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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
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="Kinematics" data-source="post: 7361038" data-attributes="member: 6932123"><p> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Non-magical: Yes. Explicitly so. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Healing: He did mention it, but I'm not sure if he's intending to actually use that. There were a lot of comparisons to other things going on. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Buffing: No. In fact, he's treating it as an anti-pattern. Basically, if it trends too much towards buffing, it's getting too close to being a bard. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Making others take action: Yes. He threw out a few ideas on how to make it happen, but no actual details were had in this week's episode. It was just brainstorming the framework. </li> </ul><p></p><p></p><p>The restriction went in the other direction: Can Warlord support 10 years of expansion and new subclass development, as a main class? Initial feeling was "no". (Note: It doesn't mean it's not possible, just that he doesn't feel like it could.) Thus, he went the subclass route instead.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Such detail isn't available. As I said, this was just a framework episode. He considered things like giving extra attack actions to others, or moving others (analogous to castling in chess), and maybe messing with the initiative order in order to create combo actions. There were also a few other suggestions thrown out in the chat sidebar, such as removing the warlord from the standard initiative order, and taking actions more like legendary actions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>He specifically addressed this in terms of actions other allies might take. Namely, he explained that they don't balance with respect to the strongest use case (eg: allowing a thief to get an extra attack, which might allow an additional sneak attack, vs just another normal attack from a multi-attacking fighter), but focus on the 'normal' use case — something two or three steps removed from the strongest. Allowing people to use their stronger combinations with it just means that they get to do their super amazing stunts and have fun with it, rather than implicitly forcing everyone other than "the best" to be "below average".</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, part of why it was based on the Fighter class was so that it has a strong chassis to start with. The basic Fighter with no subclass can still perform quite well. He explicitly noted the idea of weakening a character to "balance out" the power they can give others, and said they avoid doing that because that's a poor design path.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Another notable aspect is having Concentration effects. Namely, that Concentration effects are self-limiting (you can't have more than one active at a time), the details are maintained by the player (don't add extra burden to the DM), and they open up freedom to add more complexity to what can be done than what you can do with simpler one-shot effects.</p><p></p><p>There was an explicit desire to aim for "unique" abilities, so that the Warden can stand out in its own niche. However even with that, there was the idea floated that a new Fighting Style might be added to the list, for anyone to take, if something interesting can be found to fit there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 7361038, member: 6932123"] [LIST] [*]Non-magical: Yes. Explicitly so. [*]Healing: He did mention it, but I'm not sure if he's intending to actually use that. There were a lot of comparisons to other things going on. [*]Buffing: No. In fact, he's treating it as an anti-pattern. Basically, if it trends too much towards buffing, it's getting too close to being a bard. [*]Making others take action: Yes. He threw out a few ideas on how to make it happen, but no actual details were had in this week's episode. It was just brainstorming the framework. [/LIST] The restriction went in the other direction: Can Warlord support 10 years of expansion and new subclass development, as a main class? Initial feeling was "no". (Note: It doesn't mean it's not possible, just that he doesn't feel like it could.) Thus, he went the subclass route instead. Such detail isn't available. As I said, this was just a framework episode. He considered things like giving extra attack actions to others, or moving others (analogous to castling in chess), and maybe messing with the initiative order in order to create combo actions. There were also a few other suggestions thrown out in the chat sidebar, such as removing the warlord from the standard initiative order, and taking actions more like legendary actions. He specifically addressed this in terms of actions other allies might take. Namely, he explained that they don't balance with respect to the strongest use case (eg: allowing a thief to get an extra attack, which might allow an additional sneak attack, vs just another normal attack from a multi-attacking fighter), but focus on the 'normal' use case — something two or three steps removed from the strongest. Allowing people to use their stronger combinations with it just means that they get to do their super amazing stunts and have fun with it, rather than implicitly forcing everyone other than "the best" to be "below average". Again, part of why it was based on the Fighter class was so that it has a strong chassis to start with. The basic Fighter with no subclass can still perform quite well. He explicitly noted the idea of weakening a character to "balance out" the power they can give others, and said they avoid doing that because that's a poor design path. Another notable aspect is having Concentration effects. Namely, that Concentration effects are self-limiting (you can't have more than one active at a time), the details are maintained by the player (don't add extra burden to the DM), and they open up freedom to add more complexity to what can be done than what you can do with simpler one-shot effects. There was an explicit desire to aim for "unique" abilities, so that the Warden can stand out in its own niche. However even with that, there was the idea floated that a new Fighting Style might be added to the list, for anyone to take, if something interesting can be found to fit there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top