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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="bert1001 fka bert1000" data-source="post: 8316603" data-attributes="member: 7029588"><p>Nope, we agree. Concept is fictional as you say. There are a lot of mechanical ways to implement that. </p><p></p><p>"Warrior that leads" is not the concept that people are talking about though. Battlemaster does that fine. It's more like "Leader that warriors". The concept places the emphasis on the leading -- that's the whole point of the concept! </p><p></p><p>In the fiction it's the Squad leader or aging veteran whose primary value to the team is inspiring others, tactical know how, etc. She is an ok one on one fighter, so if she had to do it she can add some value but that's not why she is valued by the team and she's not going to reach for that solution first. If she's not primarily contributing though her leader stuff, she is not fulfiling her concept. The mechanics should sufficiently support this. I DO want a lot more mechanical heft/power/impact to the leaderly stuff and less on the fighting prowess, but that's because it's directly related to the concept. </p><p></p><p>I think that's why people were using the EK example. The Wizard concept is not really just "Arcane spell user".</p><p></p><p>If there was only the EK and and someone said "I want to play a character that studies ancient tomes to gain magical knowledge and power, is sort of physically weak, and primarily contributes to the party's success through spell casting, where my spell casting grows from cool to reality shaping".</p><p></p><p>Designer: "Here's the EK. No, you can't swap out that Fighting stuff for more spell power [leader power], just live with it." </p><p></p><p>Player: "But my concept is to PRIMARILY use my spellcasting [leadership] to add value and I don't want to be that good at fighting. Let's create a Wizard [Warlord] class that gets A LOT more spells [leadership] at the expense of fighting. I don't really think we can do that with a Fighter chasis and a subclass because Fighter is so tied to fighting. "</p><p></p><p>Designer: "Nah"</p><p></p><p>I think you are just arguing language now. If the "concept" is there for you because there are some leaderly stuff in Battlemaster BUT also because of the bad Fighter chasis we can't make a "Leader that warriors", then I actually don't think we have a sufficient slider. Maybe the slider is a bad way to put it. People envision a Warlord whose Leader stuff defines the class in the same way full spell progression and spell list define the Wizard and all the main Fighter features define the Fighter. </p><p></p><p>If you agree and still want to call that fulfiling the concept but not implemented well, you can. It's not reallly the definition of "fulfiling the concept" I would use but we don't disagree on anything then other than language.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't care how it's implemented mechanically, whether as a new Class or sub-class or whatever. This thread makes me think it can not be implimented as a sub-class of Fighter unless you can swap out all (most) of the Fighter base class features and create an uber-subclass. That's fine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bert1001 fka bert1000, post: 8316603, member: 7029588"] Nope, we agree. Concept is fictional as you say. There are a lot of mechanical ways to implement that. "Warrior that leads" is not the concept that people are talking about though. Battlemaster does that fine. It's more like "Leader that warriors". The concept places the emphasis on the leading -- that's the whole point of the concept! In the fiction it's the Squad leader or aging veteran whose primary value to the team is inspiring others, tactical know how, etc. She is an ok one on one fighter, so if she had to do it she can add some value but that's not why she is valued by the team and she's not going to reach for that solution first. If she's not primarily contributing though her leader stuff, she is not fulfiling her concept. The mechanics should sufficiently support this. I DO want a lot more mechanical heft/power/impact to the leaderly stuff and less on the fighting prowess, but that's because it's directly related to the concept. I think that's why people were using the EK example. The Wizard concept is not really just "Arcane spell user". If there was only the EK and and someone said "I want to play a character that studies ancient tomes to gain magical knowledge and power, is sort of physically weak, and primarily contributes to the party's success through spell casting, where my spell casting grows from cool to reality shaping". Designer: "Here's the EK. No, you can't swap out that Fighting stuff for more spell power [leader power], just live with it." Player: "But my concept is to PRIMARILY use my spellcasting [leadership] to add value and I don't want to be that good at fighting. Let's create a Wizard [Warlord] class that gets A LOT more spells [leadership] at the expense of fighting. I don't really think we can do that with a Fighter chasis and a subclass because Fighter is so tied to fighting. " Designer: "Nah" I think you are just arguing language now. If the "concept" is there for you because there are some leaderly stuff in Battlemaster BUT also because of the bad Fighter chasis we can't make a "Leader that warriors", then I actually don't think we have a sufficient slider. Maybe the slider is a bad way to put it. People envision a Warlord whose Leader stuff defines the class in the same way full spell progression and spell list define the Wizard and all the main Fighter features define the Fighter. If you agree and still want to call that fulfiling the concept but not implemented well, you can. It's not reallly the definition of "fulfiling the concept" I would use but we don't disagree on anything then other than language. Personally, I don't care how it's implemented mechanically, whether as a new Class or sub-class or whatever. This thread makes me think it can not be implimented as a sub-class of Fighter unless you can swap out all (most) of the Fighter base class features and create an uber-subclass. That's fine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spellcasters and Balance in 5e: A Poll
Top