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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
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="Jester David" data-source="post: 7384296" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>*sigh*</p><p></p><p>The whole POINT of a design thread is to post your mechanics and get feedback on your design. </p><p>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. </p><p>If you <em>cannot</em> take the criticism, then you should not participate in such a thread. </p><p></p><p></p><p>As far as the Battle Master fighter goes there's a few factors at work. </p><p>First, not all fighters get maneuvers. It's a <em>choice</em>. So you can have people who take the martial class and not receive powers. </p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>A <em>good</em> 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.) </p><p><em>Especially</em> the healer warlord. The appeal of that build is a healer that <em>isn't </em>a spellcaster. So it should not play like one, or the player would just play a cleric/ druid/ bard/ sorcerer/ warlock/ paladin.</p><p>If playing a warlord feels like you're playing a cleric with "spells" crossed out and "gambits" or "maneuvers" written in then <strong><em>the design has failed</em>. </strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, your powers are very much designed like this:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is pretty much this:</p><p>[ATTACH]95906[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>That's not remotely how 5e is designed or written.</p><p>I suggest actually <em><strong>looking</strong></em> at the Battle Master and <em>reading </em>how they phrased abilities like Distracting Strike. I'd also point you to the monk to see how the format abilities that rely on modifying features based on points.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Getting into the nitty gritty, the terms "enemy" and "ally" do not appear in the rules of 5e. They're very rarely used in rules text. "Hostile creature" or "target" would be used in the place of the former while "friendly creature" in the latter. </p><p>There's no limitations on the ally line. They can be at any range increment and not have seen the attack. Not that this is always necessary, but requiring sight makes the effect less magical. </p><p>Also, is it any ally? An ally of your choice? The next ally to attack? </p><p>The rules are also gender neutral and do not use terms like "him" or "his". So your "on his first attack" doesn't match the writing style of the rules. </p><p>Plus there's no associated action. "When you attack an enemy" could be after taking the Attack action, making an opportunity attack, or after using the Ready action. Is that the intent?</p><p></p><p>A better wording would be:<p style="margin-left: 20px"><em><strong>Empowering Strike.</strong></em> When you take the Attack action on your turn and hit with a melee or ranged attack, the next attack against the target by an attacker other than you deals an additional 1d6 damage. Additionally, you can spend 1 warlord point to give advantage to the next attack roll against the target by a creature other than you.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> The damage of this feature increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7384296, member: 37579"] *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 [I]cannot[/I] take the criticism, then you should not participate in such a thread. As far as the Battle Master fighter goes there's a few factors at work. First, not all fighters get maneuvers. It's a [I]choice[/I]. 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. 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.) A [I]good[/I] 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]Especially[/I] the healer warlord. The appeal of that build is a healer that [I]isn't [/I]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 [B][I]the design has failed[/I]. [/B] Meanwhile, your powers are very much designed like this: Which is pretty much this: [ATTACH=CONFIG]95906._xfImport[/ATTACH] That's not remotely how 5e is designed or written. I suggest actually [I][B]looking[/B][/I] at the Battle Master and [I]reading [/I]how they phrased abilities like Distracting Strike. I'd also point you to the monk to see how the format abilities that rely on modifying features based on points. Getting into the nitty gritty, the terms "enemy" and "ally" do not appear in the rules of 5e. They're very rarely used in rules text. "Hostile creature" or "target" would be used in the place of the former while "friendly creature" in the latter. There's no limitations on the ally line. They can be at any range increment and not have seen the attack. Not that this is always necessary, but requiring sight makes the effect less magical. Also, is it any ally? An ally of your choice? The next ally to attack? The rules are also gender neutral and do not use terms like "him" or "his". So your "on his first attack" doesn't match the writing style of the rules. Plus there's no associated action. "When you attack an enemy" could be after taking the Attack action, making an opportunity attack, or after using the Ready action. Is that the intent? A better wording would be:[INDENT][I][B]Empowering Strike.[/B][/I] When you take the Attack action on your turn and hit with a melee or ranged attack, the next attack against the target by an attacker other than you deals an additional 1d6 damage. Additionally, you can spend 1 warlord point to give advantage to the next attack roll against the target by a creature other than you. The damage of this feature increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).[/INDENT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Lets design a Warlord for 5th edition
Top