FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Who are you to say what a 5e class should look like?
Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
Who are you to say what a 5e class should look like?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
It's like you are saying "How dare anything martial ever get anything that shares one bit of similarity with a spell caster". If that's your argument then take a hike.
mellored
Legend
By say... copying from the other 5e classes and then making a few tweaks to rebalance it for at-will use?
That's exactly what I did. All those things ideas copied straight from the 5e player's handbook. I mostly just added, "until the end of your next turn", and a gave it a new martial-sounding name.
Jester David
Hero
Once again, a warlord thread has descended from actually trying to build a warlord into three or four warlord fans trying to beat their ideas into the heads of anyone who dare disagree and refusing to budge from their concept.
I'm out. I put a lot of work giving an outline of a class and thinking of actual subclasses. But all everyone wants to do is shout at each other.
this.
Get a warlord class on the Guild and show me I’m wrong. Show me there’s a big audience of fans anxiously waiting for a 4e warlord class.
You get to prove me wrong and make money in the process.
I'm out. I put a lot of work giving an outline of a class and thinking of actual subclasses. But all everyone wants to do is shout at each other.
this.Put up or shut up.
Get a warlord class on the Guild and show me I’m wrong. Show me there’s a big audience of fans anxiously waiting for a 4e warlord class.
You get to prove me wrong and make money in the process.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
We are trying. Maybe if you would stop derailing the thread we could actually get back to you know, designing a warlord?
mellored
Legend
Actually...
A quick and dirty bard-to-warlord conversion.
*You don't get spell slots or cantrips. You still learn spells as if you had spell slots. (i.e. you need to be level 5 to learn level 3 spells).
*You learn half the normal number of spells (rounded up).
*You cannot learn any spells with a duration shorter than 1 minute or a casting time longer than an action. You also can't learn polymorph (possibly a few others).
*You can cast any known bard spell (with at least a 1-minute duration) at-will. The spell lasts until the end of your next turn and has a range of melee touch. If the spell affects an area, it affects each creature within 5' of you.
*If a creature makes a save against your spell, you cannot use the same spell against that creature until you take a short rest.
*You have proficiency in medium armor, shields, and martial weapons.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Have you given up on the invocation idea?
mellored
Legend
No. In fact, that quick conversion ends up as something pretty similar.
You start with 2 choice which grows to 11. (half the bards).
Stronger abilites have level prerequisites. i.e. hypnotic pattern (prerequisite, level 5).
You can use them at-will with an action.
Plus some generic bonus dice to pass around as a bonus action.
But my main point was that you can take a lot of the existing long duration buff and control spells (heroism, tasha's hideous laughter, haste, foresight) and turn them into reasonably balanced at-will abilities just by reducing their duration to 1 round.
That and I had the image of a warlord running up to someone and shouting "hold person" while giving them a big paralyzing hug. Pulling out a feather while saying "material component" and then ticking someone's armpit while shouting "Tasha's Hidious Laughter". Then next turn letting out a 5' radius "stinking cloud"...
Last edited:
Kinematics
Hero
The only actual design point that's really been close to settled is that of subclass level divergence. Tony Vargas has been asserting 1st level, while I asserted 3rd level.
The 1st vs 3rd choice influences the nature of the class vs subclass relationship, in terms of power derived from each aspect, the sorts of abilities that are presented and available, and the approach to the conceptual design of the character.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about the implications of the types of splits, both thematically and functionally, as well as reviewing whether I was even describing things properly. I've looked at how the design would play out in each version, trying to see which one would let things work more smoothly in those defining aspects where it matters (since there are a lot of aspects that don't really change with the choice), and I find that I didn't really set things out properly for the decision that I made.
First, I feel I used inappropriate terms for describing the types when I last discussed it. I described the 1st level split as "specialization", while the 3rd level split was described as "uniqueness". The terms used were sort of off the cuff, and thus didn't truly map to what was being described. Both 1st and 3rd are types of specializations. Plus, I blended together ideas from classes that get subclasses at 1st and 2nd level, forgetting that they are separate approaches.
We have classes that choose their subclasses at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level.
1st: Sorcerer, Warlock, Cleric — The character identity cannot exist independent of the subclass. The Warlock's patron, or the Sorcerer's origin, or the Cleric's domain must be defined in order for the character to work at all; there's no "specializing" involved. The class is just a container to hold the subclass; it just provides the underlying mechanics for the subclass to use. These subclasses are "types" of the class.
2nd: Wizard, Druid — The character's identity exists without the subclass (as a broad concept), primarily defined by the unrestricted spell selection options, but the class provides no mechanical support for further identity resolution. The subclass provides specialization directly related to the features that the class has available at 1st level. This is not about character concept or mechanics grouping. Each subclass is just choosing to be better at some aspect of the base class.
3rd: Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, etc — The character can exist entirely within the class, and not need the subclass. Instead, the subclass provides a way to choose a direction for the character to go once you have a better idea of the general character implementation, but is not dependent on specializing on anything the class provides. Rather, it introduces entirely new abilities to match the direction the character is going. Is the Rogue more flashy or manipulative or interested in stealing stuff? Does the Fighter approach combat from a more tactical mindset, or does he want to incorporate magic into his fighting? What oath does the Paladin swear, once he's proved himself? The subclass is a layer on top of the character's core elements.
So we have subclasses that are fundamental "types" of the base class (gained at 1st level); those that are "specializations" of the base class and what it can do (gained at 2nd level); and those that are "evolutions" of the base class, that branch of into entirely new directions (gained at 3rd level).
Given Tony Vargas's comments, and allowing that he got drawn into my improper terminology, I believe he is pushing the 2nd level split, where the base Warlord class is defined by the variety of gambits available, and the subclasses focus on being better at certain types of them.
I developed 4 broad concepts that I felt would be related to the Warlord concept, developed such that each subclass could handle a few different actual character types. To a certain extent it feels like a 1st level split — an Icon is not a Commander is not a Strategist is not a Defender. Each have very different problem-solving methods, and, for example, it's difficult to fit the princess concept in as something that could grow out of the Warlord class as a whole. Basically, the princess version of the Icon subclass is very hard to conceive of as not being a 1st level "type" subclass, whereas the shonen hero is easy to see as an "evolution" subclass. But then if you go to the Commander subclass, it's very easy to view it as a specialization type 2nd level subclass.
This is why I think Tony and others are focusing on the Commander-style subclass, with all the subclasses being specializations. It's much easier to take one thing that allows for some specialization, and consider that as something that will provide enough subclasses to be viable, than to look at different evolutions that approach the problems a Warlord deals with in radically different ways.
However the specialization approach is also extremely limited, and bland, if the core class does not evoke a wide variety of concepts on its own (as the Wizard clearly does, and the Druid does to a lesser extent). Providing evolutions allows for very different character types, which makes it much more useful for long-term design. Using the "types" subclass method, on the other hand, allows you to provide for a variety of narrowly-scoped ideas using the same mechanical underpinnings. Their similarity and differences are due to circumstances (accident of birth, choice of god, who they managed to find to give them power, etc), rather than fundamental to the class itself.
So where does the Warlord fall? Or rather, where should it fall? I don't know. I can give justifications for any of the three types. The Warlord can be a bucket of mechanics for a variety of different ideas people have and want to implement (ie: tactical vs princess vs lazylord) that differ based on circumstances rather than intrinsics. The Warlord can go all-in on the gambits, and just provide paths to be better at certain types over others. Or it can provide a strong underlying class that can evolve in radically different ways.
My personal opinion is that the specialization route is the worst option. I reviewed a ton of the 4E exploits that the Warlord had, when putting together my own design, and at least 80% of them are worthless when translating to 5E. 5E just fundamentally doesn't work the same as 4E, and you can't pile on tons of micro-abilities and pretend that provides a useful choice mechanic on par with the spell system. And without sufficient choices to draw from, the specialization mechanic just doesn't have enough to work with to be viable, long-term.
On the other hand, I don't know whether "type" or "evolution" is better for handling the general concepts that are being applied to the Warlord. Perhaps some of the concepts just fundamentally don't belong in Warlord, as they only existed in 4E due to the mechanics matching up. A princess isn't a Warlord, and shoehorning it into the class just shows a poor understanding of the design process. It's not a conceptual match, it's a mechanical match, in designing a character that can still be functional despite the concept, rather than because of it.
Of my general concepts, I'm seeing:
Icon/Shonen hero: evolution (leading people)
Icon/Princess: type
Icon/Vanguard: evolution (leading the charge)
Commander: evolution (commanding people), specialization
Strategist: evolution (manipulating people)
Defender: evolution (using terrain to advantage)
Defender/Ambusher: evolution (using terrain to advantage)
On the other hand, I could see the Princess evolving into the Shonen hero. In that case, the Princess is just something that needs to work from the baseline of the class, and have an evolution path available to her.
So, after a more careful look at things, I think evolution works best for my view of the Warlord. It is still using the 3rd level subclass split, but now I can see where I was making mistakes before, and have a better path to work with.
The 1st vs 3rd choice influences the nature of the class vs subclass relationship, in terms of power derived from each aspect, the sorts of abilities that are presented and available, and the approach to the conceptual design of the character.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about the implications of the types of splits, both thematically and functionally, as well as reviewing whether I was even describing things properly. I've looked at how the design would play out in each version, trying to see which one would let things work more smoothly in those defining aspects where it matters (since there are a lot of aspects that don't really change with the choice), and I find that I didn't really set things out properly for the decision that I made.
First, I feel I used inappropriate terms for describing the types when I last discussed it. I described the 1st level split as "specialization", while the 3rd level split was described as "uniqueness". The terms used were sort of off the cuff, and thus didn't truly map to what was being described. Both 1st and 3rd are types of specializations. Plus, I blended together ideas from classes that get subclasses at 1st and 2nd level, forgetting that they are separate approaches.
We have classes that choose their subclasses at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level.
1st: Sorcerer, Warlock, Cleric — The character identity cannot exist independent of the subclass. The Warlock's patron, or the Sorcerer's origin, or the Cleric's domain must be defined in order for the character to work at all; there's no "specializing" involved. The class is just a container to hold the subclass; it just provides the underlying mechanics for the subclass to use. These subclasses are "types" of the class.
2nd: Wizard, Druid — The character's identity exists without the subclass (as a broad concept), primarily defined by the unrestricted spell selection options, but the class provides no mechanical support for further identity resolution. The subclass provides specialization directly related to the features that the class has available at 1st level. This is not about character concept or mechanics grouping. Each subclass is just choosing to be better at some aspect of the base class.
3rd: Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, etc — The character can exist entirely within the class, and not need the subclass. Instead, the subclass provides a way to choose a direction for the character to go once you have a better idea of the general character implementation, but is not dependent on specializing on anything the class provides. Rather, it introduces entirely new abilities to match the direction the character is going. Is the Rogue more flashy or manipulative or interested in stealing stuff? Does the Fighter approach combat from a more tactical mindset, or does he want to incorporate magic into his fighting? What oath does the Paladin swear, once he's proved himself? The subclass is a layer on top of the character's core elements.
So we have subclasses that are fundamental "types" of the base class (gained at 1st level); those that are "specializations" of the base class and what it can do (gained at 2nd level); and those that are "evolutions" of the base class, that branch of into entirely new directions (gained at 3rd level).
Given Tony Vargas's comments, and allowing that he got drawn into my improper terminology, I believe he is pushing the 2nd level split, where the base Warlord class is defined by the variety of gambits available, and the subclasses focus on being better at certain types of them.
I developed 4 broad concepts that I felt would be related to the Warlord concept, developed such that each subclass could handle a few different actual character types. To a certain extent it feels like a 1st level split — an Icon is not a Commander is not a Strategist is not a Defender. Each have very different problem-solving methods, and, for example, it's difficult to fit the princess concept in as something that could grow out of the Warlord class as a whole. Basically, the princess version of the Icon subclass is very hard to conceive of as not being a 1st level "type" subclass, whereas the shonen hero is easy to see as an "evolution" subclass. But then if you go to the Commander subclass, it's very easy to view it as a specialization type 2nd level subclass.
This is why I think Tony and others are focusing on the Commander-style subclass, with all the subclasses being specializations. It's much easier to take one thing that allows for some specialization, and consider that as something that will provide enough subclasses to be viable, than to look at different evolutions that approach the problems a Warlord deals with in radically different ways.
However the specialization approach is also extremely limited, and bland, if the core class does not evoke a wide variety of concepts on its own (as the Wizard clearly does, and the Druid does to a lesser extent). Providing evolutions allows for very different character types, which makes it much more useful for long-term design. Using the "types" subclass method, on the other hand, allows you to provide for a variety of narrowly-scoped ideas using the same mechanical underpinnings. Their similarity and differences are due to circumstances (accident of birth, choice of god, who they managed to find to give them power, etc), rather than fundamental to the class itself.
So where does the Warlord fall? Or rather, where should it fall? I don't know. I can give justifications for any of the three types. The Warlord can be a bucket of mechanics for a variety of different ideas people have and want to implement (ie: tactical vs princess vs lazylord) that differ based on circumstances rather than intrinsics. The Warlord can go all-in on the gambits, and just provide paths to be better at certain types over others. Or it can provide a strong underlying class that can evolve in radically different ways.
My personal opinion is that the specialization route is the worst option. I reviewed a ton of the 4E exploits that the Warlord had, when putting together my own design, and at least 80% of them are worthless when translating to 5E. 5E just fundamentally doesn't work the same as 4E, and you can't pile on tons of micro-abilities and pretend that provides a useful choice mechanic on par with the spell system. And without sufficient choices to draw from, the specialization mechanic just doesn't have enough to work with to be viable, long-term.
On the other hand, I don't know whether "type" or "evolution" is better for handling the general concepts that are being applied to the Warlord. Perhaps some of the concepts just fundamentally don't belong in Warlord, as they only existed in 4E due to the mechanics matching up. A princess isn't a Warlord, and shoehorning it into the class just shows a poor understanding of the design process. It's not a conceptual match, it's a mechanical match, in designing a character that can still be functional despite the concept, rather than because of it.
Of my general concepts, I'm seeing:
Icon/Shonen hero: evolution (leading people)
Icon/Princess: type
Icon/Vanguard: evolution (leading the charge)
Commander: evolution (commanding people), specialization
Strategist: evolution (manipulating people)
Defender: evolution (using terrain to advantage)
Defender/Ambusher: evolution (using terrain to advantage)
On the other hand, I could see the Princess evolving into the Shonen hero. In that case, the Princess is just something that needs to work from the baseline of the class, and have an evolution path available to her.
So, after a more careful look at things, I think evolution works best for my view of the Warlord. It is still using the 3rd level subclass split, but now I can see where I was making mistakes before, and have a better path to work with.
Dhomochevsky
First Post
played a bravura warlord in 4e, big fan.
Similar Threads
