# Rogue Mastermind Archetype Up, Courtesy of Extra Life



## Twiggly the Gnome (Oct 4, 2015)

Courtesy of WotC's Extra Life charity game is the latest preview from _Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide_ (November 3rd).  Following on from the previous previews,  the Preface, Contents Page, Greenflame Blade cantrip, and Urban Bounty Hunter, we now have a good look at the Mastermind, a new rogue archetype.

Extra Life has finished now, with just over $84,000 raised, so I don't know if we'll see the other two previews that were slated for $90K and $100K - the Duergar race entry, and the hi-res map of north-west Faerün.  The book is out in a month.




*Save**Save*​


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 4, 2015)

wow... awesome, and I was right someone guessed a psionic class and I totally called more like Nate from leverage... it is more warlord like...

so now if I am a 3rd level fighter (battle master) 3rd level rogue (mastermind) 5th level bard (any) and refluff my spells as non magic, I am almost a warlord...


----------



## Sage Genesis (Oct 4, 2015)

mellored said:


> They stole my my help as a bonus action idea...




Pretty sure that Valor Bards already did that at some point in the playtest.


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 4, 2015)

Love this. It makes more sense now how they're fitting a whole subclass plus into one page. This makes me excited to see the new Primal Paths, Druid Circles, The Bladesinger, the Purple Dragon Knight (which will most likely be refluffed into just "Knight" for my campaigns), etc.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 4, 2015)

Finally a good preview! This subclass looks like a nice addition, with quite original and useful features.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2015)

I love Master of Tactics.  My Lore Bard wants that!



GMforPowergamers said:


> wow... awesome, and I was right someone guessed a psionic class and I totally called more like Nate from leverage... it is more warlord like...
> 
> so now if I am a 3rd level fighter (battle master) 3rd level rogue (mastermind) 5th level bard (any) and refluff my spells as non magic, I am almost a warlord...




You should do a write-up of that, call it a Warlord, do the re-fluffs, and see what people think.  You're going to have to juggle where the levels of each fall into, but I bet you could do it.


----------



## Delazar (Oct 4, 2015)

Don't have my books now, but aren't both the Mastermind and the Swashbuckler duplicating stuff that can be obtained with Feats, at least partially?


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 4, 2015)

Jeez, can they publish some non-hideous halfling art?! I've heard the toddler proportions argument used as a defense against this terrible art direction, but that's frankly absurd. Toddler's arent adults, so it doesnt make sense that adult halflings use their head to body ratios. Unless halfling toddlers are 4/5 head...

Crunchwise, it looks decent, but that 17th level feature is pretty situational.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 4, 2015)

I like it.....

BANNED at my table.

No constantly switching crazy and bad accents when I DM.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 4, 2015)

*Rouge Mastermind Archetype up, courtesy of Extra Life*



ehren37 said:


> Toddler's arent adults, so it doesnt make sense that adult halflings use their head to body ratios.




Halflings are a fictional race. They don't make sense by definition. You're talking about personal taste, not logic.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 4, 2015)

Delazar said:


> Don't have my books now, but aren't both the Mastermind and the Swashbuckler duplicating stuff that can be obtained with Feats, at least partially?




Swashbuckler duplicates part of the Mobile feat.

Mastermind ... closest is the unerring mimicry of speech in Master of Intrigue, but unlike the Actor feat, this doesn't require an ability check of any kind.

And even if a feature does duplicate feat benefits, that's hardly a bad thing. It just means you get to use your feat/ASI for something else.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 4, 2015)

This is pretty sweet. Definitely makes up for the background shenanigans, and it's good to see the rogue getting some subclass love, it's a very versatile main class.


----------



## graves3141 (Oct 4, 2015)

This is cool and all but what I really want out of this Extra Life preview stuff is the high-res updated map of the NW part of the Forgotten Realms... about $17,000 more to go at the time of this post.  With any luck, we should be there in a couple of days.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Halflings are a fictional race. They don't make sense by definition. You're talking about personal taste, not logic.




I was refuting those who attempted to use "logic" of how toddlers look to defend the halfling art direction. In general, the consensus from the thread on it seemed to be that halflings look like horrible little monsters. They have a few decent pictures of halflings (PHB 176), why the insist on doubling down on these CHUDS is beyond me.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 4, 2015)

graves3141 said:


> This is cool and all but what I really want out of this Extra Life preview stuff is the high-res updated map of the NW part of the Forgotten Realms... about $17,000 more to go at the time of this post.  With any luck, we should be there in a couple of days.



I was looking forward to that map too. Too bad they didn't make it.


----------



## gyor (Oct 4, 2015)

graves3141 said:


> This is cool and all but what I really want out of this Extra Life preview stuff is the high-res updated map of the NW part of the Forgotten Realms... about $17,000 more to go at the time of this post.  With any luck, we should be there in a couple of days.




 There are no more days sadly.

 Edit: Actually I assumed that the end of the 48 hours of game playing was the expiry date, but that might not be the case as it appears that donations have been made after the gaming is over. Here is to hoping they keep it open till they reach a $100,000.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 4, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Jeez, can they publish some non-hideous halfling art?!




Does this one count?


----------



## gyor (Oct 4, 2015)

I agree the bobble headed halflings are the worst art if 5e, and I'm not a fan of most of the 5e art to begin with, not enough pictures with chainmail bikini's for example.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2015)

Do you think we'll get other color Masterminds besides rouge?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 4, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Do you think we'll get other color Masterminds besides rouge?




Is the green one going to get a magic flute knife?


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 4, 2015)

I still can't believe they are actually continuing to use that awful halflling art.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 4, 2015)

Gladius Legis said:


> Mastermind ... closest is the unerring mimicry of speech in Master of Intrigue, but unlike the Actor feat, this doesn't require an ability check of any kind.




It also doesn't let you mimic someone's voice, only their accent and speech patterns. It's for blending in with the locals, not for impersonation.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 4, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Do you think we'll get other color Masterminds besides rouge?




I prefer mine a little oRanger.


----------



## ChapolimX (Oct 5, 2015)

Not complaining but, by these previews so far it looks more like we're getting a Player's Handbook II than a Forgotten Realms book.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 5, 2015)

ChapolimX said:


> Not complaining but, by these previews so far it looks more like we're getting a Player's Handbook II than a Forgotten Realms book.




I wish, no they just show case the 1/4 of the book that could be a phb 2 instead of the 3/4 fluff that is tied to the realms...


----------



## graves3141 (Oct 5, 2015)

pukunui said:


> I was looking forward to that map too. Too bad they didn't make it.




Crap, I didn't realize there was a time limit.  What a bunch of b.s.  I want the damn map.  You guys think there's any chance of it being released on the WotC site in the near future?   Seems like a waste to just keep it to themselves and never put it out there.  Man, I'm disappointed now.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 5, 2015)

UnadvisedGoose445 said:


> Love this. It makes more sense now how they're fitting a whole subclass plus into one page. This makes me excited to see the new Primal Paths, Druid Circles, The Bladesinger, the Purple Dragon Knight (which will most likely be refluffed into just "Knight" for my campaigns), etc.




According to a Dragon+ article, it will be Oath of the Crown.



ChapolimX said:


> Not complaining but, by these previews so far it looks more like we're getting a Player's Handbook II than a Forgotten Realms book.




They're walking a balancing act between providing a focus on Forgotten Realms material while also providing material that can be used for non-FR players. See the same Dragon+ article from a month or so ago.


----------



## graves3141 (Oct 5, 2015)

gyor said:


> I agree the bobble headed halflings are the worst art if 5e, and I'm not a fan of most of the 5e art to begin with, not enough pictures with chainmail bikini's for example.




I really like most of the 5E art but you're right about their not being enough chainmail bikini's.  Unfortunately, that sort of thing has gone out of style thanks to political correctness and other assorted b.s.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

graves3141 said:


> Crap, I didn't realize there was a time limit.  What a bunch of b.s.  I want the damn map.  You guys think there's any chance of it being released on the WotC site in the near future?   Seems like a waste to just keep it to themselves and never put it out there.  Man, I'm disappointed now.



We'll probably have to purchase it from the cartographer.



Sword of Spirit said:


> According to a Dragon+ article, it will be Oath of the Crown.



Oath of the Crown is the new paladin subclass. Purple Dragon Knight is the new fighter subclass.


----------



## ChapolimX (Oct 5, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> They're walking a balancing act between providing a focus on Forgotten Realms material while also providing material that can be used for non-FR players. See the same Dragon+ article from a month or so ago.




If they find the right balance and get good return this might lead to an interesting situation. They could use this same strategy to leverage other campaign settings. Bundle them with some recyclable crunch to make them more commercially appealing.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 5, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Jeez, can they publish some non-hideous halfling art?! I've heard the toddler proportions argument used as a defense against this terrible art direction, but that's frankly absurd. Toddler's arent adults, so it doesnt make sense that adult halflings use their head to body ratios. Unless halfling toddlers are 4/5 head...
> 
> Crunchwise, it looks decent, but that 17th level feature is pretty situational.



If it had human proportions in that picture, it'd be impossible to say if it was a halfling or human...


----------



## gyor (Oct 5, 2015)

Just checked the total, it rose again, to over 85700, so it does appear to still be on.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

gyor said:


> Just checked the total, it rose again, to over 85700, so it does appear to still be on.



That was probably just the final tally. It was a 48-hour marathon, _"starting on Friday, October 2, at 12 PM PST and running until Sunday, October 4, 12 PM PST."_


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 5, 2015)

I am so very excited about this. It's a step closer to a "lead from the rear" warlord design. Help as a minor ... I mean bonus action is super useful, and it is a different and interesting way to give out a level 3 damage boost where the thief was lacking one (the assassin and arcane trickster have them, sort of for the AT).


----------



## Evenglare (Oct 5, 2015)

Aaaaaaand begin the power creep supplements!


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 5, 2015)

pukunui said:


> That was probably just the final tally. It was a 48-hour marathon, _"starting on Friday, October 2, at 12 PM PST and running until Sunday, October 4, 12 PM PST."_




They did start the marathon at over $50k I think.

They also mentioned at the 47 hour mark that they had almost reached last year's numbers and they still had a month to go until the actual Extra Life weekend. Then they joked that they will not be doing any more marathons.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

Oh OK. Well, maybe the fundraiser part is still going on then. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong, since I was most keen to see that map.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 5, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Aaaaaaand begin the power creep supplements!




I don't  think there is any creep here../


----------



## teitan (Oct 5, 2015)

Delazar said:


> Don't have my books now, but aren't both the Mastermind and the Swashbuckler duplicating stuff that can be obtained with Feats, at least partially?





You're forgetting that feats are an optional rule.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 5, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Oath of the Crown is the new paladin subclass. Purple Dragon Knight is the new fighter subclass.




Ah, interesting. I had assumed that Purple Dragon Knight would be a FR example of the Oath of the Crown. Now I'm wondering what it's going to look like. Mike Mearls talked about making a "Devoted Defender" type of fighter subclass that seemed like it would cover both knight and samurai archetypes (assuming you don't use Battle Master for your samurai--which you should, because it's cool)--which would seem to create a lot of overlap with a fighter Purple Dragon Knight. Is the Purple Dragon Knight going to be one of the few subclasses in the book that is heavily FR-embedded? I guess we'll find out. Personally, I hope they manage to keep them all from being heavily embedded.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 5, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Ah, interesting. I had assumed that Purple Dragon Knight would be a FR example of the Oath of the Crown. Now I'm wondering what it's going to look like. Mike Mearls talked about making a "Devoted Defender" type of fighter subclass that seemed like it would cover both knight and samurai archetypes (assuming you don't use Battle Master for your samurai--which you should, because it's cool)--which would seem to create a lot of overlap with a fighter Purple Dragon Knight. Is the Purple Dragon Knight going to be one of the few subclasses in the book that is heavily FR-embedded? I guess we'll find out. Personally, I hope they manage to keep them all from being heavily embedded.




If prior incarnations are any indication, PDKs will be inspirational leader-types, who leap to the front of battle wave the standard and cheer everyone up with their battlecries.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 5, 2015)

I'm A Banana said:


> If prior incarnations are any indication, PDKs will be inspirational leader-types, who leap to the front of battle wave the standard and cheer everyone up with their battlecries.




if my warlord is made but totally fluffed for the realms I will be both happy (that we have a martial leader) and pissed (why put it int he realms book)


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 5, 2015)

Well, at least there are those sections telling us how to use the material in other campaign settings. If they at least say something like "in Greyhawk, Purple Dragon Knights are known as <lore I do not know>, and serve as <more lore I do not know>," that would be a pretty cool way of expanding usability of such classes. Ideally though, I'd prefer they have given it a generic name and then just said "in the kingdom of Corymr, <generic name> are known as Purple Dragon Knights..."


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Ah, interesting. I had assumed that Purple Dragon Knight would be a FR example of the Oath of the Crown.



Eh, you may be right. I may have been making assumptions of my own.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 5, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Well, at least there are those sections telling us how to use the material in other campaign settings. If they at least say something like "in Greyhawk, Purple Dragon Knights are known as <lore I do not know>, and serve as <more lore I do not know>," that would be a pretty cool way of expanding usability of such classes. Ideally though, I'd prefer they have given it a generic name and then just said "in the kingdom of Corymr, <generic name> are known as Purple Dragon Knights..."




I kind of like the specificity better, especially in something that reads a lot like a campaign setting. I tend to prefer flavorful specificity to generic adaptability, in general, though a few nods at adaptability are always nice.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 5, 2015)

I'm A Banana said:


> I kind of like the specificity better, especially in something that reads a lot like a campaign setting. I tend to prefer flavorful specificity to generic adaptability, in general, though a few nods at adaptability are always nice.




I'm kind of of two minds on it. On the one hand, I really like a lot of world-specific lore. For instance, I like that you have Knights of Solamnia and Wizards of High Sorcery as a Dragonlance thing rather than an everywhere thing. On the other hand, we know they are trying to avoid pumping out a lot of crunch (and I agree with that decision), and in order to that they may have to keep things a bit more general and then tell us how to represent those characters using the same rules--kind of like how the races are presented in the PHB (which I really like). 

I guess it comes down to what works for the edition. In 3e I actually disallowed most prestige classes _except_ for the world-specific ones. I like 5e a lot, and in 5e I think it works better to keep it more broadly applicable, rather than to make a lot of overlapping, barely distinct, or narrowly specific subclasses. It just isn't right for the philosophy of the edition.



pukunui said:


> Eh, you may be right. I may have been making assumptions of my own.




At least we won't have long to wait to find out.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

Bonus action help up to 30'? So give someone in the party adv on an attack every round? Hmmm. That's borderline OP in my book.

Splatbooks and power creep is alive and well it seems. A shame.

Also - of course - if they were going to give anyone a bonus action help, it should have been a warlord like fighter subclass, the FR Knight or whatever it's called. Jeez.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Bonus action help up to 30'? So give someone in the party adv on an attack every round? Hmmm. That's borderline OP in my book.



That's assuming that the rogue hasn't got something better to do with his bonus action.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

pukunui said:


> That's assuming that the rogue hasn't got something better to do with his bonus action.




Well I dont allow hiding in combat, mostly, and we dont use the disengage action either (too easy mode, we just use dodge). So, in a more difficult game, this is pretty OP.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Well I dont allow hiding in combat, mostly, and we dont use the disengage action either (too easy mode, we just use dodge). So, in a more difficult game, this is pretty OP.



Ah well, that's not the designers' fault then. It could very well be overpowered for your table, but that doesn't mean it's overpowered in and of itself.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 5, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Oath of the Crown is the new paladin subclass. Purple Dragon Knight is the new fighter subclass.




Sounds great! Do we have other hints about new subclasses (or sub-subclasses) in SWAG?


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

Li Shenron said:


> Sounds great! Do we have other hints about new subclasses (or sub-subclasses) in SWAG?



Well, as I said above, I could be wrong about that. Not sure about anything else.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Ah well, that's not the designers' fault then. It could very well be overpowered for your table, but that doesn't mean it's overpowered in and of itself.



It's still a problem, even if there is more of an opportunity cost at other tables that allow easier hiding and disengaging. The original rules made help a full action for good reason. 

Anyhoo, if the rest of this book is similar powercreep, I wont be getting it. And given greenflame blade and this, things do not bode well.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2015)

I must be a lot more tolerant, or a lot less worried about power creep.  Neither this nor green flame bother me in the slightest.  Getting advantage on one attack per round is hardly game breaking.  And, it's not like it's going to be the thief getting advantage - the thief is GIVING advantage.  So, maybe the paladin hits a bit better on one shot.  So what?  It's not like the fighter types miss that much anyway.  Going from hitting about 65% to 80% for a single attack isn't making a whole lot of difference.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

I guess I want adv to be rare, and this makes it too easy. One thing 5e does not need is making combats easier.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 5, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Aaaaaaand begin the power creep supplements!



I am flabbergasted anyone can be honestly surprised by this, and I am amazed there would be people that actually have talked themselves into believing there would be an edition of D&D without cash in...


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> It's still a problem, even if there is more of an opportunity cost at other tables that allow easier hiding and disengaging. The original rules made help a full action for good reason.



Don't compare "original rules" and "new rules", because that's misrepresenting things. This is a 3rd level combat class feature. Compare it with critting on 19-20, getting combat maneuvers or getting advantage on any creature that hasn't acted plus automatic criticals on anything you surprise.


> Anyhoo, if the rest of this book is similar powercreep, I wont be getting it. And given greenflame blade and this, things do not bode well.



I laugh at the idea that greenflame blade is overpowered when compared against simply taking all your attacks.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> I guess I want adv to be rare, and this makes it too easy. One thing 5e does not need is making combats easier.




But, advantage isn't rare at all.  There's a dozen different ways to gain advantage, and getting one more isn't really a big deal is it?  And, as Saviomagy points out, this is a 3rd level power.  Compare that to any other 3rd level power and it's hardly game breaking.  I mean, at the time the rogue is granting advantage to one attack, the casters are all gaining 2nd level spells.  It does help to keep things in perspective.


----------



## Yunru (Oct 5, 2015)

When the Rogue is handing out advantage to one (maybe two) persons a round, the Barbarian's getting 1/2 damage from all but psychic for about half the day.


----------



## ccooke (Oct 5, 2015)

This is lovely, I'm grabbing that for the new setting I'm working on (It's a lovely fit, actually; the setting is circa-1800 tech; just before the industrial revolution really kicked in, horribly decadent society that's almost modern. Lots of space for a mastermind to take advantage of things)

As to balance, it looks pretty much dead on to me. Obviously we'll have to see how it plays, as with everything in 5e, but it looks on par with the PHB to me. 

Greenflame blade is comparable with other cantrips, too - compare it to Acid Splash:

Acid Splash has a range of 60', targets one or two creatures and does 1d6 damage, increasing by 1d6 at levels 5, 11 and 17. 
Greenflame blade has a range of 5', targets one or two creatures and does your weapon damage to the first target and your spellcasting ability mod to the second. It increases by 1d8 at levels 5, 11 and 17.

Those look quite nicely balanced to me - Greenflame blade does higher damage, at the cost of requiring you to get into melee (and hence hav a greater risk of taking damage) and optimise _two_ ability scores - one for magic and one for melee. I would call it a very interesting cantrip that's entirely in line with the power level in the PHB. 

Of course, as I said, I haven't seen it in play yet


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, advantage isn't rare at all.  There's a dozen different ways to gain advantage, and getting one more isn't really a big deal is it?  And, as Saviomagy points out, this is a 3rd level power.  Compare that to any other 3rd level power and it's hardly game breaking.  I mean, at the time the rogue is granting advantage to one attack, the casters are all gaining 2nd level spells.  It does help to keep things in perspective.




Getting adv is rare in my game, and/or has a significant opportunity cost, unlike this ability.


----------



## Osgood (Oct 5, 2015)

I like the subclass, but man I wish they would stop with the deformed halfling art. I realize that more than most, halfling depictions have changed a lot over the years--chubby and barefoot, slim and athletic, to bobble-headed--and I'm sure everyone had their favorites... So why not alternate styles, so people can latch on to whatever inspires them. Art matters.


----------



## ZickZak (Oct 5, 2015)

Not a fan. Good for some MC builds though.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 5, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Well, at least there are those sections telling us how to use the material in other campaign settings. If they at least say something like "in Greyhawk, Purple Dragon Knights are known as <lore I do not know>, and serve as <more lore I do not know>," that would be a pretty cool way of expanding usability of such classes. Ideally though, I'd prefer they have given it a generic name and then just said "in the kingdom of Corymr, <generic name> are known as Purple Dragon Knights..."



I'm 100% on board with this. I don't see myself ever getting this book because it's an FR book and, well, I just don't buy stuff labeled FR.

If they released a generic "Adventurer's Guide" that had the crunchy bits as stand-alone, but included sidebars for "The PDKs of Cormyr are one example of an order made up largely of Warlords. The Royal Guard of the Great Kingdom is another, with a somewhat darker take," I'd be pretty happy. They could even pay substantively more attention to the Realms, as long as it wasn't exclusive. The biggest problem with that is they don't want to do a crunch-only book and probably don't have enough publishable crunch to do so, anyway. They also want to push the Realms as much as possible because they can't tell one brand from another.

All that aside, the Mastermind looks pretty cool. Even though I don't see me breaking my 26ish year (i.e. since the gray box) streak of avoiding Forgotten Realms products, I'll happily use the free crunch in my games.


----------



## Hutchimus Prime (Oct 5, 2015)

Mastermind is Sherlock Holmes. I love it!


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 5, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> Don't compare "original rules" and "new rules", because that's misrepresenting things. This is a 3rd level combat class feature. Compare it with critting on 19-20, getting combat maneuvers or getting advantage on any creature that hasn't acted plus automatic criticals on anything you surprise.



I think it's interesting, and should be pointed out, that this _one_ ability is the entire 3rd-level combat feature for a subclass. Because it _is_ quite potent. Anyone toying around with home-brew classes that are built around helping/bolstering allies should keep that in mind when weighing what all else they are giving them...


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 5, 2015)

My Beast Master alt uses help as a bonus action (moved from the 7th level ability), as I found it compares well against the Hunter's Colossus Slayer. It's a good 3rd level ability, but not gamebreaking. It's best use is going to be paired with another rogue, and a two rogue party will deal with some overlaps in other areas of the game. I do really want to play an archer mastermind rogue leading from the rear, pick up the healer feat and the inspiring leader feat too.


----------



## halfling rogue (Oct 5, 2015)

that creeper looks like they mashed together the very things I hate most about 4e and 5e halflings


----------



## Staffan (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Getting adv is rare in my game, and/or has a significant opportunity cost, unlike this ability.



Just wondering, do you also remove the Barbarian's Reckless Attack feature? Or their 3rd level Wolf totem feature? The Battlemaster's Distracting Strike? Shadow Step? Versatile Trickster? Tides of Chaos?


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Getting adv is rare in my game, and/or has a significant opportunity cost, unlike this ability.



It seems to me like all of your objections are based on the fact that you've modified the game in such a way that this ability is more potent than it is intended to be. Of course you're not going to like it!


----------



## Imaro (Oct 5, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Just wondering, do you also remove the Barbarian's Reckless Attack feature? Or their 3rd level Wolf totem feature? The Battlemaster's Distracting Strike? Shadow Step? Versatile Trickster? Tides of Chaos?




Yeah the Wolf Totem feature means nearly all of the melee characters in my game get continuous advantage...


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Just wondering, do you also remove the Barbarian's Reckless Attack feature? Or their 3rd level Wolf totem feature? The Battlemaster's Distracting Strike? Shadow Step? Versatile Trickster? Tides of Chaos?




No. But none of those are the same as this ability.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

pukunui said:


> It seems to me like all of your objections are based on the fact that you've modified the game in such a way that this ability is more potent than it is intended to be. Of course you're not going to like it!




Perhaps youre right. 

It's true I've modified the game some: nerfing a couple of feats and abilities and removing passive perception. Hiding has always been DM discretion but I am certainly in the "hiding is hard mid-combat" camp. 

I also use 1, 2 and 3 point modifiers in addition to adv/disad. Bec ad/disad is rare-ish in my game, this ability seems too spamhappy for me!


----------



## pukunui (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Perhaps youre right.



Thank you. And for the record, I don't think there's anything "wrong" with the way you've modified the game. It's just that those modifications are coloring your opinion of this new class ability.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 5, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Well I dont allow hiding in combat, mostly, and we dont use the disengage action either (too easy mode, we just use dodge). So, in a more difficult game, this is pretty OP.




So, this ability is OP in your house-ruled version of the game? Since you've already house-ruled your game, you can house-rule this ability, too.

That aside, you shouldn't conflate an ability being OP due to your house rules with that ability actually being OP.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 5, 2015)

So, back to the topic of the thread...

I love Master of Tactics -- it's powerful (comparable and possibly better than the Assassin ability), but only because it makes others in the party stronger -- it's an ability that promotes working together. I think that's great, and would synergies particularly well with a Paladin 6 or a ranged build -- multiple ways to make it work. 

So while the mechanics are sweet, the flavour doesn't seem (to me) to match it -- I'd expect "Mastermind" to be an Intelligence build for the rogue, but none of the abilities key off of Int, Wis, or Cha -- its still the basic DEX-based rogue as ever. That, to me, is the disappointment: The mastermind is still dumping Intelligence most of the time; there's no diversity in the build. 

(As a smaller thing: granting the same two tool kits as Charlatans get shows where some of the overlap is. I'm not concerned, but it does suggest something a bit awry.)


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 5, 2015)

Azzy said:


> So, this ability is OP in your house-ruled version of the game? Since you've already house-ruled your game, you can house-rule this ability, too.
> 
> That aside, you shouldn't conflate an ability being OP due to your house rules with that ability actually being OP.




I still label it borderline OP under standard rules. But enough from me on this topic.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> So, back to the topic of the thread...
> 
> I love Master of Tactics -- it's powerful (comparable and possibly better than the Assassin ability), but only because it makes others in the party stronger -- it's an ability that promotes working together. I think that's great, and would synergies particularly well with a Paladin 6 or a ranged build -- multiple ways to make it work.
> 
> ...




I imagine that they're trying to avoid MAD.  It's still a rogue, so Dex is going to be the prime stat.  Subclasses don't key off of new stats, do they?  Since a lot of the rogue skills and certainly combat effectiveness keys off of Dex, it's not surprising that they keep Dex as the prime stat.  It's more just an artifact of the game.  

But, yeah, it does seem kinda wonky that I'm an 8 Int Mastermind.  Although, in retrospect, it would explain a LOT of villains out there.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 6, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I imagine that they're trying to avoid MAD.  It's still a rogue, so Dex is going to be the prime stat.  Subclasses don't key off of new stats, do they?  Since a lot of the rogue skills and certainly combat effectiveness keys off of Dex, it's not surprising that they keep Dex as the prime stat.  It's more just an artifact of the game.
> 
> But, yeah, it does seem kinda wonky that I'm an 8 Int Mastermind.  Although, in retrospect, it would explain a LOT of villains out there.




Yeah, I get that. I'm just disappointed. There should be viable builds for STR rogues (thugs), INT rogues (mastermind, arcane trickster), and CHA rogues (con man or rake). There's just so much that keys off of Dexterity -- it's so effective -- that there is a much more limited diversity of builds and less need for system mastery. Sure you can do it, but there should be some incentive to break DEX's tyranny.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> Yeah, I get that. I'm just disappointed. There should be viable builds for STR rogues (thugs), INT rogues (mastermind, arcane trickster), and CHA rogues (con man or rake). There's just so much that keys off of Dexterity -- it's so effective -- that there is a much more limited diversity of builds and less need for system mastery. Sure you can do it, but there should be some incentive to break DEX's tyranny.




I think I'm glad they decided to keep it this way.  It avoids the inherent problems with MAD, it keeps it simple, and in all honesty I was never a fan of the physical attacks with any stat philosophy of 4e.  But I realize that's just personal opinion.


----------



## brehobit (Oct 6, 2015)

OK, I love the 3rd level abilities.  Interesting, cool skills, etc.  I'd perhaps have thrown in a language rather than a gaming prof., but eh.

The level 9 is too weak.  No real combat utility.  It really needs something else in addition.  Perhaps an upgrade of help (a creature you aid with a bonus action gets +2* your INT to damage on their attack if it hits?  Fairly minor (+10 damage is nice, but probably will be +4 or +6)  but something.  Or maybe "luck favors the prepared": If an ally rolls a "1" on a save or skill check you can grant them a reroll 1/short rest.  Something that helps in combat.  The other rogue archetypes get something (sometimes large) combat related.  So should they all.  The 3rd level power is nice, but not so nice it needs to steal level 9's stuff.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 6, 2015)

Two mastermind rogues that work with each other.  All the sneak attack all the time, and they can get it from range. Also their skill coverage would be nasty.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 6, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> Yeah, I get that. I'm just disappointed. There should be viable builds for STR rogues (thugs), INT rogues (mastermind, arcane trickster), and CHA rogues (con man or rake). There's just so much that keys off of Dexterity -- it's so effective -- that there is a much more limited diversity of builds and less need for system mastery. Sure you can do it, but there should be some incentive to break DEX's tyranny.




The main issue is that everything a rogue might want got piled into dex because dex is the rogue stat. If you grant rogues medium armor proficiency and use the variant rules for different ability scores on checks, it breaks a lot of the dex monopoly. It also makes int a better stat, because lots of things that make sense to use intelligence for have been assigned to other stats for historical or class reasons (medicine is wisdom because clerics, survival and perception are wisdom because rangers, pickpocket and disabling traps are dex because rogues, and intelligence gets nothing because wizards should only be able to cast spells and do nothing else).


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 6, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> The main issue is that everything a rogue might want got piled into dex because dex is the rogue stat.




This is circular, though -- Dex is the rogue stat because everything a rogue might want got piled into dex. 

It didn't need to be that way: it was a choice; and (we now see) it's one they continue with the Mastermind. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 6, 2015)

I HR many skills to int, including disable device. And disguise. It helps.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 6, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> This is circular, though -- Dex is the rogue stat because everything a rogue might want got piled into dex.
> 
> It didn't need to be that way: it was a choice; and (we now see) it's one they continue with the Mastermind. That's all I'm saying.




My point was meant to be that it was a bad thing, basically for the reason you cite.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 6, 2015)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SCAG_RoguishArchetype_m39d.pdf
> 
> I like it, will make for great Trust agents in an Eberron game.




I like it. For the first time I have some desire to play a Rogue. I especially like the non-combat features like accent imitation in only one minute--that is approximately as useful as the Assassin's 7th and 13th level features but comes much earlier. Plus, you get one of the best parts of Battlemaster as well, in Insightful Manipulator's ability to size creatures up outside of combat.

I think I'd enjoy playing a Ranger/Mastermind. 3 attacks per round plus a bonus Help at 8th level, yumm. A Mastermind/Warlock might be fun too.

I like the thought of a Mastermind grappling an enemy with Expertise and then dodging while he Helps his allies finish the enemy off.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 6, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I still can't believe they are actually continuing to use that awful halflling art.




Who says it's a halfling? Maybe that's a Mastermind goblin!


----------



## Kalshane (Oct 6, 2015)

I'm digging this a lot (terrible art aside) and am seriously considering doing a multi-class with my Spy background Lore Bard (with the Actor feat) as it's right up his alley.

I do agree that there should be more reasons for rogues to boost more than Dex, though.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

Kalshane said:


> I do agree that there should be more reasons for rogues to boost more than Dex, though.




I'm curious... why do people feel this way?  I'd rather have abilities that aren't dependent on multiple attributes or that replace physical attributes with mental with little to no explanation... but I am curious why other's feel this would be a positive?  

Also I don't see a mastermind rogue as being the most book smart character (which is what Int seems to cover), IMO he's more cunning and quick witted than the most learned person in the group and there really is no attribute for that.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 6, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> I think it's interesting, and should be pointed out, that this _one_ ability is the entire 3rd-level combat feature for a subclass. Because it _is_ quite potent. Anyone toying around with home-brew classes that are built around helping/bolstering allies should keep that in mind when weighing what all else they are giving them...




Yeah, yeah, we get it. You think warlords shouldnt exist and should suck if they do. This ability is far from overpowered and the entire subclass looks pretty average to me. The level 17 ability is incredibly narrow in application.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 6, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I'm curious... why do people feel this way?  I'd rather have abilities that aren't dependent on multiple attributes or that replace physical attributes with mental with little to no explanation... but I am curious why other's feel this would be a positive?




I've not seen anyone in the thread advocating arbitrary substitution of mental abilities for physical ones as an attack stat; I think that is a red herring. 

For me, though, the answer is heterogeneity. I want there to be multiple interesting builds for the rogue, and _there are just so many stories about rogue-like characters that are not about their agility and reflexes_. There are stories I want to play, but the system currently punishes that diversity, I feel.

(And it's not just the rogue: Fighters already have a wider variety because they have two equally viable attack stats; wizards have eight schools; and (in 5e) you can make legitimate STR, DEX, WIS, and CHA-based clerics -- Int too via knowledge domain, though I'm not sure you'd want Int ahead of Wis in any case.  

The potential for the same flexibility is in the rogue, and we've now got 4 subclasses for the rogue; but even a viable strength build is hard to pull off without at least a 14 or 16 dex. Instead, what the game has given us is a large number of backgrounds that allow you to mimic a rogue without being one -- currently, that's the best way to develop the variety I would hope for.

(Just speaking for myself; ymmv; my opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer; etc.)


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 6, 2015)

I think rogues using Dex for everything is a good thing. Why? Because after Dex, they have free range of choice of their secondary stat. Combat rogue? Choose Con. Mastermind? Choose Int. Dashing Duelist? Choose Cha. Easy, simple.

I did like 4E's design of variable secondary stats, but that's behind us now.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> I've not seen anyone in the thread advocating arbitrary substitution of mental abilities for physical ones as an attack stat; I think that is a red herring.




Well then you run into the problem of being dependent on numerous attributes for your abilities to be effective, so now instead of the Dex attribute being primary and the rest being a matter of concept... I have two or more attributes I have to account for in keeping up to be effective.



Kobold Stew said:


> For me, though, the answer is heterogeneity. I want there to be multiple interesting builds for the rogue, and _there are just so many stories about rogue-like characters that are not about their agility and reflexes_. There are stories I want to play, but the system currently punishes that diversity, I feel.




Eh, when I look at the mastermind abilities they aren't about being agile and having great reflexes but they also don't key off a secondary attribute which to me seems the best of both worlds.... My rogue can be intelligent based if I want him to be, I just raise or start Int high... but I don't have to in order to play the mastermind rogue (which again seems less about book smarts and more about being clever/cunning) and be effective in combat.

Though I do have to ask... what rogue archetypes are you trying to play where Dex/stealth/nimbleness/etc. isn't a part of the concept?



Kobold Stew said:


> (And it's not just the rogue: Fighters already have a wider variety because they have two equally viable attack stats; wizards have eight schools; and (in 5e) you can make legitimate STR, DEX, WIS, and CHA-based clerics -- Int too via knowledge domain, though I'm not sure you'd want Int ahead of Wis in any case.




First the wizard schools don't in any way change the primary casting attribute so I think you're making some strange comparisons here... 

I'm also trying to understand how the cleric is an example of this as well... As an example the trickster Cleric doesn't gain any advantage from being Dex primary and probably suffers if he makes that choice... same for the War domain and Strength.  The abilities in these domains are similar to mastermind in that they are pretty independent of the cleric's actual stats in the secondary ability.

Finally if you do consider the Trickster domain cleric a Dex build or the War domain cleric a strength build then  the Arcane Trickster should easily be considered an Int build since he gets more advantage from a high Int than the cleric in those domains gets from Strength or Dex being primary.



Kobold Stew said:


> The potential for the same flexibility is in the rogue, and we've now got 4 subclasses for the rogue; but even a viable strength build is hard to pull off without at least a 14 or 16 dex. Instead, what the game has given us is a large number of backgrounds that allow you to mimic a rogue without being one -- currently, that's the best way to develop the variety I would hope for.
> 
> (Just speaking for myself; ymmv; my opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer; etc.)




I'm a little confused here so I'll ask again... exactly what Rogue archetype are you trying to recreate where Dex should be lower than a 14?  And at that point are you probably looking for a different class in the same way you had to take ranger as opposed to fighter in 4e to be a decent archer?


----------



## sleypy (Oct 6, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I'm a little confused here so I'll ask again... exactly what Rogue archetype are you trying to recreate where Dex should be lower than a 14?  And at that point are you probably looking for a different class in the same way you had to take ranger as opposed to fighter in 4e to be a decent archer?




Probably because people want to be a "mastermind", not a "rogue mastermind." Only guessing. 

I know for me, I would like a martial class that put mental stats ahead of physical stats. Since that doesn't exist, rogue is closest to filling the niche.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

sleypy said:


> Probably because people want to be a "mastermind", not a "rogue mastermind." Only guessing.
> 
> I know for me, I would like a martial class that put mental stats ahead of physical stats. Since that doesn't exist, rogue is closest to filling the niche.




But how does said hypothetical class stay competitive in combat without having some kind of physical capability?

EDIT: Or are you saying you want a class that uses mental stats to attack?


----------



## sleypy (Oct 6, 2015)

Imaro said:


> But how does said hypothetical class stay competitive in combat without having some kind of physical capability?



By making them MAD; MAD is an issue for some, other would gladly accept it to reach a particular character concept (see monks).


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

sleypy said:


> By making them MAD; MAD is an issue for some, other would gladly accept it to reach a particular character concept (see monks).




But if they are giving you abilities (like in the Mastermind) that aren't (for the most part) dependent upon secondary or tertiary abilities but still allow you to influence the game like said archetype would... what does it matter?

Edit: It seems like asking for a drawback in order to gain something they are/will give you without it.  And this still doesn't mean you can't raise your Int/Wis/Cha to fit your vision of the archetype.


----------



## sleypy (Oct 6, 2015)

Imaro said:


> But if they are giving you abilities (like in the Mastermind) that aren't (for the most part) dependent upon secondary or tertiary abilities but still allow you to influence the game like said archetype would... what does it matter?
> 
> Edit: It seems like asking for a drawback in order to gain something they are/will give you without it.  And this still doesn't mean you can't raise your Int/Wis/Cha to fit your vision of the archetype.




I care about a particular aesthetic, and the cost of the drawback is minor compared to the expense of the aesthetic. I don't know that there is any way to quantify its importance to me to you. 

I rather have a tradeoff between choosing to invest in Int/Wis/Cha over choosing to invest in Dex. That means trading away some basic combat competences for some other worthwhile features. There will always be plenty of combat monsters playing D&D, Mastermind looks like a good start at bringing something else to the table. I just wish they had went a little bit further. 

Don't get me wrong, I like what they did with the mastermind. Just seeing it opens up a lot more possibilities.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 6, 2015)

I feel we're not really communicating effectively here.  I do understand your perspective, but I don't agree it makes for more interesting characters. I even put a disclaimer at the end of my last post.



Imaro said:


> Well then you run into the problem of being dependent on numerous attributes for your abilities to be effective, so now instead of the Dex attribute being primary and the rest being a matter of concept... I have two or more attributes I have to account for in keeping up to be effective.



Don't magnify the problem ("two or more"). There is nothing wrong with a build needing to balance between two major stats, and the more interesting builds, in my opinion, allow for choice in that. 

And, for me, the more interesting  classes require striking this balance: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and to some extent Wizard. The Arcane Trickster does fit here, but at the expense of one of the few non-magical classes in the game. 

I recognize that for many players diversity of builds is of less interest than it is for me. 



> Eh, when I look at the mastermind abilities they aren't about being agile and having great reflexes but they also don't key off a secondary attribute which to me seems the best of both worlds.... My rogue can be intelligent based if I want him to be, I just raise or start Int high... but I don't have to in order to play the mastermind rogue (which again seems less about book smarts and more about being clever/cunning) and be effective in combat.



You are correct that nothing in the Mastermind requires a high Intelligence. That's part of my point. It's a bad label. 



> Though I do have to ask... what rogue archetypes are you trying to play where Dex/stealth/nimbleness/etc. isn't a part of the concept?




I listed a variety upthread: thug, criminal mastermind, con artist, non-magical non-fighter. 



> First the wizard schools don't in any way change the primary casting attribute so I think you're making some strange comparisons here...



 The point was about heterogeneity.  



> I'm also trying to understand how the cleric is an example of this as well... As an example the trickster Cleric doesn't gain any advantage from being Dex primary and probably suffers if he makes that choice... same for the War domain and Strength.  The abilities in these domains are similar to mastermind in that they are pretty independent of the cleric's actual stats in the secondary ability.



 You've missed the point. I can build viable clerics with a higher dexterity than wisdom (e.g. archer/crossbow-cleric) that don't have anything to do with the Trickster domain. 



> Finally if you do consider the Trickster domain cleric a Dex build or the War domain cleric a strength build then  the Arcane Trickster should easily be considered an Int build since he gets more advantage from a high Int than the cleric in those domains gets from Strength or Dex being primary.



 I'm not disputing that the arcane trickster can be an Intelligence build; again, see upthread.



> I'm a little confused here so I'll ask again... exactly what Rogue archetype are you trying to recreate where Dex should be lower than a 14?  And at that point are you probably looking for a different class in the same way you had to take ranger as opposed to fighter in 4e to be a decent archer?




There is no need to suggest I'm not answering you. Let's be positive, please. Non-magical skill monkey/knowledge monkey is another possibility that naturally fits rogue but doesn't need Dex as primary. If you were around for the play test, you'll know that there were rogue builds that combined Dex and Cha, and one that was just Str. They backed away from that, for what I see as a simpler to play and less differentiated final product. 

I'm very happy that the Dex rogue is there; I just wish there were more variety in the possible outcomes. I accept that you disagree!   I hope this is clearer for you.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

sleypy said:


> I care about a particular aesthetic, and the cost of the drawback is minor compared to the expense of the aesthetic. I don't know that there is any way to quantify its importance to me to you.




Is it? I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement...



sleypy said:


> I rather have a tradeoff between choosing to invest in Int/Wis/Cha over choosing to invest in Dex. That means trading away some basic combat competences for some other worthwhile features. There will always be plenty of combat monsters playing D&D, Mastermind looks like a good start at bringing something else to the table. I just wish they had went a little bit further.




You still have the choice of that trade off in the game... it just doesn't affect the core competencies of your abilities.  The problem with the method you suggest is how does the DM challenge your Int rogue whose traded out his combat competencies for other features without boring those who have much greater combat competencies and vice versa?  Again I'm not seeing why it matters if you are getting abilities that align with the archetype you want to play and you can still choose to go higher in the attributes that fit your concept.... aren't those the ascetics right there? 



sleypy said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like what they did with the mastermind. Just seeing it opens up a lot more possibilities.




Oh, I didn't assume you did or didn't like it... I am moreso curious about what is gained in tying the abilities to a trade off in combat competencies as opposed to giving you abilities that work for the most part irregardless of a trade off... especially in a game whose default is as combat heavy as D&D.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> I feel we're not really communicating effectively here.  I do understand your perspective, but I don't agree it makes for more interesting characters. I even put a disclaimer at the end of my last post.




I don't think I stated it did or didn't make more interesting characters...




Kobold Stew said:


> Don't magnify the problem ("two or more"). There is nothing wrong with a build needing to balance between two major stats, and the more interesting builds, in my opinion, allow for choice in that.




 Even so just splitting between 2 means a large decrease in number of feats taken compared to classes that aren't MAD or in a reduced capability in combat due to attributes being generally lower... 



Kobold Stew said:


> And, for me, the more interesting  classes require striking this balance: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and to some extent Wizard. The Arcane Trickster does fit here, but at the expense of one of the few non-magical classes in the game.




If that's what you enjoy I can't argue with it... I'd rather be effective in combat and have my interesting abilities around my archetype... the abilities are where the diversity comes in for me, not what score they force me to increase... but to each his own.




Kobold Stew said:


> I recognize that for many players diversity of builds is of less interest than it is for me.




But MAD is not a requirement in a build for it to be diverse... the Mastermind and the Assassin are Dex builds and I'd say they are pretty diverse in what they allow one to accomplish...  Maybe this is where you are loosing me, You're stating X is necessary for diversity in builds but it's not... 




Kobold Stew said:


> You are correct that nothing in the Mastermind requires a high Intelligence. That's part of my point. It's a bad label.




I'd say the abilities it grants fit pretty well under the label... Reading over them reminds me of a Nathan Ford type character from Leverage...  




Kobold Stew said:


> II listed a variety upthread: thug, criminal mastermind, con artist, non-magical non-fighter.




Thug is a fighter (though you could do a strength build on a Rogue)... we have a mastermind build coming out, con-artist is a background and non-magical non-fighter is not really an archetype...



Kobold Stew said:


> I The point was about heterogeneity.
> 
> You've missed the point. I can build viable clerics with a higher dexterity than wisdom (e.g. archer/crossbow-cleric) that don't have anything to do with the Trickster domain.




Are they viable?  Or does a battlemaster fighter with the Archery style, maneuvers, longbow access, etc. totally overshadow/outclass them and now they are just mediocre spell casters and mediocre archers?  Is that an interesting choice, because if these are viable and an interesting choice... well then I don't see the issue in you making a Strength rogue...   





Kobold Stew said:


> IThere is no need to suggest I'm not answering you. Let's be positive, please.




I think you're either reading more into what I posted or getting defensive here... I was making it clear that I knew I had asked this question earlier in my post and was asking it again... nothing negative and not inferring anything about an answer I hadn't read yet...



Kobold Stew said:


> INon-magical skill monkey/knowledge monkey is another possibility that naturally fits rogue but doesn't need Dex as primary. If you were around for the play test, you'll know that there were rogue builds that combined Dex and Cha, and one that was just Str. They backed away from that, for what I see as a simpler to play and less differentiated final product.




But all of these are as viable as your archer Cleric above... 



Kobold Stew said:


> II'm very happy that the Dex rogue is there; I just wish there were more variety in the possible outcomes. I accept that you disagree!   I hope this is clearer for you.




Well mark me down as someone who is more interested in the actual abilities of the subclass/archetype being diversified and allowing me to play the archetype to form while staying combat effective without forcing me to split between two different ability scores for concept (though nothing stops me from doing this if I want to)...  But yeah, I think it's pretty clear where both of us stand on the issue.


----------



## sleypy (Oct 6, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Is it? I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement...
> 
> You still have the choice of that trade off in the game... it just doesn't affect the core competencies of your abilities.  The problem with the method you suggest is how does the DM challenge your Int rogue whose traded out his combat competencies for other features without boring those who have much greater combat competencies and vice versa?  Again I'm not seeing why it matters if you are getting abilities that align with the archetype you want to play and you can still choose to go higher in the attributes that fit your concept.... aren't those the ascetics right there?




Your response indicates that the statement actually is accurate. The things you site as problems, in your last post, aren't problems at all to me, and those things you don't see as significant are significant to me. It's really that simple.

Despite being told to the contrary, I see more traps in campaigns that have rogues in the party. There are more knowledge based challenges in parties with wizards. There will be moments made harder, but there will also be moments made easier. Accomidating characters in a game that support the three pillars shouldn't be a overwhelming task.



> Oh, I didn't assume you did or didn't like it... I am moreso curious about what is gained in tying the abilities to a trade off in combat competencies as opposed to giving you abilities that work for the most part irregardless of a trade off... especially in a game whose default is as combat heavy as D&D.




A subclass doesn't have to meet the demands of the defaults for D&D. There may be intrigues and investigations in Eberron or other adventure. The default expectation can and likely will change. Subclasses will (hopefully) fill those niches as well as the default.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 6, 2015)

sleypy said:


> Your response indicates that the statement actually is accurate.




No it doesn't because I'm still having a hard time understanding what the aesthetic is that you value... again the Mastermind grants abilities that have nothing to do with being nimble or dexterous without sacrificing combat ability... what is missing from this that doesn't meet the criteria of your desires for aesthetics?  

EDIT: In other words what is the gain in your method that is not gained in the other method without MAD?


----------



## Shasarak (Oct 6, 2015)

My first thoughts:  Wow, that guy has got a big head.


----------



## sleypy (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> No it doesn't because I'm still having a hard time understanding what the aesthetic is that you value... again the Mastermind grants abilities that have nothing to do with being nimble or dexterous without sacrificing combat ability... what is missing from this that doesn't meet the criteria of your desires for aesthetics?
> 
> EDIT: In other words what is the gain in your method that is not gained in the other method without MAD?




If what I have already said doesn't clarify it. Nothing I say in the future will make any difference.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

sleypy said:


> If what I have already said doesn't clarify it. Nothing I say in the future will make any difference.




*shrug*... Uhm. Ok.


----------



## sleypy (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> *shrug*... Uhm. Ok.




I'll try this one more time, but I feel like we will just keep going around in circles.



The mastermind features are described as being about intelligence and charisma which is good.
I prefer to having a good intelligence or charisma ability scores contribute to features describe as being based off those stats. (That is what is missing.)
I would have liked the sub-class to have gutted rogue more and add more mastermind features.
Wanting mental scores to contribute to mental features might lead to the sub-class being MAD, however, that is an ancillary concern to me. I really don't care if the issue exists or how it ultimately gets dealt with.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 7, 2015)

sleypy said:


> I'll try this one more time, but I feel like we will just keep going around in circles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wait. But all of the Mastermind features that use stats _are_ based off of Charisma and Intelligence, according to the PHB. 

Disguise kit: Charisma. 
Forgery: Intelligence. 
Gaming: presumably Intelligence (Chess) or Charisma (Poker) although I guess you could pick Horseshoes (Dexterity).
Mimic accents: useful mainly for Charisma (Deception).
Master of Tactics: no stat dependency
Insightful Manipulator: no stat dependency (but does give info relative to your own stats; maybe more useful if your stats are low-ish so you get greater discrimination)
Misdirection: no stat dependency
Soul of Deceit: Charisma (Deception)


----------



## sleypy (Oct 7, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> Wait. But all of the Mastermind features that use stats _are_ based off of Charisma and Intelligence, according to the PHB.
> 
> Disguise kit: Charisma.
> Forgery: Intelligence.
> ...



I'm not certain but I thought Disguise kit was intelligence.

I'm not sure why you quoted me to listed out bonus skills individually. Two features of the mastermind use ability scores, three don't. I would have liked for all five to have had some benefit from ability score, to balance out all the benefits to Dex that come from the base class.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 7, 2015)

sleypy said:


> I'm not certain but I thought Disguise kit was intelligence.
> 
> I'm not sure why you quoted me to listed out bonus skills individually. Two features of the mastermind use ability scores, three don't. I would have liked for all five to have had some benefit from ability score, to balance out all the benefits to Dex that come from the base class.




Perhaps it's because I misunderstood you. I was surprised at the discussion implying that Dexterity, not Intelligence or Charisma, was the driver behind Mastermind abilities. Frankly I don't see Masterminds as benefitting much from Dexterity at all, except in combat, which doesn't seem like their primary focus anyway. I imagine a Mastermind as having Expertise in Insight, Deception, Disguise (kit), and maybe Forgery. You could play a perfectly good Mastermind with Dex 12 and Int 16/Cha 16. He'd have a crummy AC and poor-ish DPR but would be otherwise fine.


----------



## sleypy (Oct 7, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> Perhaps it's because I misunderstood you. I was surprised at the discussion implying that Dexterity, not Intelligence or Charisma, was the driver behind Mastermind abilities. Frankly I don't see Masterminds as benefitting much from Dexterity at all, except in combat, which doesn't seem like their primary focus anyway. I imagine a Mastermind as having Expertise in Insight, Deception, Disguise (kit), and maybe Forgery. You could play a perfectly good Mastermind with Dex 12 and Int 16/Cha 16. He'd have a crummy AC and poor-ish DPR but would be otherwise fine.




Outside of skills (which aren't unique) it doesn't benefit much from int or cha either. I think it is only levels 1, 3 and 17 that have features that benefit from int and cha.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> Wait. But all of the Mastermind features that use stats _are_ based off of Charisma and Intelligence, according to the PHB.
> 
> Disguise kit: Charisma.
> Forgery: Intelligence.
> ...





Yeah I agree with you, that's why I said "for the most part" the abilities were stat independent in my previous posts... but I assumed that for some reason having a few wasn't good enough for those who wanted an alternate ability build and was trying to determine why... though honestly I'm not sure any class is totally dependent on a single attribute...


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Yeah I agree with you, that's why I said "for the most part" the abilities were stat independent in my previous posts... but I assumed that for some reason having a few wasn't good enough for those who wanted an alternate ability build and was trying to determine why... though honestly I'm not sure any class is totally dependent on a single attribute...



I look at it like this.  Mastermind, as a subclass, gains some non-combat abilities with some minor synergy with Intelligence and Charisma, and some combat abilities with no stat dependency.  Rogue, as a core class, has combat features with a strong synergy with Dexterity.  Therefore, the combination of Rogue-Mastermind is still strongly combat focused towards Dexterity, and gains some minor synergy with Intelligence and Charisma.  

What I think some players are looking for are subclass features that give enough combat leverage to Intelligence (or Charisma I guess, although I see Mastermind as Int focused) to make it a rational choice to have Intelligence as the highest stat over Dexterity.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 7, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> What I think some players are looking for are subclass features that give enough combat leverage to Intelligence (or Charisma I guess, although I see Mastermind as Int focused) to make it a rational choice to have Intelligence as the highest stat over Dexterity.



IMO, this is rather hard to reconcile with 5e's core assumptions and system paradigm. Not even a gish like EK get to use Intelligence for their fighting skill.

Plus, with the substantive reduction in "mandatory stat supremacy" before one can be considered competent/playable, I don't think a little MAD is all that bad. Definitely nowhere near the problem found in the last few editions.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> What I think some players are looking for are subclass features that give enough combat leverage to Intelligence (or Charisma I guess, although I see Mastermind as Int focused) to make it a rational choice to have Intelligence as the highest stat over Dexterity.




I asked if the leveraging of mental stats as combat stats was what fans were looking for and got told...



Kobold Stew said:


> I've not seen anyone in the thread advocating arbitrary substitution of mental abilities for physical ones as an attack stat; I think that is a red herring.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> IMO, this is rather hard to reconcile with 5e's core assumptions and system paradigm. Not even a gish like EK get to use Intelligence for their fighting skill.



I say "bug", you say "feature".   If EKs (or ATs, or some other new subclass) could use Intelligence as their attack stat, what would be the harm?  They still need Dex for AC, Initiative, Dex skills, etc.  



ChrisCarlson said:


> Plus, with the substantive reduction in "mandatory stat supremacy" before one can be considered competent/playable, I don't think a little MAD is all that bad. Definitely nowhere near the problem found in the last few editions.



I don't think MAD is a problem.  I just wish Mastermind was actually MAD.  Right now, it's still Dex-SAD like every other Rogue.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I asked if the leveraging of mental stats as combat stats was what fans were looking for and got told...



Even when people say things aren't about combat........they're always really about combat.  You gotta read between the lines.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I say "bug", you say "feature".   If EKs (or ATs, or some other new subclass) could use Intelligence as their attack stat, what would be the harm?  They still need Dex for AC, Initiative, Dex skills, etc.




What are AT's?  Eh... I'm not sure I like the idea of casters also drawing on their magical ability score for physical combat.  I think their versatility is what they are paying for in having to keep up more than one stat... and usually their magic (at least in so far as the paladin and ranger are concerned more than make up for a slight dip in their main attack stat.  



TwoSix said:


> I don't think MAD is a problem.  I just wish Mastermind was actually MAD.  Right now, it's still Dex-SAD like every other Rogue.




I just don't like the aesthetics of a puny 8 strength/ 8 dexterity character whose able to handily trounce a warrior with 18's in strength and dexterity in combat because of Charisma or Intelligence...


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I just don't like the aesthetics of a puny 8 strength/ 8 dexterity character whose able to handily trounce a warrior with 18's in strength and dexterity in combat because of Charisma or Intelligence...



Ever watch the gladiator fight in Life of Brian?


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> What are AT's?  Eh... I'm not sure I like the idea of casters also drawing on their magical ability score for physical combat.  I think their versatility is what they are paying for in having to keep up more than one stat... and usually their magic (at least in so far as the paladin and ranger are concerned more than make up for a slight dip in their main attack stat.



Arcane Tricksters.  And I wasn't talking about casters like Wizards or Warlocks using it, I was talking about subclasses of Fighters or Rogues getting it.  So they wouldn't be gaining much versatility, they would simply have a different aesthetic.




Imaro said:


> I just don't like the aesthetics of a puny 8 strength/ 8 dexterity character whose able to handily trounce a warrior with 18's in strength and dexterity in combat because of Charisma or Intelligence...



See, I totally love it.  Two of my last Pathfinder characters were a swordsman who relied on his preternatural intuition (high-Wisdom) for his combat skill, and a magical princess who used her overwhelming cuteness to encourage enemies to leave her alone.  (Charisma bonus to AC and saves.)  I think it's a question of what tropes you're trying to emulate, I have a strong dislike for S&S tropes so I'm always pushing in a more modern fantasy direction.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> Ever watch the gladiator fight in Life of Brian?




That's a Monty Python comedy right?  Sorry but that's not what I'm usually going for in my D&D games.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Arcane Tricksters.  And I wasn't talking about casters like Wizards or Warlocks using it, I was talking about subclasses of Fighters or Rogues getting it.  So they wouldn't be gaining much versatility, they would simply have a different aesthetic.




Ah... ok should've realized you were speaking about Arcane Tricksters.  Well AT's and EK are casters and I think the whole casts spells and fights with Int thing could be potentially unbalancing.



TwoSix said:


> See, I totally love it.  Two of my last Pathfinder characters were a swordsman who relied on his preternatural intuition (high-Wisdom) for his combat skill, and a magical princess who used her overwhelming cuteness to encourage enemies to leave her alone.  (Charisma bonus to AC and saves.)  I think it's a question of what tropes you're trying to emulate, I have a strong dislike for S&S tropes so I'm always pushing in a more modern fantasy direction.




See I would have no problem with the swordsman who relied on preternatural intuition to enhance his combat skill through abilities that allowed his Wisdom to enhance it (but not actually be his combat skill).  At a certain level I feel you have to have a baseline level of physical ability for a physical fight.  The other character you give seems to me better represented by either her talking her way out of a fight before it happens or being able to redirect attacks, misdirect enemies, etc using Cha checks... but I don't want Charisma as a substitute for Dexterity as a combat attribute.


----------



## sleypy (Oct 7, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Even when people say things aren't about combat........they're always really about combat.  You gotta read between the lines.




What you're saying is partially correct. Different people will draw the line at difference places.

For me, I strongly dislike the idea of mental stats replacing Strength or Dexterity on attack rolls and damage rolls. However, if the help action gave the ally bonuses to damage based on Intelligence, I would like something like that.

I like almost everything about the mastermind. It would be more appealing if its unique features keyed off Intelligence. It would make choosing Intelligence as a primary score more compelling without making it strictly better.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> That's a Monty Python comedy right?  Sorry but that's not what I'm usually going for in my D&D games.



Instead, you prefer your "puny 8 strength/ 8 dexterity character whose able to handily trounce a warrior with 18's in strength and dexterity in combat because of Charisma or Intelligence..." to be bards and wizards?


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 7, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> Instead, you prefer your "puny 8 strength/ 8 dexterity character whose able to handily trounce a warrior with 18's in strength and dexterity in combat because of Charisma or Intelligence..." to be bards and wizards?



How so? I believe you are making a lot of arbitrary, and possibly faulty, assumptions. What makes you think bards and wizards are handily able to beat comparable warrior-types? Because, at least in 5e, my considerable experience would lead me to believe otherwise.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> Instead, you prefer your "puny 8 strength/ 8 dexterity character whose able to handily trounce a warrior with 18's in strength and dexterity in combat because of Charisma or Intelligence..." to be bards and wizards?




Well first off in 5e this isn't a given, most warriors are going to trounce a wizard or bard with an 8 Dex (especially a warrior with high Dex and high initiative, see how that works unless of course the caster substitutes their casting ability for Dex)...

Second... yeah, magic does make sense to me... and it keeps all stats relevant.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 7, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> How so? I believe you are making a lot of arbitrary, and possibly faulty, assumptions. What makes you think bards and wizards are handily able to beat comparable warrior-types? Because, at least in 5e, my considerable experience would lead me to believe otherwise.



What do you mean by "how so"? In case you haven't noticed, I'm the one asking a question. I was curious.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> What do you mean by "how so"? In case you haven't noticed, I'm the one asking a question. I was curious.




You worded the "question" with certain assumptions as if they were givens.  If they weren't why word it like that?


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> You worded the "question" with certain assumptions as if they were givens.  If they weren't why word it like that?



Because I didn't think there would such miscommunication over something so minor. Obviously I was wrong.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Ah... ok should've realized you were speaking about Arcane Tricksters.  Well AT's and EK are casters and I think the whole casts spells and fights with Int thing could be potentially unbalancing.



I'd have to see a build utilizing it to say it's unbalanced.  I might try building an EK with an assumption of a feature that lets them use Int in place of Str for melee attacks and see what it looks like.  I can't say off the top of my head, as I haven't looked at EK much before.



Imaro said:


> See I would have no problem with the swordsman who relied on preternatural intuition to enhance his combat skill through abilities that allowed his Wisdom to enhance it (but not actually be his combat skill).  At a certain level I feel you have to have a baseline level of physical ability for a physical fight.  The other character you give seems to me better represented by either her talking her way out of a fight before it happens or being able to redirect attacks, misdirect enemies, etc using Cha checks... but I don't want Charisma as a substitute for Dexterity as a combat attribute.



Well, mechanically, how do you represent a stat contributing to effectiveness in a skill without, well, adding to the skill?  And replacement is mechanically much safer than stacking.  The other problem for the Cha princess is that shows the stat acting actively, when I liked the feel of it being passive.  Her presence alone deterred things from happening to her, not because she was trying to avoid them.  Trying to deter people by bluffing or charming them would have spoiled her general theme.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> Because I didn't think there would such miscommunication over something so minor. Obviously I was wrong.




So you'd have preferred no one correct your incorrect assumptions??


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 7, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> What do you mean by "how so"? In case you haven't noticed, I'm the one asking a question. I was curious.



You made a strong implication. To which I "How so'd" do you come to the conclusion that a wizard or bard handily beats a comparable warrior in combat? Where are you getting that belief from? Do you have examples of that happening? Because all my experience with 5e thus far runs counter to that claim.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> So you'd have preferred no one correct your incorrect assumptions??



I would have preferred if you weren't looking to make an issue where there isn't one.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I'd have to see a build utilizing it to say it's unbalanced.  I might try building an EK with an assumption of a feature that lets them use Int in place of Str for melee attacks and see what it looks like.  I can't say off the top of my head, as I haven't looked at EK much before.




Well since most weapon wielders have to max Str and Dex if they want to optimize for up close and distance combat... but the EK would only have to raise Int to be optimized for both, on top of the (admittedly limited) versatility his spells bring and the fact that he then has more raises to devote to feats which in turn would power him up... I'd have to see some logical checks that balance that out before I'd even begin to think it would be balanced...  even moreso for the AT...




TwoSix said:


> Well, mechanically, how do you represent a stat contributing to effectiveness in a skill without, well, adding to the skill?  And replacement is mechanically much safer than stacking.  The other problem for the Cha princess is that shows the stat acting actively, when I liked the feel of it being passive.  Her presence alone deterred things from happening to her, not because she was trying to avoid them.  Trying to deter people by bluffing or charming them would have spoiled her general theme.




Hmmm... but you'd still have the misdirection abilities which could be passive... perhaps make them work a number of times equal to Cha bonus... Anyway I'm not designing a class and I think if we keep going back and forth with a hypothetical... my bigger point is going to continuously get lost in the details being picked apart...  At the end of the day I'm saying abilities can be created (as shown by the mastermind) that give a certain feel without replacing physical attack stats with mental stats.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 7, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> I would have preferred if you weren't looking to make an issue where there isn't one.




No you tried to ask me a classic loaded question and got called on it... plain and simple.  And instead of saying... yeah my bad, I was wrong, you're now trying to make it seem so trivial that it shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> No you tried to ask me a classic loaded question and got called on it... plain and simple.  And instead of saying... yeah my bad, I was wrong, you're now trying to make it seem so trivial that it shouldn't be an issue.



And you are pressing an issue where there isn't one. The rest is imaginary on your part. Plain and simple. It was tongue-in-cheek. That's all.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 7, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Well since most weapon wielders have to max Str and Dex if they want to optimize for up close and distance combat... but the EK would only have to raise Int to be optimized for both, on top of the (admittedly limited) versatility his spells bring and the fact that he then has more raises to devote to feats which in turn would power him up... I'd have to see some logical checks that balance that out before I'd even begin to think it would be balanced...  even moreso for the AT...



I don't particularly value the ability to switch between melee and ranged easily (although if you do, obviously our overall conclusions would be different).  I see most builds focusing on stats to raise their attacks first, their AC second, and HPs third.  An EK with Int to attack would focus on Int first, then getting either Dex or Str up, then Con.  The only Str & Dex dumping EKs would be the ones willing to eat the movement penalty for using heavy armor at a low Str.  



Imaro said:


> Hmmm... but you'd still have the misdirection abilities which could be passive... perhaps make them work a number of times equal to Cha bonus... Anyway I'm not designing a class and I think if we keep going back and forth with a hypothetical... my bigger point is going to continuously get lost in the details being picked apart...  At the end of the day I'm saying abilities can be created (as shown by the mastermind) that give a certain feel without replacing physical attack stats with mental stats.



I agree, you can certainly do it either way.  I just think stat replacement is the easiest way to do it, and it also supports aesthetic considerations that I find favorable.  I like the concept of super-geniuses learning esoteric sword techniques in just a few weeks, or blind swordsmen guiding their thrusts by the sounds of their enemies' heartbeats.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 7, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I don't particularly value the ability to switch between melee and ranged easily (although if you do, obviously our overall conclusions would be different).  I see most builds focusing on stats to raise their attacks first, their AC second, and HPs third.  An EK with Int to attack would focus on Int first, then getting either Dex or Str up, then Con.  The only Str & Dex dumping EKs would be the ones willing to eat the movement penalty for using heavy armor at a low Str.
> 
> 
> I agree, you can certainly do it either way.  I just think stat replacement is the easiest way to do it, and it also supports aesthetic considerations that I find favorable.  I like the concept of super-geniuses learning esoteric sword techniques in just a few weeks, or blind swordsmen guiding their thrusts by the sounds of their enemies' heartbeats.




Without the strength or dexterity to actually perform the strikes none of those things, esoteric sword techniques or sensing the location of enemies via hearing not sight, matters.  Without the raw physicality those things are useless.  Yes there are techniques that use an enemies strength against them, however even those abilities require you to not be infirm, and do in fact require some level of physicality.  If you are physically weak and clumsy no amount of wisdom or intelligence will help you to be a passable physical combatant.  It's just the realities of how physical combat actually works.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Without the strength or dexterity to actually perform the strikes none of those things, esoteric sword techniques or sensing the location of enemies via hearing not sight, matters.  Without the raw physicality those things are useless.  Yes there are techniques that use an enemies strength against them, however even those abilities require you to not be infirm, and do in fact require some level of physicality.  If you are physically weak and clumsy no amount of wisdom or intelligence will help you to be a passable physical combatant.  It's just the realities of how physical combat actually works.




Yes, but, that's not really what we're talking about.  We're talking about someone who is very intelligent and average strength and maybe slightly below average Dex (10 and 8 respectively) being able to use those techniques.  We're not talking about someone on crutches.  IOW, Sherlock Holmes from the Robert Downey Jr. movies.  Average Str and Dex but very capable in combat.  Actually, to be honest, I think the Sherlock Holmes movies would be exactly the inspiration for this.  Moving over to the wuxia side of the cinema, the aged master kicking ass and taking names fits as well.  Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid.  

There are tons of archetypes exemplifying the idea of the high Int/Cha, low physical stats character being able to hold his own in physical combat.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 8, 2015)

Please Pelor, Vecna, and Bane, NEVER return to the time of Melee Training again. You might as well get rid of ability scores if that returns...


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Yes, but, that's not really what we're talking about.  We're talking about someone who is very intelligent and average strength and maybe slightly below average Dex (10 and 8 respectively) being able to use those techniques.  We're not talking about someone on crutches.  IOW, Sherlock Holmes from the Robert Downey Jr. movies.  Average Str and Dex but very capable in combat.  Actually, to be honest, I think the Sherlock Holmes movies would be exactly the inspiration for this.  Moving over to the wuxia side of the cinema, the aged master kicking ass and taking names fits as well.  Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid.
> 
> There are tons of archetypes exemplifying the idea of the high Int/Cha, low physical stats character being able to hold his own in physical combat.




No those characters definitely have the physical prowess, it's just not apparent.  What they benefit from isn't abilities outside of physicality they benefit from the fact that people don't understand that strong and dexterous don't always look the way people expect them to.  Sherlock regularly shows the strength capabilities, sure he isn't sitting at an 18, but he's at least sitting at a 12 or 14.  He isn't replacing his attack stat with int he's using his training and experience (a.k.a proficiency bonus) to form a decent striking stratagem, and then using his reasonable strength and dex to execute said plan.  Miagi had the dex.  He was an active repair man.  That meaning he had the strength, dex and constitution to accomplish both basic and advanced repair tasks.  One of the main points of the karate kid films is to point out that strength and capability don't always look the same, or as we expect them to.


----------



## JediGamemaster (Oct 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Please Pelor, Vecna, and Bane, NEVER return to the time of Melee Training again. You might as well get rid of ability scores if that returns...




what is melee training? I know the words, but in this context I can't make any sense


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

JediGamemaster said:


> what is melee training? I know the words, but in this context I can't make any sense




It was a series of feats in 4e that allowed you to switch the stat you use to make attack rolls.  Inadvertantly they were a complete trap option (if melee attacks were not good on your character by default you were not supposed to be using them)


----------



## JediGamemaster (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> It was a series of feats in 4e that allowed you to switch the stat you use to make attack rolls.  Inadvertantly they were a complete trap option (if melee attacks were not good on your character by default you were not supposed to be using them)




I would hate to see cha or con attacks, and Int is far from my idea (although I guess for a concept or two it might work) I think that a zen combat that focuses on perception and inner eyes... yea Zen combat would be a cool sub class feature for a monk... use wisdom instead of str or dex....


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> It was a series of feats in 4e that allowed you to switch the stat you use to make attack rolls.  Inadvertantly they were a complete trap option (if melee attacks were not good on your character by default you were not supposed to be using them)




Unless you were a Dex Rogue, a Int Swordmage, a Con Warden, etc. Then they were a feat tax to use a basic attack.


----------



## JediGamemaster (Oct 8, 2015)

how can it be both a trap and a tax????


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Unless you were a Dex Rogue, a Int Swordmage, a Con Warden, etc. Then they were a feat tax to use a basic attack.




Making a melee basic attack with any of those builds was a trap.  They should have stuck to at will attacks.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> No those characters definitely have the physical prowess, it's just not apparent.  What they benefit from isn't abilities outside of physicality they benefit from the fact that people don't understand that strong and dexterous don't always look the way people expect them to.  Sherlock regularly shows the strength capabilities, sure he isn't sitting at an 18, but he's at least sitting at a 12 or 14.  He isn't replacing his attack stat with int he's using his training and experience (a.k.a proficiency bonus) to form a decent striking stratagem, and then using his reasonable strength and dex to execute said plan.  Miagi had the dex.  He was an active repair man.  That meaning he had the strength, dex and constitution to accomplish both basic and advanced repair tasks.  One of the main points of the karate kid films is to point out that strength and capability don't always look the same, or as we expect them to.




Sherlock Holmes was physically stronger than average?  Really?  Or more Dextrous?  Can you point to examples from the movies where you would say that?  Mr. Miyagi (and I'm talking about the original Karate Kid with Pat Morita, not Jackie Chan, who I will totally agree is high dex and pretty high str) is this guy:







In what way is he above average str or dex?  What evidence would you bring to show that?

Never mind the aging Kung Fu master.  Not exactly breaking any strength records.  Pretty spry for an old guy, but, again, the whole point of Kung Fu is that you don't have to be strong or fast to be powerful.  The whole, "Power of the mind" schtick.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 8, 2015)

...being high level helps...


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Making a melee basic attack with any of those builds was a trap.  They should have stuck to at will attacks.




Well, except for you can't use at-wills for OAs, Lazylord attacks, or a swordmage's mark ability (making him a really crappy defender).


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Sherlock Holmes was physically stronger than average?  Really?  Or more Dextrous?  Can you point to examples from the movies where you would say that?  Mr. Miyagi (and I'm talking about the original Karate Kid with Pat Morita, not Jackie Chan, who I will totally agree is high dex and pretty high str) is this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You mean how he was incredibly high level?  It's called proficiency bonus.  Also for advanced dexterity?  Straight dodging punches so they land in glass windows sounds about right, or catching flies with chopsticks.  At best he has age based negatives on his physical ability scores which he makes up for with high proficiency mods, thanks to a wealth of experience.

EDIT: Heck just being able to use chopsticks with great proficiency to the extent of being able to attempt to catch flies with them is a sign of higher than average dexterity.  Most normal people I know don't have the dexterity to be able to use chopsticks so simply by being able to use them I'd place him at, at least a 12, and that's after the age based penalties.


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> EDIT: Heck just being able to use chopsticks with great proficiency to the extent of being able to attempt to catch flies with them is a sign of higher than average dexterity.  Most normal people I know don't have the dexterity to be able to use chopsticks so simply by being able to use them I'd place him at, at least a 12, and that's after the age based penalties.




It is similar to learning how to hold a pencil.

A lot of people use chopsticks. People from cultures that use chopsticks don't have higher dexterity than people whose cultures don't use them.

That is silly.

I can use chopsticks quite well. I am also quite clumsy and uncoordinated.


----------



## JediGamemaster (Oct 8, 2015)

ad_hoc said:


> It is similar to learning how to hold a pencil.
> 
> A lot of people use chopsticks. People from cultures that use chopsticks don't have higher dexterity than people whose cultures don't use them.
> 
> ...




you can use them to eat, can you used them to catch even slow bugs


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

ad_hoc said:


> It is similar to learning how to hold a pencil.
> 
> A lot of people use chopsticks. People from cultures that use chopsticks don't have higher dexterity than people whose cultures don't use them.
> 
> ...




I'd argue two things 1 you are likely not giving yourself enough credit, and 2 no matter your stance that doesn't change the fact that using chopsticks requires a higher than average manual dexterity because using them is in fact a challenge of manual dexterity just like rolling a quarter across your fingers is.  If I'm going to get real into it from a hard crunch standpoint it's basically a one tool toolkit that requires proficiency for use and keys off dexterity.  So if I'm going with that I suppose it isn't the best example for Miagi because my stance is that he is high level so his proficiency bonus is again shouldering most of the burden there.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 8, 2015)

Yeah, like others have said, examples like RDJ's Holmes and Mr. Miyagi--or the typical "aged kung-fu master" and blind samurai, to go for more generic instances--aren't examples of people who don't use Str or Dex. They're examples of people who have grown skilled enough--or, in D&D terms, high enough level--that they can overcome the disadvantage of not being as Strong or Dexterous as most of their opponents. The kung-fu master would be _even better_ if he knew what he knew now, but had the body of his 24-year-old self, because his Str and Dex would be better, and he's still using those.

Rules that grant bonuses based on other stats? Viable. Rules that _replace_ Str or Dex for physical combat? I was a big 4E fan, but I really didn't care for it even then. As always, play how you like, but to me that it violates any sense of verisimilitude, fantasy or not.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> You mean how he was incredibly high level?  It's called proficiency bonus.  Also for advanced dexterity?  Straight dodging punches so they land in glass windows sounds about right, or catching flies with chopsticks.  At best he has age based negatives on his physical ability scores which he makes up for with high proficiency mods, thanks to a wealth of experience.
> 
> EDIT: Heck just being able to use chopsticks with great proficiency to the extent of being able to attempt to catch flies with them is a sign of higher than average dexterity.  Most normal people I know don't have the dexterity to be able to use chopsticks so simply by being able to use them I'd place him at, at least a 12, and that's after the age based penalties.




You do realize that he couldn't catch the fly right?  The kid catches the fly.  Mr. Miyagi spends his whole life trying and fails.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> I'd argue two things 1 you are likely not giving yourself enough credit, and 2 no matter your stance that doesn't change the fact that using chopsticks requires a higher than average manual dexterity because using them is in fact a challenge of manual dexterity just like rolling a quarter across your fingers is.  If I'm going to get real into it from a hard crunch standpoint it's basically a one tool toolkit that requires proficiency for use and keys off dexterity.  So if I'm going with that I suppose it isn't the best example for Miagi because my stance is that he is high level so his proficiency bonus is again shouldering most of the burden there.




Using chopsticks requires no more dexterity than using a knife and fork.  

The thing is, Mr. Miyagi was NEVER very strong.  He might have been slightly more dextrous, but, in D&D terms, you don't exactly lose buckets of Dex for age.  As far as I can tell, you don't actually change your stats with age at all in 5e.  So, Mr. Miyagi would have the same Str and Dex at 24 as he does now.  Even in 3e, the worst he would lose was 3 points of Dex and Str and he's hardly venerable.  Heck, he'd qualify as old which is a -1 to Str and Dex.  It's entirely possible that Mr. Miyagi's stat changes have no effect.

And there's certainly no evidence that he was a big, strong guy in the past.  Nor particularly dextrous.  The Venerable Old Master is rarely depicted as some high strength guy.  

Isn't that the whole point of the genre- that your power comes not from your physical prowess but your knowledge and skill?  IOW, your mental stats?  

We already substitute Dex for Str on attacks, so, there is precedence there.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Hussar said:


> You do realize that he couldn't catch the fly right?  The kid catches the fly.  Mr. Miyagi spends his whole life trying and fails.




second movie.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Using chopsticks requires no more dexterity than using a knife and fork.
> 
> The thing is, Mr. Miyagi was NEVER very strong.  He might have been slightly more dextrous, but, in D&D terms, you don't exactly lose buckets of Dex for age.  As far as I can tell, you don't actually change your stats with age at all in 5e.  So, Mr. Miyagi would have the same Str and Dex at 24 as he does now.  Even in 3e, the worst he would lose was 3 points of Dex and Str and he's hardly venerable.  Heck, he'd qualify as old which is a -1 to Str and Dex.  It's entirely possible that Mr. Miyagi's stat changes have no effect.




I think it takes a pretty high Dexterity to snatch flies out the air with chopsticks...

[video=youtube;EMjGfn3iXhs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMjGfn3iXhs[/video]


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Using chopsticks requires no more dexterity than using a knife and fork.
> 
> The thing is, Mr. Miyagi was NEVER very strong.  He might have been slightly more dextrous, but, in D&D terms, you don't exactly lose buckets of Dex for age.  As far as I can tell, you don't actually change your stats with age at all in 5e.  So, Mr. Miyagi would have the same Str and Dex at 24 as he does now.  Even in 3e, the worst he would lose was 3 points of Dex and Str and he's hardly venerable.  Heck, he'd qualify as old which is a -1 to Str and Dex.  It's entirely possible that Mr. Miyagi's stat changes have no effect.
> 
> ...




No, anyone that actually does martial arts can attest, no amount of knowledge will be of any use if your body can't hold up to the task.  That's why martial artists train religiously, to keep their bodies in peak physical performance capability.  Yes there are some movies that employ some level of "kung fu magic" but that's freaking magic.  Also lets not confuse Pat Morita, the actor, and Kesuke Miyagi, the character he played.  Pat Morita is a comedian, and actor who at the age of 2 got spinal TB, spent 9 years cycling through various Northern California hospitals, and after extensive spinal surgery and relearning how to walk was moved to an internment camp during WWII, didn't actually know a lick of karate or any kind of martial arts, and spent his life post internment life wracking up actor and comedian creds like working for Groundlings.  Kesuke Miyagi was an Okinawan Japanese Immigrant that grew up learning martial arts, immigrated to the US to avoid fighting and quite likely winning a fight to the death, was placed in an internment camp in California, and then entered the US army, specifically ending up in the 442 infantry regiment (one of the most decorated regiments in the history of the army, including 12 medal of honor recipients) where he taught his commanding officer karate.  I'm going to say this guy had a long life where he was in fact quite physically capable, he passed army training practices, and was in the most decorated army regiment of all time where he taught his commanding officer karate.  Yes Pat Morita looks like someone that was likely far from physically imposing for his entire life, however the character he played was one with a long, active and physically demanding life.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Oct 8, 2015)

Normally I would put this in one of the Warlord threads, but the only one on the main page (yeah, there's only _one_ now guys!) is too context-specific for it, so it has to default to this thread instead. I did a quick skim of the previous 15 pages and didn't see anyone mention these points, so I'm *hoping* I'm not just rehashing something that's already been discussed. If so, I apologize--I know I hate having to answer the same questions over and over, even if every time they are asked in earnest. Anyway...

I'm seriously surprised that this Mastermind archetype hasn't been met with the forum equivalent of armed resistance. It seems to violate a number of rhetorical points made against the creation of a Warlord, without having earned a single peep of anger or offense (from what I can tell). Specifically:

1. "Master of Tactics"? Oh no, we're giving tactics stuff to classes that aren't the Fighter! The Fighter will be useless/meaningless/sidelined now! Except...nobody's saying that. People have noted how limited it is at 3rd level (only giving the Help action--though at no cost to the Rogue except _her_ action), but I haven't seen a single person complain that this is stripping the Fighter of its martial significance. Why not? Isn't this exactly the same kind of thing, different merely in degree?

2. Spooky action at a distance! How is this Help action suddenly extended to a 30' distance, when no other characters can do the same thing? The Mastermind can't use magic. How can it Help others attack an enemy at a distance when a Fighter or Barbarian--masters of physical combat--cannot do so? Yet I haven't seen even the vague rumblings that point 1 got--_nobody_ seems to mind that a purely non-magical character can achieve a simple action which other characters cannot.

3. Mundane abilities being more powerful than magic!! This is the one that _really_ gets me. This Rogue, through explicitly no means other than skill and talent, is _more powerful than a magic spell._ Through 100% non-magical means, it becomes immune to a form of magic (compulsion to tell the truth, detection of truth/lies). Sure, it's a high-level ability, but doesn't this bother _anybody_?

How did the Mastermind so..._masterfully_ succeed at dodging ire?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 8, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Normally I would put this in one of the Warlord threads, but the only one on the main page (yeah, there's only _one_ now guys!) is too context-specific for it, so it has to default to this thread instead. I did a quick skim of the previous 15 pages and didn't see anyone mention these points, so I'm *hoping* I'm not just rehashing something that's already been discussed. If so, I apologize--I know I hate having to answer the same questions over and over, even if every time they are asked in earnest. Anyway...
> 
> I'm seriously surprised that this Mastermind archetype hasn't been met with the forum equivalent of armed resistance. It seems to violate a number of rhetorical points made against the creation of a Warlord, without having earned a single peep of anger or offense (from what I can tell). Specifically:
> 
> ...




Presentation is key.  It's 100% about presentation.  The issues were never about anything of substance.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> 1. "Master of Tactics"? Oh no, we're giving tactics stuff to classes that aren't the Fighter! The Fighter will be useless/meaningless/sidelined now! Except...nobody's saying that. People have noted how limited it is at 3rd level (only giving the Help action--though at no cost to the Rogue except _her_ action), but I haven't seen a single person complain that this is stripping the Fighter of its martial significance. Why not? Isn't this exactly the same kind of thing, different merely in degree?




Wait what... the "tactics" of the Mastermind are pretty different from the combat tactics of the battlemaster.  See the problem with the warlord in this area, at least as far as I remember the discussions was that warlord fans were clamoring for the battlemaster's tactics (maneuvers)... plus higher level tactics (maneuvers)... plus more tactics (maneuvers)... plus more dice (better at maneuvers).  So yeah that kinda does overshadow or obsolete (depending on how far thus hypothetical class would go) the battlemaster/fighter in so far as the arena of combat tactics go.  



EzekielRaiden said:


> 2. Spooky action at a distance! How is this Help action suddenly extended to a 30' distance, when no other characters can do the same thing? The Mastermind can't use magic. How can it Help others attack an enemy at a distance when a Fighter or Barbarian--masters of physical combat--cannot do so? Yet I haven't seen even the vague rumblings that point 1 got--_nobody_ seems to mind that a purely non-magical character can achieve a simple action which other characters cannot.




This was never a complaint (at least not by the majority of opponents to the warlord I saw in the previous threads)...  oh, and for the record the fighter can do this...it's called Distracting Strike and can be used at range.  In fact the more I read the above passage the less and less it makes sense... of course a purely non-magical character can achieve actions which other characters cannot... Battlemaster maneuvers... Champion's extended crit range...Rogue's Cunning Action... so what exactly are you talking about.  The complaint, at least for me was that the archetype of the warlord was, in a large share of fiction, an add-on to other more prominent/known archetypes...  thus why I like the Mastermind... it continues in the same vein as the Battlemaster.  Great battle leaders, guild masters, leaders of magical cabals, high priests of gods, etc. all display the same type of inspirational leadership people want a warlord to have so just make it a build of each of the other classes, especially since multi-classing is optional. 



EzekielRaiden said:


> 3. Mundane abilities being more powerful than magic!! This is the one that _really_ gets me. This Rogue, through explicitly no means other than skill and talent, is _more powerful than a magic spell._ Through 100% non-magical means, it becomes immune to a form of magic (compulsion to tell the truth, detection of truth/lies). Sure, it's a high-level ability, but doesn't this bother _anybody_?




You do realize that mundane already exceeds magic in other areas... right?  Mindless rage for the barbarian, Indomitable for the fighter...Feral Senses for the ranger vs. Invisibility... and so on.  So why should that bother anyone.  What bothered many about the warlord was the whole... he does his inspiring while you're unconscious and/or dying and it still works aspect of healing.  That just isn't how a large number of people are willing to accept that inspirational war cries and motivational speeches work... regardless of the minuscule evidence that this might be possible... it's not what many/most people are willing to accept. 



EzekielRaiden said:


> How did the Mastermind so..._masterfully_ succeed at dodging ire?




He didn't... it seems like you failed to understand the actual complaints against the warlord...


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Presentation is key.  It's 100% about presentation.  The issues were never about anything of substance.




<sarcasm>Thank you for choosing to speak for everyone who had a problem with the warlord, your ability to read minds is as astounding as your aptitude for being unbiased... <end sarcasm>


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Normally I would put this in one of the Warlord threads, but the only one on the main page (yeah, there's only _one_ now guys!) is too context-specific for it, so it has to default to this thread instead. I did a quick skim of the previous 15 pages and didn't see anyone mention these points, so I'm *hoping* I'm not just rehashing something that's already been discussed. If so, I apologize--I know I hate having to answer the same questions over and over, even if every time they are asked in earnest. Anyway...
> 
> I'm seriously surprised that this Mastermind archetype hasn't been met with the forum equivalent of armed resistance. It seems to violate a number of rhetorical points made against the creation of a Warlord, without having earned a single peep of anger or offense (from what I can tell). Specifically:
> 
> ...




I've always been a fan of warlord type classes being Subclasses and have often said that rogue would be a good place to put it.  Issue number 1 isn't really a problem for me.  My position isn't that tactical capability be locked to the fighter just that such tactical abilities shouldn't be on a character with no combat prowess of any kind.  In fact with the way they have created it this guy isn't just helping tactically in combat he can help another character with a skill based task as a bonus action while also performing a skill based task of their own.  I in fact think this capability sits better in the rogue Subclasses than in the fighter because it also interacts heavily with ability checks.  Issue 2 hasn't been brought up because this subclass is predicated on help actions and their help being better than other character's help.  I'm fine with it being a capability they have that others don't because it is their bread and butter.  I'm fine with the fact that the fighter can't use a help action from 30 feet away.  They, specifically the battle masters, have at least a few attacks that can accomplish the same end (giving a future attacker advantage), and possibly even to a greater effect (distracting shot, and trip attack at least).  These abilities may be used from range as a part of a multi attack and could even be used on multiple targets within the same turn.  Essentially issue 2 hasn't come up because the fighter is still better at it.  Issue 3 is just a bunch of BS. Mundanes regularly get mundane capabilities that match, or even exceed, those of casters.  Heck some racial bonuses include resistance to magical capabilities.  Hell the thief gets use magic device which makes him more capable of using magic items than any caster or any character.  It allows the thief to use scrolls like all spells are in his spell list and allows him to get the full effects of a holy avenger.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yeah, like others have said, examples like RDJ's Holmes and Mr. Miyagi--or the typical "aged kung-fu master" and blind samurai, to go for more generic instances--aren't examples of people who don't use Str or Dex. They're examples of people who have grown skilled enough--or, in D&D terms, high enough level--that they can overcome the disadvantage of not being as Strong or Dexterous as most of their opponents. The kung-fu master would be _even better_ if he knew what he knew now, but had the body of his 24-year-old self, because his Str and Dex would be better, and he's still using those.
> 
> Rules that grant bonuses based on other stats? Viable. Rules that _replace_ Str or Dex for physical combat? I was a big 4E fan, but I really didn't care for it even then. As always, play how you like, but to me that it violates any sense of verisimilitude, fantasy or not.



I agree that you certainly can use level as the measurement for superior ability, and it's certainly a viable route for modeling genre conventions around skilled aged masters of various sorts.  

But, if you want to model the most skilled individuals, at least in 5e, you need a combination of proficiency bonus and stat bonus to achieve the best overall bonus.  Stat replacement is the most straightforward way to model characters who use studied esoteric techniques, or senses so acute they border on precognition, or just overall mystical presence to be fierce combatants.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I agree that you certainly can use level as the measurement for superior ability, and it's certainly a viable route for modeling genre conventions around skilled aged masters of various sorts.
> 
> But, if you want to model the most skilled individuals, at least in 5e, you need a combination of proficiency bonus and stat bonus to achieve the best overall bonus.  Stat replacement is the most straightforward way to model characters who use studied esoteric techniques, or senses so acute they border on precognition, or just overall mystical presence to be fierce combatants.




I'm curious, because I never see this talked about at all.. so would you be ok with a character using his physical abilities for mental tasks?  And if so at that point what is the purpose of ability scores?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 8, 2015)

A mastermind to me passes smell test because it interacts well with the fiction and mechanics. Master of Tactics grants help to one person, but leaves the type open to DM interpretation. And while advantage is potent, is not screwing up the math or action economy. The rogue loses his bonus action to twf or CA to do it, for example, and he's not adding numbers bloat. ("Add the rogue's Int mod to hit"). 

However, even if we added MOT to a battlemaster in exchange for say, their 3rd and 4th attack, it's not going to be powerful enough for most warlord fans. Because the warlord is the Ultimate Master of Tactics, so he must now be better at it than the rogue, just like how he must be better than the battlemaster.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I'm curious, because I never see this talked about at all.. so would you be ok with a character using his physical abilities for mental tasks?  And if so at that point what is the purpose of ability scores?



I have no problem with it in theory, although I think the narrative to stretch over it might be more difficult to generate. (Mind over matter is a pretty common trope in fantasy, which makes mental stats for physical activities easier to rationalize.)  

I think a primary factor depends on your character and how you visualize them, especially if they have stats that might not match with their overall image.  Like if you have a 5' tall, 100 lb girl who is a 5th level fighter with 18 Strength.  A character like that probably has a spark of "magic" in them, something that makes them special.  Or maybe she was trained in a grueling regimen that turned her into a total badass.  Maybe her training was actually in a monastery, and her scholarly ability allowed her to learn some base magic of physical enhancement in addition to arcane theory and knowledge of the Outer Planes and their denizens.  She's learned, but simply doesn't have the knack for real arcane casting (hence her 10 Int, but 18 Str and ability to use Strength for Intelligence checks.)

Basically, if you're doing a stat replacement, you're saying the character has 2 disparate abilities, but your inherent ability in both comes from the same source.  Than you derive a backstory to explain the source.  It helps if you view your characters as comic-book heroes or anime heroes in development, not as medieval Conanesque murderhobos.  But again, that's all about the aesthetic you want to develop in your game.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I have no problem with it in theory, although I think the narrative to stretch over it might be more difficult to generate. (Mind over matter is a pretty common trope in fantasy, which makes mental stats for physical activities easier to rationalize.)
> 
> I think a primary factor depends on your character and how you visualize them, especially if they have stats that might not match with their overall image.  Like if you have a 5' tall, 100 lb girl who is a 5th level fighter with 18 Strength.  A character like that probably has a spark of "magic" in them, something that makes them special.  Or maybe she was trained in a grueling regimen that turned her into a total badass.  Maybe her training was actually in a monastery, and her scholarly ability allowed her to learn some base magic of physical enhancement in addition to arcane theory and knowledge of the Outer Planes and their denizens.  She's learned, but simply doesn't have the knack for real arcane casting (hence her 10 Int, but 18 Str and ability to use Strength for Intelligence checks.)
> 
> Basically, if you're doing a stat replacement, you're saying the character has 2 disparate abilities, but your inherent ability in both comes from the same source.  Than you derive a backstory to explain the source.  It helps if you view your characters as comic-book heroes or anime heroes in development, not as medieval Conanesque murderhobos.  But again, that's all about the aesthetic you want to develop in your game.




So at that point, what is the purpose of ability scores?  In your model someone with an 8 int could figure out calculus because they use stat replacement of some kind to use an 18 strength for int checks.  At that point the ability scores mean nothing because the guy that should be a total moron is walking around like a super genius because he can lift heavy objects, and hit people really hard.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> So at that point, what is the purpose of ability scores?  In your model someone with an 8 int could figure out calculus because they use stat replacement of some kind to use an 18 strength for int checks.  At that point the ability scores mean nothing because the guy that should be a total moron is walking around like a super genius because he can lift heavy objects, and hit people really hard.



Because if they're using a high Strength for Int checks, they're not a total moron, obviously.  The stats don't have to be prescriptive.  The total sum of what the character is capable of reflects their nature, not their stats.  

The reason this works is because the D&D stats are highly abstract, and often bundle concepts together that aren't necessarily lumped together in a more developed character.  One can be a fantastic acrobat but a lousy archer.  One can have an eidetic memory but be terrible at math.  One can be magically powerful but personally unlikable.  One can be an average physical specimen but a terror with a blade.  Stat replacement (limited to certain skills or checks, of course, not completely ignore one stat) is a way to model these disparities.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> So at that point, what is the purpose of ability scores?  In your model someone with an 8 int could figure out calculus because they use stat replacement of some kind to use an 18 strength for int checks.  At that point the ability scores mean nothing because the guy that should be a total moron is walking around like a super genius because he can lift heavy objects, and hit people really hard.



I'm not entirely sure what their point is. Casters get to use their primary stat for casting without seemingly having to bother aiming with Dexterity. Their magic does not seem to be in any proportion to their physical abilities. Shillelagh even permits some casters to use their caster stat for melee attacks. More magic exceptionalism, I suppose.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Because if they're using a high Strength for Int checks, they're not a total moron, obviously.  The stats don't have to be prescriptive.  The total sum of what the character is capable of reflects their nature, not their stats.
> 
> The reason this works is because the D&D stats are highly abstract, and often bundle concepts together that aren't necessarily lumped together in a more developed character.  One can be a fantastic acrobat but a lousy archer.  One can have an eidetic memory but be terrible at math.  One can be magically powerful but personally unlikable.  One can be an average physical specimen but a terror with a blade.  Stat replacement (limited to certain skills or checks, of course, not completely ignore one stat) is a way to model these disparities.




No proficiency bonus is.  That near average physicality swordsman makes up for his lack of physicality with proficiency and experience.  In 5e one of the core design principles is your stats  in fact do define who and what you are.  Int of 8 you are an idiot.  That's the point.  The stats are in fact more expressly and concretely connected to defining who you are, they are the core element of defining who your character is.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not entirely sure what their point is. Casters get to use their primary stat for casting without seemingly having to bother aiming with Dexterity. Their magic does not seem to be in any proportion to their physical abilities. Shillelagh even permits some casters to use their caster stat for melee attacks. More magic exceptionalism, I suppose.




I'm using magic to hit someone with a little ball of fire.  I'm in fact just willing that they get hit by a first sized ball of fire.  Sure it looks like I'm just firing it out of my hand, but I'm not actually shooting a projectile, I'm willing a ball of fire into existence and to my target's head, using the casting stat to model that makes the most sense.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> No proficiency bonus is.  That near average physicality swordsman makes up for his lack of physicality with proficiency and experience.  In 5e one of the core design principles is your stats  in fact do define who and what you are.  Int of 8 you are an idiot.  That's the point.  The stats are in fact more expressly and concretely connected to defining who you are, they are the core element of defining who your character is.



Not the game the way I play it, thanks.  I built plenty of characters my way in Pathfinder and 4e, and I'm houseruling it into several of my homebrewed backgrounds.  It's one of my favorite mechanics in those editions, and the bounded stats of 5e make it both more broadly utilitarian and less overpowering, which I like.

Remember, the fact that I make it work proves that it can work.  It might simply provide a play experience you don't wish to mimic.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> I'm using magic to hit someone with a little ball of fire.  I'm in fact just willing that they get hit by a first sized ball of fire.  Sure it looks like I'm just firing it out of my hand, but I'm not actually shooting a projectile, I'm willing a ball of fire into existence and to my target's head, using the casting stat to model that makes the most sense.



And are non-magical people not afforded similar luxuries of creativity when it comes to conceptualizing, for lack of a better term, "mental stat combat"?


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> And are non-magical people not afforded similar luxuries of creativity when it comes to conceptualizing, for lack of a better term, "mental stat combat"?




Are they using magic to alter the fabric of reality?  If yes then totally go for it, you are using magic to rewrite reality.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Are they using magic to alter the fabric of reality? If yes then totally go for it, you are using magic to rewrite reality.



This is the strange thing about magic in this game. When it's convenient for people, magic suddenly becomes a science that doesn't "rewrite reality" because it's consistent within the physics of the universe. But when that's not a convenient position to take, then magic suddenly becomes something that "alters the fabric of reality" in a manner that is inconsistent with the physics of the universe. This is that bizarre notion of magic exceptionalism that I find at once peculiar and frustrating. It time and time and time again provides casters with 'get out of fairness free cards' that are not permitted to non-casters such that there is very little drawback for primary casters because it's one stat fits all.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> This is the strange thing about magic in this game. When it's convenient for people, magic suddenly becomes a science that doesn't "rewrite reality" because it's consistent within the physics of the universe. But when that's not a convenient position to take, then magic suddenly becomes something that "alters the fabric of reality" in a manner that is inconsistent with the physics of the universe. This is that bizarre notion of magic exceptionalism that I find at once peculiar and frustrating. It time and time and time again provides casters with 'get out of fairness free cards' that are not permitted to non-casters such that there is very little drawback for primary casters because it's one stat fits all.



What I find frustrating is that "magic" has to be bundled with spell slots and magical items.  I'd think a 5' girl able to lift a 400 lb boulder with her 18 Strength is obviously magical, but since she isn't pulling out her spell component pouch... 

Living in a D&D world makes you magic.  It's not medieval Europe with monsters on top.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> What I find frustrating is that "magic" has to be bundled with spell slots and magical items.  I'd think a 5' girl able to lift a 400 lb boulder with her 18 Strength is obviously magical, but since she isn't pulling out her spell component pouch...



Does she lose that strength in an anti-magic field?


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> This is the strange thing about magic in this game. When it's convenient for people, magic suddenly becomes a science that doesn't "rewrite reality" because it's consistent within the physics of the universe. But when that's not a convenient position to take, then magic suddenly becomes something that "alters the fabric of reality" in a manner that is inconsistent with the physics of the universe. This is that bizarre notion of magic exceptionalism that I find at once peculiar and frustrating. It time and time and time again provides casters with 'get out of fairness free cards' that are not permitted to non-casters such that there is very little drawback for primary casters because it's one stat fits all.




Except their ability to stat replace is limited in multiple ways.  For instance if the sorc wants to be the pack mule character they must spend a limited resource, spell slots, on tensers disk, and they can't do it all day nor can they do it without it being one of their limited spells known, and (I'm pretty sure) it can be taken away by a failed concentration check.  Yes they are using magic to rewrite reality to create a floating disk of force and they are limited in what it can actually accomplish.  We do have to apply some reason to the spells because it's a system used to describe and limit how characters can go about rewriting reality.  Yes magic is whole hog rewriting reality.  That's what it is.  Yes reality has some rules governing how it can be rewritten, and those rules maintain some level of internal consistency.  Yes magic gets passes as to what is acceptable within its bounds because it maintains the fact that the people using it are essentially cheating at reality. In the words of Dresden "I'm a wizard, I cheat".  There are drawbacks for primary casters, because they are limited in various ways with regards to what they can accomplish with magic, weather that be by daily limits on what they can accomplish (limited spell slots), character wide limitations (limited spells known, or limited spells prepared for a day), or spell specific limitations (concentration), or even a "you can't do that with magic" limitation (no spell exists to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish).  Unlike straight stat replacement spell casting is not one stat fits all, it's one stat has slightly expanded usage in a limited capacity and is not predicated on mundane capability, it is specifically predicated on them breaking some of the rules of reality in incredibly limited ways.  Even moreso the spell casting doesn't obfuscate the meaning of stats.  That wizard with 8 strength and 18 int won't be lifting anything on his own without the help of others, magic, or levers, whereas straight stat replacement allows a total moron (you have an 8 int by definition that's what an 8 int means) to solve calculus equations because they have an 18 strength.  On that same level a near invalid can kill a man with a normal non magical punch because they use their 18 int for attack and damage instead of their 8 strength even though their 8 strength would make any punch they throw a completely ineffectual effort no matter how well they know anatomy.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Does she lose that strength in an anti-magic field?



Not in my campaigns.  Anti-magic disrupts the flow of things powered by arcane practices, so spells dissipate and magic items turn off, but the ambient magic that allows dragons to fly, vampires to exist, and high level characters to survive falling off cliffs all continues.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> What I find frustrating is that "magic" has to be bundled with spell slots and magical items.  I'd think a 5' girl able to lift a 400 lb boulder with her 18 Strength is obviously magical, but since she isn't pulling out her spell component pouch...
> 
> Living in a D&D world makes you magic.  It's not medieval Europe with monsters on top.




I'm sorry you made an illogical character (actually not all that illogical I'm pretty sure I know a girl around that height and weight, probably a little bit  heavier, that can put up that much iron because she is a body builder).  If only strength dex and con had some mechanical impact upon size and weight measurements and those measurements were not entirely arbitrary.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Not in my campaigns.  Anti-magic disrupts the flow of things powered by arcane practices, so spells dissipate and magic items turn off, but the ambient magic that allows dragons to fly, vampires to exist, and high level characters to survive falling off cliffs all continues.




Essentially you are trying to make the waif fu Buffy the vampire slayer example.  Her strength was entirely magical, and could entirely be disrupted with magic.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> I'm sorry you made an illogical character (actually not all that illogical I'm pretty sure I know a girl around that height and weight, probably a little bit  heavier, that can put up that much iron because she is a body builder).  If only strength dex and con had some mechanical impact upon size and weight measurements and those measurements were not entirely arbitrary.



I suppose that could put that in, but that's simulationist stuff I wouldn't bother reading more than once.

And why you are sorry?  She's not illogical, she's genre specific.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Essentially you are trying to make the waif fu Buffy the vampire slayer example.  Her strength was entirely magical, and could entirely be disrupted with magic.



Thanks, man, I was completely unaware of the genre archetypes I was drawing from!  And that's Buffy.  In my campaign, it could happen, sure, just like a Wizard could get _feebleminded._


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Thanks, man, I was completely unaware of the genre archetypes I was drawing from!  And that's Buffy.  In my campaign, it could happen, sure, just like a Wizard could get _feebleminded._




So her strength would fade in an anti magic field then, because it's coming from a magical source like slayer strength does?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 8, 2015)

Sigh. Can we stop fighting the "I want my fighter to jump over mountains using his Charisma and its totally Non-magical" wars of 4e and get back to discussing the 5e mastermind?


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> So her strength would fade in an anti magic field then, because it's coming from a magical source like slayer strength does?



As I posted back on post 184 (which was like 7 posts ago and 20 minutes ago), no, because that isn't how I rule anti-magic field working in my campaign.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Sigh. Can we stop fighting the "I want my fighter to jump over mountains using his Charisma and its totally Non-magical" wars of 4e and get back to discussing the 5e mastermind?



Decent subclass, some good features, it's a shame that an Int 20 Dex 14 Mastermind is inferior to a Dex 20 Int 14 one.  What else is there?


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Decent subclass, some good features, it's a shame that an Int 20 Dex 14 Mastermind is inferior to a Dex 20 Int 14 one.  What else is there?




And I would vehemently disagree with that assessment because it completely ignores situational context.  While in combat the 20 dex rogue is better, in the actual planning, researching, investigation, and infiltration stages (you know the parts where the mastermind is supposed to shine the most) the 20 int rogue is way better.  Your limited scope of character consideration is not the end all be all of character comparison.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Orlax said:


> And I would vehemently disagree with that assessment because it completely ignores situational context.  While in combat the 20 dex rogue is better, in the actual planning, researching, investigation, and infiltration stages (you know the parts where the mastermind is supposed to shine the most) the 20 int rogue is way better.  Your limited scope of character consideration is not the end all be all of character comparison.



_Vehement?_  This is fun, I don't think I've ever earned anyone's ire before!  

Optimizing stats to provide bonuses for skills is simply playing silly buggers with the rules; the variability of the d20 swallows up the random +3 bonus here or there.  Not to mention the loss of +3 Init, +3 AC, +3 Dex saves, +3 attack and damage (and accuracy is hugely important when you only get one attack, and probably want to use your bonus action to provide advantage).


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> _Vehement?_  This is fun, I don't think I've ever earned anyone's ire before!
> 
> Optimizing stats to provide bonuses for skills is simply playing silly buggers with the rules; the variability of the d20 swallows up the random +3 bonus here or there.  Not to mention the loss of +3 Init, +3 AC, +3 Dex saves, +3 attack and damage (and accuracy is hugely important when you only get one attack, and probably want to use your bonus action to provide advantage).




Or I use both my actions to provide advantage to my gang, because I'm the planner not the doer.  Also dc's in this game are so low that the +3 while often eaten by the d20 makes your minimum effectiveness higher.  Trust me I've had characters fail a lot of DC 5 int checks because they only have a 12 in int.  And okay maybe vehemently is a bit strong of a word.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> _Vehement?_  This is fun, I don't think I've ever earned anyone's ire before!



... <cough> ...




j/k


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> ... <cough> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



S'all good. 

If you're in Cali, and I'm on the East Coast, doesn't matter much anyway, it's just Internet shenanigans.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Decent subclass, some good features, it's a shame that an Int 20 Dex 14 Mastermind is inferior to a Dex 20 Int 14 one.  What else is there?




Not if you're focused on contributing more in the realm(s) outside of direct combat than you are in being a direct combatant...


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Not if you're focused on contributing more in the realm(s) outside of direct combat than you are in being a direct combatant...



I don't let hippies in my house.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

You know I was curious to see... outside of combat... how many of the Rogue's non-combat abilities rely on Dex...

1. Expertise... not tied to Dex in any way
2. Sneak Attack... Combat ability but again it isn't affected directly by Dex in any way.
3. Thieve's Cant... Not tied to Dex
4. Cunning Action... Can be a combat or out of combat ability and is not tied to Dex
5. Uncanny Dodge... Combat Action but not tied to Dex
6. Evasion... Combat ability that is indirectly tied to Dex
7. Reliable Talent... Not tied to Dex
8. Blindsense... Not tied to Dex
9. Slippery Mind... Not tied to Dex
10. Elusive... not tied to Dex
11. Stroke of Luck... Not tied to Dex.

So out of 11 abilities combat and non-combat...only one is indirectly tied to Dex...


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Not if you're focused on contributing more in the realm(s) outside of direct combat than you are in being a direct combatant...



A lot of that does not receive the same level of mechanical support or incentives as combat rules do. But if you are a rogue who invests too heavily in Int and Cha (as per being a mastermind), you are kinda screwing yourself and your party in the realm of combat, probably either on the Dex or Con end. I don't think that D&D simulates "theater of the mind" as well as other systems. D&D leans more on the heavier crunch side, at least in terms of other systems I enjoy (e.g. FATE, Cypher, etc.). I think you were having a similar conversation earlier, though I may be mistaken. So we may have to agree to disagree on this point and chalk it up to our different experiences and approaches to D&D.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> A lot of that does not receive the same level of mechanical support or incentives as combat rules do. But if you are a rogue who invests too heavily in Int and Cha (as per being a mastermind), you are kinda screwing yourself and your party in the realm of combat, probably either on the Dex or Con end. I don't think that D&D simulates "theater of the mind" as well as other systems. D&D leans more on the heavier crunch side, at least in terms of other systems I enjoy (e.g. FATE, Cypher, etc.). I think you were having a similar conversation earlier, though I may be mistaken. So we may have to agree to disagree on this point and chalk it up to our different experiences and approaches to D&D.




So the issue is... a player wants to be ultra-competent in the mental and/or social arena of D&D and also be ultra-competent in combat (since that's what allowing their already jacked up mental scores to sub for physical scores is going to do, especially if they are neglecting them to the point that they become an actual liability in combat)... this really sounds like a case of "I want to have my cake, and eat it too...and eat your cake as well"...


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> So the issue is... a player wants to be ultra-competent in the mental and/or social arena of D&D and also be ultra-competent in combat (since that's what allowing their already jacked up mental scores to sub for physical scores is going to do, especially if they are neglecting them to the point that they become an actual liability in combat)... this really sounds like a case of "I want to have my cake, and eat it too...and eat your cake as well"...



I would say that the rules and mechanics of the game incentivize certain aspects of the game more heavily and regularly than others (i.e. combat). So it's not so much a matter of wanting to do everything well, but that sometimes the game discourages you from playing the sort of overall character you would like to play without being suboptimal in more a heavily-emphasized aspect of play that affects other PCs more measurably. This is to say, given the assumptions of 5e, in most cases, it's usually preferable that a character is optimized or sufficient for combat within the mechanical confines of their class, archetype, combat role, or what have you.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that the rules and mechanics of the game incentivize certain aspects of the game more heavily and regularly than others (i.e. combat). So it's not so much a matter of wanting to do everything well, but that sometimes the game discourages you from playing the sort of overall character you would like to play without being suboptimal in more a heavily-emphasized aspect of play that affects other PCs more measurably. This is to say, given the assumptions of 5e, in most cases, it's usually preferable that a character is optimized or sufficient for combat within the mechanical confines of their class, archetype, combat role, or what have you.



Nah. AFAIC, this is a table problem, not a system one. If one or more players have expressed a desire to focus on the mental/social aspects of play, and the DM is just throwing dungeon crawls at them, you really shouldn't blame D&D.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> So the issue is... a player wants to be ultra-competent in the mental and/or social arena of D&D and also be ultra-competent in combat (since that's what allowing their already jacked up mental scores to sub for physical scores is going to do, especially if they are neglecting them to the point that they become an actual liability in combat)... this really sounds like a case of "I want to have my cake, and eat it too...and eat your cake as well"...



Except it wouldn't.  Giving Int to attack and damage for a Mastermind would make going Int-primary worth thinking about for an optimizer, since the balance would then be AC, Init, and superior saves versus increased capability at skills.  It's still probably not as good, of course, but making your attack stat your Primary is pretty much 5e optimization 101, so it's not at the point of being ridiculous.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> AFAIC, this is a table problem, not a system one. If one or more players have expressed a desire to focus on the mental/social aspects of play, and the DM is just throwing dungeon crawls at them, you really shouldn't blame D&D.



I mostly agree, but I also think it can be both, to be honest. A lot of D&D ventures towards the more mechanics of combat - baking them heavily in each class - as opposed to the mechanics of mental/social aspects, apart from skills. For a number of players I have GMed in D&D 3-5e, there can be a real conflict between "the sort of character my imagine encourages me to be" and "the sort of character the system mechanics encourage me to be." I think that the GM certainly can abate some of that effect or feeling, but I also believe that it's still there in portions of D&D.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> I would say that the rules and mechanics of the game incentivize certain aspects of the game more heavily and regularly than others (i.e. combat). So it's not so much a matter of wanting to do everything well, but that sometimes the game discourages you from playing the sort of overall character you would like to play without being suboptimal in more a heavily-emphasized aspect of play that affects other PCs more measurably. This is to say, given the assumptions of 5e, in most cases, it's usually preferable that a character is optimized or sufficient for combat within the mechanical confines of their class, archetype, combat role, or what have you.




Well first off the DM, not the books determine the campaign makeup...

As to the rest of your post...I don't think the answer is to allow you to become ultra-optimized in numerous areas for a minimal cost.  And there is a big difference, especially with bounded accuracy in being decent in combat vs. being optimized for it.  With a 12 stat you're still decent... and I'm sorry but there has to be a tradeoff, otherwise the person whose concept isn't "my highest attribute works for all things" is getting screwed over.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Well first off the DM, not the books determine the campaign makeup...
> 
> As to the rest of your post...*I don't think the answer is to allow you to become ultra-optimized in numerous areas for a minimal cost.*  And there is a big difference, especially with bounded accuracy in being decent in combat vs. being optimized for it.  With a 12 stat you're still decent... and I'm sorry but there has to be a tradeoff, otherwise the person whose concept isn't "my highest attribute works for all things" is getting screwed over.



And that's the Strawman right there.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Except it wouldn't.  Giving Int to attack and damage for a Mastermind would make going Int-primary worth thinking about for an optimizer, since the balance would then be AC, Init, and superior saves versus increased capability at skills.  It's still probably not as good, of course, but making your attack stat your Primary is pretty much 5e optimization 101, so it's not at the point of being ridiculous.




The Rogue has enough buffers on saves that I don't see that being a limitation, If he's an optimizer he'll go ranged to minimize the effect a low AC has... so we're left with Initiative as the only real downside...See this ollustrates the other pitfall of this type of design, more interlocking pieces and combos that can be exploited... and this isn't even getting into the area of feats and multi-classing.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> And that's the Strawman right there.




Really... because your whole point has been around combat optimization... and with high mental stats the character is already optimized for an area of non-combat... so exactly how is it a Strawman?

Again.. bounded accuracy means you don't need exceptionally high attributes to stay relevant... so if we're talking about those, we're talking optimization...


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Oct 8, 2015)

Speaking of strawmen...



Remathilis said:


> However, even if we added MOT to a battlemaster in exchange for say, their 3rd and 4th attack, it's not going to be powerful enough for most warlord fans. Because the warlord is the Ultimate Master of Tactics, so he must now be better at it than the rogue, just like how he must be better than the battlemaster.




...guess all Warlord fans took a level in Scarecrow. Not sure when I did that, but I _really_ appreciate being dictated my interests and opinions.

Alternatively, instead of opponents squabbling about all the heinous awful horrible game-destroying things people want, we could focus the discussion differently.

What kind of trade-offs _are_ involved in pumping Int instead of Dex?

Despite having few features that have an overt, obvious, direct, explicit benefit from Dex, is it true that Rogues can ignore it entirely and still succeed at Roguish Things?

What things could be done to balance a character--not just a Rogue, though given that this is a Rogue topic that would obviously be a good place to start--that depends on mental stats for certain aspects of combat, but not others?

Is it actually such a problem to have "mental" things that benefit from physical stats? We all know the example of Strength applying to Intimidate, but what about the others? Perhaps Dexterity applying to, I dunno, checks to locate information quickly within a particular context (a library written in a language the character understands, for example--hand-eye coordination could be useful), or Constitution to the maintenance or enhancement of spells (not just in the Blood Magic sense--after all, Concentration is a Constitution save!) or simply to concentrating on any particularly long and grueling task.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Really... because your whole point has been around combat optimization... and with high mental stats the character is already optimized for an area of non-combat... so exactly how is it a Strawman?
> 
> Again.. bounded accuracy means you don't need exceptionally high attributes to stay relevant... so if we're talking about those, we're talking optimization...



Because I have NOT argued that a character should be ultra-optimized in all areas for a minimal cost. That is not an argument I have made. That is a strawman of your construction. If you really want to argue about it, then I respectfully suggest that you read and, more importantly, _listen_ to what I have been saying before inventing my arguments for me.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> Because I have NOT argued that a character should be ultra-optimized in all areas for a minimal cost. That is not an argument I have made. That is a strawman of your construction. If you really want to argue about it, then I respectfully suggest that you read and, more importantly, _listen_ to what I have been saying before looking to find vaporous WMDs in my post.




I've heard what you said... someone whould be able to not only have a 20 in Int, Wis or Cha... but also be able to substitute that ability score for combat tasks as well (though to be totally accurate to the conversation they would be able to sub mental for physical)... and again the logical conclusion is that they are then ultra-optimized in more than one area for a minimal cost.  If that's not what you're saying please explain where my assumptions are wrong as opposed to just claiming they are.

EDIT: And while we're talking about strawmen and inventing arguments... no where do I claim "in all areas"...


----------



## Orlax (Oct 8, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> Because I have NOT argued that a character should be ultra-optimized in all areas for a minimal cost. That is not an argument I have made. That is a strawman of your construction. If you really want to argue about it, then I respectfully suggest that you read and, more importantly, _listen_ to what I have been saying before looking to find vaporous WMDs in my post.




That's what stat replacement (using strength in place of int, or int in place of strength) is.  Greater optimization at a lower construction cost.  Being able to dump strength while still hitting like the strongest person in the world because you are using int to swing is entirely greater optimization for lower construction cost.  Sure you haven't suggested they be good at all the things all the time, but the core of your argument is greater and easier optimization with a reduced cost of construction.


----------



## sidonunspa (Oct 8, 2015)

mellored said:


> They stole my my help as a bonus action idea...




I feel the same way, as I'm currently working on a product to be published,,,, 

thankfully, I worded it differently...


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 8, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I've heard what you said... someone whould be able to not only have a 20 in Int, Wis or Cha... but also be able to substitute that ability score for combat tasks as well (though to be totally accurate to the conversation they would be able to sub mental for physical)... and again the logical conclusion is that they are then ultra-optimized in more than one area for a minimal cost.  If that's not what you're saying please explain where my assumptions are wrong as opposed to just claiming they are.



I'll be a kind soul and post every post with you as of late, and you can see where you are mistaken: 


Aldarc said:


> A lot of that does not receive the same level of mechanical support or incentives as combat rules do. But if you are a rogue who invests too heavily in Int and Cha (as per being a mastermind), you are kinda screwing yourself and your party in the realm of combat, probably either on the Dex or Con end. I don't think that D&D simulates "theater of the mind" as well as other systems. D&D leans more on the heavier crunch side, at least in terms of other systems I enjoy (e.g. FATE, Cypher, etc.). I think you were having a similar conversation earlier, though I may be mistaken. So we may have to agree to disagree on this point and chalk it up to our different experiences and approaches to D&D.





Aldarc said:


> I would say that the rules and mechanics of the game incentivize certain aspects of the game more heavily and regularly than others (i.e. combat). So it's not so much a matter of wanting to do everything well, but that sometimes the game discourages you from playing the sort of overall character you would like to play without being suboptimal in more a heavily-emphasized aspect of play that affects other PCs more measurably. This is to say, given the assumptions of 5e, in most cases, it's usually preferable that a character is optimized or sufficient for combat within the mechanical confines of their class, archetype, combat role, or what have you.





Aldarc said:


> I mostly agree, but I also think it can be both, to be honest. A lot of D&D ventures towards the more mechanics of combat - baking them heavily in each class - as opposed to the mechanics of mental/social aspects, apart from skills. For a number of players I have GMed in D&D 3-5e, there can be a real conflict between "the sort of character my imagine encourages me to be" and "the sort of character the system mechanics encourage me to be." I think that the GM certainly can abate some of that effect or feeling, but I also believe that it's still there in portions of D&D.



Finished? See me advocating for stat substitution? No? That's because I haven't. I sympathize with mechanical/incentive issues that spur people to view stat substitution as an option, but I have NOT advocated for stat substitution. That goes for you too [MENTION=6801305]Orlax[/MENTION]. So no, Imaro, you have neither heard nor listened to what I said. I do not think that a rogue, for example, should be good at most areas. I have expressed concern that often the assumptions and mechanics of the game encourage rogue players to place their highest stat in the "mechanically optimal combat stat" as opposed to what we might regard as the "conceptually optimal character stat." And even earlier I expressed my vexation of "magic exceptionalism" with Orlax at how casters/mages often effectively have stat substitution for a lot of their abilities. That was not an appeal for stat substitution; I would actually prefer that were was a greater stat spread for mages too. I like the idea of forcing some wizard spells to require Dex to aim/hit or perform the magical gestures. 



> EDIT: And while we're talking about strawmen and inventing arguments... no where do I claim "in all areas"...



I meant 'numerous areas.'


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 9, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> ...guess all Warlord fans took a level in Scarecrow. Not sure when I did that, but I _really_ appreciate being dictated my interests and opinions.




My point is simply that even if you added the Mastermind, the Battlemaster, and the Valor Bard together and took only their best parts, you still wouldn't satisfy some warlord proponents.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 9, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> My point is simply that even if you added the Mastermind, the Battlemaster, and the Valor Bard together and took only their best parts, you still wouldn't satisfy some warlord proponents.




That's a bit of a shift of position from your original quote:



> it's not going to be powerful enough for *most* warlord fans.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...p-Courtesy-of-Extra-Life/page22#ixzz3o1S1AHTU




Perhaps you'd have more success discussing points without painting with such a large brush?

Because your still trying to paint warlord fans as power happy munchkins who want to break the game.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 9, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Because your still trying to paint warlord fans as power happy munchkins who want to break the game.




One of the big things that gets tossed out when discussing the warlord is that the Battlemaster isn't enough. Not that it doesn't have enough maneuvers to use or that it doesn't grant enough superiority dice to use them often, but the powers themselves aren't good enough. They demand more powerful maneuvers or the ability to use them nearly at will. Its not enough to grant allow a PC to use a HD in combat, the warlord should add his Charisma as a bonus. Commander's Strike costs too much; it should only cost a reaction to use. There's 174 pages of that. 

Are they all power happy munchkins? No. Does it seem like in the chase to emulate specific warlord abilities they often forget how to balance abilities in 5e? Very much so.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> My point is simply that even if you added the Mastermind, the Battlemaster, and the Valor Bard together and took only their best parts, you still wouldn't satisfy some warlord proponents.




if you gave the master of tactics, the battlemaster dice, and a bard's inspiration and you could use the bard inspiration to heal as a bonus action (roll that die and add your cha mod as hp regained) and put a second attack in at 6th or 7th level... that would be a great start... make it a d8 HD class prof with heavy armor and all weapons. 

better still would be combine the inperation and battle master dice into 1 pool...


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if you gave the master of tactics, the battlemaster dice, and a bard's inspiration and you could use the bard inspiration to heal as a bonus action (roll that die and add your cha mod as hp regained) and put a second attack in at 6th or 7th level... that would be a great start... make it a d8 HD class prof with heavy armor and all weapons.
> 
> better still would be combine the inperation and battle master dice into 1 pool...




I can get behind this...


----------



## Imaro (Oct 9, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> I'll be a kind soul and post every post with you as of late, and you can see where you are mistaken:
> 
> 
> Finished? See me advocating for stat substitution? No? That's because I haven't. I sympathize with mechanical/incentive issues that spur people to view stat substitution as an option, but I have NOT advocated for stat substitution. That goes for you too @_*Orlax*_. So no, Imaro, you have neither heard nor listened to what I said. I do not think that a rogue, for example, should be good at most areas. I have expressed concern that often the assumptions and mechanics of the game encourage rogue players to place their highest stat in the "mechanically optimal combat stat" as opposed to what we might regard as the "conceptually optimal character stat." And even earlier I expressed my vexation of "magic exceptionalism" with Orlax at how casters/mages often effectively have stat substitution for a lot of their abilities. That was not an appeal for stat substitution; I would actually prefer that were was a greater stat spread for mages too. I like the idea of forcing some wizard spells to require Dex to aim/hit or perform the magical gestures.
> ...




And yet nowhere in these posts do you come out and say... you don't advocate for it or even explain that you understand or support the other view point.  In other words if all you show is sympathy for one side of an issue... it's the same as advocating for it.  But whatever, I'm not in the mood for Pedantry and Particulars so I'll let you continue to sympathize without really advocating for and I'll continue  with discussion elsewhere..


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 9, 2015)

The main issue with boosting int over dex is that int applies to a few skills that are very vague and rare in application, and not much else. If you intend to use forgery and disguise, you have a whole swathe of DM barriers to get past before you can even start applying the skills, and then you have the issue that they tend to be "work or die" type skills, and usually are doubled up with reliance on charisma.

If D&D was changed such that any hit by a monster spelt instant death, people would most likely NOT boost dex at the cost of other stats. If each attack with dex also required an attack with strength, that would be the case even further. Combat would be a thing to be avoided, not to boost stats in preparation for.

And yet when the typical infiltration plan is put into action, typically players will end up:
a) Instantly failing the plan on a failed roll
b) Having to roll a forgery check AND a disguise check AND multiple persuade or deception checks.

In other words, having a high int and a high charisma doesn't help much. In combat a fight is not over in a single blow, so changing the average of rolls matters. In skill application, the goal is to try to never have to roll the dice, because the penalty for failure is so steep - so changing the average of the roll is irrelevant and therefore improving the stat backing up the skill is irrelevant. This was something that skill challenges were trying to address (but failed because their creators didn't really understand that they would need to approach the complexity of combat in order to be engaging).


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> In other words, having a high int and a high charisma doesn't help much.



I concede this may be the case for you and your table. But that is not the D&D I know and play.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> I concede this may be the case for you and your table. But that is not the D&D I know and play.




So, in your experience, what is the relative probability that a party goal will fail irrecoverably due to a single failed roll on a skill, vs the same thing hinged on a single failed roll on an attack?

If the answer is 50% or thereabouts, could you please illustrate the systems used to make it so? Because my experience has been that a party can have an entire round of failed attacks and still succeed in combat, but failing 5 skill rolls in a row typically means something has gone quite wrong (and often indicates that skill time is over, because combat or making saves time has commenced).


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Oct 9, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> One of the big things that gets tossed out when discussing the warlord is that the Battlemaster isn't enough. Not that it doesn't have enough maneuvers to use or that it doesn't grant enough superiority dice to use them often, but the powers themselves aren't good enough. They demand more powerful maneuvers or the ability to use them nearly at will. Its not enough to grant allow a PC to use a HD in combat, the warlord should add his Charisma as a bonus. Commander's Strike costs too much; it should only cost a reaction to use. There's 174 pages of that.
> 
> Are they all power happy munchkins? No. Does it seem like in the chase to emulate specific warlord abilities they often forget how to balance abilities in 5e? Very much so.




Being one of the people who don't find the Battlemaster satisfactory (and consider the Valor Bard cromulent but far too magical), it's easy for me to cut that side some slack, and perhaps more than it deserves. However, I really do feel that you are doing the opposite--seeing that many ask for something more, but allowing all the different _potential suggestions_ for what "more" *means* to blend together until ALL of them are implemented simultaneously--which I freely admit would probably end up broken. Honestly, I feel like that's what happened with magic in 3e. There were all the known complaints, but few to no people actually wanted _every single one_ of those "problems" fixed. WotC did pretty much all of them though, and exacerbated it with later design choices and the unavoidable spell bloat--and as a result, magic was a stupidly big problem past the earliest levels (hence E6).

Yes, people certainly want to see something that is "better," in the sense of "better _at being a Warlord_"--whatever "being a Warlord" is defined as, which fundamentally varies from person to person because (believe it or not) people conceive of the class as not being perfectly defined by its 4th edition mechanics.* I've seen people asking for "more," in the sense of "capable of electing to do, or support, more things than the 4e Warlord could." Note the "electing"--it's NOT "I can do absolutely everything a 4e Warlord could potentially do AND a bunch of other stuff too!" but rather "I can do a few things analogous to what 4e Warlords could do, and can give up doing more things like what 4e Warlords could do, so that I can do a different thing they couldn't do--or I can take an option that's more like the classical concept." Just like how a Shadow Monk gives up Quivering Palm and Wholeness of Body, classic core Monk abilities, to do things _no_ baseline Monk could do before, but that are flavorful, appropriate, balanced, and cool--or the Monk can choose Open Palm and be _the 5e equivalent of_ a "classic" Monk.

If we take as mandatory absolutely every suggestion made by anyone who wants to see a 5e translation of a thing--be it a class, a feat, or whatever else--then I DO think it is a foregone conclusion that it's going to be broken. I just think it's unfair to argue that way, to lump absolutely every single suggestion and concept into one enormous amalgam and then declare that, because that amalgam is broken, all of its individual parts _must_ be broken as well. And when structured that way, I see it as literally no different from saying that, because 3e-style Vancian casting was broken, all forms of Vancian-like magic are broken and cannot be used--which, plainly, people who play 5e consider false.

*However, since the 3e Marshal was generally seen as a not particularly good class, while the 4e Warlord was--from all the data I've seen--both popular and competent (even broken, with heavy optimization and abusive synergies of items and abilities), you're basically guaranteed to see more people reference the 4e implementation of the concept for mechanical inspiration than the 3e implementation. Similarly, the 4e Dragonborn race is both more balanced and, for fans of dragon-men, possesses better fluff than the 3e "Dragonborn of Bahamut" racial template, so people are probably going to turn to the 4th edition implementation of that concept for inspiration before they turn to the 3e implementation. For contrast, Tieflings have existed since 2nd edition at least, and there are fans of both the "classic" Tiefling with a random tell or two (horns, or a tail, or a smell of brimstone, etc.) and the "Turathi" Tiefling with a uniform physiological and cultural origin, thus you'll see some people drawing on one more than the other for their inspiration.

Simply put: We reference the 4e Warlord because it was a _good_ implementation, not because it is the _only_ implementation, nor was it the _best_. New edition inherently means new implementation, but just as the Monk both carries forward faithful _translations_ of old mechanics while simultaneously providing new and exciting alternatives, so too could a "5e Warlord"--or whatever you want to call it--_translate_ old mechanics into new forms, while providing additional alternative options as well.


----------



## Uchawi (Oct 9, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Being one of the people who don't find the Battlemaster satisfactory (and consider the Valor Bard cromulent but far too magical), it's easy for me to cut that side some slack, and perhaps more than it deserves. However, I really do feel that you are doing the opposite--seeing that many ask for something more, but allowing all the different _potential suggestions_ for what "more" *means* to blend together until ALL of them are implemented simultaneously--which I freely admit would probably end up broken. Honestly, I feel like that's what happened with magic in 3e. There were all the known complaints, but few to no people actually wanted _every single one_ of those "problems" fixed. WotC did pretty much all of them though, and exacerbated it with later design choices and the unavoidable spell bloat--and as a result, magic was a stupidly big problem past the earliest levels (hence E6).
> 
> Yes, people certainly want to see something that is "better," in the sense of "better _at being a Warlord_"--whatever "being a Warlord" is defined as, which fundamentally varies from person to person because (believe it or not) people conceive of the class as not being perfectly defined by its 4th edition mechanics.* I've seen people asking for "more," in the sense of "capable of electing to do, or support, more things than the 4e Warlord could." Note the "electing"--it's NOT "I can do absolutely everything a 4e Warlord could potentially do AND a bunch of other stuff too!" but rather "I can do a few things analogous to what 4e Warlords could do, and can give up doing more things like what 4e Warlords could do, so that I can do a different thing they couldn't do--or I can take an option that's more like the classical concept." Just like how a Shadow Monk gives up Quivering Palm and Wholeness of Body, classic core Monk abilities, to do things _no_ baseline Monk could do before, but that are flavorful, appropriate, balanced, and cool--or the Monk can choose Open Palm and be _the 5e equivalent of_ a "classic" Monk.
> 
> ...




I agree.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> One of the big things that gets tossed out when discussing the warlord is that the Battlemaster isn't enough. Not that it doesn't have enough maneuvers to use or that it doesn't grant enough superiority dice to use them often, but the powers themselves aren't good enough. They demand more powerful maneuvers or the ability to use them nearly at will. Its not enough to grant allow a PC to use a HD in combat, the warlord should add his Charisma as a bonus. Commander's Strike costs too much; it should only cost a reaction to use. There's 174 pages of that.
> 
> Are they all power happy munchkins? No. Does it seem like in the chase to emulate specific warlord abilities they often forget how to balance abilities in 5e? Very much so.






GMforPowergamers said:


> if you gave the master of tactics, the battlemaster dice, and a bard's inspiration and you could use the bard inspiration to heal as a bonus action (roll that die and add your cha mod as hp regained) and put a second attack in at 6th or 7th level... that would be a great start... make it a d8 HD class prof with heavy armor and all weapons.
> 
> better still would be combine the inperation and battle master dice into 1 pool...




5 levels of battle master, 3 levels of mastermind, 4 levels of valor bard.  Take Healer and Inspiring leader as feats.  Use the healing word spell from bard.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> 5 levels of battle master, 3 levels of mastermind, 4 levels of valor bard.  Take Healer and Inspiring leader as feats.  Use the healing word spell from bard.




So, I have to wait 12 levels before I get to play the character I want to play?  Isn't that a tad extreme?  Wouldn't it be nice if we could play the character we wanted to play from, say, level 3 same as every other class?  Two sessions in and I'm a Battlemaster, or a Totemic Barbarian, or a Paladin.  But, I have to wait nine more levels after that just to fit the archetype of warlord?  Just how powerful do you think a warlord should be?

/edit for my math

Wait a sec.  Hang on.  Before I can take those 5, 3 or 4 levels, I still have to take 2 levels of the base class as well.  That's an 18th level character you just listed.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> 5 levels of battle master, 3 levels of mastermind, 4 levels of valor bard.  Take Healer and Inspiring leader as feats.  Use the healing word spell from bard.



I agree that's a good analogue for a warlord, but the issue with that approach is that it takes so long to gain all the relevant abilities.  The benefit to a defined class is that you can give lower-powered analogues early on to match the concept, and not give the player abilities that might not fit their concept (like Second Wind, Sneak Attack, and musical skills in the Ftr5/Rog3/Bard4 build above.)  But I'm not _vehemently_ opposed to the multiclass representation.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Hussar said:


> So, I have to wait 12 levels before I get to play the character I want to play?  Isn't that a tad extreme?  Wouldn't it be nice if we could play the character we wanted to play from, say, level 3 same as every other class?  Two sessions in and I'm a Battlemaster, or a Totemic Barbarian, or a Paladin.  But, I have to wait nine more levels after that just to fit the archetype of warlord?  Just how powerful do you think a warlord should be?
> 
> /edit for my math
> 
> Wait a sec.  Hang on.  Before I can take those 5, 3 or 4 levels, I still have to take 2 levels of the base class as well.  That's an 18th level character you just listed.



Pretty sure he meant a build of Fighter (Battlemaster) 5/Rogue (Mastermind 3)/Bard (Valor) 4.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> So, in your experience, what is the relative probability that a party goal will fail irrecoverably due to a single failed roll on a skill, vs the same thing hinged on a single failed roll on an attack?



This is pretty vague, but zero for both? What kind of party goal? Why are you hinging _anything_ important on an all-important single roll? Yuck.



Saeviomagy said:


> If the answer is 50% or thereabouts, could you please illustrate the systems used to make it so? Because my experience has been that a party can have an entire round of failed attacks and still succeed in combat, but failing 5 skill rolls in a row typically means something has gone quite wrong (and often indicates that skill time is over, because combat or making saves time has commenced).



Again, this is pretty vague but it sounds like poor application of skill checks. If you are going to make a McGuffin so important, don't place it in the hands of fate by _hoping_ someone makes a skill check to acquire/achieve it. This is just poor encounter design.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

Hussar said:


> So, I have to wait 12 levels before I get to play the character I want to play?  Isn't that a tad extreme?  Wouldn't it be nice if we could play the character we wanted to play from, say, level 3 same as every other class?  Two sessions in and I'm a Battlemaster, or a Totemic Barbarian, or a Paladin.  But, I have to wait nine more levels after that just to fit the archetype of warlord?  Just how powerful do you think a warlord should be?
> 
> /edit for my math
> 
> Wait a sec.  Hang on.  Before I can take those 5, 3 or 4 levels, I still have to take 2 levels of the base class as well.  That's an 18th level character you just listed.




Wtf are you babbling about 18 levels.  It's a 12th level character, and yeah if you can't see the problem with having the capabilities of a 12th level character at 3rd level, the problem is on your end and is indicative of the whole everything you suggest for a warlord is overpowered and broken.  Also truth be told you can get near it by 9th level with a 3/3/3 split.  I just threw in the other 3 levels for feats and a second attack.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 9, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> The main issue with boosting int over dex is that int applies to a few skills that are very vague and rare in application, and not much else. If you intend to use forgery and disguise, you have a whole swathe of DM barriers to get past before you can even start applying the skills, and then you have the issue that they tend to be "work or die" type skills, and usually are doubled up with reliance on charisma.




You're making alot of assumptions here that won't/don't necessarily hold true to everyone's game.  In my game where there is alot of unknowns (Unexplored swaths of frozen wilderness that were once populated by ancient civilizations and dotted with sparse settlements under the politics and rule of a dimension spanning empire)... Intelligence skills are pretty important (the fact that the importance of particular skills cannot be determined for individual campaigns is, IMO, just another reason the substitution of attributes is a bad idea)... as are charisma and wisdom.  

As to your other points... A rogue with the charlatan background and high forgery/disguise skills is pretty much guaranteed not to have a ton of/any DM barriers... and I'm not sure why charisma would necessarily come into play if your forgeries or disguise rolls are good enough... at the least they would enhance any Charisma rolls you have to make (advantage) if successful.



Saeviomagy said:


> If D&D was changed such that any hit by a monster spelt instant death, people would most likely NOT boost dex at the cost of other stats. If each attack with dex also required an attack with strength, that would be the case even further. Combat would be a thing to be avoided, not to boost stats in preparation for.




Wait... what?  if a single hit meant instant death it would have the opposite effect.  Players would try to get AC as high as possible and for many, who can't wear heavy armor, Dex is the main way to do this.  You can still try to avoid combat, but I'm unclear as to your reasoning that you wouldn't also hedge your bets in case you couldn't avoid it... IME that's exactly what most people do.

 If every attack with Dex required an attack with Strength... people would all attack with Strength if they could... but I'm unclear on what this example is supporting... could you explain in more detail?



Saeviomagy said:


> And yet when the typical infiltration plan is put into action, typically players will end up:
> a) Instantly failing the plan on a failed roll
> b) Having to roll a forgery check AND a disguise check AND multiple persuade or deception checks.
> 
> In other words, having a high int and a high charisma doesn't help much. In combat a fight is not over in a single blow, so changing the average of rolls matters. In skill application, the goal is to try to never have to roll the dice, because the penalty for failure is so steep - so changing the average of the roll is irrelevant and therefore improving the stat backing up the skill is irrelevant. This was something that skill challenges were trying to address (but failed because their creators didn't really understand that they would need to approach the complexity of combat in order to be engaging).




Okay in 5e a "failure" on a skill roll means... makes no progress towards the objective or makes progress combined with a setback.  It's right there in the PHB and doesn't state it means instant failure of overall goal and closure of any and all paths to said goal... so I'm not sure where you're getting your "Instantly failing the plan on a failed roll" assumption from.  It also states in the DMG that even if a failure cuts off an avenue to success... another approach or different avenue can be used to retry.

As to your point b... This is the same as a prolonged combat.  You're making multiple rolls that culminate in success or failure of the overall goal... just like in combat.  I'm not sure why the goal is to try to never roll, because the penalty... at least by the actual rules for 5e (see above)... isn't that steep at all.  there are also the "Success At A Cost" & "Degrees of Failure"  rules in the DMG 

Also as a side note we have monsters that can bypass hit points to kill characters quickly or instantly...  So even if the rules above have rare exceptions... it's still pretty similar to combat.

It seems that you are extrapolating how others run ability/prof checks in their games from how you choose to run them in your own, even though the advice and rules in the actual books point to a different methodology.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

Hussar said:


> So, I have to wait 12 levels before I get to play the character I want to play?



Well, let's see...

How long do you have to wait to be an archmage? You are in for disappointment if that's the character you want to play.

Why do I have to wait til 10th level for my bard to be able to cast _goodberries_? It's only a 1st level spell, for cryin' inna bucket. My bard concept is that he can cast it starting at 1st. That's not fair. That's the character I want to play.

Why can't my druid turn into a raven until 8th level. That's lame. I want to be a raven earlier. That's my character concept. That's the character I want to play.
And no, you are not "being nothing" until 12th level. You are growing into the end-result like every other class. You are picking up warlord aspects from as early as 1st level if you make certain choices at character creation. You just don't get everything out of the gate. No different than anyone else. It's the "It needs to do it all," that puts so many people off to the idea of this class. I don't think it can be anything but broken by the time you fit everything you folks want it to have. I say that with the evidence of every homebrew I've seen to date. Show me one that isn't broken and we'll talk. But it is my opinion that the handful of you religiously advocating for one will never be happy because it will never live up to your expectations and demands.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Pretty sure he meant a build of Fighter (Battlemaster) 5/Rogue (Mastermind 3)/Bard (Valor) 4.



Agreed. This, to me, shows signs of perhaps not having even a basic understanding of 5e's system. You can't take "battlemaster levels" separate from fighter levels. This isn't 3e (or to some extent, 4e) where you are tacking on separate PRC levels or whathaveyou. Battlemaster 5 simply means a 5th level fighter who chose the battlemaster subclass. That's 5e 101.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Agreed. This, to me, shows signs of perhaps not having even a basic understanding of 5e's system. You can't take "battlemaster levels" separate from fighter levels. This isn't 3e (or to some extent, 4e) where you are tacking on separate PRC levels or whathaveyou. Battlemaster 5 simply means a 5th level fighter who chose the battlemaster subclass. That's 5e 101.



Hussar's a pretty smart poster.  I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just misinterpreted what Orlax said.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> 5 levels of battle master, 3 levels of mastermind, 4 levels of valor bard.  Take Healer and Inspiring leader as feats.  Use the healing word spell from bard.




yup... and at level 12 (well you could do it at 3/3/2 with either 3 being a 4 for the feat or human for bonus feat so 8-9)you can be close to the concept that 4e let you play from level 1  :/ and your stuck with the bard fluff... including magic...


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I agree that's a good analogue for a warlord, but the issue with that approach is that it takes so long to gain all the relevant abilities.  The benefit to a defined class is that you can give lower-powered analogues early on to match the concept, and not give the player abilities that might not fit their concept (like Second Wind, Sneak Attack, and musical skills in the Ftr5/Rog3/Bard4 build above.)  But I'm not _vehemently_ opposed to the multiclass representation.




See the problem with stripping out the abilities you don't want (or more precisely need) is toy are still going to end up at about 9th or tenth level to get all of those abilities we want:

Superiority dice
Bardic inspiration
Spell casting (or comparable feature that allows for healing)
Master of tactics

Basically it would be inspiration and spell casting at first level, expertise at second,  superiority dice at third, master of tactics at third, 4th level is ability score increase as usual, 5th is extra attack, and then the valor bard ability to use inspiration dice for attack and defense at about 7th.  On top of that it is a d8 hit die with full armor and weapon profs and about 3 skills and some kind of toolkit from class.  Even trying to trim the fat and cram these abilities into 1 "class" we endup at 7th level to get all the abilities in and it's still a bit of an overpowered class.  

The second problem there is that it's a class composed of bits sullen from other classes.  It's interesting for home brew but is something that likely won't ever be officially built.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yup... and at level 12 (well you could do it at 3/3/2 with either 3 being a 4 for the feat or human for bonus feat so 8-9)you can be close to the *concept* that 4e let you play from level 1  :/ and your stuck with the bard fluff... including magic...



You said "concept". I think that's an important word. Because you can actually play the "concept" or a warlord as early as 1st level (3rd gets you a bit more crunch to represent mechanically, but the "concept" comes as early as right away).

"Concept".

But I have a feeling, when you said "concept that 4e...", you meant "all the mechanics that 4e...". Which will never happen. This ain't 4e. But if you are ultimately interested in playing all the warlord mechanics found in 4e, I have an easy solution for you...


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Wtf are you babbling about 18 levels.  It's a 12th level character, and yeah if you can't see the problem with having the capabilities of a 12th level character at 3rd level, the problem is on your end and is indicative of the whole everything you suggest for a warlord is overpowered and broken.  Also truth be told you can get near it by 9th level with a 3/3/3 split.  I just threw in the other 3 levels for feats and a second attack.



I probably would have gone 3/3/6, the bard 5 ability to regain inspiration points on a short rest is fantastic for the feel of the build, and you get Extra Attack at Valor bard 6 anyway.

But the thing is, those combination of abilities isn't the right power level for a 12th level character...if they were, they would be gated that way for a single level class.  _Disintegrate_ is a power for a level 12 character.  Or a fighter's 3rd attack.  The problem with multiclassing is that you get abilities intended for low level characters as your high level powers.  Sometimes that works out great because they synergize well (see Sorlock and Pallylocks, but most of the time it's a poor fit.  Asking for a class to get some functions of the bard inspiration dice, the mastermind help at range ability, and the battlemaster's Commander's Strike manuever (or whatever they call it in 5e, I always refer to it as Commander's Strike) by 5th or 6th level doesn't seem overpowered to me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Wtf are you babbling about 18 levels.  It's a 12th level character, and yeah if you can't see the problem with having the capabilities of a 12th level character at 3rd level, the problem is on your end and is indicative of the whole everything you suggest for a warlord is overpowered and broken.  Also truth be told you can get near it by 9th level with a 3/3/3 split.  I just threw in the other 3 levels for feats and a second attack.




no one wants the power of a 12th level character at level 1... no one has asked for that...

again start at level 1 with d4's (I would say start with 2 of them) in a die pool that was BOTH inperation from bard and combat manuiver from battle master, give them a list of manuviers they can take (just off the cuff commander strike and inspire as per the bard is enough at 1st level... but to give some choice make 1 or 2 others up to go with) at level 2 give them the help as a bonus action, at level 3 choose sub class (inspiring or tactical) one extra die to the die pool and boost them to d6's... at level 4 they come back every short rest instead of long... at level 6 give them a second attack, at level 8 let them when ever they roll initative and have 1/2 there pool or less get 1d back... the dice go to d8's at 11, and d10's at 20th... always behind damage on battle master (only 2 attacks also) make up manuivers based on 4e powers that have level requirments... give more dice but less die code... let one manuiver heal 'spend a die, target CAN spend a Hit die and gain a bonus equal to your die.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no one wants the power of a 12th level character at level 1...



You can't know that. And my decades of experience, with hundreds upon hundreds of players, tells me otherwise.



GMforPowergamers said:


> no one has asked for that...



I disagree. Or, at least, I agree in as much as it hasn't been said in so many words. But the implication has been there several times by several people.


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 9, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Asking for a class to get some functions of the bard inspiration dice, the mastermind help at range ability, and the battlemaster's Commander's Strike manuever (or whatever they call it in 5e, I always refer to it as Commander's Strike) by 5th or 6th level doesn't seem overpowered to me.




Huh. That seems an odd statement for me personally. Those seem like very strong features to have by 5 or 6. Considering Extra Attack wasn't mentioned, I can kind of see it though. Would this build include the very divisive inspirational healing? 

I guess the odd thing for me is that 5e seems designed to allow for characters to shine and function in solo scenarios (given proper encounter design of course), and this character doesn't seem like it would function in any scenario like that. To each their own, though.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> The second problem there is that it's a class composed of bits sullen from other classes.  It's interesting for home brew but is something that likely won't ever be officially built.



Sure, but for homebrew you usually want to stick with known mechanics because
 a) it helps with communication to the user so they don't have to learn a bunch of new concepts and
 b) it makes it more palatable for DMs to accept if it's based on mechanics they already know how to run for.

An official class could combine some of those features into a single pool.  The healing feature and the grant attack features and grant bonuses features could all run off that pool, for example.  Heck, if you appears too strong, split some of the features into the subclasses.  Have a rallying warlord that does the healing, and tactician that grants the attack bonuses.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Well, let's see...
> 
> How long do you have to wait to be an archmage? You are in for disappointment if that's the character you want to play.
> 
> ...




You can be a wizard, a bard, or druid, all at level 1, and be able to do and play the way you want... you can cast goodberries at level 5 as a straight bard, or 4 if you spend a feat... I on the other hand have to multi through 3 classes and only have low level powers in a high level game because my concept and class doesn't exsisit out of the box...



> And no, you are not "being nothing" until 12th level.



Your right, I'm a fighter for 3 levels, and a rogue for 3 levels so I am a pretty good if not great combat monster... in fact with 2d6 sneak attack a finess weapon and action surge second wind and a good dex I will probably be a great front line combatant... then I lean magic and that gives me WAY more options (because that is where fun options are hidden in this edition, behind the magic wall)




> You are growing into the end-result like every other class.



 except I'm growing not in the way I want...


> You are picking up warlord aspects from as early as 1st level if you make certain choices at character creation.



 if I take bard and am a spell caster...



> You just don't get everything out of the gate.



 I don't want everything I want a damn balanced warlord



> It's the "It needs to do it all," that puts so many people off to the idea of this class



it doesn't need to be as good with skills as a rouge, it doesn't need to be as good at combat as the fighter and it doesn't need (and most likely shouldn't have) spells like a bard... and defiantly not the music/story teller aspect of the bard...  the problem is to pick the one or 2 aspects of each class you get all the rest...




> . I don't think it can be anything but broken by the time you fit everything you folks want it to have.



 or again you could only put warlord like things in...



> I say that with the evidence of every homebrew I've seen to date. Show me one that isn't broken and we'll talk.



 I would but the professional people who make classes (WotC) hasn't tried to make one yet...



> But it is my opinion that the handful of you religiously advocating for one will never be happy because it will never live up to your expectations and demands.



 only because you don't understand the demands


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> You can't know that. And my decades of experience, with hundreds upon hundreds of players, tells me otherwise.



OK, no one rational who should be engaging in game design discussion on the Internet is saying that.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I probably would have gone 3/3/6, the bard 5 ability to regain inspiration points on a short rest is fantastic for the feel of the build, and you get Extra Attack at Valor bard 6 anyway.
> 
> But the thing is, those combination of abilities isn't the right power level for a 12th level character...if they were, they would be gated that way for a single level class.  _Disintegrate_ is a power for a level 12 character.  Or a fighter's 3rd attack.  The problem with multiclassing is that you get abilities intended for low level characters as your high level powers.  Sometimes that works out great because they synergize well (see Sorlock and Pallylocks, but most of the time it's a poor fit.  Asking for a class to get some functions of the bard inspiration dice, the mastermind help at range ability, and the battlemaster's Commander's Strike manuever (or whatever they call it in 5e, I always refer to it as Commander's Strike) by 5th or 6th level doesn't seem overpowered to me.




You get that this character's action economy is insane right.  Yeah he doesn't have disintegrate.  He can walk up next to someone heal them, help them in their next attack against an enemy within 30 feet, then attack that enemy twice and direct the strike to have the guy you just healed attack the enemy with advantage and have another character whose got temp hit points and a floating bardic inspiration die also attack the enemy you shot.  You can do this once or twice every short rest, and can net advantage to an attack for an ally every single round in addition to attacking twice.  This doesn't even take into account actually using the spell casting you have, or the fact that your durability is incredibly high thanks to second wind, or that your skill proficiencies are quite numerous and you have expertise to like three of those skills.  This character is quite useful to the point that it is in my book as a character I'm going to play.  Sure it can't cast disintegrate, but that isn't the point of this character.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Imaro said:


> And yet nowhere in these posts do you come out and say... you don't advocate for it or even explain that you understand or support the other view point.  In other words if all you show is sympathy for one side of an issue... it's the same as advocating for it.  But whatever, I'm not in the mood for Pedantry and Particulars so I'll let you continue to sympathize without really advocating for and I'll continue  with discussion elsewhere..



I *am* advocating for it, just for the record.  It's a fun mechanic in both Pathfinder and 4e, and I'd like to see it used in 5e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> The second problem there is that it's a class composed of bits sullen from other classes.  It's interesting for home brew but is something that likely won't ever be officially built.




well I suck at balanceing homebrew... I bet if there was a company full of professional designers they would do better...



ChrisCarlson said:


> You said "concept". I think that's an important word. Because you can actually play the "concept" or a warlord as early as 1st level (3rd gets you a bit more crunch to represent mechanically, but the "concept" comes as early as right away).
> 
> "Concept".
> 
> But I have a feeling, when you said "concept that 4e...", you meant "all the mechanics that 4e...". Which will never happen. This ain't 4e. But if you are ultimately interested in playing all the warlord mechanics found in 4e, I have an easy solution for you...




since I play 5e and in general injoy it, and all of my groups are split between pathfinder (I hate that game), Old WOrld of darkness, and 5e what is the solution again... I bet it's don't play...

there is no reason the concept of a second teir combatant (like the cleric so d8's hd and heavy armor prof) with no extra skill stuff couldn't be made... nobody is asking for the fighter extra attacks or the bard spells or the rogue sneak attack... heck the manuiver dice could start at d3, go up to d4 and end at d6 so they never get near the battlemaster damage


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> You get that this character's action economy is insane right.  Yeah he doesn't have disintegrate.  He can walk up next to someone heal them, help them in their next attack against an enemy within 30 feet, then attack that enemy twice and direct the strike to have the guy you just healed attack the enemy with advantage and have another character whose got temp hit points and a floating bardic inspiration die also attack the enemy you shot.  You can do this once or twice every short rest, and can net advantage to an attack for an ally every single round in addition to attacking twice.  This doesn't even take into account actually using the spell casting you have, or the fact that your durability is incredibly high thanks to second wind, or that your skill proficiencies are quite numerous and you have expertise to like three of those skills.  This character is quite useful to the point that it is in my book as a character I'm going to play.  Sure it can't cast disintegrate, but that isn't the point of this character.




unless your bonus action was limited to Heal OR Help, and you could make 2 attacks or 1 attack and commander strike...or 1 attack and grant a move or 0 attacks and have an ally more and attack... that action economy is in no way what NEEDs to be... 

heck in my mind you have 1 bonus action to chose A inspire, b heal, c help  you have 1 action that can be two attacks or use the dice to modify attacks, and you have your move...


----------



## Imaro (Oct 9, 2015)

UnadvisedGoose445 said:


> I guess the odd thing for me is that 5e seems designed to allow for characters to shine and function in solo scenarios (given proper encounter design of course), and this character doesn't seem like it would function in any scenario like that. To each their own, though.




Ding...ding...ding.  This has been my biggest gripe with the warlord as both archetype and as a class in 5e.  5e characters are already really competent past 4th/5th level without the warlord... many can already buff themselves & others, heal themselves & others, grant advantage to themselves and others, etc...  So what is the warlord bringing uniquely as far as a contribution to the characters?

Archetype wise... the inspirational leader always seems to be part of another archetype.  Gandalf... but he's also a wizard, Aragorn... but he's also a Ranger skilled in woodland lore and minor magics... King Arthur.... but he's also a warrior whocan hold his own in one on one battle...etc.  I rarely if ever see this archetype as a singular entity that only leads and inspires.  In fact I think the way 5e is dealing with it (builds within other classes) is more true to most of the literary examples people cite than having an entire class centered around it... to me that's a remnant of 4e design not a necessity to have a non-magical character that can heal and inspire.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> You get that this character's action economy is insane right.  Yeah he doesn't have disintegrate.  He can walk up next to someone heal them, help them in their next attack against an enemy within 30 feet, then attack that enemy twice and direct the strike to have the guy you just healed attack the enemy with advantage and have another character whose got temp hit points and a floating bardic inspiration die also attack the enemy you shot.  You can do this once or twice every short rest, and can net advantage to an attack for an ally every single round in addition to attacking twice.  This doesn't even take into account actually using the spell casting you have, or the fact that your durability is incredibly high thanks to second wind, or that your skill proficiencies are quite numerous and you have expertise to like three of those skills.  This character is quite useful to the point that it is in my book as a character I'm going to play.  Sure it can't cast disintegrate, but that isn't the point of this character.



I agree, he's quite useful as a 12th level character.  12th level characters are usually pretty awesome.  A large amount of games don't get to 12th level. 

As a design point in 5e, classes should have their identifying feature by 3rd level.  Rage, Inspiration, Action Surge, Maneuvers, Spellcasting, Wild Shape, Sneak Attack, Animal Companion, Sorcery Points, Invocations, Smites, School Specializations.  All by 3rd level.  Everything you gain afterwards are upgrades to these basic abilities.  The warlord class (not a build that mimics the warlord) needs its defining feature by 3rd level.  

Many people say that a Fighter/Cleric is analogous to a Paladin, and thus a Paladin class is not needed.  Other people require a Paladin class.
Many people say that a Fighter/Bard is analogous to a Warlord, and thus a Warlord class is not needed.  Other people require a Warlord class.

ANDDD I'm done talking about Warlords in the Mastermind thread.  This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You can be a wizard, a bard, or druid, all at level 1, and be able to do and play the way you want...



Not true. I've already shown that. I want my 1st level wizard to cast fireballs. Can't. I want my valor bard too... (nevermind, I can't be a valor bard at 1st level). I want my druid to be able to turn into a canary. Can't.



GMforPowergamers said:


> you can cast goodberries at level 5 as a straight bard, or 4 if you spend a feat...



You can be an inspirational "warlord" as early as 4th level (3rd as an alt human) as well.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I on the other hand have to multi through 3 classes and only have low level powers in a high level game because my concept and class doesn't exsisit out of the box...



It's called balance. multiclassing offers flexibility. That comes at a cost. I know because I've _played_ a 3-class MC character all the way up through 13 levels. He's fine. Do you have anything besides white-room theory-craft that says otherwise? I'd love to hear about it.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Your right, I'm a fighter for 3 levels, and a rogue for 3 levels so I am a pretty good if not great combat monster...



That's not how 5e works. Are you thinking of the old 2e bard rules where you had to not use your previous class(es) as you went through the progressions?



GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't want everything I want a damn balanced warlord



Show me. I've yet to see one.



GMforPowergamers said:


> it doesn't need to be as good with skills as a rouge, it doesn't need to be as good at combat as the fighter and it doesn't need (and most likely shouldn't have) spells like a bard... and defiantly not the music/story teller aspect of the bard...  the problem is to pick the one or 2 aspects of each class you get all the rest...



Cherry picking is one of the surest ways to break a new class. Good luck. Post it here when you do. I look forward to seeing how you pull it off. Genuinely.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> well I suck at balanceing homebrew...



Should I weigh this when I read your posts about what you think a warlord class should have?



GMforPowergamers said:


> I bet if there was a company full of professional designers they would do better...



Well I have some news you aren't going to like (but given the point you just made above, I'm going to assume that's a good thing). The professional designers all sat down for a few years worth of hard work, with tons of public feedback, and did as you ask. It's just that the end result is not what you wanted (the warlord "concept"--there's that word again--_is_ in the 5e PHB).


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> unless your bonus action was limited to Heal OR Help, and you could make 2 attacks or 1 attack and commander strike...or 1 attack and grant a move or 0 attacks and have an ally more and attack... that action economy is in no way what NEEDs to be...
> 
> heck in my mind you have 1 bonus action to chose A inspire, b heal, c help  you have 1 action that can be two attacks or use the dice to modify attacks, and you have your move...




Healer feat
Master of tactics
Action surge
Attack action with a superiority die used on both attacks.

That's the actions used in my example, and my example was more to show that yes this is s character of 12th level strength and contribution, and is contributing in exactly the requested manner (healing allies, buffing allies, and netting them off turn attacks.) And is exactly what they should be doing at that level.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> You said "concept". I think that's an important word. Because you can actually play the "concept" or a warlord as early as 1st level (3rd gets you a bit more crunch to represent mechanically, but the "concept" comes as early as right away).
> 
> "Concept".
> 
> *But I have a feeling, when you said "concept that 4e...", you meant "all the mechanics that 4e...". Which will never happen.* This ain't 4e. But if you are ultimately interested in playing all the warlord mechanics found in 4e, I have an easy solution for you...



And I have a feeling that you are misconstruing what GMforPowerGamers is saying, and that will continue to happen. You really do need to be at least fifty-percent less hostile when it comes to discussions on the warlord and an attentive listener who doesn't just keep throwing out strawmen about what warlord fans want.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> And I have a feeling that you are misconstruing what GMforPowerGamers is saying, and that will continue to happen. You really do need to be at least fifty-percent less hostile when it comes to discussions on the warlord and an attentive listener who doesn't just keep throwing out strawmen about what warlord fans want.



Reported. Also, wrong. Feeling? Really? You are attributing negativity where there is none. I'll bet you didn't even know that I loved 4e and played it for the entirety of it's run. Faithfully and regularly. Both in Organized Play and home campaigns. So when I say that the only way to play a 4e warlord is to play 4e, that's not an insult. It is a recommendation. And the only logical one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Should I weigh this when I read your posts about what you think a warlord class should have?



not just wrlord, but prestige classes and subclass too...
 anything I make is a good starting point for a discussion on how to do something, but most would make horrible ending places without a lot of playtesting and finish touch up...



> Well I have some news you aren't going to like (but given the point you just made above, I'm going to assume that's a good thing). The professional designers all sat down for a few years worth of hard work, with tons of public feedback, and did as you ask. It's just that the end result is not what you wanted (the warlord "concept"--there's that word again--_is_ in the 5e PHB).



 there isn't a warlord concept in that book, there is a way to kitbash it almost if you take a bunch of things and tweek them (refulff and multi at high level), but the concept itself isn't... infact 1/3 the kitbash is from a preview for a new book not the phb


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Reported. Also, wrong. Feeling? Really? You are attributing negativity where there is none. I'll bet you didn't even know that I loved 4e and played it for the entirety of it's run. Faithfully and regularly. Both in Organized Play and home campaigns. So when I say that the only way to play a 4e warlord is to play 4e, that's not an insult. It is a recommendation. And the only logical one.



ok that's cool but I don't want to play a 4e warlord... I want to play a 5e version of the class...

I want wotc to look at the 3 main sources (maybe there are more let me know) the warlord of 4e the marshal of 3e and the white ravon tactics of Bo9S and make not a direct 1-1 exchange but a 5e class that stands with the others as an equal and fun character to play...


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Reported.



Your prerogative. 



> Also, wrong. Feeling? Really? You are attributing negativity where there is none. I'll bet you didn't even know that I loved 4e and played it for the entirety of it's run. Faithfully and regularly. Both in Organized Play and home campaigns. So when I say that the only way to play a 4e warlord is to play 4e, that's not an insult. It is a recommendation. And the only logical one.



I know you played 4e. But I also know that you keep mischaracterizing what warlord fans want in 5e, with your "warlord fans want everything" being a popular strawman mantra of sorts that you keep throwing around. I don't care if you liked 4e or not. My only issue is that you need to respectfully listen to others and stop with these absurd mischaracterizations when it comes to the warlord and its fans. That's it.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> not just wrlord, but prestige classes and subclass too...
> anything I make is a good starting point for a discussion on how to do something, but most would make horrible ending places without a lot of playtesting and finish touch up...



Heh.



GMforPowergamers said:


> there isn't a warlord concept in that book, there is a way to kitbash it almost if you take a bunch of things and tweek them (refulff and multi at high level), but the concept itself isn't... infact 1/3 the kitbash is from a preview for a new book not the phb



Not per the devs. The 5e warlord is found in the battlemaster fighter. Plain and simple. In style and substance (No, it is not a 4e warlord. Neither is a 5e cleric a 4e cleric. Nor an 5e assassin a 4e assassin). There are also a couple of feats that enhance the warlord concept even further. And MC can potentially take it further still. But at the end of the day, battlemaster is warlord. That's per the devs. You (and others) can hate that if you want. But it doesn't change the facts. 

The same complaints are being made of the 5e ranger. It's not the 4e ranger and that makes some people sad and/or angry and/or disappointed. But when you lose the previous edition baggage, it's fine. Or better than fine, if you ask some.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> I know you played 4e. But I also know that you keep mischaracterizing what warlord fans want in 5e, with your "warlord fans want everything" being a popular strawman mantra of sorts that you keep throwing around. I don't care if you liked 4e or not. My only issue is that you need to respectfully listen to others and stop with these absurd mischaracterizations when it comes to the warlord and its fans. That's it.



Is that you mischaracterizing me? The irony.

I've read all the "what the warlord should have" posts. There's even been pro-warlord posters pointing out that there is no consensus on what a warlord should be or have. And so, in order to achieve everything the various people want, you have to give it the kitchen sink. 

How about this: Tell me what the warlord should be able to do. Itemized and in black-and-white. Break it down. I'll let you know when you've hit the "warlord fans want everything" benchmark.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok that's cool but I don't want to play a 4e warlord... I want to play a 5e version of the class...
> 
> I want wotc to look at the 3 main sources (maybe there are more let me know) the warlord of 4e the marshal of 3e and the white ravon tactics of Bo9S and make not a direct 1-1 exchange but a 5e class that stands with the others as an equal and fun character to play...



Battlemaster. Done.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

Aldarc said:


> Your prerogative.
> 
> I know you played 4e. But I also know that you keep mischaracterizing what warlord fans want in 5e, with your "warlord fans want everything" being a popular strawman mantra of sorts that you keep throwing around. I don't care if you liked 4e or not. My only issue is that you need to respectfully listen to others and stop with these absurd mischaracterizations when it comes to the warlord and its fans. That's it.




To be fair, that is exactly what we have been going over for the past few pages.  I suggested a 12th level build that encapsulates what people want (admittedly with a little extra, but that extra actually goes to accomplishing the what I want to be able to do as a warlord type character) and the near immediate answers were basically 'I want to be able to do all those things at level 3', and 'I want to be able to do all of those things like that but a little weaker at level 3' (granting attacks and advantage to attacks don't have weaker incarnations within the design scope of this edition).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Battlemaster. Done.




I think we both know that the battle master is at best a weak attempt at giving the fighter a complex build but it falls short on a lot of the build. It is built to attack 2-8 times per round and primarily be dpr and control it is very poor at being a warlord


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> To be fair, that is exactly what we have been going over for the past few pages.  I suggested a 12th level build that encapsulates what people want (admittedly with a little extra, but that extra actually goes to accomplishing the what I want to be able to do as a warlord type character) and the near immediate answers were basically 'I want to be able to do all those things at level 3', and 'I want to be able to do all of those things like that but a little weaker at level 3' (granting attacks and advantage to attacks don't have weaker incarnations within the design scope of this edition).



to be fair we aren't asking for everything but most of these builds are another class and concept for most of there lives we want a low power first level and third level class


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> To be fair, that is exactly what we have been going over for the past few pages.  I suggested a 12th level build that encapsulates what people want (admittedly with a little extra, but that extra actually goes to accomplishing the what I want to be able to do as a warlord type character) and the near immediate answers were basically 'I want to be able to do all those things at level 3', and 'I want to be able to do all of those things like that but a little weaker at level 3' (granting attacks and advantage to attacks don't have weaker incarnations within the design scope of this edition).



Yes, because it isn't too strong to grant attack bonuses to a class at level 3 if that or something similar is their defining characteristic.  I mean, no one is complaining about all the characters that get _bless_ at level 1, which is almost certainly stronger.  

I can't help it that I'm right.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think we both know that the battle master is at best a weak attempt at giving the fighter a complex build but it falls short on a lot of the build. It is built to attack 2-8 times per round and primarily be dpr and control it is very poor at being a warlord



Based on what benchmark? What filter are you using to devalue it? What comparisons (to other 5e classes) are you making to judge it falling short as representative?


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Yes, because it isn't too strong to grant attack bonuses to a class at level 3 if that or something similar is their defining characteristic.  I mean, no one is complaining about all the characters that get _bless_ at level 1, which is almost certainly stronger.
> 
> I can't help it that I'm right.




Actually I've definitely seen complaints about bless.  What is too strong at level three: being able to grant attacks that automatically have advantage and being able to do it from range with superiority dice.  That while also being able to heal like a cleric, use bardic inspiration style dice to hand out hanging attack and defense bonuses for exactly when they would be useful.  All while having the best armor and weapon proficiencies in the game and a mid range hit die and a heafty skill capability.  Fom there the most regular suggestion is to meld the superiority dice and the inspiration dice.  That doesn't actually take any capability away, it just makes the tracking easier by taking two dice pools and turning them into one.  Ooh and it also makes it so you'd never actually use the inspiration features because the smart way to play would be to always hold the dice for superiority style usage because they are the obvious better choice in most situations.  Since if left hanging on an ally you can't use them to hand out an attack without wasting the one you had hanging on an ally.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Actually I've definitely seen complaints about bless.  What is too strong at level three: being able to grant attacks that automatically have advantage and being able to do it from range with superiority dice.  That while also being able to heal like a cleric, use bardic inspiration style dice to hand out hanging attack and defense bonuses for exactly when they would be useful.  All while having the best armor and weapon proficiencies in the game and a mid range hit die and a heafty skill capability.  Fom there the most regular suggestion is to meld the superiority dice and the inspiration dice.  That doesn't actually take any capability away, it just makes the tracking easier by taking two dice pools and turning them into one.  Ooh and it also makes it so you'd never actually use the inspiration features because the smart way to play would be to always hold the dice for superiority style usage because they are the obvious better choice in most situations.  Since if left hanging on an ally you can't use them to hand out an attack without wasting the one you had hanging on an ally.



Gosh, than maybe you shouldn't hand out a feature that takes the entire function of three different classes and staple it together into a Frankenclass.  

It's supremely easy to be the person who figures out what doesn't work.  Why don't you try harder to make it work?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Based on what benchmark? What filter are you using to devalue it? What comparisons (to other 5e classes) are you making to judge it falling short as representative?




well in 4e I would compare a cleric to a warlord... so when I compare a 5e cleric to a 5e battle master I see WAY more offensive power on the BM and WAY less (almost non exssistant) buffing and healing... and the only feature that lets you grant an attack (Commander strike) is very lmited...


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> How about this: Tell me what the warlord should be able to do. Itemized and in black-and-white. Break it down. I'll let you know when you've hit the "warlord fans want everything" benchmark.






Orlax said:


> To be fair, that is exactly what we have been going over for the past few pages.  I suggested a 12th level build that encapsulates what people want (admittedly with a little extra, but that extra actually goes to accomplishing the what I want to be able to do as a warlord type character) and the near immediate answers were basically 'I want to be able to do all those things at level 3', and 'I want to be able to do all of those things like that but a little weaker at level 3' (granting attacks and advantage to attacks don't have weaker incarnations within the design scope of this edition).





Orlax said:


> Actually I've definitely seen complaints about bless.  What is too strong at level three: being able to grant attacks that automatically have advantage and being able to do it from range with superiority dice.  That while also being able to heal like a cleric, use bardic inspiration style dice to hand out hanging attack and defense bonuses for exactly when they would be useful.  All while having the best armor and weapon proficiencies in the game and a mid range hit die and a heafty skill capability.  Fom there the most regular suggestion is to meld the superiority dice and the inspiration dice.  That doesn't actually take any capability away, it just makes the tracking easier by taking two dice pools and turning them into one.  Ooh and it also makes it so you'd never actually use the inspiration features because the smart way to play would be to always hold the dice for superiority style usage because they are the obvious better choice in most situations.  Since if left hanging on an ally you can't use them to hand out an attack without wasting the one you had hanging on an ally.



For the sake of this thread, I hope you don't mind if I move this conversation to the Inspirational Healing thread, which is probably where the warlord discussions should be happening.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> well in 4e I would compare a cleric to a warlord... so when I compare a 5e cleric to a 5e battle master I see WAY more offensive power on the BM and WAY less (almost non exssistant) buffing and healing... and the only feature that lets you grant an attack (Commander strike) is very lmited...



Ya know, I keep getting yelled at for pointing out that 4e baggage is the hang-up here. Then posts like this happen.

It's been driven into the ground repeatedly, so I'll just Cliff Notes(TM) it. If the 5e warlord looked like the 5e cleric, we'd have a serious problem. In 4e roles were used to assign similar functions and abilities (cleric and warlords were built on similar chasis such that that was the way 4e was designed). This ain't 4e. We don't have that here. The 5e warlord shouldn't (and doesn't) look like a cleric. At all. Just like a 5e warlord build (using battlemaster) won't look like a BM fighter focusing on different maneuvers, feats and/or stat increase choices.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Ya know, I keep getting yelled at for pointing out that 4e baggage is the hang-up here. Then posts like this happen.



Because you asked for a bench mark... so I had to refrence the ONLY edition it was in prior... 




> It's been driven into the ground repeatedly, so I'll just Cliff Notes(TM)



if it's been driven into the ground you should drop it...




> If the 5e warlord looked like the 5e cleric, we'd have a serious problem.



if it was just a refluffed/reskinned cleric I agree...



> In 4e roles were used to assign similar functions and abilities



 and in 2e and 3e and 5e the roles just had different amount of lime light and different interpretations... since 'leader' is a loaded term around here I will use 'healer/buffer/aider' to describe the warlord role...




> (cleric and warlords were built on similar chasis such that that was the way 4e was designed).



especially phb1 classes this is very true, and in general my opionon is that 4e played it way too safe in that regard...



> This ain't 4e. We don't have that here.



right they took some from every edition and made a good edition (not perfect by a long shot) 




> The 5e warlord shouldn't (and doesn't) look like a cleric.



  there is no 5e warlord there is a 5e fighter built on the 5e fighter chasis that focuses primarily on beign a front line dpr damage tank... it can pick up a small number of grant attacks per day and the ability to grant some temps if you mix and match it with the bard you get kinda close at high level to the basic warlord... now with this new roge master mind you can get closer still but you still are built on the fighter...or the fighter/rogue/bard





> Just like a 5e warlord build (using battlemaster) won't look like a BM fighter focusing on different maneuvers, feats and/or stat increase choices.




except he will look ALOT like another battlemaster, or for that matter an eldritch knight or champion... all of them (if you make say 12 20th level fighters 4 of each subclass) will have 4 attacks per round, action surge to do it again twice per short rest they can action surge, once per short rest they can second wind, they all have indomnatable...

now those 4 battle master fighters all have 8 manuvers and 6d12 dice (that there prime function is to add damage) and when they roll initative if you have none you regain 1...

there are 16 manuvers to learn so each of your 4 have a lot of overlap... 

the ones that are most warlord like: Commander strike, Distracting strike, Maneuvering attack, and rally are all great starts, but again half of them add your die to your own damage... making it as much a self buff as an ally


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 9, 2015)

Does it need to be a class or could it be a prestige class that could be layered onto a battlemaster, valour bard, or mastermind rogue?  I have given no thought to how one would do this, I just wondered.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> except he will look ALOT like another battlemaster, or for that matter an eldritch knight or champion...



My considerable experience runs counter to your statement. Considerably so. Now what?



GMforPowergamers said:


> all of them (if you make say 12 20th level fighters 4 of each subclass) will have 4 attacks per round, action surge to do it again twice per short rest they can action surge, once per short rest they can second wind, they all have indomnatable...



Why are you assuming there will be 12 fighters in a game together. 20th level ones, no less. That is extremely odd.



GMforPowergamers said:


> now those 4 battle master fighters all have 8 manuvers and 6d12 dice (that there prime function is to add damage) and when they roll initative if you have none you regain 1...
> 
> there are 16 manuvers to learn so each of your 4 have a lot of overlap...



Sure. Still a completely irrelevant example considering it's not ever going to happen.



GMforPowergamers said:


> the ones that are most warlord like: Commander strike, Distracting strike, Maneuvering attack, and rally are all great starts, but again half of them add your die to your own damage... making it as much a self buff as an ally



Sounds like a feature not a bug.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> My considerable experience runs counter to your statement. Considerably so. Now what?
> 
> 
> Why are you assuming there will be 12 fighters in a game together. 20th level ones, no less. That is extremely odd.
> ...




this entire part of the thread started with you saying two battle master fighters look different... then you said 2 fighters wouldn't be in the same party, but your experience with multi fighters is different... could you please either reread the thread or reexplain because I am totally lost on what you are saying now...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Pauln6 said:


> Does it need to be a class or could it be a prestige class that could be layered onto a battlemaster, valour bard, or mastermind rogue?  I have given no thought to how one would do this, I just wondered.




actually my new hope is a prestige class meant to be taken at 5th level that could give the warlord abilities... it would be far from perfect but it would be much better then we have now (unless they mess it up...)


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> this entire part of the thread started with you saying two battle master fighters look different... then you said 2 fighters wouldn't be in the same party, but your experience with multi fighters is different... could you please either reread the thread or reexplain because I am totally lost on what you are saying now...



By your own math, two 20th level BMFs can have entirely different maneuvers with zero overlap (16 maneuvers, they each have 8). You just proved that yourself. So my point stands.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> actually my new hope is a prestige class meant to be taken at 5th level that could give the warlord abilities... it would be far from perfect but it would be much better then we have now (unless they mess it up...)




Wasn't the big issue with a multiclass suggestion that you can't be what you want from first level?  At this suggestion you are still looking at at least 6th level if not 10th level before your concept is realized.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Wasn't the big issue with a multiclass suggestion that you can't be what you want from first level?  At this suggestion you are still looking at at least 6th level if not 10th level before your concept is realized.




to be honest the multi class kitbash still wasn't a warlord it wasn't even close enough for most of us... a WELL MADE 5 level class that you could take at level 6 so 6,7,8,9,10 would be better then this... Do I still WANT a full 1-20 class... yes, do I still belive a level 1-20 class could be made and function as balanced 5e class that follows the theme and concept of the 4e, and 2 3e  ones... yes I do...and I am saying at this point I would settle for a Prc


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> By your own math, two 20th level BMFs can have entirely different maneuvers with zero overlap (16 maneuvers, they each have 8). You just proved that yourself. So my point stands.




your right I can't imagine how I didn't see that... wow you totally convinced me I was wrong...

is a total example of what neither of us will ever say at this point... can you atleast stop bad mouthing the request we have?


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> your right I can't imagine how I didn't see that... wow you totally convinced me I was wrong...



Considering this entire part of the thread started with me saying two battle master fighters look different... to which you countered with a hyperbolic example of four BMFs in a group of twelve 20th level fighters... and I corrected you back to what I actually said... which you in turn proved correct... Thanks, I guess?



GMforPowergamers said:


> can you atleast stop bad mouthing the request we have?



Ad hominem. Or show me what you mean by "bad mouth" at least, I guess. Cuz I don't see it. 

But on that note, I gotta ask: Request what? Of whom? What is the purpose of your request? Do you think WotC devs are reading this thread jotting down all the things you guys are asking for so they can make sure they get it all in this one class for you? Are you asking a fellow forumite to homebrew something for you? Or is a more general request that people accept that you want something that isn't going to happen?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Considering this entire part of the thread started with me saying two battle master fighters look different... to which you countered with a hyperbolic example of four BMFs in a group of twelve 20th level fighters... and I corrected you back to what I actually said... which you in turn proved correct... Thanks, I guess?




I never made a party of 12 fighter I took 12 different fighters and put them next to eachother and found half of there abilities were identical... I then pulled four of those 12 out and showed just umong BMFs it wasn't that different...

Yes you can take 8 powers on one and 8 different powers on the other (and use every possible power at that moment) but you still are almost carbin copies... and only 4 of those 16 powers are warlord like at all, and all but 1 or 2 are increasing YOUR damage by a d12


----------



## Ainulindalion (Oct 9, 2015)

If you must debate a warlord, debate mine!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?470284-Look-yet-another-Warlord


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I never made a party of 12 fighter I took 12 different fighters and put them next to eachother and found half of there abilities were identical... I then pulled four of those 12 out and showed just umong BMFs it wasn't that different...



Baffling. Unless they are all being played at the same table, they do not exist at the same time. What are you trying to prove with this Shrodinger's Fighters example?



GMforPowergamers said:


> Yes you can take 8 powers on one and 8 different powers on the other (and use every possible power at that moment) but you still are almost carbin copies... and only 4 of those 16 powers are warlord like at all, and all but 1 or 2 are increasing YOUR damage by a d12



I'd recommend practical experience, rather than white-room theory-crafting, for this. Having seen different BMFs in play, I can tell you they perform differently.

Now, if you want to try and over simplify enough to get to the point you are hoping to make, lets keep going down that slippery slope until all characters are alike. They all have an AC score. They all have HPs. They all have 6 ability scores. Heck, they all make attack rolls using a d20 (though, TBF, some occasionally make their opponents roll a d20 save instead of their making an attack). So every D&D character is the same, really. How boring is that?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 9, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Baffling. Unless they are all being played at the same table, they do not exist at the same time. What are you trying to prove with this Shrodinger's Fighters example?



ME!?!?!? are you crazy? this was me going along with your argument... one you make again a second or two later... what are you talking about shrodinger's fighter doesn't even make sense (I would guess that is a fighter who rolled his last death save into a covered surface and no one wants to look, at that moment he is in a superstate of both alive and dead...but what that has to do with anything is odd)



> I'd recommend practical experience, rather than white-room theory-crafting, for this. Having seen different BMFs in play, I can tell you they perform differently.



 but you just said unless they are being played togather they don't matter... do they matter or not?







> Now, if you want to try and over simplify enough to get to the point you are hoping to make, lets keep going down that slippery slope until all characters are alike. They all have an AC score. They all have HPs. They all have 6 ability scores. Heck, they all make attack rolls using a d20 (though, TBF, some occasionally make their opponents roll a d20 save instead of their making an attack). So every D&D character is the same, really. How boring is that?



 it was you that went down this train of thought NOT me...


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 9, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> to be honest the multi class kitbash still wasn't a warlord it wasn't even close enough for most of us... a WELL MADE 5 level class that you could take at level 6 so 6,7,8,9,10 would be better then this... Do I still WANT a full 1-20 class... yes, do I still belive a level 1-20 class could be made and function as balanced 5e class that follows the theme and concept of the 4e, and 2 3e  ones... yes I do...and I am saying at this point I would settle for a Prc




Why insist on starting at level 6 though?  Most likely the pre-requisite would be one of a choice of class features obtained from a subclass that the prestige class can build on? What's wrong with level 4?  

Let's say you want features that synergise well with battlemaster, valor bard, mastermind rogue and paladins to cover all the archetypical bases that gives each of the sub-classes something they don't already have or makes existing features a bit better.  So it's not a case of just stealing one of the other subclass's features for wish fulfilment.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 10, 2015)

Pauln6 said:


> Why insist on starting at level 6 though?  Most likely the pre-requisite would be one of a choice of class features obtained from a subclass that the prestige class can build on? What's wrong with level 4?
> 
> Let's say you want features that synergise well with battlemaster, valor bard, mastermind rogue and paladins to cover all the archetypical bases that gives each of the sub-classes something they don't already have or makes existing features a bit better.  So it's not a case of just stealing one of the other subclass's features for wish fulfilment.




I wouldn't say not to a 3... I just figured the freedom of 5 levels as 6+ gave more room


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 10, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> This is pretty vague, but zero for both? What kind of party goal? Why are you hinging _anything_ important on an all-important single roll? Yuck.
> 
> Again, this is pretty vague but it sounds like poor application of skill checks. If you are going to make a McGuffin so important, don't place it in the hands of fate by _hoping_ someone makes a skill check to acquire/achieve it. This is just poor encounter design.




Your party decide to make use of their disguise and forgery skills to infiltrate something. You fall your disguise check. What happens? Does your plan to infiltrate still succeed? Then the guard checks your papers. You fall your forgery check. Is your plan still working after that? Then you fail a deception check. Are you still on track for getting in?

Compare the typical results of those three failures on your plan with missing three times in combat if your plan had been to simply kill your way in.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 10, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> Your party decide to make use of their disguise and forgery skills to infiltrate something. You fall your disguise check. What happens? Does your plan to infiltrate still succeed? Then the guard checks your papers. You fall your forgery check. Is your plan still working after that? Then you fail a deception check. Are you still on track for getting in?
> 
> Compare the typical results of those three failures on your plan with missing attacks in combat if your plan had been to simply kill your way in.




Okay you failed your try to go straight through the guard checkpoint plan... Why is that the only possible plan?  How about actual stealth infiltration.  You know wait for night, climb to a high window, go in that way.  How about bribing one of the known castle suppliers to smuggle you in on a cart?  Yeah you failed to achieve your goal on the first attempt.  The cool thing about failing those skill checks is that unlike combat the added up failures don't lead to death, just an opportunity to approach your problem in a different manner.  By avoiding combat you've ensured that you will likely get another chance to try and accomplish your goal.  Just attempting to kill your way in had the unfortunate side effect of making death a very real possibility.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Oct 10, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Okay you failed your try to go straight through the guard checkpoint plan... Why is that the only possible plan?  How about actual stealth infiltration.  You know wait for night, climb to a high window, go in that way.




Because the rules of many games--not just 5e, and not just D&D for that matter--often make future, alternative attempts dramatically harder due to failed previous attempts, even when the two are notionally distinct e.g. failed deception/forgery leads to heightened guard presence. Further, Stealth is almost always even worse than social skill uses: _everyone_ infiltrating has to roll it, and usually must do so multiple times to avoid detection. Iterative probability essentially guarantees that that will fail sooner or later. 5e is ever-so-slightly better about that, since it advocates the use of group checks, but even its rules (from what I can tell) do not really solve the problem of "way, _way_ too many DMs call for _too many_ iterative checks, thus semi-guaranteeing failure."

Also, uh, Stealth is actually a Dex skill, so we've kind of circled right back around to "Rogues want Dex."



> How about bribing one of the known castle suppliers to smuggle you in on a cart?




How and where was this "knowledge" acquired? It is not merely common knowledge who supplies the castle, and if the security is serious enough that notarized documentation is required to enter, I imagine this bribery attempt is going to be difficult...and will _still_ require multiple Stealth checks from the whole party, and group checks don't seem like they would cut it in this case (since the guards need only find *one* hidden stowaway to raise their suspicions to an unacceptable level).



> Yeah you failed to achieve your goal on the first attempt.  The cool thing about failing those skill checks is that unlike combat the added up failures don't lead to death, just an opportunity to approach your problem in a different manner.  By avoiding combat you've ensured that you will likely get another chance to try and accomplish your goal.  Just attempting to kill your way in had the unfortunate side effect of making death a very real possibility.




It sounds to me like you've been relatively lucky as far as DMs go. My experience has not been so good--failed attempts at an action have a bad habit of making all other means of addressing the situation harder, until there are no alternatives left at all (which can be as quick as "you failed your first attempt"). No skill rules I've ever seen--not in 4e, not in 5e--actually address this, _particularly_ the iterated probability issue.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 10, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Because the rules of many games--not just 5e, and not just D&D for that matter--often make future, alternative attempts dramatically harder due to failed previous attempts, even when the two are notionally distinct e.g. failed deception/forgery leads to heightened guard presence. Further, Stealth is almost always even worse than social skill uses: _everyone_ infiltrating has to roll it, and usually must do so multiple times to avoid detection. Iterative probability essentially guarantees that that will fail sooner or later. 5e is ever-so-slightly better about that, since it advocates the use of group checks, but even its rules (from what I can tell) do not really solve the problem of "way, _way_ too many DMs call for _too many_ iterative checks, thus semi-guaranteeing failure."
> 
> Also, uh, Stealth is actually a Dex skill, so we've kind of circled right back around to "Rogues want Dex."
> 
> ...




Yes I have been lucky with my dm's, and so have my players, sorry your dm's have brought you to the viewpoint that combat is the only measure by which characters should be measured or that combat is the only measurement that actually matters.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 10, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Just attempting to kill your way in had the unfortunate side effect of making death a very real possibility.



And I suppose that the consequence of failed impersonation and forgery is flowers and sunshine?
My guess is this: either your games are weirdly devoid of consequence or you are making success at these skill checks either very easy or automatic much of the time. Which is still devaluing stats.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 10, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> And I suppose that the consequence of failed impersonation and forgery is flowers and sunshine?
> My guess is this: either your games are weirdly devoid of consequence or you are making success at these skill checks either very easy or automatic much of the time. Which is still devaluing stats.




Nah in the case of forgery and impersonation the check is against a check by the npc so I don't get much control over if they pass or not. Though if they succeed on one of those two checks (we'll say disguise first since it's the first thing the npc's would be able to notice) the other check is going to receive bonuses.  Especially if the player plays well and tries to distract the guard while the guard is checking his paper (imposing disadvantage on the forgery inspection). If the player manages to fail the checks, yes there will be consequences.  First and foremost you've failed to accomplish your goal.  Secondly, you now need to run from the guards, or have some backup plan to get yourself sprung from the prison/dungeon.  Beyond that I have to determine what the code of law is here for trying to forge an illegal document, and weather or not some corrupt noble gets wind of your attempt, and springs you himself so he can attempt to employ you to forge something for him.  It's really easy to spring you when he's technically a high ranking member of government and can just quietly help your release.  

Death isn't always the answer for punishing failure in an RPG.  Sometimes the failure is punishment enough, and sometimes the tasks taking 20 times longer because now you've created more problems to solve is the punishment.  Just killing people for failure is  lazy and really curb stomps the fun.  Making one and done skill challenges that can show stop the entire campaign on a single die roll is a sign of poor/amature dming or writing, in my opinion.  You are either railroading or have written yourself into a corner.  

Though I will admit that I am a Stargate fan so a lot of my adventure planning comes from that style of adventure writing, and a main consideration within that adventure planning is that it's a goal to give your adventures the chance to be awesome, even if they fail a couple of times on the way to that awesome.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Oct 10, 2015)

Saeviomagy said:


> Your party decide to make use of their disguise and forgery skills to infiltrate something. You fall your disguise check. What happens? Does your plan to infiltrate still succeed? Then the guard checks your papers. You fall your forgery check. Is your plan still working after that? Then you fail a deception check. Are you still on track for getting in?
> 
> Compare the typical results of those three failures on your plan with missing three times in combat if your plan had been to simply kill your way in.



Ah, okay. Now I see what you were trying to say.

No, those situations are not TPK/game enders. They are setbacks. PCs have setbacks all the time. 

The disguise check didn't work. Now they need a new plan. Same with the forgery check.

You made it sounds to me like a couple checks fail and the adventure is over. That doesn't happen in my games.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 11, 2015)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Ah, okay. Now I see what you were trying to say.
> 
> No, those situations are not TPK/game enders. They are setbacks. PCs have setbacks all the time.
> 
> ...




 I believe that it would be closer to a couple of failed checks and combat starts. Meaning that combat is a very important thing in the game.


----------



## Orlax (Oct 11, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I believe that it would be closer to a couple of failed checks and combat starts. Meaning that combat is a very important thing in the game.




I rarely have failed checks that lead directly to combat.


----------



## SuperZero (Oct 11, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Beyond that I have to determine what the code of law is here for trying to forge an illegal document, and weather or not some corrupt noble gets wind of your attempt, and springs you himself so he can attempt to employ you to forge something for him.  It's really easy to spring you when he's technically a high ranking member of government and can just quietly help your release.




Why would a corrupt noble want to hire someone to forge a document upon hearing that she did a bad enough job of forging a document to end up in prison?


----------



## Orlax (Oct 11, 2015)

SuperZero said:


> Why would a corrupt noble want to hire someone to forge a document upon hearing that she did a bad enough job of forging a document to end up in prison?




How badly did you fail?  Was it a good forgery, but the guard happened to be really good about seeing the forgery?  Was it like the character got a 21 on his forgery check but the guard managed to get the 21 investigation to notice the forgery?  

My assumption being that the player wouldn't attempt to bring a poor quality forgery to try and break in to the palace.  See forgery is excellent because it's a crafting skill (actually a toolkit if I'm not mistaken) you can keep trying till you either run out of time, run out of materials, or get it to a point where you're confident in bringing it in front of the people you are attempting to dupe.  

That's why I was readily prepared with a possible out to keep the story and plot flowing that didn't involve murdering a bunch of people.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Oct 11, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Yes I have been lucky with my dm's, and so have my players, sorry your dm's have brought you to the viewpoint that combat is the only measure by which characters should be measured or that combat is the only measurement that actually matters.




Except that that...isn't what I said. I said that *failure at skill checks makes future skill checks harder,* and that *most DMs don't understand how probability works, making skills far more difficult than they should/could be.*

That doesn't mean combat is "the only measurement that actually matters." It means that combat is the only measurement where you don't have to _fear_ a botched roll or two (after the first few levels anyway...), and where the probabilities are sufficiently well-defined that DM perceptions of how "hard" or "easy" something should be (which rarely even work as _desired_, let alone as they "should") cannot accidentally ruin a perfectly reasonable plan. Combat is both well-defined and generally provides both opportunity and resources specifically dedicated to mitigating the results of unlucky rolls (whether failed PC rolls or successful enemy rolls). Non-combat is so minimally defined that, in general, it is by far the more difficult, less successful, and less "overtly" rewarding (many of the benefits of non-combat are intangible or highly delayed).


----------



## Hussar (Oct 12, 2015)

Orlax said:


> I rarely have failed checks that lead directly to combat.




Really?  You've never had a PC fail a stealth check and get attacked?  That's the easiest example I can think of.  Or perhaps a diplomacy check with a hostile faction that attacks?  Rarely?  

Party is being tracked by hungry bears, druid drops a Speak with Animals in time to try to reason with the bears.  Druid rolls badly on his diplomacy check and what?  The bears just wander away?


----------



## Kalshane (Oct 14, 2015)

Obviously, the result of failed social checks is going to vary based on the circumstances.

I'm currently running a Rise of the Runelords campaign. At one point, the party decided to investigate one of their leads in a murder investigation by forging documents to claim they were handling a nobleman's affairs while he was abroad. They brought these documents to the trade company the nobleman had had dealings with, but the person in charge of that company had already learned from other sources the nobleman was deceased and determined the documents were a forgery. Rather than immediately calling for the guard, he offered them an exchange of information. The party's answers to his questions gave him information to increase his own sphere of influence, while his answers to the party's questions gave them leads in their own investigation.

Of course, the NPC in this case was rather unscrupulous and worked for a rather shifty organization (though the general public thought them respectable) so that situation isn't always going to come up, but it is an example of failed rolls not being an automatic failure. (And really, the party rolled really well, he just rolled better and had some magical assistance.)


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 14, 2015)

Kalshane said:


> Obviously, the result of failed social checks is going to vary based on the circumstances.
> 
> I'm currently running a Rise of the Runelords campaign. At one point, the party decided to investigate one of their leads in a murder investigation by forging documents to claim they were handling a nobleman's affairs while he was abroad. They brought these documents to the trade company the nobleman had had dealings with, but the person in charge of that company had already learned from other sources the nobleman was deceased and determined the documents were a forgery. Rather than immediately calling for the guard, he offered them an exchange of information. The party's answers to his questions gave him information to increase his own sphere of influence, while his answers to the party's questions gave them leads in their own investigation.
> 
> Of course, the NPC in this case was rather unscrupulous and worked for a rather shifty organization (though the general public thought them respectable) so that situation isn't always going to come up, but it is an example of failed rolls not being an automatic failure. (And really, the party rolled really well, he just rolled better and had some magical assistance.)




On the subject of failed rolls, two other (non-social) examples of where a failed roll can turn out better than a success are:

1.) If you attack the mysterious figure in the darkened doorway, and it turns out to actually be your brother, you'll be glad you missed.
2.) If your point man is sneaking along stealthily, and so are the monsters, and everybody is sneaking so successfully that they don't even notice each other--you might as well not even have a point man at all. The monsters will run right into your main body with no warning or chance to prepare, and you'll probably wind up wishing that your point guy had been a little clumsier so the monsters revealed themselves sooner when only one guy was in danger instead of a whole caravan.

A successful roll means that the PC succeeded in what he was trying to accomplish. It does not in any way, shape, or form guarantee a good outcome from his successful attempt.


----------

