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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8316408" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>You keep <em>saying</em> this is what the Battle Master was supposed to do. I reject that argument, both in theory and in practice. I've already covered the practice side, and it seems you care about the other. So: On the theory side, I genuinely do not believe the Battle Master was ever "meant" to be a <em>Warlord</em>. It was, however, pretty clearly meant to capture the feel of a <em>4e Fighter</em>. (Remember that the "baseline" 4e Fighter was called the <em>Weaponmaster</em> subclass, which is far too similar to be mere coincidence.) When the designers got backed into a corner because it took them forever to settle on the shape the Fighter class should have (seriously, it wasn't until like the final or penultimate document that the Fighter even <em>started</em> to look like it did in the published PHB), they had to resort to what measures were available.</p><p></p><p>Now, the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret? <em>That</em> I could at least admit was specifically supposed to be a Warlord--it even uses the word "warlord" in some of its text (e.g. "Banneret serves as the generic name for this archetype if you use it in other campaign settings or to model warlords other than the Purple Dragon Knights.") It is also about as close to "bad" as you can get for a subclass without actually BEING bad--that is, its features are painfully mediocre and limited, and (IMO) don't really deliver on the concept of a warrior who leads others in battle.</p><p></p><p>The Battle Master is almost purely focused on doing tricksy things with weapons. It's not a Warlord. You can kinda-sorta-ish kludge part of a Warlord out of one, but it was very clearly intended for a different function--or, as I said, it's the EK of Warlords, where it's <em>mostly</em> a Fighter but has some Warlord mechanics stapled to it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, I admit I got heated there. I apologize. I would, however, note that I'm not the one telling other people that their preferences are incompatible with design virtues. I'm not the one gatekeeping whose aesthetic preferences are permitted expression in the game. I absolutely feel I, and others, have not been treated with a lot of respect on this. It would be nice if people did not dismiss entire arguments with two-word arguments like "class bloat." Parsimony is not a universal virtue, and even parsimony is not the same as hyper-reductionism.</p><p></p><p>As for the other points, I had assumed--given that there's only one edition that has a "Warlord"--that it was understood that I referred to its popularity in that edition. Given that I know you were around for the "Warlord quarantine forum" phase, even if the class is not HUGELY ENORMOUSLY popular, I <em>know</em> you know how popular it is <em>for a vocal minority</em>, who would feel really, REALLY happy if people actually tried to give them what they want <em>ever</em>, instead of abjuring them at every step of the way.</p><p></p><p>And, frankly, I don't really see that as an expression of magnanimity. Mearls himself said it quite well during the playtest: just as with martial healing, the existence of an added Warlord class does <em>absolutely nothing</em> to you, because you can simply not permit it in your games, and choose not to play in games where other people play one. You lose nothing, while Warlord fans gain enormously. Conversely, not merely adamantly insisting that the Warlord shouldn't exist but that at least one <em>other</em> class shouldn't exist either, might give you things, but it certainly does so at the <em>cost</em> of taking stuff away from others. That's not magnanimity; that's zero-sum "for me to win, you must lose" stuff.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that that isn't any <em>better</em>. All it does is make a new overpowered subclass. Consider back when the Storm Sorcerer was in playtest. Fans rightly got annoyed that <em>this</em> subclass got a bunch of free spells, when the baseline Dragon and Chaos ones didn't. What did WotC do? They didn't go back and fix any of the old subclasses. <em>They just nerfed the playtest one so it would be equally bad.</em> That's not good design. Subclasses are not a magic bullet that solves every class design problem. They are useful tools, but not the end-all, be-all solution.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, here's my thoughts.</p><p>Option 1, pros: the freedom to add things that are missing, and (for classes specifically) to not be limited by how much power a subclass is allowed to have; ability to tailor the solutions narrowly and specifically to what is needed</p><p>Option 1, cons: reduplication of effort/lack of parsimony, more difficult to balance (because, e.g., a character could MC BM/Warlord)</p><p>Option 2, pros: Can (in theory) be published as errata, makes the smallest possible changes while still changing <em>something</em></p><p>Option 2, cons: Unlikely to <em>actually</em> be published as errata, unable to create new mechanics or fill holes that already exist</p><p>Option 3, pros: Requires zero effort and avoids any controversy about errata or lack of parsimony</p><p>Option 3, cons: Fails to address the problem.</p><p></p><p>Does that meaningfully address your concerns about failing to consider negative aspects of a solution? I do not consider absolute minimalism a virtue in design. Logical parsimony is only virtuous as long as it does, in fact, actually cover everything it's supposed to; remember that Occam's Razor is not "always use fewer entities," it is "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Newton's theory of gravitation is <em>simpler</em> (dramatically so) than Einstein's theory of general relativity, but we use the latter and not the former due to relativity covering more of the facts.</p><p></p><p>I am arguing, here, that trying to make the Battle Master Fighter cover <em>both</em> the Mighty Thews(/Agile Archer, I guess) AND the Inspiring Captain archetype is leaving both things under-served. That we are not seeing parsimony, but rather deficiency; not frugality, but miserliness.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I disagree--mostly because the Battle Master, as I argued earlier, is far too <em>personally capable.</em> The Warlord concept is not merely someone who CAN choose to inspire allies. The Warlord concept is someone who NEEDS to coordinate and strategize with allies in order to get things done. Now, this does not mean having NO combat capability without an ally--the Warlord could do some butt-kicking on her own. But it should mean that the <em>best</em> butt-kicking they do is either in direct combination with allies (e.g. Bravura Warlords who give allies risky opportunities), coordinating the whole team's movements to maximally exploit terrain (Tactical Warlords with repositioning, initiative, etc.), or dredging up those hidden reserves we all have but never tap because of self-protection instincts (Resourceful and certain other types of Warlord).</p><p></p><p>In general, the best thing a Battle Master can do is <em>just attack more</em>. It's going to be pretty rare, for example, for <em>Commander's Strike</em> to actually do better than the BM just attacking again. <em>Distracting Strike</em> isn't...the <em>worst</em>, but is pretty narrow--a chance for a chance for a good thing to happen. Rally is pretty much just bad, since it can't actually <em>heal</em> anyone. (Like...for real, even granting 6d12 healing at level 18 to every party member once per short rest is NOT that powerful, and doing that means you did LITERALLY nothing else special. A Life Cleric can do that easily, except that they can target just the people who need it most, and they <em>still get</em> all their spells on top.) <em>Maneuvering Attack</em> is probably the only "Warlord-type" maneuver that actually does more or less what a Warlord would do.</p><p></p><p>And...that's literally it. Those exhaust the "Warlord options" for the Battle Master. It's not just a matter of no scaling; it's a matter of you get only four Warlord-like things you can <em>potentially</em> do, and most of them are just not worth doing when you could instead, y'know, just do it yourself. Which is the fundamental problem of the "Fighter-as-Warlord." To be a Fighter, <em>any</em> 5e Fighter, you must be good at kicking butt all by yourself. The Battle Master simply adds a layer of "oh and you can also potentially boost an ally along the way" on top.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm a bit confused here. If an "alternate class option" (since it's not a subclass, which can't remove class features) changes out 90% or more of the base class features for something else, that...sounds like a new class with some common features. I mean, the only things Tasha's <em>didn't</em> swap out or offer heavy modification to were Fighting Style, Extra Attack, Vanish, and Feral Senses. Fighting Style and Extra Attack are universal features of melee (sub)classes, so those wouldn't have changed either way. That leaves two, high-level features untouched--everything else is either completely replaced or pretty meaningfully modified (e.g. Spells might not be replaced, but getting several extra free spells known that you can cast once a day without spell slots is a BIG deal).</p><p></p><p>It's hard to see an argument that this is "the same class" as anything but semantic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8316408, member: 6790260"] You keep [I]saying[/I] this is what the Battle Master was supposed to do. I reject that argument, both in theory and in practice. I've already covered the practice side, and it seems you care about the other. So: On the theory side, I genuinely do not believe the Battle Master was ever "meant" to be a [I]Warlord[/I]. It was, however, pretty clearly meant to capture the feel of a [I]4e Fighter[/I]. (Remember that the "baseline" 4e Fighter was called the [I]Weaponmaster[/I] subclass, which is far too similar to be mere coincidence.) When the designers got backed into a corner because it took them forever to settle on the shape the Fighter class should have (seriously, it wasn't until like the final or penultimate document that the Fighter even [I]started[/I] to look like it did in the published PHB), they had to resort to what measures were available. Now, the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret? [I]That[/I] I could at least admit was specifically supposed to be a Warlord--it even uses the word "warlord" in some of its text (e.g. "Banneret serves as the generic name for this archetype if you use it in other campaign settings or to model warlords other than the Purple Dragon Knights.") It is also about as close to "bad" as you can get for a subclass without actually BEING bad--that is, its features are painfully mediocre and limited, and (IMO) don't really deliver on the concept of a warrior who leads others in battle. The Battle Master is almost purely focused on doing tricksy things with weapons. It's not a Warlord. You can kinda-sorta-ish kludge part of a Warlord out of one, but it was very clearly intended for a different function--or, as I said, it's the EK of Warlords, where it's [I]mostly[/I] a Fighter but has some Warlord mechanics stapled to it. Okay, I admit I got heated there. I apologize. I would, however, note that I'm not the one telling other people that their preferences are incompatible with design virtues. I'm not the one gatekeeping whose aesthetic preferences are permitted expression in the game. I absolutely feel I, and others, have not been treated with a lot of respect on this. It would be nice if people did not dismiss entire arguments with two-word arguments like "class bloat." Parsimony is not a universal virtue, and even parsimony is not the same as hyper-reductionism. As for the other points, I had assumed--given that there's only one edition that has a "Warlord"--that it was understood that I referred to its popularity in that edition. Given that I know you were around for the "Warlord quarantine forum" phase, even if the class is not HUGELY ENORMOUSLY popular, I [I]know[/I] you know how popular it is [I]for a vocal minority[/I], who would feel really, REALLY happy if people actually tried to give them what they want [I]ever[/I], instead of abjuring them at every step of the way. And, frankly, I don't really see that as an expression of magnanimity. Mearls himself said it quite well during the playtest: just as with martial healing, the existence of an added Warlord class does [I]absolutely nothing[/I] to you, because you can simply not permit it in your games, and choose not to play in games where other people play one. You lose nothing, while Warlord fans gain enormously. Conversely, not merely adamantly insisting that the Warlord shouldn't exist but that at least one [I]other[/I] class shouldn't exist either, might give you things, but it certainly does so at the [I]cost[/I] of taking stuff away from others. That's not magnanimity; that's zero-sum "for me to win, you must lose" stuff. Except that that isn't any [I]better[/I]. All it does is make a new overpowered subclass. Consider back when the Storm Sorcerer was in playtest. Fans rightly got annoyed that [I]this[/I] subclass got a bunch of free spells, when the baseline Dragon and Chaos ones didn't. What did WotC do? They didn't go back and fix any of the old subclasses. [I]They just nerfed the playtest one so it would be equally bad.[/I] That's not good design. Subclasses are not a magic bullet that solves every class design problem. They are useful tools, but not the end-all, be-all solution. Well, here's my thoughts. Option 1, pros: the freedom to add things that are missing, and (for classes specifically) to not be limited by how much power a subclass is allowed to have; ability to tailor the solutions narrowly and specifically to what is needed Option 1, cons: reduplication of effort/lack of parsimony, more difficult to balance (because, e.g., a character could MC BM/Warlord) Option 2, pros: Can (in theory) be published as errata, makes the smallest possible changes while still changing [I]something[/I] Option 2, cons: Unlikely to [I]actually[/I] be published as errata, unable to create new mechanics or fill holes that already exist Option 3, pros: Requires zero effort and avoids any controversy about errata or lack of parsimony Option 3, cons: Fails to address the problem. Does that meaningfully address your concerns about failing to consider negative aspects of a solution? I do not consider absolute minimalism a virtue in design. Logical parsimony is only virtuous as long as it does, in fact, actually cover everything it's supposed to; remember that Occam's Razor is not "always use fewer entities," it is "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Newton's theory of gravitation is [I]simpler[/I] (dramatically so) than Einstein's theory of general relativity, but we use the latter and not the former due to relativity covering more of the facts. I am arguing, here, that trying to make the Battle Master Fighter cover [I]both[/I] the Mighty Thews(/Agile Archer, I guess) AND the Inspiring Captain archetype is leaving both things under-served. That we are not seeing parsimony, but rather deficiency; not frugality, but miserliness. Again, I disagree--mostly because the Battle Master, as I argued earlier, is far too [I]personally capable.[/I] The Warlord concept is not merely someone who CAN choose to inspire allies. The Warlord concept is someone who NEEDS to coordinate and strategize with allies in order to get things done. Now, this does not mean having NO combat capability without an ally--the Warlord could do some butt-kicking on her own. But it should mean that the [I]best[/I] butt-kicking they do is either in direct combination with allies (e.g. Bravura Warlords who give allies risky opportunities), coordinating the whole team's movements to maximally exploit terrain (Tactical Warlords with repositioning, initiative, etc.), or dredging up those hidden reserves we all have but never tap because of self-protection instincts (Resourceful and certain other types of Warlord). In general, the best thing a Battle Master can do is [I]just attack more[/I]. It's going to be pretty rare, for example, for [I]Commander's Strike[/I] to actually do better than the BM just attacking again. [I]Distracting Strike[/I] isn't...the [I]worst[/I], but is pretty narrow--a chance for a chance for a good thing to happen. Rally is pretty much just bad, since it can't actually [I]heal[/I] anyone. (Like...for real, even granting 6d12 healing at level 18 to every party member once per short rest is NOT that powerful, and doing that means you did LITERALLY nothing else special. A Life Cleric can do that easily, except that they can target just the people who need it most, and they [I]still get[/I] all their spells on top.) [I]Maneuvering Attack[/I] is probably the only "Warlord-type" maneuver that actually does more or less what a Warlord would do. And...that's literally it. Those exhaust the "Warlord options" for the Battle Master. It's not just a matter of no scaling; it's a matter of you get only four Warlord-like things you can [I]potentially[/I] do, and most of them are just not worth doing when you could instead, y'know, just do it yourself. Which is the fundamental problem of the "Fighter-as-Warlord." To be a Fighter, [I]any[/I] 5e Fighter, you must be good at kicking butt all by yourself. The Battle Master simply adds a layer of "oh and you can also potentially boost an ally along the way" on top. I'm a bit confused here. If an "alternate class option" (since it's not a subclass, which can't remove class features) changes out 90% or more of the base class features for something else, that...sounds like a new class with some common features. I mean, the only things Tasha's [I]didn't[/I] swap out or offer heavy modification to were Fighting Style, Extra Attack, Vanish, and Feral Senses. Fighting Style and Extra Attack are universal features of melee (sub)classes, so those wouldn't have changed either way. That leaves two, high-level features untouched--everything else is either completely replaced or pretty meaningfully modified (e.g. Spells might not be replaced, but getting several extra free spells known that you can cast once a day without spell slots is a BIG deal). It's hard to see an argument that this is "the same class" as anything but semantic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
Top