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
D&D Older Editions
Warlord + Escalation Die from 13th Age
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: 6790557" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Alright, commenting as I go--88 views (including my first view) and no replies is just a shame, and I'd rather not see this disappear in silence. Welcome to the forum, by the way!</p><p></p><p>My first thought: d10 HP? Seems a bit much. Personally, I'd recommend going d8, and making one of the perks of a particular subclass (or subclasses) be +1 HP per level (as the Dragon Sorcerer ability)--call it "Calisthenics" or something! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> The result is effectively the same mathematically, and identical for characters that take the static value. (Technically, there's a miniscule chance of getting enough 9 or 10 rolls to give a particular character more HP, but it's so unlikely in the long-run as to not matter.) Moving on...</p><p></p><p>Armor proficiencies make sense. Wish 5e had retained the light/heavy shield distinction, it'd help differentiate Warlords from Fighters. Not sure I like the "all martial weapons" thing. That, too, seems like a good place for helping the different Warlord subclasses feel distinct. Perhaps I'm overly enthused with the idea of making subclasses mean a lot for Warlords. *shrug* Saving throws, class skills, and equipment all seem fine, given the proficiencies chosen, so I don't really have any comments there.</p><p></p><p>Fighting style of course makes sense. The only change I'd make is dropping Defense and Greatweapon (and maybe Protection--I just don't see Warlords as Defenders, though others have assured me they make decent off-Defenders in 4e), and instead giving a simple Warlord-esque one. Not sure what form it would take, though, so think of this more as a speculative "what you could do" rather than a critical "what you should do" idea.</p><p></p><p>*Not* happy with the feats-as-a-Fighter. Not because I'm against handing out feats. I think feats are halfway decent in 5e, and am...<em>not pleased</em> with having to choose between +2 to a stat and a cool-flavorful feat (like Keen Mind, Actor, or even Linguist). I'm simply against it because so many people hawk "you get two extra feats!" as an ENORMOUSLY important Fighter feature. If we're trying to convince people that the Warlord is its own class, not merely a reskinned Fighter, we can't afford to ape something that is seen as so fundamentally Fighter-y (no matter how much I dislike how 5e handles it).</p><p></p><p>The Escalation Die is...interesting. I'm of two minds on it--specifically the Prof score cap. On the one hand, it's limited in a nice, scaling way, so you don't get crazy-ridiculous benefits early on, nor totally weaksauce benefits later. On the other hand, that feels like something of a minor bonus compared to stuff like the Diviner's Portent or (especially) the Bard's Inspiration dice. Though since this is the ultra-generic, I suppose I should hold off criticism until I see the subclass additions.</p><p></p><p>I...don't know how to feel about the basic class giving <em>no features whatsoever</em> between level 3 and level 10(!), and only gives three features (10, 15, and 20 capstone) beyond that. Should I assume this is to compensate for the extra feats at 6 and 14? If so, well, you already know how I feel about that. I'd prefer giving specific, preferably non-combat-related features at 6 and 12, personally. Though, being fair to you, this is not much different from what the Fighter gets, just skewed to high levels for when the features kick in, instead of low ones with boosts later on.</p><p></p><p>On the bright side, your 20 capstone is <em>actually goddamn useful.</em> I cannot tell you how much it bothers/annoys/"offends" me that the capstones of most 5e classes are ALMOST COMPLETELY WORTHLESS most of the time. Bards, for instance, get almost nothing out of 19th or 20th level--they'd be far better served starting as Clerics or Fighters and then MCing to Bard (or MCing to Sorcerer/Warlock for a couple levels for blasty goodness).</p><p></p><p><u>Bravura:</u></p><p>Well, okay, jeez, concerns ALLAYED about the seemingly small size of the bonus. Now I'm concerned that it's <em>too much.</em> I had had a lot more analysis, but now I'm realizing--this bonus is meant to "replace" the spells a Bard (or perhaps Cleric) would get. It seems a little overpowered as it stands, though, since now Dex gives (essentially) a souped-up Bardic Inspiration, <em>and</em> how big the bonus is, on top of all the other awesome things that Dex does. It seems like a better plan to make the bonus size be defined by one stat (perhaps Str-or-Dex), while the frequency is defined by another stat (such as Charisma).</p><p></p><p>REALLY not sure how I feel about Bravura Offense. Seems to be far too convenient a bonus-damage source. Otherwise, the rest of the features seem alright--except that "Bravura Attack" should have the Extra Attack part split out as its own feature (the standard for all classes that get it), with "Bravura Attack" being an additional benefit on top. Otherwise, you risk making Warlord 5 a potentially game-breaking multiclass, since the non-stacking rule <em>technically</em> only applies to "Extra Attack" specifically.</p><p></p><p>Also...why does the Bravura style get another feature at 11, when no other style does? That seems...wrong. Unless I'm missing something?</p><p></p><p><u>Inspiring:</u></p><p>Seems alright, though that's a pretty fat chunk of bonus HP handed out. Potentially as much as 11+(hit die result). That said, it's not much different from Song of Rest, but harder to use, so perhaps it's actually balanced. Also, kinda sucks that healing is EXCLUSIVELY for Inspiring. Makes the other Warlords not very useful if the party doesn't have a healer. That could just be my distrust of "PURE mitigation instead of any healing whatsoever" talking....but yeah, a Bravura or Tactical Warlord is gonna be a hard sell if nobody else feels like playing a "healer." Also kinda sucks that healing (and save-granting) is...well, literally IT for the Inspiring Warlord.</p><p></p><p><u>Tactical:</u></p><p></p><p>Actually...pretty good. Tactical Attack is nice. Of course, it suffers from the same issue that all reaction-based features suffer from (bye-bye opportunity attacks), but otherwise it's good. One possible option: an ally can use a <em>free</em> action to do those things, <em>if</em> they have not yet used their reaction this round. That way, it doesn't negate the ability to do other things, but has SOME restriction associated with its use. Also, would've been nice to see SOME kind of initiative-related benefit. Even something as simple as "once per long rest, you can expend a use of your Tactical Defense to grant all allies that can see or hear you a bonus to their Initiative equal to half your Proficiency modifier, rounded down." That's just sort of spitballed, so I have no idea how <em>good</em> it is, but it's a small olive branch to the 4e Tactical Warlord.</p><p></p><p>In summary: Make it less Fighter-y, even if that means granting some more benefits. Consider coming up with Cool Things Warlords could get, especially non-combat related. Kinda sucks how heavily siloed healing and save-granting is, and how little Inspiring can do otherwise. You advertise having 'few options but many choices,' but it really sounds like Inspiring <em>doesn't</em> have many choices, unless I'm missing something. I do like the fundamental idea of the escalation die as a class mechanic--it's simple, it has something of a rational basis (a plan comes together with time), it's meaningful but capped, etc. I'm not completely sold on some of the execution though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6790557, member: 6790260"] Alright, commenting as I go--88 views (including my first view) and no replies is just a shame, and I'd rather not see this disappear in silence. Welcome to the forum, by the way! My first thought: d10 HP? Seems a bit much. Personally, I'd recommend going d8, and making one of the perks of a particular subclass (or subclasses) be +1 HP per level (as the Dragon Sorcerer ability)--call it "Calisthenics" or something! :P The result is effectively the same mathematically, and identical for characters that take the static value. (Technically, there's a miniscule chance of getting enough 9 or 10 rolls to give a particular character more HP, but it's so unlikely in the long-run as to not matter.) Moving on... Armor proficiencies make sense. Wish 5e had retained the light/heavy shield distinction, it'd help differentiate Warlords from Fighters. Not sure I like the "all martial weapons" thing. That, too, seems like a good place for helping the different Warlord subclasses feel distinct. Perhaps I'm overly enthused with the idea of making subclasses mean a lot for Warlords. *shrug* Saving throws, class skills, and equipment all seem fine, given the proficiencies chosen, so I don't really have any comments there. Fighting style of course makes sense. The only change I'd make is dropping Defense and Greatweapon (and maybe Protection--I just don't see Warlords as Defenders, though others have assured me they make decent off-Defenders in 4e), and instead giving a simple Warlord-esque one. Not sure what form it would take, though, so think of this more as a speculative "what you could do" rather than a critical "what you should do" idea. *Not* happy with the feats-as-a-Fighter. Not because I'm against handing out feats. I think feats are halfway decent in 5e, and am...[I]not pleased[/I] with having to choose between +2 to a stat and a cool-flavorful feat (like Keen Mind, Actor, or even Linguist). I'm simply against it because so many people hawk "you get two extra feats!" as an ENORMOUSLY important Fighter feature. If we're trying to convince people that the Warlord is its own class, not merely a reskinned Fighter, we can't afford to ape something that is seen as so fundamentally Fighter-y (no matter how much I dislike how 5e handles it). The Escalation Die is...interesting. I'm of two minds on it--specifically the Prof score cap. On the one hand, it's limited in a nice, scaling way, so you don't get crazy-ridiculous benefits early on, nor totally weaksauce benefits later. On the other hand, that feels like something of a minor bonus compared to stuff like the Diviner's Portent or (especially) the Bard's Inspiration dice. Though since this is the ultra-generic, I suppose I should hold off criticism until I see the subclass additions. I...don't know how to feel about the basic class giving [I]no features whatsoever[/I] between level 3 and level 10(!), and only gives three features (10, 15, and 20 capstone) beyond that. Should I assume this is to compensate for the extra feats at 6 and 14? If so, well, you already know how I feel about that. I'd prefer giving specific, preferably non-combat-related features at 6 and 12, personally. Though, being fair to you, this is not much different from what the Fighter gets, just skewed to high levels for when the features kick in, instead of low ones with boosts later on. On the bright side, your 20 capstone is [I]actually goddamn useful.[/I] I cannot tell you how much it bothers/annoys/"offends" me that the capstones of most 5e classes are ALMOST COMPLETELY WORTHLESS most of the time. Bards, for instance, get almost nothing out of 19th or 20th level--they'd be far better served starting as Clerics or Fighters and then MCing to Bard (or MCing to Sorcerer/Warlock for a couple levels for blasty goodness). [U]Bravura:[/U] Well, okay, jeez, concerns ALLAYED about the seemingly small size of the bonus. Now I'm concerned that it's [I]too much.[/I] I had had a lot more analysis, but now I'm realizing--this bonus is meant to "replace" the spells a Bard (or perhaps Cleric) would get. It seems a little overpowered as it stands, though, since now Dex gives (essentially) a souped-up Bardic Inspiration, [I]and[/I] how big the bonus is, on top of all the other awesome things that Dex does. It seems like a better plan to make the bonus size be defined by one stat (perhaps Str-or-Dex), while the frequency is defined by another stat (such as Charisma). REALLY not sure how I feel about Bravura Offense. Seems to be far too convenient a bonus-damage source. Otherwise, the rest of the features seem alright--except that "Bravura Attack" should have the Extra Attack part split out as its own feature (the standard for all classes that get it), with "Bravura Attack" being an additional benefit on top. Otherwise, you risk making Warlord 5 a potentially game-breaking multiclass, since the non-stacking rule [I]technically[/I] only applies to "Extra Attack" specifically. Also...why does the Bravura style get another feature at 11, when no other style does? That seems...wrong. Unless I'm missing something? [U]Inspiring:[/U] Seems alright, though that's a pretty fat chunk of bonus HP handed out. Potentially as much as 11+(hit die result). That said, it's not much different from Song of Rest, but harder to use, so perhaps it's actually balanced. Also, kinda sucks that healing is EXCLUSIVELY for Inspiring. Makes the other Warlords not very useful if the party doesn't have a healer. That could just be my distrust of "PURE mitigation instead of any healing whatsoever" talking....but yeah, a Bravura or Tactical Warlord is gonna be a hard sell if nobody else feels like playing a "healer." Also kinda sucks that healing (and save-granting) is...well, literally IT for the Inspiring Warlord. [U]Tactical:[/U] Actually...pretty good. Tactical Attack is nice. Of course, it suffers from the same issue that all reaction-based features suffer from (bye-bye opportunity attacks), but otherwise it's good. One possible option: an ally can use a [I]free[/I] action to do those things, [I]if[/I] they have not yet used their reaction this round. That way, it doesn't negate the ability to do other things, but has SOME restriction associated with its use. Also, would've been nice to see SOME kind of initiative-related benefit. Even something as simple as "once per long rest, you can expend a use of your Tactical Defense to grant all allies that can see or hear you a bonus to their Initiative equal to half your Proficiency modifier, rounded down." That's just sort of spitballed, so I have no idea how [I]good[/I] it is, but it's a small olive branch to the 4e Tactical Warlord. In summary: Make it less Fighter-y, even if that means granting some more benefits. Consider coming up with Cool Things Warlords could get, especially non-combat related. Kinda sucks how heavily siloed healing and save-granting is, and how little Inspiring can do otherwise. You advertise having 'few options but many choices,' but it really sounds like Inspiring [I]doesn't[/I] have many choices, unless I'm missing something. I do like the fundamental idea of the escalation die as a class mechanic--it's simple, it has something of a rational basis (a plan comes together with time), it's meaningful but capped, etc. I'm not completely sold on some of the execution though. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Warlord + Escalation Die from 13th Age
Top