Tony Vargas
Member

@Tony Vargas Here I go with an ironic comment.... Putting all the powers in common buckets has a risk of robbing class specific flavors that are enabled by and encouraged by distinctly described spells for Arcane Bards, Arcane Swordmages and Arcane Warlocks and Arcane Sorcerors since to me flavor is core to actual feel, bunching them will make them all feel ahem "homogenous"

D&D 5 does a really good job of reducing “trap” options, and someone really has to go out of their way to make a character that actually negatively contributes to a group. (9 INT human Wizard with a dagger, and prestidigitation, mending, and light for cantrips, anyone? Even then, with point buy, he probably can’t help but have a 16 to STR or DEX!) Tony Vargas can say it's faint praise, but I see this as quite the important feature. It definitely wasn't true in 3.X/PF!

Tony Vargas - thanks for spelling out what I was fumbling at :)

The terms are adequate already. Completely redefining the long standing definitions in order to use the new definitions to attack other playstyles isn't helpful. Nor does it clear things up to call an apple an orange.Which terms? What "long standing definitions"? Where are these found? What makes you think you've got better cognitive access to them than I do? And following on from these questions . . . Except that it doesn't. Agency is another word that you are attempting to redefine for your personal needs in order to be dismissive of the traditional playstyle. The fact is, agency doesn't mean what you say it means. Agency is just the players being able to control the actions of their PCs, and without a true railroad(not your altered definition), agency is unfettered in both styles of play.According to Tony Vargas, the concept of "player agency" was invented at The Forge and means more-or-less what I use it to mean. I don't have my own independent recollection of the use of the term at The Forge - I'm more familiar with their notion of "protagonism", which has a similar (but maybe not identical) meaning. I've just gone to check The Forge Provisional Glossary, and found that it generally uses the word "control" rather than "agency" - but it defines force as The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading. No definition is offered of "thematically-significant decision", but "theme" is defined as The point, message, or key emotional conclusion perceived by an audience member, about a fictional series of events. Now you insist that Agency is just the players being able to control the actions of their PCs. I don't di...

I got it. It was very droll. I assume you really meant 'very troll', because that Tony Vargas, once you start cutting him up, he just keeps fighting! :lol::lol::lol:

Are you talking about things like "I, as DM, didn't think about or establish whether or not there's a chandelier in this room. Therefore, when the player asked if there was one to swing from, I decided there was because it was cooler"? If so, I agree. If there's a detail I hadn't already specified--at least in my own head, if not out loud--and it makes even a bit of sense, I'll usually try to incorporate it if the players' actions warrant. If that's not what you meant, could you clarify?As a reply to Tony Vargas, I was alluding to discussions in the current "worldbuilding" threads - which he had alluded to in the post that I replied to. With less allusion and more literalness: the more precise/detailed the framing, then (everything else being equal) the less "creative"/"imaginative" the action declarations will be, and the more "tactical"/"wargaming". That's painting in very broad brushtrokes - but contrasts would be resolving a 4e skill challenge (which relies upon a capacity on the GM to narrate and re-frame in response to action declarations and resolutions, and thus upon a lack of detail in initial framing) vs playing through Tomb of Horrors. Here's a passage from Paul Czege that expresses the same idea in a particular context (dealing with NPCs - I've boled the key sentence), and also suggests that it's not always about "saying 'yes'": [W]hen I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objecti...

Just as a quick aside, Ovinomancer: We all make typos; it's inevitable. But may I humbly suggest that you slow down a little bit in your responses (the crafting of them, not the frequency!), for over the last few days I have had to reread many, many sentences of yours several times to figure out what word you really mean. Sometimes, as Tony Vargas jokes, the typing is so garbled it defies comprehension. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here; but if the goal is, and you seem to advocate for this, clear communication, I, at least, would certainly find this helpful!

...hen but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. So true neutral, in AD&D, is a "naturalistic ethos" which holds that all is as it is meant to be, with each facet of life contributing to that overall balance - provided that humans and their ilk don't disturb the balance through their attempts to change things (which cannot have any long-lasting effect). This is not unaligned, but more like the outlook of some realworld philosophies and religions - stoicism, for instance - and also some political movements - eg Burkean conservatism. The Han Solo-type scoundrel, who in 4e is unaligned and in OD&D or B/X is neutral, in AD&D I think is chaotic neutral: they prioritise their own self-realisation over other-regarding moral obligations. EDIT: I see Tony Vargas made a similar point to this upthread.

I think it's a good idea to think about medieval archetypes that may not be well served by the current class selection, but ... ...you need a day or two to let us know what those might be? ;) PPP - Fighter PPM - Tomb Raider, Adventuring Scholar, Horseman, Monk PPS - Cleric (Paladin) MMM - Scholar, MMP - Rogue, Merchants and Swashbucklers MMS - Priest SSS - Scorcerer SSP - Warlock SSM - Wizard PMS - Bard The "adventuring" is a good distinction on the PPM scholar. It implies that a character, or adventuring, has a required Physical component to it. Tomb Raider is a good choice, but is there a medieval equivalent? Also interesting to see rogues and merchants in the same category. Does the handling of large quantities of money constitute a class characteristic? Are merchants less physically oriented than rogues, or is that not a necessary distinction? Tony Vargas dropped the Mastermind into the MMM slot, which has a definite villain-flavor to it. Scholar has no flavor, except for a hint of Harry Potter. And sages...are just old. Aren't they? I was looking at putting Ranger as I did because I view that as a Fighter who earned his place through being a very skilled fighter. (M being more a focus on skills and learned tricks, application of the brain if you will, P being a kick ass fighter/combatant, application of the body, S being a how natural magic is to them, as I view it) This has me thinking that there could be three base classes - warrior, mage, thief - and each one has two varieties based on which direction it takes to differ from the base. The Skyrim standing stones might be too much of a pigeon hole though, but warrior/fighter and mage/wizard seem pretty obvious. Poet doesn't sound like a good class, but as a person who uses his mind to get what he needs, it fills the gap between warrior and mage pretty well. Aristocrat co...

Or Martial Controllers whichever thread this is AbdulAlhazred and Tony Vargas

LOL to both of you @Tony Vargas and @AbdulAlhazred.. gimme some epic practices ;)

Tony Vargas Heh, I would never have guessed you were a Skinnerian who hated the ‘black box’. I get the impression that you feel that something that you want is being taken away from you, by those who say it is for the sake of immersion. What would that be?

Tony Vargas I have a sense of what you are looking for in a warlord class from various discussions. But have you designed your own class, with all of the features that you want to see? I would love to have a look at if you did.

Tony Vargas, I think your post was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but where I thought I had something worthwhile to say in response I've said it: I think the issue is that the system implies qualities of the world, so if the system seems silly, the world will seem silly. Well, the systems that Lanefan is talking about include Burning Wheel, Cortex+ Heroic, HeroWars/Quest, a certain approach to 4e, etc. Which of those is supposed to imply a silly world? It's a reward for showing up, thenIn default 4e, showing up doesn't as such earn XP. Playing the game (by engaging encounters, realising quests, and - per the rule in DMG2 - meaningfully engaging the non-encounter fiction) accures XP at a rate of (roughly) 4 level-equivalent monster's worth per hour. Or approximately 3-4 sessions per level. I think one of the most remarkable things about 4e is how, on the surface, it retains so many D&D mecahnical tropes (hp, XP, attack rolls, magic items, and the like) but uses them to build a game which is ...

I've tried all the other restaurants I think we both know that Tony Vargas will say to this astounding claim! ;)

@Tony Vargas I have a solution for scaling at will warlord powers while still providing short rest or daily healing. I don't have a solution for scaling long rest ones at all. Level 1 looks a little convoluted as I'll have to add the long rest powers in but also add something else just about as strong as them but not capable of producing healing. Level 3 looks even worse as I would potentially need to go from 2 uses to 6 uses (or maybe more). Level 5 even with extra attack you likely need to greatly upgrade your uses or their effects at this level. (probably effects would be best which would be doable) I guess I may have just answered the question for you. It looks adequate and not too bad when compared to the cleric or anything else.

Tony Vargas Since your direction is so strongly pushing to have the Warlord's Core ability be daily perhaps you can give us a preview of how to capture that ability and any others needed at level 1 while still keeping the potential healing power level in line with a cleric or bard and having as much potential combat power as those classes? How would you accomplish that? Further, how would you plan on scaling the Warlord Core ability in the level 1-5 range to ensure the warlord has enough uses and power in his core ability to keep up in power with classes like the cleric and bard?

...l, the Warlord becomes a long-range supporter, and has freedom to work from pretty much anywhere in the battlefield. Given the concept of the Warlord, Int is pretty much a required stat. Its complementary stat must be Dex, Con, or Wis (the 'big three' defense stats). Every single class has proficiency in one of the 'big three', and one of the other three; never two of the same type. If Int is a given, then the complementary stat must pretty much be Con. This benefits concentration checks, assuming concentration becomes a component, as well as the frontliner Icon/Vanguard types. Even if you discount the Tactical Focus and concentration, I have a hard time seeing the Warlord fitting a Dex or Wis proficiency. So an Int/Con support class. Of course, there are various concepts that go with it that draw on all of the other four stats. Str on the vanguard, Chr for inspiration, Dex for the ranged version, or Wis for the diplomatic or guerilla version. It's a very MAD class. Tony Vargas came up with a lot of subclass concepts. My own approach is much more concise. Icon - Inspirational focal point. Shonen hero (or protected princess). Minimum tactics, maximum guts (or luck). Commander - Focuses on tactics that can be executed by allies. Mix of working to gain advantage, and reactions. Strategist - Plots and schemes and creates elaborate strategems. Anticipates the enemy and preemptively counters. Defender - Tactician shaping the battlefield. Affects movement, hindering the enemy, and traps. Tony's Bravura, Inspiring, Hector, and Icon all wrap together into the same general concept (be a focus, inspire to heal, temp hp), which I call Icon. Protector might also fall in here. His Tactical/Commander, Combat Veteran, and Artillerist all fall under what I have as Commander, though I like the extra flavor he added about the cynical world view. His Resourceful and Skirmisher both roughly map to my Defender. His Insightful/Watcher is my Strategist....

Tony Vargas, Healing is an ability that Mearls believes should be gated behind some kind resource taking ability that you can run out of. I think most of us agree with mearls on that. This issue is that adding in a healing ability like that ends up constraining design a lot. Is it independent of our other warlord abilities or does it use a shared mechanic with them? If it's independent then we have to track the healings power and reduce the other warlordy stuff appropriately If they share a mechanic then suddenly you are requiring that mechanic to be gated behind some kind of spell slot or superiority dice or ki style mechanic. None of those abilities equal to the heal can then be at will, whereas there's many abilities a warlord could do at will that are just as strong as healing but because of how healing works, at will healing is bad. Basically, be aware of how your demands for core class healing will constrain other warlord mechanics.

So the concept as described in the two hours of video does cut it? For me, the Happy Fun warlord comes close to meeting all the criteria of the warlord. Close enough that it seems to me, it might work. So I am enthusiastic. Heh, but the truth is, to me, Tony Vargas pretty much personifies the warlord fan. If he is happy, I will rest easy about the warlord tradition. The reason why care about the warlord is, it opens up viable nonmagical options for D&D, that are essential to a DM for worldbuilding. Plus, if the warlord turns out cool, as Happy Fun suggests it will, I would love to play it as a player.

IDK the intent, but conceptually, 3.x MCing made class-levels into building blocks - a big step away from the inherent issues with class/level based design. The problem was that, to work, the next level of any class you had needed to balance with the next level of your other classes, and the first level of every other class, but 3e class designs were still mired in mechanics from the games balance-over-many-levels design. The only class that came close to matching the MC system was the fighter. 4e might actually have been able to handle more modular MCing, the classes were so much less imbalanced, and the advancement structure less inconsistent... Well, a true ala-carte system like 3e's would have meant effectively you could combine any two elements in 4e into one character. There are ways that becomes VERY optimizable. Even in late 4e there were still things you just couldn't really bring together, particularly certain combinations of feats (though a lot of this was a consequence of pre-r...

4e might actually have been able to handle more modular MCing, the classes were so much less imbalanced, and the advancement structure less inconsistent... Sure most of the time ( coughtwinstrikecough )

Some published settings are just presented and that's it, they may develop regions in more detail, but they exist in the moment when campaigns set in them are expected to start. Others have an ongoing history, new supplements advance the timeline, as well as adding new details. The latter sort can discourage going off the reservation. Yes, and its also true that many players retain their characters between different DMS, and even different groups. Some will even return to their character in the advanced timeline.

I've certainly known plenty like that, though imho/x, it was more a thing in the 90s... Yes, I'm probably showing my age there! There is one significant advantage of a home-brew setting that didn't occur to me last night, and that is the potential for the party to live through/take part in historic & world changing events. I don't know about other DMs but when playing in an established setting I'm inclined never to make signficant changes as part of the narrative of the adventure. It would feel rather presumptuous to raze a well known city or kill a well known NPC. In a self-made world the party can play a direct role in its formation.

For an actual game, it'd be a more elegant design, more concepts covered, more meaningful choices, less bloat. Didn't 5e sort of do that? except since it didnt keep martial powers within a common economy it hardly matters.

I played a brawling fighter who used a few tempest-intended powers, using a unarmed strike as the off-hand - dual strike was useful to mark two enemies at once without having to just out a limited use power or action point... An attack which was grabby could be a component of the Use one against the other flavoring.... it works as a brawling fighter power too, I have used its flavor for a cleave before actually. I keep wondering about that idea of having a single by power source list of powers. And use class features to differentiate roles and styles.

A martial controller could do with more such, of course. While everything may not be directly about martial controller... it does overlap a lot more than people think.

And that's the, I think very natural & nerdly, desire to "do it right." For all those times you screamed at the screen or threw book 4 of a trilogy across the room, because some hapless victim of author force or poetic licence just did something irredeemably stupid for the sake of the narrative, you can sit down at a TTRPG and make your character do the right, counter-genre/un-heroic/anti-climactic, thing. There was a game I played a few times in the '90s called, It Came From the Late Late Late Show. You basically played movie actors in a B movie. You were given various skills to use, had a fame score that you could use to stalk off of the set(roll under it and the director has to cave to your demands), and more. My favorite part of the game, though, was that you got extra points for being "appropriately stupid." In a slasher story: "I heard something outside of the house! You guys wait here, I'll go check it out!"

They are also mathematically identical. They are also narratively different. The outrage for DoaM was more about the image of swinging or thrusting a small weapon (don't know how far it went, but could have included also shooting an arrow or a rock with a sling) and still be guaranteed to hurt the target even on a miss. There is no outrage for DoaSS because the narration of area spells is always that they entirely fill an area, making them impossible to avoid completely. If anything, there has been some occasional outrage in the past for the Rogue's ability to fully avoid a Fireball damage even when in an enclosed space. It's never been really about the math.

You already got one laugh from me. Ah, I had missed that, sorry. Seriously speaking though... it's a weird situation. For people who haven't played 4e much (or at all), it's like a mystery edition, rather opaque (in part because it was so different). You might as well talk about the priests in warhammer frpg 2nd ed (incidentally, they work fine!). But for fans of the edition it must be frustrating to see people praise 5e for innovation that have their roots (or entirety) in 4e

I've honestly never figured out what the counter measure is short of having an air force of your own. I don't think there is. You would need a readily available weapon which range can match the flight high of the common flight monsters/animals. And the existence of such weapon would change the warfare completely. Or you are back to high level magic everywhere to summon storms Nod. I never found it wonderfully compelling, but it is an old idea worth mentioning, since the setting is pocked with the darn things. ;) The role of a dungeon in defense would be different from a castle, like a castle it could be a (even less pleasant) refuge, but it couldn't just command a high point and be a factor that way, able to survey and threaten the land around. Dungeon defenders' only option would be to sally, and, sure, they might have a lot of secret exits for that purpose. OTOH, a dungeon doesn't have towers & pennants, so where it is might be something the attackers have to figure out... ...

Of course, then there's ranged minions - then you're likely to do a Boromir instead of a Conan.... Way too likely...

All the more reason to keep the record straight on the game's direction.I'll reiterate what I said: it is as if 4e didn't exist ;)

Just stop and think about that for a moment, folks. 5e has 'gone' a considerable way, but the edition immediately prior to it had gone further. So it has actually /not/ gone in that way, at all, it's merely backed off from it, just not all the way back. Once again, 5e gets credit for moving forward when it's been going backwards. Remember, many of us haven't played 4e, or didn't like it and stopped quickly. It's in a way, like 4e didn't exist. Even in 4e, you theoretically needed a 'leader' Role to restore hps & generally support the party, ... that's not the meaning of the word leader... I mean maybe it's what some people came up with to make support characters feel better? (in 4e?)

Fighters can chew through minions with Cleave & the like . That and Dual strike which Mwao mentions really does not seem like a lot of powers out of the many ie you definitely have to select for it.

and at worst consists of dragging you through his world to meet his NPCs & tour their locations, and /not be allowed to do anything that might disrupt their cystaline perfection/. This part is not a worldbuilding issue. It's a DM issue. I've seen setting light DMs also drag out DMNPCs to ruin the day for everyone else. I've seen setting light DMs railroad players when they come up with ideas counter to what the DM expected to happen. A DM getting into worldbuilding doesn't make that more or less likely to happen. It's entirely dependent on the personality of the DM in question.

OTOH, I'm not so sure the Thief ever did much shining at any level - except when he tried to Hide in Shadows, of course. ;P LOL Speaking of thieves shining in the shadows. I was once playing a human thief who walked ahead into a room full of pillars inside of the dungeon we were in. I heard something coming my way and declared that I was hiding in the dark behind one of the pillars. I rolled to hide and the DM was like, "You're still carrying an open bullseye lantern, right?" Oops! They still kid me about that.

I think the issue of lingering consequences is different from the issue of class mechanical balance on a per-encounter (short rest) or per-day (extended rest) basis.They're similar in kind, in that they both aim to limit balance to only a sub-set of the potential range of play. Balanced at X amount challenge in Y unit of time is simply imbalanced everywhere else.I don't follow what you're saying here. Lingering consequences don't, on their face, seem like they are aimed at limiting balance. FATE progresses in scenes, but you have resources and complications that are persistent and need to be managed over the course of multiple scenes.Again, I don't see how these points about persistent resources/complications bear on a discussion about the way recovery schemes factor into cross-class balance.

All too often a DM who gets a little too into building his world will provide an experience that is, at best, boring (sorry, the world's just not as interesting to anyone esle), and at worst consists of dragging you through his world to meet his NPCs & tour their locations, and /not be allowed to do anything that might disrupt their cystaline perfection/."Crystaline perfection" is the perfect phrase for DMs that take it too far. This is something I've heard of, but never experienced at the gaming table. I would not want to wish it on any player. The closest I've come is a DM that was running a successful AD&D Realms campaign set in Undermountain. He'd just begun reading the Wheel of Time books and became hooked on the idea of the party traveling through a portal in Undermountain to the Savage North, but one that reflected the WoT series. He was cool about it; warned us up front of his intentions and everything. We said yes and off we went. That part of the campaign wasn't great, bu...

All too often a DM who gets a little too into building his world will provide an experience that is, at best, boring (sorry, the world's just not as interesting to anyone esle), and at worst consists of dragging you through his world to meet his NPCs & tour their locations, and /not be allowed to do anything that might disrupt their cystaline perfection/. I enjoy worldbuilding, for it's own sake, even, but I've seen it go horribly wrong, too.... Anything can be taken too far and handled in a bad way. I just don't know that I understand what people are cautioning in this thread. Obviously if you are boring your players, you are doing something wrong. But just because some GMs have used world building in a way that is boring, that doesn't mean we should avoid world building. A lot of the worst gaming advice, and even game design, I've encountered is built around the worst edge cases in the hobby. On the whole, I get more fun when the GM engages in good world building than when the GM goes to...