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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Learning the arts of war from other games (esp. 13th Age)
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6820242" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>An idea struck me, as I was reading through a review of <em>13 True Ways</em>, the first big supplement to 13th Age that filled in many of the "missing" classes--including the Commander, the 13A equivalent of the Warlord. Specifically, 13th Age is a game that intentionally eschews a precise grid focus in many ways (albeit not <em>completely</em> theater-of-the-mind style either), and also a game that embraces a variety of "intricacy" levels in its classes (I don't care for the connotations of "complexity"), much like 5th edition. Yet it also has plenty of room for the Commander, and manages to make the Commander a solid contribution to any party, magic or not. Some of this is due to preserving certain mechanical conceits from 4e (e.g. most things are attacks vs. a defense, even spells), but there's a <em>lot</em> of mechanical variety despite the game having a much reduced/streamlined tactical side.</p><p></p><p>But the thing that really struck me was a combination of two things.</p><p></p><p>Firstly, the Commander's abilities are (by and large) "at will" in one sense, and <em>not</em> "at will" in another: most of their really good abilities depend on spending a resource (called "Command Points")...which can only earned through actual combat, either by successfully making a melee attack (1d3 points on a hit), or spending your action to "Weight the Odds" (1d4 points regardless)--the former means taking a risk of getting nothing (if you miss), while the latter consumes a turn but guarantees at least 1 point and potentially gives more points. While I have no doubt that the precise numbers would need to get tweaked in order to suit 5e math (which scales much more slowly than 13A math), it seemed like this kind of mechanic could satisfy the desires of the two major sides of the debate. On the one hand, it provides a minimum set of important choices to make and bakes in a need to consider your actions (and the battlefield) carefully before acting; on the other, it can allow for purely martial, supportive abilities that can be "used all day" (you don't suddenly forget/lose them) but can't be used <em>every moment</em> (you can't spam them eternally). The fundamental mechanic is already present in other strongly Warlord-like classes in other games; the Battlemaster from <em>Grim World</em> (a Dungeon World..."extension" I guess) has "Gambit," and even Pathfinder has a vaguely similar concept in the Gunslinger's "Grit." D&D following suit with its own particular flavor would hardly be an unusual thing.</p><p></p><p>Secondly, the Monk's "Forms." In 13A, Monks learn sets of attacks called "Forms." They can learn a fixed number of forms based on level, and each form has three parts: an opening attack, a flow attack, and a finishing attack. In general, openings are the weakest and Flow attacks can only be used the round after using an opening attack--you can't just start the first round with a flow attack (though if you have some way to make two attacks in the first round, it's perfectly fine to use an opening and then a flow). Finishing attacks, likewise, can only be used the round after using a flow attack. You can always choose to start again (e.g. round 1: opening, round 2: flow, round 3: opening) if you want. And, very importantly, <em>you can mix and match parts of your forms</em>. So if you know the <em>Dutiful Guardian</em>, <em>Way of the Metallic Dragon</em>, and <em>Claws of the Panther</em> forms, you could use the DG opening, CotP flow, and WotMD finisher--or you could use all three from DG, or two from CotP and one from WotMD, or any combination you like. This, again, promotes variety and interesting choice while maintaining restrictions on the strength and breadth of things the character can do--which would seem to meet goals for both sides.</p><p></p><p>What do you guys think? Combining these two mechanics (multi-step "tactics" plus a resource that must be built up before it can be consumed) seems like a solid, and importantly <em>unique</em> (within the context of 5e) way to create a Warlord. Can it resolve at least <em>part</em> of the Great Debate?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6820242, member: 6790260"] An idea struck me, as I was reading through a review of [I]13 True Ways[/I], the first big supplement to 13th Age that filled in many of the "missing" classes--including the Commander, the 13A equivalent of the Warlord. Specifically, 13th Age is a game that intentionally eschews a precise grid focus in many ways (albeit not [I]completely[/I] theater-of-the-mind style either), and also a game that embraces a variety of "intricacy" levels in its classes (I don't care for the connotations of "complexity"), much like 5th edition. Yet it also has plenty of room for the Commander, and manages to make the Commander a solid contribution to any party, magic or not. Some of this is due to preserving certain mechanical conceits from 4e (e.g. most things are attacks vs. a defense, even spells), but there's a [I]lot[/I] of mechanical variety despite the game having a much reduced/streamlined tactical side. But the thing that really struck me was a combination of two things. Firstly, the Commander's abilities are (by and large) "at will" in one sense, and [I]not[/I] "at will" in another: most of their really good abilities depend on spending a resource (called "Command Points")...which can only earned through actual combat, either by successfully making a melee attack (1d3 points on a hit), or spending your action to "Weight the Odds" (1d4 points regardless)--the former means taking a risk of getting nothing (if you miss), while the latter consumes a turn but guarantees at least 1 point and potentially gives more points. While I have no doubt that the precise numbers would need to get tweaked in order to suit 5e math (which scales much more slowly than 13A math), it seemed like this kind of mechanic could satisfy the desires of the two major sides of the debate. On the one hand, it provides a minimum set of important choices to make and bakes in a need to consider your actions (and the battlefield) carefully before acting; on the other, it can allow for purely martial, supportive abilities that can be "used all day" (you don't suddenly forget/lose them) but can't be used [I]every moment[/I] (you can't spam them eternally). The fundamental mechanic is already present in other strongly Warlord-like classes in other games; the Battlemaster from [I]Grim World[/I] (a Dungeon World..."extension" I guess) has "Gambit," and even Pathfinder has a vaguely similar concept in the Gunslinger's "Grit." D&D following suit with its own particular flavor would hardly be an unusual thing. Secondly, the Monk's "Forms." In 13A, Monks learn sets of attacks called "Forms." They can learn a fixed number of forms based on level, and each form has three parts: an opening attack, a flow attack, and a finishing attack. In general, openings are the weakest and Flow attacks can only be used the round after using an opening attack--you can't just start the first round with a flow attack (though if you have some way to make two attacks in the first round, it's perfectly fine to use an opening and then a flow). Finishing attacks, likewise, can only be used the round after using a flow attack. You can always choose to start again (e.g. round 1: opening, round 2: flow, round 3: opening) if you want. And, very importantly, [I]you can mix and match parts of your forms[/I]. So if you know the [I]Dutiful Guardian[/I], [I]Way of the Metallic Dragon[/I], and [I]Claws of the Panther[/I] forms, you could use the DG opening, CotP flow, and WotMD finisher--or you could use all three from DG, or two from CotP and one from WotMD, or any combination you like. This, again, promotes variety and interesting choice while maintaining restrictions on the strength and breadth of things the character can do--which would seem to meet goals for both sides. What do you guys think? Combining these two mechanics (multi-step "tactics" plus a resource that must be built up before it can be consumed) seems like a solid, and importantly [I]unique[/I] (within the context of 5e) way to create a Warlord. Can it resolve at least [I]part[/I] of the Great Debate? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Learning the arts of war from other games (esp. 13th Age)
Top