Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[MoonSong]

Great. There's 5 or 6 of you here. So to get enough money to offset my design time, the 5-6 page PDF will cost, oh, $20.
Sound good?

Again, it's a supply and demand thing. If there was really a demand, people would have supplied a book. Because there'd be money to be made.

But all you proved was there is no demand for maneuvers, if that (the free preview gives away everything). Since it is a full class we talk about, these take longer and subclasses are quickly made so all of the supply has been subclasses but these don't really fulfill the demand?

I disagree with that. More class features just have to be in subclasses.
I'm curious what wizard abilities you feel just would not work with the sorcerer. Arcane recovery or spell mastery?

Spell mastery? I rewrite myself every morning is extremely unsorcery... plus the spellbook, casting stat, focus by schools, basic approach to magic, and it isn't just in 5e, I'm talking on every D&D edition to date.

It actually slowed down a bit. It's well below a sale a day now.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[mellored]

I still think you just want an OP battlemaster, but won't come out and say it.

We want a full class battlemaster.

 

[Jester David]

But all you proved was there is no demand for maneuvers, if that (the free preview gives away everything).

I don't like charging people sight unseen. I want them to know what they're getting, which is the big complaint regarding paid-only material rather than PWYW.

Since it is a full class we talk about, these take longer and subclasses are quickly made so all of the supply has been subclasses but these don't really fulfill the demand?

There are LOTS of other full classes and class options in the Guild. Many are doing quite well. Still no warlords. If there was a huge buzz and demand for a warlord class, someone would have made one. Because it would be satisfying the needs of the fanbase and making money and helping that designer make a name.

There were quite a few attempts at a warlord early in the life of 5e, but most seem to have barely made it out of the conceptual stage. Few people took the time to really finish the class, and no one has bothered to put it on the Guild after two months.

WotC gets all the blame for the lack of warlord at launch. The warlord fans get the blame for the lack of warlord now.

Spell mastery? I rewrite myself every morning is extremely unsorcery... plus the spellbook, casting stat, focus by schools, basic approach to magic, and it isn't just in 5e, I'm talking on every D&D edition to date.

If the class had been the Mage, it would have been easy to have a level 1 feature called "Sorcery" or "Wizardry" that determines book or blood, casting stat, and the like. All that would be separate from the class and instead folded into the choice. Like how warlorcks picks both a patron and pact. Spell Mastery and Signature Spell would need to be reworded, but mechanically they'd function unchained. And, since there'd be less need to differentiate the wizard and sorcerer classes, metamagic could still be an option for both.

That way, you could also have a binder Mage, or a sha'ir, or defiler and make them slightly different in terms of spellcasting stat and knowing spells without reducing things to just a school or having to make a new class.

 

[TwoSix]

No, it isn't the case. Hussar has made very clear what he wants in a warlord. So have I, so please if you have the time to spare you could check the en5ider Noble and see if it looks like an OP BM.

The Noble is exactly what I was looking for in a Warlord replacement. Not a spellcaster, some healing, a lot of granted attacks, and the ability to focus on Intelligence or Charisma as the main stat. I'll be using this class in my next game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the class had been the Mage, it would have been easy to have a level 1 feature called "Sorcery" or "Wizardry" that determines book or blood, casting stat, and the like. All that would be separate from the class and instead folded into the choice. That way, you could also have a binder Mage, or a sha'ir, or defiler and make them slightly different in terms of spellcasting stat and knowing spells without reducing things to just a school or having to make a new class.

I disagree with that. More class features just have to be in subclasses.

The current 5e design paradigm doesn't leave a lot of room in sub-classes. They'll add to or re-jigger class features a little. In theory, sub-classes could have been a lot more defining and significant. Though, the degree to which you'd have to change basic class features to make a fighter 'sub-class' into a warlord would be tantamount to creating a new class, anyway.

Your example of how a 'Mage' might have been designed to encompass both Wizard and Sorcerer is a good one. It might have been. The game could have taken a very different approach to class & sub-class, even something much closer to 2e's Class Group and Classes. If it had, more class concepts could have been folded in as sub-classes and fewer full classes might have been required. In such a hypothetical alternate 5e design philosophy, a BM sub-class of fighter could even have been a passable Bravura Warlord.

I'm curious what wizard abilities you feel just would not work with the sorcerer. Arcane recovery or spell mastery?

I'll go out on a limb and guess "neo-Vancian casting."

Sounds like every wizard in 1-3e.

At 1st level, sure. Beyond that, no. In 3.5 a caster might well expend more than one spell per round, both in terms of pre-casting, and by using Quicken Spell and/or Haste frequently. Combats tended to be very short, so a day might not have a lot more rounds than combats...

But attack cantrips really just let spellcasters *almost* keep up with martials. Cantrips are basically sword swing with a little kicker to offset the crap damage.

Yep. Cantrips raise the value of caster's non-casting rounds relative to just tossing darts in 1e or twanging crossbows in 3e, not to the level of non-casters at-wills, but closer than in classic D&D or 3e. To compensate, 5e would have to have given casters fewer slots (it gave them more) or made casting harder to complete or more dangerous (it made it easier & safer than ever) or substantially reduced the power of spells (some of them were reined in a little, but others were powered up, and still others comparatively 'nerfed').

In theory, any physical task should be possible with a decent ability check. If the fighter gains an ability that lets them stand up quickly with an Acrobatics check, that means a DM cannot make a ruling to let a player do that. It's taking away a potential option from everyone else. It's not really granting more options, it's reducing them.

Yeah, the double-standard is alive and well. And, yes, the Warlord did challenge that double-standard, and would have to do so again in 5e. 5e's open, fluid, & DM-customizable enough, though, that it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Jester David]

Yeah, the double-standard is alive and well. And, yes, the Warlord did challenge that double-standard, and would have to do so again in 5e. 5e's open, fluid, & DM-customizable enough, though, that it shouldn't be an issue.

It's not a "double standard" (and the use of that term is needlessly inflammatory; it's an appeal to emotion.) It's a different standard.

You don't need to define what a martial character is capable of because it's apparent: you can do what is reasonably physically possible based on a lifetime of living in the real world. You do need to define what magic does because it's not as automatically apparent.
In the same way a modern RPG doesn't need to define what a gun does but a science fiction RPG needs to establish what technology is capable of and what a blaster/phaser does.
What magic can or cannot do needs to be limited and defined. Especially in a somewhat crunchy system like D&D. The limits of mundane skill don't need the same limits, and explicit powers just impose limits.

Pathfinder is a better example of mechanical limitation that than 4e, since you can't do anything creative unless you have a specific feat or class feature. You can't use your foot to lop a weapon on the ground into your hand without the Kick-Up feat. Suddenly, every other martial character everywhere loses the power to dramatically flip a dropped weapon into their ready hand with an Acrobatics check, negating the Attack of Opportunity. And instead, people have take a feat (which is limited to swashbucklers IIRC) to do so.

I do a fair bit of design, but thinking of many non-limiting martial utilities, especially at-will ones, is tricky. Ones equivalent to a cantrip in power.
What would you suggest?

 

[Hussar]

I'm still somewhat curious why people think fighters should be the base class of a warlord. What does the fighter base class get that applies to a warlord. See, in 5e, your base class supplies most of your character's niche. The things your character is most likely doing most of the time. So, casters get cantrips, and either Rituals or Invocations for in and out of combat casting. If you play a caster, you are likely dropping a spell just about every round, and most certainly every encounter. All rogues get sneak attack because you are expected to be trying to get that sneak attack every round of combat. Your fighter is making extra attacks and probably relying on effects from his bonus feats every round. So on and so forth.

Sub-classes modify this of course, but, your sub-class abilities don't come up as often as your class niche abilities. The Battlemaster has limited superiority dice - he simply can't spam them every round. Sure, your Assassin gets a big boost in the first round of combat, but, after that, he's pretty much just a regular thief.

So, trying to make a Warlord a sub-class of a Battlemaster is basically making a sub-class of a sub-class. Meaning that it's very, very far from its niche.

But, look at what a base fighter gets:

d10 HP
Simple and Martial Weapons
All armour
Fighting Style
Action Surge
Extra Attack (+1-3)
Bonus Feats (3)
Indomitable

Now, most of that in no way actually applies to a warlord. Warlords never had all armours - they were limited to medium armours. Fighting style? Ok, fair enough, all the "fighty types" get this, so, I can see a warlord having it. Action Surge? Bonus Feats? Indomitable? Why? None of that applies to a warlord at all. Even the third and fourth attacks from being a fighter in no way apply.

Any Warlord based on a fighter chassis is totally missing the point. Just because a class uses a sword and does some fighting doesn't make it a fighter.

 

[Jester David]

I'm still somewhat curious why people think fighters should be the base class of a swashbuckler. What does the fighter base class get that applies to a swashbuckler? See, in 5e, your base class supplies most of your character's niche. The things your character is most likely doing most of the time. So, casters get cantrips, and either Rituals or Invocations for in and out of combat casting. If you play a caster, you are likely dropping a spell just about every round, and most certainly every encounter. All rogues get sneak attack because you are expected to be trying to get that sneak attack every round of combat. Your fighter is making extra attacks and probably relying on effects from his bonus feats every round. So on and so forth.

Sub-classes modify this of course, but, your sub-class abilities don't come up as often as your class niche abilities. The Battlemaster has limited superiority dice - he simply can't spam them every round. Sure, your Assassin gets a big boost in the first round of combat, but, after that, he's pretty much just a regular thief.

So, trying to make a Swashbuckler a sub-class of a Battlemaster is basically making a sub-class of a sub-class. Meaning that it's very, very far from its niche.

But, look at what a base fighter gets:

d10 HP
Simple and Martial Weapons
All armour
Fighting Style
Action Surge
Extra Attack (+1-3)
Bonus Feats (3)
Indomitable

Now, most of that in no way actually applies to a swashbuckler. Swashbucklers never had all armours - they were limited to light armours. Fighting style? Ok, fair enough, all the "fighty types" get this, so, I can see a swashbuckler having it. Action Surge? Bonus Feats? Indomitable? Why? None of that applies to a swashbuckler at all. Even the third and fourth attacks from being a fighter in no way apply.

Any swashbuckler based on a fighter chassis is totally missing the point. Just because a class uses a sword and does some fighting doesn't make it a fighter.

(It also works for archers, dervishes, samurai, etc.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not a "double standard" It's a different standard.

A different standard applied to equivalent things is a double-standard, by definition. Classes (and sub-classes) are equivalent choices in D&D. Not identical, but you get to choose a class. It's not a case of some classes cost 5 build points and others cost 10. They're equivalent player choices.

So, yes, holding some (sub-) classes to one standard and others to a different standard /is/ a double standard, with all that implies.

You don't need to define what a martial character is capable of because it's apparent: you can do what is reasonably physically possible based on a lifetime of living in the real world.

There's the double-standard again. You hold one concept to the standard of the real world, the other you do not even hold to the standard of the fantasy genre it's derived from. Heroic character in fiction do not adhere to what is reasonably physical possible based on mundane experience in the real world.

D&D purports to draw inspiration from a range of genres, most of them very much heroic sub-genres, from high fantasy to S&S and even a little science-fantasy and science-fiction and action thrown in. To hold some characters (barely) to the standard of tropes in heroic genres, and others to the standards of RL is a painfully obvious, clearly inappropriate double-standard.

And, while 5e has yet to really take full advantage of it, there are signs it's not as down on martial characters as you'd like it to be. Second Wind - hit points in general, really - and Action Surge and a few of the BMs maneuvers model a few of the many things you find in genre that don't quite squeeze under the bar set by RL.

You do need to define what magic does because it's not as automatically apparent.

You need to define what each PC is able to do, because no matter how apparent it may seem to one player (or the DM), it might seem equally apparent to another that it would do no such thing. Doesn't matter if it's magic, psionics, martial skill or something else.

In the same way a modern RPG doesn't need to define what a gun does

In Hero, a gun is an RKAp, in 1st Ed GURPS, a gun did 'bludgeoning' damage (so that they could punch through armor), in later eds that was changed to a different damage type that was even better at penetrating armor, in Top Secret a gun had a PWV, range mod, & 'speed.' Modern RPGs absolutely define what modern weapons can do in them, because everyone has to be on the same page when the shooting starts. And, for that matter, because what a gun can do varies based on genre and tone. In Hero System, a superhero can bounce bullets off his chest, while a tough heroic character might take a bullet wound, even several, and keep going - he might even be mortally wounded & dying, but still able to act - or he might be knocked unconscious by a wildly improbable 'crease' to the head and wake up later with little more than a scratch. In Top Secret, a gun could kill you quite easily, but you'd go unconscious first (and probably burn through some Fortune points before then).

You can't use your foot to lop a weapon on the ground into your hand without the Kick-Up feat. Suddenly, every other martial character everywhere loses the power to dramatically flip a dropped weapon into their ready hand with an Acrobatics check, negating the Attack of Opportunity. And instead, people have take a feat (which is limited to swashbucklers IIRC) to do so.

Nod. I've seen that phenomenon with skills, too, in many systems. Adding to the list of skills doesn't let characters do more, it 'creates incompetence' in everyone who doesn't have the skill, when, before, the tasks it covered might have fallen under one or more other skills, or been deemed not to require a skill. And I have noticed the issue with some feats in 3e, for instance. It's a thorny problem with skills, because skills tend to model training/competence that's consistent and always available, as opposed to wild heroics or extraordinary abilities, for which its less of an issue (since not everyone in the world is going to be extraordinary or heroic, obviously, and PCs do tend to be differentiated in their abilities).

I do a fair bit of design, but thinking of many non-limiting martial utilities, especially at-will ones, is tricky. Ones equivalent to a cantrip in power.
What would you suggest?

I don't purport to design, at all - at best, I tinker. But, I would suggest not needlessly constraining the design space open to such abilities.
For instance, don't think that a limited-use ability implies that the fluff that typically goes with it is otherwise impossible. Expend a resource (Inspiration, CS die, whatever) and so something wildly difficult and improbable, once. Or, make a check to try to do it and try to hit that DC 30. That kind of thing.

 

[Jester David]

A different standard applied to equivalent things is a double-standard, by definition. Classes (and sub-classes) are equivalent choices in D&D. Not identical, but you get to choose a class. It's not a case of some classes cost 5 build points and others cost 10. They're equivalent player choices.

That's equating all things of a class because they're a class. Which is overly simplistic. You don't need to explain "human" as much as "dragonborn" despite both being races, because everyone knows what the former is.

You don't need to explain "kicking up a sword into your hand" because it's self explanatory, but you do need to explain how a spell is cast. Similarly, everything a fighter can do doesn't need to be as defined as what a wizard can do.

There's the double-standard again. You hold one concept to the standard of the real world, the other you do not even hold to the standard of the fantasy genre it's derived from. Heroic character in fiction do not adhere to what is reasonably physical possible based on mundane experience in the real world.

That's total BS.
Batman and Superman are both fantastic characters. Ditto Thor and Captain America. But I hold Cap and Batman to very different standards than Thor and Superman despite both being part of the same genre. If I'm reading a comic or watching a movie and Batman lifts a car that's going to take me out of the moment because, as cool as Batman is, he shouldn't be able to lift a car. Even though he's in a comic book universe and sharing a panel with a Kryptonian god.
Okay, Batman can push the limits. There's some give and Batman can do things that wouldn't fly on Mythbusters. But there's a line where things just move from incredible to implausible.

Fighters *need* to be limited by reality, because we all know what reality is. And once they stop being bound to reality then they become magical. It doesn't matter if it's called a "manuever" or a "talent" or an "exploit" or a "ki power" if it does something superhuman it's freakin' magic. Like Book of the Nine Swords. Sure, lots of them were presented as mundane and flavoured as raw talent... but they were still magic.

D&D purports to draw inspiration from a range of genres, most of them very much heroic sub-genres, from high fantasy to S&S and even a little science-fantasy and science-fiction and action thrown in. To hold some characters (barely) to the standard of tropes in heroic genres, and others to the standards of RL is a painfully obvious, clearly inappropriate double-standard.

I disagree. I don't want might fighters doing Wuxia things or I'd play a Wuxia game.

The heroic nature of D&D characters varies from edition to edition and level to level. And D&D has almost always been a flexible that has been molded into a variety of campaigns and tones. 5e has shifted characters a little down the power level, and they're not nearly as heroic any more. Even spellcasters at low levels.

A Wuxia rules option is different and could work. As could something designed to just make martials better in a high power, low magic campaign (like a 5e update of Iron Heroes). But it's probably not a good baseline.

You need to define what each PC is able to do, because no matter how apparent it may seem to one player (or the DM), it might seem equally apparent to another that it would do no such thing. Doesn't matter if it's magic, psionics, martial skill or something else.

Nope. You totally don't.
If only because there's no way to define all the potential actions a player might attempt in combat.

What you describe is a rule heavy system then. They exist. If I want one I'd play one.
The alternative is rules lite, where NOTHING is defined. Those exist and are fun too, and work just fine. If I want one of those, I'd also play one.

This is a 5e forum. We're discussing 5e. It isn't a rule heavy system. But neither is it a narrative game. It's in the middle. And so it explicitly doesn't need to define every potential action. It was designed for rulings not rules.

I don't purport to design, at all - at best, I tinker. But, I would suggest not needlessly constraining the design space open to such abilities.

The best design space IMHO is maneuvers, because you can make the option better. You're not just kicking up a sword, but doing so and making an attack that deals extra damage. So it's not taking things away from anyone but making you better at a specific task.
However, when you get into that design, it's something that's probably too good to do at-will.