation of the concentration rules.
5e is based on the concept of the DM making rulings rather than looking up rules. The vast majority of reasonable DMs will not make you concentrate on a spell which doesn't require concentration to maintain, and hitting with and expending the spell immediately upon casting it would not require any concentration because there's nothing to maintain. So the vast majority of reasonable DMs would allow you to maintain a bless spell (or whatever) and still use smite spells, as long as the smite doesn't miss.

[MReav]

- Add the Warlord. Seriously guys, how did you not include him. All his healing can be Temp HP to satisfy the "Shouting wounds closed" criticims and it would still be awesome.

Isn't that a Battlemaster Fighter with Commander's Strike, Rally, and probably Maneuvering Attack?

[Person_Man]

Add the Warlord. Seriously guys, how did you not include him. All his healing can be Temp HP to satisfy the "Shouting wounds closed" criticims and it would still be awesome.

I, for one, would be fine with this.

But 5E was specifically designed to recapture old school and 3.X/PF players. The Warlord is despised by some of those players for the exact reason you alluded to, which can't be papered over with a rules tweak. So including the Warlord as a base class would most definitely invite flame wars on the edition, which they really want to avoid.

[charcoalninja]

That's only true if ytour DM follows an *extremely* strict interpretation of the concentration rules.
5e is based on the concept of the DM making rulings rather than looking up rules. The vast majority of reasonable DMs will not make you concentrate on a spell which doesn't require concentration to maintain, and hitting with and expending the spell immediately upon casting it would not require any concentration because there's nothing to maintain. So the vast majority of reasonable DMs would allow you to maintain a bless spell (or whatever) and still use smite spells, as long as the smite doesn't miss.

There's nothing extremely strict about the simple rule that says if you cast another spell with a duration of concentration your previous one ends. That's about as strict and up for interpretation as saying "a Longsword does 1d8 damage"...

[charcoalninja]

Isn't that a Battlemaster Fighter with Commander's Strike, Rally, and probably Maneuvering Attack?

No. Not even a little.

That's like saying a Fighter with the magical initiate feat is a cleric.


But 5E was specifically designed to recapture old school and 3.X/PF players. The Warlord is despised by some of those players for the exact reason you alluded to, which can't be papered over with a rules tweak. So including the Warlord as a base class would most definitely invite flame wars on the edition, which they really want to avoid.

Temp hp removes the whole flavour issue of a warlord in one little tweak IMO.

[Xetheral]

That's only true if ytour DM follows an *extremely* strict interpretation of the concentration rules.
5e is based on the concept of the DM making rulings rather than looking up rules. The vast majority of reasonable DMs will not make you concentrate on a spell which doesn't require concentration to maintain, and hitting with and expending the spell immediately upon casting it would not require any concentration because there's nothing to maintain. So the vast majority of reasonable DMs would allow you to maintain a bless spell (or whatever) and still use smite spells, as long as the smite doesn't miss.

I don't see any reason to think the vast majority of DM's would follow your interpretation--quite the contrary. In cases where the RAW is ambiguous or interpreting it as literally written would lead to arguably-absurd results, I'm all for finding an interpretation that seems reasonable. But here the RAW is clear: PHB page 203 explains that casting another spell that requires concentration breaks concentration on a previously-cast spell. There is nothing I see inherently absurd, overly-technical, or game-breaking in reading that rule plainly, nor do I see any indication that a plain reading produces a result contrary to the designer intent. Moreover, your reading doesn't seem plausible to me, either as RAW or RAI.

Are you noticing ambiguity where I am not? Unless I'm missing something, I would think it would never even occur to the vast majority of DMs to interpret the concentration rules as you are.

That being said, I'd consider tweaking the smite spells to no longer require concentration (but still letting them last through a miss). It might not present any balance problems, and certainly would allow a paladin player to make more effective use of their spells. If it's more fun and not unbalancing, it might make a great house rule.

[Shadow]

Smite spells that do not miss are effectively instantaneous spells.
Any DM that requires you to lose concentration on another spell just because you smote someone is being too much of a rules lawyer and needs to see the video of Mearls telling players to "make rulings, not rules."
The correct and reasonable ruling is that smite spells only require concentration if every single attack made that round misses.

[Xetheral]

Smite spells that do not miss are effectively instantaneous spells.

If they are instantaneous spells, how can they last beyond the bonus action required to cast them? It seems that, at a minimum, the spells last until you take the action required to make the melee weapon attack that can benefit from the spell.


Any DM that requires you to lose concentration on another spell just because you smote someone is being too much of a rules lawyer and needs to see the video of Mearls telling players to "make rulings, not rules.".

We're going to have to disagree here. I don't see anything in the plain reading of the concentration rules that makes the interpretation rules-lawyer-ish at all.


The correct and reasonable ruling is that smite spells only require concentration if every single attack made that round misses.

I'm not following your argument; could you try rephrasing it? Specifically, I don't understand how a ruling can be "correct"--doesn't the entire point of a making a ruling rather than a rule preclude the possibility of that ruling being right or wrong? Similarly, if, as you claim, there is only one possible reasonable ruling, how is that different than a rule?

[Shadow]

If they are instantaneous spells, how can they last beyond the bonus action required to cast them? It seems that, at a minimum, the spells last until you take the action required to make the melee weapon attack that can benefit from the spell.
I didn't say they were instantaneous spells. I said they were effectively instantaneous spells. As in, you cast the spell and it does not linger into anyone else's turn, let alone into later rounds. You cast the spell, it goes off on your turn, its effect is over. That's an instantaneous spell. And that's exactly what the smite spells do unless you miss every single attack that round. So they are effectively instantaneous spells. Concentration was only added so that the spell itself was not the attack. Concentration was added so that if your first attack missed, your second attack (via extra attack) would hit and you would not lose the spell slot, as they are an extremely limited and valuable resource for paladins.

We're going to have to disagree here. I don't see anything in the plain reading of the concentration rules that makes the interpretation rules-lawyer-ish at all.
With the above point in mind, that a smite spell which doesn't miss is effectively an instantaneous spell, forcing someone to lose concentration on a spell because he smote someone is unreasonable. If it's unreasonable, then following the rule to the letter even when it doesn't make sense to do so is rules lawyering.

I'm not following your argument; could you try rephrasing it? Specifically, I don't understand how a ruling can be "correct"--doesn't the entire point of a making a ruling rather than a rule preclude the possibility of that ruling being right or wrong? Similarly, if, as you claim, there is only one possible reasonable ruling, how is that different than a rule?
In blue. Does that explain my viewpoint on it more clearly for you?
edit: Make rulings, not rules. That's one of the key points upon which 5e is built, and it applies here more than in most cases in my mind.

[charcoalninja]

Yeah, you're free to make things up all you like, but for forum discussions, and specifically on facts about the system/rules that we would like to change, I think most of us would like to discuss the rules as they actually exist.

It's plain as day. Casting a spell with a duration of concentration ends any concentration spells you previously had running. Full stop. That's how the game works, but you're welcome to houserule it away all you like. You, explicitly in the rules, cannot have bless up and use a smite spell without ending your bless spell anymore than a warlock can cast resurrection.

EDIT: This sets up a terrible precident for you as now the caster can freely use spells like say CloudKill, casting them on their turn and immediately ending it, while keeping another spell active such as fly. This would allow a caster to say, use haste to fly away and dismiss it before the end of his turn making all those such spells "effectively instantaneous". The game doesn't work that way for a very specific reason. In the Paladin's case, that reason bones him as the intent probably was to allow the spell to remain active in case they miss, but has the result of instead limiting their options in combat. If your allies NEED bless for example, you cannot use the smite spells and must rely only on your Divine Smite feature which is unfortunate.

[Shadow]

EDIT: This sets up a terrible precident for you as now the caster can freely use spells like say CloudKill, casting them on their turn and immediately ending it, while keeping another spell active such as fly. This would allow a caster to say, use haste to fly away and dismiss it before the end of his turn making all those such spells "effectively instantaneous". The game doesn't work that way for a very specific reason. In the Paladin's case, that reason bones him as the intent probably was to allow the spell to remain active in case they miss, but has the result of instead limiting their options in combat. If your allies NEED bless for example, you cannot use the smite spells and must rely only on your Divine Smite feature which is unfortunate.

And herein lies the whole point of the Make rulings, not rules design.
Spells like haste and cloudkill are not instantaneous effects which happen and then end. They are spells which remain in place and continue as long as you concentrate on them for the duration.
Smite spells do not remain. They are single use. There's a difference, and that difference is important.

[charcoalninja]

And herein lies the whole point of the Make rulings, not rules design.
Spells like haste and cloudkill are not instantaneous effects which happen and then end. They are spells which remain in place and continue as long as you concentrate on them for the duration.
Smite spells do not remain. They are single use. There's a difference, and that difference is important.

The spells remain in place, exactly as long as a Paladin's smite if the caster so desires. Why then does the Paladin's spells get a pass while the Wizard's doesn't? It's inconsistant application of a formative mechanic a DM is making up on the fly and shows IMO the striking weakness of "make rulings not rules". It undermines the player's ability to plan out their character's actions because you have no clue if you can actually do what your character sheet says you can do because "rulings".

[MaxWilson]

And herein lies the whole point of the Make rulings, not rules design.
Spells like haste and cloudkill are not instantaneous effects which happen and then end. They are spells which remain in place and continue as long as you concentrate on them for the duration.
Smite spells do not remain. They are single use. There's a difference, and that difference is important.

Why not just remove "Concentration" as a requirement from Smite spells? You can have non-Concentration spells with a duration. The only reason for making them Concentration spells is 1.) to make them disruptable, 2.) to make them mutually-exclusive with other actions requiring Concentration. That's it.

[Shadow]

The spells remain in place, exactly as long as a Paladin's smite if the caster so desires. Why then does the Paladin's spells get a pass while the Wizard's doesn't? It's inconsistant application of a formative mechanic a DM is making up on the fly and shows IMO the striking weakness of "make rulings not rules". It undermines the player's ability to plan out their character's actions because you have no clue if you can actually do what your character sheet says you can do because "rulings".

It doesn't remain in place as long as the paladin desires. He hits, the effect happens, the spell ends.
Compare that to your haste example. There is nothing that ends the spell with similar effect. There is no situation where the caster does something to make the spell effect trigger. The spell remains as long as he wants it to.
That's not how smite spells work. The effect triggers and the spell ends.
They are two completely different kinds of spells.

[Sartharina]

Smite spells that do not miss are effectively instantaneous spells.[quote]No they're not - they're a bonus action to initiate and have an 'until expended' duration - which may be on the same round.
[quote]The correct and reasonable ruling is that smite spells only require concentration if every single attack made that round misses.If you cast Smite but don't concentrate, it fizzles before you can bring your weapon to bear against that foe.

If you cast the smite as part of the attack, you'd have a point. But you have to cast before you attack.

[Abithrios]

Why not just remove "Concentration" as a requirement from Smite spells? You can have non-Concentration spells with a duration. The only reason for making them Concentration spells is 1.) to make them disruptable, 2.) to make them mutually-exclusive with other actions requiring Concentration. That's it.

That might let you stack multiple smite spells on one attack. I might either house rule that paladins get a class feature that lets them concentrate on a single smite spell in addition to a non smite spell, OR make all smite spells simply applications of divine smite with slightly different effects.

[Xetheral]

In blue. Does that explain my viewpoint on it more clearly for you?

Thank you for clarifying.


...a smite spell which doesn't miss is effectively an instantaneous spell, forcing someone to lose concentration on a spell because he smote someone is unreasonable. If it's unreasonable, then following the rule to the letter even when it doesn't make sense to do so is rules lawyering.

(emphasis added, internal quotes and cites omitted) This appears to be the root of the disagreement. Even accepting (for sake of argument) that smite is effectively instantaneous if it hits, I don't consider forcing someone to choose between smites and buffs to be at all unreasonable. I might not agree with the design decision, but it seems a perfectly rational and reasonable balancing choice to me. Because I consider it reasonable, I'm less amenable to an expansive reading of the rules such as yours.


edit: Make rulings, not rules. That's one of the key points upon which 5e is built, and it applies here more than in most cases in my mind.

Personally, I don't think that principle applies to your argument here at all, because you appear to be making a rules-based claim rather than a rulings-based one. You're claiming that:


The correct and reasonable ruling is that smite spells only require concentration if every single attack made that round misses.

And that argument might indeed be *a* reasonable ruling, but by claiming it is "the" correct ruling and "the" reasonable ruling, you appear to be arguing that your ruling is the only "correct" ruling. I'd argue that, by definition, rulings can't be correct or incorrect, nor can a particular ruling be exclusively reasonable. The whole point of rulings is that they will vary from table to table, is it not?

Ultimately, if you're claiming your "ruling" is the only correct and the only reasonable one, it seems to me that you're actually arguing about the rule itself, whatever terminology you use.

[Lokiare]

Thank you for clarifying.



(emphasis added, internal quotes and cites omitted) This appears to be the root of the disagreement. Even accepting (for sake of argument) that smite is effectively instantaneous if it hits, I don't consider forcing someone to choose between smites and buffs to be at all unreasonable. I might not agree with the design decision, but it seems a perfectly rational and reasonable balancing choice to me. Because I consider it reasonable, I'm less amenable to an expansive reading of the rules such as yours.



Personally, I don't think that principle applies to your argument here at all, because you appear to be making a rules-based claim rather than a rulings-based one. You're claiming that:



And that argument might indeed be *a* reasonable ruling, but by claiming it is "the" correct ruling and "the" reasonable ruling, you appear to be arguing that your ruling is the only "correct" ruling. I'd argue that, by definition, rulings can't be correct or incorrect, nor can a particular ruling be exclusively reasonable. The whole point of rulings is that they will vary from table to table, is it not?

Ultimately, if you're claiming your "ruling" is the only correct and the only reasonable one, it seems to me that you're actually arguing about the rule itself, whatever terminology you use.

The problem with 'make rulings, not rules' is that they failed to enable the DM to do both. They made the rules badly worded and easily misinterpreted. Then they didn't tell the DM the consequences of making the rulings they are forced to make.

For instance on the spell with 3 saves and stunned on each hit for contracting the disease. If you rule in favor of the spell caster then the spell is over powered and broken. If you rule against the spell caster the spell is nearly worthless and the player probably won't know this until its too late and they've tried it on a target. Either case is bad.

If they were serious about 'make rulings, not rules' they would have called out the spots the DM was supposed to arbitrate like they did in 2E and 1E. They should have also tightened up the language. You can use natural language without it being ambiguous. They failed at both.

For instance true polymorph could have easily been:

True Polymorph
At the DM's discretion you transform one creature into another creature or one object into a creature or one creature into an object. The creature has to be of a CR of your level or lower in all cases. The effect lasts until you fail to concentrate on it or becomes permanent after 1 hour of concentration.

See. No problems now. It works perfectly. There is no ambiguity and the DM is empowered to say no. They could have easily done this, but instead chose not to.

[Xetheral]

The problem with 'make rulings, not rules' is that...

I'm not advocating rulings over rules, I was simply discussing the relevance of that philosophy to the claim Shadow was making.

[Vogonjeltz]

It doesn't remain in place as long as the paladin desires. He hits, the effect happens, the spell ends.
Compare that to your haste example. There is nothing that ends the spell with similar effect. There is no situation where the caster does something to make the spell effect trigger. The spell remains as long as he wants it to.
That's not how smite spells work. The effect triggers and the spell ends.
They are two completely different kinds of spells.

If we could be more specific about what we're discussing, rather than trying to categorize something as a "smite spell" (that's not a thing)?

I see Searing Smite, it requires an action, and it also lasts only so long as concentration is maintained. So once you've cast it, you have a buff on your weapon, that buff only exists so long as your character concentrates on it remaining. That makes it mutually exclusive with any other spell that requires concentration.

Second point, the spell doesn't end when you hit the target. Instead it applies a debuff to the target which is a continuation of the spell. To maintain that continuation itself also requires concentration. So you can't tee up another Searing Smite while someone is suffering from the first one or cast any other spell requiring concentration (unless you want the spell to end of course).

Wrathful smite functions the same way (concentration until you hit someone, debuff applied, concentration to maintain spell as debuff). Ditto for Blinding, Branding, Staggering, and Banishing smites.

Thunderous smite has no continuing debuff, however the very act of maintining the spell until the melee attack lands is itself a timeframe of concentration (otherwise it would end before the attack could land).

The most apparent reason I can see is that the duration of concentration prevents the Paladin from using multiple smites at the same time (say, via action surge if they multiclassed into Fighter).

[Shadow]

If we could be more specific about what we're discussing, rather than trying to categorize something as a "smite spell" (that's not a thing)?

I see Searing Smite, it requires an action, and it also lasts only so long as concentration is maintained. So once you've cast it, you have a buff on your weapon, that buff only exists so long as your character concentrates on it remaining. That makes it mutually exclusive with any other spell that requires concentration.

Second point, the spell doesn't end when you hit the target. Instead it applies a debuff to the target which is a continuation of the spell. To maintain that continuation itself also requires concentration. So you can't tee up another Searing Smite while someone is suffering from the first one or cast any other spell requiring concentration (unless you want the spell to end of course).

Wrathful smite functions the same way (concentration until you hit someone, debuff applied, concentration to maintain spell as debuff). Ditto for Blinding, Branding, Staggering, and Banishing smites.

Thunderous smite has no continuing debuff, however the very act of maintining the spell until the melee attack lands is itself a timeframe of concentration (otherwise it would end before the attack could land).

The most apparent reason I can see is that the duration of concentration prevents the Paladin from using multiple smites at the same time (say, via action surge if they multiclassed into Fighter).

All of the [X] Smite spells basically work the same way.
First of all, it requires a bonus action, not an action. This is because it is intended to be used/spent/activated with a melee attack during the same round that the spell is cast.
Secondly, it does end when you hit the target. They state: "The next (or first, depending on the spell, but they're the same thing) time you hit a creature with a melee attack." not "for the duration of this spell."
It ends as soon as the attack hits and you have smote the enemy with the spell via a melee attack. Some of them, such as the one that you referenced, have a secondary effect that can be held for concentration. But the smite itself requires no concentration.

Anyway, I fail to see why my posts here are the ones that you have issue with.
I would think from your post that you would have more issue with the suggestion that concentration be removed from the smite spells.... which is what I'm arguing against.
Other people are saying that concentration should be removed.
I'm saying that it shouldn't, but that they should be treated as instantaneous spells unless you want to maintain the secondary effect. Remmber, I'm the one that said that smite spells being concentration was a good thing. I'm just advocating DM fiat on losing other concentration spells if you don't want the rider effect as well.

edit: But then again, there's no reason to use most of the smites unless you want the rider effect. So I guess I'm arguing that thunderous, staggering and destructive are the ONLY smites that I agree should have concentration removed.

[Vogonjeltz]

All of the [X] Smite spells basically work the same way.
First of all, it requires a bonus action, not an action. This is because it is intended to be used/spent/activated with a melee attack during the same round that the spell is cast.
Secondly, it does end when you hit the target. They state: "The next (or first, depending on the spell, but they're the same thing) time you hit a creature with a melee attack." not "for the duration of this spell."
It ends as soon as the attack hits and you have smote the enemy with the spell via a melee attack. Some of them, such as the one that you referenced, have a secondary effect that can be held for concentration. But the smite itself requires no concentration.

Anyway, I fail to see why my posts here are the ones that you have issue with.
I would think from your post that you would have more issue with the suggestion that concentration be removed from the smite spells.... which is what I'm arguing against.
Other people are saying that concentration should be removed.
I'm saying that it shouldn't, but that they should be treated as instantaneous spells unless you want to maintain the secondary effect. Remmber, I'm the one that said that smite spells being concentration was a good thing. I'm just advocating DM fiat on losing other concentration spells if you don't want the rider effect as well.

edit: But then again, there's no reason to use most of the smites unless you want the rider effect. So I guess I'm arguing that thunderous, staggering and destructive are the ONLY smites that I agree should have concentration removed.

A bonus action is, technically, a type of action (in the same way the reaction is a type of action). Sorry I didn't make the distinction, but it is irrelevant for balance purposes.

The spell quite specifically does not end upon striking the target when there are ongoing effects, as is mentioned in all the spells that I mentioned.

Destructive Smite isn't, that's a typo in the list, it's actually destructive wave and doesn't operate as the other spells that contain the smite name at all. (It's instantaneous for one thing)

And staggering smite has an ongoing effect on the target beyond the melee hit.

[Shadow]

A bonus action is, technically, a type of action (in the same way the reaction is a type of action). Sorry I didn't make the distinction, but it is irrelevant for balance purposes.

The spell quite specifically does not end upon striking the target when there are ongoing effects, as is mentioned in all the spells that I mentioned.

Destructive Smite isn't, that's a typo in the list, it's actually destructive wave and doesn't operate as the other spells that contain the smite name at all. (It's instantaneous for one thing)

And staggering smite has an ongoing effect on the target beyond the melee hit.

There is a meaningful difference between an action and a bonus action, and it is not irrelevant.
Destuctive Smite/Wave was/is an editing error from version changes through the playtest.
Staggering Smite's "ongoing effect" isn't an ongoing effect that you concentrate on. It's a one time effect that ends at the end of the creature's next turn, regardless of concentration (and it actually says nothing about concentration in the description at all except for the "next time you hit" clause).
Smite > save > fail = [this] until end of next turn.
So it has no ongoing effect in the manner you speak of, which would require concentration.

And you completely ignored what I considered the most important part of that post relevant to you, which leads me to believe that you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
We're on the same side here, we just disagree about one minor detail. You should focus your efforts on those that think concentration should be dropped altogether.

[JAL_1138]

Temp hp removes the whole flavour issue of a warlord in one little tweak IMO.


As one of those people who can't stand the Warlord (or any fast non-supernatural healing of serious injuries, which is problematic for me because HP is by its very nature too abstracted to differentiate that from a near-miss unless the character has gone into death saves, at which point it's either been a serious injury or retconning has to happen), IMO replacing HP with the Vitality system does an even better job. Let the Warlord restore Vitality but not Wound Points and I have absolutely zero problem with the shouting. Forced movement without magic (or grappling and shoves), not so much, but healing Vitality but not Wounds, go for it.

If it were still going to be in the HP system, temp HP would probably be enough for me to stand it.

Or for the easiest route, make the printed Warlord fluff involve magic for the healing (and probably the movement), and then there's practically no break to verisimilitude involved. Basically all that sticks in anyone's craw--or at least what bothers me about it--is that the class does stuff that should require magic (or other supernatural force, such as Ki) to make sense, while the fluff claims it to be non-supernatural in any way. Tell me a warlord's using natural magical abilities that manifest through his/her voice and it's fine--Bards work that way, so why not?

[Abithrios]

As one of those people who can't stand the Warlord (or any fast non-supernatural healing of serious injuries, which is problematic for me because HP is by its very nature too abstracted to differentiate that from a near-miss unless the character has gone into death saves, at which point it's either been a serious injury or retconning has to happen), IMO replacing HP with the Vitality system does an even better job. Let the Warlord restore Vitality but not Wound Points and I have absolutely zero problem with the shouting. Forced movement without magic (or grappling and shoves), not so much, but healing Vitality but not Wounds, go for it.

If it were still going to be in the HP system, temp HP would probably be enough for me to stand it.

Or for the easiest route, make the printed Warlord fluff involve magic for the healing (and probably the movement), and then there's practically no break to verisimilitude involved. Basically all that sticks in anyone's craw--or at least what bothers me about it--is that the class does stuff that should require magic (or other supernatural force, such as Ki) to make sense, while the fluff claims it to be non-supernatural in any way. Tell me a warlord's using natural magical abilities that manifest through his/her voice and it's fine--Bards work that way, so why not?
Are golems and undead magical in 4e? They are not in 3.5.

[JAL_1138]

Are golems and undead magical in 4e? They are not in 3.5.

If they're not I would have an issue with it--both would require something supernatural going on, to me. Neither one just happens as a normal function of the world, just like people aren't naturally capable of jumping over a live elephant in a single bound unless they've got something spooky happening. (Though terminology gets headachey when you talk about natural magic, like a surge of magical energy sweeping over a cemetery and causing a lot of zombies). I didn't remember that from 3rd, but I didn't play much of it so I'll take your word for it. Anything animated that shouldn't be (barring critters that violate that pesky square-cube law that makes RL so dull in terms of giant monsters) should carry some indication of supernaturality, IMO. How can a skeleton attack you without something supernatural allowing it to hold together without ligaments, perceive its surroundings without eyes or ears, and move without muscles? How can a statue (in the case of a stone golem) do the same things, and bend its joints without breaking?

EDIT: The terminology also gets weird because I'm using "magic" as shorthand/interchangeable for "supernatural of any kind," and the rules don't. Ki isn't expressly called magic, for example, nor are psionics. They're still something besides "Don't skip leg day, bro" when explaining how a monk can leap twenty feet straight up. :smalltongue:

[MukkTB]

#1 I wait at least a year after releasing the DMG.
#2 I read a number of independent forums trying to understand the philosophies of multiple communities.
A. I take that knowledge with a grain of salt. First players will generally agitate for rules changes that will benefit them, not changes that will make the overall game better. Second players are not designers. Third players will occasionally ask for things they don't really want. 4th edition shows the clear danger of listening to one school of thought too much.
B. I take note of all the places RAW is too shaky. I support unambiguous RAW so that official play is easier. I personally don't care for this DM empowerment stuff when it comes to the very basic rules. A player should be able to sit down and know how things will roll if the read the rules, sit at a table without houserules, and don't try anything particularly cheesy. This is easy because players will compile lists of problems to be addressed.
#3 After accessing the player knowledge base, I will ask myself how the game can be improved without changing the flavor for the people who like it. Alternatively, if the game is doing terrible a year or so in, I will ask myself how I can change the flavor so people find it more palatable.

[JAL_1138]

#1 I wait at least a year after releasing the DMG.
#2 I read a number of independent forums trying to understand the philosophies of multiple communities.
A. I take that knowledge with a grain of salt. First players will generally agitate for rules changes that will benefit them, not changes that will make the overall game better. Second players are not designers. Third players will occasionally ask for things they don't really want. 4th edition shows the clear danger of listening to one school of thought too much.
B. I take note of all the places RAW is too shaky. I support unambiguous RAW so that official play is easier. I personally don't care for this DM empowerment stuff when it comes to the very basic rules. A player should be able to sit down and know how things will roll if the read the rules, sit at a table without houserules, and don't try anything particularly cheesy. This is easy because players will compile lists of problems to be addressed.
#3 After accessing the player knowledge base, I will ask myself how the game can be improved without changing the flavor for the people who like it. Alternatively, if the game is doing terrible a year or so in, I will ask myself how I can change the flavor so people find it more palatable.

...you win the thread, methinks :smallbiggrin:

[Eslin]

#1 I wait at least a year after releasing the DMG.
#2 I read a number of independent forums trying to understand the philosophies of multiple communities.
A. I take that knowledge with a grain of salt. First players will generally agitate for rules changes that will benefit them, not changes that will make the overall game better. Second players are not designers. Third players will occasionally ask for things they don't really want. 4th edition shows the clear danger of listening to one school of thought too much.
B. I take note of all the places RAW is too shaky. I support unambiguous RAW so that official play is easier. I personally don't care for this DM empowerment stuff when it comes to the very basic rules. A player should be able to sit down and know how things will roll if the read the rules, sit at a table without houserules, and don't try anything particularly cheesy. This is easy because players will compile lists of problems to be addressed.
#3 After accessing the player knowledge base, I will ask myself how the game can be improved without changing the flavor for the people who like it. Alternatively, if the game is doing terrible a year or so in, I will ask myself how I can change the flavor so people find it more palatable.

Sounds entirely reasonable, put this guy on it.

[Sartharina]

Are golems and undead magical in 4e? They are not in 3.5.Actually, they were magical in 3.5. They just have really tough innate magic that can't normally be detected in the same way other spell effects can.


As one of those people who can't stand the Warlord (or any fast non-supernatural healing of serious injuries, which is problematic for me because HP is by its very nature too abstracted to differentiate that from a near-miss unless the character has gone into death saves, at which point it's either been a serious injury or retconning has to happen), IMO replacing HP with the Vitality system does an even better job. Let the Warlord restore Vitality but not Wound Points and I have absolutely zero problem with the shouting. Forced movement without magic (or grappling and shoves), not so much, but healing Vitality but not Wounds, go for it.

If it were still going to be in the HP system, temp HP would probably be enough for me to stand it.

Or for the easiest route, make the printed Warlord fluff involve magic for the healing (and probably the movement), and then there's practically no break to verisimilitude involved. Basically all that sticks in anyone's craw--or at least what bothers me about it--is that the class does stuff that should require magic (or other supernatural force, such as Ki) to make sense, while the fluff claims it to be non-supernatural in any way. Tell me a warlord's using natural magical abilities that manifest through his/her voice and it's fine--Bards work that way, so why not?Well, it defeats the purpose of the Warlord. For this route, the Valor Bard is a Warlord.


All of the [X] Smite spells basically work the same way.
First of all, it requires a bonus action, not an action. This is because it is intended to be used/spent/activated with a melee attack during the same round that the spell is cast.
Secondly, it does end when you hit the target. They state: "The next (or first, depending on the spell, but they're the same thing) time you hit a creature with a melee attack." not "for the duration of this spell."
It ends as soon as the attack hits and you have smote the enemy with the spell via a melee attack. Some of them, such as the one that you referenced, have a secondary effect that can be held for concentration. But the smite itself requires no concentration.

Anyway, I fail to see why my posts here are the ones that you have issue with.
I would think from your post that you would have more issue with the suggestion that concentration be removed from the smite spells.... which is what I'm arguing against.
Other people are saying that concentration should be removed.
I'm saying that it shouldn't, but that they should be treated as instantaneous spells unless you want to maintain the secondary effect. Remmber, I'm the one that said that smite spells being concentration was a good thing. I'm just advocating DM fiat on losing other concentration spells if you don't want the rider effect as well.

edit: But then again, there's no reason to use most of the smites unless you want the rider effect. So I guess I'm arguing that thunderous, staggering and destructive are the ONLY smites that I agree should have concentration removed.The thing is - you do not cast the spell and attack with it at the same time. You have to first cast the Smite spell, begin concentration, then swing. If you stop concentrating before you swing, then it fizzles out. Do I have to start linking Power Rangers videos to show you what Smiting looks like? If you stop concentrating before you attack, then the magical energy flames that burst around your sword when you try to smite fizzle before you can land the blow, and it doesn't smite.

[Vogonjeltz]

So it has no ongoing effect in the manner you speak of, which would require concentration.

The spell's duration is concentration. If it happens within the confines of the text description, it's part and parcel of that. I don't see any reason to think otherwise.

The important part about distinctions between bonus/actions is that neither designation would actually prohibit someone from layering smites. The thing that prevents that is the Concentration element for the spell, and it is necessary as a matter of balance.

[Shadow]

Once again, I am NOT the one saying that concentration should be outright removed from the smite line of spells.
I'm done responding to you unless you figure that fact out after I've told you multiple times.

[Brookshw]

Stop myself. Go back. Errata 5 rather than expect anyone to shell out for a new edition.

[T.G. Oskar]

I, for one, would be fine with this.

But 5E was specifically designed to recapture old school and 3.X/PF players. The Warlord is despised by some of those players for the exact reason you alluded to, which can't be papered over with a rules tweak. So including the Warlord as a base class would most definitely invite flame wars on the edition, which they really want to avoid.

I wouldn't mind the Warlord either. I've said it before. And there was a "Warlord" before: it was called Marshal, and it barely had support in-game. The only support was a prestige class that made it somewhat closer to a Bard, and that's it. Even the Dragon Shaman got more support than the Marshal.

If the only problem is the "shouting closes wounds" thing and that ALONE is the only reason why people would be mad at the Warlord, then that's a really silly reason. What about the other abilities of the Warlord; the buffs? Or you won't tell me that their buffs were also "magical"?

I recall mentioning that the problem with the Warlord was that it felt like a very specific class, one that couldn't be expanded via archetypes as the Rogue or the Fighter could. I also recognized that they pulled off a good one by providing a way for the Paladin, a class known for its utterly specific flavor, to distinguish by means of the Sacred Oaths, so the difficulty was at most a mild annoyance.

That said, and to be on-topic:
I for one don't have problems with the Concentration mechanic, but I'd shift some of them. It's odd that spells like Mirror Image aren't Concentration-based, after all.
I'd work buffs like in Etrian Odyssey/Yggdrasil Labyrinth. There, the character can cast as many buffs as desired, but each character could have up to 3 buffs at once. Any more than that and the newer one displaced the first of the old ones (on a FIFO rotation). Singular and AoE buffs are counted separately: you could have a singular buff displace an AoE buff, but only on said character.
A way to add more Reactions, probably as class features for certain classes. Particularly, I'd mingle extra Reactions with Extra Attack, since I feel martial characters have been given the shaft on Reactions. That would make the Fighter the master at Reactions, while every other purely martial class (and maybe some of the caster classes such as the College of Valor Bard and the Warlock with the Blade boon and the specific invocation as well)
Rework some of the weapons. Return the old glory of certain weapons, like the Morningstar.
Boost the Beastmaster Ranger so that its pet can act a bit more individually and is slightly stronger. It's not like the Ranger will go broken because of it, after all.

Other than that, I don't find there's much to be changed. I find the game fine as it is, and if I want more complexity, I take my 3.5 books and my bunch of homebrew and work with it.

[Eslin]

As one of those people who can't stand the Warlord (or any fast non-supernatural healing of serious injuries, which is problematic for me because HP is by its very nature too abstracted to differentiate that from a near-miss unless the character has gone into death saves, at which point it's either been a serious injury or retconning has to happen), IMO replacing HP with the Vitality system does an even better job. Let the Warlord restore Vitality but not Wound Points and I have absolutely zero problem with the shouting. Forced movement without magic (or grappling and shoves), not so much, but healing Vitality but not Wounds, go for it.

If it were still going to be in the HP system, temp HP would probably be enough for me to stand it.

Or for the easiest route, make the printed Warlord fluff involve magic for the healing (and probably the movement), and then there's practically no break to verisimilitude involved. Basically all that sticks in anyone's craw--or at least what bothers me about it--is that the class does stuff that should require magic (or other supernatural force, such as Ki) to make sense, while the fluff claims it to be non-supernatural in any way. Tell me a warlord's using natural magical abilities that manifest through his/her voice and it's fine--Bards work that way, so why not?

I'm in the direct opposite camp here. The whole 'this kind of impossible/improbable effect should only be achievable with magic' thing has caused numerous issues in D&D, it's one of the reasons martials have dragged so far behind casters (and still do in 5e, out of combat casters have utility an order of magnitude greater). My favourite combo in 5e, the 80 foot high monk leap and toss, still requires me to cast jump and sometimes haste to achieve despite the fact that it would have been so easy to give martials those kinds of abilities. People need to stop focusing on strict realism in a flagrantly unrealistic game and let the level 20 fighter make a sword by crushing iron between his hands, let the level 20 rogue steal ideas and balance on clouds and have the level 20 barbarian be strong enough to wrestle a dragon.

As for warlord, fine, split it. Make a warlord focused on giving orders and buffs (temporary hp, move allies, give them temporary abilities), make a warlord focused on leading from the front (similar abilities, but stronger and dependent on you getting in close) and make a magical warlord who restores hit points and surrounds his ally's weapons in fire. That's fine. Just stop thinking that you need to stop giving martials nice things because it's unrealistic, your first thought should be 'how do we make giving martials these nice things palatable?'

[JAL_1138]

Actually, they were magical in 3.5. They just have really tough innate magic that can't normally be detected in the same way other spell effects can.

Ah, that spares my sanity then :smallsmile:


Well, it defeats the purpose of the Warlord. For this route, the Valor Bard is a Warlord.


Not quite, since the Valor Bard is a fullcaster. They're a mage who's ok with a sword, and even with the extra attack and Bardic Inspiration, the focus is still more on mage-type spells. Warlord should be less like a mage with a sword and more like a warrior with buffing and possibly healing. Something that'd be less jarring to see an enemy Orc or Hobgoblin have class levels in than Bard, for instance.


If the only problem is the "shouting closes wounds" thing and that ALONE is the only reason why people would be mad at the Warlord, then that's a really silly reason. What about the other abilities of the Warlord; the buffs? Or you won't tell me that their buffs were also "magical"?


Point. Shouting wounds closed was what it caught the most flak over, but the rest of its abilities make next to no sense without the supernatural. Yeah, the class has got some 'splainin to do if it expects me to believe it can function without magic (or psionics, or ki, or whatever) in some fashion.

But tell me it *is* supernatural in some way, and it's far less troubling, for the most part. Magic, psionics, whatever--as long as it's explained in a way that makes sense.

...I don't even like the class, but enough people are keen on it that I'd try to find a way to include it in a way that didn't break my suspension of disbelief, somehow or another. And saying "because magic" is usually enough metaphorical bubble-wrap to keep my suspension of disbelief from breaking. :smalltongue:

[Eslin]

Ah, that spares my sanity then :smallsmile:



Not quite, since the Valor Bard is a fullcaster. They're a mage who's ok with a sword, and even with the extra attack and Bardic Inspiration, the focus is still more on mage-type spells. Warlord should be less like a mage with a sword and more like a warrior with buffing and possibly healing. Something that'd be less jarring to see an enemy Orc or Hobgoblin have class levels in than Bard, for instance.



Point. Shouting wounds closed was what it caught the most flak over, but the rest of its abilities make next to no sense without the supernatural. Yeah, the class has got some 'splainin to do if it expects me to believe it can function without magic (or psionics, or ki, or whatever) in some fashion.

But tell me it *is* supernatural in some way, and it's far less troubling, for the most part. Magic, psionics, whatever--as long as it's explained in a way that makes sense.

...I don't even like the class, but enough people are keen on it that I'd try to find a way to include it in a way that didn't break my suspension of disbelief, somehow or another. And saying "because magic" is usually enough metaphorical bubble-wrap to keep my suspension of disbelief from breaking. :smalltongue:

No, it doesn't. It has no explaining to do other than 'this guy is really good at inspiring others', because insisting on people needing magic to achieve interesting things is what has been keeping martials behind casters for a very long time. It does not need to be explicitly supernatural in the same way that a high level fighter can plummet to earth from high orbit and walk it off without magic.

[Abithrios]

Ah, that spares my sanity then :smallsmile:



Not quite, since the Valor Bard is a fullcaster. They're a mage who's ok with a sword, and even with the extra attack and Bardic Inspiration, the focus is still more on mage-type spells. Warlord should be less like a mage with a sword and more like a warrior with buffing and possibly healing. Something that'd be less jarring to see an enemy Orc or Hobgoblin have class levels in than Bard, for instance.



Point. Shouting wounds closed was what it caught the most flak over, but the rest of its abilities make next to no sense without the supernatural. Yeah, the class has got some 'splainin to do if it expects me to believe it can function without magic (or psionics, or ki, or whatever) in some fashion.

But tell me it *is* supernatural in some way, and it's far less troubling, for the most part. Magic, psionics, whatever--as long as it's explained in a way that makes sense.

...I don't even like the class, but enough people are keen on it that I'd try to find a way to include it in a way that didn't break my suspension of disbelief, somehow or another. And saying "because magic" is usually enough metaphorical bubble-wrap to keep my suspension of disbelief from breaking. :smalltongue:

My point about golems and undead is that they function just fine in an antimagic field, do not ping as magical, and can neither be dispelled nor disjointed.

I think the reason that they don't call out things that break the laws of our world is just to keep the source books under 500 pages each. Even in 5e, a level 20 fighter can, under favorable conditions, kill someone every second in a sustainable way. The idea that swinging a sword for a living makes you nonmagical or worse, mundane, does not make much sense for legendary heroes in a highly magical world.

[JoeJ]

Not quite, since the Valor Bard is a fullcaster. They're a mage who's ok with a sword, and even with the extra attack and Bardic Inspiration, the focus is still more on mage-type spells. Warlord should be less like a mage with a sword and more like a warrior with buffing and possibly healing. Something that'd be less jarring to see an enemy Orc or Hobgoblin have class levels in than Bard, for instance.

That sounds like a paladin minus the traditional alignment. Maybe change the spell list a bit to replace some damaging spells with more buffs, but what else do you need?

[Gnomes2169]

Well, I'd errata first, fix the simulacrum/ stealth wording, make the beastmaster more usable (unless their wolf is Moonmoon, it should not be that dumb...) and just generally rebalance the weapon table. If I had to make a 5.5, however...

-Champion fighter would be scrapped, and the fighter would receive certain features from it as core abilities (improved crit at level 6, remarkable athlete at level 1, extra fighting style level 11, self healing at level 14...). Instead, I would put in a weapon master type subclass or a monk/ fighter hybrid (kensai of some kind).
-I would make an elemental rager barbarian (likely call it Primordial Rager) that functions somewhat like the Totem Barbarian (each subclass feature is a selection from four different element themed abilities).
-I would add in an Arcane Archer subclass for Ranger, because that's sort of a big thing for them. It would likely have more spells/ day or at least a recovery method, would poach thematic spells off of the wizard or sorc spell list, and likely be able to replace attacks with cantrips (making melee/ short ranged cantrips into ranged spells by shooting them from a bow) and eventually spells.
-Another thing for rangers: Make their capstone a part of favored enemy, remove the limit on uses/ day. Give them a force of nature like form or fifth subclass ability as a capstone.
-Add in a third sorc bloodline, likely dealing with undead, celestials or demons in some way. Or a (better balanced) rune mage (subclass in my sig). I do honestly expect either the demonic or undead bloodline to appear as a "villain" subclass in the DMG.

And that's... Really about it. I like pretty much everything else, no real issues here.

[Vogonjeltz]

Once again, I am NOT the one saying that concentration should be outright removed from the smite line of spells.
I'm done responding to you unless you figure that fact out after I've told you multiple times.

Oh it must have been some imposter who wrote this:

Smite spells that do not miss are effectively instantaneous spells.
Any DM that requires you to lose concentration on another spell just because you smote someone is being too much of a rules lawyer and needs to see the video of Mearls telling players to "make rulings, not rules."
The correct and reasonable ruling is that smite spells only require concentration if every single attack made that round misses.

Arguably that results in exactly what you claim to not be advocating, so it's a good thing that wasn't you.

My line of reasoning was that it was neither factually accurate to make the claim that a spell discharged soon after casting is "effectively instantaneous" nor is it balanced.

[Hytheter]

I'm not familiar with the Warlord, but it seems like it could easily be a sublcass of something else.

Make it a new Paladin Oath "Oath of Unity". Make the oath spells buffs, fill in the class features with abilities that suit the teamwork themes. Maybe some way to let allies use your smites, ranged lay one hands, or something.

Or make it a new Fighter archetype "Commander". Fighter is already part way there with some of the Maneuvers (Rally, Commander's strike), so it shouldn't be too hard to expand those effects - divorce them from superiority dice, add acaling - and make up some new ones that enhance the capability of allies via morale boosts and tactical insight (as opposed to magic).

There could also be a Bard school that expands upon the uses of Inspiration, though it might infringe on Valor bards both mechanically and flavour-wise.

[JAL_1138]

That sounds like a paladin minus the traditional alignment. Maybe change the spell list a bit to replace some damaging spells with more buffs, but what else do you need?

...there would be a lot of overlap now that you mention it; that may be why they skipped it. A warlord that doesn't rely on dissociated mechanics, and whose abilities are either interesting without needing magic to make sense, or actually are magic, seems to be a real headache to build without tripping over another class. It's not a class I'll miss personally, but it has enough enthusiasts I'd try to put it into 5.5 somehow... :smallconfused:

Speaking of Pallys, I'd give more guidance, in the PHB, on what happens if one breaks their oath but doesn't go fullbore Oathbreaker subclass.

[Eslin]

That sounds like a paladin minus the traditional alignment. Maybe change the spell list a bit to replace some damaging spells with more buffs, but what else do you need?

For one thing, the paladin is divine while the warlord is martial. It's kind of inherent to how the classes are supposed to be fluffwise, a divine martial/warlord is kind of killing the point.


I'm not familiar with the Warlord, but it seems like it could easily be a sublcass of something else.

Make it a new Paladin Oath "Oath of Unity". Make the oath spells buffs, fill in the class features with abilities that suit the teamwork themes. Maybe some way to let allies use your smites, ranged lay one hands, or something.

Or make it a new Fighter archetype "Commander". Fighter is already part way there with some of the Maneuvers (Rally, Commander's strike), so it shouldn't be too hard to expand those effects - divorce them from superiority dice, add acaling - and make up some new ones that enhance the capability of allies via morale boosts and tactical insight (as opposed to magic).

There could also be a Bard school that expands upon the uses of Inspiration, though it might infringe on Valor bards both mechanically and flavour-wise.

The problem is both of those classes are quite strong by themselves, with the chassis providing some power but not a lot. The warlord is supposed to be all about leading and supporting and buffing, to an extent that a subclass wouldn't really work because those features need to be strong enough that it would turn out overpowered. One of the key features of the warlord was regularly having other classes attack for them, making it a subtype seems a great way to have the warlord part turn underwhelming.

Besides, there is room for several subclasses. Lazylord, taclord, bravelord, reslord, all have different enough playstyles. Translated into fifth you could have a commander who focuses on buffing/healing/directing attacks, a frontline combatant who takes hits and gives nearby allies boosts and a ranged warlord that focuses on dealing damage in tandem with his allies.

[JoeJ]

For one thing, the paladin is divine while the warlord is martial. It's kind of inherent to how the classes are supposed to be fluffwise, a divine martial/warlord is kind of killing the point.

Paladins are pretty darn martial; proficiency in all weapons and armor, a fighting style, and multiple attacks at 5th level.

I'm afraid I don't get what you're asking for. What kind of buffs and healing does a non-divine warlord do? Do you mean something like giving pep talks to boost morale and bandaging wounds? That doesn't sound like enough to base a class on.

[MaxWilson]

Paladins are pretty darn martial; proficiency in all weapons and armor, a fighting style, and multiple attacks at 5th level.

I'm afraid I don't get what you're asking for. What kind of buffs and healing does a non-divine warlord do? Do you mean something like giving pep talks to boost morale and bandaging wounds? That doesn't sound like enough to base a class on.

The Inspirational Leadership feat suggests a certain flavor. It's a fantastic feat for a large party, BTW, and "large" can include "summoned creatures."

[Eslin]

Paladins are pretty darn martial; proficiency in all weapons and armor, a fighting style, and multiple attacks at 5th level.

I'm afraid I don't get what you're asking for. What kind of buffs and healing does a non-divine warlord do? Do you mean something like giving pep talks to boost morale and bandaging wounds? That doesn't sound like enough to base a class on.

They aren't martial, their power source is clearly divine.

A selection of powers they could use at will:
Target makes a basic attack against enemy of your choice
You deal strength mod damage to the foe, and an ally of your choice adds your charisma to the attack and damage of their next attack
You make a basic attack, and any ally who charges the foe deals extra damage equal to your int mod

Some examples of powers they could use more rarely:
You pull the target 3 squares and up to 3 allies can charge the target as a free action
(triggers when an ally is hurt by a foe) You move and do double weapon damage to the foe, and you heal the ally a certain amount +1d6 for every attack you took on the way to rescue them
Do damage to all foes within 5 feet and they have a penalty on saving throws.

Just using these as examples, nothing should be ported straight to 5e - a system of protecting, buffing, supporting and healing your allies should be created that makes sense with 5e's mechanics.

[JoeJ]

They aren't martial, their power source is clearly divine.

What do you mean by martial then? How are the armor and weapon proficiencies, fighting style, and extra attacks of a paladin any different than those of a fighter?


A selection of powers they could use at will:
Target makes a basic attack against enemy of your choice
You deal strength mod damage to the foe, and an ally of your choice adds your charisma to the attack and damage of their next attack
You make a basic attack, and any ally who charges the foe deals extra damage equal to your int mod

Some examples of powers they could use more rarely:
You pull the target 3 squares and up to 3 allies can charge the target as a free action
(triggers when an ally is hurt by a foe) You move and do double weapon damage to the foe, and you heal the ally a certain amount +1d6 for every attack you took on the way to rescue them
Do damage to all foes within 5 feet and they have a penalty on saving throws.

Just using these as examples, nothing should be ported straight to 5e - a system of protecting, buffing, supporting and healing your allies should be created that makes sense with 5e's mechanics.

Without knowing 4e rules and terminology I can't really parse those. It looks like a lot of giving damage bonuses to allies, except for the odd healing by being attacked. The pulling thing I assume is after a grab? Can you explain without using gamespeak what the character is doing in your examples?

[Eslin]

What do you mean by martial then? How are the armor and weapon proficiencies, fighting style, and extra attacks of a paladin any different than those of a fighter?
They are not. But the paladin's reason for being and source of power are different from the fighters - the fighter is martial, the paladin is divine.


Without knowing 4e rules and terminology I can't really parse those. It looks like a lot of giving damage bonuses to allies, except for the odd healing by being attacked. The pulling thing I assume is after a grab? Can you explain without using gamespeak what the character is doing in your examples?

I tried not to use any 4e specific terminology, that was me paraphrasing the abilities from memory.

Use your action, an ally gets to make an attack instead.
Do a small amount of damage to a foe, choose an ally and they add your charisma modifier to the attack and damage of their next attack against that foe
Attack a foe, any ally that charges that foe adds your intelligence modifier to the damage they deal
Target is moved 15 feet and 3 allies can instantly charge the foe
You move to a foe that just hurt an ally and attack it for heavy damage, healing your ally at the same time. The heal is increased for every attack you took doing so.
Do damage to all foes within 5 feet and give them a penalty on saving throws.

[Hytheter]

(triggers when an ally is hurt by a foe) You move and do double weapon damage to the foe, and you heal the ally a certain amount +1d6 for every attack you took on the way to rescue them

That sounds really, really paladin-y, especially the healing part. How does the healing part even make sense for a non-magical character?

[Eslin]

That sounds really, really paladin-y, especially the healing part. How does the healing part even make sense for a non-magical character?

As has been explained many times, it really doesn't have to. That any buffer/supporter has to be magical, especially if it's doing actual hp healing, is a really annoying trend that I was really glad that the warlord broke. HP is an abstraction, and if it grates on you too much to give martials nice things then make it temporary hp.

Paladins are a rare, very specific, divinely powered holy crusader type. They do not have a monopoly on 'I will protect and heal my allies'.

Warlords came in many flavours:
Archer warlord that focused on finding weak points for allies and co-ordinating damage
Commander warlord that did no attacking of their own, but commanded allies to attack and gave them various bonuses and abilities
Frontline warlord that buffed and protected those around them
and various variations and mixes.

[JoeJ]

They are not. But the paladin's reason for being and source of power are different from the fighters - the fighter is martial, the paladin is divine.

Okay, so make it a fighter archetype.


I tried not to use any 4e specific terminology, that was me paraphrasing the abilities from memory.

Use your action, an ally gets to make an attack instead.

Battle master already has this with the Commander's Strike maneuver.


Do a small amount of damage to a foe, choose an ally and they add your charisma modifier to the attack and damage of their next attack against that foe
Attack a foe, any ally that charges that foe adds your intelligence modifier to the damage they deal

Both of those are pretty similar to the Distracting Strike maneuver.


Target is moved 15 feet and 3 allies can instantly charge the foe

Anybody can grapple and move an enemy. Having it grant reactions to 3 allies would be OP though.


You move to a foe that just hurt an ally and attack it for heavy damage, healing your ally at the same time. The heal is increased for every attack you took doing so.

In what non-magical way does a warlord heal allies by being attacked himself? Binding wounds or inspiring somebody to "shake it off" I could see, but healing by being attacked doesn't make any sense.


Do damage to all foes within 5 feet and give them a penalty on saving throws.

You mean auto-damage, without even an attack roll? That's ridiculously OP.

Rather than a paladin, this is making it sound like a warlord is just a few tweaks away from a battle master fighter. Pick up the inspiring leader feat, and either healer or magic initiate to get the healing, and you should be set.

[Kurald Galain]

...there would be a lot of overlap now that you mention it; that may be why they skipped it. A warlord that doesn't rely on dissociated mechanics, and whose abilities are either interesting without needing magic to make sense, or actually are magic, seems to be a real headache to build without tripping over another class.

True enough. Many people just don't like an ability that goes "retroactively, it turns out that mortal strike from last round actually just missed you".

[Eslin]

Okay, so make it a fighter archetype.


Battle master already has this with the Commander's Strike maneuver.


Both of those are pretty similar to the Distracting Strike maneuver.


Anybody can grapple and move an enemy. Having it grant reactions to 3 allies would be OP though.


In what non-magical way does a warlord heal allies by being attacked himself? Binding wounds or inspiring somebody to "shake it off" I could see, but healing by being attacked doesn't make any sense.


You mean auto-damage, without even an attack roll? That's ridiculously OP.

Rather than a paladin, this is making it sound like a warlord is just a few tweaks away from a battle master fighter. Pick up the inspiring leader feat, and either healer or magic initiate to get the healing, and you should be set.

Except it isn't. The battlemaster fighter is a nice nod towards several concepts (warlord, tome of battle) but is ultimately one subclass that has a couple of half-assed imitations bolted onto the fighter class, it is no more a substitute than a ranger is for a druid.

As I made clear for those last examples you're calling OP, these were not at will abilities. These were abilities usable once per day.

Again, the difference between warlord and battlemaster fighter is the difference between eldritch knight and wizard - a fighter is a bruiser with these abilities tacked on, a warlord(wizard) is a class that makes those abilities their entire focus.

[JoeJ]

Except it isn't. The battlemaster fighter is a nice nod towards several concepts (warlord, tome of battle) but is ultimately one subclass that has a couple of half-assed imitations bolted onto the fighter class, it is no more a substitute than a ranger is for a druid.

As I made clear for those last examples you're calling OP, these were not at will abilities. These were abilities usable once per day.

What is the warlord doing that autohits and imposes saving throw penalties on everybody around him once a day? Why can he only grapple and say "okay everybody pile on" once a day? How does this make any more sense than healing somebody by being attacked?


Again, the difference between warlord and battlemaster fighter is the difference between eldritch knight and wizard - a fighter is a bruiser with these abilities tacked on, a warlord(wizard) is a class that makes those abilities their entire focus.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how what you describe would be unique enough to justify even a new archetype, let alone an entire class. It sounds like it's just a combination of paladin and fighter abilities.

[Sartharina]

They are not. But the paladin's reason for being and source of power are different from the fighters - the fighter is martial, the paladin is divine.Only half his reason for being and source of power is different from the fighter's, if that. A Paladin is a martial/divine hybrid. This isn't 4e, where everyone has one and only one power source.

[Hytheter]

How's this for a Commander Archetype for the Fighter? It covers most of what I think you're asking for. I'm not sure how balanced it is, but most of the effects work by cutting into the Fighters action economy, and some use allies reactions as well, so hopefully it isn't too powerful. Does this look satisfactory to Warlord fans (and balanced to everyone else)?

~~~~

Archetype Features:

Commander's Tactics:

When you take this archetype at 3rd Level, when you use the attack action you can forgo one attack to apply one of the following effects to an ally of your choice:
- They may move as a reaction.
- They may make a single weapon attack as a reaction
- They gain +2 AC for the next round.
You can only use Commander's Tactics once per use of the attack action.

Morale Boost:

At 7th level, when you use your Second Wind you may forgo the normal effect and instead have any ally gain Temporary HP equal to d10+Your Fighter Level. That ally also gains advantage on their next attack.

Advanced Tactics:

From 10th level, when you use Commander's Tactics you can grant one of the following effects to an ally by forgoing 2 attacks instead of one.
- They may move and make a single weapon attack as a reaction.
- They may, as a reaction, cast a cantrip that has a casting time of 1 action.
- They gain advantage on all attacks until the start of your next turn.
You can only use Commander's Tactics or Advanced Tactics once per use of the attack action.

Tactical Mastery:

From 15th level when you can use any number of Commander's Tactics and Advanced Tactics in a single action as long as you forgo the required number of attacks for each effect. You can also use Commander's Tactics (but not Advanced Tactics) by spending a bonus action instead of forgoing an attack.
You can't apply the same effect to the same ally more than once in a single turn.

Battlecry:

From 18th Level, when you use Morale Boost you can choose a number of allies, including yourself, up to your Charisma modifier (minimum 2) and have all selected allies gain the effect.

~~~~

Some notes:

I intentionally designed Commander's Tactics to be compatible with action surge, so you can occasionally use two tactics in one turn. From 15th level this gets pretty awesome, action surge basically becomes Command Surge and let's you grant all kinds of effects. At 20th you can forgo all attacks and just have 4 allies move and attack which is pretty cool. Just picture your guy yelling "CHAAAARGE!" at the top of his lungs for maximum effect.

Is +2 AC on Commander's Tactics too much for a level 3 ability? idk

The advantage effect on Morale boost is only because the ability seemed weak otherwise; it's just transferring your Second Wind to someone else which is no net gain for the party, and it doesn't stack with other forms of Temp HP. I figured it could use a boost to make it worth being a class feature, but that'd be the first thing to go if I was cutting back the archetype.

Battlecry might be too strong? Potentially heals the party by 100+5d10 if your Charisma is high enough. Maybe it should only be once per long rest?

Anyway that's my attempt at a "Warlord" for 5e. Tell me what you think.

[Eslin]

What is the warlord doing that autohits and imposes saving throw penalties on everybody around him once a day? Why can he only grapple and say "okay everybody pile on" once a day? How does this make any more sense than healing somebody by being attacked?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how what you describe would be unique enough to justify even a new archetype, let alone an entire class. It sounds like it's just a combination of paladin and fighter abilities.

I don't know, why can fighters only use ruinous assault once a day? Because that's how the edition worked, that's why. When I say I want a 5e warlord it means I want a 5e warlord, not a 4e warlord directly translated into 5e.

And it isn't a combination of fighter and paladin - those classes are both upfront martial combatants with a minor in spellcasting/maneuvers. The warlord was entirely about other people - think the direct combat prowess of, say, a bard. A fighter or paladin, pretty much no matter what, will end up spending most of their time saying 'I roll an auto attack'. A battlemaster fighter can spend some superiority dice on his first turn for a few effects and a paladin can cast low level spells, but they'll still spend their time as direct warriors - something a warlord was not about, a warlord's every action involved buffing/healing/supporting/moving/enabling his allies.

[T.G. Oskar]

Point. Shouting wounds closed was what it caught the most flak over, but the rest of its abilities make next to no sense without the supernatural. Yeah, the class has got some 'splainin to do if it expects me to believe it can function without magic (or psionics, or ki, or whatever) in some fashion.

But tell me it *is* supernatural in some way, and it's far less troubling, for the most part. Magic, psionics, whatever--as long as it's explained in a way that makes sense.

...I don't even like the class, but enough people are keen on it that I'd try to find a way to include it in a way that didn't break my suspension of disbelief, somehow or another. And saying "because magic" is usually enough metaphorical bubble-wrap to keep my suspension of disbelief from breaking. :smalltongue:

That's one of the things I don't like from 4e; by slapping "Martial" or "Divine" explicitly to a class, they expect the fluff to adhere rigorously to it. I prefer the implicit way of each class: I know the Paladin is set to be a tank, particularly if choosing the Protection fighting style, but it shouldn't be so obvious that the class has to do that. After all, by going Great Weapon Fighting and focusing on Smites, I could go for a more offensive kind of Paladin, even if it can't tank for [expletive].

The same thing goes for the Warlord: it is married to the idea of "since it's a Martial (i.e. Mundane) class, some stuff it does makes no sense". You can find some sense into it; it's just that because it's a martial class (i.e. a class suited primarily for combat) doesn't mean it has to be absolutely mundane. Sure, you can eventually heal; it can be a supernatural thing, and yet not be magic.

That's a thing I downright loathe about making the supernatural akin to magic. To me, magic is just part of the supernatural, not its definition. I don't mind the Warlord suddenly gaining healing abilities usable at Short Rests (even if they're mechanically indistinct to Channel Divinity options); if the fluff cost is making them supernatural (and thus making the Warlord less mundane), I couldn't care less. That doesn't make the Warlord any closer to a spellcaster; suggesting it does, though, is downright offensive since it necessarily implies that the supernatural HAS to be magic, without considering exceptions.

If it's hard to grok...the easiest way to handle this would be superpowers. To me, superpowers are an aspect of the supernatural, but are explicitly NOT magic unless mentioned otherwise. Some superheroes use magic (Dr. Strange, Zatanna) but not all. Suggesting for one moment that Superman's Kryptonian powers are a form of magic is downright offensive, and so does refluffing the Speed Force as a form of magic, or worse, considering mutants as innate spellcasters. It's a reason why I consider I can't make a superhero using D&D rules, and only in the d20 Modern system using 3rd party content. While it may seem off-topic, the idea is that the fluff regarding superpowers aims closer towards science (and probably quantum physics at best) than magic, making them effectively the opposite of magic (whether magic can be scientifically studied or not). Lumping superpowers as another form of "magic" when the fluff strictly suggests otherwise is just wrong; the setting has to explicitly go all the way to suggest otherwise for me to concede (think Shadowrun and how everything has to deal with Magic; even then, you can see the divide of Magic vs. Tech with how Tech ravages Essence).

To realign with the tangent within the topic: if Magic is just a manifestation of the supernatural, you can thus manifest abilities that are explicitly non-magical, yet still are supernatural in origin. If you make the supernatural undefinable, and magic as a part of the supernatural that's defined, you can make just about any class imaginable surpass mundane limitations without resorting to magic. A Warlord, if necessary, could start as a mundane leader with mundane abilities, but after a while it can unleash abilities that are explicitly not mundane, but not magical either. The Paladin's Channel Divinity ability is not magic by any means (otherwise, you'd use spell slots to power them up, as you do Smites; in fact, if there's something I consider a mild issue at best, is that Smites are now explicitly magical, rather than supernatural in origin as before). The Dragonborn's breath weapon could be considered magical by a stretch, since Dragons are inherently magical creatures by fluff; a Medusa's gaze attack, though, is strictly supernatural and not specifically tied into Magic, as it doesn't share its trappings. Therefore, if a racial ability and a class-based ability can be supernatural and not magical, why not work this with the Warlord? The Fighter's Action Surge and Second Wind abilities could be considered supernatural in origin, and yet are perfectly explainable as extraordinary.

Consider this: a Fighter can, after an hour of rest, spend some time to recover somewhere between 1 to around 25 hit points once, at any moment. I rarely find someone challenging this; why having a Warlord offer a sort of Second Wind to any other ally is suddenly out of bounds? Why having a Warlord grant a buff suddenly out of bounds, when (using 3.x terminology) it could easily be a morale or competence bonus, or even a circumstance bonus? And, if eventually you need to provide things like resistance to non-magical weapons, then make that supernatural (as JAL and others suggest), but explicitly non-magical. As I mentioned: if they eventually want to make the class, go with the Marshal from 3.5, which was a completely mundane class (even their Auras were Extraordinary abilities) and work Warlord abilities from there.

[Eslin]

That's one of the things I don't like from 4e; by slapping "Martial" or "Divine" explicitly to a class, they expect the fluff to adhere rigorously to it. I prefer the implicit way of each class: I know the Paladin is set to be a tank, particularly if choosing the Protection fighting style, but it shouldn't be so obvious that the class has to do that. After all, by going Great Weapon Fighting and focusing on Smites, I could go for a more offensive kind of Paladin, even if it can't tank for [expletive].

The same thing goes for the Warlord: it is married to the idea of "since it's a Martial (i.e. Mundane) class, some stuff it does makes no sense". You can find some sense into it; it's just that because it's a martial class (i.e. a class suited primarily for combat) doesn't mean it has to be absolutely mundane. Sure, you can eventually heal; it can be a supernatural thing, and yet not be magic.

That's a thing I downright loathe about making the supernatural akin to magic. To me, magic is just part of the supernatural, not its definition. I don't mind the Warlord suddenly gaining healing abilities usable at Short Rests (even if they're mechanically indistinct to Channel Divinity options); if the fluff cost is making them supernatural (and thus making the Warlord less mundane), I couldn't care less. That doesn't make the Warlord any closer to a spellcaster; suggesting it does, though, is downright offensive since it necessarily implies that the supernatural HAS to be magic, without considering exceptions.

If it's hard to grok...the easiest way to handle this would be superpowers. To me, superpowers are an aspect of the supernatural, but are explicitly NOT magic unless mentioned otherwise. Some superheroes use magic (Dr. Strange, Zatanna) but not all. Suggesting for one moment that Superman's Kryptonian powers are a form of magic is downright offensive, and so does refluffing the Speed Force as a form of magic, or worse, considering mutants as innate spellcasters. It's a reason why I consider I can't make a superhero using D&D rules, and only in the d20 Modern system using 3rd party content. While it may seem off-topic, the idea is that the fluff regarding superpowers aims closer towards science (and probably quantum physics at best) than magic, making them effectively the opposite of magic (whether magic can be scientifically studied or not). Lumping superpowers as another form of "magic" when the fluff strictly suggests otherwise is just wrong; the setting has to explicitly go all the way to suggest otherwise for me to concede (think Shadowrun and how everything has to deal with Magic; even then, you can see the divide of Magic vs. Tech with how Tech ravages Essence).

To realign with the tangent within the topic: if Magic is just a manifestation of the supernatural, you can thus manifest abilities that are explicitly non-magical, yet still are supernatural in origin. If you make the supernatural undefinable, and magic as a part of the supernatural that's defined, you can make just about any class imaginable surpass mundane limitations without resorting to magic. A Warlord, if necessary, could start as a mundane leader with mundane abilities, but after a while it can unleash abilities that are explicitly not mundane, but not magical either. The Paladin's Channel Divinity ability is not magic by any means (otherwise, you'd use spell slots to power them up, as you do Smites; in fact, if there's something I consider a mild issue at best, is that Smites are now explicitly magical, rather than supernatural in origin as before). The Dragonborn's breath weapon could be considered magical by a stretch, since Dragons are inherently magical creatures by fluff; a Medusa's gaze attack, though, is strictly supernatural and not specifically tied into Magic, as it doesn't share its trappings. Therefore, if a racial ability and a class-based ability can be supernatural and not magical, why not work this with the Warlord? The Fighter's Action Surge and Second Wind abilities could be considered supernatural in origin, and yet are perfectly explainable as extraordinary.

Consider this: a Fighter can, after an hour of rest, spend some time to recover somewhere between 1 to around 25 hit points once, at any moment. I rarely find someone challenging this; why having a Warlord offer a sort of Second Wind to any other ally is suddenly out of bounds? Why having a Warlord grant a buff suddenly out of bounds, when (using 3.x terminology) it could easily be a morale or competence bonus, or even a circumstance bonus? And, if eventually you need to provide things like resistance to non-magical weapons, then make that supernatural (as JAL and others suggest), but explicitly non-magical. As I mentioned: if they eventually want to make the class, go with the Marshal from 3.5, which was a completely mundane class (even their Auras were Extraordinary abilities) and work Warlord abilities from there.

Honestly, the arcane/martial/divine thing never bothered me much because everything already sorted itself into such neat little categories - warlords and fighters were martial, paladins and clerics were divine, warlocks and wizards were arcane, etc etc.

Interesting thoughts on magic as a supset of the supernatural rather than a way of describing it.

[JAL_1138]

People need to stop focusing on strict realism in a flagrantly unrealistic game and let the level 20 fighter make a sword by crushing iron between his hands, let the level 20 rogue steal ideas and balance on clouds and have the level 20 barbarian be strong enough to wrestle a dragon.
[...]
Just stop thinking that you need to stop giving martials nice things because it's unrealistic, your first thought should be 'how do we make giving martials these nice things palatable?'

That's what I'd stick in an Immortals Rules supplement akin to Set 5 from BECMI. Not standard character progression.

Thing is, my idea of "nice things" still allows for the "badass normal"--the ordinary, non-magical human with a weapon and twenty levels of combat skill--to stand toe to toe with Mordenkainen. Magic should be more difficult to use than it is, and mundane knightly characters should be able to use a slew of combat tactics and abilities (implemented in a non-dissociated way, that make sense without a supernatural explanation like crushing iron bare-handed would) --so that when the 20th-level caster is busy summoning meteors, the Fighter runs up and runs him through (perhaps using techniques derived from Renaissance combat manuals, even) before the spell goes off.

If you want them to become demigods and go around chopping down mountains with the edges of their hands (picking up the pieces to make an island, maybe even raising a little sand), epic level rules could cover them becoming demigods and going around doing that.


No, it doesn't. It has no explaining to do other than 'this guy is really good at inspiring others', because insisting on people needing magic to achieve interesting things is what has been keeping martials behind casters for a very long time. It does not need to be explicitly supernatural in the same way that a high level fighter can plummet to earth from high orbit and walk it off without magic.

Bearing in mind that I don't mean "wizard spells" for "magic," just "don't tell me they're not in some fashion supernatural with a straight face, and explain the nature of said supernatural abilities"...I don't want a Fighter who can jump off the Empire State Building and live...without a parachute or Boots of Slowfall. I do want a Fighter who can go up against a Wizard of equal level and have the contest be a coin toss as to who'll win--make magic more difficult, rather than making the Fighter into Wolverine to match them and thinking that's the only way for them to have nice things. There's hundreds of years worth of combat manuals and martial arts to pull mundane tactics from, for example. I don't like the way 4th balanced its casters, but not that it balanced them.


True enough. Many people just don't like an ability that goes "retroactively, it turns out that mortal strike from last round actually just missed you".

That drives me up the wall--to me, though not necessarily to everyone, that completely kills any of the tension from a particular round, since it could be handwaved away in the next one.


The same thing goes for the Warlord: it is married to the idea of "since it's a Martial (i.e. Mundane) class, some stuff it does makes no sense". You can find some sense into it; it's just that because it's a martial class (i.e. a class suited primarily for combat) doesn't mean it has to be absolutely mundane. Sure, you can eventually heal; it can be a supernatural thing, and yet not be magic.

That's a thing I downright loathe about making the supernatural akin to magic. To me, magic is just part of the supernatural, not its definition. I don't mind the Warlord suddenly gaining healing abilities usable at Short Rests (even if they're mechanically indistinct to Channel Divinity options); if the fluff cost is making them supernatural (and thus making the Warlord less mundane), I couldn't care less. That doesn't make the Warlord any closer to a spellcaster; suggesting it does, though, is downright offensive since it necessarily implies that the supernatural HAS to be magic, without considering exceptions.



I tend to use "magic" as shorthand for "any kind of supernatural," covering wizard spells to Wolverine's healing factor, to the Spider-Sense, to Superman's flight. That doesn't mean they work anything even close to each other, just that they're using some kind of supernatural energy. Warlords casting wizard, cleric, or pally spells isn't what I'd want. Monks have Ki, which can be used to explain everything they do with virtually no cognitive dissonance for me. Psions have Psionics (...this information brought to you by the department of redundancy department), which I'd shorthand to "magic" even though it's not the same thing. Semantics are tricky when talking about That Which Lies Beyond the Fields We Know, and I really need to find a better way to state it.

Martial != Mundane, but if you tell me a character is mundane, then that's where giving it superpowers breaks my suspension of disbelief. But as long as the relative power level doesn't get so high that someone who is mundane can't keep up, I've got nothing against, say, an Evil-aligned war-chief who projects an aura of unnatural fear, or a psionic warrior whose psychic powers increase unit cohesion by giving the members better situational awareness or better insight into what their squadmates are planning, with neither of them being able to "cast" so much as a cantrip.

As for HP being abstracted (not going to go quote-hunting because I'm running low on time), that's why I plan to use the Vitality system once the DMG is out. I've never liked HP's level of abstraction. I acknowledge I am very much in the minority there, but that's why "So? HP is abstract" has never sat well with me as a justification--it's part of the issue, for me.

[Eslin]

That's what I'd stick in an Immortals Rules supplement akin to Set 5 from BECMI. Not standard character progression.

Thing is, my idea of "nice things" still allows for the "badass normal"--the ordinary, non-magical human with a weapon and twenty levels of combat skill--to stand toe to toe with Mordenkainen. Magic should be more difficult to use than it is, and mundane knightly characters should be able to use a slew of combat tactics and abilities (implemented in a non-dissociated way, that make sense without a supernatural explanation like crushing iron bare-handed would) --so that when the 20th-level caster is busy summoning meteors, the Fighter runs up and runs him through (perhaps using techniques derived from Renaissance combat manuals, even) before the spell goes off.

If you want them to become demigods and go around chopping down mountains with the edges of their hands (picking up the pieces to make an island, maybe even raising a little sand), epic level rules could cover them becoming demigods and going around doing that.


Bearing in mind that I don't mean "wizard spells" for "magic," just "don't tell me they're not in some fashion supernatural with a straight face, and explain the nature of said supernatural abilities"...I don't want a Fighter who can jump off the Empire State Building and live...without a parachute or Boots of Slowfall. I do want a Fighter who can go up against a Wizard of equal level and have the contest be a coin toss as to who'll win--make magic more difficult, rather than making the Fighter into Wolverine to match them and thinking that's the only way for them to have nice things. There's hundreds of years worth of combat manuals and martial arts to pull mundane tactics from, for example. I don't like the way 4th balanced its casters, but not that it balanced them.

Honestly, that doesn't really fit with how D&D works. A fighter CAN jump off the ESB and live, plus a nap over lunchtime will recover the damage from doing so, and magic is easy to use. You sound like you want a different game.



That drives me up the wall--to me, though not necessarily to everyone, that completely kills any of the tension from a particular round, since it could be handwaved away in the next one.

I tend to use "magic" as shorthand for "any kind of supernatural," covering wizard spells to Wolverine's healing factor, to the Spider-Sense, to Superman's flight. That doesn't mean they work anything even close to each other, just that they're using some kind of supernatural energy. Warlords casting wizard, cleric, or pally spells isn't what I'd want. Monks have Ki, which can be used to explain everything they do with virtually no cognitive dissonance for me. Psions have Psionics (...this information brought to you by the department of redundancy department), which I'd shorthand to "magic" even though it's not the same thing. Semantics are tricky when talking about That Which Lies Beyond the Fields We Know, and I really need to find a better way to state it.

Martial != Mundane, but if you tell me a character is mundane, then that's where giving it superpowers breaks my suspension of disbelief. But as long as the relative power level doesn't get so high that someone who is mundane can't keep up, I've got nothing against, say, an Evil-aligned war-chief who projects an aura of unnatural fear, or a psionic warrior whose psychic powers increase unit cohesion by giving the members better situational awareness or better insight into what their squadmates are planning, with neither of them being able to "cast" so much as a cantrip.

As for HP being abstracted (not going to go quote-hunting because I'm running low on time), that's why I plan to use the Vitality system once the DMG is out. I've never liked HP's level of abstraction. I acknowledge I am very much in the minority there, but that's why "So? HP is abstract" has never sat well with me as a justification--it's part of the issue, for me.

D&D has no mundane after a certain point. Even when an ability isn't explicitly magic, a fighter can fling rocks at an ogre and toss it 60 feet in the air while the barbarian can get so angry that he doesn't burn or freeze or be electrocuted properly and a strength 10 rogue can somehow deal six greatswords worth of damage to a dragon by stabbing it in the ankle and all of them can plummet in from low orbit and just walk away, everything is supernatural even if it says it isn't.

[Hytheter]

Not to sound needy, but I posted this on the last page and it seems like nobody noticed it in amongst other discussion. If it was willfully ignored, I guess I can live with that, but I am interested in what Eslin and other Warlord advocates have to say on it.

How's this for a Commander Archetype for the Fighter? It covers most of what I think you're asking for. I'm not sure how balanced it is, but most of the effects work by cutting into the Fighters action economy, and some use allies reactions as well, so hopefully it isn't too powerful. Does this look satisfactory to Warlord fans (and balanced to everyone else)?

Archetype Features:

Commander's Tactics:

When you take this archetype at 3rd Level, when you use the attack action you can forgo one attack to apply one of the following effects to an ally of your choice:
- They may move as a reaction.
- They may make a single weapon attack as a reaction
- They gain +2 AC for the next round.
You can only use Commander's Tactics once per use of the attack action.

Morale Boost:

At 7th level, when you use your Second Wind you may forgo the normal effect and instead have any ally gain Temporary HP equal to d10+Your Fighter Level. That ally also gains advantage on their next attack.

Advanced Tactics:

From 10th level, when you use Commander's Tactics you can grant one of the following effects to an ally by forgoing 2 attacks instead of one.
- They may move and make a single weapon attack as a reaction.
- They may, as a reaction, cast a cantrip that has a casting time of 1 action.
- They gain advantage on all attacks until the start of your next turn.
You can only use Commander's Tactics or Advanced Tactics once per use of the attack action.

Tactical Mastery:

From 15th level when you can use any number of Commander's Tactics and Advanced Tactics in a single action as long as you forgo the required number of attacks for each effect. You can also use Commander's Tactics (but not Advanced Tactics) by spending a bonus action instead of forgoing an attack.
You can't apply the same effect to the same ally more than once in a single turn.

Battlecry:

From 18th Level, when you use Morale Boost you can choose a number of allies, including yourself, up to your Charisma modifier (minimum 2) and have all selected allies gain the effect.

~~~~

Some notes:

I intentionally designed Commander's Tactics to be compatible with action surge, so you can occasionally use two tactics in one turn. From 15th level this gets pretty awesome, action surge basically becomes Command Surge and let's you grant all kinds of effects. At 20th you can forgo all attacks and just have 4 allies move and attack which is pretty cool. Just picture your guy yelling "CHAAAARGE!" at the top of his lungs for maximum effect.

Is +2 AC on Commander's Tactics too much for a level 3 ability? idk

The advantage effect on Morale boost is only because the ability seemed weak otherwise; it's just transferring your Second Wind to someone else which is no net gain for the party, and it doesn't stack with other forms of Temp HP. I figured it could use a boost to make it worth being a class feature, but that'd be the first thing to go if I was cutting back the archetype.

Battlecry might be too strong? Potentially heals the party by 100+5d10 if your Charisma is high enough. Maybe it should only be once per long rest?

Anyway that's my attempt at a "Warlord" for 5e. Tell me what you think.

[JAL_1138]

Not to sound needy, but I posted this on the last page and it seems like nobody noticed it in amongst other discussion. If it was willfully ignored, I guess I can live with that, but I am interested in what Eslin and other Warlord advocates have to say on it.

I'm too terrible at math to sort out whether it's particularly balanced--it could possibly get very unbalanced very quickly with the Rogue's sneak attacks--but it has far fewer of the dissociation problems I have with an AEDU resource model. And it looks like it'd make perfect sense as "A charismatic, quick-thinking mother[expletive]" without needing a supernatural explanation. It amounts to hollering "Heads up!" or "Look out!" at lower levels, issuing actual orders at mid levels, or bellowing or "FOR GOLD AND GLORY!" at high level instead of swinging your sword...I'm good with it.

Makes sense, needs no magic, not based on resource expenditure...Bravo!

[Eslin]

I actually really like it, except for the level 15 feature - I can't see a reason not to have that functionality included from the start. As is though, I'd still take it - maybe add more charisma based stuff apart from the level 18 ability, maybe tweak a few things, but for something that hasn't gone through playtesting or revision yet it looks playable, balanced and seperate to what any other archetype can do.

[Hytheter]

I actually really like it, except for the level 15 feature - I can't see a reason not to have that functionality included from the start. As is though, I'd still take it - maybe add more charisma based stuff apart from the level 18 ability, maybe tweak a few things, but for something that hasn't gone through playtesting or revision yet it looks playable, balanced and seperate to what any other archetype can do.

I figured it might be a bit powerful to have from the start because most classes have single attacks which are stronger than the Fighter's, so being able to have 2 or 3 other characters use such attacks in one turn seemed like something that should at least be earned. From a flavour perspective, it seems like using so many attacks in six seconds would be hard enough, let alone coordinating that many attacks from multiple other people, so I figured that rapid on-the-fly tactics like that should be a skill that needs to be mastered.

As for the charisma thing, I was kind of thinking that too but I'm not sure where I would put such abilities or how they would work. The only reason I put it on the last ability was because it seemed like it would be too powerful if it was just "5 allies" without some kind of limiting factor. But maybe it isn't necessary?
I also feel like having abilities based on INT would be logical too, but then you start getting a bit MAD...

I'm glad you like it though. I might take it over to the homebrew forum and see if I can get some feedback balance-wise.

[Eslin]

I figured it might be a bit powerful to have from the start because most classes have single attacks which are stronger than the Fighter's, so being able to have 2 or 3 other characters use such attacks in one turn seemed like something that should at least be earned. From a flavour perspective, it seems like using so many attacks in six seconds would be hard enough, let alone coordinating that many attacks from multiple other people, so I figured that rapid on-the-fly tactics like that should be a skill that needs to be mastered.

As for the charisma thing, I was kind of thinking that too but I'm not sure where I would put such abilities or how they would work. The only reason I put it on the last ability was because it seemed like it would be too powerful if it was just "5 allies" without some kind of limiting factor. But maybe it isn't necessary?
I also feel like having abilities based on INT would be logical too, but then you start getting a bit MAD...

I'm glad you like it though. I might take it over to the homebrew forum and see if I can get some feedback balance-wise.

Well, that was how the warlord was set up - you picked options like the tactical warlord, based on intelligence or the bravura warlord based on charisma. That and the potential variety of effects and styles is why I'd like it as a class with seperate subclasses, but your fighter alterations are pretty much the best way I could see it working as a fighter subtype.

Keep in mind the 4e warlord was a leader - a lot of the focus was on healing, though that's something that doesn't need to be kept cross editions. Designing homebrew wise, do whatever you have to, just keep in mind the important bit is 'martial character that helps other characters'.

[JAL_1138]

I actually really like it, except for the level 15 feature - I can't see a reason not to have that functionality included from the start. As is though, I'd still take it - maybe add more charisma based stuff apart from the level 18 ability, maybe tweak a few things, but for something that hasn't gone through playtesting or revision yet it looks playable, balanced and seperate to what any other archetype can do.

:O We agree on something! About a martial subclass! :O *ducks to avoid a flying pig* :smalltongue:

Three cheers for Hytheter! I'm straight up impressed--you designed something that works equally well for people on complete opposite ends of the preferred power-level spectrum; that's no small feat. :smallsmile:

Edit: And could convert someone who wasn't a warlord fan to start with. The more I look at it, the more I want to roll one.

[Hytheter]

that's no small feat. :smallsmile:

Well, feats are pretty powerful in this edition. ;)

I've had some more ideas for it, which I've posted alone with teh archetype in the homebrew forum.
- increase the number and variety of Tactics, but limit the total number that can be learned (both basic and advanced combined) according to something like Charisma modifier. So if you have 16 charisma you can only use three tactcs, for example.
- Make battlecry the level 7 ability but drastically decrease effectiveness; say dX+cha HP for all allies within Y feet, possibly scaling (as opposed to directly mirroring second wind). Then have the 18th level ability be an improved version with more range or other effects, or have something else entirely.

[Ashrym]

That sounds like a paladin minus the traditional alignment. Maybe change the spell list a bit to replace some damaging spells with more buffs, but what else do you need?

It sounds like a valor bard to me. Healing, combat, and buffing. Bardic inspiration and the spell selection makes a big difference. Battlemasters using superiority dice is the non-magical options, and using bonus feats for healer and inspiring leader that the fighter has adds some non-magical healing to the character.

[JAL_1138]

Well, feats are pretty powerful in this edition. ;)

I've had some more ideas for it, which I've posted alone with teh archetype in the homebrew forum.
- increase the number and variety of Tactics, but limit the total number that can be learned (both basic and advanced combined) according to something like Charisma modifier. So if you have 16 charisma you can only use three tactcs, for example.
- Make battlecry the level 7 ability but drastically decrease effectiveness; say dX+cha HP for all allies within Y feet, possibly scaling (as opposed to directly mirroring second wind). Then have the 18th level ability be an improved version with more range or other effects, or have something else entirely.

I like it. I think the class would be great for an enemy bandit-group leader or the head of a Viking-style raiding group besieging the countryside, and moving Battlecry to 7th opens it up a bit for lower level campaigns.

Tactics known could also go off INT, but that gets into unnecessary MAD. Limiting the options by modifier but coming off a wider list is a good idea.

[Lokiare]

If I wanted to put an inspiring warlord in 5E, I'd simply make the effects of their at-will inspiration powers to not be able to affect the same character more than once between short rests. I mean how many times can you inspire someone to go above and beyond? Once if you are lucky, maybe twice per day if you are somehow super humanly charismatic.

Then make it depend on some kind of roll like the DC is 15 minus the targets Charisma mod.

Then you could have a whole list of 'inspirations' from allowing extra attacks when you hit an enemy to standing back and granting temp hp/healing (DM's/group's option).

For the tactical warlord you would make it where enemies that have seen you perform that 'tactic' can't be fooled by it again and have a huge bonus or are simply immune. Then you do the whole saving throws and DCs thing.

So a 'tactic' that involves the party getting opportunity attack free movement would work once per fight without a hitch, but if they tried it again they would get the free movement, but the enemies would get the opportunity attacks.

There is just so much that could have been with 5E, its really sad that they chose not to make the game what they could have.

[McBars]

There is just so much that could have been with 5E, its really sad that they chose not to make the game what they could have.

Not so; I think this edition has a lot of great things going for it. I'm very satisfied with most of the choices the designers made, especially what they decided to omit.

Fortunately, if a player wishes to play one, a great warlord exists in fourth edition as do many other features posters have disparaged 5e for lacking.

[Shadow]

{Scrubbed}

[mephnick]

{Scrubbed}

[Eslin]

If I wanted to put an inspiring warlord in 5E, I'd simply make the effects of their at-will inspiration powers to not be able to affect the same character more than once between short rests. I mean how many times can you inspire someone to go above and beyond? Once if you are lucky, maybe twice per day if you are somehow super humanly charismatic.

Then make it depend on some kind of roll like the DC is 15 minus the targets Charisma mod.

Then you could have a whole list of 'inspirations' from allowing extra attacks when you hit an enemy to standing back and granting temp hp/healing (DM's/group's option).

For the tactical warlord you would make it where enemies that have seen you perform that 'tactic' can't be fooled by it again and have a huge bonus or are simply immune. Then you do the whole saving throws and DCs thing.

So a 'tactic' that involves the party getting opportunity attack free movement would work once per fight without a hitch, but if they tried it again they would get the free movement, but the enemies would get the opportunity attacks.

There is just so much that could have been with 5E, its really sad that they chose not to make the game what they could have.

There has been one PHB, there is yet room for a huge amount of stuff.

[McBars]

{Scrubbed}

[Lokiare]

{Scrubbed}


Not so; I think this edition has a lot of great things going for it. I'm very satisfied with most of the choices the designers made, especially what they decided to omit.

Fortunately, if a player wishes to play one, a great warlord exists in fourth edition as do many other features posters have disparaged 5e for lacking.

Sure for some it's great. For others is horrible.
Also what about those that want to play a warlord in 5e?

[Galen]

{Scrubbed}

[JAL_1138]

Thought of something else I'd change about 5th for 5.5 (may have been mentioned already) : Mass combat rules, it needs 'em. There doesn't appear to be room for them in the DMG from the table of contents, and rolling advantage/disadvantage for every foot soldier in an army would get troublesome. Sooner or later the orcs are going to invade, or human kingdoms will go to war with each other, or the elves will invade an orcish anarcho-communist autonomous region in the speciesist belief that anyone green is a Gruumsh-worshipping critter of inherent irredeemable evil and thus it's sanctioned by the gods to slaughter them wholesale.

[Lokiare]

{Scrubbed}

[Galen]

{Scrubbed}

[Lokiare]

{Scrubbed}

[Douglas]

The Mod Radiant: Keep it civil, and leave other threads out of it, please.