Wow! Nice work so far
@Faolyn - you definitely have the tenacity needed for this sort of class design.
While I'm not part of the Vote-Up endeavor,
Join us... join us...
I welcome any constructive criticism!
I can offer my feedback on the core Warrior class that you are developing, with a focus on big picture / conceptual things.
I think you have a couple things working really well. I want to first call those out, and perhaps suggest ways you might intensify those aspects of design (if you're so inclined)...
- Origin as class feature – While I don't know how this would interact with Multiclassing (if that's a thing), it's wonderful flavor. If you want this to also have a mechanical impact on the character, that could be neat (Beyond the Wall's playbooks do this), e.g. skill proficiencies, certain default class info, starting gear – these could be influenced by rolls/choices on the Origin tables. That would be a very distinctive design direction differentiating what you're doing from 5e / 5e-alikes.
I imagine that they will only be used for your first class--IME, most people who multiclass don't do so after a long-enough training time to really warrant getting three new contacts--it's either a meta-decision or something happens in-game to justify the multiclassing. There will be times, though, when a long training period will be appropriate, such as if there's a timeskip. I imagine that whether or not the origins will be used for the new class will be a GM decision.
I do own Beyond The Wall. I just haven't read it thoroughly yet. I suffer from Too Many Game Books syndrome.
- Fighting Styles with additional bonuses – This works nicely to deepen an early character choice. I have two thoughts: First, would be nice to see a dedicated Versatile weapon fighting style letting you use the weapon as a shield or somesuch. Second, bonuses to AC or Attack are valued higher in 5e than bonuses to damage – i.e. it's not a +1 AC or Attack = +1 Damage ratio. 1: 2 is probably more fair, and even that is not quite true at mid to higher levels.
- Warrior Learnings – A nice bit of flavor! It does play oddly if, say, you have proficiency in History and Courtly Leanings... are you then applying 2x proficiency bonus? Narratively, it's also a bit confusing if, say, levels 1-3 deal with a borderlands scenario and the player decides to choose Courtly Leanings at 3rd level... what does that mean? But the idea of the warrior's story continuing to develop (and being reflected mechanically) beyond 1st level / archetype level is something I think would be worth exploring as a design choice.
Good points--that's definitely something that needs to be made clearer. If, as you say, you're proficient in History and have Champion of the Court, then I can see three options: you get to add your PB even if you're doing so twice,
or, you only add your PB if you're not proficient,
or, you can add half your PB, even if you are proficient.
I've seen the second option--add PB if you're not proficient--quite often in 5e, but can make the trait useless if you're already proficient in History or various Charisma skills.
I'm thinking that I should change it to half PB, no matter what. I'll also switch it to just Intelligence checks. Makes me think, though, that there should be a Common Knowledge skill, and History should be used for
historical things (my current DM likes to use it as a Common Knowledge skill, and I've never been sure how I feel about that.)
As for your potential scenario... yeah, it can happen, I know. One would
hope that the player would take a Learning that was appropriate to the way they've been playing so far, but we all know that's not going to happen with every player.
- Reputation – A great thing to include IMO, showcasing that skilled warriors in your system always have reputations - that's good implicit worldbuilding. Mechanically (1/rest advantage Charisma check) it kind of sucks, but conceptually I think it has lots of potential.
Another good point. Hmm. PB times per long rest? As many times as you like, but only once per individual (or group) per long rest?
- Maneuvers, so many maneuvers – You're not at LevelUp degree of maneuvers, but it's definitely a lot. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it does beg a question "Is this system intended to be more complex / involve more player character creation choices compared to a 5e baseline? Or is it intended to be less complex?" I'm not clear from this design, but I think you're aiming for a slight increase in complexity?
Yeah, the consensus is
definitely to reduce the number. I've started to look through the list to see which ones can be either combined or just tossed.
- Weapon Specialization – This exists in an ecosystem. If that ecosystem involves a player finding one or two magic weapons and being able to consistently rely on those in most scenes to bypass most monster resistances, Weapon Specialization is a perfect fit. However... if you're deviating from that assumption with a different ecosystem (e.g. wildly hacking monster resistances or magic weapons), then you may want to reconsider Weapon Specialization...for example "Bonded Weapon" can work similarly without requiring defining a type of weapon and simply being a specific weapon they've acquired.
- Weapon Mastery – This relates to my point below about giving new things to warriors, but I wonder if the fantasy drawing people to continue playing a high level warrior who has mastered a weapon is "roll better damage dice"? Or is it more nuanced than that? There's nothing poorly designed here – it works totally fine and it's simple – but I think it's a good question to ask: Is this feature fulfilling the player fantasy we are trying to fulfill?
I'll take these into consideration. The game is supposed to be at least a bit grittier than regular D&D--hence the reduced number of hit dice--rather than more power-game, and hopefully the use of maneuvers for all martials will aid those who want more than just more damage dice.
- Lack of new things at high levels – The weight of the NEW things (not improved existing things) a warrior can do after 9th level are really defined by your Martial Archetype. In this way, I see it repeating one of the flaws of the 5e Fighter class. Now, if you don't see that as a flaw, then you're totally fine, nothing to see here. If you do see that as a concern, however, it's worth interrogating whether you want all of the NEW stuff for high level warriors to be consolidated in Martial Archetypes AND whether your Martial Archetypes are actually giving NEW stuff.
Well, the archetypes are definitely rough drafts, and these particular ones are just either common tropes or classes reimagined into archetypes.
I'm taking two things into consideration with the archetypes. One, people mentioned wanting an open-ending system. Unlike D&D, which pretty much stops at 20th level, a lot of people wanted the game to go on to a potentially infinite number of levels. And two, we all know most games don't even get to 15th level. So my actual goal--and I admit I likely did not accomplish it this draft--is to front-load abilities and to have those early abilities continually improve as you go up in level. Hence why most of the abilities say you get another bonus or whatever every X levels.