Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 7378260" data-attributes="member: 6932123"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>We have classes that choose their subclasses at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>must</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>on top</em> of the character's core elements.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So where does the Warlord fall? Or rather, where <em>should</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Of my general concepts, I'm seeing:</p><p></p><p>Icon/Shonen hero: evolution (leading people)</p><p>Icon/Princess: type</p><p>Icon/Vanguard: evolution (leading the charge)</p><p>Commander: evolution (commanding people), specialization</p><p>Strategist: evolution (manipulating people)</p><p>Defender: evolution (using terrain to advantage)</p><p>Defender/Ambusher: evolution (using terrain to advantage)</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, I <em>could</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 7378260, member: 6932123"] 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 [i]must[/i] 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 [i]on top[/i] 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 [i]should[/i] 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 [i]could[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
Top