Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7378363" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Great Split.  I'll try to adopt your terms for the rest of the conversation as you did a pretty good job at highlighting some important differences.  It's something I tried to touch on earlier but that you have explained and examined much better.  I do want to add one additional piece of insight.  The reason their are no casters that get subclasses at level 3 is more mechanical in nature.  It's because their basic class spellcasting ability powers up so much at level 3 that there just wouldn't be much room left at that level to put anything else.  So there is also a mechanical reason to place a subclass at a certain level and that mechanical power difference may be why you see level 3 subclasses as evolving the class (they grant much stronger abilities at level 3 than subclasses at level 2 generally grant).Level 1 is perhaps a bit different as your whole class is defined from level 1 on and so their is no way for the base class to evolve.  It's as you described, essentially a class.  Anyways, what I've been going through all this to ask is:Why can't the Warlord adopt more of an evolution stance and still have a primary ability that is strongly defining the class itself but still has the subclass evolving him into a different direction?  If so wouldn't the most reasonable place to put the subclass be at level 2 as opposed to level 3?  There is a reason martial classes generally evolve instead of specialize.  It's because they have much less flexible class mechanics so they are incapable of generating new concepts without evolving.  Specialization can only happen because there is a flexible mechanic attached to the primary class that allows for multiple concepts to already be somewhat mechanically covered.  You mentioned the paladin earlier as a class that evolves instead of specializes.  I would actually view him more as a specialist.  He's still a paladin and can fulfill a variety of paladin flavor with his spells.  Even without a subclass he could play in such a way and pick spells and abilities that would mechanically fulfill the demands of just about any of the subclasses listed.  Instead he just gets explicitly better at doing the things the subclass is supposed to do.Why do we think a strong and flexible primary class mechanic is needed?  Because there are soo many different variations and expectations around what a warlord should be capable of doing and not capable of doing.  Because the different styles of Warlord's often blend together moreso than are totally distinct.  A tactical warlord may sometimes inspire his allys.  A inspiring warlord may sometimes bring together some good tactical plans.  There's just not a clear line IMO between where one warlord ends and another begins and it's almost impossible to have total evolution and have tactical plans present in the core warlord.  If it's total evolution then the tactical warlord is the only one that gets tactical stuff.  It's odd that while you find specialization based subclasses bland and uninteresting I find them empowering and perfectly suitable.  I often find the evolving ones redundant and while the are more mechanically interesting they are more conceptually limiting.  For example, I can't play a fighter that uses same magic and some tactical maneuvers.  Those two things can never come together now under the same fighter character because we have them siloed off in subclasses.  I understand why they needed to do it that way.  But I can't say I find that to be good design, at least not when they aren't making "hybrid" subclasses to bring life to the conceptual spaces between the current subclasses.  At least with the broad class and specialization route, all those options are automatically open to me and I just choose to be a little better at some area that my class already covers.  One interesting tidbit.  The assassain subclass of rogue is a good example of a specialization subclass.  The arcane trickster is a good example of an evolving one.  Both types of subclasses are present in the rogue class.  I think this doesn't have to be an either/or approach.  Some subclasses can add evolution while some add specialization.  I think the biggest factor is whether the primarily evolution method is going to be able to generate good warlords that are more hybrid focused than primarily pushing a single path.  Ultimately the desire is for a warlord that doesn't get to do anything tactical just because he didn't pick the tactical subclass and for a warlord that doesn't get to do anything inspiring just because he didn't pick the inspiring subclass.  There is going to be a major design challenge in the evolution route to make sure that doesn't happen.  Most of us want a warlord that can do some inspiring, some tactics etc.  1.  Most 5e warlord abilities should scale instead of staying micro abilities.  2.  I don't think it's been demonstrated that there will be a lack of sufficient choices for specialization to work long term.3.  My personal opinion is that it's the best option.  I believe there is a reason no sufficient warlord has been created yet and that reason is because everyone has tried to do it so far under the evolution route.  It always ends up leaving warlord concepts that warlord fans want to explore on the outside looking in.  You almost certainly lose the lazylord/princess.  You almost certainly lose hybrid tactical / inspring warlords.  Heck there's even the question of how much baked in combat prowess you place in the primary class vs the subclasses and that's another hybrid tradeoff that makes warlord fans cringe.Can a warlord be bad at fighting himself.  In general I think it's possible.  I used to think the princess concept would be impossible to translate to 5e.  I now see multiple paths as long as you have the single broad flexible warlord mechanic and something non-attacking they can substitute their attack for.  I don't think its the traditional warlord concept 4e was going for, but I also don't think its just a mechanical phenomenon.  A lazylord/princess in conception would probably be more like a scholar that has studied war and battle and tactics.  He might be sick or frail or just untrained or unexperienced with weaponry and thus might lack some of their insights.  He's probably more tactical focused than inspiring.  But that shouldn't rule out him being able to inspire the party with a story about some historical battle or person and then reminding them of it on combat etc.  But that would be my conception of a princess/lazylord.  Is that a concept that really doesn't belong in a warlord class?  If it doesn't belong there then where does it belong?I'm not sure what a shonen is.</blockquote>

Verification