FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
*sigh*
The whole POINT of a design thread is to post your mechanics and get feedback on your design.
Please refer to my last few interactions with mellored, where I critiqued his design and tried to point out the relevant problems so he could fix them. He agreed with me in a few places and disagreed in others, and the dialogue will make his final design stronger.
If you cannot take the criticism, then you should not participate in such a thread.
Of course, it definitely would be nice if our interactions go more down that path.
As far as the Battle Master fighter goes there's a few factors at work.
First, not all fighters get maneuvers. It's a choice. So you can have people who take the martial class and not receive powers.
Because not everyone wants to play a "spellcaster". And the primary reason is because they don't want to have to manage a lot of fiddly powers, not because they're called "spells" or explicitly magical. The simple characters tend to be "martial" to make it easier to direct people to them.
Having a martial character gain a bunch of fiddly spells chosen from a long list is designing a non-spellcaster class like a spellcaster. It says the class is a martial one when it really isn't. It's a bait and switch.
#1 I don't think it's necessary to limit the design options of all "martial" classes for the sole purpose of defining martial as being less complex. There can always be an exception, "most martial classes are not very complex but the warlord is". Having an exception is not a bait and switch.
#2 If it's really not them being spells or spell-like in nature but instead the complexity of it then please stop referring to the issue as one where they are spell-like. It's confusing and only serves a dismissive purpose in the conversation.
The battle master is the compromise design. Because someone people like the concept of playing a warrior but do want some choices of power and complexity.
But, as far as powers go, they're simple. You choose from a list of just sixteen powers and most are just a paragraph long, being shorter than most spells. And there's very little management required, with most being resolved in a single turn. You also have a small "hand size", starting with three maneuvers for three levels of play, and never learning more than nine at level 15. (A warlock hits nine known spells at level 5, while a sorcerer goes from eight to ten at level 4.)
The abilities I referenced were
1. Simple
2. You will choose from a list of maybe 20 or so
3. Very little management required as most are resovled in a single round
4. You will have a small hand size in my system as well, 3-5 "maneuvers" and likely ending at somewhere between 10-15 (exact details haven't been worked out)
Like almost everything you are saying about battlemaster maneuvers apply to the abilities I listed for my warlord.
A good warlord design should appeal to people who don't want to play a spellcaster and not asking them to manage the resources of a full or half spellcaster. (At least by default. That kind of option could be opted into.)
I disagree and I don't see how this has anything to do with good design or should even be considered as a requirement of the design.
Especially the healer warlord. The appeal of that build is a healer that isn't a spellcaster. So it should not play like one, or the player would just play a cleric/ druid/ bard/ sorcerer/ warlock/ paladin.
If playing a warlord feels like you're playing a cleric with "spells" crossed out and "gambits" or "maneuvers" written in then the design has failed.
There we go with the spell-like criticism again... In fact I think you mentioned it in nearly every paragraph I just quoted. The bottom line is that none of the warlord powers I'm suggesting are going to make you feel like you are playing a spellcaster any more than battlemaster maneuvers make you feel like you are playing a spell caster. It's almost like you are a broke record about that...
I'll reply to the rest later.