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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 7374172" data-attributes="member: 6932123">OK, this, I think, is a notable point.  You see it unquestionably as a specialization class.  I see it as very strongly a uniqueness class.  This causes very different approaches to defining character concept for the class and its subclasses.The specialization approach depends on its gambits.  As you've already described, you expect all Warlords to select from a very long list of gambits (effectively, create a spell list for the class), and you expect that selection of gambits, with possible enhancements via subclass, to be how the character is defined.  Basically, the character concept is defined by the player's choice of what his Warlord can do, which turns it into a puzzle game, or alt-spellcaster class.  You can theoretically build whatever you want, but the game doesn't help you.The uniqueness approach depends on subclasses.  It may have gambits (I haven't tried to build the mechanics for it), but the character concept is tied to the subclass, rather than the class+gambit selection.  It builds on more narrowly-defined ideas to help shape what the character is like, which I think is essential for a class that has a much weaker class concept definition.In any case, this creates divergent approaches in even building the class, right from the start.  And it's not the only divergence, as Zard mixes the two together.  He puts the gambit selection system in the main class, and then adds subclasses that come in at level 3.  Given how weakly he defines his subclasses, it really should be built with the subclasses coming in at level 1.This also shows a different approach in the build.  I would try to introduce unique mechanics per subclass, whereas you want everything built out of the same mechanic system.  I'll admit that I likely would see if the Tactical Focus system could be a class feature for all the subclasses to draw from, but I would try to avoid choice-based mechanics at the class level, and instead try to make each subclass feel really different.I build the concepts first, and then put together some vague ideas on mechanics that could go with them.  What does this person do? How do they think? How do they approach problems?  Then after that, What sort of mechanics might support such an approach?I tried to think of characters that fit the general idea first.  For example, Shin, in the manga "Kingdom", is the commander of a 5000 man army.  But he's not a Commander (subclass).  He throws himself into the fray, generally works on keeping his men inspired, and fights like a madman, refusing to go down.  The 'Commander' is the girl who acts as the company's strategist, handling resources, planning tactics, and so forth.  But I see Shin as a Warlord-type, falling into the Icon/Self-sacrificing hero archetype.  Rather than weakness to draw the enemy in, it's foolish bullheadedness that puts him in the middle of the mess and keeps him there.  Typical shonen hero stuff.Mechanically, that would be supported by damage resistance, healing by inspiring the troops, the Rallying Cry feature, fierce determination, strong combat skills, etc.Alternatively, you have Usagi of Sailor Moon, who is effectively playing the same type of character, except that she uses her clumsiness to avoid damage, and isn't such a great fighter (but still has the necessary finisher magic).  They are both Icons, heroes, inspirational for their allies and a magnet for their foes.  They are not tactical geniuses.  They don't figure out elaborate plots and plans.  They wouldn't have a clue how to set things up to defend a castle, or crush an enemy in an ambush.  They are not just Warlords with a slightly different specialization and gambit selection, they are completely different character concepts than Tylor or Lelouche or Parson, even if they have the same basic core.In order to be convincing at a general player level (and more specifically, the general player of 5E, not 4E, and not the narrow group of character optimizers), I feel like the level 3 approach works better.  It's not the only way to build it, though, and the gambit-puzzle approach can also work (it basically turns Warlord into Wizard).  It's just going to lead to a very differently structured class design, which leads to conflicts in understanding.Give Mike Mearls' comment about not enough design space for more subclasses, I suspect he's also approaching it from the level 3 perspective.  While I do feel like it's got a reasonably solid basis to work from, I don't see a lot of growth potential for new concepts, at least offhand.  The level 1 approach has a practically unlimited number of design combinations, but those designs aren't character concepts, which makes it very difficult to define how far it can actually go.</blockquote>

Verification