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
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
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="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8308649" data-attributes="member: 7019027"><p>I've said numerous times that I am okay with the Warlord class existing and I've also provided my share of mechanical suggestions for the class. </p><p></p><p>There is no reason to make the assumption that I don't want a warlord. In all honesty, I would have preferred the Bard not making the cut more than the Warlord. Or if Wizards had FoM and Sorcerer dropped I would have been okay with that as well. </p><p></p><p>What <em>I</em> want is an interesting class that justifies its own existence. There's so much mechanical design space that the Warlord can occupy but if the theme is "Martial but <em>complex</em>" it still doesn't have any guiding identity. </p><p></p><p>Trying to make a class without knowing its identity makes it obvious and eventually the class becomes more frustrating to play. The player might think "If I'm supposed to be a repositioner, why is my repositioning</p><p>ability so much less useful than my healing ability?" Or "if I'm supposed to be a damage dealer, why is the rogue better at it than I am?" </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely not. You're missing my point. I prsonally dislike playing several classes in 5e yet I welcome them in the edition.</p><p></p><p>What every class should have is appeal to new players. If I'm a new player that has no clue what a "warlord" even means, I'm not going to care if it uses magic or not. I don't really care if its supposed to be the "complex martial." I probably won't care what the flavor is after the first couple of sessions. What I will care about is how it plays and whether I like it. </p><p></p><p>If we designed a Warlord that looks good to 4e or 3.x players but nobody actually wants to <em>play</em> them, we've not only wasted time and money but we've caused even more bloat and alienated the newer fanbase. </p><p></p><p>So Warlords should have a gameplay loop that satisfies an itch that no other class satisfies. And I'm thinking that "frontline support with myriad options" has already been taken by paladin. "Midline support that commands/bolsters other characters" is taken by bard. "Backline support with contingencies and creative action economy" is taken by the sorcerer. </p><p></p><p>Because that's what newer, less familiar players want, a good-feeling class. </p><p></p><p>Otherwise, Warlords will end up like the Ranger, right?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Asisreo, post: 8308649, member: 7019027"] I've said numerous times that I am okay with the Warlord class existing and I've also provided my share of mechanical suggestions for the class. There is no reason to make the assumption that I don't want a warlord. In all honesty, I would have preferred the Bard not making the cut more than the Warlord. Or if Wizards had FoM and Sorcerer dropped I would have been okay with that as well. What [I]I[/I] want is an interesting class that justifies its own existence. There's so much mechanical design space that the Warlord can occupy but if the theme is "Martial but [I]complex[/I]" it still doesn't have any guiding identity. Trying to make a class without knowing its identity makes it obvious and eventually the class becomes more frustrating to play. The player might think "If I'm supposed to be a repositioner, why is my repositioning ability so much less useful than my healing ability?" Or "if I'm supposed to be a damage dealer, why is the rogue better at it than I am?" Absolutely not. You're missing my point. I prsonally dislike playing several classes in 5e yet I welcome them in the edition. What every class should have is appeal to new players. If I'm a new player that has no clue what a "warlord" even means, I'm not going to care if it uses magic or not. I don't really care if its supposed to be the "complex martial." I probably won't care what the flavor is after the first couple of sessions. What I will care about is how it plays and whether I like it. If we designed a Warlord that looks good to 4e or 3.x players but nobody actually wants to [I]play[/I] them, we've not only wasted time and money but we've caused even more bloat and alienated the newer fanbase. So Warlords should have a gameplay loop that satisfies an itch that no other class satisfies. And I'm thinking that "frontline support with myriad options" has already been taken by paladin. "Midline support that commands/bolsters other characters" is taken by bard. "Backline support with contingencies and creative action economy" is taken by the sorcerer. Because that's what newer, less familiar players want, a good-feeling class. Otherwise, Warlords will end up like the Ranger, right? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
Top