D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

Nope. You failed again. What I actually said was the developers are sloppy when they take a concept that intuitively works better as a full class and, instead of either developing it fully or leaving it as homebrew, they shoehorn it into a subclass or even a series of subclasses tacked onto existing classes arbitrarily - bloating those classes with themes and mechanics that are all over the place.
One way of looking at it might be that when they make it a subclass they are building a multi-class. Like the Eldritch Knight is a multiclass between a fighter who dabbles as magic wielder. The battlemaster who takes a certain set of maneuvers is not a warlord but he is a Fighter with a dabble of Warlord. As for mechanics being all over the place 5e kind of does that and as for mixing thematics well I think that is the intent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Warlord
official builds:
1) Tactical
2) Inspiring
3) Bravura
4) Resourceful
5) Skirmisher
6) Insightful
plus an alternate feature that substantially changed the class if you took it:
7)Archer Warlord
Then there was a fan build that received official support
8) 'Lazy' Warlord
And, there were Paragon Paths, quite a few, but two of which suggested to me ideas for the kind of MC-lite archetypes the fighter and rogue both seem to get:
9) Arcane Battlemaster (name lifted from a Paragon Path): In the D&D world, spells very often turn the tide of battle, if not decide it from the beginning, so it only makes sense that there are commanders who shape their tactics around the effective use of caster assets, and, probably, pick up wizardry second-hand, INT-focused as the warlord can be.
10) Infernal Strategist (ditto): Some will pay any price for victory. The Infernal Strategist employs both magical powers and diabolical gambits gleaned from the darkest and most perilous of arcane sources.

Two more ideas along those lines:
Crusader: The 1/3rd Cleric or half-Paladin Warlord, a leader of zealots and champion of a divine cause, who, in the D&D world, obviously can't get away with it without displaying actual divine powers.
The Thaneborn (name lifted from barbarian build): A traditional leader of a clan or tribe or the like, by right of birth. The Thane leads 'his people' in battle, and others call those people 'barbarians'). A faux-Barbarian-MC who's rage is not as potent, but is 'contagious' to his allies.

And, general brainstorming has seen additional ideas like:

The Hector: Originally suggested by Wrecan based on a small number of Warlord exploits that it could be built around, but clearly under-developed in 4e as it tended to encroach on the Controller role, for obvious reasons.
This is the warlord who harangues, taunts, deceives, and outmaneuvers the enemy into making tactical mistakes and generally playing into his hands. The Hector focuses on his enemies more than his allies - allies, you should be able to count on. The Hector's acid words are carefully chosen and wickedly delivered to goad enemies into the worst course of action before them. You might think that such tactics are worthless against enemies who speak a different language or that lack the capacity for thought at all. But, humanoids have many forms of expression in common besides words, and it takes only a passing knowledge of a culture to know what could set someone off. And 'mindless' enemies are the easiest of all to manipulate, as they are the most predictable of opponents.

Protector: Protectors are capable individuals who take responsibility for the welfare of others. Anywhere there's even a trace of civilization, people need to be guided and protected, often from eachother. Protectors may work from a position of legitimate authority, like a peace officer or sheriff, they may be chosen by acclaim, looked to naturally in times of trouble, or even be self-appointed would-be heroes. They make a point of guiding, keeping save, and, when necessary, saving others. They will also tend to be adept at defusing potentially violent situations or resolving them with limited injury and loss of life. They emphasize prudence, common sense, community spirit and organization. Even when working with very capable even reckless allies like adventurers, the Protector counsels caution and careful, deliberate action - but, very often, Protectors do not heed their own advice, and may dash in to play the hero in moments of crisis.

The Artillerist: Whether actual medieval siege weapons, archers, or casters provide it, the advantage of a stand-off capability cannot be overstated. Setting up and making the most of that advantage is the specialty of this Warlord. Where there are not source resource to direct, the Artillerist takes up whatever weapons are available to provide the direct advantages of ranged support to his allies - taking a shot at just the right moment, even if it is easily dodged or blocked, can give an ally an advantage or opening, or put an enemy out of it's best tactical position as it seeks over or crouches behind its shield...

The Marshal: This is the Warlord who, by whatever means, 'marshals' lesser troops - volunteers, conscripts, villagers, bandits, whatever - into an effective fighting force. It's a classic trope, 'training the villagers to fight for themselves' for instance, and, it side-steps one of the problems with attack-granting and barking commands: this Warlord doesn't have to do it with PCs, mussing their precious bad-boy doesn't-work-well-with-others edginess. He has his own NPC grunts to abuse. It also side-steps the problem with pet classes and henchmen: that they impact the action economy. The Marshal would have his unit of recruits that he commands to move around, holding positions, or making concerted attacks ("when you see the whites of their eyes!") of high value. All of which would be resolved by the player of the Marshal, on his turn, using his actions. A volley from his unit of archers, for instance, wouldn't be a bunch of attacks rolled by the DM one on each archers turn, rather, it'd be done on the Marshals' turn, and create a beaten zone, enemies in it would get skewered (save:1/2). That kinda thing. And, yes, it could include a warlord that 'marshals' animals bred & trained for combat, or a posse comitatus under the mantle of the law (or those could be broken out and be good at similar gambits)
Someone asked what a Warlord was in a recent thread and what made them different than a fighter one element of the Warlord is they are a whole party enabler (or potentially even the disabler of enemies ala the Hector build) they are the coordinator of and even trigger of off turn actions involving more than one ally which come together and are only possible because they are done in concert. .... where as the fighter even the battlemaster who has some abilities that overlapped with a 4e Warlord they are focused on individuals rather than the whole party. The inspiring leader ability of 5e does indeed evoke the warlord better than the battlemaster abilities but neither are the full monte. The tactical warlord is definitely a type that is not served in 5e and it was one of the first two builds in the 4e Warlord types. One thing I think is central to a tactical warlord is keeping the team on its toes... A warlord became a spark to the teams fire.
 

They were talking about warlord and they said they probably wouldn't create one because of the nature of 5E. It's just less of a tactical game than 4E was.
 


Mearles does one the preliminaries for a Warlord that isnt too bad even as a subtype of fighter.
If they did it, a fighter subclass would make the most sense. I'd provide a link to the interview I saw recently but I don't remember when/where that was.

In any case, I wouldn't hold my breath. On the other hand with some of the UA articles and surveys I wouldn't be surprised by a Player's Options type book some time next year. Time will tell.
 

Mearls did 4 full episodes on it and hadn't finished it. But had plenty of interesting bits. One way of seeing it is they split a lot of the functions of a warlord around but just didnt do a specialist many think a Fighter chassis is too restrictive but I can easily see extra attacks used as a resource and a versatile use of action surge and other things which could pull more out of it than people think. The warlord was born as a spark in the eye of the 1e and 2e fighter after all. I understand Mikes desire to keep the relationship between them :p
 

I’ve been thinking on this for a few days and think there is real scope for breaking (or slightly dismantling) the rigid class system in D&D.

D&D classes exist for 3 reasons. (1) Give effect to the pick up and play approach (best exemplified in 5e), (2) A little related to 1 create anticipation of what a character is capable of at higher levels, (3) Keep the design linked to its history and previous editions.

What all rules don’t do well is provide for that unique character we all want to play. This is where D&D suffers and leads to multiple different classes or multi-classing.

I think the solution is maintaining the core classes but having an equivalent to the ability point buy system applying to classes. I know someone did develop one as a 3.5e variant system. This need not apply at character creation but could be applied to a core class at a later date. In this way, it gets rid of the much maligned multiclassing feature in D&D and class bloat. The focus of any future expansion books would be on developing class traits.

This approach would cover all the reasons I outlined above plus that dream of the unique character that we all dream to play!
 

What all rules don’t do well is provide for that unique character we all want to play. This is where D&D suffers and leads to multiple different classes or multi-classing.
If multiclassing was less of a trap (5e mc was a good idea and so disappointing) that aspect wouldn't be too bad. Just as a lot of "carefully designed" versatile feats as used in 3e and 4e. (4e had individual power selections as well)
 

First, it attempts to solve the (hypothetical) problem of class bloat

This isn't a hypothetical at all, it's a problem that has reared its head in past editions over and over. Whether from Dragon Magazine, splat books, or whatever, adding more classes does bloat the game, and it usually results in some classes being distinctly better than others.

Third, there are numerous areas where it just doesn't really make thematic sense, either in terms of edition history/lore or in terms of verisimilitude. I can easily get on board with Psychic Warrior being a subclass for Fighter - because it's a perfect use of the subclass system to expand options without class bloat. I cannot get on board with the base Psion being a "Wizarding tradition" because it is not. One of many reasons for this is the thematic need for psionics to exist as a full-enough system to potentially replace traditional magic in a more sci-fi setting based on precedents established in previous editions.

When you talk about a psion/psionicist, I think you have a leg to stand on. Precedent, to me, is a very important thing to account for in designing game material, and the psion isn't something that easily fits inside another class.

Fourth, it just feels like a lazy way to develop the system that players have weirdly adopted as a good approach when it isn't (sort of a rationalizing-the-status-quo bias). If they had started with only 4 or 5 classes, this approach might have made the most sense, but they didn't & that ship has sailed. So drawing a line now and de-emphasizing classes in favor of subclasses is starting to make the whole edition feel sloppily executed.

Strongly disagree.

The bottom line is that if the concept that you're imagining is a.) very interesting, and b.) broad enough that you can easily mentally conjure many different subtypes within that class, there is no reason to not take the time to develop it into a full class instead of band-aiding it as a nonsensical subclass tacked on to an arbitrarily chosen class. My personal favorite examples of this are the witch and the shaman, but there are tons of others.

I'd rather say, any given concept should be designed in the smallest possible space. Does it make a good feat? Then it shouldn't be a subclass or a full class. Can it fit as a subclass? Then no need to make it a full class.
 


Remove ads

Top