OSR Commander (Warlord) for the OSR?

[Sacrosanct]

Welp, I just deleted two paragraphs because you said basically what I was going to say.

Agreed, fighter seems more robust as a damage dealer, warlord offers solid passive support. I might like to see some commands that replace attacks instead of entire actions to support a less "lazylord" playstyle, but overall, balance seems very solid.

The challenge is that this is a quasi-clone of AD&D 1e/2e/B/X, so keeping it simple is a requirement. It was very easy to start going off into all kinds of options and complexities, but that would start running counter to the design goals.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The danger in stacking too many passives is that you wouldn't have hardy any actual commands to use. so you're giving up flexibility by selecting passives as your choices.

I agree, but it pays to concentrate on "always on" powers because that's where you tend to find most really bad balance issues. IME.

 

[TwoSix]

The challenge is that this is a quasi-clone of AD&D 1e/2e/B/X, so keeping it simple is a requirement. It was very easy to start going off into all kinds of options and complexities, but that would start running counter to the design goals.

Fair. Plus all the commands are still limited to X uses per day, so it's not like the ability to use them every round in combat will exist until the teen levels. Even then, some commands have non-combat uses, so some uses will be spent there at well. Falling back on their attacks will be necessary.

It isn't stated, but does Commander get a 3rd attack at 12 like the other non-Fighter Warriors?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It isn't stated, but does Commander get a 3rd attack at 12 like the other non-Fighter Warriors?

I assumed no, based on the text.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fair. Plus all the commands are still limited to X uses per day, so it's not like the ability to use them every round in combat will exist until the teen levels. Even then, some commands have non-combat uses, so some uses will be spent there at well. Falling back on their attacks will be necessary.

It isn't stated, but does Commander get a 3rd attack at 12 like the other non-Fighter Warriors?

nope. The number of commands and how many you can use per day at those higher levels is meant to balance that out

 

[TwoSix]

I agree, but it pays to concentrate on "always on" powers because that's where you tend to find most really bad balance issues. IME.

That is true. Since active Commands compete for X/day uses, it would make a lot of sense to grab all the passive Commands you can and then one good active one. You could make a pretty good tank by focusing on AC and grabbing Parry, for example. Or at least a very survivable buff bot.

It's an issue with any form of buff power, really. It's why Bo9S maneuvers used Stances for most passive bonuses, and why so many 5e spells use Concentration.

I'm not saying it's inherently unworkable, but something to be aware of.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is true. Since active Commands compete for X/day uses, it would make a lot of sense to grab all the passive Commands you can and then one good active one. You could make a pretty good tank by focusing on AC and grabbing Parry, for example. Or at least a very survivable buff bot.

It's an issue with any form of buff power, really. It's why Bo9S maneuvers used Stances for most passive bonuses, and why so many 5e spells use Concentration.

I'm not saying it's inherently unworkable, but something to be aware of.

So break them out into commands and move all passives into stances, where you get X amount of commands and Y amount of stances, to avoid the passive stacking?

*Also, I'm thinking about instead of giving up an entire action for a command, you're giving up just one attack and if you're level 6 or higher, you get your extra attack to use as well. But I'm on the fence, because some commands are much more impactful than the one attack they would be replacing would be...hmmm...

 

[TwoSix]

So break them out into commands and move all passives into stances, where you get X amount of commands and Y amount of stances, to avoid the passive stacking?

Makes sense. I'd say roughly a command every 3 levels or so, and a stance every 4 to 5? 4 Commands and 3 stances at 10 seems about right, if I'm eyeballing it.